The current VTT Policy released for review, is very under whelming and misleading. The long and short of it, an animation of action does not make a VTT a Video Game. In my honest opinion as someone who has a few years of software development under there belt. There needs to be a clear defination of what a VTT is and what a Video Game is.
Firstly NFTs have nothing to do with VTTs and should be moved to the OGL if WoTC wants to take a stance it. Personally I don't care either way, but it should not be in the VTT policy in anyway and handle as its own issue.
Here are my thoughts. a VTT is where the DM and players are using software to repersent the enviroment and how the characters, NPCs, Enemies are interacteracting in the environment. Generally they are all in voice chat or using text chat to describe what there are actions are and using images(Including short animated images) to help describe that effects of their actions are occuring. As players take actions the DM updates the representation of the environment in the VTT to help guide the players through the current story.
A video game the software itself has complete control over the eniroment and the players (No DM) don't have the ability to change the eniroment beyond what is already predefined, and are limited to expected pre-defined actions with in the contexts of the game.
If a player in an a TTRPG using a VTT says i'm casting magic missle the DM reacts and says what the out come of that action is. In a video game, this is generally not predefined as an action and thus nothing happens or at most the player wastes a spell slot and the game just drops any results of the magic missle hitting the wall. Where a DM can describe that damage was done to the brick or no damage was done due to it being magically re-enforeced.
We all know, no story survives contact with the players and each group and individual(s) come up with what they want or think should be done at any given moment and its up to the DM to keep the story moving through the chaos that the players generate. A video game really can't handle that, but can still be used to tell a story if the player stays on the predicted path and/or solve issues in a predictable way.
An AI DM would defiantly make the enviroment a Video Game then a VTT. As the enivorment is no longer under complete control of the DM and players. As we all know with the growth of AI and their abilites, this might as will be stated now.
This is a pointless distinction because there are a ton of video games or electronic media that already do all of the things that exist in a VTT.
Tabletop Simulator for example has all of the features and can be played in a wide variety of ways. But without adding stuff to it TTS is just a table with the ability to put stuff on it. Is it a video game, or just a representation of a table top game in a computer format? If I play a game of solitaire exactly the way I play with a deck of cards am I playing a video game or just playing solitaire and happen to be interacting with a computer?
Personally, I find there to be 2 ideas surrounding the VTT options. One being very video-gamey to me, with animations and effects, the other, being more of a literal Virtual Table Top. My group plays primarily in person and as such, Table Top. We don't have animations, or spell effects. To me, "Virtual" should pretty closely simulate what it is a Virtual of. That said, I easily appreciate the draw to the flashy stuff, as it makes things more visually stimulating. I am of the preference of theater of the mind, so if I ever did D&D on a VTT, I would prefer a static table, where the tokens sat there (until moved and then just appearing the new square is fine) and spells, attacks and what not are described. MY preference, and likely some others. Some prefer the flashy stuff, fine.
I think the issue here is that the VTTs using the flashy stuff are walking some weird line between the 2. Wizards/Hasbro likely see this line as a spot they need to cover somehow, but with such a new and rapidly evolving thing, they aren't sure how. This digital world we are living in has presented dozens of interesting and unforeseen scenarios and this is one of them. To me it's not a true VTT if it's using animations and stuff but it also isn't really a video game. How and where to regulate that fairly, I have NO idea, due to it being such a weird grey area.
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.
There is no need to regulate at all unless someone rips off someone else's actual creations. Like if someone made a portal gun that looked and worked just like a portal gun from Portal then that would fall under copyright.
There is no need to broadly regulate energy balls or whatever moving between objects in a video game. Those have existed since Pong. Wizards is trying to say you cannot have Pong in a VTT because it might be a copy of magic missle.
They don't want competition for their VTT because those sorts of things (NFTs in the VTT, animated spells, etc) are the sorts of thing they want to sell their VTT as 'having'. The VTT they're building uses Unreal Engine as its foundation for crying out loud. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that it won't be the most animation heavy, particle effects strewn, "RTX Enabled" VTT that's ever been made.
The worst part is they could afford to make that tabletop and have it be immensely popular just like they did with D&D 5e as a whole without needing to stomp all over the competition.
Personally, I find there to be 2 ideas surrounding the VTT options. One being very video-gamey to me, with animations and effects, the other, being more of a literal Virtual Table Top. My group plays primarily in person and as such, Table Top. We don't have animations, or spell effects. To me, "Virtual" should pretty closely simulate what it is a Virtual of. That said, I easily appreciate the draw to the flashy stuff, as it makes things more visually stimulating. I am of the preference of theater of the mind, so if I ever did D&D on a VTT, I would prefer a static table, where the tokens sat there (until moved and then just appearing the new square is fine) and spells, attacks and what not are described. MY preference, and likely some others. Some prefer the flashy stuff, fine.
I think the issue here is that the VTTs using the flashy stuff are walking some weird line between the 2. Wizards/Hasbro likely see this line as a spot they need to cover somehow, but with such a new and rapidly evolving thing, they aren't sure how. This digital world we are living in has presented dozens of interesting and unforeseen scenarios and this is one of them. To me it's not a true VTT if it's using animations and stuff but it also isn't really a video game. How and where to regulate that fairly, I have NO idea, due to it being such a weird grey area.
I think it's a lot more simple and sly than that:
They don't want competition for their VTT because those sorts of things (NFTs in the VTT, animated spells, etc) are the sorts of thing they want to sell their VTT as 'having'. The VTT they're building uses Unreal Engine as its foundation for crying out loud. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that it won't be the most animation heavy, particle effects strewn, "RTX Enabled" VTT that's ever been made.
e: As such, I expect the 'reason' for the policy is to ensure there are 'no pretenders to the throne'. They will only accept competition so long as that competition cows itself and looks less fun and engaging by proxy. I expect that's the entire reason for the policy to begin with, rather than 'we don't know what that is and it's new'.
I think it's more likely some kind of non-compete thing. If they get to define what is or isn't a VTT, then they don't need to worry about competing against features they don't want to implement. But I could see it going the way you explained too.
The VTT policy says they have never licensed the use of the art for the owlbear for use in a VTT, but I can print out the photo of an owlbear from the DDB MM, or scan/print from the physical book, to create an owlbear token for the dining room table.
In my opinion, the VTT policy should simply be: You can use licensed art and assets you have purchased for your personal games. You cannot create VTTs, modules, or systems that broadly make available licensed art and assets, but you may make modules or systems to allow players to import into their personal games licensed art and assets they have purchased. Elaborate with legalese.
And leave it at that. Trying to dissect when automation/animation transitions from VTT to video game will be a deep rabbit hole that I don't think anyone truly wants to put into a legal document.
The current VTT Policy released for review, is very under whelming and misleading. The long and short of it, an animation of action does not make a VTT a Video Game. In my honest opinion as someone who has a few years of software development under there belt. There needs to be a clear defination of what a VTT is and what a Video Game is.
Firstly NFTs have nothing to do with VTTs and should be moved to the OGL if WoTC wants to take a stance it. Personally I don't care either way, but it should not be in the VTT policy in anyway and handle as its own issue.
Here are my thoughts. a VTT is where the DM and players are using software to repersent the enviroment and how the characters, NPCs, Enemies are interacteracting in the environment. Generally they are all in voice chat or using text chat to describe what there are actions are and using images(Including short animated images) to help describe that effects of their actions are occuring. As players take actions the DM updates the representation of the environment in the VTT to help guide the players through the current story.
A video game the software itself has complete control over the eniroment and the players (No DM) don't have the ability to change the eniroment beyond what is already predefined, and are limited to expected pre-defined actions with in the contexts of the game.
If a player in an a TTRPG using a VTT says i'm casting magic missle the DM reacts and says what the out come of that action is. In a video game, this is generally not predefined as an action and thus nothing happens or at most the player wastes a spell slot and the game just drops any results of the magic missle hitting the wall. Where a DM can describe that damage was done to the brick or no damage was done due to it being magically re-enforeced.
We all know, no story survives contact with the players and each group and individual(s) come up with what they want or think should be done at any given moment and its up to the DM to keep the story moving through the chaos that the players generate. A video game really can't handle that, but can still be used to tell a story if the player stays on the predicted path and/or solve issues in a predictable way.
An AI DM would defiantly make the enviroment a Video Game then a VTT. As the enivorment is no longer under complete control of the DM and players. As we all know with the growth of AI and their abilites, this might as will be stated now.
This is a pointless distinction because there are a ton of video games or electronic media that already do all of the things that exist in a VTT.
Tabletop Simulator for example has all of the features and can be played in a wide variety of ways. But without adding stuff to it TTS is just a table with the ability to put stuff on it. Is it a video game, or just a representation of a table top game in a computer format? If I play a game of solitaire exactly the way I play with a deck of cards am I playing a video game or just playing solitaire and happen to be interacting with a computer?
Personally, I find there to be 2 ideas surrounding the VTT options. One being very video-gamey to me, with animations and effects, the other, being more of a literal Virtual Table Top. My group plays primarily in person and as such, Table Top. We don't have animations, or spell effects. To me, "Virtual" should pretty closely simulate what it is a Virtual of. That said, I easily appreciate the draw to the flashy stuff, as it makes things more visually stimulating. I am of the preference of theater of the mind, so if I ever did D&D on a VTT, I would prefer a static table, where the tokens sat there (until moved and then just appearing the new square is fine) and spells, attacks and what not are described. MY preference, and likely some others. Some prefer the flashy stuff, fine.
I think the issue here is that the VTTs using the flashy stuff are walking some weird line between the 2. Wizards/Hasbro likely see this line as a spot they need to cover somehow, but with such a new and rapidly evolving thing, they aren't sure how. This digital world we are living in has presented dozens of interesting and unforeseen scenarios and this is one of them. To me it's not a true VTT if it's using animations and stuff but it also isn't really a video game. How and where to regulate that fairly, I have NO idea, due to it being such a weird grey area.
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.
There is no need to regulate at all unless someone rips off someone else's actual creations. Like if someone made a portal gun that looked and worked just like a portal gun from Portal then that would fall under copyright.
There is no need to broadly regulate energy balls or whatever moving between objects in a video game. Those have existed since Pong. Wizards is trying to say you cannot have Pong in a VTT because it might be a copy of magic missle.
The worst part is they could afford to make that tabletop and have it be immensely popular just like they did with D&D 5e as a whole without needing to stomp all over the competition.
I think it's more likely some kind of non-compete thing. If they get to define what is or isn't a VTT, then they don't need to worry about competing against features they don't want to implement. But I could see it going the way you explained too.
The VTT policy says they have never licensed the use of the art for the owlbear for use in a VTT, but I can print out the photo of an owlbear from the DDB MM, or scan/print from the physical book, to create an owlbear token for the dining room table.
In my opinion, the VTT policy should simply be: You can use licensed art and assets you have purchased for your personal games. You cannot create VTTs, modules, or systems that broadly make available licensed art and assets, but you may make modules or systems to allow players to import into their personal games licensed art and assets they have purchased. Elaborate with legalese.
And leave it at that. Trying to dissect when automation/animation transitions from VTT to video game will be a deep rabbit hole that I don't think anyone truly wants to put into a legal document.