D&D (2024) Review of 1D &D VTT

[mamba]

You know what is required to build something like a powerful tool that will be built? A list made up of one or (probably) more items in a feature set that needs to be built. If they don't have such a list it's a serious problem.

yes, but there is a difference between you not knowing that list and WotC not having one. You treat them as the same.

There is no way that WotC does not have one unless they hired 300 morons. This is the basic level of you telling me that to be a barber you should have a scissor, as if that is something people are generally unaware of.

If they do have such a list of gm features it's something that should have been talked about or even partially relayed in text rather than showing a camera swoop of a feature for a totally different set of users (players).

no, it shouldn’t, they are not building their VTT by committee

Don't forget while accusing me of being impatient that wotc is not known for being a software developer and that we did previously get some leaks about long term plans with the vtt specifically and those leaks were not exactly gm friendly.

what leaks are you talking about? That link does not feel like it is the correct one, at a minimum I have no idea why it would be related

They said the DM can override everything, not sure how that is not DM friendly

All of that combined makes it more difficult to pass off the low level gm support problems mentioned in the review as mere alpha problems because we aren't getting anything else at all.

you not having seen anything is not the same as you not getting anything. You quoted where they said ‘will have’, and you treat it as ‘won’t have’…

 

[Oofta]

yeah, I am not concerned about either, not sure how often I have to repeat that it is in alpha


they are also not that hard to fix / add, it is in alpha, that by definition means not feature complete


sure, but that is a fact of using 3d, I see no actual issue here. Either you use 3d, or you don't. It is more a matter of having enough assets (and maybe prefabs) available


maybe there is a reason why that person said will have rather than does have... repeat after me, the vtt is in alpha


At no point did I say they should not be thinking about the DM yet, and from what WotC says, they are thinking about the DM too. The point is that they are not showing it yet, and that can be explained


WotC has internal testing, it sounds like there will be a (semi?) open beta at some point. As far as I can tell you are simply impatient and jumping to conclusions based on stuff they have talked about but not shown yet, which you then twist into 'will not be available' instead of taking it as the 'will become available later' it is at face value

My understanding is that they aren't even calling this product alpha stage, it's pre-alpha. It's a working concept to get feedback. People criticising this as if it is the release product are just looking for ways to dump on it.

As far as 3D, it might be nice if I could have 2D pogs in place of miniatures for those unique monsters I like to throw now and then. But that's the kind of thing that can be added later.

 

[Oofta]

I really, really wanna see how the map builder assets work. Will it be like modular terrain, where you have sets of pieces that you can combine to build sets? Or will it be something else?

My initial assumption was that it would work something like virtual Dwarven Forge pieces, and they would sell you various sets of pieces. But it might be nothing like that.

I thought they said in the initial video that the goal was to sell maps but that maps would be made of reusable assets. Kind of like dwarven forge or those Lego sets with all the pieces to build something specific.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I wonder how many groups actually run a 100% RAW D&D game. I got a feeling a good number of DMs have at least a few homebrew rules which might turn a lot of people away.

The article didn’t say anything about not allowing homebrew. That was pure speculation by the OP

 

[Oofta]

The article didn’t say anything about not allowing homebrew. That was pure speculation by the OP

Again ... go back to the original presentation. They explicitly stated that they will give people the option to enforce rules or not as they wish. For example you can handle saving throws automatically or do it manually if you want was one example.

Haters are gonna hate, in this case they're reading a lot into things.

 

[tetrasodium]

The article didn’t say anything about not allowing homebrew. That was pure speculation by the OP

The more automated mechanics are for the player the harder it is for rules to be altered.

@mamba there is a difference between me not knowing and repeatedly seeing a growing pile of indications of a problematic focus. Please stop fisking my posts if you'd like to continue. As to the link, I don't know how that got in there but the leaked vtt goal bits start about 4 minutes into a well known video compilation by dndshorts of leaks from several months ago, it's not reasonable for you to assume that such details about the vtt are no longer a thing to expect until evidence to the contrary starts showing up.

 

[MNblockhead]

I can't say that I agree with your conclusions re. the VTT, but thank you for the link; I found the article interesting. As its author points out, this is an early iteration, so it is pretty hard to draw any conclusions, beyond general impressions of what they are getting at. Quite a few features have not been implemented, and others will no doubt have to be modified, re-imagined, thrown out, etc.

I'm glad that WotC is inviting a variety of folks to have a look at it this early: the more feedback from outside their circle, the better, IMO.

As a hardcore miniatures/terrain enthusiast, I'm of mixed feelings on this whole endeavour. On the one hand, I hope that it is great, and super fun and easy to use. That would be amazing! For other people! But if it is too great and easy to use, even I may start using it. And then I might start having some regrets about the small fortune I have invested in physical media for D&D. And then my spouse might have even more regrets about all the space my crap is taking up in our basement.

The amount of boxed up terrain in minis sitting in my garage should serve as a cautionary lesson. But I had to move to a VTT (I settled on Foundry, FWIW) due to my travel schedule and needing to run my games remotely to have a chance to continue running my campaign regularly.

 

[MNblockhead]

Man if I can hover over a spell and immediately see valid targets in an area, that would be invaluable. Spell placement is always a drag in VTTs. Moving those templates around and then debating whether or not someone is hit or behind cover, it would be great to just have potential targets light up as you move the focus and select spell placement fast.

AMEN!

I've not found dealing with AOE spells in any VTT to be a satisfactory experience.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The more automated mechanics are for the player the harder it is for rules to be altered.

IIRC, they previously stated those could be turned off. Regardless, my statement stands - the article the OP posted had nothing to do with that.

I don’t see the need to speculate on the functionality of a pre-alpha release of a software that I care little about.

 

[mamba]

The more automated mechanics are for the player the harder it is for rules to be altered.

not really, a lot of that could be table driven rather than hard coded, allowing for DM customization. And where that fails, the DM can still deactivate / override it

@mamba there is a difference between me not knowing and repeatedly seeing a growing pile of indications of a problematic focus.

you quite literally are not seeing this, they simply have not shown the DM side yet

As to a 4 month old DNDShorts video, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that he is correct in that, you on the other than insist that he cannot be wrong.