I haven't seen any updates, footage or anything at all about the new VTT. I am starting to get the feeling that it doesnt actually exist or if it does it will not be launching this year like they have said all along.
My other concern is that if it does launch that it will not address the basic needs and instead be filled with " flash versus substance".
Can anyone shed light on where this thing is in development and or semi first person account of actually seeing it?
This is pretty standard for development of digital projects - you announce something early, show off some early demos that were designed to conceptualize certain aspects of the product, then you hear nothing for a while as they try to make a full system which lives up to that demo. In terms of software development, it really has not been all that long - too early to call it vaporware.
We can only hope. It represents a direction they're trying to take the game in that hardcore fans rather see as its ultimate demise.
Speak for yourself - I know plenty of hardcore fans who are excited to see what the VTT will bring. Stating your opinion as a generalized fact and dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as “not hardcore” is nothing short of gatekeeping.
The last place I heard it being demoed was PAX Unplugged, right before the layoffs. But there are other big conventions coming up this year.
It woudn't surprise me though if it took a back seat to finishing the books themselves given that Maps is getting the kind of traction/usage/data they want.
The “teased” something similar back in 4E and it never saw the light of day either. I have no hope we will see an official VTT in our lifetime at this rate. They just need to let a major development team handle it at this point. Makes me wonder if that last sneak peek was reel or staged at this point because if something was that far along regular updates should be a thing to keep peoples interest peeked until launch, but what do we know. 🤦🏻
The “teased” something similar back in 4E and it never saw the light of day either. I have no hope we will see an official VTT in our lifetime at this rate. They just need to let a major development team handle it at this point. Makes me wonder if that last sneak peek was reel or staged at this point because if something was that far along regular updates should be a thing to keep peoples interest peeked until launch, but what do we know. 🤦🏻
The likely answer is probably “both.” In game development, it is very common to make a very limited functional model you can use to demonstrate core functionality to industry insiders, investors, and the internal team generally. The demo was almost certainly the real product - they did not need to do any of the really hard work, since they are not building their own engine - but they likely only had a few different character models and textures added at that point. That’s were a lot of the really hard work comes in - modeling the plethora of monsters and characters and map features that make up a D&D VTT.
So, yes. In a sense it was real - it showed what the planned gameplay was at the time (this can always change). But it also was staged in a sense - it probably showed off the majority of their textures and models at the time of the video.
The period after that initial video is when a lot of work happens - but there is not really much to show, since your asset library is still small. No one wants an update that shows the same map, but with a Firbolg on it this time because they made some new characters, but have not finished making the next terrain asset.
So, I would not read too much into this - the fact there is nothing new public facing is pretty par for the course for this stage in a product’s development timeline. The real thing to look at during this stage is whether they continue to demonstrate the product to industry insiders and at conventions - and it looks like they still very much are doing it.
We can only hope. It represents a direction they're trying to take the game in that hardcore fans rather see as its ultimate demise.
Speak for yourself - I know plenty of hardcore fans who are excited to see what the VTT will bring. Stating your opinion as a generalized fact and dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as “not hardcore” is nothing short of gatekeeping.
No thanks, I'll leave my statement as is. The backlash to such a tool and the incompatibility of it with what is widely recognised as legitimate roleplaying is all over the internet if you'd care to look. I assume you already know this quite well, but prefer to gatekeep (to use your term) the forums from others expressing such things.
Oh yes, we can clearly see how little acceptance VTTs have; it's not like there's several websites dedicated to it already that do brisk business and already have some basic support for animated tokens...
my challenge will be integrating a theater of mind narrative with actual virtual assets. I have been prepping my players for its arrival in that we still need our imagination hats on. I really hope either MAPS or the VTT get rolled out this year.
Oh yes, we can clearly see how little acceptance VTTs have; it's not like there's several websites dedicated to it already that do brisk business and already have some basic support for animated tokens...
There's the type of VTTs that are already prolific and widely in use, and then there's trying to turn D&D into a video game experience. I'm referring to the latter.
Dude, it's just a shiny VTT. It's no more turning D&D into a video game than BG3 did.
And, of course, nobody's going to make you use it.
Dude, it's just a shiny VTT. It's no more turning D&D into a video game than BG3 did.
And, of course, nobody's going to make you use it.
I don't think you meant what you said, but I get your point. If it went as far as BG3 in turning D&D into a video game, then that's exactly what we'd have... a video game. I realise it's not going that far with it, but I do expect we'll see a lot of undesirable facets normally associated with modern video games in the mix like micro transactions and paywalls. And it is a further step away from the traditional rpg experience, which VTTs in their current form already cause to some degree. They have a tendency to turn an rpg into a boardgame if not utilised appropriately by the DM.
And yes, absolutely... no point whatsoever in using a 'shiny VTT' that only runs D&D as opposed to one that runs multiple, different rpg systems.
Translation: "I think people who play D&D differently from me are not playing D&D as it should be played. It does not matter that these other things have no bearing on how I play and therefore I can completely ignore them--I still want to complain about those things and hope for their failure because I dislike the idea that others might play the game using different tools." That's gatekeeping bud.
And, just to be very clear, I do not use a VTT--I have no intention of ever using a VTT. Even in my virtual games, I use a table with miniatures and an overhead webcam. But, guess what, just because they are not my preference does not mean (a) I am going to hope for the failure of a product others might enjoy, (b) am going to say anyone who uses a VTT is "not engaged in legitimate roleplay" or similar nonsense, and (c) that I cannot be excited on behalf of others--I might have zero interest in ever using the product for my games, but I can still be empathetic enough to share in others' excitement.
OP seemed genuinely curious about the state of the development and that they hope it will be coming out soon - that means they are, at the least, interested in it; at most, they are actively excited about it and worried it might never come to fruition. No firm idea as to why you feel it is your place to come on a thread about someone's excitement and engage in gatekeeping and proliferation of conspiratorial nonsense to try and ruin their joy--but that is exactly what you have been doing.
To OP: I am sorry this has occurred on this thread, and I do hope you do not allow those who are seeking to weaponize the thread to promote their own agendas to influence your excitement. Since the game's very inception, there have been players who seek to impose their will on others and who want to see anything new fail, usually for some pretty unsavory reasons. Tune them out and focus on your own excitement - just as your enjoyment should not have any influence on them, you do not need to let curmudgeons ruin your enjoyment of however you like to play D&D.
Translation: "I think people who play D&D differently from me are not playing D&D as it should be played. It does not matter that these other things have no bearing on how I play and therefore I can completely ignore them--I still want to complain about those things and hope for their failure because I dislike the idea that others might play the game using different tools." That's gatekeeping bud.
That's not at all what I'm saying and I'd very much appreciate it if you were to desist from trying to put words in my mouth, nor making assumptions as to my intent. I stated an opinion that's well shared as far as I can see, that the new VTT that is being built is a big deviation from traditional roleplaying and that I, like many others, see that as a negative outcome.
Not once did I say that I want to control or 'gatekeep' how others enjoy the hobby.
As for the OP's post, seemed to me they also had concerns in the mix in relation to the form over function (flash vs substance) comment.
Edit: I've adjusted my prior posts to instead refer to 'traditional' roleplaying, not sure if that upsets you more or less than words like hardcore, oldschool, or some such... but that's what I'm referring to.
Right, you don't want to control or gatekeep how others enjoy the hobby. You just want to make sure nothing impacts your grognard view of how the game should be played. Nothing like wishing for the failure of something other people are interested in to show you're all for other people enjoying the hobby however works best for them and their far-flung network of friends who can't all gather around the table like teenagers did in the 1980s.
And to the OP, like you I'd love to see some updates.
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with and what kind of pricing model they use. Gotta figure they'll want to put out a decent early spread; they're the latecomers to this market, so they really need to show off what makes their product more desirable. Though of course the ultimate objective is to get people to buy in. I admit, I doubt I'll jump on it early.
Translation: "I think people who play D&D differently from me are not playing D&D as it should be played. It does not matter that these other things have no bearing on how I play and therefore I can completely ignore them--I still want to complain about those things and hope for their failure because I dislike the idea that others might play the game using different tools." That's gatekeeping bud.
That's not at all what I'm saying and I'd very much appreciate it if you were to desist from trying to put words in my mouth, nor making assumptions as to my intent. I stated an opinion that's well shared as far as I can see, that the new VTT that is being built is a big deviation from traditional roleplaying and that I, like many others, see that as a negative outcome.
Not once did I say that I want to control or 'gatekeep' how others enjoy the hobby.
As for the OP's post, seemed to me they also had concerns in the mix in relation to the form over function (flash vs substance) comment.
Edit: I've adjusted my prior posts to instead refer to 'traditional' roleplaying, not sure if that upsets you more or less than words like hardcore, oldschool, or some such... but that's what I'm referring to.
Right, you don't want to control or gatekeep how others enjoy the hobby. You just want to make sure nothing impacts your grognard view of how the game should be played. Nothing like wishing for the failure of something other people are interested in to show you're all for other people enjoying the hobby however works best for them and their far-flung network of friends who can't all gather around the table like teenagers did in the 1980s.
And to the OP, like you I'd love to see some updates.
Sigh... it's not MY view... it's a view that many like-minded people share. There's also no need to be insulting about it.
Those of us that hold this view love the hobby for a good reason, and when we see things happening within the hobby that, in our opinion, are an overall detrimental impact are we not allowed to state that opinion? The only gatekeeping I'm seeing is being done by those that want to seem to want to control what gets posted on this forum.
How is the hobby as a whole harmed when no options are taken away from you, though? Frankly, how can D&D as a whole be harmed by anything, given that once you've got the material you want you are free to ignore any and all changes down the line?
It's more that it may begin to exclude folks like me from being involved in the future of D&D if the options going forward are more wedded to this kind of digital game format. As in, the only options left available to us will be the historical ones.
What does "more wedded to digital" even mean? They're still designing D&D to be played with books around a table first and foremost. And even if they somehow stopped releasing physical books - what would stop you from taking the new content, putting on paper, and running it at your table?
Feel like there will come a point where they’re going to miss the boat. The other VTTs are continually improving and gaining loyal DMs who have learnt how they work, I imagine there will be a lot of people who won’t make the shift unless there’s genuine innovation, they make integration with D&D Beyond seemless and/or it’s more cost effective. Like including it in the Master tier.
I don't think there is any basis for claiming it's not ever going to happen at this point.
That said, I'm dubious that it will be a success. So far, DDB struggles to even get the stuff that it is specialised in and is its main focus done well. While I appreciate that WotC brought more cash to the table, there are pretty basic features that id have expected off of a website such as DDB that it just doesn't have. I'm not sure it's rational to expect it to be able to compete with those that have years of experience in the VTT field and suddenly become the leader of the pack.
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.
Dude, it's just a shiny VTT. It's no more turning D&D into a video game than BG3 did.
And, of course, nobody's going to make you use it.
I don't think you meant what you said, but I get your point. If it went as far as BG3 in turning D&D into a video game,
You apparently didn't get their point
BG3 did not turn D&D into a video game. BG3 was a video game adaptation of D&D. D&D itself is still there, being all not video gamey
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
imo with the way ddb and wotc operate i'm sceptical about promised 3D vtt, if there was something worthy attention they would spam leaks themselves just to hype customers
How is the hobby as a whole harmed when no options are taken away from you, though? Frankly, how can D&D as a whole be harmed by anything, given that once you've got the material you want you are free to ignore any and all changes down the line?
I do understand your point of view here, and you're right to an extent... it doesn't remove any existing options that are already represented by the current and prior versions of the game. It's more that it may begin to exclude folks like me from being involved in the future of D&D if the options going forward are more wedded to this kind of digital game format. As in, the only options left available to us will be the historical ones.
Yes and no.
[REDACTED]
Personally, I do not care about Beyond's VTT, and I rather they focus on more core functionalities like getting their subclasses, feats, epic boons, etc. to work properly. Beyond going down the VTT route pits them in direct competition with Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds, and that is not a space where I see Wizards can win. While D&D is a huge part of the TTRPG industry, it is not the only IP, and no one likes to be locked to a single IP. At the same time, a lot of users have been waiting for a VTT, and I am glad Beyond has finally answered that request, even if I personally do not think it is a good idea. At the end of the day, Beyond's VTT does not really hurt me in anyway. It is a bit annoying that is delaying them from improving the core experience, but the core experience so far is good enough for me so far.
Notes: Even if you disagree strongly with someone's opinions or behavior, callout posting is still against the rules. Try to remain constructive in your criticism.
at the end of the day, a VTT is just an environment. If Talespire, Foundry Canvas, Roltable, or RPGStories dont turn it into a video game, then why would the DNDB VTT? it's literally the exact same concept. Taking VTT elements and just adding a third dimension to the presentation.
That's always been such a weird argument to me, as if just adding 3d makes everything a video game suddenly.
at the end of the day, a VTT is just an environment. If Talespire, Foundry Canvas, Roltable, or RPGStories dont turn it into a video game, then why would the DNDB VTT? it's literally the exact same concept. Taking VTT elements and just adding a third dimension to the presentation.
That's always been such a weird argument to me, as if just adding 3d makes everything a video game suddenly.
I agree with this. The reality? People have been playing 3d D&D since the game’s very inception - the original DMG discussed how you can play the game with pure theatre of the mind or you could use miniatures or you could mix and match. This VTT does nothing substantively new - sure, it might have different graphics and use different modeling and have cute little animations… but it is just emulating the same thing as players have been doing for five decades. A VTT is not some newfangled, non-traditional way of playing D&D - it is just keeping the traditional of D&D alive, albeit with computer miniatures and terrain rather than metal or resin ones.
That is fairly obvious to most members of the community - but, unfortunately, there will always be aggressive Luddites who want to paint anyone doing anything “new” (even if it is just a new old fashioned way) as somehow breaking with tradition, somehow being “not a true fan”, or otherwise being lesser in some way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I haven't seen any updates, footage or anything at all about the new VTT. I am starting to get the feeling that it doesnt actually exist or if it does it will not be launching this year like they have said all along.
My other concern is that if it does launch that it will not address the basic needs and instead be filled with " flash versus substance".
Can anyone shed light on where this thing is in development and or semi first person account of actually seeing it?
This is pretty standard for development of digital projects - you announce something early, show off some early demos that were designed to conceptualize certain aspects of the product, then you hear nothing for a while as they try to make a full system which lives up to that demo. In terms of software development, it really has not been all that long - too early to call it vaporware.
Speak for yourself - I know plenty of hardcore fans who are excited to see what the VTT will bring. Stating your opinion as a generalized fact and dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as “not hardcore” is nothing short of gatekeeping.
The last place I heard it being demoed was PAX Unplugged, right before the layoffs. But there are other big conventions coming up this year.
It woudn't surprise me though if it took a back seat to finishing the books themselves given that Maps is getting the kind of traction/usage/data they want.
The “teased” something similar back in 4E and it never saw the light of day either. I have no hope we will see an official VTT in our lifetime at this rate. They just need to let a major development team handle it at this point. Makes me wonder if that last sneak peek was reel or staged at this point because if something was that far along regular updates should be a thing to keep peoples interest peeked until launch, but what do we know. 🤦🏻
The likely answer is probably “both.” In game development, it is very common to make a very limited functional model you can use to demonstrate core functionality to industry insiders, investors, and the internal team generally. The demo was almost certainly the real product - they did not need to do any of the really hard work, since they are not building their own engine - but they likely only had a few different character models and textures added at that point. That’s were a lot of the really hard work comes in - modeling the plethora of monsters and characters and map features that make up a D&D VTT.
So, yes. In a sense it was real - it showed what the planned gameplay was at the time (this can always change). But it also was staged in a sense - it probably showed off the majority of their textures and models at the time of the video.
The period after that initial video is when a lot of work happens - but there is not really much to show, since your asset library is still small. No one wants an update that shows the same map, but with a Firbolg on it this time because they made some new characters, but have not finished making the next terrain asset.
So, I would not read too much into this - the fact there is nothing new public facing is pretty par for the course for this stage in a product’s development timeline. The real thing to look at during this stage is whether they continue to demonstrate the product to industry insiders and at conventions - and it looks like they still very much are doing it.
Oh yes, we can clearly see how little acceptance VTTs have; it's not like there's several websites dedicated to it already that do brisk business and already have some basic support for animated tokens...
my challenge will be integrating a theater of mind narrative with actual virtual assets. I have been prepping my players for its arrival in that we still need our imagination hats on. I really hope either MAPS or the VTT get rolled out this year.
Dude, it's just a shiny VTT. It's no more turning D&D into a video game than BG3 did.
And, of course, nobody's going to make you use it.
Translation: "I think people who play D&D differently from me are not playing D&D as it should be played. It does not matter that these other things have no bearing on how I play and therefore I can completely ignore them--I still want to complain about those things and hope for their failure because I dislike the idea that others might play the game using different tools." That's gatekeeping bud.
And, just to be very clear, I do not use a VTT--I have no intention of ever using a VTT. Even in my virtual games, I use a table with miniatures and an overhead webcam. But, guess what, just because they are not my preference does not mean (a) I am going to hope for the failure of a product others might enjoy, (b) am going to say anyone who uses a VTT is "not engaged in legitimate roleplay" or similar nonsense, and (c) that I cannot be excited on behalf of others--I might have zero interest in ever using the product for my games, but I can still be empathetic enough to share in others' excitement.
OP seemed genuinely curious about the state of the development and that they hope it will be coming out soon - that means they are, at the least, interested in it; at most, they are actively excited about it and worried it might never come to fruition. No firm idea as to why you feel it is your place to come on a thread about someone's excitement and engage in gatekeeping and proliferation of conspiratorial nonsense to try and ruin their joy--but that is exactly what you have been doing.
To OP: I am sorry this has occurred on this thread, and I do hope you do not allow those who are seeking to weaponize the thread to promote their own agendas to influence your excitement. Since the game's very inception, there have been players who seek to impose their will on others and who want to see anything new fail, usually for some pretty unsavory reasons. Tune them out and focus on your own excitement - just as your enjoyment should not have any influence on them, you do not need to let curmudgeons ruin your enjoyment of however you like to play D&D.
Right, you don't want to control or gatekeep how others enjoy the hobby. You just want to make sure nothing impacts your grognard view of how the game should be played. Nothing like wishing for the failure of something other people are interested in to show you're all for other people enjoying the hobby however works best for them and their far-flung network of friends who can't all gather around the table like teenagers did in the 1980s.
And to the OP, like you I'd love to see some updates.
It'll be interesting to see what they come up with and what kind of pricing model they use. Gotta figure they'll want to put out a decent early spread; they're the latecomers to this market, so they really need to show off what makes their product more desirable. Though of course the ultimate objective is to get people to buy in. I admit, I doubt I'll jump on it early.
How is the hobby as a whole harmed when no options are taken away from you, though? Frankly, how can D&D as a whole be harmed by anything, given that once you've got the material you want you are free to ignore any and all changes down the line?
It sure seems like it's your view.
What does "more wedded to digital" even mean? They're still designing D&D to be played with books around a table first and foremost. And even if they somehow stopped releasing physical books - what would stop you from taking the new content, putting on paper, and running it at your table?
Feel like there will come a point where they’re going to miss the boat. The other VTTs are continually improving and gaining loyal DMs who have learnt how they work, I imagine there will be a lot of people who won’t make the shift unless there’s genuine innovation, they make integration with D&D Beyond seemless and/or it’s more cost effective. Like including it in the Master tier.
I don't think there is any basis for claiming it's not ever going to happen at this point.
That said, I'm dubious that it will be a success. So far, DDB struggles to even get the stuff that it is specialised in and is its main focus done well. While I appreciate that WotC brought more cash to the table, there are pretty basic features that id have expected off of a website such as DDB that it just doesn't have. I'm not sure it's rational to expect it to be able to compete with those that have years of experience in the VTT field and suddenly become the leader of the pack.
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.
You apparently didn't get their point
BG3 did not turn D&D into a video game. BG3 was a video game adaptation of D&D. D&D itself is still there, being all not video gamey
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
imo with the way ddb and wotc operate i'm sceptical about promised 3D vtt, if there was something worthy attention they would spam leaks themselves just to hype customers
Yes and no.
[REDACTED]
Personally, I do not care about Beyond's VTT, and I rather they focus on more core functionalities like getting their subclasses, feats, epic boons, etc. to work properly. Beyond going down the VTT route pits them in direct competition with Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds, and that is not a space where I see Wizards can win. While D&D is a huge part of the TTRPG industry, it is not the only IP, and no one likes to be locked to a single IP. At the same time, a lot of users have been waiting for a VTT, and I am glad Beyond has finally answered that request, even if I personally do not think it is a good idea. At the end of the day, Beyond's VTT does not really hurt me in anyway. It is a bit annoying that is delaying them from improving the core experience, but the core experience so far is good enough for me so far.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
at the end of the day, a VTT is just an environment. If Talespire, Foundry Canvas, Roltable, or RPGStories dont turn it into a video game, then why would the DNDB VTT? it's literally the exact same concept. Taking VTT elements and just adding a third dimension to the presentation.
That's always been such a weird argument to me, as if just adding 3d makes everything a video game suddenly.
I agree with this. The reality? People have been playing 3d D&D since the game’s very inception - the original DMG discussed how you can play the game with pure theatre of the mind or you could use miniatures or you could mix and match. This VTT does nothing substantively new - sure, it might have different graphics and use different modeling and have cute little animations… but it is just emulating the same thing as players have been doing for five decades. A VTT is not some newfangled, non-traditional way of playing D&D - it is just keeping the traditional of D&D alive, albeit with computer miniatures and terrain rather than metal or resin ones.
That is fairly obvious to most members of the community - but, unfortunately, there will always be aggressive Luddites who want to paint anyone doing anything “new” (even if it is just a new old fashioned way) as somehow breaking with tradition, somehow being “not a true fan”, or otherwise being lesser in some way.