WotC Roll for Combat got to try the 3D vtt and he seems to like it. Live streaming now.

[darjr]

You can have your own opinions but you can’t have your own facts.

You can make the claim WotC are liers but that’s different.

Edit: I’m not making that claim or that anyone should.

 

[bedir than]

Just because they're selling more doesn't mean they aren't losing money. And I disagree that they're selling more.

This is an opportunistic marriage of convenience between the D&DB team - who operate largely independent of the D&D books team - and RFC. The acquisition of D&DB blew a $140m-ish hole in the D&D segment's balance sheet. (Maybe it's on WotC's? Hard to say, but if I were the M:tG executives, I'd fight that tooth and nail.) D&DB isn't getting enough revenue from the D&D book team's products, so they're pulling out all the stops to get some sort of revenue from other sources, i.e. third-party licensing.

This is completely separated from legally binding reality

 

[Reynard]

It was not an exclusive peak, they were not invited. They went to a con where it was being demoed and got a ticket like everyone else.

Why is it so impossible to believe they simply liked the implementation in comparison to other VTTs?

Right? I don't even like WotC and it is still possible for me to recognize they might make decent products sometimes. FRC can still think WotC tried to screw everyone and not trust them as far as they could throw them, and still think the VTT is looking pretty good. Those points of view aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Oofta]

Right? I don't even like WotC and it is still possible for me to recognize they might make decent products sometimes. FRC can still think WotC tried to screw everyone and not trust them as far as they could throw them, and still think the VTT is looking pretty good. Those points of view aren't mutually exclusive.

Just like they can acknowledge that a lot of people on the D&D team really are simply big fans of the game that are excited about what they produce. A tool like the VTT is something I can see a developer getting truly excited about, opportunities to create something you think is really awesome from scratch don't come up very often.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I mean, listening in and I don't think I'm terribly impressed with what is being described? I mean, it sounds functional, which is good, but also I suppose the limitations are the opposite of what I want from a VTT.

That's obviously a taste thing, but I find the whole "I like to do theater of the mind for exploration" misses that the strength of that sort of thing is to be able to do exploration in a way you wouldn't on a tabletop, similar to doing a combat encounter. The cool thing about doing VTTs for me was to be able to have a massive map and let people naturally explore around without me having to constantly dictate things like dimensions and such. Having stuff like real-time lighting and fog of war was the reason to get a VTT, because it added elements to things like me not having to explain what someone sees in Darkvision (Because they can actually see it themselves). Nothing really gives you the feel of a torch quite like having one being your source of light as you move around a cavern, flickering and seeing the actual size of the place for yourself.

I think if this is what they are going for, they are angling for a "Simple, quick VTT with a bit of flash graphics", which isn't a bad niche but I'm also not sure it's going to take over the world. Which is, honestly, good: it's probably best for them with their focus on 3D graphics to not do anything mindblowingly hard to execute, and at the same time it leaves space for other VTTs to work. I hope it works out for them, even if it won't be my slice of cake.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, listening in and I don't think I'm terribly impressed with what is being described? I mean, it sounds functional, which is good, but also I suppose the limitations are the opposite of what I want from a VTT.

That's obviously a taste thing, but I find the whole "I like to do theater of the mind for exploration" misses that the strength of that sort of thing is to be able to do exploration in a way you wouldn't on a tabletop, similar to doing a combat encounter. The cool thing about doing VTTs for me was to be able to have a massive map and let people naturally explore around without me having to constantly dictate things like dimensions and such. Having stuff like real-time lighting and fog of war was the reason to get a VTT, because it added elements to things like me not having to explain what someone sees in Darkvision (Because they can actually see it themselves). Nothing really gives you the feel of a torch quite like having one being your source of light as you move around a cavern, flickering and seeing the actual size of the place for yourself.

I think if this is what they are going for, they are angling for a "Simple, quick VTT with a bit of flash graphics", which isn't a bad niche but I'm also not sure it's going to take over the world. Which is, honestly, good: it's probably best for them with their focus on 3D graphics to not do anything mindblowingly hard to execute, and at the same time it leaves space for other VTTs to work. I hope it works out for them, even if it won't be my slice of cake.

What I like about Maps and potentially the VTT is that they are aiming for simple. So these kind of tools work for me, I just want a tabletop that I can share easily. Right now I do it with an external camera I point down at my maps and minis, but it's not an ideal solution. I got decent at Roll20 with lines of sight and fog of war, etc. when nobody could be here in person and there definite benefits. Using darkness and limited visibility was kind of awesome. But I also hated the amount of time it took to set up and the limitations it put on me for what scenes I could create.

So these tools work for me, but I get why they wouldn't for a lot of people. One hope for the future is that they are test-driving an API for other VTTs to use if they want, test driving a json-based API with an internally developed product would be a logical first step.

 

[Clint_L]

It's a staggering display of the clout wielded by RFC and how gullible some of WotC's fans are.

Lol. Okay, we're gullible idiots and your conspiracy theory has cracked THE TRUTH.

 

[Velderan]

Using darkness and limited visibility was kind of awesome. But I also hated the amount of time it took to set up and the limitations it put on me for what scenes I could create.

That's the appeal of Foundry VTT for me. For a $35 PF2e AP module (cheaper if you have the PDF already), you get all the maps and tokens needed with all of the lighting and line of sight done for you. Line of sight has created so many funny moments when the barbarian charges around the corner into a pack of monsters and since they are the only ones that can see their line of sight, the other players are blind to how to react and you get a more genuine response in the next few player's decision making. For that aspect of playing, VTT is better than in-person IMO.

 

[OB1]

Been watching, and even they are kind of shocked how much Stephen changed his mind.

I think the best description was that it's like playing on a table top with dwarven forge minis. More positive than I expected, it will be interesting to see it in person.

Yes, and I love that WotC seems to have decided to try and recreate the tabletop experience of playing with physical 3D map pieces. Instead of trying to make a fully automated BG3 light version. It seems that they know exactly what they want the software to accomplish, and that strong design principle I think will lead to an elegant solution for remote table top style play. Really smart.

 

[Umbran]

It's a staggering display of the clout wielded by RFC and how gullible some of WotC's fans are.

Mod note:
If the basic way you have to make points is to insult people, your input is not going to be constructive.

If you cannot show basic respect for folks, please leave the discussion.