D&D General Your Thoughts on LoS, Dynamic Lighting on VTTs

[Don Durito]

There have been plenty of in-house attempts at Isometric VTT's ... but they are inherently limiting.

The vast majority of us are simply not capable digital artists. Many of us who are well experienced with VTTs ARE capable "modders" and outright image thieves. We grab images off of Google - or from within stripped PDFs -- routinely to illustrate our games with maps and character art. That's the raw fuel behind VTTs.

And if we are running modules,( without regard to the system), we have ready access to that 2d art. The maps for the adventure are presented in 2d. That is so whether it is Old Skool TSR Blue+White blueprint style maps, or the latest shaded illustrated map from Mike Schley, Rob Lazzaretti, or whoever it may be.

We also have lots of 2d top-down images to use that are created from a vast number of map artists on Patreon, too. That includes innovative animated maps on mp4 from Dynamic Dungeons, as well.

In short, the ability for GMs to lift and use assets from the games they want to run, based upon the adventures written for those games, is virtually all in 2d form. While isometric is a 3/4 view cheat on 2d drawings, they are not easy assets to find or to make. So that tends to be a huge hurdle that gets in the way; it doesn't make it easier for GMs to make their own adventures or repurpose an existing adventure they have access to in their VTT.

Going back to NeverwinterNights, BioWare's version of the game sold well and its community had HUGE community support and participation. While it took skill to develop a module overall, the tilesets and toolset for NWN1 were relatively easy to use. Even the LEad Developer's Grandmother could screw around in the toolset and make a map in 15 minutes (this was, literally, BioWare's design goal for their toolset - known as the "Trent's Grandmother test") When Obsidian released NWN2 that was based on a more advanced terrain mesh system, the number of community modules dropped like a rock, to a 1/50th of what had been released just the year before. What that change in building terrains and the NWN2 toolset did was that while it made something that was professionally done look better, it raised the technical bar to participating in module creation by an Order of magnitude to reach that level. Otherwise? It looked like shite. Trent's Grandmother gave up after 15 minutes. She might be able to make a puddle of water with, but that was it.

And that's what isometric VTTs would do: raise the bar to technical participation by most people by an Order of magnitude. For those who could get over it? It would be cool, sure. But that's a tiny fraction of those creating adventures to run on their own VTT's now.

Hell, most DMs and GMs who use Roll20 complain about the work it takes to set up those advantures. Can you imagine the kvetching about an ISO style VTT? Yikes.

There is a reason that a battlemapping program with a lot of features that is still easy to use like DungeonDraft has moved the needle so fast and so far so quickly: because it's accessible. Isometric VTTs would not be. accessible.

3D VTTs? Those are even worse in terms of the technical barriers they would create to using freely available repurposed art for use in your private game. If you want to learn 3d Modelling and texturing? Sure. Knock your socks off.

It's just not practical for the other 99%.

I assume you've quoted the wrong person.

 

[Steel_Wind]

YMMV but I think what Fantasy Ground Unity is proposing sorta fits the BG model. It's not out yet but it does look really promising and I think it's getting close to release:

Just so that we are clear - literally everything you have extolled in the FGU Youtube promos you have posted can be done now in Foundry VTT. And it's a LOT cheaper than FGU.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I have a question, maybe some of you know....Why don't any of these VTT look and operate like say, old school Baldur's Gate? They seem to want to go that direction, with animations and rendered sfx.

There have been plenty of in-house attempts at Isometric VTT's ... but they are inherently limiting. Spell animations that are in the can are easy to add to 2d. And there is a workaround for animated 2d sprites leveraging World of Warcraft's 16 years of digital art for private use. (WoW is the singe largest source of digital animated fantasy artwork on the planet, so that matters). But again - it's 2d captures from 3d assets and is easy enough anybody can do it.

The vast majority of us are simply not capable digital artists. Many of us who are well experienced with VTTs ARE capable "modders" and outright image thieves. We grab images off of Google - or from within stripped PDFs -- routinely to illustrate our games with maps and character art. That's the raw fuel behind VTTs.

And if we are running modules,( without regard to the system), we have ready access to that 2d art. The maps for the adventure are presented in 2d. That is so whether it is Old Skool TSR Blue+White blueprint style maps, or the latest shaded illustrated map from Mike Schley, Rob Lazzaretti, or whoever it may be.

We also have lots of 2d top-down images to use that are created from a vast number of map artists on Patreon, too. That includes innovative animated maps on mp4 from Dynamic Dungeons, as well.

In short, the ability for GMs to lift and use assets from the games they want to run, based upon the adventures written for those games, is virtually all in 2d form. While isometric is a 3/4 view cheat on 2d drawings, they are not easy assets to find or to make. So that tends to be a huge hurdle that gets in the way; it doesn't make it easier for GMs to make their own adventures or repurpose an existing adventure they have access to in their VTT.

Going back to NeverwinterNights, BioWare's version of the game sold well and its community had HUGE community support and participation. While it took skill to develop a module overall, the tilesets and toolset for NWN1 were relatively easy to use. Even the LEad Developer's Grandmother could screw around in the toolset and make a map in 15 minutes (this was, literally, BioWare's design goal for their toolset - known as the "Trent's Grandmother test") When Obsidian released NWN2 that was based on a more advanced terrain mesh system, the number of community modules dropped like a rock, to a 1/50th of what had been released just the year before. What that change in building terrains and the NWN2 toolset did was that while it made something that was professionally done look better, it raised the technical bar to participating in module creation by an Order of magnitude to reach that level. Otherwise? It looked like shite. Trent's Grandmother gave up after 15 minutes. She might be able to make a puddle of water with, but that was it.

And that's what isometric VTTs would do: raise the bar to technical participation by most people by an Order of magnitude. For those who could get over it? It would be cool, sure. But that's a tiny fraction of those creating adventures to run on their own VTT's now.

Hell, most DMs and GMs who use Roll20 complain about the work it takes to set up those advantures. Can you imagine the kvetching about an ISO style VTT? Yikes.

There is a reason that a battlemapping program with a lot of features that is still easy to use like DungeonDraft has moved the needle so fast and so far so quickly: because it's accessible. Isometric VTTs would not be. accessible.

3D VTTs? Those are even worse in terms of the technical barriers they would create to using freely available repurposed art for use in your private game. If you want to learn 3d Modelling and texturing? Sure. Knock your socks off.

It's just not practical for the other 99%.

 

[Nebulous]

There have been plenty of in-house attempts at Isometric VTT's ... but they are inherently limiting. Spell animations that are in the can are easy to add to 2d. And there is a workaround for animated 2d sprites leveraging World of Warcraft's 16 years of digital art for private use. (WoW is the singe largest source of digital animated fantasy artwork on the planet, so that matters). But again - it's 2d captures from 3d assets and is easy enough anybody can do it.

The vast majority of us are simply not capable digital artists. Many of us who are well experienced with VTTs ARE capable "modders" and outright image thieves. We grab images off of Google - or from within stripped PDFs -- routinely to illustrate our games with maps and character art. That's the raw fuel behind VTTs.

And if we are running modules,( without regard to the system), we have ready access to that 2d art. The maps for the adventure are presented in 2d. That is so whether it is Old Skool TSR Blue+White blueprint style maps, or the latest shaded illustrated map from Mike Schley, Rob Lazzaretti, or whoever it may be.

We also have lots of 2d top-down images to use that are created from a vast number of map artists on Patreon, too. That includes innovative animated maps on mp4 from Dynamic Dungeons, as well.

In short, the ability for GMs to lift and use assets from the games they want to run, based upon the adventures written for those games, is virtually all in 2d form. While isometric is a 3/4 view cheat on 2d drawings, they are not easy assets to find or to make. So that tends to be a huge hurdle that gets in the way; it doesn't make it easier for GMs to make their own adventures or repurpose an existing adventure they have access to in their VTT.

Going back to NeverwinterNights, BioWare's version of the game sold well and its community had HUGE community support and participation. While it took skill to develop a module overall, the tilesets and toolset for NWN1 were relatively easy to use. Even the LEad Developer's Grandmother could screw around in the toolset and make a map in 15 minutes (this was, literally, BioWare's design goal for their toolset - known as the "Trent's Grandmother test") When Obsidian released NWN2 that was based on a more advanced terrain mesh system, the number of community modules dropped like a rock, to a 1/50th of what had been released just the year before. What that change in building terrains and the NWN2 toolset did was that while it made something that was professionally done look better, it raised the technical bar to participating in module creation by an Order of magnitude to reach that level. Otherwise? It looked like shite. Trent's Grandmother gave up after 15 minutes. She might be able to make a puddle of water with, but that was it.

And that's what isometric VTTs would do: raise the bar to technical participation by most people by an Order of magnitude. For those who could get over it? It would be cool, sure. But that's a tiny fraction of those creating adventures to run on their own VTT's now.

Hell, most DMs and GMs who use Roll20 complain about the work it takes to set up those advantures. Can you imagine the kvetching about an ISO style VTT? Yikes.

There is a reason that a battlemapping program with a lot of features that is still easy to use like DungeonDraft has moved the needle so fast and so far so quickly: because it's accessible. Isometric VTTs would not be. accessible.

3D VTTs? Those are even worse in terms of the technical barriers they would create to using freely available repurposed art for use in your private game. If you want to learn 3d Modelling and texturing? Sure. Knock your socks off.

It's just not practical for the other 99%.

Wonderful answer! Thank you. Yeah, I'm a good modder myself, it just takes a tad bit of photoshop knowhow. And yes, the hurdle to modify a "Baldur's Gate" style game would be beyond me.

 

[tetrasodium]

I have a question, maybe some of you know....Why don't any of these VTT look and operate like say, old school Baldur's Gate? They seem to want to go that direction, with animations and rendered sfx

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "look and operate like old school BG", as @Steel_Wind noted the % of GMs who are also graphic artists or 3d modelers is likely a rather small number & even those who are face a poit of diminishing returns. Just like a chessex mat & dry erase marker showing rough wall locations is good enough so is using whatever your vtt includes & whatever you an find online. Personally I find the assets built into arkenforge are generally more than enough but still have a few things like monster tokens from reddit & such alongside other purchased assets. nine times out of ten I don't even need to make a map & can just use one of the many premade maps like I kid you not "cliche cabin" made by some other user. Alternately I can just find a map of things like the amber temple or any of cze & peku's wonderful maps & just add some light barriers real quick after pinning the image in place. Other times* I'll go all out & make some beautiful natural terrain in flowscape to dress up with assets & light barriers.

* ok once or twice

 

[Dax Doomslayer]

Just so that we are clear - literally everything you have extolled in the FGU Youtube promos you have posted can be done now in Foundry VTT. And it's a LOT cheaper than FGU.

Cost is all relative. The base FG unlimited license does cost more but if you buy that, no one else needs to buy anything (as long as you are the DM). This license also covers the SRD for free. In addition, there are other benefits as FG has better automation (though Foundry is pretty good there in comparison to Roll20 ). Also, Smiteworks has a license with WoTC and can produce WoTC products where Foundry doesn't which may (or may not) lead to issues in the future. Ultimately, I guess it depends on what you value your time and if you are able to create mods. That said, I don't want to get into a VTT war. I know it ends up being like an edition war. I was just passing on information.

 

[Nebulous]

Cost is all relative. The base FG unlimited license does cost more but if you buy that, no one else needs to buy anything (as long as you are the DM). This license also covers the SRD for free. In addition, there are other benefits as FG has better automation (though Foundry is pretty good there in comparison to Roll20 ). Also, Smiteworks has a license with WoTC and can produce WoTC products where Foundry doesn't which may (or may not) lead to issues in the future. Ultimately, I guess it depends on what you value your time and if you are able to create mods. That said, I don't want to get into a VTT war. I know it ends up being like an edition war. I was just passing on information.

It really does become an edition war again and not worth arguing about. What I have noticed is that different people are more acclimated or opposed to a VTT interface. I myself cannot get used to Fantasy Grounds. I bought the son of a gun and messed with it and have Unity but I can't get used to the format. Roll20 I can dig. I also have Foundry but haven't messed with it enough to get a groove. Roll20 does what I need and it looks good, very high definition and I can tell stories as fast if not faster than I did in person.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Another thought I've been having lately: as D&D is largely a game of imagination, I hope all the bells & whistles people are becoming accustomed to expecting from their online VTT do not cause the in-person experience to be a bit of a let down, once the in-person game becomes a much more common thing.

 

[tetrasodium]

Another thought I've been having lately: as D&D is largely a game of imagination, I hope all the bells & whistles people are becoming accustomed to expecting from their online VTT do not cause the in-person experience to be a bit of a let down, once the in-person game becomes a much more common thing.

I've been using a vtt for in person meatspace gaming since before covid was a thing. Arkenforge running locally & being designed to output onto a second screen is a big part of why I originally chose it. Here's a very pre-covid pic one of my players took way back during a mid game pot luck break using a 42(48?)inch tv in a tvbox

Spoiler

 

[Steel_Wind]

Another thought I've been having lately: as D&D is largely a game of imagination, I hope all the bells & whistles people are becoming accustomed to expecting from their online VTT do not cause the in-person experience to be a bit of a let down, once the in-person game becomes a much more common thing.

Yeah, I've gone exclusively VTT for 7 almost 8 years now. I live in a large city where travel time to and from the game is prohibitive. When I switched to VTT - I increased the amount of gaming I could do a month by a factor of 8.

I would never go back. Now, that's just me of course. Most people WILL go back to face to face gaming.

Some, perhaps many won't though. How "many" that "many" proves to be is anybody's guess, but it won't be 100% of those who played face-to-face before Covid, that's for sure. Once you get past the differences, there is a lot to recommend about gaming via VTT.