D&D 5E Why is WOTC so awful at providing digital content?

[Rygar]

Appeal to authority? I am mostly known around here for physics, but I am by no means ignorant of software development projects.

The rules as written are not rocket science. But making the system extensible gets hairy, unless you want a development effort any time you add supplemental rules.

And the nigh-arbitrary house rules? Those are a nightmares. "I have a ring that gives me a +6 to Dex, but only when flying...". And every campaign is going to have some of those weird things the GM made up, and doesn't fit. And each time you shove folks out into "just remember to do that yourself" is a place where you limit how good your virtual tabletop (which, of course, should be compatible) can be.

As someone noted upthread, houserules almost call for something like a scripting language. That's not easy to do, and it is less easy to do for people who don't write computer programs for a living.



UX, at the level we are talking about, if we get it wrong, the product doesn't sell and we are down something close to a million dollars.

Actually, it probably wouldn't be all that bad.

What we're talking about here is: A series of states, a series of variables, and a series of rules that affect states or variables. A scripting language is probably the easiest way to go about implementing it, but by no means the only way.

Your example of the right is a good one. "I have a ring that gives me a +6 to Dex, but only when flying", broken down to important keywords it is "Ring gives +6 to Dex when flying", written out into a "Rule" it is "[object] [increases] [target variable] [value] [in state]" A pretty substantial portion of the game can be expressed that way, and can be even further generalized to make it even more flexible..."[source] [increases] [target variable] [value] [in state]" and it gives us a "rule" which can express any positive magic item, spell, or special ability and we can just use the same thing to decrease or just change [increase] to [alters] and let the +/- handle the effect.

At its root, as far as any VTT goes, all you're doing is some fairly basic math, you never actually transform anything. "State" in this sense is just some value attached to the character/critter.

That's never been a VTT's problem really, a VTT's problem's are...

1. The game allows arbitrary input and while the character can easily be modeled, the events of a game can never be. I can model how the citizens in a town would react to various reputation states, but I can never model the Player's ability to arbitrarily state "I pee in the town square's fountain" and have the VTT compute the results.

2. The VTT requires a pretty substantial amount of graphics to be useful, I can describe anything in an RPG, a VTT needs to be able to display an enourmous range or it's really just a giant automated spreadsheet.

Modeling the gamerules isn't the hard part, handling the input to the system and not showing the same image for every tiles/critter/etc is the hard part. Honestly, the best use of a VTT is probably just as a battleboard and the aforementioned spreadsheet and let the rest of the game play as it always did. Trying to automate a game that allows arbitrary input and infinite environments/appearances is never going to work.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

From what I have heard, it sounds like D&D is being treated more as a peripheral product, which could be the best thing to happen to it for a long while.


…yeah, yeah, we're working on MtG and Transformers stuff, you guys do what you like with that little D&D thing…

 

[Evenglare]

Mmmm. Going to keep going with my video game developer argument earlier. I'll certainly agree that wizards probably isn't going to pony up 100,000 for building a program like this, but going to game devs is still an option, even -very- good game devs shouldn't be ruled out. The argument that it would take too much money doesn't hold sway with me. My evidence? Torment: Tides of Numenera. If MCG can get the guys behind the original Planescape torment then surely Wizards can do better than their terrible previous attempts. Unless you want to tell me that Monte Cook Games has as much / if not more resources than Wizards, in which case I'd need a citation.

Here's how to do it Wizards:
Step 1. Approach competent developers with tried and true experience within the RPG industry as well as digital programs.
Step 2. Launch Kickstarter with collaboration from the 2 companies.
Step 3. Raise money which should be incredibly easy with a GOOD dev and Wizards .
Step 4. Launch fantastic digital tools.

 

[transtemporal]

Modeling the gamerules isn't the hard part, handling the input to the system and not showing the same image for every tiles/critter/etc is the hard part. Honestly, the best use of a VTT is probably just as a battleboard and the aforementioned spreadsheet and let the rest of the game play as it always did. Trying to automate a game that allows arbitrary input and infinite environments/appearances is never going to work.

Spot on analysis. I reckon get the software to simulate the stuff that can be easily simulated on a battleboard, and leave the rest to humans to adjudicate. Heck, you don't even really need a dice roller if you trust your players.

 

[Shasarak]

Mmmm. Going to keep going with my video game developer argument earlier. I'll certainly agree that wizards probably isn't going to pony up 100,000k for building a program like this, but going to game devs is an option even very good game devs. The argument that it would take too much money doesn't hold sway with me. My evidence? Torment: Tides of Numenera. If MCG can get the guys behind the original Planescape torment then surely Wizards can do better than their terrible previous attempts. Unless you want to tell me that Monte Cook Games has as much / if not more resources than Wizards, in which case I'd need a citation.

It was a shame that Torment 2 could not be based on the Planes.

I would even have accepted the 4e version!

 

[Umbran]

Well, the Fantasy Grounds news is interesting on this front. Seems they did find a partner to work with, and just didn't tell us about it.

The price point is high, but that may be part of the economics. Fantasy Grounds may be able to make that work, because they support the modern D&D spectrum, rather than just one game, giving them a much more broad market to work with. Smart. Very smart.

I wish them well. I also am now far more optimistic that WotC is going to have other surprises they could spring on us. They have shown to be able to play it really close to the chest, so predicting them will be difficult.

 

[neobolts]

Well, the Fantasy Grounds news is interesting on this front. Seems they did find a partner to work with, and just didn't tell us about it.

The price point is high, but that may be part of the economics. Fantasy Grounds may be able to make that work, because they support the modern D&D spectrum, rather than just one game, giving them a much more broad market to work with. Smart. Very smart.

I wish them well. I also am now far more optimistic that WotC is going to have other surprises they could spring on us. They have shown to be able to play it really close to the chest, so predicting them will be difficult.

Surprise is right! No hype, just a promising looking day one product launch. Is this becoming the norm? Where's my hype train!?

 

[Umbran]

Where's my hype train!?

Hype... is overhyped

 

[PnPgamer]

In short it would be too risky, managing to produce software for various reasons, giving out the idea to developer, ensuring the quality and keeping things within context is hard, even for small software such as this thread is about. However, these things are lengthy projects as well, and digital tools might, and i emphasize word might, be already in some stage of the process.

Semi-sidenote: pdfs would be welcome.