D&D (2024) What do you think One D&D will do to the VTT industry?

[MonsterEnvy]

Anyway I see no reason to be down on it until it shows something to make me doubt it.

 

[embee]

I would have though that Roll20 issues would be either server side or client bandwidth. I would not have expected the client machines to make any difference.
On FantasyGrounds most issues we have had are bandwidth rather than machine performance.

It's a combination of the two. If someone has a bad connection, that will slow everything down. If someone's browser doesn't render fast enough, that will slow everything down. And then you superimpose that on server load which, as you can imagine, is highest on the weekends.

I don't have a lot of faith in WOTC's simply because it's going to add to the load on every front.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It's a combination of the two. If someone has a bad connection, that will slow everything down. If someone's browser doesn't render fast enough, that will slow everything down. And then you superimpose that on server load which, as you can imagine, is highest on the weekends.

I don't have a lot of faith in WOTC's simply because it's going to add to the load on every front.

Oh! I will believe in the WoTC VTT when I see it in action. I mean I like the idea of it. But while I see no need for the woe and gloom the challenge they have set themselves is considerable.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It will give other VTTs a modest boost, because WotC is going to delay releasing it until it's a super-high end 3D VTT which is incredibly hard to do from scratch. It's years off, if it ever comes. (I am betting against it ever coming.) So while people get fired up for the idea of it, they're going to look at what else is available and go with those.

Now, WotC could course correct and start with a 2D VTT, integrate it with the Encounter Builder, etc., and start the monetization train. If that happened, it would be extremely bad news for Fantasy Grounds and Roll 20. But WotC rolled a Natural 20 for hubris, so they're insisting on doing this the hard way, despite their abysmal track record.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WotC will absolutely be pulling the licenses from other VTTs and saber rattling over them including anything that’s not in the SRD once their VTT is on the market. Guaranteed.

I don’t know that I completely agree with this video, but it’s worth a listen.

Of all the people who spout nonsense about D&D on YouTube, that smug dude is right near the top.

 

[Lazybones]

As someone who is fairly well-invested in Fantasy Grounds (I DM two weekly 5e campaigns), I am open to the idea of a new VTT with added functionality. But I run almost exclusively homebrew, and I need a system that is friendly to the builder. With FG, there was a learning curve, but now I am familiar enough with it to build what I need fairly quickly, either grabbing a map online and plopping down LOS/lighting or quickly throwing something together using the included builder tools (which have gotten a lot more functional over the last few years). But 3D adds a level of complexity that goes well beyond just adding a Z-axis. Any toolset they include would have to be similar to what was in the original Neverwinter Nights' Aurora build engine (i.e., super easy to add unique content) to get me to switch.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

As someone who is fairly well-invested in Fantasy Grounds (I DM two weekly 5e campaigns), I am open to the idea of a new VTT with added functionality. But I run almost exclusively homebrew, and I need a system that is friendly to the builder. With FG, there was a learning curve, but now I am familiar enough with it to build what I need fairly quickly, either grabbing a map online and plopping down LOS/lighting or quickly throwing something together using the included builder tools (which have gotten a lot more functional over the last few years). But 3D adds a level of complexity that goes well beyond just adding a Z-axis. Any toolset they include would have to be similar to what was in the original Neverwinter Nights' Aurora build engine (i.e., super easy to add unique content) to get me to switch.

I am in a similar position and I think the old Aurora engine would represent the upper limit of the complexity I would be willing to handle.

 

[Yora]

I'll actually be mildly surpised if these plans ever lead to something entering full service. And even then it might never be much more than an also ran, with a few dedicated fans that ignore the technical shortcomings that never get resolved.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I'm not sure WoTC will pull off their VTT, but having used Talespire, a 3D semi-VTT (in terms of playing maps - it doesn't have automation on the level of something like Foundry), the concept can work. But it takes a lot of work.

 

[Hex08]

I'd expect them to expand the functionality of their own VTT beyond just D&D, allowing it to compete with others as a semi-general purpose VTT.

I honestly hope that isn't the case and I find it unlikely.

Assuming their VTT works, because of the sheer size of the D&D player base and if they support other games then we can defiantly say goodbye to most other VTTs. The non-WotC VTT competition just won't have the customer base to support them because D&D tends to be the gateway to other RPGs in general so those playing other games may likely stick with WotC's VTT to play the other games. That would be horrible for those of us who don't play D&D and want a VTT.

I also find it unlikely that WotC will support other games because they don't already. There are other games with OGLs or the equivalent and Hasbro/WotC doesn't produce material for them. I believe there are two reasons for that. First, they want D&D to be and remain the 800-pound gorilla in the room and letting in other games will drain a small number of players from the core product. Second, the player base for most other RPGs is so small comparatively that to a company like Hasbro it probably won't make financial sense to support them.