We are in 2023. We use new generation VTTs like Talespira or Foundry, giving our games new layers of colour, animation, flavour and fun. Why would you ban that? It's not a videogame! There are just a few aesthetic tweks, nothing else!
A videogame is defined by the interactive aproach through mechanics, not by two or three basic animations for certains spells, or a sound when a nat20 is rolled.
C'mon, Wizards, you are on the good way, don't mess It up near the end...
I already use animations in my in-person games. It's called "The Deck of Many Animated Spells", so saying "If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience." is completely inaccurate.
I made a flipbook of a magic missile from my imagination. There, now it's a table top experience.
Can we just also take a minute to point out that the OGL 1.2 1(b) says "in accordance with our Virtual Tabletop Policy". This links to a completely external document that can be changed at any time to say anything.
This is entirely intentional, they want to cripple all other digital content for D&D to force everyone to use their own platform. They want everyone who plays D&D, DMs and Players, to use their D&DBeyond subscription, and their upcoming VTT, and fill it with microtransactions to bleed every customer as much as they can. This new OGL solves nothing and shouldn't be considered.
While the new OGL text is better than the previous, the VTT text reads like it was written by someone who has no idea what a VTT or an NFT is. Especially NFTs. Like what the heck does that even have to do with VTTs? It's like they saw "token" in the buzzword and thought it was the same thing as the tokens you put on the tabletop to show character position.
I also fail to see how a little animated sprite of a magic missile is different from the DM drawing a line across the board to show where the spell goes. Or how it makes it remotely like a video game. Video games require moving control of the encounter off to a computer process entirely, including how the opposite side reacts. If players and DM are entirely in control of the encounter and the board, there are no video game elements.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have a unique relationship with Lady Luck. She smiles on me often. Usually with derision. -- https://linktr.ee/aurhia
If they want to go with this "it has to be like tabletop" horse poop, then I am more than happy to draw, design, build, sing, compose, whatever I need to justify any VTT functionality under those terms.
Yeah, still missed the mark here. If you want to make the best VTT do it. Make it and let the community decide yours is the best. Don’t cripple the competition because you want to be the only one.
As others may have mentioned the biggest reason for the VTT rules they want, and why they want as soon as possible, is to protect their future VTT from a product called Alchemy.
I just spent an hour going over it and I can see why WOTC and Hasbro are terrified.
If I was WOTC and Hasbro I would be trying everything including grey actions to eliminate it. It explains the haste.
As others may have mentioned the biggest reason for the VTT rules they want, and why they want as soon as possible, is to protect their future VTT from a product called Alchemy.
I just spent an hour going over it and I can see why WOTC and Hasbro are terrified.
If I was WOTC and Hasbro I would be trying everything including grey actions to eliminate it. It explains the haste.
Yeah Alchemy and Foundry. WotC cannot and we will not allow monopolistic strategies.
It’s such a weird way to do it. Really poor excuse and really hypocritical if they are going to have animations on their VTT. It’s not like they did it first either. It doesn’t feel very “open” trying to underhand the VTTs that have been out there for years
WOTC should comply with their own VTT policy, any functionality in the first party unreal engine VTT should be allowed in third party VTTs.
If you have a feature in your VTT that you ban others from using, it will be viewed as predatory and anti-competitive, it's actually even a legal hazard if you try to force people to remove features they had implemented before you.
WOTC should comply with their own VTT policy, any functionality in the first party unreal engine VTT should be allowed in third party VTTs.
If you have a feature in your VTT that you ban others from using, it will be viewed as predatory and anti-competitive, it's actually even a legal hazard if you try to force people to remove features they had implemented before you.
Their VTT won't have to comply because it won't be using the OGL.
Of course it's a monopoly - most people aren't capable of building 2D scenes for VTTs never mind trying to build 3D scenes, so they expect to sell a massive amount of pre-built scenes if they ever release their 3D VTT.
The VTT policy is intended to draw a line between a VTT and a Video Game, with WOTC wanting to reserve rights to make D&D video games, which is fine.
They say that a VTT is meant to replicate the tabletop experience, with allowances for some convenience like auto calculating attacks, but the basic form is we're working off a character sheet, and we've got a grid and tokens to represent the scene.
In a real world game, if i want to cast a fireball it would be perfectly normal to move my hand over the battle map, tap my finger on a square, then splay my fingers out in an explosion gesture, saying "boom", I cant do that on a VTT, so coding a small animation of a spell is a reasonable substitute.
We're not saying there shouldn't be a line drawn, we're saying that animations is a step too far, the easiest way to draw that line would be the feature set of the first party VTT, be the best VTT by being the best VTT, not by shooting down the competition.
The VTT policy is intended to draw a line between a VTT and a Video Game, with WOTC wanting to reserve rights to make D&D video games, which is fine.
They say that a VTT is meant to replicate the tabletop experience, with allowances for some convenience like auto calculating attacks, but the basic form is we're working off a character sheet, and we've got a grid and tokens to represent the scene.
In a real world game, if i want to cast a fireball it would be perfectly normal to move my hand over the battle map, tap my finger on a square, then splay my fingers out in an explosion gesture, saying "boom", I cant do that on a VTT, so coding a small animation of a spell is a reasonable substitute.
We're not saying there shouldn't be a line drawn, we're saying that animations is a step too far, the easiest way to draw that line would be the feature set of the first party VTT, be the best VTT by being the best VTT, not by shooting down the competition.
It feels like they are a wanting to choke out the competitors. "If you can't compete drag them down to your level" type stuff. To me, that a telling sign they don't have confidence this new VTT they are making whether because of the program itself or the MTX they plan to implement (because... you know that is where their VTT is going.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We are in 2023. We use new generation VTTs like Talespira or Foundry, giving our games new layers of colour, animation, flavour and fun. Why would you ban that? It's not a videogame! There are just a few aesthetic tweks, nothing else!
A videogame is defined by the interactive aproach through mechanics, not by two or three basic animations for certains spells, or a sound when a nat20 is rolled.
C'mon, Wizards, you are on the good way, don't mess It up near the end...
"There can be only one"
I already use animations in my in-person games. It's called "The Deck of Many Animated Spells", so saying "If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience." is completely inaccurate.
It's not animations! It's a homebrew concept of micro-turns where only magic elements can move... :)
Agreed. The no animations stipulation to VTT is rediculous.
I made a flipbook of a magic missile from my imagination. There, now it's a table top experience.
Can we just also take a minute to point out that the OGL 1.2 1(b) says "in accordance with our Virtual Tabletop Policy". This links to a completely external document that can be changed at any time to say anything.
This is entirely intentional, they want to cripple all other digital content for D&D to force everyone to use their own platform. They want everyone who plays D&D, DMs and Players, to use their D&DBeyond subscription, and their upcoming VTT, and fill it with microtransactions to bleed every customer as much as they can. This new OGL solves nothing and shouldn't be considered.
Sylnache Ashrain - 7th Sojourn
Oh, also VTTs are on vertical surfaces, and tables are horizontal. So... yea.
While the new OGL text is better than the previous, the VTT text reads like it was written by someone who has no idea what a VTT or an NFT is. Especially NFTs. Like what the heck does that even have to do with VTTs? It's like they saw "token" in the buzzword and thought it was the same thing as the tokens you put on the tabletop to show character position.
I also fail to see how a little animated sprite of a magic missile is different from the DM drawing a line across the board to show where the spell goes. Or how it makes it remotely like a video game. Video games require moving control of the encounter off to a computer process entirely, including how the opposite side reacts. If players and DM are entirely in control of the encounter and the board, there are no video game elements.
I have a unique relationship with Lady Luck. She smiles on me often. Usually with derision.
--
https://linktr.ee/aurhia
Ok, WotC:
Got Invisibility covered: https://tenor.com/view/flip-book-alice-on-wonderland-art-cats-gif-12414178
Got some druid wild shape: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/641974121875723293/
Fly?: https://miro.medium.com/max/640/0*-vkJaRP38kPygAwp.gif
Oh man, miniatures with changeable equipment showing is a thing that exists in tabletop, so I guess they don't mind having fully customizable equipment showing on tokens and character sheets.
https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/017/118/139/db4072055a6a6c074458f2c1fa208671_original.gif?w=680&fit=max&v=1497555316&auto=format&gif-q=50&q=92&s=1532c4864e97e91a8de437d8929cf61f
If they want to go with this "it has to be like tabletop" horse poop, then I am more than happy to draw, design, build, sing, compose, whatever I need to justify any VTT functionality under those terms.
I agree that it doesn't make logical sense, but is makes perfect business sense.
The second that WotC comes out with their VTT-as-a-service, then they are free to change to policy to say literally anything:
Any change with zero notice because it is not a clause in the OGL
Yeah, still missed the mark here. If you want to make the best VTT do it. Make it and let the community decide yours is the best. Don’t cripple the competition because you want to be the only one.
As others may have mentioned the biggest reason for the VTT rules they want, and why they want as soon as possible, is to protect their future VTT from a product called Alchemy.
I just spent an hour going over it and I can see why WOTC and Hasbro are terrified.
If I was WOTC and Hasbro I would be trying everything including grey actions to eliminate it. It explains the haste.
Yeah Alchemy and Foundry. WotC cannot and we will not allow monopolistic strategies.
It’s such a weird way to do it. Really poor excuse and really hypocritical if they are going to have animations on their VTT. It’s not like they did it first either. It doesn’t feel very “open” trying to underhand the VTTs that have been out there for years
WOTC should comply with their own VTT policy, any functionality in the first party unreal engine VTT should be allowed in third party VTTs.
If you have a feature in your VTT that you ban others from using, it will be viewed as predatory and anti-competitive, it's actually even a legal hazard if you try to force people to remove features they had implemented before you.
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for these limitations?
[REDACTED]
Their VTT won't have to comply because it won't be using the OGL.
Of course it's a monopoly - most people aren't capable of building 2D scenes for VTTs never mind trying to build 3D scenes, so they expect to sell a massive amount of pre-built scenes if they ever release their 3D VTT.
The VTT policy is intended to draw a line between a VTT and a Video Game, with WOTC wanting to reserve rights to make D&D video games, which is fine.
They say that a VTT is meant to replicate the tabletop experience, with allowances for some convenience like auto calculating attacks, but the basic form is we're working off a character sheet, and we've got a grid and tokens to represent the scene.
In a real world game, if i want to cast a fireball it would be perfectly normal to move my hand over the battle map, tap my finger on a square, then splay my fingers out in an explosion gesture, saying "boom", I cant do that on a VTT, so coding a small animation of a spell is a reasonable substitute.
We're not saying there shouldn't be a line drawn, we're saying that animations is a step too far, the easiest way to draw that line would be the feature set of the first party VTT, be the best VTT by being the best VTT, not by shooting down the competition.
It feels like they are a wanting to choke out the competitors. "If you can't compete drag them down to your level" type stuff. To me, that a telling sign they don't have confidence this new VTT they are making whether because of the program itself or the MTX they plan to implement (because... you know that is where their VTT is going.)