http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2128/~/dungeons-%26-dra gons-virtual-table-beta-faq
It looks like Wizards is finally getting around to their promised VT.
Does Paizo have any similar plans in this direction?
It looks like Wizards is finally getting around to their promised VT.
Does Paizo have any similar plans in this direction?
Linkified for easy clickability.
The beta has been out for a while, I believe.
I'm skeptical, myself, since Wizards is typical high on software promises, low on software delivery.
Our plan involves not overpromising.
Vic, If I had not already done a twitter #QuoteOfTheDay post today, this would have been it.
Oh, wow. Last I heard they had given up for good, considering the number of other tabletops out there. I guess it was wrong.
Does Paizo have any similar plans in this direction?Our plan involves not overpromising. So, we're aware of the desires our customers have for tools like this, but we have nothing specific to say at this time.
That's good thinking. You guys have a good thing going here. What you do now you do very well. The last thing you want to do is spread yourselves too thin chasing after tangents.
I'm surprised to see mac support on this one for once.
Let's see if they can actually ship it!
Wow! That was quick! 4e isn't even officially on its way out yet and already they have - what, not even a release date?
They should call it VTF - Virtual Table Forever.
Until I get proof otherwise, I'll assume that this will be available for 6e, which would put it in the same time frame as the Duke's latest escapades :D.
|
Is there any perceived benefit to developing a new app from scratch, rather than adopting one of the many existing ones already out there?
Even if you have to hire those 3PP staff to be on the WotC books, and buy the rights to their VTT (to ensure it will remain available to WotC in perpetuity), is this not cheaper and easier than reinventing the wheel?
Is there any perceived benefit to developing a new app from scratch, rather than adopting one of the many existing ones already out there?
Money. Property.
If they dropped the OGL, why would they adopt any VTT they don't own?
Personally, I would like to see Paizo offer "VTT Packs" for the popular VTTs (Maptool, FF, etc) already out there.
Personally, I would like to see Paizo offer "VTT Packs" for the popular VTTs (Maptool, FF, etc) already out there.
I could see them licensing that out to someone else to do that for them.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Any news about apps?Does Paizo have any similar plans in this direction?Our plan involves not overpromising. So, we're aware of the desires our customers have for tools like this, but we have nothing specific to say at this time.
(That was Erik learning his lesson about overpromising.) Last I heard, we were still awaiting fixes for the last problems I identified.
Wow! That was quick! 4e isn't even officially on its way out yet and already they have - what, not even a release date?
They should call it VTF - Virtual Table Forever.
Until I get proof otherwise, I'll assume that this will be available for 6e, which would put it in the same time frame as the Duke's latest escapades :D.
I've played on the VTT. So have tons of other people. It works just fine (and voice fonts are trippy). The online Monster Builder is currently scheduled to be released on Tuesday with a full, up-to-date array of monsters (probably minus monsters from LFR adventures, since those were often of poor quality and they were kind of a pain to sift through). I can't wait for it to hit, because I'm starting to get tired of designing monsters on my 23" desktop monitor and then having to manually export and copy them over to my netbook to run game from. Once it's live they'll start switching on integration between the Character Builder, Monster Builder and VTT.
Personally, I would like to see Paizo offer "VTT Packs" for the popular VTTs (Maptool, FF, etc) already out there.I could see them licensing that out to someone else to do that for them.
Aye, that would work as well.
So when Pathfinder makes a VT release of their own, will it be be supported for us MAC users too? Kind of a pain when my windows tower isn't in the room we play in (not really an abundance of room etc).
I find a lot of great tools when searching around, but never get to use them in game because they only work on windows :(
So when Pathfinder makes a VT release of their own, will it be be supported for us MAC users too? Kind of a pain when my windows tower isn't in the room we play in (not really an abundance of room etc).
I find a lot of great tools when searching around, but never get to use them in game because they only work on windows :(
There are many VTTs available, and quite a lot of them work either natively or by other means on Macs. VTT Comparison Chart
My two gaming groups and I are perfectly satisfied with Fantasy Grounds for our Pathfinder and other types of games.
(That was Erik learning his lesson about overpromising.) Last I heard, we were still awaiting fixes for the last problems I identified.
Would you consider publicly naming these problems? Some VTTs are open source, I think that developers may take it upon themselves to meet the criteria if they were explicit.
The latest versions of MapTool do allow for the saving and loading of maps into a campaign, which is a long way closer to buying that "Goblin Attack on Sandpoint" map for your VTT campaign.
MT version 1.4 is in the design phase right now. If Paizo makes their requirements explicit, it is highly likely we might see everything they need/want in that version.
EDIT:
So when Pathfinder makes a VT release of their own, will it be be supported for us MAC users too? Kind of a pain when my windows tower isn't in the room we play in (not really an abundance of room etc).
I find a lot of great tools when searching around, but never get to use them in game because they only work on windows :(
Considering that 90+% of the computers in the Paizo offices are Macs, I think that's a strong possibility.
|
Considering that 90+% of the computers in the Paizo offices are Macs, I think that's a strong possibility.
While I happen to agree with you, that does not make it a sound business reason, (or perhaps, a sound technical one) nor will it result in a strong product in terms of its graphical capabilities for 90% of their users.
It's Paizo's property and they are entitled to do with it as they see fit. That doesn't mean I have to like it though.
From what we have heard, I think Paizo is more concerned with getting iPhone and iPad apps with ad hoc networking at the table than in enabling VTT use for people to play their games over the net.
I'm not saying that is wrong; I am saying the two need not be mutually exclusive and can be pursued in parallel.
I'm not saying that is wrong; I am saying the two need not be mutually exclusive and can be pursued in parallel.
I wasn't suggesting the solution would somehow be mac-only. I don't think anyone really thinks that way, actually. I would say that a java-driven solution like MapTool or a straight-up HTML5 solution would be likely. It will be a cold day in hell before anyone expects an mac-only application to have significant market share.
But, it's all but certain that the folks at Paizo would want to play with whatever toy they made. That means that a Windows-only solution is just as far-fetched as a mac-only one.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
(That was Erik learning his lesson about overpromising.) Last I heard, we were still awaiting fixes for the last problems I identified.Would you consider publicly naming these problems?
You missed a slight topic shift there. The problems I was talking about were with the iPhone/iPad apps that Erik mentioned long before he really should have. We haven't said what they are—and we won't until they're ready—but they're *not* VTT-related.
As for anything we may or may not be doing with VTTs—we're not saying anything until we actually have something ready to show. Assuming we'll ever have anything to show.
Why bother for WotC's fee-requiring and fixed-system VT when you have a free, system-agnostic, extremely light and community-supported MapTool with which you can satisfy any gaming need you may conceive?
Why bother for WotC's fee-requiring and fixed-system VT when you have a free, system-agnostic, extremely light and community-supported MapTool with which you can satisfy any gaming need you may conceive?
Compendium/Tiles/Character Builder/Monster Builder/Voice Chat/Voice Font integration.
MapTool is nice, but I think for your average 4e DM the WotC VTT is going to be a much better choice.
That's good thinking. You guys have a good thing going here. What you do now you do very well. The last thing you want to do is spread yourselves too thin chasing after tangents.
The last thing they want to do is get caught bringing up the rear.
VTT with true system integration is the future of RPG. It's hard finding a good gaming group and even harder keeping it together.
VTT with true system integration is the future of RPG. It's hard finding a good gaming group and even harder keeping it together.
I think so, too. We're going to start seeing some really interesting movement towards significant digital aids - official tablet/smartphone apps, Surface-esque play spaces, online tool sets, internet-enabled long-distance play, etc.
VTT with true system integration is the future of RPG.I disagree. The future of RPGs is modular software with interchangeable, programmable apps that can support any and all systems and house rules.
Just look at the smartphone market if you want to see examples of obscure products with open system architecture stealing market share from popular products with closed system architecture.
Actually the future of RPG won't arrive until December 22nd 2012. On that fateful day, our new Robotic Alien Overlords will institute a virtual reality prison in the style of the Matrix. Differing segments of the population will be placed in a reality that will generate the most positive mental energy for that group. The Robo-Aliens will feed off this mental energy and use it to fuel their further conquest of the universe.
We gamers will be placed in virtual realities conforming with our favorite RPG campaign.
|
|
VTT with true system integration is the future of RPG.
I disagree. The future of RPGs is modular software with interchangeable, programmable apps that can support any and all systems and house rules.
Just look at the smartphone market if you want to see examples of obscure products with open system architecture stealing market share from popular products with closed system architecture.
I happen to think that you are BOTH right.
What is necessary to pull off a great desktop RPG game via the net is robust software, that can, inter alia:
1) permit the GM to import maps easily and create other maps as required, including on the fly and to display them with robust lighting features and on the fly fog of war
2) permits the GM to easily import in standard monster stat blocks and art, and to customize monsters and whole encounters easily;
3) permits the GM to do the same thing with NPCs as it would do for monsters;
4) permits the GM to easily create items, both through using standard lists and being able to customize an item;
5) permits the GM to easily import in "handouts", either through scanning, importing a jpg or creating same with templates;
6) robust support for spells, area of effect, DCs and significant graphical wizzbang to show those spell effects in game, whether fleeting or persistent;
7) contains robust support for the combat rules;
8) permits house rules as and where necessary
9) provides for easy player character management and integrates well with voice communication software, whether native or external
10) supports voice / music and sound effects for communication and flavour
11) allows a GM to create a module by placing all of these things with an ease that does not exceed the NWN1 toolset without any scripting required whatsoever to do it.
12) As a medium-term goal, should do all of the above using a 3d engine for at least the characters and monsters.
Whether those features are implemented in an integrated way for one system (WotC's virtual table) or through a number of tools (some enhanced 3D d20Pro + Herolab) is neither here nor there.
You are both talking about the same thing -- simply alternative ways to get there. I do think that it is being a little naive to suppose that software like MapTool or even commercial software like d20Pro or Fantasy Grounds II will prove to be the equivalent to professionally developed and supported software from a large publisher such as WotC.
That isn't because WotC's version is more "integrated". You can get all sorts of integration through modular third party systems, too. It is because WotC's development budget is larger and because they can charge for monthly system access. All of this means they can afford to fund this software development properly. Implementing signficant features costs real money.
It doesn't stop at money. It ALSO takes a real programming language. That isn't Java -- not even if you realy, really, really want it to be. These VTT applictions should not be developed for a Mac. The installed base isn't large enough and the cost of programming it with its own graphical engine is FAR too high. In order to implement real graphics at acceptable speed, you need something more than than HTML, Java or Flash.
I promise you that the economics and technical limitations of graphical programming languages in professional game development didn't suddenly change because Paizo is a Mac shop. You can't create a game client like this and have it support a Mac, too. Not on any economical basis. If you try to do it through Java or HTML, you will have to greatly cut corners on features and the end result just won't be any more impressive that many of the 2d free tools which are already available. Sorry.
Yet some people think that it's important that Paizo staff should be able to access this on a Mac? Why ever would that be? Paizo staff don't need to actually use a VTT to play any RPG. Ever. Paizo staff work together to make RPGs, almost every one of them is a gamer, most of whom live in the same city and they actually sometimes PLAY RPGs at work. You could not find a group of gamers on planet Earth who need access to a VTT LESS than the staff of Paizo Publishing LLC.
If what you are talking about is the ability to monitor its development or see what it looks like? Well, you boot up Windows on your Mac or you buy a couple of Windows machines and use those instead. Going farther than that is just trying to irrationally pass off a personal preference with a few dollar bills scotch-taped on to it to try to disguise it and pass it off as a rational business decision. It isn't.
In any event, when it comes to game development, you usually get what you pay for. When you pay a lot -- you usually get a lot more.
I am not saying that WotC's Virtual Table is THE Killer RPG application of the future. It may or may not evolve into something that is close to that.
But those apps certainly can be developed and will be. They are not necessarily THE ONLY future of gaming -- but they will prove to be a significant part of TTRPGs future.
I also think that ad hoc networked apps through the iPad and iPhone (and yes, Android enabled smart phones) can also greatly enhance the experience during face-to-face games. Awesome ideas and possibilities, too.
None of these solutions are mutually exclusive. Nor, in my opinion, need those solutions necessarily originate from the publisher. These applications are well able to be developed by licensees.
It all comes down to money.
|
There is one problem, at least what I see as a problem, even if WotC can actually get a stable, functional version of the VTT that does everything they claim it will (not holding my breath on that one after the last decade or so...), it will kill third party support for 4e dead, dead, DEAD. Already one of the biggest problems for 3rd party support is lack of sales due to DMs who don't want to use anything but what is in the Compendium, and if the general push is to move the game as a whole to the VTT, then how can any 3rd party publisher hope to publish anything except maybe some modules with instructions on how to enter them into the VTT?
Unless that's the general idea, whether from WotC, the lawyers, or a dictate from on high from further up in Hasbro. GSL then VTT then closed gaming 5e?
There is one problem, at least what I see as a problem, even if WotC can actually get a stable, functional version of the VTT that does everything they claim it will (not holding my breath on that one after the last decade or so...), it will kill third party support for 4e dead, dead, DEAD.
Current WotC management does not care one iota about third-party support for D&D. Not one bit.
There is one problem, at least what I see as a problem, even if WotC can actually get a stable, functional version of the VTT that does everything they claim it will (not holding my breath on that one after the last decade or so...), it will kill third party support for 4e dead, dead, DEAD. Already one of the biggest problems for 3rd party support is lack of sales due to DMs who don't want to use anything but what is in the Compendium, and if the general push is to move the game as a whole to the VTT, then how can any 3rd party publisher hope to publish anything except maybe some modules with instructions on how to enter them into the VTT?
They can't. 3pps writing for 4e should be writing adventures/campaigns/APs and setting material. They should create digital aid bundles consisting of maps and new monsters formatted for WotC's online tools so that DMs can make easy use of them running online games, if that's something they feel like doing. When WotC announces a new digital initiative or product, a smart 3pp shouldn't find itself thinking "Damn, WotC is just trying to kill us 3pps!" Instead, they should be thinking "What products can I put out that will be able to take advantage of WotC's online tools?" 3pps should be turning their digital initiative into a selling point, not trying to compete with WotC's rules options.
I don't know a single 4e player who has said to me, "Man, I wish there were more third-party products for 4e."
|
The beta has been out for a while, I believe.I'm skeptical, myself, since Wizards is typical high on software promises, low on software delivery.
I was part of 'Friends and Family' beta and it had a lot that I really liked, though running a game on a VT takes a lot of prep work. The upcoming version and beta (we're waiting any day now for the announcements) should be going to a much wider span of the DDI community, and is supposed to incorporate the online Character Builder and forthcoming Monster Builder as a suite of tools.
While I'm a 4E fan, I'm not sure if I want to spend all the time it takes to run a virtual game when I can put forth half the work for my weekly face-to-face game. For those who don't have so severe a demand on their time and really need to get their game on, I think you'll enjoy the product.
My favorite? Having the D&D tiles already programmed in for cut-n-paste glory.
Personally I hope Paizo has no VT ambitions.
I don't need it, don't want it and would hate to see Paizo ressources depleted by something I find so completely useless.
Personally I hope Paizo has no VT ambitions.
I don't need it, don't want it and would hate to see Paizo ressources depleted by something I find so completely useless.
Which is why, in my opinion, they should license it out, much like they did with Lonewolf's HeroLab.
I wouldn't be able to play with my friends due to being in multiple countries and timezones if it weren't for VTTs, and warmly welcome their existence.
They can't. 3pps writing for 4e should be writing adventures/campaigns/APs and setting material. They should create digital aid bundles consisting of maps and new monsters formatted for WotC's online tools so that DMs can make easy use of them running online games, if that's something they feel like doing. When WotC announces a new digital initiative or product, a smart 3pp shouldn't find itself thinking "Damn, WotC is just trying to kill us 3pps!" Instead, they should be thinking "What products can I put out that will be able to take advantage of WotC's online tools?" 3pps should be turning their digital initiative into a selling point, not trying to compete with WotC's rules options.
Soooo, you think 3pp's out there now who currently consist of a half a dozen or so employees who focus on writing, art, layout and rules should just retool their company to focus on programming for a WotC VTT, one that hasn't even been released yet? Assuming that the WotC VTT will even allow that kind of importing or user editing?
You say 3PPs should turn their digital initiative into a selling point, when they most likely don't have a digital initiative.
I don't know a single 4e player who has said to me, "Man, I wish there were more third-party products for 4e."
That's because the 4th ed "OGL/GSL" killed off almost all of the 3PP support long before half the 4th ed players started playing.
Personally I hope Paizo has no VT ambitions.
I don't need it, don't want it and would hate to see Paizo ressources depleted by something I find so completely useless.
So because you find it useless, you don't think other gamers deserve it?
Why are you using the fixed pie theory and assuming creating a VTT would take resources from other integral parts of the game?
A pessimistic outlook is not what is needed at this time. It is certainly plausible they could allocate resources that are currently being wasted into a VTT. I recently left a gaming group after 2 years (and which it took 2 years to find it - that's 4 years down the drain) to an inability to travel every Sunday. I would gladly pay $5.99 or whatever a month to have access to a VTT.
MapTool and all that other free stuff is cool, but no one can honestly say those tools provide the same level of functionality as an officially licensed VTT, built by the game makers themselves.
MapTool and all that other free stuff is cool, but no one can honestly say those tools provide the same level of functionality as an officially licensed VTT, built by the game makers themselves.
Since we have never actually seen such a VTT, there's no way to know.
EDIT:
Baiting?
Who? Lil ole me?Bwah. Bwaha. Bwahaha.
Bwahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha! :P
|
|
MapTool and all that other free stuff is cool, but no one can honestly say those tools provide the same level of functionality as an officially licensed VTT, built by the game makers themselves.
No one can say that they don't either- as of yet, we haven't actually seen any of the promises WotC delivered.
@EvilLincoln and Wonk
The draw-ups for the WotC VTT vastly exceed anything MapTool can show, hell the built-in VoiP itself is huge. There's no doubt in my mind the VTT will deliver as promised (quality wise). As far as I'm concerned, "when" is the actual issue.
Soooo, you think 3pp's out there now who currently consist of a half a dozen or so employees who focus on writing, art, layout and rules should just retool their company to focus on programming for a WotC VTT, one that hasn't even been released yet? Assuming that the WotC VTT will even allow that kind of importing or user editing?
What programming? I'm saying that they should spend a few hours creating their monsters in the Monster Builder and setting their encounter maps up in the VTT using tiles, and then export all that in whatever exporting format is provided so that they can be distributed (for free) to anyone who has downloaded the adventure/campaign/whatever.
You would need, at most, one person so spend maybe one work day per adventure to put this stuff together. Not a huge investment of man hours for a strong bullet point on your product.
You say 3PPs should turn their digital initiative into a selling point, when they most likely don't have a digital initiative.
They should turn WotC's digital initiative into a selling point. The 3pp's own "digital initiative" doesn't need to include more than a a guy working with the Monster Builder and VTT for a few hours.
That's because the 4th ed "OGL/GSL" killed off almost all of the 3PP support long before half the 4th ed players started playing.
No, it's not. It's because 4e players tend not to feel as though there are significant gaps in design that need to be filled by 3pp. What we do feel like there is a lack of are quality adventures.
@EvilLincoln and Wonk
The draw-ups for the WotC VTT vastly exceed anything MapTool can show, hell the built-in VoiP itself is huge. There's no doubt in my mind the VTT will deliver as promised (quality wise). As far as I'm concerned, "when" is the actual issue.
Weren't we promised this product 3 years ago?
"Draw-ups" aren't a product. They're an empty promise.
Again, WotC is big on promise, short on delivery. *IF* and when their VTT is released, we can gauge it's quality/functionality against the other products that have actually delivered to the end user.
No one can say that they don't either- as of yet, we haven't actually seen any of the promises WotC delivered.
Except that we have, because people have been playing with the VTT for quite a while now. Integrated voice chat/voice fonts and included tiles are already in there, and the roll-out of the other features will start when the next beta phase begins.
@EvilLincoln and Wonk
The draw-ups for the WotC VTT vastly exceed anything MapTool can show, hell the built-in VoiP itself is huge. There's no doubt in my mind the VTT will deliver as promised (quality wise). As far as I'm concerned, "when" is the actual issue.
Weren't we promised this product 3 years ago?
"Draw-ups" aren't a product. They're an empty promise.
Again, WotC is big on promise, short on delivery. *IF* and when their VTT is released, we can gauge it's quality/functionality against the other products that have actually delivered to the end user.
Again, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, by people who have been in the beta, the VTT is a real thing that people have been using.
And, no, actually, as far as I'm aware integrated voice chat and voice fonts were not part of the original VTT design prior to the release of 4e. This is an entirely new product.