Virtual Tabletop/ Gameboard

Planned

Comments

130 comments

  • Avatar
    Garrett Moffitt

    3d VTT are  pain in the ass to use, set up, reuses. I don't want to have to do layered CAD in my D&D hobby.
    It's tabletop D&D simulator, not a video game simulator.

    -2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Omair Quraishi

    Funny thing.  When this request was put in, the VTT market was not as robust as it is now.  I've been following this feature request for years now, and promoting it being upvoted.  I've since moved on from Roll20 into Foundry and loving it. 

    Having said that, if WofC changes their ToR and all of a sudden the many hardworking people that have made it possible for me to use my DDB content in Foundry aren't allowed to continue their work and/or WotC decides they want to make life harder for those who have in the absence of a good VTT from DDB (now WofC since acquisition).  Then yes there will be a problem.

    In all this time I've seen bits and pieces of things being made to support a VTT.  But honestly, none of those parts are enough for me to use it.  Encounter Builder used it once or twice then never again, Digital Dice pretty much worthless atm, Rolls in Discord (equally useless).  I've been better off using the Beyond20 addon for Chrome with Roll20 then later Foundry.

    When I upvoted for this feature, the bar was pretty low.  Make something as good as or better than Roll20 (which is garbage imo).  Now the bar is Foundry (which WotC can never reach/meet, they aren't committed enough to do something as solid and cool as Foundry).

    But there is a good chance I'd still pay for a VTT sub from DDB (now WotC) just to have content integrated together easily.

    So yep, still upvoting this request even as I see them falling further and further behind.

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Garrett Moffitt

    I respect you opinions, and I'm not saying you are wrong. Sometimes written word can be read outside it's intent, so I want to state that right away.

    I'm surprised by you dislike of encounter builder. While not perfect, I find it really good and it ahs sped my combats up simply because I can have all my expect encounter ready to go before a game. And I can build unexpected encounters in about a minute.
    I do think it would be great if we could publish encounters as homebrew for the community.


    Digital Dice as a thing with skins that we sell is a big "meh" from me, but the integration of PC details into the encounter is a great aid to me.

    If WotC creates a well integrated VTT, not just integrated with DDB, but integrated with their own adventures in a modular way could be a great aid going forward.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Omair Quraishi

    Hi Garrett, 

    Appreciate your reply and the intent behind it!

    Honestly, Encounter Builder is neat and I'm probably overly harsh towards it, but I guess from a VTT user perspective it's not enough of a value add to me as DM.  I have encounters setup along with a battle map in Foundry (and in the past Roll20) with music and everything.

    My problem/frustration honestly is that as of yet the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts yet.  Each part is neat, but to me largely "whatever".  And their pace of development in this area is clearly way behind say something like Foundry, which has grown by leaps and bounds over just the past 2 years.  But if you compare to Roll20 which has largely just sat there doing nothing they (DBB) seem like blazing pioneers.

    DDB could have had the initiative on this, but squandered it imo.  Even the pace of their current development efforts really is snail pace.  They seem to be able to barely keep up with WotC content releases and that's about it.  Everything else is very slow as compared to the speed the VTT space is moving at.

    At the same time, DDB has the best, bar none, character builder/sheet manager period.  But even that was never designed to work easily in a VTT setting, that's why they are doing a lot of re-engineering behind the scenes think.

    I agree a DDB (WotC) provided VTT that let's me say run "Rime of the Frostmaiden" with pre-made everything and I just start playing with friends that would be great. All characters, monsters, maps, tokens, art, music, and any other assets I want available in one place.  Would be wonderful.  

    What I love about Foundry that I don't think DDB (or WotC) will do is connect my considerable asset library to my games like Foundry does by letting me access my S3 storage on Amazon cloud.  I have over 318GB of art/video/audio assets I use.  Animated and non-animated tokens, maps, music, and various assets I use to build out my games.  

    Anyways, enough of my ranting :P.  Still supporting this dream :)

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Dominic Addenbrooke

    3d VTT are  pain in the ass to use, set up, reuses.

    I personally don't have any issues. I also don't see any issue where 3d is inherently harder than a 2d solution. It's like putting together lego blocks, something I managed as a small child. I don't mean that to be super snarky, I'm just saying "no, really... it's really not that hard"

    I don't agree with the premise that working in 3d is inherently harder than 2d.

    I don't want to have to do layered CAD in my D&D hobby.

    You'll be a bit stuck then, as CAD is what you'll be doing in either case.

    It's tabletop D&D simulator, not a video game simulator.

    A tabletop is notably a 3d environment, one could easily make the argument that anything that is in 2d is not "simulating" a tabletop whatsoever (feel free to prove me wrong and show me these 2d tables). Personally, I wouldn't be nearly so pedantic, we all know what is meant contextually - an online tool to represent the visual and physical part of the game.

    All VTT's are "video games".

    Although my personal preference is for 3d, I can see (and envisage situations) where 2d would be the better option, for instance when the gaming group only has access to very basic hardware between them, or can only use a browser to run it.

    Hence why I prefer a 3rd party provider in this instance, I am not locked into either way of doing things.

    My VTT isn't locked into the one gaming system.

    Assets for the VTT can come from a variety of sources rather than one IP.

    Additionally the development time has to be considered, unless they have something heavily under wraps (they don't) it may be worth considering that Talespire became a thing about 3 years ago and hasn't come out of early access yet. Other VTT's have been around for years and are still in a state of continual ongoing development.

    Would I like a VTT system where I could buy an entire campaign and attached complete asset bundle? Heck yes.

    Does that need to be directly under the umbrella of WotC? Absolutely not and I can see advantage to not being so (I say on the site that until very recently was a 3rd party provider selling WotC content in digital format).

    A campaign pack I can buy for Talespire, or Foundry, or "insert your fav here" with full asset bundles (maps, minis, tiles etc) would be much better.

    I need DNDBeyond to do the things it does:

    Purchase and share digital content with my campaign - Check

    Manage Characters - Semi check as

    I cannot create my own Homebrew classes (and hence add 3rd party stuff)

    I cannot homebrew mundane equipment.

    These (to me) are core functions of DNDBeyond that it does not yet provide.

    I can already create custom NPC mins on HeroForge in 2 mins and have them in my game a minute later

    Knocked up in a minute and in my VTT a minute later, I don't see that sort of functionailty anytime soon.

    The VTT market (as others have mentioned) is an entirely differant ballgame today then it was at the inception of this post.

    This website should serve as example of how it is better to work with a partner (and eventually... buy them) , if I could purchase campaign packs for TaleSpire I would and WotC would get there cut just for sitting on thier hands.

    Support the top VTT solutions, I don't need them to make one. I think they are far to behind the game for that and would do much better to aquire one

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Garrett Moffitt

    "I also don't see any issue where 3d is inherently harder than a 2d solution. "
    It ahs layers and a hole new dimension. 

    "It's like putting together lego blocks, something I managed as a small child."
    Stop being a dick, and it's nothing like Lego. Unless you Lego had a CAD interface?

    "A tabletop is notably a 3d environment,"
    Oh, look a Pedant on the tnternet . The maps are usually 2D. And putting up a 3d wall, for instance, is just taking out a piece and setting is down. All the lighting and layering happens without interface.

    " I wouldn't be nearly so pedantic,"
    You just were.

    "All VTT's are "video games"."
    No, there are video's representation of a map used in a game. That said, you knew what I meant. som I repeat: Stop being a dick.

    "My VTT isn't locked into the one gaming system."
    Cool. Irrelevant, but cool.

    "Assets for the VTT can come from a variety of sources rather than one IP."
    Neat.

    "I cannot create my own Homebrew classes "
    You can, but since you have been a dick I'll let you figure out how. You just can't publish them.

    "I cannot homebrew mundane equipment."
    You can, but since you have been a dick I'll let you figure out how.


    "I can already create custom NPC mins on HeroForge in 2 mins and have them in my game a minute later"
    So? That, like a large percentage of your post, is meaningless to the conversation because it's speculation on that WotC may of may not do on a product they haven't developed.

    Finally, I will leave you with a quote:
    "Don't be a dick" -  Will Wheaton.

    -3
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Mathieu Korning

    Though I would personally love for DDB to include a very basic VTT like AboveVTT or Owlbear (as that's all I need), I think they are likely to go another route. 

    Those of you who say (rightly) the the DDB dev team is too small, doesn't have the depth or resources, or are too far behind to add a VTT are not wrong, but are missing the point. Remember now that DDB is part of WoTC it has the full weight of Hasbro behind it, and there were some very public acknowledgements that D&D is Hasbro's most profitable franchise, and that proportionally it doesn't get the love or the budget it deserves.

    Many folks pay their token DDB subscription for base integration, but the real money is in the VTT subscription model. Roll20 and FG are making a kiling on top of what is essentially Hasbro's intellectual property.

    It would make a lot of sense for Hasbro to get in the game by buying and bolting on an existing VTT and make it the preferential platform. They don't even have to completely cut-out their existing competitors/partners. They own the IP and the rules engine, so it would be very easy for them to do like they did with the SRD and leave some content publicly available to other VTTs and make license restrictions on others. They could for example just use that magic wand and make DarkSun or Planescape exclusive to their platform. Or any other combination of full/limited access that they want. No one - I  mean absolutely no one - is going to challenge Hasbro's lawyers on whatever licensing scheme they desire.



    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Dominic Addenbrooke

    Finally, I will leave you with a quote:
    "Don't be a dick" -  Will Wheaton.

    You may want to consider the possibility that you haven't fully absorbed the meaning of this quote.

    Good day.(Edit: As this clearly wasn't understood either, this was my polite way of walking away, you're rude, aggressive and not tremendously bright

    Exhibit A

    It ahs layers and a hole new dimension.

     

    Just... splendid work...yep, there's definitely an "a hole" here...he keeps ranting at me.)

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    SPE825

    When I upvoted for this feature, the bar was pretty low.  Make something as good as or better than Roll20 (which is garbage imo).  Now the bar is Foundry (which WotC can never reach/meet, they aren't committed enough to do something as solid and cool as Foundry).

    Agreed here. Having seen the recent integration of PF2E with Foundry, it looks very good. I really like the customer/fan integrations with DDB, but I mainly play online for the simple convenience. And I really like what's possible with Foundry. It's going to take more and more for me to not move to PF2E at this point as they are making the right moves for VTT support/integration. And the fact that this ticket/request is SO old is not exactly filling me with confidence. Integrating with Foundry or making a VTT of their own should have been a TOP priority during worst times of the pandemic. But it was not. 

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Garrett Moffitt

    Finally, I will leave you with a quote:
    "Don't be a dick" -  Will Wheaton.

    You may want to consider the possibility that you haven't fully absorbed the meaning of this quote.

    Good day.

    I used specific examples, and you don't?
    LOL. 
    Have a great day.
    And don't bother, we're done.

    -3
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.