PDA

View Full Version : [4E] D&D Virtual Table Top from WotC



Hzurr
2010-11-18, 06:29 PM
Huh...so remember in the back of all the original 4th Edition books, there was a listing for a virtual table top so that you could play online with people? It looked really cool, but never actually saw the light of day; and eventually became a joke that people used to poke fun at WotC.

Apparently, it actually is going to exist.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26286405/The_Dungeons__Dragons_Virtual_Table

http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2128


Color me shocked.


----edit----
here's some thoughts on the Beta by ThaddeusC (http://www.myrpgame.com/2010/11/22/virtual-table-great-first-game-thoughts-and-impressions/)

Psyren
2010-11-18, 06:35 PM
I'm in favor of anything that increases digitization of D&D :smallsmile:

So thumbs up to WotC for not letting this die!

Kurald Galain
2010-11-18, 06:40 PM
I wouldn't use this, myself - I like having a physical game board.

Also, given the backlash about how buggy, badly interfaced, and incomplete the new character builder allegedly is, I'm not at all sure I trust WOTC to make a working game table.

(edit) I like that they've avoided Silverlight for this one, even though for some reason it still won't run on Linux. However, I dislike that it's not compatible with character builder or the upcoming monster builder.

herrhauptmann
2010-11-18, 06:46 PM
Didn't someone recently post a video of a similar item? Sort of a big ipad programmed for D&D?

Anyway, that thing's only for 4E right? And only allows official rules, no homebrew? I'll pass twice over.

Asbestos
2010-11-18, 06:48 PM
However, I dislike that it's not compatible with character builder or the upcoming monster builder.

Hopefully that's just a temporary thing.

I'd like to see how customizable it is in terms of houserules. For instance, can I just use this with 'core' D&D classes or can I use my own modified class/items/whatever.

I too prefer the physical, but sometimes that isn't always convenient.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-11-18, 07:35 PM
Great Ioun preserve us! Is this for real?

Well, WOTC, you are making me love you more and more. First Essentials, now this? I think 4E may be my favorite edition of D&D, and when you have 2e with Planescape to compete with, that's saying something.

Also, the web-based Character Builder has had a buggy launch, but one of the advantages of a web-based builder is that you don't have to download patches and stuff to FIX those errors. They can just fix it on their own servers, and it ripples out to us from there pretty much instantly. Looks like the virtual table will do something similar; guess WOTC's really trying hard to fight program piracy here.

WitchSlayer
2010-11-18, 07:41 PM
Brb, checking for horsemen.

Hzurr
2010-11-18, 07:45 PM
Didn't someone recently post a video of a similar item? Sort of a big ipad programmed for D&D?


That was a class project a bunch of university students did on the Microsoft Surface. (From MIT, I believe) The Microsoft Surface is fantastically amazing, but costs US$6,000-10,000, so not really practical.

I'm assuming that this will eventually be integrated with the CB and eventually whatever version of the Monster builder that ends up online.

I'll be interested to see how homebrew is integrated into the CB/VT and other online tools.


At any rate, I'm looking forward to finding out more info on this. It's far too early to make any judgements, so I can't really say if this is something I'll be using or not

Ozreth
2010-11-18, 07:49 PM
In 10 years the youth will grow up thinking that d&d was always meant to be played virtually.

Looks cool though, could come in handy. Hopefully it actually works well with editions other than 4th.

Katana_Geldar
2010-11-18, 07:51 PM
So they are actually going to do this this time?

dsmiles
2010-11-18, 07:55 PM
I wouldn't use this, myself - I like having a physical game board.Ditto, just like I don't use the character builder because I'd rather use the books.

Also, given the backlash about how buggy, badly interfaced, and incomplete the new character builder allegedly is, I'm not at all sure I trust WOTC to make a working game table.I wouldn't trust WotC to design their way out of a wet paper bag, personally. They're really screwing the pooch with all this stuff.

WitchSlayer
2010-11-18, 07:58 PM
In 10 years the youth will grow up thinking that d&d was always meant to be played virtually.

Looks cool though, could come in handy. Hopefully it actually works well with editions other than 4th.

From the Q&A...

Q: What versions of D&D is the VT designed to be used with?
A: The character and monster information storage portion of the VT is set up to be used in 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons. The rest of the tools can be used with any edition.

Psyren
2010-11-18, 08:08 PM
I wouldn't trust WotC to design their way out of a wet paper bag, personally. They're really screwing the pooch with all this stuff.

They did a decent job with MTGO in-house. (It's not the prettiest program around, but when you consider how complex a Magic game can get it was really well-done.) Though I hope they can get Stainless to overhaul MODO to look more like Duels of the Planeswalkers at some point.

dsmiles
2010-11-18, 08:14 PM
They did a decent job with MTGO in-house. (It's not the prettiest program around, but when you consider how complex a Magic game can get it was really well-done.) Though I hope they can get Stainless to overhaul MODO to look more like Duels of the Planeswalkers at some point.Of course they did a good job on a MTG product. It's their primary line, you know.
Look at the way 4e is: Power Cards!
Look at the way Gamma World is: Power Cards and Booster Packs!
Pretty soon it will be Dungeons and Dragons: The Collectible Card Game and Gamma World: The Collectible Card Game!

Shatteredtower
2010-11-18, 08:47 PM
Pretty soon it will be Dungeons and Dragons: The Collectible Card Game and Gamma World: The Collectible Card Game!

A toy line would be more likely.

Psyren
2010-11-18, 08:48 PM
Of course they did a good job on a MTG product. It's their primary line, you know.
Look at the way 4e is: Power Cards!
Look at the way Gamma World is: Power Cards and Booster Packs!
Pretty soon it will be Dungeons and Dragons: The Collectible Card Game and Gamma World: The Collectible Card Game!

The sky is falling! The end is nigh! :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2010-11-18, 08:53 PM
A toy line would be more likely.

That was covered in the 80s by TSR. WotC would never do something that TSR did. Just look at the conversions from 2e to 3e:

2e: AC 10 - -10.
3e: AC 0 - 20.

2e: NWPs Roll under.
3e: Skills Roll over.

2e: Saves separate saves for everything.
3e: 3 saves.

2e: THAC0 got smaller.
3e: BAB gets bigger.

Two specific differences may be coincidence. Any more than that is deliberate.

Psyren
2010-11-18, 09:00 PM
Not to mention, D&D toys would alienate the 18-34s Hasbro is currently aiming at.

On topic: the idea behind this seems to be to get more than one person per playgroup signed up for DDI.

tcrudisi
2010-11-18, 09:10 PM
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26286405/The_Dungeons__Dragons_Virtual_Table[/url]

http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=2128

Weird. I clicked on the links, and this is what I saw:
http://www.wallpaperez.info/wallpaper/games/Duke-Nukem-Forever-1536.jpg

Zaq
2010-11-18, 09:37 PM
After the service WotC hasn't been giving us the past few months, I'll believe it when I see it. It'd be cool if it were real, but right now I only trust WotC slightly farther than I can throw a cheesecake underwater.

true_shinken
2010-11-18, 09:40 PM
Weird. I clicked on the links, and this is what I saw:
http://www.wallpaperez.info/wallpaper/games/Duke-Nukem-Forever-1536.jpg
I see what you did there. It's so sad (http://sadness-wii.com/)...

Zephyros
2010-11-18, 09:44 PM
Which reminds me... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh_OwN-_Ca0&feature=related)

Has any of you checked d20pro?

Psyren
2010-11-18, 09:58 PM
Weird. I clicked on the links, and this is what I saw:
http://www.wallpaperez.info/wallpaper/games/Duke-Nukem-Forever-1536.jpg

You do know it's coming out, (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103257-Gearbox-Owns-the-Duke) right?

true_shinken
2010-11-18, 10:01 PM
You do know it's coming out, (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103257-Gearbox-Owns-the-Duke) right?

You're not actually buying that, are you? It's been coming out for half my life!

Mando Knight
2010-11-18, 10:50 PM
A toy line would be more likely.
Nope. CCG. It's what WotC knows best, after all. If they thought they could make money by packaging random splatbooks in foil wrappers, they'd jump at it.

Weird. I clicked on the links, and this is what I saw:
http://www.wallpaperez.info/wallpaper/games/Duke-Nukem-Forever-1536.jpg
Well, since Gearbox was showing them up, WotC had to get their act together.

Psyren
2010-11-18, 11:08 PM
You're not actually buying that, are you? It's been coming out for half my life!

Gearbox >>> 3D realms.

(Though no, I'm not buying it... I outgrew Duke a long time ago)

Warlawk
2010-11-18, 11:19 PM
I think this would be a great tool. However, I am firmly in the "I'll believe it when I see it" crowd.

dsmiles
2010-11-19, 05:26 AM
Not to mention, D&D toys would alienate the 18-34s Hasbro is currently aiming at.Somehow I doubt that. They already make DnD toys. They're called miniatures, and they come in random booster packs (for those that actually use pre-painted plastic minis).

On topic: the idea behind this seems to be to get more than one person per playgroup signed up for DDI.Exactly. More money for the evil corporations.

true_shinken
2010-11-19, 05:41 AM
Somehow I doubt that. They already make DnD toys. They're called miniatures, and they come in random booster packs (for those that actually use pre-painted plastic minis).
Miniatures are not toys, they are tools.
Also, they don't come in booster packs anymore, they come in non-randomized sets.

dsmiles
2010-11-19, 05:43 AM
Miniatures are not toys, they are tools.That's what they all say. :smalltongue:

FelixG
2010-11-19, 05:52 AM
/me looks at his miniature and toy Mechs from Battletech and dumps them in a box

Toys, what are you talking about! how would anyone in that age range possibly be able to justify buying toys?! :smallwink:

Though...If they did make a toy line you could buy one of each and keep them in the box, then in a few years sell them on Ebay as the "Blunders of Wizards of the Coast Collection"!

Also on topic... i am pretty sure this is just more vaporware...Il stick to OpenRPG for my online gaming needs thanks :smallbiggrin:

tbarrie
2010-11-19, 05:52 AM
So they are actually going to do this this time?

Given that the (closed) beta is scheduled to start Monday, I'd say the odds are good.

FelixG
2010-11-19, 05:55 AM
Given that the (closed) beta is scheduled to start Monday, I'd say the odds are good.

Take a good look at the game APB...they ran an exhaustive beta for that, opened the doors, then a few weeks later closed down the servers for good...until another company took over and are fixing things

Grogmir
2010-11-19, 06:34 AM
So they are actually going to do this this time?

This! 2 years two late i'm afraid WotC.

tbarrie
2010-11-19, 06:50 AM
Take a good look at the game APB...they ran an exhaustive beta for that, opened the doors, then a few weeks later closed down the servers for good...until another company took over and are fixing things
Yes, and...?

tcrudisi
2010-11-19, 10:05 AM
You do know it's coming out, (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103257-Gearbox-Owns-the-Duke) right?

Yes, I'm aware. I was just making fun of the fact that, while it certainly hasn't been 12 years for WotC, it has been an awfully long time. It seems like they haven't told us anything about it for 3 years other than, "it's coming out!" Even then, I'm not so sure that in the last 2 years they have done anything other than keep quiet. The GameTable has become the feature that many people assumed, like Duke Nukem, was never going to come out.

And yeah, I'll be skeptical about Duke Nukem until I see it in stores. :smalltongue:

Reverent-One
2010-11-19, 10:23 AM
Interesting. This is the sort of thing what I was saying WoTC should have done when they announced the new CB, given us good news like a VTT coming into Beta within the month. How long it's in beta and how the pricing works for this will determine it's usefulness, but it's a good start, Wizards.

Hzurr
2010-11-19, 12:47 PM
on the FAQ page, there's a link to anyone who wants to request a slot for the Beta. Apparently the first round of invitations went out yesterday, but there are more rounds coming. *crosses fingers*

Sipex
2010-11-19, 01:02 PM
I'm exicited. All I need from this is the ability to have a virtual table top for rolling dice and displaying the action. I don't need the math autocalculated for me, I don't need the rules in place, I don't need anything but those (although integrated chat would be nice too).

If this comes out I'll be able to keep playing D&D with a player friend of mine who's moving in a year or two.

We were never entitled to something like this (unless we're independant investors specifically providing capital for development of the project) so I'm just happy to hear it hasn't been abandoned.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-11-19, 02:12 PM
After the service WotC hasn't been giving us the past few months, I'll believe it when I see it. It'd be cool if it were real, but right now I only trust WotC slightly farther than I can throw a cheesecake underwater.

Yes, the horrible service they've been giving us, like setting up a character builder that's kept up-to-date with errata and new books, or an online Compendium containing essentially everything but the basic rules of combat and character creation, or constant support and update of the existing rules via Dragon and Dungeon, or swarms of errata to fix mistakes they've made in previous books, or what can perhaps best be called a highly aggressive book release schedule (though despite releasing all these high-quality glossy hardback books, D&Di's cost still hasn't risen a cent, and it's still cheaper than most subscription-based MMOs). You know, THAT horrible service. :roy:

Honestly, WOTC's been amazingly supportive of 4E. About the only legitimate complaint against them is that D&Di stuff tends to be super-buggy at release (but gets fixed pretty quick) and they didn't have a particularly realistic view of what they could accomplish by 4E's launch day (but they're making up for it step by step).

Sipex
2010-11-19, 03:57 PM
You make a point.

I've said this before but I work in IT where customers pay us to implement software. Not only that but they pay us a lot (I never knew software would cost so much, but here it is) and there are bugs. Customers expect bugs from software, I was astonished.

The average joe citizen is more entitled and picky about their $60 piece of software than a large, professional business paying thousands of dollars for something which doesn't do as much.

It's flabbergasting.

Aidan305
2010-11-19, 06:36 PM
Surely 'tis a sign of the oncoming apocalypse.

Still, if it works, it'll be great. I'll be waiting until it comes out to see wether or not it's worth subscribing to.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-11-20, 01:33 AM
I will say this about D&Di though: 4E is more reliant on a constantly-active service than any previous edition of D&D. Think about it: are you really going to copy all your powers onto index cards by hand so you don't have to plod through the books every time you want to attack something? Hell no! You're going to use the Character Builder and print out a sheet of all your powers right there! And unless people are willing to make that index-card-copying time investment (or buy the power card packs, which add up in price quick and aren't easy to find), 4E is SCREWED if WOTC shuts down D&Di support for it. All this effort WOTC is pouring into 4E's D&Di stuff tells me that WOTC intends for 4E to be the last edition of D&D, or at LEAST the longest-lasting to date. That's a tough track record to beat, because AD&D 1e started in 1977 and didn't get replaced until 19-friggin-89.

I'm not saying D&Di is bad, or that 4E is bad. I'm saying that the one is maybe a bit too reliant on the other. If a new edition comes out, even if D&Di stays alive, how much do you want to bet WOTC is going to scrap the 4E content in favor of 5E content? They've got plenty of incentive to do so; they want to promote the new edition and keep costs down. I certainly don't blame them for that; every edition of D&D has churned out high-quality product, with those beautiful glossy hardback books we all love so very very much, and high-quality product often isn't cheap to make. When you have an edition like 4E that's more reliant than ever on online content and active support, though, you're dealing with an expensive project, and one that will collapse if it isn't active. 4E isn't easy to play unless the DM's got a laptop behind the screen; I know this from experience, and never leave my computer behind when I'm running a game (I also make sure we're gaming somewhere with a Wi-Fi connection). 3.5, 2e, 1e? You can practically leave the book closed once the game gets going (unless you really really REALLY want to grapple or AoO). 4E? You WANT to leave the book closed, because looking up powers is hell, but with so many powers you need SOME reference for it.

My point (which I'll admit I haven't been great at getting across, but it's late and I'm tired dammit :smalltongue:) is this: 4E either needs to find a way to divorce itself from the online content a bit or it needs to hope it's never going to be replaced, because without the online content you won't have nearly as many people playing it. People might keep going with Essentials, since the smaller number of powers makes them WAY easier to look up, but vanilla 4E as it stands will live or die with D&Di. Maybe we can hope for errata'd reprints of the books or better marketing for more readily-available power cards or something else that makes it easier to play 4E without online assistance, but as it stands the two are leaning a bit too heavily on one another.

Callista
2010-11-20, 02:46 AM
It seems to me they may actually be deliberately making it dependent on online services so that they can force people to buy the 5th edition when they decide to switch. Whether it's actually going to result in profit for them really remains to be seen.

FelixG
2010-11-20, 05:51 AM
It seems to me they may actually be deliberately making it dependent on online services so that they can force people to buy the 5th edition when they decide to switch. Whether it's actually going to result in profit for them really remains to be seen.

Hehe never thought of it like this, they can get alot of people dependent on the online based stuff which they have sole control over then when they decide to release the next edition they can yank it out from under all those consumers to force them into the new edition

Same way they tried to force all 3rd part publishers to stop working on 3.5 material if they wanted to get in on the 4ed bandwagon

PREDICTION: When they come out with the next edition or such, the new books will have codes (like on PC games) that you will enter into your online account to tell them you have the book, thus unlocking the features to use on your account. That way they could force the issue of buying the books and subscribing to the service if you want the goodies.

Reverent-One
2010-11-20, 11:53 AM
I will say this about D&Di though: 4E is more reliant on a constantly-active service than any previous edition of D&D. Think about it: are you really going to copy all your powers onto index cards by hand so you don't have to plod through the books every time you want to attack something? Hell no! You're going to use the Character Builder and print out a sheet of all your powers right there! And unless people are willing to make that index-card-copying time investment (or buy the power card packs, which add up in price quick and aren't easy to find), 4E is SCREWED if WOTC shuts down D&Di support for it. All this effort WOTC is pouring into 4E's D&Di stuff tells me that WOTC intends for 4E to be the last edition of D&D, or at LEAST the longest-lasting to date. That's a tough track record to beat, because AD&D 1e started in 1977 and didn't get replaced until 19-friggin-89.

I'm not saying D&Di is bad, or that 4E is bad. I'm saying that the one is maybe a bit too reliant on the other. If a new edition comes out, even if D&Di stays alive, how much do you want to bet WOTC is going to scrap the 4E content in favor of 5E content? They've got plenty of incentive to do so; they want to promote the new edition and keep costs down. I certainly don't blame them for that; every edition of D&D has churned out high-quality product, with those beautiful glossy hardback books we all love so very very much, and high-quality product often isn't cheap to make. When you have an edition like 4E that's more reliant than ever on online content and active support, though, you're dealing with an expensive project, and one that will collapse if it isn't active. 4E isn't easy to play unless the DM's got a laptop behind the screen; I know this from experience, and never leave my computer behind when I'm running a game (I also make sure we're gaming somewhere with a Wi-Fi connection). 3.5, 2e, 1e? You can practically leave the book closed once the game gets going (unless you really really REALLY want to grapple or AoO). 4E? You WANT to leave the book closed, because looking up powers is hell, but with so many powers you need SOME reference for it.

My point (which I'll admit I haven't been great at getting across, but it's late and I'm tired dammit :smalltongue:) is this: 4E either needs to find a way to divorce itself from the online content a bit or it needs to hope it's never going to be replaced, because without the online content you won't have nearly as many people playing it. People might keep going with Essentials, since the smaller number of powers makes them WAY easier to look up, but vanilla 4E as it stands will live or die with D&Di. Maybe we can hope for errata'd reprints of the books or better marketing for more readily-available power cards or something else that makes it easier to play 4E without online assistance, but as it stands the two are leaning a bit too heavily on one another.

"You can practically leave the book closed once the game gets going", heh. 3.5 spellcasters would like to have a word with you.

Blackfang108
2010-11-20, 05:12 PM
Miniatures are not toys, they are tools.

Call it what you want, they're still toy soldiers, and you're still playing with them.

Personally, I revel in that fact.

How many ~30 yr olds can say they still play with toy soldiers without a shred of shame?

dsmiles
2010-11-20, 05:36 PM
How many ~30 yr olds can say they still play with toy soldiers without a shred of shame?ME!
I can, and I do! :smallbiggrin:

Blackfang108
2010-11-20, 05:38 PM
ME!
I can, and I do! :smallbiggrin:

Awesome! High Five!

dsmiles
2010-11-20, 05:40 PM
High Five!

I also paint my own toy soldiers. None of that pre-painted plastic crap for me. (I'm actually working on my Warmachine army right now.)

Callista
2010-11-20, 11:25 PM
Ehh... I've never been into the visual stuff very much. If I use minis, they tend to be just markers--glass beads, extra dice, etc.--so I know where everybody is in combat. I own two miniatures, total.

arrowhen
2010-11-21, 03:42 AM
My excitement for this hinges entirely on whether or not it includes an online matchmaking service/lobby feature. There are plenty of virtual tabletop options out there, but all of them are really only useful for scheduled games with an established group.

I suspect there are others like me -- people with erratic work schedules and other hobbies -- who would find a lot of value in a service that would allow them to jump on the internet for a one-shot pickup game any random night when they had a few hours free.

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-21, 10:19 AM
My excitement for this hinges entirely on whether or not it includes an online matchmaking service/lobby feature. There are plenty of virtual tabletop options out there, but all of them are really only useful for scheduled games with an established group.

I suspect there are others like me -- people with erratic work schedules and other hobbies -- who would find a lot of value in a service that would allow them to jump on the internet for a one-shot pickup game any random night when they had a few hours free.

Didn't see any mention of that. At all. You might want to post the above in the feature request thread that should be kicking around somewhere, just to be sure it's even something that has been suggested.

arrowhen
2010-11-21, 02:14 PM
Didn't see any mention of that. At all. You might want to post the above in the feature request thread that should be kicking around somewhere, just to be sure it's even something that has been suggested.

WotC themselves claimed their VTT would have a lobby feature back when they first announced it, what, three years ago?

Callista
2010-11-21, 02:41 PM
What's stopping people from making up virtual game tables on a non-WOTC site? Does copyright prevent them?

AstralFire
2010-11-21, 02:47 PM
What's stopping people from making up virtual game tables on a non-WOTC site? Does copyright prevent them?

In order for most things like that to get traction, you need money and name recognition, so it's easiest if WotC provides it themselves.

John_D
2010-11-21, 06:38 PM
Maptools is a pretty good non-WotC online table (if a little temperamental until you tweak your settings). I've not tried it myself, but had good reports from various people.

Excession
2010-11-21, 08:12 PM
I've had good results from MapTool myself. In places it feels like it was designed by aliens, but it works and some of the weird design makes sense after a while. I've been playing with a group of real life friends now dispersed across multiple countries and cities.

If you want pick-up games you might try http://www.rpgtonight.com/. I haven't tried it myself, but I've had a good report from someone that has.

PinkysBrain
2010-11-21, 08:21 PM
Better late than never, but I expected a little more graphical glitz from a professional product.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 08:27 PM
My point (which I'll admit I haven't been great at getting across, but it's late and I'm tired dammit :smalltongue:) is this: 4E either needs to find a way to divorce itself from the online content a bit or it needs to hope it's never going to be replaced, because without the online content you won't have nearly as many people playing it.

Or the third option; it can die a noble death and make way for 5e, minimizing confusion among newcomers to the genre as to whether they're playing the "right" D&D.

BobTheDog
2010-11-21, 09:57 PM
Or the third option; it can die a noble death and make way for 5e, minimizing confusion among newcomers to the genre as to whether they're playing the "right" D&D.

Because history shows that's what new editions do. Minimize confusion and define the "right" D&D. :smallconfused:

Crossfiyah
2010-11-21, 10:05 PM
Yes, the horrible service they've been giving us, like setting up a character builder that's kept up-to-date with errata and new books, or an online Compendium containing essentially everything but the basic rules of combat and character creation, or constant support and update of the existing rules via Dragon and Dungeon, or swarms of errata to fix mistakes they've made in previous books, or what can perhaps best be called a highly aggressive book release schedule (though despite releasing all these high-quality glossy hardback books, D&Di's cost still hasn't risen a cent, and it's still cheaper than most subscription-based MMOs). You know, THAT horrible service. :roy:

Honestly, WOTC's been amazingly supportive of 4E. About the only legitimate complaint against them is that D&Di stuff tends to be super-buggy at release (but gets fixed pretty quick) and they didn't have a particularly realistic view of what they could accomplish by 4E's launch day (but they're making up for it step by step).

No, you're a mindless drone.

They've been obtuse about the role essentials will play in D&D, since there's still a 50/50 split on whether it's a good idea or not. They've outright LIED about future updates coming to the offline Character Builder, knowing full-well they had the online version in the works. They've attempted to showcase the online character builder like they had the consumer in mind, attributing its "portable nature" as the primary reason, however, it's clear to anyone that's been paying attention for more than five minutes that it's all about themselves, their profits, and **** all with the customers.

They've lied. They've cheated. Hell, they've outright conned the entire user base out of three months of subscribing.

To top it all off, they release the new CB, bug-ridden, laggy as hell, and utterly devoid of half of the features of the old one.

WotC has been DREADFUL, and this VTT is not nearly enough to change that opinion.

Psyren
2010-11-21, 10:05 PM
Because history shows that's what new editions do. Minimize confusion and define the "right" D&D. :smallconfused:

Leaving both 4e and 5e in DDI won't exactly help, no?

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-21, 10:38 PM
Leaving both 4e and 5e in DDI won't exactly help, no?

That's when they'll roll out DDOutsider, a (potentially) fully-featured suite of (planned to be released in the next five years) programs that will not only manage your DDI subscription (which will be phased out for a new subscription management, DDPDQ), but supports all major social networking suites (with a few major bugs), and gives you updates on the latest errata and newest product releases based off of your current registered purchase (and whatever's got the best profit margins) via SMS directly to your smartphone (but only for certain carriers, additional charge rates may apply). On top of that, DDOutsider will use GPS Navigation technology to track how far away you are from your DDOutsider paying friends and the nearest 12 stores that carry tabletop game products. 5e will also be supported by the new DDBVD product, which allows you to carry your official D&D5e tokens anywhere you go (product must connect to proprietary Wizards of the Coast wireless internet connection to insure you are not sharing your tokens with other players receiving the full extent of the tokens you purchased. Additional tokens require additional payment accounts.)

When they roll out DDISP, that's the point everyone will know that 5e is too integrated, and will know that 4e is the "right" version of D&D. Until 6e comes along and we will know that 5e was the right version all along, at least until 7e comes out.

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-11-22, 01:36 AM
No, you're a mindless drone.

They've been obtuse about the role essentials will play in D&D, since there's still a 50/50 split on whether it's a good idea or not. They've outright LIED about future updates coming to the offline Character Builder, knowing full-well they had the online version in the works. They've attempted to showcase the online character builder like they had the consumer in mind, attributing its "portable nature" as the primary reason, however, it's clear to anyone that's been paying attention for more than five minutes that it's all about themselves, their profits, and **** all with the customers.

They've lied. They've cheated. Hell, they've outright conned the entire user base out of three months of subscribing.

To top it all off, they release the new CB, bug-ridden, laggy as hell, and utterly devoid of half of the features of the old one.

WotC has been DREADFUL, and this VTT is not nearly enough to change that opinion.

Do you know what killed TSR? Bankruptcy. They couldn't turn a profit, partially because they were selling several products BELOW COST (like the Planescape setting), partially because they released a bunch of campaign settings in direct competition to one another, and partially because they churned out way too much stuff they couldn't sell. The only reason D&D survived the death of TSR was because WOTC bought them out and had some idea how to run a business. You know what happens when you aren't concerned about your profits? Your business folds.

One of the reasons why the CB is online-only now is because it was being pirated all too often, and given what WOTC is setting up (and the current economic climate, and having to compete with video games) they need those profits to stay in business. There's ALSO the fact that WOTC isn't its own boss right now; it's owned by Hasbro. They've already had to axe a line this year (Star Wars), and if D&D stops being profitable enough, it'll get cut too. I don't think anyone wants to see that happen.

As for the online CB, they HAVE been fixing the bugs. I've been using it for a 4E game I'm running IRL, and it's working about as well as the client-based CB. Hell, I actually like it MORE. The presentation is a lot better, and as long as you've got a stable and not-terrible connection the lag is negligible.

As for Essentials, I never mentioned them, but if you want to bring them into this, we can absolutely do that: Essentials is basically the BECMI to 4E's AD&D. The key difference? Essentials is fully compatible with 4E, and the classes actually work great. BECMI, on the other hand, was a separate game from AD&D. I've managed to use Essentials to lure random people in a goddamn Carl's Jr. into looking into D&D.

I've been subscribed literally since D&Di began. They kept adding materials in Dragon and in Dungeon even when they weren't updating the CB. I do not feel cheated out of those three months of subscription, because I DID get something over those few months. Sure, it's less than expected, but it's not like I paid and received nothing at all.

As for features the new CB is missing: what features do you mean? The only ones I see missing are homebrew and the ability to save your characters to your computer. Everything else is right there.

Ignatius
2010-11-22, 01:57 AM
Ahh... feel the passion.

I find it amazing that we all have to have a big sook about something that we have never seen or used and that its the 'latest and greatest' worst thing that a company has done to us as their loyal customers.

My opinion is, if the next update or the next version or the next whatsit is something I dont like, I dont have to get it. I wasnt aware that Wizards had the power to force people into something they didnt want.

I also agree with GodotIsW8ing4U in that I like the online CB in some ways more than the old CB... and vice verca.

I am not sure how the VTT will go, but I will wait and see, give it a go, and then make a decision.

This is just a hobby right? Not a life or death decision we all have to start making?

heruca
2010-11-22, 07:26 AM
What's stopping people from making up virtual game tables on a non-WOTC site? Does copyright prevent them?

Huh? You mean you've never heard of the 60 or so virtual tabletop programs (http://www.battlegroundsgames.com/links.html#anchor6) that are already out there?

true_shinken
2010-11-22, 07:35 AM
I find it amazing that we all have to have a big sook about something that we have never seen or used and that its the 'latest and greatest' worst thing that a company has done to us as their loyal customers.

'haven't seen or used'? The online character build is already active... and it sucks.

dsmiles
2010-11-22, 07:54 AM
'haven't seen or used'? The online character build is already active... and it sucks.

IMO, that's good. I dislike people bringing laptops to the table when I play. In fact, I don't allow laptops at the table when I DM. I find that it ruins immersion for me more than books do.

Blackfang108
2010-11-22, 01:12 PM
IMO, that's good. I dislike people bringing laptops to the table when I play. In fact, I don't allow laptops at the table when I DM. I find that it ruins immersion for me more than books do.

We forbid laptops at the table except for the DM.

We also used the Charbuilder to make our characters and then print them out. With printers. That make it so you don't need a laptop to use your electronic character sheet.

The new charbuilder sucking is a PROBLEM, not the solution you see it as.

Psyren
2010-11-22, 01:30 PM
hyperbole

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Should they just never evolve the service with the times? :smallconfused:

It wasn't all that long ago that web-based applications were non-existent, and you couldn't cheaply host a character builder that would remember the various builds and parameters of each person or table playing their game. More than likely, new tech will come along that enhances gaming even more, and DDI will need to be updated to take advantage of it. (This may or may not be accompanied by a name change, which is primarily a marketing consideration anyway. There's so much cool stuff we have to look forward to - that Microsoft Surface table is prohibitively expensive now, but what about in 5 years' time? Imagine never needing minis or tokens or a map again. Imagine a computer figuring out all the rules for you, adjudicating dierolls, tracking HP, looking up powers on the fly etc, leaving you free to just craft a story.

Future editions need to do more than just be compatible with technology like this - they need to incorporate it into their design on a fundamental level.

J.Gellert
2010-11-22, 01:36 PM
I am all for technology, but my problem is this: It shows the game from a top-down perspective, and your character is a miniature, and the environments are 5-ft squares.

Why?

If you're doing the whole digital thing, then why not use state-of-the-art graphics and make it look awesome?

The only acceptable reason is "well, because D&D is supposed to make you use your imagination, dummy!" and if you believe that, then honestly, what's wrong with using counters on a normal table?

It looks cool, but I fail to see the point. Reroll the perception check?

Sipex
2010-11-22, 01:37 PM
I want a program and a set of dice which will automatically transmit my rolls and math them out for me.

This will lead, of course, to the problem of 'hacked dice' but it would be cool nonetheless.

AstralFire
2010-11-22, 01:38 PM
I want a program and a set of dice which will automatically transmit my rolls and math them out for me.

This will lead, of course, to the problem of 'hacked dice' but it would be cool nonetheless.

Maptool if you're willing to do a little bit of code work.


I am all for technology, but my problem is this: It shows the game from a top-down perspective, and your character is a miniature, and the environments are 5-ft squares.

Why?

If you're doing the whole digital thing, then why not use state-of-the-art graphics and make it look awesome?

The only acceptable reason is "well, because D&D is supposed to make you use your imagination, dummy!" and if you believe that, then honestly, what's wrong with using counters on a normal table?

It looks cool, but I fail to see the point. Reroll the perception check?

Virtual Tabletop has the advantages of taking less space and actually working for web-based games.

Sipex
2010-11-22, 01:40 PM
Maptool if you're willing to do a little bit of code work.

You misunderstand. I want a set of physical dice which will transmit rolls to the computer.

Psyren
2010-11-22, 01:43 PM
I am all for technology, but my problem is this: It shows the game from a top-down perspective, and your character is a miniature, and the environments are 5-ft squares.

Why?

If you're doing the whole digital thing, then why not use state-of-the-art graphics and make it look awesome?

The D&D crowd is already low on graphics requirements during gameplay (our willingness to use minis, or even glass beads/counters/coins etc., proves that.) So whatever gains WotC might make with a graphical masterpiece would fail to outweigh the expenditures required.

There's also the fact that more bells and whistles means more bandwidth and more latency. The former is extremely expensive, while the latter would annoy and alienate existing subscribers.

AstralFire
2010-11-22, 02:05 PM
You misunderstand. I want a set of physical dice which will transmit rolls to the computer.

Ah. Unfortunately, no dice.

Sipex
2010-11-22, 02:58 PM
*rimshot*

They're getting there though. Thinkgeek has a D20 which flashes on a 20 so it is possible to create dice which can tell what number they've been rolled on.

wraith808
2010-11-22, 03:01 PM
Weird. I clicked on the links, and this is what I saw:
http://www.wallpaperez.info/wallpaper/games/Duke-Nukem-Forever-1536.jpg

Ok... that was just awesome! Stealing that for the D&D forums...

Psyren
2010-11-22, 03:17 PM
Ah. Unfortunately, no dice.

Ugh, I just got that! And to think I made my will save before :smallyuk:


*rimshot*

They're getting there though. Thinkgeek has a D20 which flashes on a 20 so it is possible to create dice which can tell what number they've been rolled on.

I think an Eye of Judgement-esque setup would be neat for tabletop gaming. Not the trading card bit necessarily but the rest of it would be cool.

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/217525022_UREcV-L-2.jpg

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-22, 03:29 PM
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Should they just never evolve the service with the times? :smallconfused:
What I'm getting at is that the "right" definition of D&D, at least from a community perspective, isn't usually determined by what's on the shelves or on the corporate website, but rather, whichever version gets played the most. I'm making no claims at all about what WotC should or shouldn't do, just that the communities tend to define the right version to play regardless of what WotC does. That said...


It wasn't all that long ago that web-based applications were non-existent, and you couldn't cheaply host a character builder that would remember the various builds and parameters of each person or table playing their game.
I kinda have to call you out on this one. PHP and MySQL are 15 years old, and there are certainly methods predating those that allowed one to edit, calculate, and store data on a server. Web apps have been ubiquitous for a long time, just that they've only been flimsily branded as such recently. Hosting costs? Not really. An xml file (developed in 1998) of one of my 4e characters from MythWeavers is 33KB. Let's double it for argument's sake. On a 2 MB storage plan per account (which is a very small amount if you consider you're paying), you'd still be able to store roughly 30 character sheets per account. That's before any compression, too. Bandwidth wouldn't be a server-concern at that point, you're just going to be sending a file from your computer to the server, and having the server write to disk. Add some JavaScript validation (1995), and you can shove some of the easy work off of the server and on to the user's end to save some server CPU cycles.

That said, yes, there have been advances in consumer-end computers and electronics that have made such a switch beneficial, not the least of which are the prevalence of broadband over dial-up connections (at least in the US, where Wizards is HQ'd), the decrease in laptop computer size and price, and the increase in wireless hotspots. The point I'm making is that the technology has always been there. The smoke and mirrors, though, that's a new thing.

Ichneumon
2010-11-22, 03:33 PM
This is amazing, but I see 3 problems:

1. They're likely going to ask money for it.... from all the players.... per month...

2. It's going to be focused on 4th edition, so although other systems (0-3.5 or even other games) will be possible, it will be difficult and maybe in some cases even impossible to homebrew.

3. I'll miss the chance to throw physical dice, which is part of the fun of the game. If you can't have that, why not just play a video game instead?

Psyren
2010-11-22, 03:48 PM
What I'm getting at is that the "right" definition of D&D, at least from a community perspective, isn't usually determined by what's on the shelves or on the corporate website, but rather, whichever version gets played the most. I'm making no claims at all about what WotC should or shouldn't do, just that the communities tend to define the right version to play regardless of what WotC does.

But I was never speaking from the community perspective. WotC's job is to steer the community to the Next Big Thing, not to stagnate. Before they released 4e, the community was almost unanimously playing 3.5. By your logic, WotC's decision to release 4e would always have been wrong, because the community defined D&D as 3.5. back then, and would have indefinitely with no new version to catch their attention.

A new edition isn't just an update either, it's an opportunity."Hey, we have this cool new D&D service to launch that will change the way people play the game forever." "Let's release it with the new edition - people will be relearning the game all over again then anyway!" So said, so done.


Web Programming

Before AJAX, running a game online like that would be a pain. A Postback doesn't take very long, but needing one for every die roll, character movement, new environment etc. would really bog down a game. I'd like to think that the hobby is beloved enough to put up with annoyances like that, but WotC couldn't bank on our goodwill.

All that is, of course, in addition to the prevalence of broadband, rise of social networking etc. that have changed the landscape of the web further to make such avenues attractive to WotC.


The point I'm making is that the technology has always been there. The smoke and mirrors, though, that's a new thing.

I still don't know what you mean. "Smoke and mirrors" implies that WotC is being deliberately deceptive. That's not the impression I'm getting. They release services when they do because they see the most opportunity for an impact then... like any business.

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-22, 04:08 PM
By your logic, WotC's decision to release 4e would always have been wrong, because the community defined D&D as 3.5. back then, and would have indefinitely with no new version to catch their attention.
Again, I'm not saying what WotC should or shouldn't do. Just that (re?)defining D&D just isn't something that's up to them.


I'd like to think that the hobby is beloved enough to put up with annoyances like that, but WotC couldn't bank on our goodwill.
Given hearsay (and granted, faults are overreported and successes are underrepresented), it appears they have done so with the latest Character Builder changes. :smallwink:


I still don't know what you mean. "Smoke and mirrors" implies that WotC is being deliberately deceptive. That's not the impression I'm getting. They release services when they do because they see the most opportunity for an impact then... like any business.
One can be deliberately deceptive to release services for the most opportune impact, yes. Sure, every business does it to some extent, but we can either talk about this or why 3.5 Monks are underpowered... Which reminds me, it's Monday, right? :smalltongue:

GodotIsW8ing4U
2010-11-23, 01:32 AM
This is amazing, but I see 3 problems:

1. They're likely going to ask money for it.... from all the players.... per month...

They already do. The tabletop is going to be part of D&D Insider, so you're going to need an active subscription to use it. The only REAL question is whether they'll jack the price of D&Di or keep it the same. If it stays the same, I won't have any problems whatsoever. If they increase it, that MIGHT give me pause...but then I'll remember that I'm running a 4E game IRL that's fairly dependent on me having the CB ready behind the screen.


But I was never speaking from the community perspective. WotC's job is to steer the community to the Next Big Thing, not to stagnate. Before they released 4e, the community was almost unanimously playing 3.5. By your logic, WotC's decision to release 4e would always have been wrong, because the community defined D&D as 3.5. back then, and would have indefinitely with no new version to catch their attention.

Um, A community was almost unanimously playing 3.5. Indefinite article. You seem to be forgetting that an edition war went down back when 3rd was released too. There's still a fairly sizable 2e faction, and I don't blame them; 2e's a damn good game. 3.5's great too, but 2e had some amazing settings, and the system was solid enough for most purposes, if a bit hard for newbies to wrap their heads around. The only edition that barely sees any light anymore is 1e; I'm pretty sure even BECMI gets more players than AD&D1. Sure, a lot of people migrated over from 2e to 3.5, but 2e didn't die and still hasn't by any means.

WitchSlayer
2010-11-23, 01:57 AM
Must EVERY thread about 4e or where 4e is mentioned turn into an edition war?

turkishproverb
2010-11-23, 02:16 AM
No, you're a mindless drone.

They've been obtuse about the role essentials will play in D&D, since there's still a 50/50 split on whether it's a good idea or not. They've outright LIED about future updates coming to the offline Character Builder, knowing full-well they had the online version in the works. They've attempted to showcase the online character builder like they had the consumer in mind, attributing its "portable nature" as the primary reason, however, it's clear to anyone that's been paying attention for more than five minutes that it's all about themselves, their profits, and **** all with the customers.

They've lied. They've cheated. Hell, they've outright conned the entire user base out of three months of subscribing.

To top it all off, they release the new CB, bug-ridden, laggy as hell, and utterly devoid of half of the features of the old one.

WotC has been DREADFUL, and this VTT is not nearly enough to change that opinion.


Remember when they said there was no 4th edition in development, and then a couple MONTHS later announced the release date for it?


Do you know what killed TSR? Bankruptcy. They couldn't turn a profit, partially because they were selling several products BELOW COST (like the Planescape setting), partially because they released a bunch of campaign settings in direct competition to one another, and partially because they churned out way too much stuff they couldn't sell. The only reason D&D survived the death of TSR was because WOTC bought them out and had some idea how to run a business. You know what happens when you aren't concerned about your profits? Your business folds.
Stop mischaracterizing the death of TSR. There were other (frnakly bigger) reasons TSR went under. Lorraine Williams and Buck Rogers bring things to mind. Also, let us not forget the big problem of Dragon Dice's failed bookstore attempt. Some of the ones you mentioned were pretty valid as well, though not in the ways you might think. Heck, by the end, the problem wasn't even churning out too much stuff, it was not churning out stuff period (Their printing firm refused to cooperate).


You misunderstand. I want a set of physical dice which will transmit rolls to the computer.

I would buy so many of those


*rimshot*

They're getting there though. Thinkgeek has a D20 which flashes on a 20 so it is possible to create dice which can tell what number they've been rolled on.

Link? Now...plesase?

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-23, 04:43 AM
Link? Now...plesase?
You'll find it here (http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/games/deaa/) for ten dollars, plasma. Too bad they only come in red...

heruca
2010-11-23, 06:27 AM
I am all for technology, but my problem is this: It shows the game from a top-down perspective, and your character is a miniature, and the environments are 5-ft squares.

Why?

If you're doing the whole digital thing, then why not use state-of-the-art graphics and make it look awesome?

Because the idea is to make the original face-to-face game playable online, not to make a video game out of it (that's already been done).

Given that the original RPG is played using miniatures on a 5' square grid, it makes perfect sense that the online version is handled in exactly the same way.

dsmiles
2010-11-23, 08:23 AM
Given that the original RPG is played using miniatures on a 5' square grid, it makes perfect sense that the online version is handled in exactly the same way.If it was compatible with this (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/surface/archive/2009/10/19/dungeons-dragons-done-right-on-microsoft-surface.aspx), I might almost go for it.

Psyren
2010-11-23, 10:12 AM
Again, I'm not saying what WotC should or shouldn't do. Just that (re?)defining D&D just isn't something that's up to them.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I'm not saying previous editions "stop being D&D" or anything silly like that. But for the purposes of sanctioned events, conventions, and the all-important website support/infrastructure, then yes, WotC does have the ability to define what constitutes Dungeons & Dragons.

You of course don't have to like it.


Given hearsay (and granted, faults are overreported and successes are underrepresented), it appears they have done so with the latest Character Builder changes. :smallwink:

A few wrinkles that need to be ironed out come with every change. The nice thing about an online tool is that the fixes can be made seamlessly, instead of releasing "book erratas" and "rules compendium."



One can be deliberately deceptive to release services for the most opportune impact, yes. Sure, every business does it to some extent, but we can either talk about this or why 3.5 Monks are underpowered... Which reminds me, it's Monday, right? :smalltongue:

I honestly don't consider that deception. That's like timing the new iPhone release for around Black Friday; just a business strategy.

Ormagoden
2010-11-23, 10:30 AM
Which reminds me... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh_OwN-_Ca0&feature=related)

Has any of you checked d20pro?

I use it, its wonderful.

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-23, 11:11 AM
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I'm not saying previous editions "stop being D&D" or anything silly like that. But for the purposes of sanctioned events, conventions, and the all-important website support/infrastructure, then yes, WotC does have the ability to define what constitutes Dungeons & Dragons.

You of course don't have to like it.
Sure. But you saying thusly kind of defeats your original premise that leaving 4e and 5e on DDI could be confusing.


A few wrinkles that need to be ironed out come with every change. The nice thing about an online tool is that the fixes can be made seamlessly, instead of releasing "book erratas" and "rules compendium."
It seems odd to me that they can't bank on customers' goodwill to put up with annoyances, but they can bank on customers' goodwill to put up with wrinkles.


I honestly don't consider that deception. That's like timing the new iPhone release for around Black Friday; just a business strategy.
See, I consider business strategies to be generally deceptive by nature. If you need strategy to sell a product, then it implies your product can't stand on it's own. And, generally speaking, business strategies work best when the customer can't identify them.

Psyren
2010-11-23, 12:00 PM
Sure. But you saying thusly kind of defeats your original premise that leaving 4e and 5e on DDI could be confusing.

I don't see how that's the case. :smallconfused:
You aren't thinking of the demographic that has never tried D&D, or indeed any tabletop game, before. Whereas WotC must always consider this demographic. There's no growth to be had in only catering to existing D&D players. Even in the best-case scenario, you'll convert your entire playerbase wholesale - that still gains you no new players. It's also impossible - there will always be holdouts for older editions, people who move on from gaming, etc.

Supporting two editions of D&D at once may not confuse existing players, but the newcomers to D&D will be, even by simple things like "Which 'Player's Handbook' am I supposed to be using?"


It seems odd to me that they can't bank on customers' goodwill to put up with annoyances, but they can bank on customers' goodwill to put up with wrinkles.

Wrinkles are inevitable. Name one system that was implemented perfectly right out of the gate, no patches/bugfixes/updates needed.

I define "annoyances" differently. There are a substantial number of people that just don't like 4e, and no amount of tweaking and rebalancing on Wizards' part won't change their minds. These are the people who like broader and more open-ended systems that can model the concepts they want to play, who want wizards and fighters to be in entirely different leagues at high levels because that's the way you would expect the system to function.

In cases like these, their fault lies with the intent of the system itself, rather than its implementation. People who get upset at wrinkles are upset with the latter, but people annoyed by the change as a whole are upset by the former.


See, I consider business strategies to be generally deceptive by nature. If you need strategy to sell a product, then it implies your product can't stand on it's own. And, generally speaking, business strategies work best when the customer can't identify them.

If you forgive me saying so, that is a highly naive viewpoint. If products could stand on their own from sheer quality, then only the bad ones would rely on marketing; this is clearly not the case. There are dozens of examples of great products that failed simply due to bad/nonexistent marketing. It's an extremely important component of any business.

Hzurr
2010-11-23, 01:02 PM
Hey Everyone!

Here's a review of the product by some of the beta testers:

http://www.myrpgame.com/2010/11/22/virtual-table-great-first-game-thoughts-and-impressions/


All in all, very positive, with a few "I hope they add this" notes

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-23, 01:17 PM
I don't see how that's the case. :smallconfused:
You aren't thinking of the demographic that has never tried D&D, or indeed any tabletop game, before. Whereas WotC must always consider this demographic. There's no growth to be had in only catering to existing D&D players. Even in the best-case scenario, you'll convert your entire playerbase wholesale - that still gains you no new players. It's also impossible - there will always be holdouts for older editions, people who move on from gaming, etc.

Supporting two editions of D&D at once may not confuse existing players, but the newcomers to D&D will be, even by simple things like "Which 'Player's Handbook' am I supposed to be using?"
Well, if they do have such power to define D&D as you claim, they just need to define it, and there shouldn't be further confusion, counterantidisirregardless of demographics.


Wrinkles are inevitable. Name one system that was implemented perfectly right out of the gate, no patches/bugfixes/updates needed.
Let's retrace that point... You said that a character builder that could host the relevant data to playing the game couldn't have existed until recently because of cost... Which evolved into you saying that it'd merely be annoying without AJAX... Yet customers can be expected to put up with wrinkles (http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1543) in a current Wizards product, at least one of which crashes the program entirely. As such, I find your mystery definition of annoyances quite specific where it applies to waiting for a page to update but not... All of that to which I linked, as well as the X months between the announcing of this virtual table top and today.

But for the sake of being comprehensive... Does Mafia count? :smalltongue:


If you forgive me saying so, that is a highly naive viewpoint.
:smallconfused: I'm not going to forgive you, because I don't find that offensive. :smallsmile:


If products could stand on their own from sheer quality, then only the bad ones would rely on marketing; this is clearly not the case. There are dozens of examples of great products that failed simply due to bad/nonexistent marketing. It's an extremely important component of any business.
Oh, certainly, marketing can ruin a good product. And, yes, we don't live in an ideal world where good products succeed and bad products fail. And, yes, every business uses strategies to maximize profits and minimize losses.

I just don't like the thought of knowlingly supporting a product based on marketing as opposed to good product design. On a personal level.

Just because it seems that we kinda circle around this and I think my intentions have been misunderstood, I do want to make it clear that I think that 4e is a good product. Heck, the only reason why I don't call it a great product is because I can't find myself a game that lasts suitably long for my tastes (which is, of course, a fault of mine and not the game's). My beef, or vegetable-based substitute, is that I find the world of marketing strange and confusing, and would rather do without it. :smallannoyed: But it just. Won't. Stay. Off. My. Lawn.

Psyren
2010-11-23, 02:06 PM
Well, if they do have such power to define D&D as you claim, they just need to define it, and there shouldn't be further confusion, counterantidisirregardless of demographics.

But that's what they're doing - by only supporting 4e through DDI, then likely switching the site's focus over to 5e when that eventually comes out.



Let's retrace that point... You said that a character builder that could host the relevant data to playing the game couldn't have existed until recently because of cost... Which evolved into you saying that it'd merely be annoying without AJAX... Yet customers can be expected to put up with wrinkles (http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1543) in a current Wizards product, at least one of which crashes the program entirely. As such, I find your mystery definition of annoyances quite specific where it applies to waiting for a page to update but not... All of that to which I linked, as well as the X months between the announcing of this virtual table top and today.

It's not so much that WotC couldn't afford to do it before. But from a corporate standpoint, everything they do needs to have a positive impact on the bottom line. I find it unrealistic to think that nobody in their giant corporation ever hit on the idea of "hey, what if people could play D&D online? That would be cool!" But I doubt any idea gets greenlit in that building without an accompanying excel spreadsheet with a positive total emblazoned at the bottom.


But for the sake of being comprehensive... Does Mafia count? :smalltongue:

Maybe, I honestly don't know anything about it.


Oh, certainly, marketing can ruin a good product.

More to the point, lack of marketing can ruin a good product. Ask any indie game developer trying to get his name out there; before Steam and XBLA it was a jungle, and it's still challenging even now.


I just don't like the thought of knowlingly supporting a product based on marketing as opposed to good product design. On a personal level.

Just because it seems that we kinda circle around this and I think my intentions have been misunderstood, I do want to make it clear that I think that 4e is a good product. Heck, the only reason why I don't call it a great product is because I can't find myself a game that lasts suitably long for my tastes (which is, of course, a fault of mine and not the game's). My beef, or vegetable-based substitute, is that I find the world of marketing strange and confusing, and would rather do without it. :smallannoyed: But it just. Won't. Stay. Off. My. Lawn.

I was never advocating supporting a product based on marketing alone; I want to live in a world where marketing isn't necessary and products can stand on quality alone as much as you do. Since we don't, marketing is a necessary evil (and is only truly evil in some instances.)

What evil the practice as a whole does possess is easily outweighed by the good; I'll sift through a dozen crappy products with good marketing if it means the thirteenth one is a great product I'd have otherwise never seen.

tbarrie
2010-11-23, 03:00 PM
The only acceptable reason is "well, because D&D is supposed to make you use your imagination, dummy!" and if you believe that, then honestly, what's wrong with using counters on a normal table?

It looks cool, but I fail to see the point.

The point is, sometimes the people with whom you want to play are on another continent.

Sipex
2010-11-23, 03:02 PM
Agreed, I've got a friend going to korea who I'd like to continue playing D&D with.

Otherwise, this product isn't useful to me simply because I prefer in person gaming if I can help it.

Also, the cost of the product might be worth it in place of buying the proper minis, tiles and such (along with setting them up for height and such) if you're really into that sort of thing.

Psyren
2010-11-23, 03:31 PM
The point is, sometimes the people with whom you want to play are on another continent.

Or even just another country or state. People go to college/switch jobs/undergo active duty etc. all the time. And while PbP/Skype have their perks, they often lack the visual feedback or integration that a first-party system can provide.

But my main draw is going to be not having to keep track of dice, minis, counters etc. Hell, you could have a whole table with iPads/tablets/laptops and no cloth mat at all. Or one large tablet that everyone can scroll around/control their movements with.

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-23, 05:03 PM
Sounds like Wizards really needs to get on importing information from character builder into the tabletop... I really don't know why that wasn't the singular top priority, except maybe they didn't coordinate the online CB programmers with the VTT programmers. I wonder how it incorporates flying creatures, as that's one of the big issues with using a monitor instead of a table. And, after that, how well it'll do line of sight for flying creatures to non-flying creatures (that is, if floors will actually block line of sight).

Oooh! Who wants to buy it so we can play checkers? :smalltongue:


But that's what they're doing - by only supporting 4e through DDI, then likely switching the site's focus over to 5e when that eventually comes out.
Either the definition is made and there is no confusion, which defeats the premise, or the confusion happens because the definition is not made. That's, really, all I can see as a result.


It's not so much that WotC couldn't afford to do it before. ... But I doubt any idea gets greenlit in that building without an accompanying excel spreadsheet with a positive total emblazoned at the bottom.
Then you're saying they couldn't afford it in the end? Because, I mean... Hotmail, Yahoo, Angelfire, Tripod, Fortunecity, Freewebs, many ISPs, and many more businesses have shown that providing web space to customers, even fifteen years ago, still had a positive total at the bottom line- and they did so for a lower price than today's DDI subscription cost. Heck, Wizards even had a system for keeping track of all the 3.5 character creation details.

True, a 1:1 comparison between e-mail and web pages to game data isn't exactly fair, but what is a character sheet other than a spreadsheet with database references? What is a virtual tabletop other than a chat room with pictures? What is a man other than a miserable little pile of secrets?


Maybe, I honestly don't know anything about it.
Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game)). Actually, I'm surprised I couldn't find recruitment for a game of it here, it's quite the rage on a couple other forums I go to.


More to the point, lack of marketing can ruin a good product. Ask any indie game developer trying to get his name out there; before Steam and XBLA it was a jungle, and it's still challenging even now.
Tim Sweeny, Ingemar Ragnemalm, Sebastian Wegner, and The Behemoth. Granted, that last one's more a technicality for technicality's sake which probably got the ball rolling for indie developers for today's distribution systems. That said, yes, it's hard for an artist to get one's name out there. For anything. Including unemployment! Wakka wakka!

:smallannoyed: But I am frankly unimpressed by all the latest indie games. Perhaps that's for another topic, or for never, or whatever.


What evil the practice as a whole does possess is easily outweighed by the good;
This, however, I think we'll just have to disagree on and leave at that... Further discussions of what's evil and not, eh, not so interesting to talk about.

Psyren
2010-11-23, 06:57 PM
Either the definition is made and there is no confusion, which defeats the premise, or the confusion happens because the definition is not made. That's, really, all I can see as a result.

If the goal is to prevent confusion, how is doing so a defeat? :smallconfused:


Then you're saying they couldn't afford it in the end?

I'm saying they probably had a good reason for doing it before, being staffed by what I hope are intelligent game designers rather than howler monkeys with a printing press. :smalltongue:

Sadly, from the outside we will never know what that reason was. The important thing is that they are correcting the lack now, and I fully support them.



:smallannoyed: But I am frankly unimpressed by all the latest indie games. Perhaps that's for another topic, or for never, or whatever.


Are you? I'm excited, myself. Braid, World of Goo, Deathspank, Trine, Limbo, Amnesia... how many of these would have seen the light of day with zero marketing? Even the very limited sort they enjoy through digital distribution systems with a "latest" page.

OracleofWuffing
2010-11-23, 08:55 PM
If the goal is to prevent confusion, how is doing so a defeat? :smallconfused:
The confusion was presumed at the start as an inevitability (when BobTheDog said, '...Minimize confusion and define the "right" D&D,' and if I am reading your words correctly, sounds like you agreed that some confusion would be had). If you've done so much to prove that the confusion can be avoided altogether, it means the entire argument was based on a faulty premise (which, yes, this being the internet and this being a message board on the internet, was likely the case from the start). Meta-discussion!


I'm saying they probably had a good reason for doing it before, being staffed by what I hope are intelligent game designers rather than howler monkeys with a printing press. :smalltongue:

Sadly, from the outside we will never know what that reason was. The important thing is that they are correcting the lack now, and I fully support them.
That's a long, long, long ways away from your original claim that it couldn't be done cheaply, so I feel I've not much more to say in this regards. I hope you'll forgive me, but it does bug me when people say that X couldn't happen because Y, when what was really meant was that we don't know why X didn't happen.

That said, ahem, some of my best friends are howler monkeys who own a very prominent printing business, and I would thank you kindly not to use such derogatory comparisons in the future. :smallfurious:


Are you? I'm excited, myself. Braid, World of Goo, Deathspank, Trine, Limbo, Amnesia... how many of these would have seen the light of day with zero marketing? Even the very limited sort they enjoy through digital distribution systems with a "latest" page.
Yech. :smallyuk: If this is truly the finest of their wine, then hand me some of that generic swill the corporate machines are pooping out.

Psyren
2010-11-23, 09:00 PM
The confusion was presumed at the start as an inevitability (when BobTheDog said, '...Minimize confusion and define the "right" D&D,' and if I am reading your words correctly, sounds like you agreed that some confusion would be had). If you've done so much to prove that the confusion can be avoided altogether, it means the entire argument was based on a faulty premise (which, yes, this being the internet and this being a message board on the internet, was likely the case from the start). Meta-discussion!

I agreed there would be confusion if DDI was supporting two editions at once, not if they changed over wholesale.


That's a long, long, long ways away from your original claim that it couldn't be done cheaply, so I feel I've not much more to say in this regards. I hope you'll forgive me, but it does bug me when people say that X couldn't happen because Y, when what was really meant was that we don't know why X didn't happen.

If they saw it as both profitable and cost-effective it would have been done. What I'm saying is that we don't know why they didn't see a profit in it, not that we don't know why it wasn't doable. Of course it was doable.


That said, ahem, some of my best friends are howler monkeys who own a very prominent printing business, and I would thank you kindly not to use such derogatory comparisons in the future. :smallfurious:

I'll try :smallwink:


Yech. :smallyuk: If this is truly the finest of their wine, then hand me some of that generic swill the corporate machines are pooping out.

How very odd. Well, to each his own.