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

[EpicureanDM]

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?

Ah, I'm wrong on that part of it, then. RFC reports that they spent a lot of time talking to Cao and some other D&DB designer. They may have bought a ticket like everyone else, but they probably got more attention than everyone else.

I stand by most of the rest of what I sad. RFC's being complimentary and generous to the D&DB VTT team for a single video while they take every other opportunity to paint what WotC's doing in the worst light. They demonstrate almost unparalleled skepticism about every product and move that WotC makes, seizing every opportunity for bad faith interpretations of the tea leaves.

RFC are not good-faith observers objectively evaluating what WotC and the D&D team does. They proudly allude to inside information all the time. They gleefully pursued and released inside information during the OGL debacle. They produced long, meandering livestream videos at breakneck pace back in January and February when WotC took that massive PR beating. Well-meaning people in this thread would recognize them as a tabloid if the focus of their channel was something other than D&D and WotC. There's a real outrage-grifter component to what they do.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

Ah, see, I LOVE doing stuff with miniatures like that. I want to build one of those virtual tables out of a flatscreen for just that sort of thing.

And yeah, the setup can be time-consuming, but I find it to be rewarding and almost artistic in the better ones. For Foundry, it's fairly easy. I remember charting a whole sewer system, setting up little caves and alcoves, and including stuff like sound (oh man, distance-based sound effects are so damn cool), which was just a really cool thing to do. Also lets the party split up in such a way that it is easy for me to manage and move around with. But I get that I'm a specific kind of sicko .

Really, I think this isn't a bad place for D&D to stake it's claim out on. Maybe they expand it in the future, but it doesn't look like it'll replace the real VTT enthusiast stuff that does all sorts of wild integrations. I wonder how this will compare to something like a Talespire, which has limited rules integration but a whole lot of visual stuff.

 

[EpicureanDM]

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.

This came in while I was typing my last response. I'll bow out.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

i do not see anything to suggest that it will not support 2d maps. At worst one could run exploration on the Maps applet on D&Dbeyond and switch to the 3d application for the big set piece battles.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, I'm wrong on that part of it, then. RFC reports that they spent a lot of time talking to Cao and some other D&DB designer. They may have bought a ticket like everyone else, but they probably got more attention than everyone else.

I stand by most of the rest of what I sad. RFC's being complimentary and generous to the D&DB VTT team for a single video while they take every other opportunity to paint what WotC's doing in the worst light. They demonstrate almost unparalleled skepticism about every product and move that WotC makes, seizing every opportunity for bad faith interpretations of the tea leaves.

RFC are not good-faith observers objectively evaluating what WotC and the D&D team does. They proudly allude to inside information all the time. They gleefully pursued and released inside information during the OGL debacle. They produced long, meandering livestream videos at breakneck pace back in January and February when WotC took that massive PR beating. Well-meaning people in this thread would recognize them as a tabloid if the focus of their channel was something other than D&D and WotC. There's a real outrage-grifter component to what they do.

I guess if you can't accept that Stephen simply liked the product that's certainly an explanation. One with no basis in provable fact and far less likely than that he was simply impressed by what they were doing because it is a very different approach from tools like Foundry of course. But it is indeed a theory.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, see, I LOVE doing stuff with miniatures like that. I want to build one of those virtual tables out of a flatscreen for just that sort of thing.

And yeah, the setup can be time-consuming, but I find it to be rewarding and almost artistic in the better ones. For Foundry, it's fairly easy. I remember charting a whole sewer system, setting up little caves and alcoves, and including stuff like sound (oh man, distance-based sound effects are so damn cool), which was just a really cool thing to do. Also lets the party split up in such a way that it is easy for me to manage and move around with. But I get that I'm a specific kind of sicko .

One of my hesitations about using a VTT or Maps (my games have people both in-person and on-line) is that I love painting minis. So far be it from me to criticize anyone who likes making cool maps.

Really, I think this isn't a bad place for D&D to stake it's claim out on. Maybe they expand it in the future, but it doesn't look like it'll replace the real VTT enthusiast stuff that does all sorts of wild integrations. I wonder how this will compare to something like a Talespire, which has limited rules integration but a whole lot of visual stuff.

Yeah, it's a really interesting direction, keeping the interface as simple as possible. Mark actually mentioned that for him, the Maps tool would be even better for him because he prefers an even more minimalistic approach. I could see a fog of war or line of sight being potentially added down the road, but I'm not sure it's needed. I would guess that they are trying to find a space that doesn't directly compete with the likes of Roll20 or Foundry.

 

[Retreater]

Stephen Glicker has definitely been a lot more critical about WotC, but Mark is typically a lot more even-keel about things in general. I don't even typically hear him gushing over PF2e and he co-wrote the rules for it.

Mark certainly has the more balanced approach to topics. I started following RFC during the OGL news cycle, so it's been an almost constant anti-WotC position from Stephen Glicker. Which is what makes my head spin about this new take about WotC.
It's not just that he concedes that the VTT is a well designed tool. It's all these points he's made in the past that he doesn't seem to acknowledge or temper in the latest video. As his audience, many of us still share these concerns.

1.) He said the 2024 revision was simply an excuse for WotC to distance themselves from the the OGL and 5th edition SRD to force out third party companies. He now says it has beautiful art and he's looking forward to getting it. (In my mind, if his previous opinions were valid, "beautiful art" isn't a good enough reason to support such a dastardly plan.)
2.) On many occasions, he said the new VTT is a means to undermine other companies such as Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, and Foundry VTT, by creating a "walled garden ecosystem fueled by microtransactions" that would destroy D&D and turn it into a video game. He now says it has nice graphics and a smooth UI. (Again, in my mind, if those previous opinions were valid, "nice graphics and a smooth UI" isn't enough to make us want this service.)
3.) He said the C-suite at Wizards and Hasbro don't care about the game and that they're in the position to "milk customers dry" with unnecessary cash grabs that probably make the game worse. He now says they completely know what they're doing for the betterment of the hobby, and everyone should get on board. (And to me, that's not enough of a statement to make me want to throw my support behind the company.)

So he didn't do a good job to me, as a supporter of his channel and frequent customer of his products, to convince me to believe him - because he didn't address the core issues he has been ranting against for nearly a year. It's one of those moments of "I really should've been taking this guy with a grain of salt the whole time" moments.

Honestly, I've spent nearly a calendar year since the OGL news cycle in anti-WotC echo chambers (not here on ENWorld, obviously), so maybe I need to rethink those sources (of whom Stephen Glicker is only one).

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm sorry, but how can one be anti-WotC or pro-WotC? Buy what you like, ignore the rest.

 

[Clint_L]

One of my hesitations about using a VTT or Maps (my games have people both in-person and on-line) is that I love painting minis. So far be it from me to criticize anyone who likes making cool maps.

So, this is a dilemma for me. Like you, painting miniatures (and lately, terrain) is my jam. It's my relaxation hobby, and I love building and using elaborate sets for games. In another era, I'm probably a model railroad guy. So the analog, tangible world of miniatures-based game that I love feels a bit threatened by this.

Because what if it is so good and so easy to use that I just start gravitating towards it? It's...like I'm having a potentially awesome new drug dangled in front of me, but I'm already happy with my plastic addiction. Don't make me choose!

Yeah, it's a really interesting direction, keeping the interface as simple as possible. Mark actually mentioned that for him, the Maps tool would be even better for him because he prefers an even more minimalistic approach. I could see a fog of war or line of sight being potentially added down the road, but I'm not sure it's needed. I would guess that they are trying to find a space that doesn't directly compete with the likes of Roll20 or Foundry.

I suspect they are aiming squarely at the same folks who find DDB about as complex as they are willing to go, in terms of virtual experience. i.e. Technologically limited folks like me. Like, I spent a day trying to figure out Roll20 and gave up. Whereas DDB was just easy and intuitive. The new DDB maps feature? I was using it within 2 minutes. Two minutes! Me! That's impressive idiot-proofing.

So I look at something like Foundry and am like, "there is no way I am even trying that." And I think I'm the guy WotC wants to open up their VTT and just sort of click a few times and be good to go.

 

[Reynard]

I'm sorry, but how can one be anti-WotC or pro-WotC? Buy what you like, ignore the rest.

I think everyone should consider where they spend their dollars, including what sorts of practices large corporations engage in. For example, regardless of the quality of any given WotC product, I am not giving them money again after their OGL shannenagins. That could change in the future if they change course significantly, but I don't see it happen. That feeling is completely unrelated to my assessment of any given product from them. it is just a line in the sand for me, personally.