Agreed. There's plenty of money being spent on non-Wotc products, they just need to catch up on.
If the money is there I'm not afraid of saying I'll get the 3D vtt. And if anyone from Wotc is reading this, I'd be more than happy to play test the vtt.
One expectation I have is that we will see the new 5th edition books or supplements support skirmishes with the Bastion rules. This will funnel into the VTT and since we already suspect the painting of miniatures, I would also expect rules with multiple minis on the vtt at once, costing the user more money (I'd be happy to buy, the wife's Xmas gift will have to wait). This is something WH should have done years ago, and not to say any skirmish rules from Wotc could replace WH battles, it would be fun to see in 3D while playing with friends across the pond.
The more I think about it the more likely it seems that the Unreal VTT will be connected to One D&D, not to 5e. The Maps feature will likely provide an option for 5e players as well as One D&D since it is going to be feature light.
I wonder how much of the One D&D changes are getting created with a view towards the ability to implement them in an advanced VTT. This was a part of the process when 4e was created, and should probably provide the foundation for the VTT, instead of being based upon 5e.
The more I think about it the more likely it seems that the Unreal VTT will be connected to One D&D, not to 5e. The Maps feature will likely provide an option for 5e players as well as One D&D since it is going to be feature light.
I wonder how much of the One D&D changes are getting created with a view towards the ability to implement them in an advanced VTT. This was a part of the process when 4e was created, and should probably provide the foundation for the VTT, instead of being based upon 5e.
One D&D is essentially 5.3 or so (calling XGtE 5.1 and TCoE 5.2), it is not revolutionary. It is no more 'designed' for VTT play than 5e.
As for 4e, while certainly WotC was interested in digital play, it was not designed as a computer game (or if it was, its designer didn't understand computers); its mechanics (like any RPG) would be a huge PITA to implement in a video game. It was basically designed as a tactical miniatures wargame. That's compatible with a VTT, but that's because any boardgame is compatible with a VTT; it was not significantly more compatible than 5e.
The coolest thing would be if you could join a session through the VTT or the Virtual Maps feature and still play in the same game. Mix and match clients so that some could get the whole animated VTT experience with a GPU and others would just see the simplified 2D top-down map view. If those synchronize at all it would be amazing.
Oh yes! This would be sweeeet. But I suspect not feasible. Who knows though?
The coolest thing would be if you could join a session through the VTT or the Virtual Maps feature and still play in the same game. Mix and match clients so that some could get the whole animated VTT experience with a GPU and others would just see the simplified 2D top-down map view. If those synchronize at all it would be amazing.
Oh yes! This would be sweeeet. But I suspect not feasible. Who knows though?
It could easily be feasible. If Maps and the VTT are using the same systems to talk to the server, then they could easily be able to be mixed and matched.
And if you think about it, it makes sense that they would, because why create two separate subsystems to support the same kind of thing?
Assuming it's not just a testbed to get the server-side parts debugged, I'd expect Maps to end up being the cheap player/slow computer/phone side of the VTT.
I could be wrong, of course; this is just speculation.
The coolest thing would be if you could join a session through the VTT or the Virtual Maps feature and still play in the same game. Mix and match clients so that some could get the whole animated VTT experience with a GPU and others would just see the simplified 2D top-down map view. If those synchronize at all it would be amazing.
Oh yes! This would be sweeeet. But I suspect not feasible. Who knows though?
It could easily be feasible. If Maps and the VTT are using the same systems to talk to the server, then they could easily be able to be mixed and matched.
And if you think about it, it makes sense that they would, because why create two separate subsystems to support the same kind of thing?
Assuming it's not just a testbed to get the server-side parts debugged, I'd expect Maps to end up being the cheap player/slow computer/phone side of the VTT.
I could be wrong, of course; this is just speculation.
You can code anything if you have an endless bucket of money. This idea is feasible but costly to develop.
You are talking about two codebases sharing some API-style bridge that allows them to speak to each other in real-time and update multiple clients (every player and the DM) simultaneously.
That will require a squadron of developers, product managers, and producers to keep them on the same page. When one side updates, the other must test its codebase to ensure nothing is broken. Then they have to fix it emergency style while the customer community freaks out and calls for a refund for the lost time.
The odds that something of that scale will get funded are prohibitive. Further, the combination would slow the development process, triggering the "Hey we've been waiting forever for an update!" comments.
Or they can build two products that answer two different problems and consider it later if both are raging profit drivers.
Here is a small but counter argument to the fact it would be hard to link them:
Right now if you roll a to hit roll on a PC in a campaign, the roll is displayed on the PC's character sheet and goes into the game log. If you have the Maps app open at the same time, the game log automatically displays on that app, showing the roll, pretty much simultaneously. The exact same is true of the Combat Tracker. Roll a to hit on there for a monster and it's displayed in the Game Log on the PC, the Combat Tracker and the Map. All at the same time.
So, Character Builder, Combat Tracker and Maps app are already linked via a single sub-system of the Game Log.
Not saying linking token movement, automated attacks, fireball AOE templates etc would be easy. But I think it shows it's possible...
Not trying to break the topic, but I don't think you can use the character sheet or anything besides Avrae to roll a to hit against an opponent. You can do the roll, but it isn't associated with the target in any way that I can see. Though that would be an awesome feature.
It could easily be feasible. If Maps and the VTT are using the same systems to talk to the server, then they could easily be able to be mixed and matched.
And if you think about it, it makes sense that they would, because why create two separate subsystems to support the same kind of thing?
Assuming it's not just a testbed to get the server-side parts debugged, I'd expect Maps to end up being the cheap player/slow computer/phone side of the VTT.
I could be wrong, of course; this is just speculation.
You can code anything if you have an endless bucket of money. This idea is feasible but costly to develop.
The thing is, almost everything involved is something that they need to do anyway.
You are talking about two codebases sharing some API-style bridge that allows them to speak to each other in real-time and update multiple clients (every player and the DM) simultaneously.
That will require a squadron of developers, product managers, and producers to keep them on the same page. When one side updates, the other must test its codebase to ensure nothing is broken. Then they have to fix it emergency style while the customer community freaks out and calls for a refund for the lost time.
The odds that something of that scale will get funded are prohibitive. Further, the combination would slow the development process, triggering the "Hey we've been waiting forever for an update!" comments.
The VTT is going to need to speak to the DDB back-end through a specified API. (Well, it doesn't, but since different teams are going to be working on the two parts, it's a really good idea.)
Once the API is specified, it's a lot faster for the DDB side to get up and running than it is for the fancy graphical VTT part.
Testing the back-end independently of the VTT is a good idea; it'll reduce the number of ways things can go awry when the whole thing ships.
Automated testing only gets you so far; the DDB people are going to need something like Maps to test in-house, and will even after the VTT ships.
Shipping Maps to the public lets them give the back-end and API a much more solid workout before changes require coordinating with the VTT team.
Because there's a specified API, the sort of coordination issues you raise are a well-understood problem; if they need to make a change that changes behavior covered by the API, it's likely to be a simple cycle of change backend, update and test on internal version Maps, ship change once the VTT is ready.
Or they can build two products that answer two different problems and consider it later if both are raging profit drivers.
With the VTT already in progress, doing something like Maps makes no sense unless it's a spin-off. WotC aren't Google, who make a new incompatible chat app every year or two.
Does this mean Maps is what I suspect it is, and that it's sticking around, and that it'll be able to coexist with the VTT? Not necessarily.
It could easily be feasible. If Maps and the VTT are using the same systems to talk to the server, then they could easily be able to be mixed and matched.
And if you think about it, it makes sense that they would, because why create two separate subsystems to support the same kind of thing?
The VTT we've seen demos for is a 3d product. Maps is a 2d product. Those really aren't compatible.
I have no idea why Wizards is working on two different VTT options. I suspect if we had an inside ear there would be some interesting scuttlebutt.
it will be easy to link the DND Beyond character sheet and monsters to two different VTTs at the same time. But anyone doing this would need to buy or create two maps, one 2D the other 3D. Then try to move all the tokens on each map separately, unless you only allow the use of professionally generated maps with linked locations.
I suspect more people would be upset about DND Beyond requiring all maps to be purchased from WotC, than the number of people who will be annoyed about having to choose between the two VTT options.
In fact, I'm guessing that I can connect to two different VTTs right now using Beyond 20.
It could easily be feasible. If Maps and the VTT are using the same systems to talk to the server, then they could easily be able to be mixed and matched.
And if you think about it, it makes sense that they would, because why create two separate subsystems to support the same kind of thing?
The VTT we've seen demos for is a 3d product. Maps is a 2d product. Those really aren't compatible.
I have no idea why Wizards is working on two different VTT options. I suspect if we had an inside ear there would be some interesting scuttlebutt.
From what I've seen in the video, it looks more like what used to be called 2.5D (like the original Doom), where everything has a height, but it's not possible for a surface to be above another one. Whether or not the VTT will interoperate with Maps, that may be a limit, just because multi-level structures are way more complex to build and interact with.
It could easily be feasible. If Maps and the VTT are using the same systems to talk to the server, then they could easily be able to be mixed and matched.
And if you think about it, it makes sense that they would, because why create two separate subsystems to support the same kind of thing?
The VTT we've seen demos for is a 3d product. Maps is a 2d product. Those really aren't compatible.
I have no idea why Wizards is working on two different VTT options. I suspect if we had an inside ear there would be some interesting scuttlebutt.
This isn't necessarily true. Just like how a lot of existing games can coordinate an in-game 2D map with the 3D world. Not everything will translate to 2D of course, but if they build the tools right then they can treat those things as progressive enhancements. Like the elevation stuff mentioned earlier, that could be a property set by the GM in the campaign and the 2D players just won't have a visual representation. In those cases that info would need to be communicated by the GM or through the 2D UX in some other way. There are certainly solutions to all of those problems. As a dev all those challenges are really just about resources and scope. I just rewatched the sneak peek video for the VTT and they actually already mentioned that they support 2D and 3D maps within the VTT. It's not impossible that they maintain parity between the in-game 2D maps and the external 2D maps feature and even network them with realtime websockets😊
Agreed.
There's plenty of money being spent on non-Wotc products, they just need to catch up on.
If the money is there I'm not afraid of saying I'll get the 3D vtt. And if anyone from Wotc is reading this, I'd be more than happy to play test the vtt.
One expectation I have is that we will see the new 5th edition books or supplements support skirmishes with the Bastion rules. This will funnel into the VTT and since we already suspect the painting of miniatures, I would also expect rules with multiple minis on the vtt at once, costing the user more money (I'd be happy to buy, the wife's Xmas gift will have to wait).
This is something WH should have done years ago, and not to say any skirmish rules from Wotc could replace WH battles, it would be fun to see in 3D while playing with friends across the pond.
Just a little rant. VTT, can't wait.
The more I think about it the more likely it seems that the Unreal VTT will be connected to One D&D, not to 5e. The Maps feature will likely provide an option for 5e players as well as One D&D since it is going to be feature light.
I wonder how much of the One D&D changes are getting created with a view towards the ability to implement them in an advanced VTT. This was a part of the process when 4e was created, and should probably provide the foundation for the VTT, instead of being based upon 5e.
DUDE /ETTES!!!! Rulers and Zoom!! Let's try it out!! Looks like it just dropped today... very exciting. Maps is probably usable now.
Looks like Hide / Reveal also dropped.
~~~
May All Your Sequences Converge
One D&D is essentially 5.3 or so (calling XGtE 5.1 and TCoE 5.2), it is not revolutionary. It is no more 'designed' for VTT play than 5e.
As for 4e, while certainly WotC was interested in digital play, it was not designed as a computer game (or if it was, its designer didn't understand computers); its mechanics (like any RPG) would be a huge PITA to implement in a video game. It was basically designed as a tactical miniatures wargame. That's compatible with a VTT, but that's because any boardgame is compatible with a VTT; it was not significantly more compatible than 5e.
Oh yes! This would be sweeeet. But I suspect not feasible. Who knows though?
My Author Page: www.peterjblake.com
Novels Published: Reynard's Fate, Kita's Honour, Okoth's War and Callindrill
It could easily be feasible. If Maps and the VTT are using the same systems to talk to the server, then they could easily be able to be mixed and matched.
And if you think about it, it makes sense that they would, because why create two separate subsystems to support the same kind of thing?
Assuming it's not just a testbed to get the server-side parts debugged, I'd expect Maps to end up being the cheap player/slow computer/phone side of the VTT.
I could be wrong, of course; this is just speculation.
You can code anything if you have an endless bucket of money. This idea is feasible but costly to develop.
You are talking about two codebases sharing some API-style bridge that allows them to speak to each other in real-time and update multiple clients (every player and the DM) simultaneously.
That will require a squadron of developers, product managers, and producers to keep them on the same page. When one side updates, the other must test its codebase to ensure nothing is broken. Then they have to fix it emergency style while the customer community freaks out and calls for a refund for the lost time.
The odds that something of that scale will get funded are prohibitive. Further, the combination would slow the development process, triggering the "Hey we've been waiting forever for an update!" comments.
Or they can build two products that answer two different problems and consider it later if both are raging profit drivers.
Here is a small but counter argument to the fact it would be hard to link them:
Right now if you roll a to hit roll on a PC in a campaign, the roll is displayed on the PC's character sheet and goes into the game log. If you have the Maps app open at the same time, the game log automatically displays on that app, showing the roll, pretty much simultaneously. The exact same is true of the Combat Tracker. Roll a to hit on there for a monster and it's displayed in the Game Log on the PC, the Combat Tracker and the Map. All at the same time.
So, Character Builder, Combat Tracker and Maps app are already linked via a single sub-system of the Game Log.
Not saying linking token movement, automated attacks, fireball AOE templates etc would be easy. But I think it shows it's possible...
My Author Page: www.peterjblake.com
Novels Published: Reynard's Fate, Kita's Honour, Okoth's War and Callindrill
Not trying to break the topic, but I don't think you can use the character sheet or anything besides Avrae to roll a to hit against an opponent. You can do the roll, but it isn't associated with the target in any way that I can see. Though that would be an awesome feature.
~~~
May All Your Sequences Converge
The thing is, almost everything involved is something that they need to do anyway.
With the VTT already in progress, doing something like Maps makes no sense unless it's a spin-off. WotC aren't Google, who make a new incompatible chat app every year or two.
Does this mean Maps is what I suspect it is, and that it's sticking around, and that it'll be able to coexist with the VTT? Not necessarily.
But we're arguing on speculation.
The VTT we've seen demos for is a 3d product. Maps is a 2d product. Those really aren't compatible.
I have no idea why Wizards is working on two different VTT options. I suspect if we had an inside ear there would be some interesting scuttlebutt.
Thank you D&D Beyond for adding the ruler so quickly.
it will be easy to link the DND Beyond character sheet and monsters to two different VTTs at the same time. But anyone doing this would need to buy or create two maps, one 2D the other 3D. Then try to move all the tokens on each map separately, unless you only allow the use of professionally generated maps with linked locations.
I suspect more people would be upset about DND Beyond requiring all maps to be purchased from WotC, than the number of people who will be annoyed about having to choose between the two VTT options.
In fact, I'm guessing that I can connect to two different VTTs right now using Beyond 20.
supporting two VTT for one game that sounds a lot like work not a fan of more work
From what I've seen in the video, it looks more like what used to be called 2.5D (like the original Doom), where everything has a height, but it's not possible for a surface to be above another one. Whether or not the VTT will interoperate with Maps, that may be a limit, just because multi-level structures are way more complex to build and interact with.
Sorry if I should be able to find this, but is there a page where you can track/suggest feature updates for Maps?
My Author Page: www.peterjblake.com
Novels Published: Reynard's Fate, Kita's Honour, Okoth's War and Callindrill
This isn't necessarily true. Just like how a lot of existing games can coordinate an in-game 2D map with the 3D world. Not everything will translate to 2D of course, but if they build the tools right then they can treat those things as progressive enhancements. Like the elevation stuff mentioned earlier, that could be a property set by the GM in the campaign and the 2D players just won't have a visual representation. In those cases that info would need to be communicated by the GM or through the 2D UX in some other way. There are certainly solutions to all of those problems. As a dev all those challenges are really just about resources and scope. I just rewatched the sneak peek video for the VTT and they actually already mentioned that they support 2D and 3D maps within the VTT. It's not impossible that they maintain parity between the in-game 2D maps and the external 2D maps feature and even network them with realtime websockets😊
They recently put a "feedback" sidebar on the maps page, off to the right.
~~~
May All Your Sequences Converge
A question for all you Geeks who understand the tech:
Will you be able to access the 3D VTT via a browser?
Thanks
Blakey
My Author Page: www.peterjblake.com
Novels Published: Reynard's Fate, Kita's Honour, Okoth's War and Callindrill
As far as I know, they have not said, but, much to my surprise, Unreal supports some web browsers, so: maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it