The Dungeons & Dragons Virtual Table

[Stumblewyk]

Just going by the text in the FAQ that states that the newly announced VTT does not integrate with the CB or the online Monster Builder (yay!)...I have to ask the question...

Why? Why do this at all? There are applications out there that already provide functionality for this. And those applications do it awfully well, from what I've gathered.

Couple the fact that they say that it doesn't integrate with their other online tools with the fact that they haven't decided on a price structure for it yet, and I have to wonder if it's going to be part of DDI at all. If it's not, then it might not integrate with the online CB and MB, which means you could be paying for a D&D licensed VTT that does nothing that you can't ALREADY do with pre-existing software. =/

So, that means only one of two things:
#1: When it's all said and done, it WILL integrate the with the CB and MB.
#2: It won't integrate, and we're all left scratching our heads as Wizards tries to force their way into an already crowded market of VTTs.

For the record, I'm leaning towards it integrating with the existing (and soon to come) tools. I'm just confused why they'd use the language they used in the FAQ.

 

[BobTheNob]

Shrug- they probably re-did it as an actually obtainable goal.. Which is good.

As for timing- I hink it's pretty obvious they choose to announce it now as a way to get people a little less frustrated...

Absolutely on point 1. Would far prefer a feature packed VTT than a 3d one. Keep the technology simple, but the functionality rich.

Point 2. This is probably part of why they made the change to an online builder in the first place. That the whole "server side" characters concept supports what they envisage for the VTT.

Its funny, I can imagine that they probably didnt want to announce VTT just yet, but they needed to assuage the growing anger a bit.

Actually, I have a rather massive question. This is obviously going to support multiplayer with internet support right? Are they going to require every session to be a subscriber? Will they offer "guest passes" on non interactive "viewing sessions"?

 

[DEFCON 1]

If it eventually comes out as something extra to pay for, that may not go over well with folks who may have subscribed long-term.

Oh, that doesn't matter... folks here on ENWorld will be bitching about it regardless of what happens when it comes out.

Hell, the announcement's not even three hours old and already there are people declaring they aren't going to use it unless Features X, Y & Z are a part of it.

WotC just can't Win. Or even Place or Show with some people. LOL.

 

[Bagpuss]

Wow, looks like a prettier version of Maptool*.

(* insert VTT of your choice)

Or less pretty version of Fantasy Grounds?

 

[DEFCON 1]

For the record, I'm leaning towards it integrating with the existing (and soon to come) tools. I'm just confused why they'd use the language they used in the FAQ.

Simple. They aren't going to announce anything that isn't pretty far along in the development process just in case something massively horrible goes wrong and they can't complete it. The fact we still have people throwing the Gleemax VTT in their faces every time there's a screw-up is all WotC needs to keep their mouths shut until they're ready for at least a beta test.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Or less pretty version of Fantasy Grounds?

Neither - it's a version of multiple popular and free online tabletop applications, only they're talking about charging you to use it, and it's fresh on the heels of an absolute coding disaster.

But I'm sure this time it'll go well!

 

[TerraDave]

wow I'm pretty surprised to see this! Conceptially this seems very different from those early tech-demos:
YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Part 2

Not that I mind. I'm a usability-first kinda guy and having token monsters is easier than having 3d models .

Thats why I said I liked it.

All that crashing at D&DXP 08. So much crashing. And the cute little wotcies enduring through it.

 

[Stumblewyk]

Simple. They aren't going to announce anything that isn't pretty far along in the development process just in case something massively horrible goes wrong and they can't complete it. The fact we still have people throwing the Gleemax VTT in their faces every time there's a screw-up is all WotC needs to keep their mouths shut until they're ready for at least a beta test.

I agree, and thought the same thing. But if that was the case, then what is wrong with saying "it doesn't currently integrate with our existing online tools, but such functionality is intended to be in place for final release?"

It says "yeah, it doesn't do it *now*, but we'd like it to, and that's our goal."

Only the most brain damaged among us would leap at that and instantly go "IT'S GONNA INTEGRATE!"

Again, I understand the perceived need to play a constant game of CYA, but I think they could have loosened their belts just a *smidge* on this one. =/

 

[Caerin]

I've already tried and failed to not get my hopes up. Oddly enough, I don't need a VTT anymore, really, but I can think of some occasions when it would be useful.

I am glad they announced it, and I'm glad that those in the beta are able to talk about their experiences. +1 for increased transparency.

 

[darjr]

Simple. They aren't going to announce anything that isn't pretty far along in the development process just in case something massively horrible goes wrong and they can't complete it. The fact we still have people throwing the Gleemax VTT in their faces every time there's a screw-up is all WotC needs to keep their mouths shut until they're ready for at least a beta test.

Which is the exact wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to keep the lines of communication open. Clamming up is furthering the mistake.

Edit: to add that they don't have to blab, but they should be talking to their customers, beta test is far to late a stage to find out that your customers will hate what you've produced.