So... the VTT policy in 1.2 is a mess, in that 'animations' are not a good dividing line between VTT and video game. Still, I don't see anything inherently wrong with wanting to distinguish, so I thought I'd look at what things might reasonably be considered valid and invalid.
We're going to start by looking at the humble fireball, and asking which of the the following things a VTT should be allowed to do, along with noting whether roll20 can do them (to the best of my knowledge; roll20 can probably do things I'm unaware of).
Roll level-appropriate virtual damage dice (roll20 can do)
Determine whether you're targeting a location that you have line of sight or line of effect on (roll20 can sort of do, it doesn't distinguish the two concepts)
Offer a fireball animation which you can put on the map to emphasize what's going on (roll20 can do)
Offer a fireball static image or template which you can put on the map to use to figure out which creatures are in the area (roll20 can do)
Offer a fireball smart image or template you can put on the map that will figure out which creatures are in range and not behind cover (technically possible with roll20, but a PITA; plenty of video games don't actually bother do this).
Allow you to link casting the spell to the animation, static image, or template.
Automatically generate a list of objects within the area of the template.
Automatically make saves and apply damage (counting resistances, vulnerabilities, evasion, etc) to creatures within the area of the template.
Now, moving beyond that, we get into the realm of triggers. Which of the following seem acceptable:
Automatically computing lighting and line of sight (roll20 can do this)
Making a perception check to determine objects which you can see.
Clickable objects: when a player mouses over or clicks on a particular object, something happens.
Location-based triggers: when a token moves into a particular location, something happens.
Conditional actions: as above, but with a check of some sort (e.g. a trap with a save)
And finally looking at automation:
Implement a turn tracker (roll20 can do this)
Track resource expenditure (hit points, abilities with limited uses or recharge, etc; roll20 can do this)
Track conditions (roll20 can... do this badly)
Fire triggers when a creature's turn starts (e.g. recharge) or ends (saves).
Provide a list of legal actions when a creature's turn comes up.
Suggest an action.
Take an action with no human intervention (I think this one is pretty clearly in the video game realm).
Not taking a stand on where the line should be, but I'm curious about people's take on which of those feel like they're within the spirit of 'VTT' rather than 'Video Game'.
No one has a copyright on the mechanics of games like roulette (played on a roulette table) and graphics can be presented on these games in any way people like. In the same way, the mechanics of D&D aren't patent. All options in relation to their graphical presentation are on the table.
"Video Games" is too broad of a term to be useful in a digital space, if we're trying to distinguish between VTTs and "other".
A "pure" VTT would probably be a board plus tokens. Either could be animated, but there would be no functional linkage. The board wouldn't react to the tokens in terms of lighting, fog of war, etc... The players apply the rules, and determine victory conditions, if applicable. (Macros could be made to make the game to be more intuitive, but shouldn't be inherent to a VTT.)
A "pure" video game then ought to be an interface where the software engages a player and applies a ruleset. (e.g. text based adventures[choices], pong[physics]). This could be extremely simple, and may not resemble a "game" in the traditional sense at all.
Basically, a VTT is digital graphics, and a game is an interactive ruleset. The combination is a Video Game.
A dice roller, as a random number generator, or a "draw a card" function is too universal to be restricted, but anything that is more applied becomes grey area, such as applying a die roll as damage to an HP tracker.
This whole "distinction without a difference" bit might be one of the most naked territory grabs left in WOTC's "revised" OGL after the horrid 1.1: it's literally "okay you're free to make a VTT... so long as we get to define what that constitutes... Oh; and that doesn't apply to OUR VTT..." Nobody should accept this.
So... the VTT policy in 1.2 is a mess, in that 'animations' are not a good dividing line between VTT and video game. Still, I don't see anything inherently wrong with wanting to distinguish, so I thought I'd look at what things might reasonably be considered valid and invalid.
We're going to start by looking at the humble fireball, and asking which of the the following things a VTT should be allowed to do, along with noting whether roll20 can do them (to the best of my knowledge; roll20 can probably do things I'm unaware of).
Now, moving beyond that, we get into the realm of triggers. Which of the following seem acceptable:
And finally looking at automation:
Not taking a stand on where the line should be, but I'm curious about people's take on which of those feel like they're within the spirit of 'VTT' rather than 'Video Game'.
Why a new thread, rather than adding this to the existing current thread at https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/162425-all-vtts-as-acceptably-fitting-into-definitions-of
No one has a copyright on the mechanics of games like roulette (played on a roulette table) and graphics can be presented on these games in any way people like. In the same way, the mechanics of D&D aren't patent. All options in relation to their graphical presentation are on the table.
"Video Games" is too broad of a term to be useful in a digital space, if we're trying to distinguish between VTTs and "other".
A "pure" VTT would probably be a board plus tokens. Either could be animated, but there would be no functional linkage. The board wouldn't react to the tokens in terms of lighting, fog of war, etc... The players apply the rules, and determine victory conditions, if applicable. (Macros could be made to make the game to be more intuitive, but shouldn't be inherent to a VTT.)
A "pure" video game then ought to be an interface where the software engages a player and applies a ruleset. (e.g. text based adventures[choices], pong[physics]). This could be extremely simple, and may not resemble a "game" in the traditional sense at all.
Basically, a VTT is digital graphics, and a game is an interactive ruleset. The combination is a Video Game.
A dice roller, as a random number generator, or a "draw a card" function is too universal to be restricted, but anything that is more applied becomes grey area, such as applying a die roll as damage to an HP tracker.
This whole "distinction without a difference" bit might be one of the most naked territory grabs left in WOTC's "revised" OGL after the horrid 1.1: it's literally "okay you're free to make a VTT... so long as we get to define what that constitutes... Oh; and that doesn't apply to OUR VTT..." Nobody should accept this.
Going back to early forms of virtual tabletop, what if I wanted to continue playing a card game like bridge on one?