Wizards favoring VTT over Physical?

[Zuras]

Based on (what seem to me) reasonable reading between the lines of the public statements and leaks, Hasbro seems to be intent on moving as much of their D&D business into the digital realm.

Obviously this is partly because that’s where everything is going more online these days and partly because selling digital content is easier to monetize (the “micro-transactions” conversation).

Is anyone actually happy the hobby is going in this direction? I personally prefer in-person games to virtual ones, and only play on VTTs when an in-person game isn’t available (which meant 100% during the pandemic but rarely otherwise).

Part of it is that I work with computers all day, and I want to get away from a screen for my entertainment. Part of it is that the amount of effort involved in not only learning a VTT but setting up the character sheets, maps and tokens exceeds the time I have available for gaming.

All I really need for online play is voice chat and a dice roller. Ideally I’d like a digital character sheet integrated with the dice roller. All the other stuff ends up introducing more effort and time with limited benefit.

Am I just an old grognard now complaining about newfangled contraptions? I honestly don’t see how Hasbro moves to their new model without creating significantly better DMing tools to make going virtual easier. Having a DM/GM is the difference between D&D and an MMO, so you need to get existing DMs to move to your virtual environment or somehow enable the development of new DMs.

It also seems like they will need to discourage Theater of the Mind play in general to encourage more microtransactions. They can’t sell a player who just picked up a flametongue an upgraded flaming sword animation for $0.99 for their VTT mini if everything is happening in your head.

Basically, even if they weren’t doing it in a manner I object to (e.g. the OGL changes) it seems like One D&D is taking the game in a direction I’m not interested in going, which both saddens me as a player and annoys me as a customer. At latest count I’ve bought sixteen hardcover books and two boxed sets from them, along with over 50 DMs Guild licensed pdf adventures and other supplements along with various licensed play aids, and that’s just for 5e. I have decent disposable income, being an old grognard, so I’m willing to spend it on things to reduce my prep time and maximize my play time. It seems like I would be one of the customers they’d be interested in keeping, not alienating.

It honestly seems like Hasbro would do better with someone in charge of WotC who came over from Verizon or T-Mobile, as they would at least understand the concept of minimizing customer churn. Am I misreading this, or does it look to anyone else like they’re chasing the digital dollar signs at the potential cost of existing customers?

[MrStabby]

I guess that the calculation I that the old school players will reluctantly stick with the game being reluctant to shift to a new system. Potential new players might be drawn in, and a lower initial cost of entry might boost numbers.

I guess they might also be looking for dynamic errata and balance updates - though I could see that antagonising people as much as helping them.

[Keravath]

I think people will play D&D however they like, Hasbro/WotC can never dictate that.

D&D is a Table Top Role Playing Game. It can be a real table or a virtual one but the core of D&D and any other role playing game is a game master and players. Hasbro/WotC is acknowledging and hoping to at least partially monetize the digitization that is happening within the gaming space with or without them.

Keep in mind that from a production point of view, digital assets are cheaper to produce that physical ones. For digital, publication costs are minimal - the costs are mostly in design and creation. Selling digital assets along with the possibility of subscriptions for ongoing services is a "better" model from the point of view of the game's producers. It holds the possibility of substantially greater profit margins. In addition, once purchased a digital asset could be made available (for a fee) through a print on demand service for those who want a hard copy.

So, no, I don't think WotC is favoring VTT over Table Top but they might be favoring digital over physical and that is not the same thing.

---

Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, Foundry, Above VTT, Tabletop Simulator, Boardgame Arena, VASSAL, are software designed to play games online. Role Playing Games are just one of the many types of games supported by some of these platforms. The digital transformation to permit online play opens up the community to players and DMs the world over rather than one little geographical area or one particular group of people.

In addition to these VTTs, there are many creator tools for producing digital assets for games played in VTTs. Inkarnate, Dungeon Alchemist, DungeonDraft, WonderDraft, DungeonFog, Dungeon Scrawl probably among many others are tools to create digital assets for online games and VTTs (though you can also print them out or use a tablet to display them in an in person game).

Digital support for both online and in person gaming is a reality. Hasbro/WotC would be doing themselves and the entire community a disservice if they ignored probably the fastest growing segment of the market.

As far as I know, none of these are owned by Hasbro/WotC. They may eventually bring out their own software for some of this but they are way behind if they want to be in the race to create the best VTT for D&D. So, financially, it doesn't make any sense for Hasbro/WotC to stick to low profit margin hard back books with limited distributions channels. Digital has higher profit margins, can be purchased from anywhere in the world where there is a network, can more easily be reproduced in multiple languages, reach customers in both large and small markets without the need for local distribution. If they want to grow the community faster, online is certainly the way to do it.

However, for most who play the game, in person play is much more interactive and enjoyable than online. Online is good, but in person can be great (though the risk of consequences of personality clashes is also higher with in person play). In person is more fluid, more responsive, role playing can be more effective, inter-person communication and body language are all more effective in person. This means that for many, even new players or those first encountering the hobby via online play, in-person play WILL be the default and the way they WANT to play the game. In that context though, does it really matter if the rules and character sheets are referenced via an app on a phone or tablet or via a book on the table in front of you? (Digital is much easier to search though when looking something up or resolving a rules question).

The bottom line is that I expect Hasbro/WotC to support both VTT and in person play by distributing their products in both digital and physical formats (for those that want them in hardcover ... which might be a smaller and smaller number in the future, though only time will tell.

-----

Finally, in terms of One D&D, it will be whatever it turns out to be. One of the great things with the hobby and the books is that you can turn around and play whichever version of the game you like. I personally play 5e now, not because it is the "new" version but because, in my opinion, it is the best version of D&D released so far. I have the books for every major version of D&D (except the original box sets - I started with AD&D). AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e, Pathfinder, GURPS, Rolemaster - I can choose to play any of them. I choose 5e not because it is the most recent but because it is the one I prefer (I haven't tried Patherfinder 2). I also know folks who play OSE, OSX, and other D&D versions based on earlier editions because that is what they like. (I only ever played a couple of sessions of 4e because I couldn't stand it - which was apparently a feeling shared by many though some loved it).

In a similar way, One D&D will stand on its own merits. For me, if they make it more like 4e then I won't be playing it. If they remove or add too much complexity then I also likely won't play it. 5e is a success story and with a redesign Hasbro/WotC are playing with fire in terms of coming up with something that could be more successful. In addition, making something better with even wider appeal will really depend on the producers/creators/managers of the game really understanding what makes it good, what attracts people to play the game, what aspects of the community or groups makes people want to keep playing the game. My concern there is that the communications debacle over the OGL really leaves folks doubting about how much Hasbro/WotC really understands their customer base. Unlike other genres or styles of products, people will not likely go out and buy it just because it is a D&D product (some will but I don't think they represent the majority of DMs that apparently account for 80% of their revenues but are about 20% of the community).

----------

Wow, way too long :), I wonder if anyone will actually read it :) ... bottom line, WotC is unlikely to favor VTT over TableTop but they are likely to pivot towards digital delivery over physical if they can retain or grow the community (which seems likely).

[Gignere]

I think it’s just you being a grognard, you set up your character sheet on zero / first session and that is it, no more time is wasted in subsequent games. I’ve done VTT on roll20 and Combo roll20 and D&DBeyond I like them more then paper sheets in fact if and when I do join an in person game I’m going to bring my laptop and just use it as my character sheet. It’s also so much easier to look up a rule by searching.

[KorvinStarmast]

Wow, way too long :), I wonder if anyone will actually read it :) ... bottom line, WotC is unlikely to favor VTT over TableTop but they are likely to pivot towards digital delivery over physical if they can retain or grow the community (which seems likely).

I did. Good post. I may play D&Done (depends on what my D&D friends choose to do) but I am pretty sure I won't DM it.
I'll leave that to someone else.
I have enough books and other content to run D&D 5e games well into my 70's if I choose to keep on DMing.

[Psyren]

I've seen no indication that they plan on stopping or reducing physical media like books, so I don't understand where these fears are coming from. Did I miss something?

They're increasing their use of digital, but given how few books they release each year anyway, I don't see that getting in the way. (And even if we could somehow get more physical books by reducing their investment in digital platforms, that would be a colossal mistake.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've seen no indication that they plan on stopping or reducing physical media like books, so I don't understand where these fears are coming from. Did I miss something?

They're increasing their use of digital, but given how few books they release each year anyway, I don't see that getting in the way. (And even if we could somehow get more physical books by reducing their investment in digital platforms, that would be a colossal mistake.)

I don't expect them to stop or reduce actually printing physical media. That'd be...extremely obviously stupid.

What I do expect is that the ruleset itself will move more toward "digital facilitated" and will be modified to be more VTT friendly in various ways. Which inevitably is in tension with good at-the-table play without those aids. Which isn't something I like--VTTs are a crutch for cases where in-person is impossible (like my online group scattered across North America). But will never be my primary preferred way, and I wouldn't do "VTT at the tabletop"--I've been at those tables and it always seemed like a gimmick that got in the way of play more than it helped. But that's personal opinion.

[OracleofWuffing]

You don't need D & D One to see that Wizards/Hasbro/whatever is trying to incorporate computer usage into the game. A social VTT environment was the core plan of 4e's initial development and they would implement that idea hard or shoot themselves in the feet multiple times trying. Even further back, 3rd edition had eTools.

Conceptually, putting a computer in the mix solves multiple issues that can come up with pen and paper. No need for obscure area of effect templates, no one chucking dice off tables where they land underneath the fridge, your bonuses are calculated automatically, vision rules are more quickly portrayed, you can find in individual people who can't play with locals so it's a wider pool of wallets, and other such issues that are easy to ignore if you've been playing for a while. There's a potential "Let's reduce our publishing and shipping costs" line, but I'm guessing that's a wash next to "R&D and Server investments."

VTT implementation is a reasonable next step, and does not necessarily reduce physical distribution as a premise. I'd be really cheering it on, if it wasn't being done in the second-worst way possible right now.

It honestly seems like Hasbro would do better with someone in charge of WotC who came over from Verizon or T-Mobile, as they would at least understand the concept of minimizing customer churn.

First time I've ever heard a satisfied customer from either of those two.

[Psyren]

I don't expect them to stop or reduce actually printing physical media. That'd be...extremely obviously stupid.

What I do expect is that the ruleset itself will move more toward "digital facilitated" and will be modified to be more VTT friendly in various ways. Which inevitably is in tension with good at-the-table play without those aids. Which isn't something I like--VTTs are a crutch for cases where in-person is impossible (like my online group scattered across North America). But will never be my primary preferred way, and I wouldn't do "VTT at the tabletop"--I've been at those tables and it always seemed like a gimmick that got in the way of play more than it helped. But that's personal opinion.

I don't think it's guaranteed to be a zero-sum game, whereby mechanics that are easier to program into a VTT will always be mechanics that are worse for PnP play. Certainly you can make mechanics that are better for one and worse for the other... but you can also make (and get rid of) mechanics that make things better for both.

For example, something like THAC0 was not only an unintuitive mechanic for in-person play, it would have been annoying to program into a VTT too. Had VTTs been around back then, getting rid of it would have made life easier for both.

I don't think 5e has supremely bad mechanics like that necessarily, but there are some changes that could make life easier for both groups of people - for example, making Guidance a Reaction so you don't have to spam the buff every minute of game time arguably makes things easier for both groups.

I don't see them stopping or reducing physical books either, but there are still other concerns (not fears!) related to physical media. Delayed releases due to wanting to ease errata changes or just plain stuck at the printer problems which seems to happen a lot lately. And also, if we're being honest, reduced 3rd party publishing is going to produce a content drought with their slow release of physical media. One that can be remedied by releasing such materials digitally... and a whole lot faster. So I don't see these concerns as being entirely unfounded.

I'd say a digital-first strategy makes those things better, not worse. With worldwide supply chain issues for paper and other things board games need running rampant, building the expectation of books being ready on DnDBeyond as soon as they come out means that you and I don't have to wait until the printer resolves all its issues before we can get our eyes on a new book. And as we've seen with Order of the Stick itself, releasing the new stuff online first and printing it out later gives the creator a chance to catch and fix errors in the least costly way possible.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think it's guaranteed to be a zero-sum game, whereby mechanics that are easier to program into a VTT will always be mechanics that are worse for PnP play. Certainly you can make mechanics that are better for one and worse for the other... but you can also make (and get rid of) mechanics that make things better for both.

For example, something like THAC0 was not only an unintuitive mechanic for in-person play, it would have been annoying to program into a VTT too. Had VTTs been around back then, getting rid of it would have made life easier for both.

I don't think 5e has supremely bad mechanics like that necessarily, but there are some changes that could make life easier for both groups of people - for example, making Guidance a Reaction so you don't have to spam the buff every minute of game time arguably makes things easier for both groups..

THAC0 is actually trivial to automate, just as AC is. It's just a different way of doing target numbers. Computers don't care about unintuitive.

That aside, I was thinking more of things like
1. making more and more things discrete "buttons". CF the Move action and the Jump action.
2. increasing complexity via lots of little crunchy modifiers (the PF route) because the VTT handles that all for you.
3. generally leaning toward defined, "hard" mechanics (like stealth always being vs a fixed DC and "convince" being a defined action with a fixed DC) and away from more DM-centric, context-driven actions.
4. Encourage "linear" challenge design (the solution to X is Y with Z outcome on success and Q on failure) rather than "nonlinear" design (no pre-defined solutions or outcomes other than what makes sense in context)

All of those make life easier for VTTs, because they all focus on the things that computers do well. Execute numerical algorithms of arbitrary complexity at blinding speeds. And away from things computers do poorly--make context-sensitive decisions based on a wholistic view of the overall narrative. But all of those things (especially #2 and #3) make playing without such tooling more annoying and less satisfying, at least for me. "Button-based play", where everything revolves around finding the buttons that solve the problems, is fine for a video game. But leaves 99% of what TTRPGs do well on the table.

[Psyren]

I was thinking more of things like
1. making more and more things discrete "buttons". CF the Move action and the Jump action.

Valid concern (I'm against Jump as an action too) but there are more ways to code in jumping than via a discrete "button." It's not like they're programming in a Fly or Swim action either.

2. increasing complexity via lots of little crunchy modifiers (the PF route) because the VTT handles that all for you.

Where on earth have you seen them doing this?

3. generally leaning toward defined, "hard" mechanics (like stealth always being vs a fixed DC and "convince" being a defined action with a fixed DC) and away from more DM-centric, context-driven actions.

I'm not against entering "stealth mode" being a fixed DC to start with, what I'm against there is the DC starting at 15. And for convincing NPCs, the DM will have to be actively involved there anyway, so setting and overriding multiple DCs in a session

4. Encourage "linear" challenge design (the solution to X is Y with Z outcome on success and Q on failure) rather than "nonlinear" design (no pre-defined solutions or outcomes other than what makes sense in context)

I haven't seen this either. Half your concerns are easily mitigated through the playtest process, and the other half seem to be jumping at shadows.

[Sorinth]

I don't think stronger digital support will mean worse non-digital stuff especially since the 1DD rules seem to be sticking with the whole keeping it simple approach of roll a d20 and add a number to see if you beat another number for everything.

Now it's possible that certain mechanics might get designed in a way that makes a VTT easier to handle, but that's not necessarily going to be a bad thing. For example they might more clearly define vision and hearing ranges so that they can be incorporated easier into a VTT instead of leaving it completely up to the DM. Some will think that's a good thing even for in person D&D. Or in a similar vein they might move away from Theatre of the Mind as the default and go with grid based default.


I think it's probable that WotC will be chasing those DLC/micro-transactions but I have doubts that it will end up a big money maker and thereby shifting the focus of the company at large. Selling say a new subclass as a DLC doesn't seem like it would be a big money maker, especially since it probably gets packaged into a book at some point down the line anyways. For this endeavour to really work the VTT has to itself be top-notch and actually make the game better/easier to run, and I doubt that happens any time soon as it will take lots of time and continual investment which is at odds with trying to make a quick buck via DLC/Micro-transactions.

[Zuras]

I've seen no indication that they plan on stopping or reducing physical media like books, so I don't understand where these fears are coming from. Did I miss something?

They're increasing their use of digital, but given how few books they release each year anyway, I don't see that getting in the way. (And even if we could somehow get more physical books by reducing their investment in digital platforms, that would be a colossal mistake.)

And of course, Wizards would never make a colossal mistake alienating current customers to chase new customers.

Beyond the current OGL debacle, Magic: The Gathering Standard format play has effectively been eliminated from Friday Night Magic in-store events. This is partly due to the pandemic, but Magic Arena basically drove the nails in the coffin. I haven’t seen any indication that Wizards management is anything other than 100% OK with this development.

If they see selling digital products as more profitable (which they are, thanks to the near-zero marginal cost of production), why wouldn’t they move to more digital exclusive content?

We agree they’re going to stop developing and publishing 5e content once OneD&D comes out, right? Because to do otherwise would cannibalize their sales. Why doesn’t this logic hold true for physical books?

Obviously, some WotC executives see the value of brick and mortar retail channels, and have been doing a good job with store exclusive products (like the alternate covers) and events (like prereleases) to support them. But I also get the impression that some folks at Hasbro just consider them useless middlemen cutting into their profit margins.

Their behavior with the OGL indicates they’re willing to be ruthless with anyone who stands between them and their profit margins, even when long-standing agreements are involved. Why wouldn’t they cut out stores and distributors if they thought it would deliver more profits?

[Psyren]

There's plenty of people that are play in person and physical books only though that might not take too kindly to that approach. And there are also the particulars in how they go about their launches of physical books. The length of time after digital release for a physical book to come out would also be a factor, especially with throwing in supply chain issues into the mix. I'm also not down for them first releasing slipcase bundles with books I either already own or do not wish to purchase and then releasing the single copies months later after an already delayed bundle release.

1) The slipcase bundle thing is completely separate from 1DnD, and is something they've been doing now during 5e anyway. They haven't done it since MPMM so my hope is that they learned people hate that.

2) For the "physical releases come later thing" that's purely a marketing issue. If you frame the book release date as the actual with the digital being "early access", rather than the book being "late," there won't be nearly as many objections. The physical books can even include extras, much like the Giant does with his books.

I can also see them releasing things digitally that never get a physical book, or a physical book might take a year or more to materialize.

They've done digital-only releases many times in the past. 3.5 had entire columns for it, e.g. Mind's Eye and Web Enhancements. It's nothing new and nothing for any playgroups to get prickly over.

[Sorinth]

What I'm curious to see how much AI integration they do with content creation/artwork. For example I'm prepping my next session where the players are going to go into a haunted house, I log into my account and go to the create map section and ask the AI to generate a haunted house providing a few details perhaps even a sketch and it generates a nice custom haunted house that visually looks like a professional map and is integrated with the VTT. Similarly AI generated character art that is integrated into the VTT would be something that's cool to see.

That's the type of thing that I could see getting people to pay for monthly subscriptions to have access to, whereas releasing individual spells that cost 99cents each doesn't seem like something most people will pay a lot for.

[Psyren]

If they see selling digital products as more profitable (which they are, thanks to the near-zero marginal cost of production), why wouldn’t they move to more digital exclusive content?

Because physical books still make money, and a sizeable portion of their audience still hates digital. A lower profit margin still beats zero.

We agree they’re going to stop developing and publishing 5e content once OneD&D comes out, right? Because to do otherwise would cannibalize their sales. Why doesn’t this logic hold true for physical books?

What does stopping new 5e content have to do with stopping physical?

Obviously, some WotC executives see the value of brick and mortar retail channels, and have been doing a good job with store exclusive products (like the alternate covers) and events (like prereleases) to support them. But I also get the impression that some folks at Hasbro just consider them useless middlemen cutting into their profit margins.

They're only "middlemen" if they don't generate sales from people that wouldn't have otherwise bought products - which they do. As above, there are plenty of folks who don't want digital-only, and there are also people who want to get into the hobby but don't know where to start with learning the game and finding a playgroup - physical product sold through FLGS alleviate both those issues.

I'm not saying that FLGS won't decline over time, maybe even hit zero - but by the time it does, it will be because the market no longer sees value in them, not just WotC. And if that happens, blaming them would be silly.

[kazaryu]

Based on (what seem to me) reasonable reading between the lines of the public statements and leaks, Hasbro seems to be intent on moving as much of their D&D business into the digital realm.

Obviously this is partly because that’s where everything is going more online these days and partly because selling digital content is easier to monetize (the “micro-transactions” conversation).

Is anyone actually happy the hobby is going in this direction? I personally prefer in-person games to virtual ones, and only play on VTTs when an in-person game isn’t available (which meant 100% during the pandemic but rarely otherwise).

Part of it is that I work with computers all day, and I want to get away from a screen for my entertainment. Part of it is that the amount of effort involved in not only learning a VTT but setting up the character sheets, maps and tokens exceeds the time I have available for gaming.

All I really need for online play is voice chat and a dice roller. Ideally I’d like a digital character sheet integrated with the dice roller. All the other stuff ends up introducing more effort and time with limited benefit.

Am I just an old grognard now complaining about newfangled contraptions? I honestly don’t see how Hasbro moves to their new model without creating significantly better DMing tools to make going virtual easier. Having a DM/GM is the difference between D&D and an MMO, so you need to get existing DMs to move to your virtual environment or somehow enable the development of new DMs.

It also seems like they will need to discourage Theater of the Mind play in general to encourage more microtransactions. They can’t sell a player who just picked up a flametongue an upgraded flaming sword animation for $0.99 for their VTT mini if everything is happening in your head.

Basically, even if they weren’t doing it in a manner I object to (e.g. the OGL changes) it seems like One D&D is taking the game in a direction I’m not interested in going, which both saddens me as a player and annoys me as a customer. At latest count I’ve bought sixteen hardcover books and two boxed sets from them, along with over 50 DMs Guild licensed pdf adventures and other supplements along with various licensed play aids, and that’s just for 5e. I have decent disposable income, being an old grognard, so I’m willing to spend it on things to reduce my prep time and maximize my play time. It seems like I would be one of the customers they’d be interested in keeping, not alienating.

It honestly seems like Hasbro would do better with someone in charge of WotC who came over from Verizon or T-Mobile, as they would at least understand the concept of minimizing customer churn. Am I misreading this, or does it look like they’re chasing the digital dollar signs at the potential cost of existing customers to others?

i mean, unless they start refusing to print books at all i dont' really see it as a problem, like, so long as they still sell physical books, im really not sure what changes with an increased focus on digital content. for the record, im grouing the rumored 'monthly content drops for highest tier subscribers' as being 'not selling physical books'. essentially, as long as you can get a physical copy of all the content, i don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.

there *can* be a discussion about the exact methods of monetization that they might employ on the digital side, and how good/bad those are. But adding digital support to the existing model shouldn't change much for in person groups directly.

[Dork_Forge]

They're not favouring it, they're playing catch up whilst trying to create new/ongoing revenue.

They've shown no notion of stopping physical books and DM screens and thst last product announcement had those fancy tiles for in person play.

For as along as is financially feasible they'll likely split the difference and play both sides. If they're smart about it they'll tie incentives into both (digital/physical bundle, get $10 off a Beyond purchase when you buy this official physical accessory etc.).

[firelistener]

I've tried out lots of different VTTs over the years, and it's always surprised me that WotC never bothered to produce one of their own. I really think modifying the OGL was probably motivated by wanting to capture digital content sales for a VTT they own, and that's the only thing I don't like (to put it politely). As things stand now, every VTT has to avoid letting people auto-import macros and texts from official sources outside the SRD unless WotC gets a cut. I think that's plenty fair, and still leaves ample room for them to produce an in-house VTT that could outshine all the rest because they have the capital to do it, and they don't have to waste effort jumping through legal hoops making sure no one accidentally gets access to Beholder tokens or the descriptive text for Bigby's Hand.

Maybe they'll go full throttle and try to push microtransactions that add up to triple the cost of books for all those resources. I'm hoping they don't, and I hope they stick to a cost model similar to what exists now. We'll see. For now, I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Cheesegear]

Keep in mind that from a production point of view, digital assets are cheaper to produce that physical ones.

For digital, publication costs are minimal - the costs are mostly in design and creation. Selling digital assets along with the possibility of subscriptions for ongoing services is a "better" model from the point of view of the game's producers.

Digital assets provide more profit. If you're looking to make a billion dollar brand, that's how you do it.

So, no, I don't think WotC is favoring VTT over Table Top but they might be favoring digital over physical and that is not the same thing.

Partial agree.

The digital transformation to permit online play opens up the community to players and DMs the world over rather than one little geographical area or one particular group of people.

I can play online with a group of people, and never leave my house. Everything is provided for me and I'm in arguably the environment I'm most comfortable in.
Or, I can play in person, with the exact same group of people, I have to get in my car, drive over, I have to lug a bunch of minis...

Nobody is saying that physical tabletop gaming is going away - not in the short term.

What people are worried about, is:
1. How long until there are more nerds playing D&D on their computers, than nerds playing IRL at someone's house? And what happens in WotC's corporate brain if and/or when the balance in the playerbase, shifts? Especially when you're looking to expand the brand to literal children - people who can't drive or go anywhere.

2. VTTs don't have to be perfect - they never have. They just have to be good enough, that players will accept them. Once the VTT is good enough, will someone be able to admit to themselves that they're perfectly fine playing on their computer, and they don't really need their IRL friends to play D&D anymore? How can WotC convert players from physical media, to digital, and if they can, will those players be players from your table? Will they be prospective players from your local area who will no longer be in your pool of players, anymore?

3. Will the "physical experience" be dumbed down to accommodate the virtual one? How much of the rules will be simplified to allow for an AI-DM? Can D&D be molded to fit a multiplayer Baldur's Gate 3, Mass Effect or Fallout 4. Will normies (i.e; Not You) accept a dialog tree that is 'Persuasion, Intimidation, Deception, Fight', and if they will, does WotC move the game in that direction? Why wouldn't they.

As always, I have to seemingly point out that if a brand is trying to grow, the existing audience, isn't enough.

1DD isn't being made for me.
VTTs aren't being made for me.

They're being made for people who don't currently play D&D, but WotC thinks they will, if they can just make the rules and/or experience simple or familiar enough to get normies involved. People play video games. They don't play D&D. How can we make D&D a video game, so that people will see it as a viable option to Mass Effect, Dragon Age or The Witcher?

Comics don't sell. Movies, do.
What's the difference? Isn't it the same stuff? The same story? The same characters? Yeah. That's not what matters. The format is different, and the accessibility is different.

However, for most who play the game, in person play is much more interactive and enjoyable than online.

For most, the reason has nothing to do with the game. If those people started playing Pathfinder, any board game, Scrabble, whatever. The game is simply a medium for friends to interact with each other. However, the medium isn't D&D, the medium is games. Just play any game with your friends and it will be enjoyable.

Can you play online games, with that same group of friends, and have the same enjoyment? Not perfectly...But just good enough that maybe it's not worth having everyone drive over anymore?

The bottom line is that I expect Hasbro/WotC to support both VTT and in person play by distributing their products in both digital and physical formats...

I expect WotC to support both until one significantly surpasses the other, and I expect them to invest resources to actually force that to happen.

Finally, in terms of One D&D, it will be whatever it turns out to be. One of the great things with the hobby and the books is that you can turn around and play whichever version of the game you like.

Physically? No you can't.

I personally play 5e now, not because it is the "new" version but because, in my opinion, it is the best version of D&D released so far.

Maybe a year or so (if not less) after 1DD comes out, I will be forced to play 1DD, physically, because that will be the edition that is supported, and that is the edition that New Blood will be getting introduced to.

Hey I just picked up this 1DD book, and I heard you guys were looking for a new player?
**** off. My table plays 5e.
But...I don't have access to 5e...I mean...Unless I take up sailing...

I started with AD&D). AD&D, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e, Pathfinder, GURPS, Rolemaster - I can choose to play any of them.

You have such an IRL player base that you could start up a 2e campaign, right now?
I'm not saying I don't believe you. But I don't believe you.

WotC is unlikely to favor VTT over TableTop...

In the short term I agree with you.
But long-term (3-5 years) I disagree. If they can entice you to go to DNDB or some other VTT, for your D&D content, that's where you're gonna go.

If you can spend four hours per day playing video games, you can spend four hours per day playing TT-DND-RPG.

I envision it as a TBS Grid-Based Tactics RPG. And occasionally the AI-DM will prompt you with a simple dialog wheel.

X-COM 2 sold 500,000 copies (on Steam only) in a single week. Make something like X-COM multiplayer, put in a dialog wheel every now and then, you'll sell units, even to normies who don't even know what D&D is.

[Wuzza]

Part of it is that I work with computers all day, and I want to get away from a screen for my entertainment.

This sums up exactly my situation. My group has little interest in using a VTT, although I appreciate that these have helped fuel the explosion of DnD over the last several years. I doubt that my group will see much of a difference, however this pans out. We've invested enough over the years that we'll keep playing 5E.

From what i can see WotC is trying to take the game in a direction that is more akin to a computer game, which real DnD (or at least what i would describe as the ideal) is the complete antithesis of.

The other issue, that i haven't really seen brought up that much, is in a digital world, you don't actually own anything. WotC goes bust, cya investment. They decided that they want you to upgrade to the next edition, so long cash.

Am I just an old grognard now complaining about newfangled contraptions?

+1

[Trafalgar]

What is permitted under this policy?

Using VTTs to replicate the experience of sitting around the table playing D&D with your friends.

So displaying static SRD content is just fine because it’s just like looking in a sourcebook. You can put the text of Magic Missile up in your VTT and use it to calculate and apply damage to your target. And automating Magic Missile’s damage to replace manually rolling and calculating is also fine. The VTT can apply Magic Missile’s 1d4+1 damage automatically to your target’s hit points. You do not have to manually calculate and track the damage.

What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target, or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience. That’s more like a video game.

Hasbro/WotC has hired 300+ programmers to create a OneD&D VTT based on the Unreal Engine. They have publicly said that they want to tap into microtransactions like those found in video games. One exec said that books are going to become collectors items but not needed to play. This is not going to be D&DBeyond, its going to be something different. There are going to be microtransactions for skins, tilesets, and maybe even abilities. You will probably be able to play by yourself with an AI DM as long as you are paying enough in fees. As I understand, the new executives at WotC have most of their experience in video games so it makes sense they are trying to turn D&D into a video game.

The purpose of the above part of OGL1.2 is to make sure OneD&D is the best looking VTT you can play 6e on. Why else would they try to outlaw animation on other VTTs? As I read the above, if a VTT makes it so a tile shakes when it takes damage, that violates the new OGL. I really think Hasbro/WotC has Foundry and Talespire in their crosshairs more than Kobold Press or Paizo.

At it heart, D&D and TTRPG is a social thing whether its done around a table or a computer. I think the problem will be if these changes make it something you do by yourself or with strangers you only play with once and never again.

[Keravath]

...
Digital assets provide more profit. If you're looking to make a billion dollar brand, that's
I can play online with a group of people, and never leave my house. Everything is provided for me and I'm in arguably the environment I'm most comfortable in.
Or, I can play in person, with the exact same group of people, I have to get in my car, drive over, I have to lug a bunch of minis...

Nobody is saying that physical tabletop gaming is going away - not in the short term.

That is a good point. Even playing in person with people nearby has overhead in terms of commute time, finding a play space that accommodates everyone, effort for the DM creating assets/having minis/maps (which can be more work than creating the equivalent in digital assets), mapping and revealing maps during in person play (generally done much better on a VTT in my opinion). The real draw of in person play IS the social interaction and virtual play can't touch that (at least not yet).

What people are worried about, is:
1. How long until there are more nerds playing D&D on their computers, than nerds playing IRL at someone's house? And what happens in WotC's corporate brain if and/or when the balance in the playerbase, shifts? Especially when you're looking to expand the brand to literal children - people who can't drive or go anywhere.

This may already be the case to be honest. I currently run two games a week online, play in person once and play online once. So already, in my experience, there are more folks playing online than in person. Some of this has to do with time constraints - scheduling is typically easier for online games. Another reason is the pandemic that pushed a lot of in person games online and a third reason is geography. Only one of the online games I play or run is composed of people living in the same city and even in that case some of them live 30-45 minutes away by car - online play is just more convenient though the social aspects are diminished (in some of the games we make up for it by spending some of the initial time just socializing and catching up).

So, I'd actually say this shift is either well on the way or has actually happened already.

2. VTTs don't have to be perfect - they never have. They just have to be good enough, that players will accept them. Once the VTT is good enough, will someone be able to admit to themselves that they're perfectly fine playing on their computer, and they don't really need their IRL friends to play D&D anymore? How can WotC convert players from physical media, to digital, and if they can, will those players be players from your table? Will they be prospective players from your local area who will no longer be in your pool of players, anymore?

All the available VTTs have significant limitations and could be a lot better with even a modest amount of investment. We typically use Roll20 for D&D and it is Ok. However, it isn't about "needing" your IRL friends. Playing in person is about wanting your IRL friends, see them in person and have fun in person. The gameplay itself appears comparable in person or online. In person can make role playing feel more natural but the downside is that in person play can often mean that the player with the biggest voice, strongest personality, will dominate the table interaction even more than in online play. The DM can ask players in online play and the restriction of one person speaking at a time can give the quieter people a chance to express themselves that can be suppressed for in person play because some of the other players will find it easier to interrupt in person. (I agree it is up to the DM to really step in and moderate interactions either in person or online but I find it can be easier to do this online than in person).

3. Will the "physical experience" be dumbed down to accommodate the virtual one? How much of the rules will be simplified to allow for an AI-DM? Can D&D be molded to fit a multiplayer Baldur's Gate 3, Mass Effect or Fallout 4. Will normies (i.e; Not You) accept a dialog tree that is 'Persuasion, Intimidation, Deception, Fight', and if they will, does WotC move the game in that direction? Why wouldn't they.

As always, I have to seemingly point out that if a brand is trying to grow, the existing audience, isn't enough.

Hopefully not. Computers can actually handle more complex mechanics than people can. If you can code it, a computer can use it but that won't mean that people can play it. The challenge for AI is figuring out what the best actions for each "NPC actor" in a scene might be, not resolving the actions chosen. In terms of computer games, I think AD&D as well as 2e and 3e have all been adapted to games. The original Baldur's Gate, BGII, Ice Wind Dale I and II, Neverwinter, NWN ...

However, computer games, even a procedurally generated, AI driven, multiplayer, cooperative online game - would not be the same as playing with a real DM either in person or online. Though whether some people might find it "good enough" is a different story. However, in my opinion, even online D&D still has a significant and meaningful amount of social interaction which is lacking in multiplayer online games in general.

1DD isn't being made for me.
VTTs aren't being made for me.

They're being made for people who don't currently play D&D, but WotC thinks they will, if they can just make the rules and/or experience simple or familiar enough to get normies involved. People play video games. They don't play D&D. How can we make D&D a video game, so that people will see it as a viable option to Mass Effect, Dragon Age or The Witcher?

Actually, I expect they are being made for both. Selling core books is a major source of revenue. Historically, I think they have relied on system transitions to drive a boost in revenue followed by support books for the next system. They don't yet have a model for steady state and increasing profit and revenues from a base game system that doesn't re-invent itself every so often. Yes, they want to draw in new players BUT they also want to sell to their existing player/DM base. Also, as pointed out, since their player base is a lot larger than the DM base, they would ideally like to develop products that everyone will buy. A new PHB can do this.

However, I think it would not be a good idea to try to make D&D into a video game. I think that may have been some of the reasoning behind the 4e design (at least my first impression when I played it was that it made more sense as video game mechanics than D&D mechanics) and that was not a success.

Also, as mentioned, social interactions in video games are not the same as D&D either in person or online. Moving more toward some sort of "video game esque" version of D&D might well lose their core audience without significantly enhancing their numbers or revenues.

Time will tell :)

[Atranen]

One exec said that books are going to become collectors items but not needed to play.

Sad but not surprising. Do you have the original quote?

[DarknessEternal]

They need to do zero work to make people play in real life. People already do that.

They need to do a lot of work to make people able to play virtually. Of course they are spending a lot of work and time on this task.

There's nothing to see here.

[da newt]

I'm of the opinion the online experience is being pushed as the next growth area and revenue stream.

I also believe that anything that happens moving forward won't really prevent players from doing what we are doing now - I don't think that can be taken away from us. Whatever comes along next might appeal to new folks and folks who already enjoy the game - or it might bomb.

As for me, I'm happy with what I've got, I prefer TTRPG in person and I really don't like the idea of microtransactions or pay to play, but I'm willing to look at online games to see what they offer. (I am an old Luddite at heart)

[Psyren]

What people are worried about, is:
1. How long until there are more nerds playing D&D on their computers, than nerds playing IRL at someone's house? And what happens in WotC's corporate brain if and/or when the balance in the playerbase, shifts? Especially when you're looking to expand the brand to literal children - people who can't drive or go anywhere.

2. VTTs don't have to be perfect - they never have. They just have to be good enough, that players will accept them. Once the VTT is good enough, will someone be able to admit to themselves that they're perfectly fine playing on their computer, and they don't really need their IRL friends to play D&D anymore? How can WotC convert players from physical media, to digital, and if they can, will those players be players from your table? Will they be prospective players from your local area who will no longer be in your pool of players, anymore?'

If the player balance truly is shifting, why is it a bad thing that WotC is preparing for that? Doing so is quite literally their job.

3. Will the "physical experience" be dumbed down to accommodate the virtual one? How much of the rules will be simplified to allow for an AI-DM? Can D&D be molded to fit a multiplayer Baldur's Gate 3, Mass Effect or Fallout 4. Will normies (i.e; Not You) accept a dialog tree that is 'Persuasion, Intimidation, Deception, Fight', and if they will, does WotC move the game in that direction? Why wouldn't they.

Same response I gave to PhoenixPhyre - I think the belief that mechanics that are easier for a VTT or AI to parse, must necessarily be mechanics that are worse for PnP, is a false dichotomy.

1DD isn't being made for me.
VTTs aren't being made for me.

They're being made for people who don't currently play D&D, but WotC thinks they will, if they can just make the rules and/or experience simple or familiar enough to get normies involved. People play video games. They don't play D&D. How can we make D&D a video game, so that people will see it as a viable option to Mass Effect, Dragon Age or The Witcher?

Comics don't sell. Movies, do.
What's the difference? Isn't it the same stuff? The same story? The same characters? Yeah. That's not what matters. The format is different, and the accessibility is different.

Er... I currently play D&D, and I'm looking forward to what VTTs (especially theirs) can do in the future. And I'm also looking forward to 1DD.

[Zuras]

They need to do zero work to make people play in real life. People already do that.

They need to do a lot of work to make people able to play virtually. Of course they are spending a lot of work and time on this task.

There's nothing to see here.

That’s definitely not the case in my experience. There needs to be some sort of community system to introduce new players (which is usually a friend or the local game store), and there needs to be new content to keep existing players invested.

I agree keeping existing players is easier, since you seldom switch systems mid-campaign and campaigns can last years, but it’s not automatic. People can and do switch systems, especially those playing multiple games a week, who are more likely to try different RPG systems.

Players may keep playing regardless, but that doesn’t mean they’ll keep playing *your* game.

[Atranen]

Same response I gave to PhoenixPhyre - I think the belief that mechanics that are easier for a VTT or AI to parse, must necessarily be mechanics that are worse for PnP, is a false dichotomy.

I don't think the argument is that in every case easier VTT mechanics are worse. Just that that's sufficiently common. For example, it gives bad incentives to designers who write official modules, and have to be concerned with VTT integration, to write more linear modules that are easier for a VTT to run.

[Kane0]

Yes it would seem digitization is the long term goal, and has been for a while. Likely at the expense of support for old school table play, but i dont think from actively trying to kill it but rather just not investing further in that direction.