D&D General Maps on D&DBeyond

[UngainlyTitan]

This looks like a new parallel development track, but i just started watching this view on the D&D beyond YouTube channel and it loos super interesting.

It is alpha testing and for Master Tier subscribers only. I am now being very tempted to test this.

Edit: Finished watching this. It looks pretty good. New product going forward will implement maps. It has fog of war and shows the combat/game chat from the D&DBeyond character pages.

• Set the token size for medium creatures and everything else should scale.
• Can upload your own maps.
• Not sure if it has a native grid.

Questions abound, is this separate from the VTT? or does it use part of the VTT functionality?

 

[bedir than]

This removes much of the complexity I dislike about other VTTs

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This removes much of the complexity I dislike about other VTTs

The beauty of product integration. They can focus on the map utility, management of the ruleset and character sheet can be offloaded to the D&DBeyond character sheet.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Questions abound, is this separate from the VTT? or does it use part of the VTT functionality?

That's the absolutely huge question here.

This doesn't look or feel like the 3D VTT that we've seen, even "2D mode" that the 3D VTT has. It's vastly more straightforward and limited - which is not necessarily a bad thing, but is very much a thing.

Currently it's ludicrously underfeatured, having tried it - like it removing a moderate amount of Fog of War takes like, minutes because the FoW eraser is so tiny and there doesn't seem to be any option to change the size or shape.

Looking at the roadmap, it seems like they need to get about 8 "roadmap items" in before it would be at a genuinely practical-to-use level (because you cannot currently hide, reveal, or rename tokens, and that being added is the eighth item).

It's nice to have it, but, like, why do we have it? Why is it being developed in what appears to be a fairly aggressive way? I see two more obvious possibilities - but neither seems terribly likely.

1) It's a prototype or spin-off of the 3D VTT project, intended to be intentionally basically replaced by the 3D VTT - maybe they're using for training staff, or testing Beyond integration or whatever. That seems kind of unlikely because a 2D mode exists for the 3D VTT already.

2) Something weird is happening with the 3D VTT and it's not going to be part of Beyond, even if it can draw information from it. So this is actually the VTT that the Beyond team was previously working on maybe, just developed to a near-usable level (and later to be fully usable). This seems slightly more likely because there have been rumours for a while that the 3D VTT team leaders are pretty territorial and don't want to be part of Beyond (and indeed, recommended against buying Beyond), but it still doesn't seem very likely.

I don't get it. I'm interested to hear other theories.

 

[darjr]

I wonder if this is what Mike Schley was hinting at earlier?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That's the absolutely huge question here.

This doesn't look or feel like the 3D VTT that we've seen, even "2D mode" that the 3D VTT has. It's vastly more straightforward and limited - which is not necessarily a bad thing, but is very much a thing.

Currently it's ludicrously underfeatured, having tried it - like it removing a moderate amount of Fog of War takes like, minutes because the FoW eraser is so tiny and there doesn't seem to be any option to change the size or shape.

Looking at the roadmap, it seems like they need to get about 8 "roadmap items" in before it would be at a genuinely practical-to-use level (because you cannot currently hide, reveal, or rename tokens, and that being added is the eighth item).

It's nice to have it, but, like, why do we have it? Why is it being developed in what appears to be a fairly aggressive way? I see two more obvious possibilities - but neither seems terribly likely.

1) It's a prototype or spin-off of the 3D VTT project, intended to be intentionally basically replaced by the 3D VTT - maybe they're using for training staff, or testing Beyond integration or whatever. That seems kind of unlikely because a 2D mode exists for the 3D VTT already.

If I was in charge it would be based off of existing VTT tech because having competing internal products is a bad idea. it should be using the networking code for the VTT, since that is doing stuff that is common to both and this would be a good test of same.
All the elements you mentioned above would be need in both VTTs along with an encounter builder and some DM campaign management tools.
These tools I would see as more world building and D&DBeyond specific but should integrate with the VTT since they are quality of life stuff that will really attract DM to the VTT.

2) Something weird is happening with the 3D VTT and it's not going to be part of Beyond, even if it can draw information from it. So this is actually the VTT that the Beyond team was previously working on maybe, just developed to a near-usable level (and later to be fully usable). This seems slightly more likely because there have been rumours for a while that the 3D VTT team leaders are pretty territorial and don't want to be part of Beyond (and indeed, recommended against buying Beyond), but it still doesn't seem very likely.

I don't get it. I'm interested to hear other theories.

If anyone has insider knowledge of WoTC/D&DBeyond personel and can tell us if the heads seen the video work on the main VTT?

It I was Cynthia Williams I would be really sceptical about the utility of a 3D VTT over the medium term (the next 5 to 10 years - because homebrewing on 3D is going to be a huge pain) but I would also be aware that it takes time to develop experience with that kind of software and both tool up to develop it and get a team with the skill to create it. On the other hand I would be aware that if WotC does not start now but waits for the tech to get better there is a danger that some third party would slip in and eat WotC's lunch.
So, I would be pretty happy with a 3d VTT in alpha/beta for the next 5 years or so if I can get a rock solid 2d VTT integrated with Beyond out in the next 2 years.

But to be honest I do not know, your guess is as good as mine. Alternatively "Let a thousand flowers bloom", may be upper management is not completely committed either way.

 

[darjr]

I do wish fog of war could show terrain if I wanted it too, the goblins are in trees after all.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It I was Cynthia Williams I would be really sceptical about the utility of a 3D VTT over the medium term (the next 5 to 10 years - because homebrewing on 3D is going to be a huge pain) but I would also be aware that it takes time to develop experience with that kind of software and both tool up to develop it and get a team with the skill to create it.

And that might be reasonable for you, but it's 100% definitely not how Cynthia Williams feels, given WotC has, according to her, 250+ people working on the 3D VTT. The idea of employing 250+ people for 5-10 years without producing a product on what is essentially a "speculative" project is not one that is likely to fly at WotC, a relatively penny-pinching company.

Given the 3D VTT appears at least to be somewhat developed, from even recent videos on it, it seems more likely it's less than 2 years from a full release. Possibly less than one.

Which makes this particularly odd.

If anyone has insider knowledge of WoTC/D&DBeyond personel and can tell us if the heads seen the video work on the main VTT?

I'm not an insider, but all of those people are specifically associated with D&D Beyond.

And we know the 3D VTT or D&D VTT was in developed before D&D Beyond. Indeed we know the "Game Director" for it is - Kale Stutzman.

Supported here: WotC Unveils Official D&D Virtual Tabletop – Take a Closer Look.

So that's not conclusive, but it's suggestive that these are separate products. When that's added to the long-term rumours that the 3D VTT team don't want to be part of Beyond (and of course are far more numerous than the people working at Beyond) and I don't think it's more than a 60% belief but I'd tend to think this is a separate project to the 3D VTT.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I do wish fog of war could show terrain if I wanted it too, the goblins are in trees after all.

That would be better served by being able to hide the tokens.

 

[bedir than]

I'd tend to think this is a separate project to the 3D VTT.

In the video they basically say this

 

[UngainlyTitan]

And that might be reasonable for you, but it's 100% definitely not how Cynthia Williams feels, given WotC has, according to her, 250+ people working on the 3D VTT. The idea of employing 250+ people for 5-10 years without producing a product on what is essentially a "speculative" project is not one that is likely to fly at WotC, a relatively penny-pinching company.

Given the 3D VTT appears at least to be somewhat developed, from even recent videos on it, it seems more likely it's less than 2 years from a full release. Possibly less than one.

Which makes this particularly odd.

I'm not an insider, but all of those people are specifically associated with D&D Beyond.

And we know the 3D VTT or D&D VTT was in developed before D&D Beyond. Indeed we know the "Game Director" for it is - Kale Stutzman.

Supported here: WotC Unveils Official D&D Virtual Tabletop – Take a Closer Look.

So that's not conclusive, but it's suggestive that these are separate products. When that's added to the long-term rumours that the 3D VTT team don't want to be part of Beyond (and of course are far more numerous than the people working at Beyond) and I don't think it's more than a 60% belief but I'd tend to think this is a separate project to the 3D VTT.

Just watching a video by ProfessorDM on the reports on the net about the 3d VTT and he asks that he is not sure who the audience for the 3D VTT is for and I am inclined to agree. It seems over the top, but it occurred to me would it be for streamers and maybe epsorts?

 

[Oofta]

That's the absolutely huge question here.

This doesn't look or feel like the 3D VTT that we've seen, even "2D mode" that the 3D VTT has. It's vastly more straightforward and limited - which is not necessarily a bad thing, but is very much a thing.

Currently it's ludicrously underfeatured, having tried it - like it removing a moderate amount of Fog of War takes like, minutes because the FoW eraser is so tiny and there doesn't seem to be any option to change the size or shape.

Looking at the roadmap, it seems like they need to get about 8 "roadmap items" in before it would be at a genuinely practical-to-use level (because you cannot currently hide, reveal, or rename tokens, and that being added is the eighth item).

It's nice to have it, but, like, why do we have it? Why is it being developed in what appears to be a fairly aggressive way? I see two more obvious possibilities - but neither seems terribly likely.

1) It's a prototype or spin-off of the 3D VTT project, intended to be intentionally basically replaced by the 3D VTT - maybe they're using for training staff, or testing Beyond integration or whatever. That seems kind of unlikely because a 2D mode exists for the 3D VTT already.

2) Something weird is happening with the 3D VTT and it's not going to be part of Beyond, even if it can draw information from it. So this is actually the VTT that the Beyond team was previously working on maybe, just developed to a near-usable level (and later to be fully usable). This seems slightly more likely because there have been rumours for a while that the 3D VTT team leaders are pretty territorial and don't want to be part of Beyond (and indeed, recommended against buying Beyond), but it still doesn't seem very likely.

I don't get it. I'm interested to hear other theories.

It's likely just a low cost alternative, probably free with your master subscription. As far as features, it's in alpha stage so I wouldn't expect much. Of course that's what the suggestions box is for!

 

[darjr]

I’m sure a reason to give users to get a master tier sub is good too.

And after seeing the feature set and integration I bet it’s been in the dev cycle for a while. Maybe even before the 3D vtt announcement.

 

[Oofta]

I’m sure a reason to give users to get a master tier sub is good too.

And after seeing the feature set and integration I bet it’s been in the dev cycle for a while. Maybe even before the 3D vtt announcement.

They also may just be using it as a testbed for things like integration. Sometimes having a simple interface helps develop more complex ones.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's likely just a low cost alternative, probably free with your master subscription. As far as features, it's in alpha stage so I wouldn't expect much. Of course that's what the suggestions box is for!

@Oofta I'm talking about features already on the roadmap, I'm not suggesting features. It doesn't really need-need any features not already on the roadmap that I can think of.

It's likely just a low cost alternative, probably free with your master subscription.

Sure, that's what it is, but why is it that?

The reason I ask is, the 3D VTT already has (and people have used) a 2D mode, which is different from this. And WotC's messaging was that the 3D VTT would essentially be part of Beyond. That this exists and seemingly is being developed separately to the 3D VTT despite overlapping pretty hard both in functionality and conceptually (both being "easy to use VTTs").

So this raises some questions, like is the 3D VTT actually going to be a separate product that merely integrates Beyond (and perhaps only optionally - perhaps you don't need Beyond? I'd be surprised but this is surprising!)? Or is the 3D VTT much further out than thought? Seems unlikely given what we've seen but maybe. Or is the 3D VTT just going to be REALLY pricey to subscribe to, to the point where an entirely separate product is being created? Or is it indeed, as @UngainlyTitan suggested, perhaps just an odd "Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom"?

Just watching a video by ProfessorDM on the reports on the net about the 3d VTT and he asks that he is not sure who the audience for the 3D VTT is for and I am inclined to agree. It seems over the top, but it occurred to me would it be for streamers and maybe epsorts?

D&D is not a game that can do esports (even a D&D tournament would be an absolute joke next to the most loosely run esports, because of the role of the DM), so definitely not that. I do agree that the 3D VTT's audience isn't entirely clear.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And after seeing the feature set and integration I bet it’s been in the dev cycle for a while. Maybe even before the 3D vtt announcement.

Indeed, it seems like this might be the previous VTT that Beyond was developing.

They also may just be using it as a testbed for things like integration.

Definitely possible - I suggested as much in my initial post.

 

[darjr]

They also may just be using it as a testbed for things like integration. Sometimes having a simple interface helps develop more complex ones.

Sure. Always. But it didn’t have to be a released product for that.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

There is a link that has more details

D&D Beyond Maps: How to Start Playing Today

With D&D Beyond's latest Alpha feature, you’ll be able to use interactive battle maps straight from your digital D&D library!

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Just watching a video by ProfessorDM on the reports on the net about the 3d VTT and he asks that he is not sure who the audience for the 3D VTT is for and I am inclined to agree. It seems over the top, but it occurred to me would it be for streamers and maybe epsorts?

No that sounds silly.

I think the 3d VTT has a perfectly fine audience of people that want to play D&D, and like cool visuals.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

@Oofta I'm talking about features already on the roadmap, I'm not suggesting features. It doesn't really need-need any features not already on the roadmap that I can think of.


Sure, that's what it is, but why is it that?

The reason I ask is, the 3D VTT already has (and people have used) a 2D mode, which is different from this. And WotC's messaging was that the 3D VTT would essentially be part of Beyond. That this exists and seemingly is being developed separately to the 3D VTT despite overlapping pretty hard both in functionality and conceptually (both being "easy to use VTTs").

So this raises some questions, like is the 3D VTT actually going to be a separate product that merely integrates Beyond (and perhaps only optionally - perhaps you don't need Beyond? I'd be surprised but this is surprising!)? Or is the 3D VTT much further out than thought? Seems unlikely given what we've seen but maybe. Or is the 3D VTT just going to be REALLY pricey to subscribe to, to the point where an entirely separate product is being created? Or is it indeed, as @UngainlyTitan suggested, perhaps just an odd "Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom"?

D&D is not a game that can do esports (even a D&D tournament would be an absolute joke next to the most loosely run esports, because of the role of the DM), so definitely not that. I do agree that the 3D VTT's audience isn't entirely clear.

OK the esports was a joke but the streamers angle seems more plausible. It also strikes me that many D&D players are not super into maps and prefer theatre of the mind or pretty lightweight VTTs.
Having a product for them makes a lot of sense.
One of ProfessorDM's comments was that we could be seeing a bifurcation of the ttrpg market like that in the mini wargame market between Warhammer and all other miniature wargames. In ttrpg terms that would be a split between official D&D and all other ttrpgs.
At one level this is already a thing but I am still not sure how a 3D VTT fits into it.