Cool, sounds like DDB isn't for you then. That's fine, not every tool is useful for every person.
Adding a VTT component to DDB would be a terrible idea; one that could easily cause the collapse of the site should it not pan out. At best, there will be integration points into existing VTTs.
Yes, I can see how making the tool more useful to a wider user base would definitely collapse the site. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It would be an extremely useful tool to me with a VTT. Roll20 is good but if you're not someone with strong computer skills, it's a bit tough. My players struggle to make useful macros for their PCs and keep them up to date. And the pricing at Roll20 is pretty high (probably because they have to give WotC the same revenue for products that they get here...the MM for instance is $50 at Roll20 and $20 here). If DDB had a usable VTT that integrated with the compendium and player character sheets and campaigns, I'd have subscribed by now and bought the DMG, PHB, MM and TftYP.. I'm thinking whether or not users plop down $100+ and sign up for a subscription is a strong determining factor for whether or not the site collapses. Everything remains the same for you and your group. My group gets a VTT. I pay DDB $100...probably $150 with a year long master subscription. How is this a bad thing for the site and the user base?
Integration with existing VTTs seems unlikely. DDB is going to let you import the MM that you bought for $20 to Roll20 where it is $50 and Roll20 is just going to be fine with that (and probably have to pay for implementing the client side to interface with DDB)? It would be far better for everyone (except existing VTT providers) to have a VTT built specifically for DDB products and for D&D 5e specifically.
Every time I see a VTT thread there is always uninformed comments because people think a VTT won't be part of D&D Beyond. A native VTT was actually on the feature support survey. It was just a low priority compared to an offline capable mobile app. The best solution in my opinion has already been announced by the forum moderators.
Forum Moderators have already said that a D&D Beyond API is planned. (Application Programming Interface) The features the API will support has not been officially announced. I'm hoping that any VTT can use the API and it offers features that are seen in the Twitch integration video. Hopefully new features are added over time. It would be better if D&D Beyond offered an API for any VTT because this would encourage VTT innovation. Some VTTs have a fog of war system and others don't. One VTT in development offers 3D tiled maps, a map creator tool, and virtual dice. A VTT should be considered a DM campaign management tool for D&D Beyond.
The API is already a planned feature. It just hasn't been officially announced yet. Maybe if more people who use VTTs requested the API support it would become a higher priority and it would be officially announced. If your VTT community has a forum make a thread asking about D&D Beyond APi support to the VTT developers. It's probably likely that WotC partners that have VTTs like Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds already know about an API but are waiting for an official announcement.
Getting a VTT out in a reasonable amount of time (say, around 2 years) when developing from scratch and with a feature-set competitive with the existing VTTs on the landscape would cost millions of dollars (primarily for the amount of staff resources needed to create the thing in that time span). This isn't an endeavor you embark on because of a whim. If the survey they sent out had the majority of participants saying they wanted a VTT, then I'm sure Curse would look at what sort of resources it would actually take and start planning it out. If it came across as a low priority thing, it likely isn't worth the investment, as the chances they'll make their money back in a reasonable amount of time is probably slim.
In order to have a wider appeal, the VTT would need to focus on more than just D&D. Sure, it can make D&D the best it can be, but if you want to draw people away from Fantasy Grounds or Roll20 or D20Pro, you need to support other game systems on at least a basic level. Exactly what level of support is needed, I have no idea, but market research (an additional expense) would be able to show that.
I liken a D&D-specific VTT to Paizo's attempt at making their own VTT for Pathfinder. It didn't even get finished and likely never will get finished. There are a number of differences between Curse and Paizo (the former is actually a software company, for one), but I have a strong feeling that many of the reasons I outlined above were also considerations for Paizo pulling the plug on that project.
So, in short, I don't see a VTT ever becoming a part of D&D Beyond. Integrating with existing VTTs, sure, but not a brand new one.
So, in short, I don't see a VTT ever becoming a part of D&D Beyond. Integrating with existing VTTs, sure, but not a brand new one.
I agree. I think the best thing for everybody is if D&D Beyond provides a robust API to support existing and future VTTs. Personally I don't want to play on a 2D map with /roll, but I do want to play with my friends and family online. I'm waiting for Tale Spire to be released at the end of the year and I hope D&D Beyond supports such an innovative VTT.
Also, responding to the OP original post.. Even in the gamer era we are in now, hand drawn or printed physical maps are still viable... just take more effort...
Also, responding to the OP original post.. Even in the gamer era we are in now, hand drawn or printed physical maps are still viable... just take more effort...
Actually, I find that I end up putting a lot more effort into digital maps when I use them than I do into the hand-drawn ones I use on my vinyl battle mat.
In some ways, the two different formats are equal; searching my collection of poster maps and map tiles for something suitable is that same as searching around the internet for something pre-made. But when it comes to having nothing that fits well enough so I'll need to make it for myself, I spend no more than 10 minutes sketching it out on the vinyl mat (because the medium requires me not to take too long, since I am spending valuable session time to be drawing at all), but I would spend hours making each map "perfect" if I were planning on displaying them digitally (because I can spend my free time throughout the week doodling away on the computer, rather than loosing session time to aesthetics).
But maybe that's just me, and other people don't mind using digital maps that are basically the same style and quality as vinyl mat or graph paper sketches.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cool, sounds like DDB isn't for you then. That's fine, not every tool is useful for every person.
Adding a VTT component to DDB would be a terrible idea; one that could easily cause the collapse of the site should it not pan out. At best, there will be integration points into existing VTTs.
Beyond isn't for everyone :D
Yes, I can see how making the tool more useful to a wider user base would definitely collapse the site. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It would be an extremely useful tool to me with a VTT. Roll20 is good but if you're not someone with strong computer skills, it's a bit tough. My players struggle to make useful macros for their PCs and keep them up to date. And the pricing at Roll20 is pretty high (probably because they have to give WotC the same revenue for products that they get here...the MM for instance is $50 at Roll20 and $20 here). If DDB had a usable VTT that integrated with the compendium and player character sheets and campaigns, I'd have subscribed by now and bought the DMG, PHB, MM and TftYP.. I'm thinking whether or not users plop down $100+ and sign up for a subscription is a strong determining factor for whether or not the site collapses. Everything remains the same for you and your group. My group gets a VTT. I pay DDB $100...probably $150 with a year long master subscription. How is this a bad thing for the site and the user base?
Integration with existing VTTs seems unlikely. DDB is going to let you import the MM that you bought for $20 to Roll20 where it is $50 and Roll20 is just going to be fine with that (and probably have to pay for implementing the client side to interface with DDB)? It would be far better for everyone (except existing VTT providers) to have a VTT built specifically for DDB products and for D&D 5e specifically.
Every time I see a VTT thread there is always uninformed comments because people think a VTT won't be part of D&D Beyond. A native VTT was actually on the feature support survey. It was just a low priority compared to an offline capable mobile app. The best solution in my opinion has already been announced by the forum moderators.
Forum Moderators have already said that a D&D Beyond API is planned. (Application Programming Interface) The features the API will support has not been officially announced. I'm hoping that any VTT can use the API and it offers features that are seen in the Twitch integration video. Hopefully new features are added over time. It would be better if D&D Beyond offered an API for any VTT because this would encourage VTT innovation. Some VTTs have a fog of war system and others don't. One VTT in development offers 3D tiled maps, a map creator tool, and virtual dice. A VTT should be considered a DM campaign management tool for D&D Beyond.
http://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/5849-how-does-ddb-compare-with-roll20?comment=6
The API is already a planned feature. It just hasn't been officially announced yet. Maybe if more people who use VTTs requested the API support it would become a higher priority and it would be officially announced. If your VTT community has a forum make a thread asking about D&D Beyond APi support to the VTT developers. It's probably likely that WotC partners that have VTTs like Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds already know about an API but are waiting for an official announcement.
Getting a VTT out in a reasonable amount of time (say, around 2 years) when developing from scratch and with a feature-set competitive with the existing VTTs on the landscape would cost millions of dollars (primarily for the amount of staff resources needed to create the thing in that time span). This isn't an endeavor you embark on because of a whim. If the survey they sent out had the majority of participants saying they wanted a VTT, then I'm sure Curse would look at what sort of resources it would actually take and start planning it out. If it came across as a low priority thing, it likely isn't worth the investment, as the chances they'll make their money back in a reasonable amount of time is probably slim.
In order to have a wider appeal, the VTT would need to focus on more than just D&D. Sure, it can make D&D the best it can be, but if you want to draw people away from Fantasy Grounds or Roll20 or D20Pro, you need to support other game systems on at least a basic level. Exactly what level of support is needed, I have no idea, but market research (an additional expense) would be able to show that.
I liken a D&D-specific VTT to Paizo's attempt at making their own VTT for Pathfinder. It didn't even get finished and likely never will get finished. There are a number of differences between Curse and Paizo (the former is actually a software company, for one), but I have a strong feeling that many of the reasons I outlined above were also considerations for Paizo pulling the plug on that project.
So, in short, I don't see a VTT ever becoming a part of D&D Beyond. Integrating with existing VTTs, sure, but not a brand new one.
Also, responding to the OP original post.. Even in the gamer era we are in now, hand drawn or printed physical maps are still viable... just take more effort...