I filled up the OGL 1.2 survey with this request : "Wizards of the Coast VTT Policy : I wish you could realise that you don't have players because D&D exists, but D&D exists because you have players. As a player, and as a game master, I want the best when I am playing. I want my usual VTT tool to be able to make sounds, music, visual effect. If you want us to play your own VTT tool, make it beautiful, make it fun, make it so good that we will all use it, but please, don't use poor decisions like preventing already successful tools to be able to use such immersive content, because it will only be pitiful and if I can't play D&D fairly, there are a lot of other games out there that would be as entertaining as D&D."
I think it's been best pointed out that they are trying to get a line drawn between video games and VTT. As new as VTT is, relatively speaking, and as fast as it's evolving, they are, kind of like the original OGL leaked doc, hitting a fly with a wrecking ball. There are a few lines in it that are asking for feedback and I think it's really important for the community and makers, to speak up and help WotC find and establish that line between VTT and video game.
Put in your feedback and be detailed. Little animations for spell effects and such (breath weapons or even ranged attacks could have little projectiles fly) shouldn't be a big deal. ONE animation per spell, it isn't like you would or need to have 50 different fireball explosions isn't a big deal. They can provision things like that AND allow some customization, ie: color or tint of spell effects can be altered by character to help customize the experience, so your Wizard who wants to throw green fireballs can do so.
Wizards needs to refine this section for sure and I think defining a lot of things that would be allowed, with limits on how fancy it gets, is reasonable. Hell, they could create a truckload of their own to sell as kits for VTT users, like buying sourcebooks already. I agree it needs a lot of work but I also think it's a pretty big task to undertake and they aren't looking forward to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
WOTC have only put out a separate "policy" relating to VTTs. There is no version numbering involved in this "policy", and it is entirely likely that they will change "policy" if/when WOTC publish their own 3D VTT.
A core problem is that they don't seem to know how VTTs work. The reality is that a VTT is, first and foremost, a tabletop simulator. It's not likely to have the SRD in its core functionality, and might not have the SRD at all (just push all the mechanics stuff into an external program). If it does include the SRD, it's going to be an importable blob of data and scripting, which is not guaranteed to even have the same publisher as the VTT. This means the publishers of the blob module has no way of limiting what a VTT can do with that blob, and even if it happens to be compliant at the the time of writing, it might become noncompliant, either because of changes to the core engine or because someone wrote a new importable blob.
I don't disagree with you on any of the rest of what you posted but VTTs aren't new, even relatively speaking. Roll20 started eleven years ago, in 2012, and before that there were chat programs with shared whiteboards and rng commands that were the forerunners of VTTs. People have been working on VTTs, and things that were the same idea but more rudimentary, basically since the internet became a common household service.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have a unique relationship with Lady Luck. She smiles on me often. Usually with derision. -- https://linktr.ee/aurhia
Why let you have something for free when they can prevent you from using it until you pay? It's all the rage in MMO's - and WOTC wants that sweet MMO Microtransaciton money.
You will pay for every animation - and be happy when they bundle them and offer them as a package for $60. People will say "Wow, what a bargain. I can either pay $1.99 per spell or $60 for all the base game spells. They I can get excited when a new book comes out again - and I get to PAY AGAIN. "
Man, that sounds like a good time to me - how about you guys? I mean, I want WOTC and Hasboro executives to make seven figures, right? They deserve it.
Now, now - I know what you are thinking - Foundry and Roll 20 won't make you pay for animations. But - they won't be D&D animations. Their Magic Missile animation won't be an authorized D&D Magic Missile animation even if it probably will look better - it won't have that sweet D&D clunkiness and seal of approval. You will be happy to pay for something other games get for free - trust me.
In reddit thousands and thousands of DnD players are waiting for Wizards to remove the VTT animation lines. The alternativ (ORC, Kobold Press, Paizo) are OUT there, fully integranted and animated in Foundry
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I filled up the OGL 1.2 survey with this request : "Wizards of the Coast VTT Policy : I wish you could realise that you don't have players because D&D exists, but D&D exists because you have players. As a player, and as a game master, I want the best when I am playing. I want my usual VTT tool to be able to make sounds, music, visual effect. If you want us to play your own VTT tool, make it beautiful, make it fun, make it so good that we will all use it, but please, don't use poor decisions like preventing already successful tools to be able to use such immersive content, because it will only be pitiful and if I can't play D&D fairly, there are a lot of other games out there that would be as entertaining as D&D."
I think it's been best pointed out that they are trying to get a line drawn between video games and VTT. As new as VTT is, relatively speaking, and as fast as it's evolving, they are, kind of like the original OGL leaked doc, hitting a fly with a wrecking ball. There are a few lines in it that are asking for feedback and I think it's really important for the community and makers, to speak up and help WotC find and establish that line between VTT and video game.
Put in your feedback and be detailed. Little animations for spell effects and such (breath weapons or even ranged attacks could have little projectiles fly) shouldn't be a big deal. ONE animation per spell, it isn't like you would or need to have 50 different fireball explosions isn't a big deal. They can provision things like that AND allow some customization, ie: color or tint of spell effects can be altered by character to help customize the experience, so your Wizard who wants to throw green fireballs can do so.
Wizards needs to refine this section for sure and I think defining a lot of things that would be allowed, with limits on how fancy it gets, is reasonable. Hell, they could create a truckload of their own to sell as kits for VTT users, like buying sourcebooks already. I agree it needs a lot of work but I also think it's a pretty big task to undertake and they aren't looking forward to it.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
WOTC have only put out a separate "policy" relating to VTTs. There is no version numbering involved in this "policy", and it is entirely likely that they will change "policy" if/when WOTC publish their own 3D VTT.
A core problem is that they don't seem to know how VTTs work. The reality is that a VTT is, first and foremost, a tabletop simulator. It's not likely to have the SRD in its core functionality, and might not have the SRD at all (just push all the mechanics stuff into an external program). If it does include the SRD, it's going to be an importable blob of data and scripting, which is not guaranteed to even have the same publisher as the VTT. This means the publishers of the blob module has no way of limiting what a VTT can do with that blob, and even if it happens to be compliant at the the time of writing, it might become noncompliant, either because of changes to the core engine or because someone wrote a new importable blob.
Then all VTT players will play ORC games in their full animated VTTs. :-)
I don't disagree with you on any of the rest of what you posted but VTTs aren't new, even relatively speaking. Roll20 started eleven years ago, in 2012, and before that there were chat programs with shared whiteboards and rng commands that were the forerunners of VTTs. People have been working on VTTs, and things that were the same idea but more rudimentary, basically since the internet became a common household service.
I have a unique relationship with Lady Luck. She smiles on me often. Usually with derision.
--
https://linktr.ee/aurhia
One Word - Microtransactions
Why let you have something for free when they can prevent you from using it until you pay? It's all the rage in MMO's - and WOTC wants that sweet MMO Microtransaciton money.
You will pay for every animation - and be happy when they bundle them and offer them as a package for $60. People will say "Wow, what a bargain. I can either pay $1.99 per spell or $60 for all the base game spells. They I can get excited when a new book comes out again - and I get to PAY AGAIN. "
Man, that sounds like a good time to me - how about you guys? I mean, I want WOTC and Hasboro executives to make seven figures, right? They deserve it.
Now, now - I know what you are thinking - Foundry and Roll 20 won't make you pay for animations. But - they won't be D&D animations. Their Magic Missile animation won't be an authorized D&D Magic Missile animation even if it probably will look better - it won't have that sweet D&D clunkiness and seal of approval. You will be happy to pay for something other games get for free - trust me.
In reddit thousands and thousands of DnD players are waiting for Wizards to remove the VTT animation lines. The alternativ (ORC, Kobold Press, Paizo) are OUT there, fully integranted and animated in Foundry