Poll: VTT Users - Do you prefer self-hosted or cloud-based VTTs?

[Thomas Shey]

I voted for #1 because I definitely want the option to self host. That said, if a VTT has quality, free hosting I'll use it - doing that with Fantasy Grounds. I wouldn't pay for it though, for the same reasons I no longer use the subscription-only based roll20. I like the option to use my VTT like a GM screen on my laptop while disconnected from the Internet (a reality for 1 of my gaming venues), or host on a LAN. So running independently, without a need to be connected to the Internet is important.

Though I no longer do so, my first use of Maptool was entirely local for at least a couple years.

 

[kermit4karate]

Cloud hosted and managed. I'm already responsible for enough servers.

The folks I game with that dislike self-hosting mostly expressed that they dislike it from the hoster's POV - letting someone else connect to their machines.

I prefer it myself for the power of being able to control all my assets more easily, quickly, and without concern for file sizes / upload compression / etc.
- Almost every time I've played at a table where Foundry was hosted on either Forge or Molten I've found my character art compressed like a late 1990's jpg image. We also invariable end up dealing with lag, access, and other issues. Lag of course can be even worse when self hosting for many people.

That's not why I'd prefer SaaS / cloud hosted in this case. I just don't want to be responsible for another server.

 

[tetrasodium]

My impression is that there is at least three categories of people:

1. People that mainly need a shared map or background image, tokens, and maybe smaller supplementary tools like a pointing tool, an initiative counter or some form of distance measurement
2. People that want a character sheet from which they can roll virtual dice, including options for the main rules affecting this (modifiers, advantage/disadvantage, etc.) and potentially some sort of result check (e.g. 6 = success in Year Zero games)
3. People that want more or less full automation of the game mechanics, including target selection, determination of the result for opposed rolls, applying mechanical effects on characters, etc.

I have the feeling, that there's a lot of talk about the people in (3) and their needs, but there's enough people that are fine with or even prefer (1) or (2). However, this is just my personal feeling based on my immediate surroundings and what I read in online communities, and I don't have any numbers to back this up.

I agree on those 3 groupings but I suspect that if you look exclusively at people who actually use a vtt you will find a notable fraction to outright majority of the people who talk about group 3 needs are unlikely to ever use or spend money on a vtt. It has this weird dunning Kruger effect where people think it's some kind of gold standard need or know enough to understand why they don't want that much automation

 

[Thomas Shey]

Cloud hosted and managed. I'm already responsible for enough servers.

That's not why I'd prefer SaaS / cloud hosted in this case. I just don't want to be responsible for another server.

This seems to be assuming a considerable more "responsibility" than has been my experience with the (admittedly singular) VTT I've used, which has required me to deal with setup twice in the last 15 years and never again. Needing to do more than that seems to suggest a more fussy VTT than is at least my experience.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I have self hosted for a decade now using Fantasy Grounds and I self host Teamspeak on my NAS (we do not require a video feed to see each other).

 

[UngainlyTitan]

As a user of both FantasyGrounds and D&DBeyond, I am agnostic on hosting but Beyond is my minimum spec and prefer the DM tools in FG. Probably would not switch without some compelling reason.

 

[Agamon]

Those that say automation is video-game-ish...if I played any video game that ran with even more automation than my most automated FG game, I'd wonder how such a janky game was released lol

 

[LordEntrails]

Sure, that's certainly true. But not only are you locked into that VTT now, which great that that works for you, but that's a hard pass from me. Moreover, you're locked into reading your rulebooks... in... your VTT? Again, hard pass. That company might go bankrupt, they might do some shady stuff you won't like, they might worsen the reading experience... the list goes on; you're not in control.

Not if it is self hosted, because now all the files are on my computer. So they can never be taken away from me. And if the company goes out of business, I still have everything I bought, and more importantly, everything I've created. And if they do something I don't like, then I don't update. Or since FG has a mostly open architecture I can just create a ruleset or extension to get the behavior I want.

Moreover, deciding to read beautifully and lovingly designed books in a VTT window is like watching a film on a pan and scan VHS to me, instead of a 4K restored blu-ray, but... you do you!

Sorry, but I don't think most RPG books are beautiful. And I don't read them to enjoy the art, I read them to learn, reference and spark my imagination. And I can carry 10,000 different RPG books on my laptop and use them all while I travel on a plane. I wouldn't carry more than couple hard copies just to go a few blocks over to a friends house.

So I'm good giving up printed artwork (that really doesn't have to be any less tunning when rendered on a high resolution screen) for the vast number of benefits a digital format provides.

But, you do you, since you have different priorities than I do.

My impression is that there is at least three categories of people:

1. People that mainly need a shared map or background image, tokens, and maybe smaller supplementary tools like a pointing tool, an initiative counter or some form of distance measurement
2. People that want a character sheet from which they can roll virtual dice, including options for the main rules affecting this (modifiers, advantage/disadvantage, etc.) and potentially some sort of result check (e.g. 6 = success in Year Zero games)
3. People that want more or less full automation of the game mechanics, including target selection, determination of the result for opposed rolls, applying mechanical effects on characters, etc.

I have the feeling, that there's a lot of talk about the people in (3) and their needs, but there's enough people that are fine with or even prefer (1) or (2). However, this is just my personal feeling based on my immediate surroundings and what I read in online communities, and I don't have any numbers to back this up.

Yes, but I don't think people fall into any one category and are "stuck" there. I've played at all 3 levels with my preferred VTT (FG). Their are benefits to me to playing at category 3, but I have played at 1 and right now running a game that uses a custom ruleset that that's only partially at level 2.