During the heat of covid 19 VTTs soared because everyone was at home and had a lot of free time, but now that more and more people are leaving their homes and playing in person VTTs are, or have declined in numbers. WOTCs new VTT will have a lot of players but for something less than half of the community wants its a big HUGE waste of money.
basically they started it when VTTs were soaring but now VTTs are NOT soaring.
Firstly, I’d love to see actual numbers backing up your assertion that less than half the community wants it. I mean, I don’t, but I don’t presume I know what the millions of others gamers want.
Second, it’s not an either/or. You can play, in person, with the VTT. Maybe people like the immersive experience of the 3d models, but don’t have the money or storage space to accommodate dwarven forge. People right now play in person with some kind of device in front of them to use dndbeyond, it’s not a big leap to have an integrated VTT added to the experience.
At the time of this post 65% do not plan to use it.
I feel certain this will be dismissed for many valid reasons from limited scope to not a real representation of the community as a whole. I agree it is not scientific at all, but it is actual numbers that do back up his assertions from active members of this forum.
What a nifty rhetorical trick. Use a piece of data to support your position, while simultaneously acknowledging that it’s meaningless data.
And that poll is about 1D&D, not the VTT. And, right now, it says 53 people won’t switch to 1D&D. Do you really think anyone can make any kinds of conclusions based on the intentions of 53 people?
During the heat of covid 19 VTTs soared because everyone was at home and had a lot of free time, but now that more and more people are leaving their homes and playing in person VTTs are, or have declined in numbers. WOTCs new VTT will have a lot of players but for something less than half of the community wants its a big HUGE waste of money.
basically they started it when VTTs were soaring but now VTTs are NOT soaring.
Firstly, I’d love to see actual numbers backing up your assertion that less than half the community wants it. I mean, I don’t, but I don’t presume I know what the millions of others gamers want.
Second, it’s not an either/or. You can play, in person, with the VTT. Maybe people like the immersive experience of the 3d models, but don’t have the money or storage space to accommodate dwarven forge. People right now play in person with some kind of device in front of them to use dndbeyond, it’s not a big leap to have an integrated VTT added to the experience.
At the time of this post 65% do not plan to use it.
I feel certain this will be dismissed for many valid reasons from limited scope to not a real representation of the community as a whole. I agree it is not scientific at all, but it is actual numbers that do back up his assertions from active members of this forum.
They were talking about the VTT, the thread is about 1D&D, I'm not sure how you're relating the one to the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
the real problem with representation is that not that many DnD palyers have time to play test all the different stuff. and how will they know if its DMs or Players that like a feature? players might love getting a 1st level feat right off the bat but DMs might hate it, and there will always be more palyers than DMs.
This assumes an adversarial relationship between players and DMs. Outside of some 1e tournament-style modules, this kind of mind set goes against the general expectations of how the game is played. I hesitate to say there’s an incorrect way to play, but this really comes close.
The way they know is through the polling they are doing, which is getting 10’s of thousands of responses. In addition you can be sure they are doing other market research. Wizards and hasbro are big companies. They don’t green light something like the investment into building a VTT without a mountain of data saying they have a reasonable expectation of turning a profit. If they actually will remains to be seen, but I can promise you they didn’t go into this based on someone’s gut feeling that it’s a good idea.
the real problem with representation is that not that many DnD palyers have time to play test all the different stuff. and how will they know if its DMs or Players that like a feature? players might love getting a 1st level feat right off the bat but DMs might hate it, and there will always be more palyers than DMs.
This assumes an adversarial relationship between players and DMs. Outside of some 1e tournament-style modules, this kind of mind set goes against the general expectations of how the game is played. I hesitate to say there’s an incorrect way to play, but this really comes close.
The way they know is through the polling they are doing, which is getting 10’s of thousands of responses. In addition you can be sure they are doing other market research. Wizards and hasbro are big companies. They don’t green light something like the investment into building a VTT without a mountain of data saying they have a reasonable expectation of turning a profit. If they actually will remains to be seen, but I can promise you they didn’t go into this based on someone’s gut feeling that it’s a good idea.
first of all i never said it was on a gut feeling. and im not saying their not gonna make a profit. AND i never said players and DMs have a hostile relationship. the the edition we are in currently is a fair bit harder for DMs, players spend maybe 2 hours making a character and they expect the DM to be good at everything, voices, prep, havinng books, planning, etc. especially new players who started DnD because of critical role and/or Stranger Things, imagine your players came to the table expecting a mathew mercer level DM.
When you say players might like a thing, and DMs don’t, that assumes 1, the DM is not a player, and 2, they have a competing interest. If you doubt the value of the play testing, then what else do you think they’re going on. You speculated without evidence that less than half of the players want a VTT and that it would be a “huge waste of money.” If one turns a profit, the money was not wasted, it was invested. If you think this edition is hard for DMs, well, what you’re really saying is you’ve never DM’d a different edition. Finally, player expectations have nothing to do with the VTT.
The information i rely on is from You Tubers ( Bob World Builder, The DM lair Dungeon Master piece etc ) and dont just say "youtubers are not reliable" just because you dont like them. And if they really arent reliable show me proof.
YouTube personalities are rather unlikely to have internal evidence of Wizard's plans for monetization (frankly, Wizards probably hasn't decided, which makes it impossible to know). Some of them do have access to some information that we don't, such as having attended the creator summit, but there's been enough revealed about that debacle that it's not a lot.
In general I am going to assume that YT personalities are working off of publicly available information unless they can give solid evidence that they aren't, and there simply isn't sufficient publicly available information to make firm conclusions.
What BoringBard said, yeah. And frankly, I don't know what "most people don't want to play on a VTT" is even based on. While I know that my personal experiences are not reflective of the whole world, I'll say this; almost every single DnD game I have ever played has been online, either via Roll20 or even just pure Discord without maps. Why? Because my friends and I are all on different corners of the Earth, or in different towns. It's been the case for nearly my entire life; people I know who share the hobby are generally not where I live. This was the case when I lived/ grew up in India, and remains the case here in the USA's Midwest. The few times I've managed to get into a real, face-face, on-the-table session have been REALLY small scale one shots... which became better when we decided to bust out our comps, fire up Talespire and hold the sessions there while chilling IRL.
Long way of saying; everyone I've ever played with has been just fine (and eager) doing so over VTT's, so while I'm sure there's plenty out there who prefer a more in-person approach... I do not know how we're quantifying this as "most people".
Since the game is older than in home internet should not require a huge leap of logic to consider many current players have likely played more games with only pencil and paper than you have played online or otherwise combined.
True. However, the poster you are responding to was talking about a comment that said "Most people don't want to play on a VTT". It was a statement about the intent of millions of D&D players and what they want in future, not one about what has been played most in the past.
This at least a respectable position, but I would still like to point out the following:
1. If Wizards of the Coast makes money from the Virtual Tabletop, then some of that money will likely be spent on making better books and avoiding repeats of Spelljammer. If the VTT makes more money than a temporary increase in the quality of the books, then there may even be more money for books and quality improvements in the future overall because of this.
2. Growing the game and community is an honorable goal too. The VTT could be another great option for people to more easily have a fun time playing D&D.
3. Wizards doesn't have to spend all their money on book quality though. They are a for-profit corporation and they do have to make money to pay their employees and shareholders and stay in business.
4. You may be right and I may be wrong. However, I think that the Wizards building a VTT won't necessarily lead to extreme costs and absurd monetization.Just because this was the case in other industries and with games doesn't mean it will be the case here.
The information i rely on is from You Tubers ( Bob World Builder, The DM lair Dungeon Master piece etc ) and dont just say "youtubers are not reliable" just because you dont like them. And if they really arent reliable show me proof.
As others have said, most YouTubers are offering their opinion and nothing less. Additionally, more clicks = More money, so these people are incentivized to voice views that aren't always logical but get lots of attention or agreement from a certain type of user.
i mean that if youtubers are bad because they just want money why wouldnt WOTC be? i was mainly replying to this: As others have said, most YouTubers are offering their opinion and nothing less. Additionally, more clicks = More money, so these people are incentivized to voice views that aren't always logical but get lots of attention or agreement from a certain type of user. - boring bard. also we should stop qouting all the qoutes above so the messages are not too long.
I never said YouTubers were bad because they wanted money. All I said was the fact that money was tied to more views and clicks means that they are encouraged to voice views that aren't necessarily sensical but get a strong reaction out of people. This means that you have to be a bit more careful when trusting what most Youtubers say, not that those content creators are automatically bad.
PS. I would appreciate it if you could clarify more about your point and what you're responding to the first time you say it. I don't mean this to be offensive, but your first reply was just kind of confusing to me until the follow up. Also, it would be nice if you could use quotation marks when quoting people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
i mean that if youtubers are bad because they just want money why wouldnt WOTC be?
Wanting money is not bad, it's just important to recognize. The point is not that Wizards should be trusted, it's certainly possible that they'll do something bad. The point is that YouTubers aren't evidence for it.
WOTC have seen how microtransactions have made a fortune for some mobile game companies, and they think they can milk the D&D community for as much as they can in order to keep their shareholders happy.
Honestly: Discord + VTT of choice. I don't want sfx/vfx integrated chat/voice/video because Discord works for a variety of my other nerd activities.
I want as close to a Table Top RPG experience as I can - aquaintances (later "friends" (maybe) sat round with beverage of choice pretending to be Pixies, Elves, Dwarves and Gnomes etc. etc. - in whatever social group's most comfortable for them. If I want LGBTQ+ or any flavour of it - that's out there too, but I want TTRPG.
So, I've set my VTT of choice up to emulate that virtually already with a few bells/whistles, but not that much - as I find too much detracts from the actual TTRPG experience.
What a nifty rhetorical trick. Use a piece of data to support your position, while simultaneously acknowledging that it’s meaningless data.
And that poll is about 1D&D, not the VTT. And, right now, it says 53 people won’t switch to 1D&D. Do you really think anyone can make any kinds of conclusions based on the intentions of 53 people?
They were talking about the VTT, the thread is about 1D&D, I'm not sure how you're relating the one to the other.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This assumes an adversarial relationship between players and DMs. Outside of some 1e tournament-style modules, this kind of mind set goes against the general expectations of how the game is played. I hesitate to say there’s an incorrect way to play, but this really comes close.
The way they know is through the polling they are doing, which is getting 10’s of thousands of responses. In addition you can be sure they are doing other market research. Wizards and hasbro are big companies. They don’t green light something like the investment into building a VTT without a mountain of data saying they have a reasonable expectation of turning a profit. If they actually will remains to be seen, but I can promise you they didn’t go into this based on someone’s gut feeling that it’s a good idea.
When you say players might like a thing, and DMs don’t, that assumes 1, the DM is not a player, and 2, they have a competing interest.
If you doubt the value of the play testing, then what else do you think they’re going on.
You speculated without evidence that less than half of the players want a VTT and that it would be a “huge waste of money.” If one turns a profit, the money was not wasted, it was invested.
If you think this edition is hard for DMs, well, what you’re really saying is you’ve never DM’d a different edition.
Finally, player expectations have nothing to do with the VTT.
YouTube personalities are rather unlikely to have internal evidence of Wizard's plans for monetization (frankly, Wizards probably hasn't decided, which makes it impossible to know). Some of them do have access to some information that we don't, such as having attended the creator summit, but there's been enough revealed about that debacle that it's not a lot.
In general I am going to assume that YT personalities are working off of publicly available information unless they can give solid evidence that they aren't, and there simply isn't sufficient publicly available information to make firm conclusions.
True. However, the poster you are responding to was talking about a comment that said "Most people don't want to play on a VTT". It was a statement about the intent of millions of D&D players and what they want in future, not one about what has been played most in the past.
This at least a respectable position, but I would still like to point out the following:
1. If Wizards of the Coast makes money from the Virtual Tabletop, then some of that money will likely be spent on making better books and avoiding repeats of Spelljammer. If the VTT makes more money than a temporary increase in the quality of the books, then there may even be more money for books and quality improvements in the future overall because of this.
2. Growing the game and community is an honorable goal too. The VTT could be another great option for people to more easily have a fun time playing D&D.
3. Wizards doesn't have to spend all their money on book quality though. They are a for-profit corporation and they do have to make money to pay their employees and shareholders and stay in business.
4. You may be right and I may be wrong. However, I think that the Wizards building a VTT won't necessarily lead to extreme costs and absurd monetization.Just because this was the case in other industries and with games doesn't mean it will be the case here.
As others have said, most YouTubers are offering their opinion and nothing less. Additionally, more clicks = More money, so these people are incentivized to voice views that aren't always logical but get lots of attention or agreement from a certain type of user.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I never said YouTubers were bad because they wanted money. All I said was the fact that money was tied to more views and clicks means that they are encouraged to voice views that aren't necessarily sensical but get a strong reaction out of people. This means that you have to be a bit more careful when trusting what most Youtubers say, not that those content creators are automatically bad.
PS. I would appreciate it if you could clarify more about your point and what you're responding to the first time you say it. I don't mean this to be offensive, but your first reply was just kind of confusing to me until the follow up. Also, it would be nice if you could use quotation marks when quoting people.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Wanting money is not bad, it's just important to recognize. The point is not that Wizards should be trusted, it's certainly possible that they'll do something bad. The point is that YouTubers aren't evidence for it.
WOTC have seen how microtransactions have made a fortune for some mobile game companies, and they think they can milk the D&D community for as much as they can in order to keep their shareholders happy.
Honestly: Discord + VTT of choice. I don't want sfx/vfx integrated chat/voice/video because Discord works for a variety of my other nerd activities.
I want as close to a Table Top RPG experience as I can - aquaintances (later "friends" (maybe) sat round with beverage of choice pretending to be Pixies, Elves, Dwarves and Gnomes etc. etc. - in whatever social group's most comfortable for them. If I want LGBTQ+ or any flavour of it - that's out there too, but I want TTRPG.
So, I've set my VTT of choice up to emulate that virtually already with a few bells/whistles, but not that much - as I find too much detracts from the actual TTRPG experience.
https://wulfgold.substack.com
Blog - nerd stuff
https://deepdreamgenerator.com/u/wulfgold
A.I. art - also nerd stuff - a gallery of NPC portraits - help yourself.