VTT beta feedback?

[OnlineDM]

It's not clear what this means. Are you saying the VTT won't ever know what an attack roll is? Determine hit or miss? What a saving throw is? That's frightening.

That's pretty much what they've said, yes, and I have no problem with that.

The Virtual Table is a virtual tabletop. It's not a video game system. I'm guessing that part of the reason not to have everything programmed in (you click a button for your attack, then click the target(s) of the attack, then the program rolls the attack, determines whether it hit, and applies the appropriate damage and conditions from the attack) is to allow for flexibility. If everything has to be programmed in, you can't easily make custom monster attacks, for instance.

I run my online game using MapTool. I don't use a formal framework, but I guess the programming I've done on my own amounts to a mini-framework. I do program in attack buttons that roll an attack, calculate the total, tell you what defense it's going after and let you know what the damage or other results of a hit (or miss) are. I'm happy with that level of automation. It doesn't factor in combat advantage, it doesn't look at the target's defense and tell you whether it hits or not, it doesn't automatically apply conditions - but it's enough. If the Virtual Table works at this same level, I'll definitely be interested in it.

 

[moxcamel]

I currently use d20 Pro and have used Fantasy Grounds in the past. Both of those tools have all kinds of nifty ways to handle adjudication, damage, ongoing effects, initiative, and will even roll saving throws for you.

I use almost none of these features. I have the tool track hit points so the players have a visual way to see party and monster health at a glance, I use it to track initiative, roll dice, and that's really about it. Everything else is handled by myself and the players. And I suspect more VTT gamers than not do about the same thing.

So I'm actually pretty cool with a rules-less VTT. Let me see what my player in Japan has just rolled, let me see the battlefield and everything on the battlefield, and I'm happy.

 

[mudbunny]

I do program in attack buttons that roll an attack, calculate the total, tell you what defense it's going after and let you know what the damage or other results of a hit (or miss) are. I'm happy with that level of automation. It doesn't factor in combat advantage, it doesn't look at the target's defense and tell you whether it hits or not, it doesn't automatically apply conditions - but it's enough. If the Virtual Table works at this same level, I'll definitely be interested in it.

You can currently do this with VT.

 

[mattcolville]

That's pretty much what they've said, yes, and I have no problem with that.

The Virtual Table is a virtual tabletop. It's not a video game system.

Are you serious with this? You're saying...let me be clear...you're saying that what WotC has implemented is a virtual tabletop...but if it knew, for instance, that you were making an attack roll and determined if you hit or miss...it would be a video game. That's the line for you. Fantasy Grounds 2 is a video game.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Are you serious with this? You're saying...let me be clear...you're saying that what WotC has implemented is a virtual tabletop...but if it knew, for instance, that you were making an attack roll and determined if you hit or miss...it would be a video game. That's the line for you. Fantasy Grounds 2 is a video game.

The problem is that they are designing the VTT so that it can also be used for 3e and before as well as 4e. They may at some point in the future decide to add in automation for the 4e rules, but that is not part of the design goal at this moment.

 

[Dannager]

Are you serious with this? You're saying...let me be clear...you're saying that what WotC has implemented is a virtual tabletop...but if it knew, for instance, that you were making an attack roll and determined if you hit or miss...it would be a video game. That's the line for you. Fantasy Grounds 2 is a video game.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying.

He is saying that handling full rules adjudication is part of what makes a video game a video game - the fact that the computer handles everything that isn't direct user input. The VTT is not designed to replace the role of the DM as rules referee, but rather to make the DM's job perhaps a bit easier to manage, and to enable play that is not possible without a VTT (players separated by distance, for example).

 

[Charwoman Gene]

WotC is prohibited by external contracts with Atari from making software that adjudicates D&D rules. This is partially why the SRD/D20 STL had rules against using it I. Electronic products.

 

[OnlineDM]

You can currently do this with VT.

Yes, I know - sorry if that wasn't clear.

Are you serious with this? You're saying...let me be clear...you're saying that what WotC has implemented is a virtual tabletop...but if it knew, for instance, that you were making an attack roll and determined if you hit or miss...it would be a video game. That's the line for you. Fantasy Grounds 2 is a video game.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying.

He is saying that handling full rules adjudication is part of what makes a video game a video game - the fact that the computer handles everything that isn't direct user input. The VTT is not designed to replace the role of the DM as rules referee, but rather to make the DM's job perhaps a bit easier to manage, and to enable play that is not possible without a VTT (players separated by distance, for example).

Thank you, Dannager - that summarizes my feelings pretty well.

Listen, if a DM wants to use a system that automates as much as possible, great! But I don't think a system HAS to automate as much as possible in order to be a fantastic virtual tabletop program.

I didn't mean to be offensive with the use of the "video game" term. I've never used Fantasy Grounds 2, but from what I've heard it certainly doesn't sound like a video game to me.

All I'm saying is that there's only a certain level of functionality that a DM and players really need in order to play a role-playing game online. When you're sitting at a physical table, you keep track of your hit points and conditions and whether an attack hit or not manually. As long as the Virtual Table lets you do enough to have that same experience, it has the potential to be a lot of fun. It doesn't NEED all the rules functionality that a video game would, because it's not a video game. If it has more functionality than that, great, that might be cool, but it doesn't NEED it in order to be successful in replicating the tabletop experience online.

 

[mattcolville]

Yes, I know - sorry if that wasn't clear.





Thank you, Dannager - that summarizes my feelings pretty well.

Listen, if a DM wants to use a system that automates as much as possible, great! But I don't think a system HAS to automate as much as possible in order to be a fantastic virtual tabletop program.

I didn't mean to be offensive with the use of the "video game" term. I've never used Fantasy Grounds 2, but from what I've heard it certainly doesn't sound like a video game to me.

All I'm saying is that there's only a certain level of functionality that a DM and players really need in order to play a role-playing game online. When you're sitting at a physical table, you keep track of your hit points and conditions and whether an attack hit or not manually. As long as the Virtual Table lets you do enough to have that same experience, it has the potential to be a lot of fun. It doesn't NEED all the rules functionality that a video game would, because it's not a video game. If it has more functionality than that, great, that might be cool, but it doesn't NEED it in order to be successful in replicating the tabletop experience online.

Ok, so, let's just agree that the video game thing is a distraction. No one's talking about video games, we're talking about playing D&D using a virtual tabletop. Video games are no more relevant than cooking or running a marathon.

Now, my first point is: WotC hasn't put together a virtual tabletop. It's a virtual battlemat. There's a difference, I feel. If I want to hand the players a map of the local area, and a handbill from the Overlord, and a portrait of an NPC, *and* a battlemat and let them all manage those images as they see fit, I can't do it in the WotC solution. I think that's a problem for anything calling itself a Virtual Tabletop. Especially when playing online, you need a lot of visual cues and references, as the players are otherwise in something of a sensory deprivation tank.

But my second point is that IF they can make a tool that makes running the game easier but they do NOT then they screwed something up.

Now, certainly you could argue--as it seems you are--that really all you need is a chat client and some whiteboard software and the player's and GM can do everything else, just as they would at the table, and that's fine. But why should the goal be "do as little as possible?" You can play D&D without minis or tokens. Should you? Should the VTT say "nope, it's all abstract shapes and M&Ms! No tokens and tiles for you!"

There are other 4E VTT solutions that have lots of automation that let you switch on and off whatever you're comfortable with. Is that a flaw? Is giving the user...the guys *paying* for the tool...the ability to, say, target 5 dudes and roll one damage roll and have the tool automatically apply damage--just that OPTION--somehow bad?

"No, you must do it by hand! The long way!" Nonsense. The goal should be making getting into a game, running a game, and playing a game as easy as possible, and a tool like this could do that.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I disagree heavily. Because, you see, development time is always limited. And if you try to get a VTT to automate a rules system, you have to give other areas that could be expanded less attention. The question we have to ask is: what benefits the game the most, based on the cost/result ratio? And i think Wotc is (rightly so) trying to create a solution mirroring tabletop gaming. That means not over-automating stuff which is the responsibility of the DM. Managing HP, spells, powers? Yes. Macro-heavy automation? God, no!

What we need, and what we are getting, i guess, is a VTT that focuses on making creating a game and dropping into a game on the fly as easy as possible. The campaign lobbies the VTT has right now are as simple to use as, say, an open Steam game. Slots free? Well, what kind of campaign is it? Ah, AD&D. Well, let's drop in.

Maptool is best, forex, (and again, IMHO) without full rules-adjudication. I tried several macro packages, but realized that this is exactly the area i do not want my VTT to expand into. Never create a jack-of-trades tool, that's my motto.

But i understand if you disagree, and i would be happy if you get into the beta once it is open for all DDI members. There are several questionnaires for beta-testers and of course you can add your opinion to our forums.