D&D General Next Generation VTT

[Reynard]

This is an interesting statement. Why should VTTs emulate in person play? They aren't in person play, there are different capabilities and chalkenges from in person play, so why shouldn't VTTs offer a different experience?

Just to be clear, I am talking about my own preferences rather than making some sort of mandate.

That said, tabletop RPGs are a unique form of entertainment. I like the experience they provide. I use VTTs in order to be able to play them with folks I do not live near, or otherwise can't play with regularly. It's true that the experience must by definition be different, since we aren't all around the same table, but leaning to heavily into the techology makes it a different kind of play experience. There is certainly a place for more of a video game/VTT hybrid (and there are some out there) but that's not tabletop RPG play.

Some games can really benefit from the tools available via VTT, of course. Complex games can do a lot of math in the background, for example, and managing lots of enemies with lots of different abilities is easier in some VTTs. But, for me, adding sound effects and rain overlays and animated tokens and so on starts to change the experience enough that it is no longer tabletopRPG play. Everyone's lines and preferences are different of course, and generally it is easier to ignore elements than add them, so I am not opposed to such things being available, I just don't want to use them.

And I really want to be able to easily draw a map like I was sketching on a dry erase board.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This might turn out, eventually, to be a classic case of Clayton Christenson's Innovator's Dilemma. To wit:

• Innovations rarely are able to...initially...serve the needs of the established market.
• Because the established market says, "This doesn't work for me," the vendors to that market discount the importance of the innovation.
• Instead, the innovations are adopted by small, underserved markets.
• The innovations start to improve, but based on the needs of that underserved market, not the established market.
• Seemingly out of nowhere (for those who haven't been paying attention) the underserved market eclipses the established market, using this amazing innovation that nobody (who hasn't been paying attention) could have predicted.

One of his canonical examples is the transistor-based radio. The first units from Japan were cheap and had poor quality. They didn't sound nearly as good as the big vacuum-tube, walnut-cased radios made by RCA that American families put in their living rooms (where the TV would eventually go.). So American families didn't buy them.

However, their teenagers, who wanted to listen to rock & roll in their bedrooms, snapped them up. Even though the quality was worse. (I probably have the chronology a little bit off; rock & roll might still be a few years in the future.)

And suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, these little Japanese electronics companies crushed RCA.

It's a recurring pattern.

 

[DarrenShard]

Just to be clear, I am talking about my own preferences rather than making some sort of mandate.

That said, tabletop RPGs are a unique form of entertainment. I like the experience they provide. I use VTTs in order to be able to play them with folks I do not live near, or otherwise can't play with regularly. It's true that the experience must by definition be different, since we aren't all around the same table, but leaning to heavily into the techology makes it a different kind of play experience. There is certainly a place for more of a video game/VTT hybrid (and there are some out there) but that's not tabletop RPG play.

Some games can really benefit from the tools available via VTT, of course. Complex games can do a lot of math in the background, for example, and managing lots of enemies with lots of different abilities is easier in some VTTs. But, for me, adding sound effects and rain overlays and animated tokens and so on starts to change the experience enough that it is no longer tabletopRPG play. Everyone's lines and preferences are different of course, and generally it is easier to ignore elements than add them, so I am not opposed to such things being available, I just don't want to use them.

And I really want to be able to easily draw a map like I was sketching on a dry erase board.

It is amazing to see the variety of opinions. In my experience when we play while the ad-hoc map works better on a mat, anything planned is a lot more work with a mat. While we completely agree that the in person experience is really where RPGs shine, we have moved to using a digital map even when we are in person, which first started why we built our own tool. Now we project a map on a tv or bring a monitor to the table. This way we can have prepared content that moves quickly and are getting better at having content available to quickly deal with surprises. It is also why we have made sure that player tools run on phones and tablets so that you don't have a bunch of laptops getting in the way of playing as a group.

 

[Reynard]

It is amazing to see the variety of opinions. In my experience when we play while the ad-hoc map works better on a mat, anything planned is a lot more work with a mat. While we completely agree that the in person experience is really where RPGs shine, we have moved to using a digital map even when we are in person, which first started why we built our own tool. Now we project a map on a tv or bring a monitor to the table. This way we can have prepared content that moves quickly and are getting better at having content available to quickly deal with surprises. It is also why we have made sure that player tools run on phones and tablets so that you don't have a bunch of laptops getting in the way of playing as a group.

I think it is about what a person or group prefers. I think detailed maps -- on the table or on the screen -- tend to slow down play and shift the mindset of the participants too far toward the tactical mindset. This is especially true with dungeon exploration: IMO having the dungeon map "up" all the time, rather than just during fights, is detrimental to the fun of dungeon exploration. Because I primarily play on Fantasy grounds using Discord for audio with no webcams, the map is a necessary evil. I hope that with Unity incorporating line of sight it might become more of an asset -- the areas behind them disappearing into the dark might actually enhance the mood to some degree.

 

[Oofta]

I think it is about what a person or group prefers. I think detailed maps -- on the table or on the screen -- tend to slow down play and shift the mindset of the participants too far toward the tactical mindset. This is especially true with dungeon exploration: IMO having the dungeon map "up" all the time, rather than just during fights, is detrimental to the fun of dungeon exploration. Because I primarily play on Fantasy grounds using Discord for audio with no webcams, the map is a necessary evil. I hope that with Unity incorporating line of sight it might become more of an asset -- the areas behind them disappearing into the dark might actually enhance the mood to some degree.

Something using Roll20 has made me realize is how far 60 ft darkvision goes. The areas revealed on my maps are huge.

Of course it doesn't help that you have to keep the maps relatively small for performance reasons, but still.

To really freak the group out I had an encounter with dense fog that limited vision to 15 ft. Line of sight being blocked by walls and what not was in some ways more immersive though.

 

[DarrenShard]

Something using Roll20 has made me realize is how far 60 ft darkvision goes. The areas revealed on my maps are huge.

Of course it doesn't help that you have to keep the maps relatively small for performance reasons, but still.

To really freak the group out I had an encounter with dense fog that limited vision to 15 ft. Line of sight being blocked by walls and what not was in some ways more immersive though.

I have to admit that I really don't care for line of site for several reasons, including what you describe. With line of site the DM sort of loses control of the flow of the game with line of site constantly adjusting based on where tokens are placed. It also makes it hard to keep up with where you are, especially in a dungeon. Looking at a map to remember where you have been with line of site is very different than remembering in the real world and having the unfogged areas makes it easier to remember where you have been. Line of site also basically makes it impossible to use an ad-hoc map since there is significant work to setup line of site. Of course the big thing with line of site and lighting is that it looks great, but once again pales in comparison to a well done video game.

What do others find works well or not with line of site?

 

[Oofta]

I have to admit that I really don't care for line of site for several reasons, including what you describe. With line of site the DM sort of loses control of the flow of the game with line of site constantly adjusting based on where tokens are placed. It also makes it hard to keep up with where you are, especially in a dungeon. Looking at a map to remember where you have been with line of site is very different than remembering in the real world and having the unfogged areas makes it easier to remember where you have been. Line of site also basically makes it impossible to use an ad-hoc map since there is significant work to setup line of site. Of course the big thing with line of site and lighting is that it looks great, but once again pales in comparison to a well done video game.

What do others find works well or not with line of site?

In roll20 at least, I use the option to continue to display areas people have explored, you just won't see any monster tokens or changes.

So you can see where you've been, you just don't see the goblins coming up to flank you from the rear.

But yes, setting up line of sight takes some time. I kind of like it but it's one of the reasons my prep time has greatly increased for the last couple of games.