TheRPGSite

With the new "revised edition" it's #OneDnD to rule them all, and in the wokeness bind them....
#dnd #dnd5e #ttrpg #osr

I've been waiting to hear your take on it, Pundit.  Like the rising of the sun, I knew it was forthcoming.

The mental patients have taken over the insane asylum.

In its current form it looks... odd. Hard to say how it will mutate from that first seed.

I still have the early 5e playtests and those changed a fair amount within a few iterations.

The big factor is how much they listen again to feedback. Last time they were fairly good at it.

But that was before WOTC went off the deep end.

They forgot that magic items exist to make a Halfling as strong as an ogre or a giant!    ;)

I saw issues with this coming a mile away, if you guys didn't notice they purged legacy content and old edition galleries from their sites in April of this year.
I don't have the exact day though.

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 20, 2022, 03:14:17 AM
I saw issues with this coming a mile away, if you guys didn't notice they purged legacy content and old edition galleries from their sites in April of this year.
I don't have the exact day though.

StOp BeInG PeSsImisTic! YoU CAn StILL PlAy Old eDitIonS oF DnD!

When those editions get harder to find it incentivizes Zoomers who already want to go to digital solutions to only pursue this app. Maybe some of you only play with gamers the same age or older than yourselves. But I often find myself playing games for Zoomers. They aren't bad people and my current group is actually the most well behaved and respectful group I've had. But they desperately want to switch to digital solutions. Zoomers want everything easy and digital. And not all of them have an autistic grognard millennial to teach them a better way. Most groups of zoomers have a zoomer GM who doesn't care or doesn't know about older editions. Listens to WotC guidelines like it's the bible. And do whatever Matt Mercer tells them to. Because he's the bestest GM ever. Just because your group are aging millennials in their 30's at best who remember when DnD was a little more free and homebrew friendly doesn't mean the CURRENT TARGET AUDIENCE of DnD is the same.  My group ask me constantly why we can't just play 5E because DnD Beyond and Roll 20 and digital this and that. I don't go into too much with them because I don't want to just look like the old man yelling at a cloud. But I do explain we're playing OSE. Which is not compatible with rigid 5e digital solutions. I'm lucky my group are enjoying the game and tell me they have fun. And I got them all into the OSR. Which has influenced their other games so I'm told. But you can't expect that from every group of Zoomers.   

I said this in a previous thread, One DnD is a way to seize control of the way you play DnD. Play other games all you want. When the players dry up because nearly everyone is playing One DnD over physical games you are going to find it hard to find other games. WotC don't care if it"doesn't make good business sense" they've never cared for Grognards because the zoomers and Critical Role lot who just swallow whatever is given will subsidize WotC no matter what they do. WotC have done a lot to drive away customers because THEY. DON'T WANT. YOU. They are not making this FOR YOU! They will make more money from locking down DnD into a software they control then they ever will selling books in a store. Just get Matt Mercer on board with some tie ins exclusive to DnD Beyond and the battle is lost. WotC are not struggling. They aren't losing customers. And the general feedback for this app is good amongst the zoomers. They can't wait to turn DnD into a completely digital experience they have no control whatsoever over.

You may well see WotC start to go after repositories of old DnD content. And give some bs excuse that "old content doesn't have the latest balance and will harm the integrity of the community due to harmful content from a lesser time.". Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just being a moany pessimistic bastard. Except I've been right before about WotC doing anti consumer things. And I've been right before about WotC not caring if it drives people away because they want a more pliable audience that has been proven to exist and be profitable. I had a friend laugh in my face when I said I reckoned WotC were going to remove racial bonuses and just make race a thing to fill in the character sheet with as much meaning as a name and biography. "They'll never do that, they'll alienate their core audience."

He apologized to me when 5.5 was announced. I hope what I theorize doesn't happen. But it will. And you're all going to notice within the next 2 years. I only hope the OSR can keep up and offer something enticing to younger gamers.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AM

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 20, 2022, 03:14:17 AM
I saw issues with this coming a mile away, if you guys didn't notice they purged legacy content and old edition galleries from their sites in April of this year.
I don't have the exact day though.

StOp BeInG PeSsImisTic! YoU CAn StILL PlAy Old eDitIonS oF DnD!

When those editions get harder to find it incentivizes Zoomers who already want to go to digital solutions to only pursue this app. Maybe some of you only play with gamers the same age or older than yourselves. But I often find myself playing games for Zoomers. They aren't bad people and my current group is actually the most well behaved and respectful group I've had. But they desperately want to switch to digital solutions. Zoomers want everything easy and digital. And not all of them have an autistic grognard millennial to teach them a better way. Most groups of zoomers have a zoomer GM who doesn't care or doesn't know about older editions. Listens to WotC guidelines like it's the bible. And do whatever Matt Mercer tells them to. Because he's the bestest GM ever. Just because your group are aging millennials in their 30's at best who remember when DnD was a little more free and homebrew friendly doesn't mean the CURRENT TARGET AUDIENCE of DnD is the same.  My group ask me constantly why we can't just play 5E because DnD Beyond and Roll 20 and digital this and that. I don't go into too much with them because I don't want to just look like the old man yelling at a cloud. But I do explain we're playing OSE. Which is not compatible with rigid 5e digital solutions. I'm lucky my group are enjoying the game and tell me they have fun. And I got them all into the OSR. Which has influenced their other games so I'm told. But you can't expect that from every group of Zoomers.   

I said this in a previous thread, One DnD is a way to seize control of the way you play DnD. Play other games all you want. When the players dry up because nearly everyone is playing One DnD over physical games you are going to find it hard to find other games. WotC don't care if it"doesn't make good business sense" they've never cared for Grognards because the zoomers and Critical Role lot who just swallow whatever is given will subsidize WotC no matter what they do. WotC have done a lot to drive away customers because THEY. DON'T WANT. YOU. They are not making this FOR YOU! They will make more money from locking down DnD into a software they control then they ever will selling books in a store. Just get Matt Mercer on board with some tie ins exclusive to DnD Beyond and the battle is lost. WotC are not struggling. They aren't losing customers. And the general feedback for this app is good amongst the zoomers. They can't wait to turn DnD into a completely digital experience they have no control whatsoever over.

You may well see WotC start to go after repositories of old DnD content. And give some bs excuse that "old content doesn't have the latest balance and will harm the integrity of the community due to harmful content from a lesser time.". Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just being a moany pessimistic bastard. Except I've been right before about WotC doing anti consumer things. And I've been right before about WotC not caring if it drives people away because they want a more pliable audience that has been proven to exist and be profitable. I had a friend laugh in my face when I said I reckoned WotC were going to remove racial bonuses and just make race a thing to fill in the character sheet with as much meaning as a name and biography. "They'll never do that, they'll alienate their core audience."

He apologized to me when 5.5 was announced. I hope what I theorize doesn't happen. But it will. And you're all going to notice within the next 2 years. I only hope the OSR can keep up and offer something enticing to younger gamers.

Greetings!

Strong analysis, Sir!

I think much of it is likely to be very accurate. Sadly.

Ahh, well. There is the OSR. As far as "Enticing Zoomers"--there are Game books. Dice. Miniatures. Pencils and Graph Paper. Friends gathered around a table. Food and drinks. And fine cigars.

I got into playing AD&D with the BOOKS--when I was 10 years old. No computers or digital anything necessary.

Imagine that!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on August 20, 2022, 10:41:02 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AM

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 20, 2022, 03:14:17 AM
I saw issues with this coming a mile away, if you guys didn't notice they purged legacy content and old edition galleries from their sites in April of this year.
I don't have the exact day though.

StOp BeInG PeSsImisTic! YoU CAn StILL PlAy Old eDitIonS oF DnD!

When those editions get harder to find it incentivizes Zoomers who already want to go to digital solutions to only pursue this app. Maybe some of you only play with gamers the same age or older than yourselves. But I often find myself playing games for Zoomers. They aren't bad people and my current group is actually the most well behaved and respectful group I've had. But they desperately want to switch to digital solutions. Zoomers want everything easy and digital. And not all of them have an autistic grognard millennial to teach them a better way. Most groups of zoomers have a zoomer GM who doesn't care or doesn't know about older editions. Listens to WotC guidelines like it's the bible. And do whatever Matt Mercer tells them to. Because he's the bestest GM ever. Just because your group are aging millennials in their 30's at best who remember when DnD was a little more free and homebrew friendly doesn't mean the CURRENT TARGET AUDIENCE of DnD is the same.  My group ask me constantly why we can't just play 5E because DnD Beyond and Roll 20 and digital this and that. I don't go into too much with them because I don't want to just look like the old man yelling at a cloud. But I do explain we're playing OSE. Which is not compatible with rigid 5e digital solutions. I'm lucky my group are enjoying the game and tell me they have fun. And I got them all into the OSR. Which has influenced their other games so I'm told. But you can't expect that from every group of Zoomers.   

I said this in a previous thread, One DnD is a way to seize control of the way you play DnD. Play other games all you want. When the players dry up because nearly everyone is playing One DnD over physical games you are going to find it hard to find other games. WotC don't care if it"doesn't make good business sense" they've never cared for Grognards because the zoomers and Critical Role lot who just swallow whatever is given will subsidize WotC no matter what they do. WotC have done a lot to drive away customers because THEY. DON'T WANT. YOU. They are not making this FOR YOU! They will make more money from locking down DnD into a software they control then they ever will selling books in a store. Just get Matt Mercer on board with some tie ins exclusive to DnD Beyond and the battle is lost. WotC are not struggling. They aren't losing customers. And the general feedback for this app is good amongst the zoomers. They can't wait to turn DnD into a completely digital experience they have no control whatsoever over.

You may well see WotC start to go after repositories of old DnD content. And give some bs excuse that "old content doesn't have the latest balance and will harm the integrity of the community due to harmful content from a lesser time.". Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just being a moany pessimistic bastard. Except I've been right before about WotC doing anti consumer things. And I've been right before about WotC not caring if it drives people away because they want a more pliable audience that has been proven to exist and be profitable. I had a friend laugh in my face when I said I reckoned WotC were going to remove racial bonuses and just make race a thing to fill in the character sheet with as much meaning as a name and biography. "They'll never do that, they'll alienate their core audience."

He apologized to me when 5.5 was announced. I hope what I theorize doesn't happen. But it will. And you're all going to notice within the next 2 years. I only hope the OSR can keep up and offer something enticing to younger gamers.

Greetings!

Strong analysis, Sir!

I think much of it is likely to be very accurate. Sadly.

Ahh, well. There is the OSR. As far as "Enticing Zoomers"--there are Game books. Dice. Miniatures. Pencils and Graph Paper. Friends gathered around a table. Food and drinks. And fine cigars.

I got into playing AD&D with the BOOKS--when I was 10 years old. No computers or digital anything necessary.

Imagine that!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Most Zoomers don't read but digital books, some not even that because an audio book requires less efort.

King Tyrano is correct, Zoomers are used to video games, phones, etc they don't really own.

If the OSR or anyone else wants a piece of that pay they better make an app for it.

The RPG underground scene (like the OSR) is where all the exciting developments happen.

So I don't really mind what happens to 5e, and in fact, I think it might actually be a good thing as it will suck up a lot of those the kiddy wokescolds and faux hobbyists.

Good riddance I say!

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AMWhen those editions get harder to find it incentivizes Zoomers who already want to go to digital solutions to only pursue this app.

Digital D&D is a dead end. Inevitably, a multi-player computer game will be released that has 90% of what a digital D&D session has and everyone will switch over. Hasbro hopes that such a game is D&D branded but that isn't a certainty.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on August 20, 2022, 11:16:04 AMI think it might actually be a good thing as it will suck up a lot of those the kiddy wokescolds and faux hobbyists.

Exactly. People who only want to play D&D through an app are not in the same hobby that I am. To thrive, old school RPGs need to focus on what can only be done in a face-to-face situation. Stop trying to make the game deterministic and easily app-able.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on August 20, 2022, 11:16:04 AM
The RPG underground scene (like the OSR) is where all the exciting developments happen.

So I don't really mind what happens to 5e, and in fact, I think it might actually be a good thing as it will suck up a lot of those the kiddy wokescolds and faux hobbyists.

Good riddance I say!

The wokescolds and faux hobbyists have never been interested in the OSR in the first place. Can you guarantee that you'll always be able to find people willing to play the niche and barely known RPGs of the OSR? If you can, cool. You have nothing to worry about. But I had trouble for years just getting a group for something like Call of Cthulhu or VtM. Most people just lean towards whatever is popular at the time unfortunately. And you end up in a position where you either have to play the latest version of DnD. Or just don't play RPGs at all.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 11:35:14 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AMWhen those editions get harder to find it incentivizes Zoomers who already want to go to digital solutions to only pursue this app.

Digital D&D is a dead end. Inevitably, a multi-player computer game will be released that has 90% of what a digital D&D session has and everyone will switch over. Hasbro hopes that such a game is D&D branded but that isn't a certainty.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on August 20, 2022, 11:16:04 AMI think it might actually be a good thing as it will suck up a lot of those the kiddy wokescolds and faux hobbyists.

Exactly. People who only want to play D&D through an app are not in the same hobby that I am. To thrive, old school RPGs need to focus on what can only be done in a face-to-face situation. Stop trying to make the game deterministic and easily app-able.

Recently I had a conversation with a friend of my current group of Zoomers who wanted to join. Let me try to remember it.

"Hey I'm running an RPG session. Do you wanna join, it's super cool."
"Oh yeah that Dungeon and Dragons thing."
"Oh this is Old School Essentials. It's an old edition of DnD. But cleaned up and super simple to use."
"Why aren't you using the new version of DnD. The old versions are buggy and complicated. All the you tubers make it seem so complicated and like there's lots of reading."
"Well if you want to try this game you might be surprised. It was designed to be simple for beginners. It's actually a lot like 5e"
"Okay, where's the app?"
"Oh there's no app. You get dice, a pencil and paper. It's really simple."
"No app? How do you calculate all the dice stuff then? That's way too complicated for normal people."

Now bear in mind this was a 12 year old so I was patient. He wasn't interested and that's okay. I didn't push it much further. But what I'm trying to get at is this. YOU may define DnD one way. And make a distinction that everything is separate. But you are making a dangerous assumption that other people will be as knowledgeable as you and make the right choice. And distinguish things as you do. Or at the very least people who think like you are either in the majority or are at least in enough supply that you can find groups easily.  When in actuality. The core demographic being targeted sees DnD in Stranger Things and thinks they are playing the same DnD to fit in with all the other people playing DnD. They are told DnD is online now. And that's it. That's DnD for those people. If you play in a way the majority does not you are not fitting in and you won't make friends that way.

I don't think you're right about computer games though. Even ignoring the fact that DnD has far less of an entry point than the average video game, Lots of computer games offer "90% of what a digital DnD session has" Off the top of my head, Neverwinter Nights with it's persistant worlds and GM tools, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 with multiplayer, every MMO ever made. But people want to play DnD as a game for the lifestyle brand recognition. They are specifically playing that thing that Critical Role and Stranger Things said was cool. You can run One DnD on your shitty phone or tablet. Which everyone has. As opposed to a games console or a gaming PC. Which are expensive.

Lok at all the money I will save by NOT buying One D&D. Like I have been anything WOTC lately. I don't care if it is the bestest D&D EVAR! Until WOTC renounces wokeness I will not be their customer.

I have a friend, a Gen X woman, who basically refuses to play anything other than PF1E. She will no longer play D&D3E or either incarnation of the d20 Star Wars, despite Star Wars being her absolute favoritest evar IP. She might possibly play Starfinder, I haven't seriously proposed it. Anything that isn't d20-based is right out. The reason for this is very simple. Everything in PF1E is contained in an SRD format, and there are three SRDs in case one ever goes down.

It isn't just Zoomers. Nobody wants books. Everyone wants wikis. They want to see all of their classes displayed on a table with links to take them to each individual class page. They want to see all of their spells displayed as a table arranged by level for any class they want, where they can click the spell they want. They do not want to have to remember what books to look in for all of their feats and spells and magic items. They want it all in one resource. This is why the hobby exploded in the d20 era. Most people aren't walking indices of book and page number references.

The only thing different about the Zoomers is that they always had this stuff. There are no Zoomers who have the notion that flipping through books is The Way. They always had wikis. Millennials and older learned with books, and so they have an irrational bias for books, but even the older generations prefer wikis. The more products you have, the more important it becomes to have a wiki.

And having the WotC stamp matters. Not everything put out by WotC is of equal quality, and there are people outside of WotC that produce better content than WotC. However, once you get outside of WoTC, D&D content conforms neatly to Sturgeon's Law. The best thing for any given GM to do is just ignore all D&D content that isn't published by WoTC. Yes, there are going to be some gems that you pass up on like <insert your favorite 3rd party product that totally blew your mind>, but you also don't wade through all of the crap being published by morons with delusions of grandeur.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 11:35:14 AM
Digital D&D is a dead end. Inevitably, a multi-player computer game will be released that has 90% of what a digital D&D session has and everyone will switch over. Hasbro hopes that such a game is D&D branded but that isn't a certainty.

People have been saying this for decades -- citing MMORPGs like World of Warcraft -- but currently, it seems to me that D&D is bigger than it has ever been. I was just on a road trip through the Southwest, and the park ranger as we entered the Grand Canyon told us that she had an all-ranger play group she was in - though she was the only one who played a ranger. (heh!)

I don't think the future is going to be either all-digital or no-electronics. Some DMs like me will like having their laptop and other computerized play aids, even when playing in person.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 11:55:59 AMThey are specifically playing that thing that Critical Role and Stranger Things said was cool. You can run One DnD on your shitty phone or tablet. Which everyone has. As opposed to a games console or a gaming PC. Which are expensive.

This seems like a bit of a contradiction here. Neither Stranger Things nor Critical Role feature an app. How would someone who watches these shows even know that an app exists?

But it still doesn't address my main point. Any person who insists that D&D is a app game doesn't really have any interest in table-top RPGs. They just want to play an online app game. They never were part of the hobby in the first place.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 12:09:56 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 11:55:59 AMThey are specifically playing that thing that Critical Role and Stranger Things said was cool. You can run One DnD on your shitty phone or tablet. Which everyone has. As opposed to a games console or a gaming PC. Which are expensive.

This seems like a bit of a contradiction here. Neither Stranger Things nor Critical Role feature an app. How would someone who watches these shows even know that an app exists?

But it still doesn't address my main point. Any person who insists that D&D is a app game doesn't really have any interest in table-top RPGs. They just want to play an online app game. They never were part of the hobby in the first place.

They just want to play that DnD thing that was on Stranger Things. They don't care how they play it. They are told the only way to play DnD now is through the app. They don't care or know enough to know the kids in Stranger things were playing AD&D. They just want to play the thing everyone else is to feel included.

I did address your main point actually. I'll put it even clearer. There are more people who think they are part of the hobby because they play DnD how WotC tells them to. Then there are people like you and me who know that there are other games and other ways to play the games. People like you and me are going away, due to age, other responsibilities and more. You cannot guarantee that your current group will stay together. You WILL end up in a position where the only people who want to play DnD are the people who want to play the app. The people who "were never a part of the hobby in the first place" You won't have the choice to pick people who just want a pen and paper game. Especially one without that all important WotC branding. And you will be seen as an awkward and autistic hipster for relying on old games that no one wants to play. YOU can say "I don't feel those are real players or in the same hobby as me". But your distinctions are irrelevant and don't matter to the majority. Especially when there won't be a minority within the next 10 years or less. And you are confronted with the very real choice of DnD or nothing.

Quote from: SHARK on August 20, 2022, 10:41:02 AM
I got into playing AD&D with the BOOKS--when I was 10 years old. No computers or digital anything necessary.

Imagine that!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, unfortunately for us they're really pushing on that "One D&D is a living document that changes to fit the game, no more versions!" stuff will make it so even if you play with books, there will be 2 erratas/updates a month that you won't be able to print, reducing the rulebook from something well crafted, proof-read, intended to be the end all for the game - to just a piece of tat for collectors, the 'true game!' is going to be the subscription service. :/

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 12:19:51 PMYou WILL end up in a position where the only people who want to play DnD are the people who want to play the app.

I'm not sure how it is in your area, but where I live the vast majority of people I meet have barely even heard of D&D, let alone know that there is a app for it. (is this app even available now?). So I recruit new players from outside the RPG hobby, usually through boardgaming.

If WOTC is brainwashing people into thinking that D&D is an app game then I have two choices: Play a version of D&D that I don't like or find people who are not brainwashed. The latter group is significantly larger than the D&D playerbase.

Finding new players has been a challenge since I started playing in the early 80s. But it is easier now because most people have seen a clip of it being played so they at least know that it is some sort of co-op boardgame. The trick is to get to them before WotC does.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 11:35:14 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AMWhen those editions get harder to find it incentivizes Zoomers who already want to go to digital solutions to only pursue this app.

Digital D&D is a dead end. Inevitably, a multi-player computer game will be released that has 90% of what a digital D&D session has and everyone will switch over. Hasbro hopes that such a game is D&D branded but that isn't a certainty.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on August 20, 2022, 11:16:04 AMI think it might actually be a good thing as it will suck up a lot of those the kiddy wokescolds and faux hobbyists.

Exactly. People who only want to play D&D through an app are not in the same hobby that I am. To thrive, old school RPGs need to focus on what can only be done in a face-to-face situation. Stop trying to make the game deterministic and easily app-able.

Are you guys posting from the year 2000? Because we're decades in to the digital revolution and that prediction, which at this point is about as old as Y2k fears, never happened. In fact, D&D has grown massively during this era of virtual tabletops, while multiplayer video games have shrunk a bit.

It's greatly benefitted older players by the way - the ones most likely to have moved away from their original gaming groups and who now come back together from different states or even different countries using a virtual table top.

To thrive, old school RPGs need to work with virtual table tops. Stop trying to make the game in-person only, in a world where in-person gatherings have shrunk enormously, game store numbers have reduced, and populations have dispersed more.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 12:32:13 PMI'm not sure how it is in your area, but where I live the vast majority of people I meet have barely even heard of D&D

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 12:32:13 PM
Finding new players has been a challenge since I started playing in the early 80s. But it is easier now because most people have seen a clip of it being played so they at least know that it is some sort of co-op boardgame.

Fight fight fight! I am rooting for hedgehobbit!

Seriously though, if people have seen a clip of it being played, they've heard of it. Most people have in fact heard of D&D now. Brand recognition is way WAY up there right now.

Love or hate Critical Role, love or hate Stranger Things, but between just those two things the overwhelming majority of people know what D&D is now in a way they didn't before.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 11:55:59 AM

The wokescolds and faux hobbyists have never been interested in the OSR in the first place. Can you guarantee that you'll always be able to find people willing to play the niche and barely known RPGs of the OSR? If you can, cool. You have nothing to worry about. But I had trouble for years just getting a group for something like Call of Cthulhu or VtM. Most people just lean towards whatever is popular at the time unfortunately. And you end up in a position where you either have to play the latest version of DnD. Or just don't play RPGs at all.

I never had a problem finding people willing to play games, especially hugely popular games like CoC or VTM. And now that everything has moved online and over to Zoom there are plenty of options. Have you seen some of the FB groups, there are loads of people willing to give stuff a go.

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 20, 2022, 12:29:12 PM

Quote from: SHARK on August 20, 2022, 10:41:02 AM
I got into playing AD&D with the BOOKS--when I was 10 years old. No computers or digital anything necessary.

Imagine that!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, unfortunately for us they're really pushing on that "One D&D is a living document that changes to fit the game, no more versions!" stuff will make it so even if you play with books, there will be 2 erratas/updates a month that you won't be able to print, reducing the rulebook from something well crafted, proof-read, intended to be the end all for the game - to just a piece of tat for collectors, the 'true game!' is going to be the subscription service. :/

That's not really the direction they're taking this though. By the time this comes out it will have been TEN YEARS since the last edition came out, and they've kept the errata EXTREMELY low, and even these changes are not a new edition but using the old edition with additions and some slight tweaks. You can't push that "oh it's going to be errat'ed every month" line with zero evidence. Even Gary thought updating the rules every decade was a reasonable path for a game.

I take it Player's Handbook sales have dipped again then?  Look, they're just trying to maximize their customer base and sales.  The long tail of a thirty year old boom won't do that.

Someday, hopefully soon, people will throw off the shackles of all those tired old eighties licenses and look for something new, but that day is not today.

As a Gen Xer.   I have three kids, 2 are millennials, and one is a zoomer. My oldest doesn't play TTRPG, and my daughter has played with us in the past but only enjoys the social aspect of TTRPGs, not playing the game itself.  Like most of his friends, our youngest, the zoomer, loves challenging video games.  The Dark Souls series are their favorite type of game.   He began playing TTRPGs with my group.  I started him off with Pathfinder 1e, currently playing in my PF2e campaign, and have already played several different one-shots using Savage Worlds and OSE.   He plays in online groups with his friends who are playing 5e.  He talks to them about playing Savage Worlds and OSE, and once their current campaign is over, they will start an OSR campaign.  So not all "zoomers" are hooked on easy mode gaming.   It also helps he's into reading actual books.   We raised him right :)

Quote from: Mistwell on August 20, 2022, 12:52:18 PMAre you guys posting from the year 2000? Because we're decades in to the digital revolution and that prediction, which at this point is about as old as Y2k fears, never happened. In fact, D&D has grown massively during this era of virtual tabletops, while multiplayer video games have shrunk a bit.

Over the last 30 days, more than 62 million people have played Genshin Impact. That's more than WotC's optimistic estimates for the total number of people who have ever played D&D during it's entire existence. The RPG hobby is still pretty small.

QuoteTo thrive, old school RPGs need to work with virtual table tops. Stop trying to make the game in-person only, in a world where in-person gatherings have shrunk enormously, game store numbers have reduced, and populations have dispersed more.

I completely disagree. RPGs should focus on optimizing the face to face experience. This is what I saw happening during the boardgame explosion of the early 2000s. Games like Settlers of Cataan and Puerto Rico came out that focused on optimizing the boardgame experience. Emphasizing player to player interaction while reducing the tabletop's limitations by having reasonable setup times and a good (not to long, not to short) game length.

RPG should, as well, focus on what makes face to face gaming different from online gaming. This isn't to say that online RPG sessions aren't allowed, but they should be viewed as sub-optimal. Something to do when you can't actually meet IRL. Designing a game specifically to make it work better online is the wrong way to go.

This goes back to the whole point about video games not taking the place of RPGs. This can only happen if RPGs provide some sort of experience that video games cannot. The more you change RPGs to work in an online environment, the less different RPGs will be from these video games and the two will just get closer and closer until that advantage is lost. Better, IMO, to run the other way.

I was one of those "only play in person with hardcopy books" diehards for years. Stupidly, I stuck with that all the way through the pandemic, and ended up not playing any RPGs at all for a whole year when I had almost nothing else to do. Then, I had my first kid, and was basically forced to move to playing online, because my only free time was late at night.

Suddenly, I found that I had access to better players, who reliably showed up for games, and came to play rather than to gossip. And because no one has to travel, pick up food, set up all their paperwork, and settle down to actually play, I can run a tight 3 or 4 hour session and do more playing than I used to do in a ten hour one. That means that instead of playing once a month (if I'm lucky), I can now be in three games per week. And that's with a more than full-time job and a family.

Comparing that to the years I spent trying to wrangle 3 or 4 friends into showing up for a once per month game, and then having half of them not show up, and the other half spending most of the session smoking and talking about unrelated nonsense, I'm not sure I'll ever go back.

Oh, and before someone says this is a zoomer problem, I'm in my thirties, and the people I play with online are reliably 15-20 years older than I played am.

The speculation I'm seeing is that it's less about wokeness per se (that's just a bonus) and more about establishing a  closed system for the 'game as a service' model that's been plaguing the PC/console game culture for a while.

I personally know at least two politically left players who would rather eat broken glass than give WotC money over this. So this may not play out the way that WotC and Hasbro think it will.

There's something to be said for the wiki/SRD system. I've found it useful when running games myself. I'm not going to look down my nose at someone who prefers the texts, though, especially in light of WotC editing out 'problematic' content. But then, I'm the motherfucking GM, and I can always re-add it and then some.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AM

Zoomers want everything easy and digital. And not all of them have an autistic grognard millennial to teach them a better way. Most groups of zoomers have a zoomer GM who doesn't care or doesn't know about older editions. Listens to WotC guidelines like it's the bible. And do whatever Matt Mercer tells them to.

So, today I was liberated from worrying about what they're doing to "my hobby."  I was listening to a podcast of some scientific/psychology flavor and they were talking about the changes in behavior due to technology.  The money moment was when the hosts mentioned as an example that when asked to pantomime taking a picture, the younger generation(s) would hold up with one hand a "phone" and take their picture.  As opposed to people from my generation who would still mimic holding a small box-like object with two hands and pressing a button on the top.  They talked about how the newer generation really doesn't get the sound that their phone makes when they take a picture because it's the sound of a shutter movement, something none of them had to experience.

That's when I realized that there are totally different products out there with the same name.  I mean, I knew that but I applied it to D&D.  From 4e on D&D really kind of left me and became something else entirely.  And I'm open to arguments that that happened w/ 3rd edition but let's leave it. 

The kids want something different than what I want.  In this case, I am happier with my rotary phone and they are happier with their all digital (it's a metaphor, I have a digital phone, just go with it  ;) ).  They can achieve the same result as long as we broadly define it as "making a phone call."  I'm entertained w/ my D&D and so are they (I guess).  Cool!  I'm no Luddite but I can also say that I'm happy doing what I'm doing and don't feel the need to decry what they're doing.  It's not what I call D&D but I also don't need to be right.  I just need enough like-minded grognards to show up at the table every other week!

Quote from: Corolinth on August 20, 2022, 12:04:24 PM
It isn't just Zoomers. Nobody wants books. Everyone wants wikis. They want to see all of their classes displayed on a table with links to take them to each individual class page. They want to see all of their spells displayed as a table arranged by level for any class they want, where they can click the spell they want. They do not want to have to remember what books to look in for all of their feats and spells and magic items. They want it all in one resource. This is why the hobby exploded in the d20 era. Most people aren't walking indices of book and page number references.

So... make a wiki for your old school rpg and make an app.
Make an audio book version.
If that is really what it takes to win gen whatevers to OSR then so be it.

I play all online now.  That's the price of moving to nowhere.  But I'm not in for this.

Once there's One place to play and One D&D community, it's too easy to ban you for One wrong opinion.

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 20, 2022, 12:29:12 PM

Quote from: SHARK on August 20, 2022, 10:41:02 AM
I got into playing AD&D with the BOOKS--when I was 10 years old. No computers or digital anything necessary.

Imagine that!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, unfortunately for us they're really pushing on that "One D&D is a living document that changes to fit the game, no more versions!" stuff will make it so even if you play with books, there will be 2 erratas/updates a month that you won't be able to print, reducing the rulebook from something well crafted, proof-read, intended to be the end all for the game - to just a piece of tat for collectors, the 'true game!' is going to be the subscription service. :/

D&D will become an Online, Living Document.  All the cool toys, bells, and whistles will be online.  If the graphics look good, and there are lots of options for customization; it will be a big hit, as long as they don't price out the poor with financial gatekeeping.

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 20, 2022, 12:29:12 PM
the 'true game!' is going to be the subscription service. :/

Correct!  They have former Microsoft game execs in their upper leadership.  The path forward will be subscription service and the game will change a few times a year to keep things "fresh."

I worked for an authorized Autodesk dealer, back in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  This was when they attempted to move all of their loyal CAD software customers, to a new subscription model.  (They saw Microsoft making the move to subscription, with Microsoft Office products) The average customer at that time, would outright purchase a single CAD product about every 4 years, for each computer they owned; and upgrade their old software. They had hard copies on the shelf, for every computer they owned.

The new subscription model was attractive the first year; because you received a large menu of different software titles, for less than the cost of a single title.  But.... 12 months later, the subscription expired, and most of the time the customer had simply forgotten that they no longer owned any of their new software.  I hated selling those subscriptions to customers.  I want to own my stuff.

I've seen this all before, first hand.

OneDnD will be World of Warcraft / Everquest.

Dungeons & Dragons died at WotC with 4e.

Quote from: DocJones on August 20, 2022, 04:40:31 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on August 20, 2022, 12:04:24 PM
It isn't just Zoomers. Nobody wants books. Everyone wants wikis. They want to see all of their classes displayed on a table with links to take them to each individual class page. They want to see all of their spells displayed as a table arranged by level for any class they want, where they can click the spell they want. They do not want to have to remember what books to look in for all of their feats and spells and magic items. They want it all in one resource. This is why the hobby exploded in the d20 era. Most people aren't walking indices of book and page number references.

So... make a wiki for your old school rpg and make an app.
Make an audio book version.
If that is really what it takes to win gen whatevers to OSR then so be it.

This is exactly what I'm saying, yes.

A game has rules. People need to be able to look up those rules. Players want it to be easy to find the rules they need to build their character and play the game. It's really that simple.

Don't forget that a lot of people over 30 are playing in some kind of play-by-post environment and are likely to be checking a game thread at work. They really need access to the rules on their phone in order to play. It's hard to find stuff in a pdf library of World of Darkness on your phone. It's really easy to check d20pfsrd.com.

The great, enduring thing about rpgs is generally speaking you are not playing pick up games with strangers, compared to say wargaming. Meaning a player does not need a centralised authority to arbitrate a rules system or what is fair.

In other words play the edition and rules you want.

I started to type out a whole post on how the video-game revenue model wouldn't work for D&D, and then realized that no, I can see exactly how it would work.

The live-service model is all about having a consistent stream of assets which you can piecemeal and sell. VTTs are perfect for that. They can sell a pretty much endless stream of asset packs, customization options, dungeon tiles, etc., and their successful courting of the streamer market, and pushing of the game towards published adventure paths, means that they'll have a ready group of people who are desperate to keep up with all the new material they put out.

Sad, but true.

Remember that a good GM willing to run a game that the GM enjoys will always have players, if said GM is willing to recruit widely.  The player base will easily be 20% or less of the total recruited.  That GM can run any game they want--though some games will be harder to get a player base for than others. 

What the GM in that position doesn't get is a lot of experienced players, unless very lucky or persistent.  The price of running the game your way is being willing to teach the game and bring players along.  Even assuming success of the OneDnD agenda, that changes the base of casual, semi-experienced players.  It doesn't change the base of people who would enjoy a more traditional game, because the traditional RPG, however niche, has always appealed to a slice of people who like its combination of game, decisions, emergent story, etc.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 11:55:59 AM
I don't think you're right about computer games though. Even ignoring the fact that DnD has far less of an entry point than the average video game, Lots of computer games offer "90% of what a digital DnD session has" Off the top of my head, Neverwinter Nights with it's persistant worlds and GM tools, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 with multiplayer, every MMO ever made. But people want to play DnD as a game for the lifestyle brand recognition. They are specifically playing that thing that Critical Role and Stranger Things said was cool. You can run One DnD on your shitty phone or tablet. Which everyone has. As opposed to a games console or a gaming PC. Which are expensive.

Incorrect. To date no MMO or PC game has come close to a real RPG experience. Some can perfectly do parts of one. But so far all but maybe one lack one or several hey things.

The main one is lack of environment interaction. And alot of PC games and MMOs lack this to a high degree. See a rock on the ground? Well unless its been coded in. You are not going to be able to pick it up. Stuff like that.

The only games that have a fair amount of this are Second Life and Minecraft. Second life takes some effort but can be done. Not well. But can be done. Minecraft allows for prety much total environment interaction. But aside from limited interaction with things like villagers. Has zero social interactions.

This has been a known thing for a really long time. But ever so often someone will claim PC games and MMOs allow everything a face to face game can. Sorry. No. It dont.

As for backers on stuff like this. A huge chunk are obviously virtue spending. A portion are also likely either clueless ir duped by the lies. The rest either don't care or are backing it to egg on racial tensions because that is what the woke love to do.

Quote from: dungeon crawler on August 20, 2022, 12:00:49 PM
Lok at all the money I will save by NOT buying One D&D. Like I have been anything WOTC lately. I don't care if it is the bestest D&D EVAR! Until WOTC renounces wokeness I will not be their customer.

Damned straight!

Tasha's Cauldron of Stuff was released November 17, 2020.  Some of the changes in Tasha's, caused that to be my line in the sand for D&D 5E.  I knew I would no longer be interested in anything published after that date, for 5E.

I saw then that decades of tradition within the game, would no longer be honored by WOTC.  5E was a good rebound from 4E.  I'll give them that; but 6 years after the release of the Core 3 books for 5E, nothing really mattered anymore.  Anything and everything, would be subject to change.  Nothing would be safe, from then on.

So One D&D won't change much for me personally.  It's just a freak show from here on out.

I don't know y'all. I've heard all these complaints before and it's never impacted my gaming. The hobby will get stupid small again when D&D is declared satanic again or someone else comes for it and cancels it. I mean, I could be wrong and the sky is actually falling...but I've heard this before, and while I may not know the lyrics, I know the tune.

Modern WotC always reminds me of TSR when you couldn't say Demon or Devil anymore.

Quote from: David Johansen on August 20, 2022, 10:35:45 PM
Modern WotC always reminds me of TSR when you couldn't say Demon or Devil anymore.

So D&D 5E is becoming 2E AD&D?

Hmm..... A lot of cool settings came out in that era.  I'm afraid that isn't going to happen now.  So, we get the bad, without the good.

Dungeons & Dragons, is becoming Dung & Drag.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 02:27:32 PM


I completely disagree. RPGs should focus on optimizing the face to face experience. This is what I saw happening during the boardgame explosion of the early 2000s.

Ah, so you ARE posting from the early 2000s. Gotcha.

News Alert - what you saw in the early 2000s was 20 years ago. Things that worked great then for entertainment, really are not so working right now. That's how entertainment goes. Stuff changes.

I'm underwhelmed.

So the goal for 6e is to have people playing D&D with brown-skinned demon-blooded Tiefling 'genderqueer' characters on the Internet with their computers or smartphones, instead of playing games face-to-face? Hasbro wants massive centralization of the rpg hobby and industry, for the sake of brainwashing the plebes? It sounds like a giant wet fart to me. I'm sure they'll have lots of casual fair weather customers buying their app, but so what? I've played D&D on my computer with my friends, when I played games like NWN (Neverwinter Nights) and DDO (Dungeons & Dragons Online). Well, what makes playing 6e ("GroomerDnD/WokeDnD/OneDnD") on Hasbro's website/app more enticing than that?

I could create characters with DDO or NWN. My characters could have classes, skills, feats, ability scores and more. I could equip my characters with weapons and armor, play with my friends, and go on adventures. So what's supposed to be the allure of 6e? Is it so that people can play games on their computers or smartphones, while pretending that they're not actually playing a computer game?

Oh, well. I'm sure 6e will have lots of Critical Race Theory and lots of groomer propaganda. But I shouldn't be surprised, since Hasbro (which controls D&D) is receiving ESG investment capital from giant mega-corporations like BlackRock and Vanguard, and every single company that receives ESG investment capital pushes Critical Race Theory and pro-groomer propaganda. Well, Vanguard is the largest shareholder of BlackRock. Do we know who the actual shareholders of Vanguard are?

No, of course not.  ::)

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 02:27:32 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on August 20, 2022, 12:52:18 PMAre you guys posting from the year 2000? Because we're decades in to the digital revolution and that prediction, which at this point is about as old as Y2k fears, never happened. In fact, D&D has grown massively during this era of virtual tabletops, while multiplayer video games have shrunk a bit.

Over the last 30 days, more than 62 million people have played Genshin Impact. That's more than WotC's optimistic estimates for the total number of people who have ever played D&D during it's entire existence. The RPG hobby is still pretty small.

QuoteTo thrive, old school RPGs need to work with virtual table tops. Stop trying to make the game in-person only, in a world where in-person gatherings have shrunk enormously, game store numbers have reduced, and populations have dispersed more.

I completely disagree. RPGs should focus on optimizing the face to face experience. This is what I saw happening during the boardgame explosion of the early 2000s. Games like Settlers of Cataan and Puerto Rico came out that focused on optimizing the boardgame experience. Emphasizing player to player interaction while reducing the tabletop's limitations by having reasonable setup times and a good (not to long, not to short) game length.

RPG should, as well, focus on what makes face to face gaming different from online gaming. This isn't to say that online RPG sessions aren't allowed, but they should be viewed as sub-optimal. Something to do when you can't actually meet IRL. Designing a game specifically to make it work better online is the wrong way to go.

This goes back to the whole point about video games not taking the place of RPGs. This can only happen if RPGs provide some sort of experience that video games cannot. The more you change RPGs to work in an online environment, the less different RPGs will be from these video games and the two will just get closer and closer until that advantage is lost. Better, IMO, to run the other way.

I agree with you. NOBODY has been really focusing on optimizing the FACE-TO-FACE experience for tabletop rpgs. Nobody. And that includes the content creators in the OSR movement. Furthermore, virtual tabletops CANNOT compete with computer games that do MOST of what VTTs do anyway, except with less mind caulk. If I have to choose between VTT or a computer game, the computer game wins..........because the VTT PRETENDS that it isn't a computer game, when it really is.....while the computer game has better graphics, and I can play it whenever I want. Don't get me wrong; VTTs are useful, but having rpgs focus primarily on the VTT market is a dead end.....because the end game for VTTs is ultimately people just playing yet another computer game (whether people like to admit it or not). Not to mention, the last thing we need....is to encourage people to become even more socially retarded than they already are, by consigning everyone to a digital ghetto. This 'Great Reset' social distancing wankery has gotten out of control.

Anyway, I'd like to see some type of tabletop rpg/board game hybrids, or OSR games that are sold with miniatures or large maps or cards or tokens or whatever. Even the character sheets for most roleplaying games are an afterthought. It really wouldn't hurt for tabletop rpg content creators to take some lessons from the board game industry. ::)

Meanwhile, where are the OSR games and OSR campaign settings with highly detailed wikis and SRDs? Where are the OSR adventure paths (like "Shackled City", or whatever)? How about even a couple OSR 'Endless Quest' books with masculine straight white male protagonists? Furthermore, if you publish a tabletop rpg, then it behooves you to sell a magazine that showcases what your precious game actually does.

Imagine if the creators of OSRIC provided an SRD (like the d20 SRD), a couple monthly magazines, and sold magic item cards and spell cards and more. And even had a well-drawn quarterly comic book. And created their own tabletop rpg campaign setting boxed set, with spell cards, magic item cards, miniatures, a game board, and monster cards. And hey, maybe an OSR company could even produce a couple short cartoons. Just for starters. I don't see stuff like that anywhere, and I didn't see it 20 years ago.

But whatever. If I want a digital D&D experience, I have computer games for that.....that bring me close enough to VTT (without being VTT), acting as a more convenient surrogate for VTT. And furthermore, if I play DDO (or whatever), I don't have to deal with Critical Race Theory Babylon 2.0 wankery and Satanic groomer degeneracy. And by the way, I'm gonna call this 6th Edition, and not 5.5. The difference between 5E in 2014, and what I'm seeing here now is greater than the difference we see between 1e vs 2e.

And it looks horrible. :(

This is a new edition of D&D, but without Hasbro openly admitting it. Remember when Hasbro called 5e "D&DNext"? I remember, and now they want to call 6e "OneDnD". You just wait. Hasbro will eventually have a Satanically inverted rainbow flag on their site in a few years. But whatever.

Fuck 6e, the Groomer Edition.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 20, 2022, 12:56:46 AM
I've been waiting to hear your take on it, Pundit.  Like the rising of the sun, I knew it was forthcoming.

Hope you liked it. Spread the word, share the video!

Quote from: jhkim on August 20, 2022, 12:06:04 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 11:35:14 AM
Digital D&D is a dead end. Inevitably, a multi-player computer game will be released that has 90% of what a digital D&D session has and everyone will switch over. Hasbro hopes that such a game is D&D branded but that isn't a certainty.

People have been saying this for decades -- citing MMORPGs like World of Warcraft -- but currently, it seems to me that D&D is bigger than it has ever been. I was just on a road trip through the Southwest, and the park ranger as we entered the Grand Canyon told us that she had an all-ranger play group she was in - though she was the only one who played a ranger. (heh!)

I don't think the future is going to be either all-digital or no-electronics. Some DMs like me will like having their laptop and other computerized play aids, even when playing in person.

I agree that this is an unlikely development. But it's also especially unlikely on account that WoTC has an absolutely terrible track record when it comes to online/virtual stuff.

I finally watched the whole "Wizards Presents 2022" video and I noticed a couple of things.

- The main host appeals to male heterosexuals. Good looking white woman with bare legs (*). Believe me: every single detail in these presentation is debated for months. It seems that they know very well what their main audience is.

(*) "Hey! That's sexist!"

- The team of "D&D Beyond" is mostly white. I saw a Asian woman and a guy with brown skin, but the majority the main cast is white and straight. Now, this comes from an observation that a black friend of mine made about Amazon's "The Rings of Power" (which races-swap the shit out of Tolkien but also has a white woman as the producer and two white male showrunners); I think that it applies here too:

"Isn't this the 'White Saviour Complex?' We want to be 'diverse and inclusive' but the job falls to three white people. Why they don't have a black showrunner?"

True. The manager of Magic is Asian (no problems with this, to be clear), but, generally speaking, the majority of the people you see in the presentation is white. There are many women but, since they use pronouns, we can say that they are straight white females. Why they don't have a rainbow of PoC working on "representative D&D?" These guys, literally, don't have faith for black people to run things. Even worse, they are tone-deaf about this. Put a black dude in the team just for marketing purposes - even a paid actor would do. No: whites reign.

- The "Japanese Dungeons & Dragon" spot is as racist as fuck. These people are not Japanese (well, maybe the actors are): they are how Americans imagine the Japanese. And, again, three Japanese are in a bad situation but D&D arrives to save the day. What follows is out of a Hong Kong wuxia movie.

Boy, how glad I am to be able to raise my eyes and see my collection of BECMI ---> 3.5E books.

Quote from: Reckall on August 21, 2022, 10:42:16 AM
I finally watched the whole "Wizards Presents 2022" video and I noticed a couple of things.

- The main host appeals to male heterosexuals. Good looking white woman with bare legs (*). Believe me: every single detail in these presentation is debated for months. It seems that they know very well what their main audience is.

(*) "Hey! That's sexist!"

- The team of "D&D Beyond" is mostly white. I saw a Asian woman and a guy with brown skin, but the majority the main cast is white and straight. Now, this comes from an observation that a black friend of mine made about Amazon's "The Rings of Power" (which races-swap the shit out of Tolkien but also has a white woman as the producer and two white male showrunners); I think that it applies here too:

"Isn't this the 'White Saviour Complex?' We want to be 'diverse and inclusive' but the job falls to three white people. Why they don't have a black showrunner?"

True. The manager of Magic is Asian (no problems with this, to be clear), but, generally speaking, the majority of the people you see in the presentation is white. There are many women but, since they use pronouns, we can say that they are straight white females. Why they don't have a rainbow of PoC working on "representative D&D?" These guys, literally, don't have faith for black people to run things. Even worse, they are tone-deaf about this. Put a black dude in the team just for marketing purposes - even a paid actor would do. No: whites reign.

- The "Japanese Dungeons & Dragon" spot is as racist as fuck. These people are not Japanese (well, maybe the actors are): they are how Americans imagine the Japanese. And, again, three Japanese are in a bad situation but D&D arrives to save the day. What follows is out of a Hong Kong wuxia movie.

Boy, how glad I am to be able to raise my eyes and see my collection of BECMI ---> 3.5E books.

I also noticed that the Asian women were mostly there to talk about how important it was for them to "finally" have characters that looked like them in the game. Cuz Asian characters apparently were never a thing right out of the gate back in the Kung Fu flick obsessed era the game came out, and there were never dozens of D&D products dealing with Asian content specifically till those two women came into the team

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 21, 2022, 11:42:13 AM
I also noticed that the Asian women were mostly there to talk about how important it was for them to "finally" have characters that looked like them in the game. Cuz Asian characters apparently were never a thing right out of the gate back in the Kung Fu flick obsessed era the game came out, and there were never dozens of D&D products dealing with Asian content specifically till those two women came into the team

You forget.  5E is year zero for most of the current WotC staff.  What came prior doesn't exist.

Quote from: Mistwell on August 20, 2022, 01:01:32 PM
That's not really the direction they're taking this though. By the time this comes out it will have been TEN YEARS since the last edition came out, and they've kept the errata EXTREMELY low, and even these changes are not a new edition but using the old edition with additions and some slight tweaks. You can't push that "oh it's going to be errat'ed every month" line with zero evidence. Even Gary thought updating the rules every decade was a reasonable path for a game.

You're aware of how often they errataed or retconned 5e though, right?  Officially if you licence it you have to even mark "5.1e" in the OGL - yet no one says they're going to play some "5.1e" like they would "3.5e", they still just call it 5e, so even though it's technically a new edition - no one noticed or cared outside of niche nerds like myself.

Also I know sarcasm is hard to read on the internet so no I don't literally think they're going to update and change the book twice a month like a MOBA changes character stats.  They released a splat every 13 months average - I hardly doubt they'd put that kind of effort into their live service.  My point with outlining "D&D as a live service" was the possibility of such, couple this with the censorship we've seen in the past two years, and the game is setting itself up for a Nikolai Yezhov treatment. That is the point of my concern.  Using the concept of a digital format to gut, change, edit, remove content, and pretend it was always like that or if it was different "it's better now anyway."

Finally: New edition?  It's a new release, sure, but from the sounds and the look of the playtest it's more a 5.2e than anything else.  And all the marketing of "don't worry, all new content is backwards compatible" certainly solidifies it as 5.x of some sort.

Quote from: Palleon on August 21, 2022, 11:44:40 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 21, 2022, 11:42:13 AM
I also noticed that the Asian women were mostly there to talk about how important it was for them to "finally" have characters that looked like them in the game. Cuz Asian characters apparently were never a thing right out of the gate back in the Kung Fu flick obsessed era the game came out, and there were never dozens of D&D products dealing with Asian content specifically till those two women came into the team

You forget.  5E is year zero for most of the current WotC staff.  What came prior doesn't exist.

This is basic wokespeak. When the most recent "Charlie's Angels" bombed, the (female) director said that "male fans are unable to accept strong female characters". Not only Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley never existed, but "Resident Evil" with Milla Jovovich had just become the most profitable horror franchise ever (when nu-Resident Evil fiascoed, people started to say "You know? Those movies with Milla...").

The actress playing Reeva on "Obi-wan" declared "Finally a black character in Star Wars!" This offended not only Billy Dee Williams who played Lando Calrissian in 1980, but even John Boyega who played Finn until 2019!

And here? "More options! More spells!" So, 3E? Gasligthing 101.

WOTC is hoping the D&D movie will boost the game, and that this large next generation of players will walk into WOTC's new subscription/app model of the game. WOTC may plan to augment their VTT with mandatory AI DMs that Hasbro corporate enjoys central control over for full woke driving. It probably won't work for them perfectly but I suppose it could work. It's all about profits and you can only generate large steady profits by either supplying a need (a game is not a need) or by controlling the customer, by hook or by crook.

I noticed in the One D&D playtest videos I watched on YT; that there is now a Primal Spell List, alongside Arcane and Divine?  That seems like a tip of the hat, to Pathfinder 2E; which added Primal and Occult Spell Lists, alongside Arcane and Divine.  Hmm.....

That also reminds me of Primal Powers, from D&D 4E.

Quote from: Mistwell on August 21, 2022, 12:27:10 AM

Ah, so you ARE posting from the early 2000s. Gotcha.

News Alert - what you saw in the early 2000s was 20 years ago. Things that worked great then for entertainment, really are not so working right now. That's how entertainment goes. Stuff changes.

While it would be great that someone would optimize the face to face experience imo it's not where the money is at.

Whether we like it or not more and more players especially the younger ones are learning to play RPGs online. I prefer books though given getting older and lack of space switching to digital for most of my rpg buying. I'm 49 and I no longer want to lug or carry a bunch of books to a game session.

I really wish many of the members here would stop coming off as the stereotypical anti-tech gamer Luddite. You all act as if social media and the Internet is some new fad destined to go the way of the dodo. It's simply not. I'm in an area where we had more severe Covid restrictions and it was either learn and adapt to using Discord or RollD20 or not game at all. It was either do that or not game it alll and it was two years and counting before I made the switch.

I'm not saying people here have to like online gaming. At the same time try to not come off as Mistwell says and look like your knowledge is 20 years out of date. It's like one of the players who refused to ho online in one of my games because he had to buy a second screen and he was not spending 800$+ on a new monitor. My response was when did you last go buy a monitor in 1980. I bought a second one around Christmas a year ago from Walmart 120$ tax on with free shipping.

I'm not buying One DND too many fantasy RPGs st home and I cannot justify it financially. With noting so far interesting me in the rules either.

In Belgium, as I'm sure as in other countries, during COVID there was a time "mass gatherings" at home (I'm talking five or so people) were forbidden but we still had to get our RPG on. So I tried to do it over Discord using the Cypher system. It just didn't work. It was just... barely bearable. The party was kick-ass, the rulesystem was good but playing online... It's just not my thing. When I filled out a survey for DnD they were already talking about going much and much more digital / online (kind of forgot what it was about) but we couldn't say a lot about it. Now I don't care as they kicked me off of their page. But then I felt it: D&D isn't for us anymore. Neither the mindset nor the age group. Just look at Wizards Presents... a whole lot of this digital this and digital that (bundles for books and OneD&D). I'll just keep playing fifth or pathfinder until my books wear out, I guess.

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 21, 2022, 12:28:24 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on August 20, 2022, 01:01:32 PM
That's not really the direction they're taking this though. By the time this comes out it will have been TEN YEARS since the last edition came out, and they've kept the errata EXTREMELY low, and even these changes are not a new edition but using the old edition with additions and some slight tweaks. You can't push that "oh it's going to be errat'ed every month" line with zero evidence. Even Gary thought updating the rules every decade was a reasonable path for a game.

You're aware of how often they errataed or retconned 5e though, right?  Officially if you licence it you have to even mark "5.1e" in the OGL - yet no one says they're going to play some "5.1e" like they would "3.5e", they still just call it 5e, so even though it's technically a new edition - no one noticed or cared outside of niche nerds like myself.

Also I know sarcasm is hard to read on the internet so no I don't literally think they're going to update and change the book twice a month like a MOBA changes character stats.  They released a splat every 13 months average - I hardly doubt they'd put that kind of effort into their live service.  My point with outlining "D&D as a live service" was the possibility of such, couple this with the censorship we've seen in the past two years, and the game is setting itself up for a Nikolai Yezhov treatment. That is the point of my concern.  Using the concept of a digital format to gut, change, edit, remove content, and pretend it was always like that or if it was different "it's better now anyway."

Finally: New edition?  It's a new release, sure, but from the sounds and the look of the playtest it's more a 5.2e than anything else.  And all the marketing of "don't worry, all new content is backwards compatible" certainly solidifies it as 5.x of some sort.

Well, here's a question. How different will '6e/OneDnd' be from '5e/DnDNext'?

To give a comparison, AD&D and 2e were different editions of D&D, but you could take a 2e character and play him in an AD&D campaign with very little adjustment, and also do the exact opposite.....by putting an AD&D character into a 2e campaign, and likewise have it barely noticeable by most people. :)

So how different will 6e be from 5e, compared to 'AD&D vs 2e'? The biggest change between AD&D and 2e, was a difference in TONE. The actual game mechanics of AD&D vs 2e were almost identical and largely compatible. What's coming in 2024 looks to be a major tonal shift from what '5e/DnDNext' was in 2014-2015.

Racial bonuses will be removed? Half-orcs and halflings will have the exact same strength score, because biology doesn't exist any more? Ability score bonuses will have no connection to your race? Furthermore, making Drow and Orcs not evil any more is not a minor change. Stuff like that represents a huge tonal shift. And we still don't know the full extent of the changes in game mechanics in regards to 5e vs 6e.

This is a new edition of D&D, that will be AT LEAST as different as the differences between AD&D and 2e. ???

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 11:55:59 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on August 20, 2022, 11:16:04 AM
The RPG underground scene (like the OSR) is where all the exciting developments happen.

So I don't really mind what happens to 5e, and in fact, I think it might actually be a good thing as it will suck up a lot of those the kiddy wokescolds and faux hobbyists.

Good riddance I say!

The wokescolds and faux hobbyists have never been interested in the OSR in the first place. Can you guarantee that you'll always be able to find people willing to play the niche and barely known RPGs of the OSR? If you can, cool. You have nothing to worry about. But I had trouble for years just getting a group for something like Call of Cthulhu or VtM. Most people just lean towards whatever is popular at the time unfortunately. And you end up in a position where you either have to play the latest version of DnD. Or just don't play RPGs at all.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 11:35:14 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AMWhen those editions get harder to find it incentivizes Zoomers who already want to go to digital solutions to only pursue this app.

Digital D&D is a dead end. Inevitably, a multi-player computer game will be released that has 90% of what a digital D&D session has and everyone will switch over. Hasbro hopes that such a game is D&D branded but that isn't a certainty.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on August 20, 2022, 11:16:04 AMI think it might actually be a good thing as it will suck up a lot of those the kiddy wokescolds and faux hobbyists.

Exactly. People who only want to play D&D through an app are not in the same hobby that I am. To thrive, old school RPGs need to focus on what can only be done in a face-to-face situation. Stop trying to make the game deterministic and easily app-able.

Recently I had a conversation with a friend of my current group of Zoomers who wanted to join. Let me try to remember it.

"Hey I'm running an RPG session. Do you wanna join, it's super cool."
"Oh yeah that Dungeon and Dragons thing."
"Oh this is Old School Essentials. It's an old edition of DnD. But cleaned up and super simple to use."
"Why aren't you using the new version of DnD. The old versions are buggy and complicated. All the you tubers make it seem so complicated and like there's lots of reading."
"Well if you want to try this game you might be surprised. It was designed to be simple for beginners. It's actually a lot like 5e"
"Okay, where's the app?"
"Oh there's no app. You get dice, a pencil and paper. It's really simple."
"No app? How do you calculate all the dice stuff then? That's way too complicated for normal people."

Now bear in mind this was a 12 year old so I was patient. He wasn't interested and that's okay. I didn't push it much further. But what I'm trying to get at is this. YOU may define DnD one way. And make a distinction that everything is separate. But you are making a dangerous assumption that other people will be as knowledgeable as you and make the right choice. And distinguish things as you do. Or at the very least people who think like you are either in the majority or are at least in enough supply that you can find groups easily.  When in actuality. The core demographic being targeted sees DnD in Stranger Things and thinks they are playing the same DnD to fit in with all the other people playing DnD. They are told DnD is online now. And that's it. That's DnD for those people. If you play in a way the majority does not you are not fitting in and you won't make friends that way.

I don't think you're right about computer games though. Even ignoring the fact that DnD has far less of an entry point than the average video game, Lots of computer games offer "90% of what a digital DnD session has" Off the top of my head, Neverwinter Nights with it's persistant worlds and GM tools, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 with multiplayer, every MMO ever made. But people want to play DnD as a game for the lifestyle brand recognition. They are specifically playing that thing that Critical Role and Stranger Things said was cool. You can run One DnD on your shitty phone or tablet. Which everyone has. As opposed to a games console or a gaming PC. Which are expensive.

Here's the thing. Having apps is great if they are *tools* to aid the prep for play rather than the raison d'etre.  The old FRCS Electronic Atlas still sits on my computer because it's useful.  The old Steve's Spellsheets excel spreadsheets to print out the *massive* number of spells for your character sheet during the 3e era - useful. Herolab - useful. But no different than Campaign Cartographer or Word or GIMP - tools that help you prepare for play. Even pdf books are great for prep, but not during play since it's much quicker to thumb through a book after scanning the index than scroll through a PDF or try a search term that may or may not be able to get you the topic you are looking for.

When the tool overtakes the game itself, it's a problem.

And that is the best thing about OSE or earlier editions - less info = less need for electronic tools.

Quote from: Abraxus on August 21, 2022, 01:04:33 PM

While it would be great that someone would optimize the face to face experience imo it's not where the money is at.

True.  Also true:  Where the money is at isn't meeting certain needs of the customers.  To wit, I spend way too much time with computer screens at work.  Most of my players are in the same boat.  So the very last thing we want to do when playing is spend even more time staring at a screen.  Plus, having played both ways, we know that face-to-face is the superior experience for us.

There will of course be younger people so into tech that it doesn't occur to them to do it any other way.  There will then eventually be a counter-movement where some of them experiment and discover that the face-to-face version is superior, for exactly the same reasons that some of us older ones find it so.  It's inherent in what it is.  It's exactly parallel to some millennials that I saw several years ago having a "conversation" in a room where all of them were sitting around texting to each other.  Heads down, staring at the screen, mostly blank stares, occasional chuckle.  Then Covid and that's all they did for awhile.  Now they know when they are in a room they want eye contact.

Quote from: Abraxus on August 21, 2022, 01:04:33 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on August 21, 2022, 12:27:10 AM

Ah, so you ARE posting from the early 2000s. Gotcha.

News Alert - what you saw in the early 2000s was 20 years ago. Things that worked great then for entertainment, really are not so working right now. That's how entertainment goes. Stuff changes.

While it would be great that someone would optimize the face to face experience imo it's not where the money is at.

Whether we like it or not more and more players especially the younger ones are learning to play RPGs online. I prefer books though given getting older and lack of space switching to digital for most of my rpg buying. I'm 49 and I no longer want to lug or carry a bunch of books to a game session.

I really wish many of the members here would stop coming off as the stereotypical anti-tech gamer Luddite. You all act as if social media and the Internet is some new fad destined to go the way of the dodo. It's simply not. I'm in an area where we had more severe Covid restrictions and it was either learn and adapt to using Discord or RollD20 or not game at all. It was either do that or not game it alll and it was two years and counting before I made the switch.

I'm not saying people here have to like online gaming. At the same time try to not come off as Mistwell says and look like your knowledge is 20 years out of date. It's like one of the players who refused to ho online in one of my games because he had to buy a second screen and he was not spending 800$+ on a new monitor. My response was when did you last go buy a monitor in 1980. I bought a second one around Christmas a year ago from Walmart 120$ tax on with free shipping.

I'm not buying One DND too many fantasy RPGs st home and I cannot justify it financially. With noting so far interesting me in the rules either.

You're wrong, Mistwell's wrong. You're both absolutely wrong.

Yes, we know that people (especially young people) are obsessed with their stupid fucking serotonin-delivery devices, known as smartphones. But Globohomo will not be able to successfully lock people up in their homes forever. The coronahoax worked for a couple years because it was new, and because Globohomo has a large number of blackmailed and bribed politicians, corporate stooges, fascist police forces, and media whores to enforce their precious narrative. But the lockdowns cannot last forever. That which cannot endure, will not endure.

Remember that we live (or will live) in the age of the "rolling power outage". Many people in western Europe might not be able to heat their homes within the next couple years, because of this "Great Reset" wankery. Assuming that all gaming is going to be all digital all the time, or else tabletop rpgs will die....is just not realistic. People can only take so much social isolation and social retardation up to a point.....and yes, there is a breaking point.

And furthermore, NOBODY has successfully articulated what would make a VTT more enticing than a fantasy computer game. I can play a computer game either alone, or I can play it with my friends. My friends and I can create characters, give them stats, give them equipment....and then we can go on adventures together. You're telling us that the people who play face-to-face games will all choose to stare at pixelated images forever on a screen instead? Haven't we been told this a million times already for the past 15 years? But....ok. I'm sure it will happen any day now. ::)

And another equally important thing, is that exactly ZERO tabletop rpg publishers have even bothered to try to optimize the face-to-face experience of playing roleplaying games. Nobody has done this, and nobody is trying to do this. Nobody tried it 20 years ago, and nobody's trying to do it now. Some dude selling some books and dice for his fantasy heartbreaker, is NOT making an attempt to OPTIMIZE A FACE-TO-FACE EXPERIENCE.

Nobody in the tabletop rpg industry is bothering to learn any lessons whatsoever from the board game industry, in an attempt to reach more normies. Going almost entirely VTT, means that you are competing DIRECTLY with computer games, in which case.....you will LOSE. 8)

Quote from: Almost_Useless on August 20, 2022, 05:06:45 PM
I play all online now.  That's the price of moving to nowhere.  But I'm not in for this.

Once there's One place to play and One D&D community, it's too easy to ban you for One wrong opinion.

That's the part makes me balk as well.  Transitioning the game to a 'culture' online hub, has the potential for mandates of play to come out, potentially inhibiting players from gaming whatever they want, as it does not 'fit in' with the image-branding WoTC is carefully cultivating.  It's speculation at this point, but one could feasibly surmise that anything online and socially centralized, usually results in a certain set of moderation, for better or worse.

On the offline physical face-to-face vs. online gaming: I've had success with both and there are certainly merits for online gaming.  Online has led to more potential for players of certain systems, more flexibility and has worked for me at least.

A fun quote from Mike Mornard, when he played with Gygax:

"...Gary ran games in his office, which was provided with chairs, a couch, and file cabinets. While playing, Gary would open the drawers of the file cabinet and sit behind them so that the players could not see him. They only experienced the Dungeon Master as a disembodied voice."

Maybe this new online gaming style is not so different after all.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 21, 2022, 02:29:46 PM
Nobody in the tabletop rpg industry is bothering to learn any lessons whatsoever from the board game industry, in an attempt to reach more normies. Going almost entirely VTT, means that you are competing DIRECTLY with computer games, in which case.....you will LOSE. 8)

Roll20 is a VTT. Which computer game does it compete against?

Not a trap question. I just find the argument between computer games and VTTs odd.

Quote from: FingerRod on August 21, 2022, 03:35:30 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 21, 2022, 02:29:46 PM
Nobody in the tabletop rpg industry is bothering to learn any lessons whatsoever from the board game industry, in an attempt to reach more normies. Going almost entirely VTT, means that you are competing DIRECTLY with computer games, in which case.....you will LOSE. 8)

Roll20 is a VTT. Which computer game does it compete against?

Not a trap question. I just find the argument between computer games and VTTs odd.

I'll bet it's because of the graphical user interface on a computer. Therefore they're the same thing and in competition with one another.

Quote from: Corolinth on August 21, 2022, 03:43:32 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on August 21, 2022, 03:35:30 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 21, 2022, 02:29:46 PM
Nobody in the tabletop rpg industry is bothering to learn any lessons whatsoever from the board game industry, in an attempt to reach more normies. Going almost entirely VTT, means that you are competing DIRECTLY with computer games, in which case.....you will LOSE. 8)

Roll20 is a VTT. Which computer game does it compete against?

Not a trap question. I just find the argument between computer games and VTTs odd.

I'll bet it's because of the graphical user interface on a computer. Therefore they're the same thing and in competition with one another.

Not really. I cannot think of a computer game that would compete with the experience of playing a TTRPG. It is like saying WoW is a D&D competitor if you play D&D on Roll20.

Quote from: FingerRod on August 21, 2022, 03:51:10 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on August 21, 2022, 03:43:32 PM
I'll bet it's because of the graphical user interface on a computer. Therefore they're the same thing and in competition with one another.

Not really. I cannot think of a computer game that would compete with the experience of playing a TTRPG. It is like saying WoW is a D&D competitor if you play D&D on Roll20.

It sounded to me like that was the argument that Lamb was making. I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it.

  Things change.  This new way is the way...well it seems the powers that be want people to sit in their pod, consume product and eat zee bugs.   This is not IMO because it is "natural", it is because someone with a shitload of money wants it that way.  If people want to do it, so be it. Better is subjective of course, but human contact, in person is a real thing that people really do want.

I'm just curious what people expect when they say "optimize the face-to-face experience."

To me, that just means learning to become a better GM. Develop an intimate understanding of the system you are running... identify mechanics/rules that don't work for you or your table... introduce new ones that do... maximize fun. There are a bajillion "How to be a better GM" guides out there, but not a single one is a magic wand that with automatically improve your game if you buy it. So what exactly do people think will "optimize the face-to-face experience?" Because it's not something you can buy; it's something you need to learn.

And that is the real tragedy (and eventual demise) of WotC's plan. If they create a single standard of rules that cannot be changed by anyone except them, people will eventually lose interest and seek ways to play how they want. This isn't to say they will rush to get an in-person group going, but it does mean they will drift away from WotC's platform and system. And if the rules are locked behind a subscription-wall, they'll just look at earlier editions.

Quote from: Corolinth on August 21, 2022, 04:05:52 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on August 21, 2022, 03:51:10 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on August 21, 2022, 03:43:32 PM
I'll bet it's because of the graphical user interface on a computer. Therefore they're the same thing and in competition with one another.

Not really. I cannot think of a computer game that would compete with the experience of playing a TTRPG. It is like saying WoW is a D&D competitor if you play D&D on Roll20.

It sounded to me like that was the argument that Lamb was making. I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it.

He was saying that trying to complete would be a loss. I agree there, but my point is that they cannot compete because they are not competitors with one another. Unless I am missing another point he was making.

Quote from: FingerRod on August 21, 2022, 05:20:20 PM
He was saying that trying to complete would be a loss. I agree there, but my point is that they cannot compete because they are not competitors with one another. Unless I am missing another point he was making.

Yeah, I don't agree with the assessment either. It's like saying audiobooks will replace text-based books. It's a tenuous claim at best. Tabletop to VTT is more akin to physical book vs pdf. The content is the same, only the medium changes. Videogames are a different creature altogether.

Are there people that prefer audiobooks over text-based books? Of course! Just like there are videogamers that have no interest in playing ttrpgs, real tabletop or VTT. But I don't see VTT as a direct competitor of videogames.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AM
Zoomers want everything easy and digital.

Except dice.
 

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 20, 2022, 10:05:18 AMWotC have done a lot to drive away customers because THEY. DON'T WANT. YOU. They are not making this FOR YOU! They will make more money from locking down DnD into a software they control then they ever will selling books in a store.

True on both accounts.

Games Workshop is also notorious for deliberately alienating the grogs to clear the market for new customers, because the horrible truth is there comes a point where your existing customers have everything they need and just make your game look like it's for old people.

Quote from: Corolinth on August 20, 2022, 12:04:24 PM
It isn't just Zoomers. Nobody wants books. Everyone wants wikis.

As well they should, and I've been pushing for this for decades.

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 20, 2022, 12:29:12 PMreducing the rulebook from something well crafted, proof-read, intended to be the end all for the game

Let's be honest, most rulebooks aren't anywhere near this.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 20, 2022, 02:58:45 PM
I was one of those "only play in person with hardcopy books" diehards for years. Stupidly, I stuck with that all the way through the pandemic, and ended up not playing any RPGs at all for a whole year when I had almost nothing else to do. Then, I had my first kid, and was basically forced to move to playing online, because my only free time was late at night.

Suddenly, I found that I had access to better players, who reliably showed up for games, and came to play rather than to gossip. And because no one has to travel, pick up food, set up all their paperwork, and settle down to actually play, I can run a tight 3 or 4 hour session and do more playing than I used to do in a ten hour one. That means that instead of playing once a month (if I'm lucky), I can now be in three games per week. And that's with a more than full-time job and a family.

Comparing that to the years I spent trying to wrangle 3 or 4 friends into showing up for a once per month game, and then having half of them not show up, and the other half spending most of the session smoking and talking about unrelated nonsense, I'm not sure I'll ever go back.

Oh, and before someone says this is a zoomer problem, I'm in my thirties, and the people I play with online are reliably 15-20 years older than I played am.

Overall online play is a net win for everyone.

However...

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 20, 2022, 03:39:32 PM
The speculation I'm seeing is that it's less about wokeness per se (that's just a bonus) and more about establishing a closed system for the 'game as a service' model that's been plaguing the PC/console game culture for a while.

Quote from: Almost_Useless on August 20, 2022, 05:06:45 PM
Once there's One place to play and One D&D community, it's too easy to ban you for One wrong opinion.

...corporations will absolutely gatekeep if capable. Several recent books can no longer be purchased on D&D Beyond. Microsoft is banning Minecraft players on private servers. BMW has made heated seats a subscription feature on their latest cars. Adobe only sells subscriptions to their apps. So if Hasbro manages to get this all under one roof you better believe they'll make sure only the people who don't damage their brand are allowed to play, and the minute someone does they'll expel them and render their purchases inaccessible, because at this point customers don't actually own the media, merely license it.

@Sacrificial Lamb

Have we finished doing our afternoon rant at the clouds.

Good.

If you think the RPGs industry and generally the rest of society is going to ignore what Social Media and the Internet can do for them. Guess again.

While face to face at a table is a good way to reach out to new gamers, YouTube, Discord and Facebook has no boundaries. I can recruit and find players from across my city and province. Hell across the world. If you think any properly run company with resources to invest is going to ignore such a resource it's not going to happen.

Whether you or I like it or not. I'm not a huge fan of online gaming perff so personally. It was either adapt or die. I prefer to be on the road of progress rather than left behind.

You remand other stereotypical anti-tech grognard luddites remind me of when mass  this production was first introduced and those for example making shoes by hand swore up and done that no way no how customers would by such inferior products. Years later behind some industries everything is mass produced. Most people don't care how their shoes are produced as long as they are cheaper.

Keep wagging your fist at the clouds as any day now rpg companies are going to go back to gaming table....any day now.

Quote from: FingerRod on August 21, 2022, 03:35:30 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 21, 2022, 02:29:46 PM
Nobody in the tabletop rpg industry is bothering to learn any lessons whatsoever from the board game industry, in an attempt to reach more normies. Going almost entirely VTT, means that you are competing DIRECTLY with computer games, in which case.....you will LOSE. 8)

Roll20 is a VTT. Which computer game does it compete against?

Not a trap question. I just find the argument between computer games and VTTs odd.

It seems odd, but it's not.

VTT is competing against all fantasy computer games. All of them. VTT doesn't have to specifically compete against NWN, NWN 2, Baldur's Gate, DDO, and other such games. These games do not have to actually be VTT themselves to be competition. Whether you are playing D&D or another fantasy game on a VTT, or playing D&D or another fantasy game on a computer game, it doesn't matter.

Either way, you are still playing a game on a computer. Either way, you are still staring at pixelated images on a screen. Either way, you are still creating characters (for both), equipping your characters (for both), and going on adventures with friends (for both). Either way, I can verbally communicate with friends while either playing with a VTT or playing with a computer game. Either way, you are playing a fantasy game on a computer. :o

And yes, I understand that VTT and computer games are not the same thing.....but these two activities are filling a very similar slot.

Quote from: Effete on August 21, 2022, 05:16:34 PM
I'm just curious what people expect when they say "optimize the face-to-face experience."

To me, that just means learning to become a better GM. Develop an intimate understanding of the system you are running... identify mechanics/rules that don't work for you or your table... introduce new ones that do... maximize fun. There are a bajillion "How to be a better GM" guides out there, but not a single one is a magic wand that with automatically improve your game if you buy it. So what exactly do people think will "optimize the face-to-face experience?" Because it's not something you can buy; it's something you need to learn.

And that is the real tragedy (and eventual demise) of WotC's plan. If they create a single standard of rules that cannot be changed by anyone except them, people will eventually lose interest and seek ways to play how they want. This isn't to say they will rush to get an in-person group going, but it does mean they will drift away from WotC's platform and system. And if the rules are locked behind a subscription-wall, they'll just look at earlier editions.

"Optimizing the face-to-face experience" is NOT about being a better DM. It's about taking some long-past-due lessons from the board game industry, and making tabletop RPGs more approachable for normies. And guess what? Nobody is doing that. Confining everyone inside a centralized digital ghetto is not the answer to the problem.

For example, where are the tabletop rpg campaign settings with an SRD and highly detailed wiki? Where are the house organs for tabletop RPG companies, in the form of monthly magazines? Where are the boxed sets for Basic D&D, or AD&D, or D&D 3.x with spell cards, psionic power cards, magic item cards, feat cards, non-weapon proficiency cards, thief skill cards, paladin ability cards, monster cards (with game stats), and more? Where are the game boards and dungeon tiles for specific adventure modules, for specific game systems?

Where are the boxed sets with random encounter cards, based upon location and time of day.....with game mechanics specifically translated into our game system of choice?

Publishing some book, and not giving a shit about the graphic design, art, and index is simply not going to cut it any more. If you wanna inject serotonin into people's tiny lizard brains, you need to visually stimulate them. And if you're publishing a game, what does the character sheet look like? Is it intuitive? Is it fun to look at? Or does it look like some incredibly obscure implementation of tax code instead? :(

And furthermore, it's a bad idea to outsource all discussion of your games to Facebook, Reddit, and Discord......because as publishers, you don't control those sites.....and they are becoming increasingly dystopian and communistic anyway. If you are selling a game, then your website needs to have its own online storefront (that you control), as well as its own blog and its own forum....which you also control, and in which you don't have to compete for attention with a million other things on the increasingly communistic hivemind of Facebook, Reddit, and Discord.

By doing stuff like this, you will eventually create a brand (if you're doing things right). But guess what? Nobody is doing this. And I wanna stress that people cannot hide in their basements, and wank on their computers forever. ::)

Quote from: Abraxus on August 21, 2022, 07:35:50 PM
@Sacrificial Lamb

Have we finished doing our afternoon rant at the clouds.

Good.

If you think the RPGs industry and generally the rest of society is going to ignore what Social Media and the Internet can do for them. Guess again.

While face to face at a table is a good way to reach out to new gamers, YouTube, Discord and Facebook has no boundaries. I can recruit and find players from across my city and province. Hell across the world. If you think any properly run company with resources to invest is going to ignore such a resource it's not going to happen.

Whether you or I like it or not. I'm not a huge fan of online gaming perff so personally. It was either adapt or die. I prefer to be on the road of progress rather than left behind.

You remand other stereotypical anti-tech grognard luddites remind me of when mass  this production was first introduced and those for example making shoes by hand swore up and done that no way no how customers would by such inferior products. Years later behind some industries everything is mass produced. Most people don't care how their shoes are produced as long as they are cheaper.

Keep wagging your fist at the clouds as any day now rpg companies are going to go back to gaming table....any day now.

When did I say that it was a good idea to ignore social media? Go ahead, show me. I'll wait. 8)

But forcing all tabletop gaming onto some shitty Hasbro groomer app, where you will inevitably be "fired" as a customer for your social media posts is just not going to cut it. Snarkily telling me that a digital ghetto is the future of all tabletop rpgs, and that technological luddites like myself just need to get used to having a boot stamped on my face forever and ever....is not impressing me.  ;)

Didn't I bring up having an Internet presence? Having a wiki, having an SRD, having a website, having an online storefront (on a site YOU control), having a blog (that you control), and having a forum (that you control). And yes, you could even hire someone to BUILD A FUCKING APP for your OSR game, and its campaign setting.

Nothing I have said here has contradicted that. I'll repeat this again, for the TERMINALLY RETARDED:

NOBODY is discussing ways of "optimizing the face-to-face experience" for tabletop rpgs. Instead, people are just wanking about staring at pixelated images on a computer screen as being the future of tabletop rpgs, and if we think that's playing against the face-to-face SOCIAL advantages of rpgs, then we're luddites....and if we think computer games too closely compete with VTT, by filling a similar hobby space.....then once again we're told that we're luddites.

That's a cute rhetorical tactic, but it's ultimately retarded. If you wanna play games on your little computer, nobody is stopping you. But nobody here (or anywhere) is discussing ways of optimizing the face-to-face experience for tabletop rpgs. Which means it's just more computer nerds wanking out over the "inevitable" digitalization of everything....again.

Oh, but that's right. We live in the age of the "Great Reset", where we'll soon be prohibited from even buying food, unless we have a QR code on our precious little smartphones that indicate we've been injected by experimental mRNA gene therapy that "edits" our DNA. Some retards call that a "vaccine", right? Silly me. How could I forget?

Carry on then. ::)

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 21, 2022, 08:24:12 PM
And yes, I understand that VTT and computer games are not the same thing.....but these two activities are filling a very similar slot.

We'll have to disagree. In my experience, these two fill two completely different slots. WotC going in (yet again) on a VTT means they must compete against other VTTs for game nights.

Greetings!

You know, if by circumstance or preference, you like playing D&D online with VTT and whatever--good for you. Go for it.

As for myself, I like getting together with my friends, in person, face-to-face. I enjoy ordering up food at a restaurant with them, or serving up food personally. I enjoy drinking together, and lighting up fine cigars. I enjoy making coffee for everyone. I enjoy hearing them laugh, and seeing their faces, their expressions, their antics. Hearing them scream in hatred or triumph.

I enjoy rolling dice and moving painted miniatures across the table.

I enjoy gaming together, with them. Face-to-face.

Fuck the digital BS. All that online digital BS will always and forever be a sad, poor substitute for what I described experiencing above.

In-person gaming is in my view, the absolute best. Simple as that. In-person gaming is what we as a community, as a hobby, should prioritize, emphasize, celebrate and promote.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 21, 2022, 08:24:12 PM
For example, where are the tabletop rpg campaign settings with an SRD and highly detailed wiki? Where are the house organs for tabletop RPG companies, in the form of monthly magazines? Where are the boxed sets for Basic D&D, or AD&D, or D&D 3.x with spell cards, psionic power cards, magic item cards, feat cards, non-weapon proficiency cards, thief skill cards, paladin ability cards, monster cards (with game stats), and more? Where are the game boards and dungeon tiles for specific adventure modules, for specific game systems?

Where are the boxed sets with random encounter cards, based upon location and time of day.....with game mechanics specifically translated into our game system of choice?

Publishing some book, and not giving a shit about the graphic design, art, and index is simply not going to cut it any more. If you wanna inject serotonin into people's tiny lizard brains, you need to visually stimulate them. And if you're publishing a game, what does the character sheet look like? Is it intuitive? Is it fun to look at? Or does it look like some incredibly obscure implementation of tax code instead? :(

Didn't I bring up having an Internet presence? Having a wiki, having an SRD, having a website, having an online storefront (on a site YOU control), having a blog (that you control), and having a forum (that you control). And yes, you could even hire someone to BUILD A FUCKING APP for your OSR game, and its campaign setting.

I agree with you 100% Sacrificial Lamb. At Autarch I offer my own webstore (AutarchEmporium.com), website (Autarch.co), forums (forum.autarch.co). In my most recent game, the Ascendant RPG, in addition to a book we offered full-color 3' x 2' battle maps of Capital City and a combat gauge marked off in game units, and we're developing an App to help people build characters. And Ascendant has been my most successful RPG so far.

The problem is that all of that costs time and money, and unless your game is already doing "pretty well" it is hard to throw more resources at it, especially when you're on the bleak side of a network effect. That said, I'm relatively grateful that my better-financed competitors don't do much of this sort of thing because if they did that'd make it even harder to compete.

This article pretty much sums it up for me. I didn't write it but it's my attitude.

https://thetabletopengineer.com/f/i-dont-hate-one-dd---i-just-dont-care?fbclid=IwAR1utY_ep7wNen00vKsNs0cGea3tf0y3b8bifoIjQLNlZhKXHgXladminmQ

It's easy to talk out of one ass and act like it's easy to find a face to face gaming table.

Sometimes it's easier to find digital versions of such tables. Myself I prefer both. I get some like the face to face aspect and if I could find the kind of game I want that way Jbwould.

Unfortunately beyond 5E and both editions of PF not much else in my area. I'm currently posting in a 1E campaign in Greyhawk and enjoying it immensely. I like being powerful yet also have to be careful about whatever we fight. I started as a first level Halfling Thief with 1HP.

Maybe some of you have the luxury of finding unlimited posters and DMs for the kind of RPGs you want to play/run. I unfortunately do not. Trying to run and/or play a game of Rifts or anything Palladium related is an exercise in futility. The flaky as fuck nature of both is embarrassing. 

In the end I find both digital and actual table experiences enjoyable. Either or are not fir everyone but I'm not going to assume my aycand only mind is the right way.

Quote from: TrueWOPR on August 21, 2022, 12:28:24 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on August 20, 2022, 01:01:32 PM
That's not really the direction they're taking this though. By the time this comes out it will have been TEN YEARS since the last edition came out, and they've kept the errata EXTREMELY low, and even these changes are not a new edition but using the old edition with additions and some slight tweaks. You can't push that "oh it's going to be errat'ed every month" line with zero evidence. Even Gary thought updating the rules every decade was a reasonable path for a game.

You're aware of how often they errataed or retconned 5e though, right?

Yes. The answer is "extremely little," relative to the two prior editions.

QuoteMy point with outlining "D&D as a live service" was the possibility of such

Anything is possible of course but given there is zero evidence to support that contention for 10 years now for this game, I think it's a low probability possibility.

Quotecouple this with the censorship we've seen in the past two years

Is this about the WOTC breaking into your house to steal or books and mark them up? Damn those guy suck.

Unless you mean some other REAL censorship? Which...hasn't happened.

Quote from: amacris on August 21, 2022, 09:37:27 PM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 21, 2022, 08:24:12 PM
For example, where are the tabletop rpg campaign settings with an SRD and highly detailed wiki? Where are the house organs for tabletop RPG companies, in the form of monthly magazines? Where are the boxed sets for Basic D&D, or AD&D, or D&D 3.x with spell cards, psionic power cards, magic item cards, feat cards, non-weapon proficiency cards, thief skill cards, paladin ability cards, monster cards (with game stats), and more? Where are the game boards and dungeon tiles for specific adventure modules, for specific game systems?

Where are the boxed sets with random encounter cards, based upon location and time of day.....with game mechanics specifically translated into our game system of choice?

Publishing some book, and not giving a shit about the graphic design, art, and index is simply not going to cut it any more. If you wanna inject serotonin into people's tiny lizard brains, you need to visually stimulate them. And if you're publishing a game, what does the character sheet look like? Is it intuitive? Is it fun to look at? Or does it look like some incredibly obscure implementation of tax code instead? :(

Didn't I bring up having an Internet presence? Having a wiki, having an SRD, having a website, having an online storefront (on a site YOU control), having a blog (that you control), and having a forum (that you control). And yes, you could even hire someone to BUILD A FUCKING APP for your OSR game, and its campaign setting.

I agree with you 100% Sacrificial Lamb. At Autarch I offer my own webstore (AutarchEmporium.com), website (Autarch.co), forums (forum.autarch.co). In my most recent game, the Ascendant RPG, in addition to a book we offered full-color 3' x 2' battle maps of Capital City and a combat gauge marked off in game units, and we're developing an App to help people build characters. And Ascendant has been my most successful RPG so far.

The problem is that all of that costs time and money, and unless your game is already doing "pretty well" it is hard to throw more resources at it, especially when you're on the bleak side of a network effect. That said, I'm relatively grateful that my better-financed competitors don't do much of this sort of thing because if they did that'd make it even harder to compete.

And that's something. You're acknowledging this issue, which is good. :)

It's also good that you're finding a niche within the tabletop rpg industry. Lots of publishers don't even bother to ask themselves what the needs of potential customers are, that aren't being met. I've also heard that all mention of ACKS and Autarch is a forbidden topic on RPGnet. That blows my mind. It also probably embodies "the bleak side of a network effect". :(

I've been thinking about this lately, and it seems like few tabletop rpg publishers want to take any useful lessons from the board game industry.....or they avoid consciously thinking about building their own IP. Instead, we hear some people advocating that nearly all gaming will inevitably be consigned to a digital ghetto, and that if we're not playing VTT in the near future, then we won't even be playing rpgs at all. This idea that the architects of the Coronahoax will successfully lock everyone up in their homes for the next 20 years, and that face-to-face gaming will be permanently over......is not realistic. People have a breaking point, and eventually need to have face-to-face social interactions.....as digital interactions are a poor surrogate for that. I've also noticed multiple game publishers shutting down their blogs and forums, and using Facebook, Discord, and Reddit to communicate with customers instead. That is a major mistake, as these game companies are OUTSOURCING their ability to communicate with potential customers, to the point that it leaves them extremely vulnerable........if these gaming companies offend the wrong person, and end up being removed from these platforms.

Publishers must absolutely have rigid control over their methods of communicating with customers. Remember when Vox Day had his blog nuked by Blogger? He didn't break any rules, but he disrupted the precious "Globohomo narrative". Fortunately for him, he anticipated this......and was instantly ready with a backup clone blog that he personally controlled. In other words, DECENTRALIZATION is necessary.

But....of course, Hasbro wants massive centralization. ::)

Meanwhile, we have too many content creators who are just releasing pdfs, or the occasional rpg books.......which doesn't actually do anything to make rpgs more accessible for people. Most people understand the concept of a board game, but lots of people struggle with the concept of a tabletop rpg...and can't visualize it. ???

When I brought up examples of "optimizing the face-to-face experience"....my point was that rpg publishers need to start thinking outside the box, because a lot of the 'normies' need this type of stuff to help them find inspiration...when they're engaging in the face-to-face social activity of a roleplaying game.

And that's fine. :)

Quote from: Abraxus on August 21, 2022, 11:46:27 PM
It's easy to talk out of one ass and act like it's easy to find a face to face gaming table.

Sometimes it's easier to find digital versions of such tables. Myself I prefer both. I get some like the face to face aspect and if I could find the kind of game I want that way Jbwould.

Unfortunately beyond 5E and both editions of PF not much else in my area. I'm currently posting in a 1E campaign in Greyhawk and enjoying it immensely. I like being powerful yet also have to be careful about whatever we fight. I started as a first level Halfling Thief with 1HP.

Maybe some of you have the luxury of finding unlimited posters and DMs for the kind of RPGs you want to play/run. I unfortunately do not. Trying to run and/or play a game of Rifts or anything Palladium related is an exercise in futility. The flaky as fuck nature of both is embarrassing. 

In the end I find both digital and actual table experiences enjoyable. Either or are not fir everyone but I'm not going to assume my aycand only mind is the right way.

There's nothing wrong with finding digital gaming to be enjoyable. I promise that I'm not giving you grief over that. But Hasbro doesn't want us to have choices in regards to how we game, or whom we game with. They want ironclad control of the rpg hobby and industry, and they are not good people.

I just hope you understand my desire to explore ideas for "optimizing the face-to-face experience" for tabletop rpgs, because rpg publishers are not really doing that in a major way. And I don't consider Hasbro's advocacy of a centralized "woke" digital ghetto to be "optimal" for gaming. Just the opposite. It sounds dystopian and nightmarish to me. :(

So you understand my position, I consider the Internet to be a useful tool for tabletop rpgs.....but that's all it is to me. A tool.

QuoteAnd that's something. You're acknowledging this issue, which is good. :)

It's also good that you're finding a niche within the tabletop rpg industry. Lots of publishers don't even bother to ask themselves what the needs of potential customers are, that aren't being met. I've also heard that all mention of ACKS and Autarch is a forbidden topic on RPGnet. That blows my mind. It also probably embodies "the bleak side of a network effect". :(

The moderators of RPG.net consistently defamed me with false accusations. When I asked the owners to stop their staff from defaming me, they instead simply banned any discussion of my game. If they weren't allowed to defame me, then no one would be allowed to say anything at all. So I definitely have been on the bleak side of the network effect! But the good news is that there is a counter-network slowly forming. It's much smaller but it's the beginning of something.

QuoteI've been thinking about this lately, and it seems like few tabletop rpg publishers want to take any useful lessons from the board game industry.....or they avoid consciously thinking about building their own IP.

I'd be curious as to what you see as the chief lessons to take from the board game industry. That seems like a REALLY worthwhile discussion.

Quote
Instead, we hear some people advocating that nearly all gaming will inevitably be consigned to a digital ghetto, and that if we're not playing VTT in the near future, then we won't even be playing rpgs at all. This idea that the architects of the Coronahoax will successfully lock everyone up in their homes for the next 20 years, and that face-to-face gaming will be permanently over......is not realistic. People have a breaking point, and eventually need to have face-to-face social interactions.....as digital interactions are a poor surrogate for that.

In my opinion, tabletop RPGs have one major feature that neither boardgames nor videogames have, and that is that the live GM is able to provide total agency to the players to do what they want to do. In Axis & Allies you cannot decide to research an Antarctic base for the Axis, but if it were an RPG you could. Unfortunately, VTT works against this in every way. Instead of being able to freely improvise, the GM becomes constrained by the limits of the VTT. I've noticed this in running ACKS live and ACKS in VTT.

Quote
I've also noticed multiple game publishers shutting down their blogs and forums, and using Facebook, Discord, and Reddit to communicate with customers instead. That is a major mistake, as these game companies are OUTSOURCING their ability to communicate with potential customers, to the point that it leaves them extremely vulnerable........if these gaming companies offend the wrong person, and end up being removed from these platforms.

Everybody is sure they won't get cancelled until they get cancelled. Myself, I'm on redundant platforms. I'm on Patreon AND Locals. I host my own website. I'm on Twitter, Facebook, and Gab. I have my own mailing list with the member list downloaded from the platform, and I use both Substack and Mailchimp to distribute. I crowdfund on three different platforms.

Quote
Publishers must absolutely have rigid control over their methods of communicating with customers. Remember when Vox Day had his blog nuked by Blogger? He didn't break any rules, but he disrupted the precious "Globohomo narrative". Fortunately for him, he anticipated this......and was instantly ready with a backup clone blog that he personally controlled. In other words, DECENTRALIZATION is necessary.

But....of course, Hasbro wants massive centralization. ::)

Not just Hasbro! But yes. Amen.

Quote
Meanwhile, we have too many content creators who are just releasing pdfs, or the occasional rpg books.......which doesn't actually do anything to make rpgs more accessible for people. Most people understand the concept of a board game, but lots of people struggle with the concept of a tabletop rpg...and can't visualize it. ???

When I brought up examples of "optimizing the face-to-face experience"....my point was that rpg publishers need to start thinking outside the box, because a lot of the 'normies' need this type of stuff to help them find inspiration...when they're engaging in the face-to-face social activity of a roleplaying game.

One of the things I'm doing is using comics as a means to help promote my RPG. The comic book comes with cool Magic-style trading cards that serve as miniature character sheets for the RPG. I'm sure there are other ideas worth thinking about.

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 12:41:06 AM
In my opinion, tabletop RPGs have one major feature that neither boardgames nor videogames have, and that is that the live GM is able to provide total agency to the players to do what they want to do. In Axis & Allies you cannot decide to research an Antarctic base for the Axis, but if it were an RPG you could. Unfortunately, VTT works against this in every way. Instead of being able to freely improvise, the GM becomes constrained by the limits of the VTT. I've noticed this in running ACKS live and ACKS in VTT.

How is that? I've played TTRPGs online with Roll20 and Foundry and didn't find any serious limitations at all. Our group used Discord to communicate. The players were free to do anything they wanted with their characters, limited only by the constraints of the game world, just like in a face-to-face game. The GMs frequently improvised. Besides its benefits during the covid lockdown, online play has other advantages:
1. It's much easier to find players who are willing to play obscure games (I don't play D&D 5e - ever!).
2. You don't waste time commuting to the gaming location. This is an especially important consideration for me on weekdays.
3. Players who have young children can stay at home with them and don't have to hire a babysitter.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 04:20:27 AM
How is that? I've played TTRPGs online with Roll20 and Foundry and didn't find any serious limitations at all. Our group used Discord to communicate. The players were free to do anything they wanted with their characters, limited only by the constraints of the game world, just like in a face-to-face game. The GMs frequently improvised.

This matches my experience, BUT it is easy to get caught up in the VTT tools and graphics and say "You can't go there" for unprepped material, just like a railroading GM in real life.

The trick is to prep for sandbox play and if you use tokens use very minimalistic battlemap graphics, (a) generic sites and (b) simple battlemaps that can be updated in real time if the PCs go somewhere unexpected. WoTC's plan to use Unreal Engine looks exactly the wrong approach to me. I just added all the Arden Vul maps to my Wilderlands campaign on Roll20. No way am I building everything in a game engine! For one thing the sample video they showed is hideously Uncanny Valley, with a game realistic environment & in it silly looking 'minis' with bases!

Quote from: S'mon on August 22, 2022, 04:44:37 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 04:20:27 AM
How is that? I've played TTRPGs online with Roll20 and Foundry and didn't find any serious limitations at all. Our group used Discord to communicate. The players were free to do anything they wanted with their characters, limited only by the constraints of the game world, just like in a face-to-face game. The GMs frequently improvised.

This matches my experience, BUT it is easy to get caught up in the VTT tools and graphics and say "You can't go there" for unprepped material, just like a railroading GM in real life.

The trick is to prep for sandbox play and if you use tokens use very minimalistic battlemap graphics, (a) generic sites and (b) simple battlemaps that can be updated in real time if the PCs go somewhere unexpected. WoTC's plan to use Unreal Engine looks exactly the wrong approach to me. I just added all the Arden Vul maps to my Wilderlands campaign on Roll20. No way am I building everything in a game engine! For one thing the sample video they showed is hideously Uncanny Valley, with a game realistic environment & in it silly looking 'minis' with bases!

I guess WotC doesn't like theater of the mind because they can't monetize it.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 05:38:03 AM

Quote from: S'mon on August 22, 2022, 04:44:37 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 04:20:27 AM
How is that? I've played TTRPGs online with Roll20 and Foundry and didn't find any serious limitations at all. Our group used Discord to communicate. The players were free to do anything they wanted with their characters, limited only by the constraints of the game world, just like in a face-to-face game. The GMs frequently improvised.

This matches my experience, BUT it is easy to get caught up in the VTT tools and graphics and say "You can't go there" for unprepped material, just like a railroading GM in real life.

The trick is to prep for sandbox play and if you use tokens use very minimalistic battlemap graphics, (a) generic sites and (b) simple battlemaps that can be updated in real time if the PCs go somewhere unexpected. WoTC's plan to use Unreal Engine looks exactly the wrong approach to me. I just added all the Arden Vul maps to my Wilderlands campaign on Roll20. No way am I building everything in a game engine! For one thing the sample video they showed is hideously Uncanny Valley, with a game realistic environment & in it silly looking 'minis' with bases!

I guess WotC doesn't like theater of the mind because they can't monetize it.

A very noteworthy, statement.  TotM, is the stuff of Grognards.  WOTC has already given all of us Grognards a bubble pipe, and labeled us all a bunch of Gatekeepers.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 04:20:27 AM

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 12:41:06 AM
In my opinion, tabletop RPGs have one major feature that neither boardgames nor videogames have, and that is that the live GM is able to provide total agency to the players to do what they want to do. In Axis & Allies you cannot decide to research an Antarctic base for the Axis, but if it were an RPG you could. Unfortunately, VTT works against this in every way. Instead of being able to freely improvise, the GM becomes constrained by the limits of the VTT. I've noticed this in running ACKS live and ACKS in VTT.

How is that? I've played TTRPGs online with Roll20 and Foundry and didn't find any serious limitations at all. Our group used Discord to communicate. The players were free to do anything they wanted with their characters, limited only by the constraints of the game world, just like in a face-to-face game. The GMs frequently improvised. Besides its benefits during the covid lockdown, online play has other advantages:
1. It's much easier to find players who are willing to play obscure games (I don't play D&D 5e - ever!).
2. You don't waste time commuting to the gaming location. This is an especially important consideration for me on weekdays.
3. Players who have young children can stay at home with them and don't have to hire a babysitter.

To briefly reply to a couple of the the threads of this discussion:

• For at least some of my players, full-service VTT absolutely does compete with computer gaming. When we played on the old Owlbear Rodeo, you still rolled physical dice, had a physical character sheet, and we applied the rules manually. On Foundry, *J* hunts through menus for options, fusses with access control, taps on buttons to roll dice, and - just like I found with my player base in 4e - is strongly incented to look at his character sheet for solutions to problems in the world, instead of describing intent and allowing me to apply rules + rulings.
• For me as a DM, VTT really does limit my options. It takes 3-4x as long, minimum, to prepare a possible adventure site for use in Foundry as it does on tabletop (or, again, old Owlbear Rodeo). For casual use I need to come up with map and monsters and treasures; for online use (with a game like 5e that prefers grid tactics) in a VTT like Forge I need to have a presentable map AND do all the fussy manual work to wire it up for line-of-sight AND a token for every monster AND stats for those monsters (including customising the text that the players will see to avoid reskins being too obvious, if I want them to suspend disbelief) AND objects for substantial items of treasure. If I want to give custom treasure, I need to make sure the powers are within the scope of the software's item model, etc, etc. So I'm strongly encouraged not to homebrew, to run official content or to buy content from commercial providers who have the time to do that work.

I haven't yet looked at the Foundry module for Symbaroum, but thinking about running The High Moors in (Foundry) feels like a solid week of programming work, which is the sort of busman's holiday I can't afford. (High Moors is a pure-5e old-school-style-intended sandbox, not quite a hexcrawl, but with custom races.) Likewise running a mix of Arkadia / Theros / Odyssey of the Dragonlords, which is another in my top 5 choices for the next campaign - so many custom races & subclasses to bring in, even if you don't touch the Theros gods and their alternate piety advancement track.

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 22, 2022, 06:30:54 AM
To briefly reply to a couple of the the threads of this discussion:

• For at least some of my players, full-service VTT absolutely does compete with computer gaming. When we played on the old Owlbear Rodeo, you still rolled physical dice, had a physical character sheet, and we applied the rules manually. On Foundry, *J* hunts through menus for options, fusses with access control, taps on buttons to roll dice, and - just like I found with my player base in 4e - is strongly incented to look at his character sheet for solutions to problems in the world, instead of describing intent and allowing me to apply rules + rulings.
• For me as a DM, VTT really does limit my options. It takes 3-4x as long, minimum, to prepare a possible adventure site for use in Foundry as it does on tabletop (or, again, old Owlbear Rodeo). For casual use I need to come up with map and monsters and treasures; for online use (with a game like 5e that prefers grid tactics) in a VTT like Forge I need to have a presentable map AND do all the fussy manual work to wire it up for line-of-sight AND a token for every monster AND stats for those monsters (including customising the text that the players will see to avoid reskins being too obvious, if I want them to suspend disbelief) AND objects for substantial items of treasure. If I want to give custom treasure, I need to make sure the powers are within the scope of the software's item model, etc, etc. So I'm strongly encouraged not to homebrew, to run official content or to buy content from commercial providers who have the time to do that work.

I haven't yet looked at the Foundry module for Symbaroum, but thinking about running The High Moors in it feels like a solid week of programming work, which is the sort of busman's holiday I can't afford. (High Moors is a pure-5e old-school-style-intended sandbox, not quite a hexcrawl, but with custom races.) Likewise running a mix of Arkadia / Theros / Odyssey of the Dragonlords, which is another in my top 5 choices for the next campaign.

Yes.  Everything has a cost.  Recruiting players that you like to get together in a physical location?  Arranging to have food together?  Making some compromises in what you play to satisfy the group of friends (to some limited extent)?  Cost.  Contrast that to dealing with the limitations of the tools and medium when playing online.  Cost.

For me, in-person is more upfront cost and more pay off. Even when I end up cooking for the whole group, cleaning the house, and hosting the game.  Because all of that stuff is work, but it is different work than sitting for even more hours fighting with a software package that looks like Microsoft version 1.1 of a product (when the designer's ideas of critical features have been tried but the usability hasn't caught up yet to what people are actually doing).  Not to mention, you may notice that another difference is that how I do that work is under my control.  If I don't feel like cooking, we can order pizza.  What happens when I don't feel like fighting to get another map into the tool?  I either grit my teeth and do the work, or no game.  Tack a subscription model on top of that?  Forget it!

I see this going the way of 4E. Big hype that dies off quickly. I look for physical books to be phased out at some point soon because they are the only protection from digital tyranny.

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 22, 2022, 06:30:54 AM

To briefly reply to a couple of the the threads of this discussion:

.....

• For me as a DM, VTT really does limit my options. It takes 3-4x as long, minimum, to prepare a possible adventure

I think that's the point, but also

• 
  Firstly: get people locked into "DnD As A Service" (Like SAAS :Software as a Service).
  So if you don't keep up the payments 'poof'! No access to your beloved Characters.
  
• Get CR to use the software -> Instant attraction of playing like they do, same maps, same 'minis' etc.
• And as you say: It's soooo much easier to just click a button, pay 20 bucks and instantly have an adventure: all the tokens, maps, all done right, and coded up, particle spell-effects, than slave for 3 weeks typing in one of your own making, or a random one bought off Drivethru

Fine with me, still got the 5E books if I ever choose to play it (probably not). I'll just stick to playing Palladium games, and I say this as someone who technically counts as a millennial.

Interesting non-political points raised against the One D&D agenda

Quote from: dungeon crawler on August 22, 2022, 09:10:06 AM
I see this going the way of 4E. Big hype that dies off quickly. I look for physical books to be phased out at some point soon because they are the only protection from digital tyranny.

There will be an outcry, when the move to digital only happens; but I'm sure it will be touted as being green, and environmentally friendly.   We have to stop killing trees to print books, etc.  We old Grognards are just a bunch of tree haters.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 22, 2022, 02:21:24 PM

Quote from: dungeon crawler on August 22, 2022, 09:10:06 AM
I see this going the way of 4E. Big hype that dies off quickly. I look for physical books to be phased out at some point soon because they are the only protection from digital tyranny.

There will be an outcry, when the move to digital only happens; but I'm sure it will be touted as being green, and environmentally friendly.   We have to stop killing trees to print books, etc.  We old Grognards are just a bunch of tree haters.

As a person with pretty bad pollen allergies, fuck them trees.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 04:20:27 AM

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 12:41:06 AM
In my opinion, tabletop RPGs have one major feature that neither boardgames nor videogames have, and that is that the live GM is able to provide total agency to the players to do what they want to do. In Axis & Allies you cannot decide to research an Antarctic base for the Axis, but if it were an RPG you could. Unfortunately, VTT works against this in every way. Instead of being able to freely improvise, the GM becomes constrained by the limits of the VTT. I've noticed this in running ACKS live and ACKS in VTT.

How is that? I've played TTRPGs online with Roll20 and Foundry and didn't find any serious limitations at all. Our group used Discord to communicate. The players were free to do anything they wanted with their characters, limited only by the constraints of the game world, just like in a face-to-face game. The GMs frequently improvised. Besides its benefits during the covid lockdown, online play has other advantages:
1. It's much easier to find players who are willing to play obscure games (I don't play D&D 5e - ever!).
2. You don't waste time commuting to the gaming location. This is an especially important consideration for me on weekdays.
3. Players who have young children can stay at home with them and don't have to hire a babysitter.

I don't dispute that online play has some advantages. If it didn't, it wouldn't be popular. I agree with 1, 2, and 3.  But where I think you're wrong is "limited only by the constraints of the game world." That's simply not true for all use cases.

I'm running my own Auran Empire campaign setting both in person and online. I've run the campaign three times before. Right now I have 8 players in my home group and 8 players in my online group, each with 2-3 henchmen. I have 40 dungeons in my sandbox for the Auran Empire, all designed and ready for use. My in-person group plays with a wet-erase battlemap and minis. My online group plays with Foundry and Discord.

In my home game, the group can and does simply go anywhere they want. I can sketch out things on a battle map in a matter of seconds, just referencing my notes. I can introduce new monsters unique to the dungeon without issue.

In my online game, anytime the group goes somewhere, it becomes a question: "did I set this map up already with walls, lighting, creatures, and so on." If I didn't, then the group will have a much less enjoyable experience. They *like* the fancy maps, the dynamic lighting, the automated attacks and saves. If faced with a prospect of playing VTT without those, often they will say "well, let's go someplace the GM has prepped." When they do play, then gameplay slows to a crawl, because I cannot use any of the automated functions that make VTT fast enough to be enjoyable. If we want to do Domains at War, we need to switch into an entirely different platform with those mechanics set up. VTT forces me into a trade-off where I either have to spend hours prepping before hand, much more than for pen and paper, or gameplay slows down terribly. The game *can* still be run, but the quality erodes greatly.

TLDR: I think VTT with all the bells and whistles is as fun as face to face gaming, but the bells and whistles take a ton of GM time and can't be improvised. VTT without all the bells and whistles is not as fun as face to face gaming, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those I game with, so it discourages sandbox play that requires improvisation. Conversely, face to face gaming doesn't need bells and whistles to be fun; fancy Dwarf Forge setups and perfect miniatures are just an added bonus. If your group loves VTT without the bells and whistles, great, but that's not the case for mine.

Quote from: overstory on August 22, 2022, 01:44:19 PM
Interesting non-political points raised against the One D&D agenda

That was an EXCELLENT video. Everything he says is correct. This is a must-watch.

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 03:02:33 PM
That was an EXCELLENT video. Everything he says is correct. This is a must-watch.

  I saw the video circulating and was coming here to point out its agreement with your core points.

  So when do we get the ACKS: Quill & Parchment Edition that leans into TotM, tabletop-focused gaming and management? :)

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 02:55:34 PM
In my online game, anytime the group goes somewhere, it becomes a question: "did I set this map up already with walls, lighting, creatures, and so on." If I didn't, then the group will have a much less enjoyable experience. They *like* the fancy maps, the dynamic lighting, the automated attacks and saves. If faced with a prospect of playing VTT without those, often they will say "well, let's go someplace the GM has prepped." When they do play, then gameplay slows to a crawl, because I cannot use any of the automated functions that make VTT fast enough to be enjoyable.

This makes me feel very fortunate in my players! Most of them dislike Roll20 Dynamic Lighting so I just use Fog of War, and they all seem A-OK with playing on the black & white map that came in the product - I ran my first session of Arden Vul tonight and they all seemed happy, even the one whose PC died.  ;D The PC sheets were automated but I rolled manually for the NPC enemies.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 22, 2022, 03:14:37 PM

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 03:02:33 PM
That was an EXCELLENT video. Everything he says is correct. This is a must-watch.

  I saw the video circulating and was coming here to point out its agreement with your core points.

  So when do we get the ACKS: Quill & Parchment Edition that leans into TotM, tabletop-focused gaming and management? :)

Honestly it's something I think would be interesting to discuss. Two of my more popular KSs had lots of on-table play aids (Dwimmermount and Domains at War) but the cost of goods and production time was very high. I'd be curious what would help make ACKS standout.

A campaign setting box with a big sexy world map and handouts with a tangible feel?
A set of miniatures for the Auran Empire setting?
A new version of D@W that uses minis instead of flat counters?
An online character creator?
An online domain manager?
An online spell builder for the magic research rules?

Just not sure. I have a ton of backend tools but it's all manual.

Quote from: S'mon on August 22, 2022, 03:43:58 PM

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 02:55:34 PM
In my online game, anytime the group goes somewhere, it becomes a question: "did I set this map up already with walls, lighting, creatures, and so on." If I didn't, then the group will have a much less enjoyable experience. They *like* the fancy maps, the dynamic lighting, the automated attacks and saves. If faced with a prospect of playing VTT without those, often they will say "well, let's go someplace the GM has prepped." When they do play, then gameplay slows to a crawl, because I cannot use any of the automated functions that make VTT fast enough to be enjoyable.

This makes me feel very fortunate in my players! Most of them dislike Roll20 Dynamic Lighting so I just use Fog of War, and they all seem A-OK with playing on the black & white map that came in the product - I ran my first session of Arden Vul tonight and they all seemed happy, even the one whose PC died.  ;D The PC sheets were automated but I rolled manually for the NPC enemies.

I wonderi f Roll20 is a bit easier to use improvisationally then Foundry because of its clean Fog of War system. As far as I know, Foundry doesn't support a simple fog of war where the GM just treats it like an erasable playmat.

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 05:10:32 PM
Honestly it's something I think would be interesting to discuss. Two of my more popular KSs had lots of on-table play aids (Dwimmermount and Domains at War) but the cost of goods and production time was very high. I'd be curious what would help make ACKS standout.

A campaign setting box with a big sexy world map and handouts with a tangible feel?
A set of miniatures for the Auran Empire setting?
A new version of D@W that uses minis instead of flat counters?
An online character creator?
An online domain manager?
An online spell builder for the magic research rules?

Just not sure. I have a ton of backend tools but it's all manual.

   Despite referring to the tabletop, I suspect one of the best ways to leverage ACKS's strengths might be to lean into open digital content--full hyperlinked SRDs and tools for campaign wikis with character/domain/spell/class/monster/location builders that can both interlink and output nice documents for at-table use. But I have no idea how feasible that is.

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 02:55:34 PM
TLDR: I think VTT with all the bells and whistles is as fun as face to face gaming, but the bells and whistles take a ton of GM time and can't be improvised. VTT without all the bells and whistles is not as fun as face to face gaming, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those I game with, so it discourages sandbox play that requires improvisation. Conversely, face to face gaming doesn't need bells and whistles to be fun; fancy Dwarf Forge setups and perfect miniatures are just an added bonus. If your group loves VTT without the bells and whistles, great, but that's not the case for mine.

I played an online Call of Cthulhu campaign for a year using Roll20. The GM always just drew the maps freehand, and it worked fine. There's some learning curve to drawing on an online map, but once you learn it, it's just as easy as a battle map. Also, battle maps aren't even necessary for games. Plenty of my games - online and in-person - have used just verbal description and/or a simple sketch.

I believe that is your groups' preference -- but it's equally true that some groups prefer to use painted minis, Dwarven Forge, dungeon tiles, or similar materials in person while you don't. Maybe your preference is more common, but it's something that varies a lot.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 05:38:03 AM
I guess WotC doesn't like theater of the mind because they can't monetize it.

Bingo.

While I have no animus towards people who play online, especially when it's their only option, for me it's the poor quality, last resort, maybe once in a while choice.
During Covid I gave online TTRPGing a serious shot, and grew to really hate it. Not only because it lost a lot of the tactile elements, like rolling plastic dice, shuffling papers, looking things up in books, and drawing locations out on a dry erase mat, the act of communication without seeing the other person (tiny fuzzy video elements are not even in the same realm) or having 3-4 people try to communicate without those cues as to who is about to speak, who is finished, means lots of talking at once, then everyone goes silent, then everyone talks at once again... I could go on.

I play in person, with real tangible things because I like it, and I do think it's the superior experience.

The attempts by WOTC to "monetize" a game that is monetization-proof is just frustrating to watch. I don't know if I'm more concerned that the game suffers from the attempts, or that eventually they'll somehow figure out how to do it.

Quote from: jhkim on August 22, 2022, 05:58:32 PM

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 02:55:34 PM
TLDR: I think VTT with all the bells and whistles is as fun as face to face gaming, but the bells and whistles take a ton of GM time and can't be improvised. VTT without all the bells and whistles is not as fun as face to face gaming, in my opinion, and in the opinion of those I game with, so it discourages sandbox play that requires improvisation. Conversely, face to face gaming doesn't need bells and whistles to be fun; fancy Dwarf Forge setups and perfect miniatures are just an added bonus. If your group loves VTT without the bells and whistles, great, but that's not the case for mine.

I played an online Call of Cthulhu campaign for a year using Roll20. The GM always just drew the maps freehand, and it worked fine. There's some learning curve to drawing on an online map, but once you learn it, it's just as easy as a battle map. Also, battle maps aren't even necessary for games. Plenty of my games - online and in-person - have used just verbal description and/or a simple sketch.

I believe that is your groups' preference -- but it's equally true that some groups prefer to use painted minis, Dwarven Forge, dungeon tiles, or similar materials in person while you don't. Maybe your preference is more common, but it's something that varies a lot.

I do agree that it depends on preferences but it also depends on the game. This is why I said earlier that it depended on your use case. The type of game I most like -- sandbox campaigns with detailed tactical combat -- are hard for VTT. You either give up most of the bells and whistles, or you give up all your free time prepping. 

OTOH, I can play my superhero RPG Ascendant theater-of-mind. In fact, when I run Ascendant, I don't even use Roll20 -- I just use Discord. Easy as can be. But it's a different use case. When I run Ascendant in person, I don't use a battlemap or minis either.

Quote from: joewolz on August 20, 2022, 10:12:35 PM
I don't know y'all. I've heard all these complaints before and it's never impacted my gaming. The hobby will get stupid small again when D&D is declared satanic again or someone else comes for it and cancels it. I mean, I could be wrong and the sky is actually falling...but I've heard this before, and while I may not know the lyrics, I know the tune.

If you game at home it will likely never impact your gaming.

But if you play at say game shops, cons or other venues. Then the various woke agendas infesting gaming is alot more likely to impact you somehow. Depending on how much a foothold the cult gets in an area.

I agree alot of the complaints are a bit hollow as the complainers tend to be those that game at home. But some of us do game at stores and such and in the past it has severely impacted me sooooo. I worn people just how bad this can get. Because it can and it very much is for others.

Just because right now it is not impacting you or me does not mean nothing it happening.

The sky is not falling. The sky fell and we are sifting through the rubble of whats left.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 22, 2022, 05:31:14 PM

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 05:10:32 PM
Honestly it's something I think would be interesting to discuss. Two of my more popular KSs had lots of on-table play aids (Dwimmermount and Domains at War) but the cost of goods and production time was very high. I'd be curious what would help make ACKS standout.

A campaign setting box with a big sexy world map and handouts with a tangible feel?
A set of miniatures for the Auran Empire setting?
A new version of D@W that uses minis instead of flat counters?
An online character creator?
An online domain manager?
An online spell builder for the magic research rules?

Just not sure. I have a ton of backend tools but it's all manual.

   Despite referring to the tabletop, I suspect one of the best ways to leverage ACKS's strengths might be to lean into open digital content--full hyperlinked SRDs and tools for campaign wikis with character/domain/spell/class/monster/location builders that can both interlink and output nice documents for at-table use. But I have no idea how feasible that is.

That is good advice. Since it's very campaign focused lean in on that. Thank you!

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 22, 2022, 02:21:24 PM
There will be an outcry, when the move to digital only happens; but I'm sure it will be touted as being green, and environmentally friendly.   We have to stop killing trees to print books, etc.  We old Grognards are just a bunch of tree haters.

But remember to ignore the land-raping that goes on to mine the rare-earth metals needed for electronics. Each server WOTC uses to host their games would probably have the carbon footprint of 10,000 books. But I'm sure they'll pat themselves on the back for being 'green' as they plug their Tesla into a 30,000 watt charging station. This is why I moved into the woods. To get away from this stupidity. And, yes, I cut down my own trees for firewood and charcoal, because what these new age hippies don't fukken understand is that new trees need room to grow. God, I hate people...

Sorry. Rant over. ;D

I some of you guys have lost the plot. Companies are in business to make money. They make that money by selling customers something they want. There's no plot to eliminate theater of the mind because WotC can't monetize it (they've been monetizing theater of the mind for 20+ years), virtual tabletop is already popular and WotC wants a slice of the pie.

That video that was posted about VTT inhibiting player imagination is interesting and makes some good points, but there's a glaring flaw in the argument that's going overlooked. Not all players have equal capabilities. VTT is filling in a gap for players who's imagination is insufficient to construct the world. There are a lot of players who will not play theater of the mind at all because they find it too difficult to enjoy the game. This made the rounds on the internet recently. What is in your mind when you imagine an apple?:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xZ3uuzU150s/XmrsSq2E15I/AAAAAAAANOQ/5nbbh62f8qEr78KwGRTq2ntwgj6x0xN1QCLcBGAsYHQ/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/EAkGXAyXkAAp9j3.jpeg)

When I tripped across this, I was surprised by the number of people who answered with option 5. I didn't even think such a person existed. I thought 3 was the weakest possible human imagination.

If you don't have a battle map and miniatures and that sort of thing, a 3 is probably the weakest imagination you could have and still play, but you would be very bad at it and wouldn't enjoy it very much. You can extrapolate that spectrum to something else like a person's ability to keep track of conditions, modifiers, and other game rules. VTT isn't taking someone who is a 1 and turning them into a 5. What VTT does is allow someone who answers 5 to play the game in the first place. More importantly, it also allows someone who answers with 3 or 4 to enjoy the game rather than feeling like it's too much for them.

Quote from: Corolinth on August 22, 2022, 09:17:31 PM
I some of you guys have lost the plot. Companies are in business to make money. They make that money by selling customers something they want. There's no plot to eliminate theater of the mind because WotC can't monetize it (they've been monetizing theater of the mind for 20+ years), virtual tabletop is already popular and WotC wants a slice of the pie.

That video that was posted about VTT inhibiting player imagination is interesting and makes some good points, but there's a glaring flaw in the argument that's going overlooked. Not all players have equal capabilities. VTT is filling in a gap for players who's imagination is insufficient to construct the world. There are a lot of players who will not play theater of the mind at all because they find it too difficult to enjoy the game. This made the rounds on the internet recently. What is in your mind when you imagine an apple?:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xZ3uuzU150s/XmrsSq2E15I/AAAAAAAANOQ/5nbbh62f8qEr78KwGRTq2ntwgj6x0xN1QCLcBGAsYHQ/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/EAkGXAyXkAAp9j3.jpeg)

When I tripped across this, I was surprised by the number of people who answered with option 5. I didn't even think such a person existed. I thought 3 was the weakest possible human imagination.

If you don't have a battle map and miniatures and that sort of thing, a 3 is probably the weakest imagination you could have and still play, but you would be very bad at it and wouldn't enjoy it very much. You can extrapolate that spectrum to something else like a person's ability to keep track of conditions, modifiers, and other game rules. VTT isn't taking someone who is a 1 and turning them into a 5. What VTT does is allow someone who answers 5 to play the game in the first place. More importantly, it also allows someone who answers with 3 or 4 to enjoy the game rather than feeling like it's too much for them.

Here's the thing - everyone can do theater of the mind, even if the individual mental picture varies by person.  If someone is so unimaginative that they can't do TotM at all, then they're probably too much of a gormless buffoon to bother trying to game with in the first place.

Quote from: Corolinth on August 22, 2022, 09:17:31 PM
That video that was posted about VTT inhibiting player imagination is interesting and makes some good points, but there's a glaring flaw in the argument that's going overlooked. Not all players have equal capabilities. VTT is filling in a gap for players who's imagination is insufficient to construct the world. There are a lot of players who will not play theater of the mind at all because they find it too difficult to enjoy the game. This made the rounds on the internet recently. What is in your mind when you imagine an apple?:

The game world is far bigger than the combat map. All a VTT combat map does for those that lack imagination is let them play a boardgame on the combat map without appreciating the world they cannot imagine. But once those superfluous bells and whistles are there it would be shame not to use them, or it would be excluding those that cannot play without them. Never mind that creativity benefits from training and exercise, roleplaying des not require props, and curating the game group is part of making of a good game.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 21, 2022, 08:21:53 AM

Quote from: jhkim on August 20, 2022, 12:06:04 PM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 11:35:14 AM
Digital D&D is a dead end. Inevitably, a multi-player computer game will be released that has 90% of what a digital D&D session has and everyone will switch over. Hasbro hopes that such a game is D&D branded but that isn't a certainty.

People have been saying this for decades -- citing MMORPGs like World of Warcraft -- but currently, it seems to me that D&D is bigger than it has ever been. I was just on a road trip through the Southwest, and the park ranger as we entered the Grand Canyon told us that she had an all-ranger play group she was in - though she was the only one who played a ranger. (heh!)

I don't think the future is going to be either all-digital or no-electronics. Some DMs like me will like having their laptop and other computerized play aids, even when playing in person.

I agree that this is an unlikely development. But it's also especially unlikely on account that WoTC has an absolutely terrible track record when it comes to online/virtual stuff.

Lets see. If at least three D&D MMOs from the WOTC era...
One looked promising but died within a year. Sword Coast Legends which I never even heard of till recently. WOTC promotion at its best!
One is still kicking but hardly anyone talks about it. D&D Online. Also WOTC promotion at its best!
And the last started off well and allowed players to create their own adventures others could play. But they removed that and changed this and removed those and changed these and changed everything else over and over and over. Neverwinter Online gets the most promotion of the three but that is still hardly any I've ever seen. A mention in Dragon+ every 6 months maybe. The game is a complete mess now and odds are it will get worse because every few months it does get worse somehow.

The PC games tend to fare a little better. But they are usually there and gone within a year.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 05:38:03 AM

Quote from: S'mon on August 22, 2022, 04:44:37 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 22, 2022, 04:20:27 AM
How is that? I've played TTRPGs online with Roll20 and Foundry and didn't find any serious limitations at all. Our group used Discord to communicate. The players were free to do anything they wanted with their characters, limited only by the constraints of the game world, just like in a face-to-face game. The GMs frequently improvised.

This matches my experience, BUT it is easy to get caught up in the VTT tools and graphics and say "You can't go there" for unprepped material, just like a railroading GM in real life.

The trick is to prep for sandbox play and if you use tokens use very minimalistic battlemap graphics, (a) generic sites and (b) simple battlemaps that can be updated in real time if the PCs go somewhere unexpected. WoTC's plan to use Unreal Engine looks exactly the wrong approach to me. I just added all the Arden Vul maps to my Wilderlands campaign on Roll20. No way am I building everything in a game engine! For one thing the sample video they showed is hideously Uncanny Valley, with a game realistic environment & in it silly looking 'minis' with bases!

I guess WotC doesn't like theater of the mind because they can't monetize it.

Naw, WOTC are the last ones to that bandwagon and they resisted about as long as they could. Their designers prefer Theater of the Mind and moved away from minis in 5e relative to 4e. But third parties made minis and terrain cheaper and people bought it and used it. Then they didn't make a VTT and STILL don't have one, but third parties made those and people used them and bought them. Then the pandemic hit and people REALLY used VTTs so now WOTC is finally after over a decade giving in to the fad.

One thing that should be mentioned here is that not everyone who plays TTRPGs wants to roleplay. A lot of people really just want to explore a dungeon, kill a dragon, and find some treasure. Roleplaying comes later, if at all.

Quote from: 3catcircus on August 22, 2022, 09:27:06 PM
Here's the thing - everyone can do theater of the mind, even if the individual mental picture varies by person.  If someone is so unimaginative that they can't do TotM at all, then they're probably too much of a gormless buffoon to bother trying to game with in the first place.

That's cool, and if you want to run your own table that way, by all means. It's not a great business strategy for a multi-million dollar gaming company, though. They have another word for those gormless buffoons. It's "customer".

Quote from: Wisithir on August 22, 2022, 09:29:43 PM
The game world is far bigger than the combat map. All a VTT combat map does for those that lack imagination is let them play a boardgame on the combat map without appreciating the world they cannot imagine. But once those superfluous bells and whistles are there it would be shame not to use them, or it would be excluding those that cannot play without them. Never mind that creativity benefits from training and exercise, roleplaying des not require props, and curating the game group is part of making of a good game.

Your first sentence is absolutely true, which invalidates large portions of the remainder of your post. The VTT is doing way more for them than letting them play a boardgame. It's also relieving the pressure of having to remember rules and modifiers. Often times the problems that players run into isn't that they can't do any one thing. They do have the math skills to process their actions. They do have the ability to roughly imagine the world to some degree. They do have mental acumen to remember all of their modifiers. However, the game is not happening in a vacuum. The player can do any one of these tasks, but they can't do all three simultaneously. Not very well, at least. If you help the player do any one of those things, you also improve their ability to do the remaining two by freeing up the mental resources, and you greatly boost their enjoyment of the game.

What I'm trying to say here is your comparison is flawed. There's this misconception that electronic tools have "dumbed down" the player base, but there is an assumption being made that these are the same players as previous generations. That assumption simply isn't true. The state of tabletop roleplaying pre-2000 was very different from today and certain people were being filtered out back then. Those individuals are no longer being filtered from the hobby, and that's where the perceived "dumbing down" comes from. You still have those clever players who can roleplay well, but they are spread out among a much larger population.

Quote from: Corolinth on August 23, 2022, 12:18:59 AM
One thing that should be mentioned here is that not everyone who plays TTRPGs wants to roleplay. A lot of people really just want to explore a dungeon, kill a dragon, and find some treasure. Roleplaying comes later, if at all.

TTRPG: Table Top Role-Playing Game. Without the roleplaying it becomes a table top game, a board game and an electronic board game is the realm of video games.

If I only want to shoot a rifle without skiing, I ought to partake in a shooting sport instead of the biathlon.

There are situations and circumstances where playing on a VTT is the best option available for people.

I can't fault people for finding their fun where they can.

But as someone who had to switch to online play for awhile, then back to a live table for the same campaign due to players drinking the koof kool-Aid; Live play is just better.

You can have fun playing online, but playing live is more fun.  Period.

I feel sorry for those that think online is better. I cannot even imagine the substandard live game experiences that they lived through to make them think that way.

Everything Amacris has said about full Player Freedom is the gospel truth.

If you disagree; Verily, thou hast been doing it wrong...

Quote from: Corolinth on August 23, 2022, 12:18:59 AM
...Often times the problems that players run into isn't that they can't do any one thing. They do have the math skills to process their actions. They do have the ability to roughly imagine the world to some degree. They do have mental acumen to remember all of their modifiers. However, the game is not happening in a vacuum. The player can do any one of these tasks, but they can't do all three simultaneously. ...

It is not in the best long-term interests of the hobby to cultivate such "players".

They are exactly the type that left RPG's for videogames in the 90's and MMO's in the mid 2000's.

If they can't meet the minimum standard required to play something like B/X live; then good riddance to bad rubbish.

Let them find their fun elsewhere.

Catering to functional retards does nothing good for the actual hobby.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 02:27:32 PM
...
Over the last 30 days, more than 62 million people have played Genshin Impact. That's more than WotC's optimistic estimates for the total number of people who have ever played D&D during it's entire existence. The RPG hobby is still pretty small.
...

Truth. For all the hype that D&D's growth has gotten the past few years; Magic the Gathering is still the #1 money maker dumping coin in the WotC coffers. By more than half of their total profits.

D&D's level of profitability has always been an outlier in the hobby. But they are the market leader and that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

Yet it still don't make Magic levels of money...

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 20, 2022, 02:27:32 PM
...RPGs should focus on optimizing the face to face experience. This is what I saw happening during the boardgame explosion of the early 2000s. Games like Settlers of Cataan and Puerto Rico came out that focused on optimizing the boardgame experience. Emphasizing player to player interaction while reducing the tabletop's limitations by having reasonable setup times and a good (not to long, not to short) game length.

RPG should, as well, focus on what makes face to face gaming different from online gaming. This isn't to say that online RPG sessions aren't allowed, but they should be viewed as sub-optimal. Something to do when you can't actually meet IRL. Designing a game specifically to make it work better online is the wrong way to go...

This should be an all new thread.

Quote from: 3catcircus on August 22, 2022, 09:27:06 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on August 22, 2022, 09:17:31 PM
I some of you guys have lost the plot. Companies are in business to make money. They make that money by selling customers something they want. There's no plot to eliminate theater of the mind because WotC can't monetize it (they've been monetizing theater of the mind for 20+ years), virtual tabletop is already popular and WotC wants a slice of the pie.

That video that was posted about VTT inhibiting player imagination is interesting and makes some good points, but there's a glaring flaw in the argument that's going overlooked. Not all players have equal capabilities. VTT is filling in a gap for players who's imagination is insufficient to construct the world. There are a lot of players who will not play theater of the mind at all because they find it too difficult to enjoy the game. This made the rounds on the internet recently. What is in your mind when you imagine an apple?:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xZ3uuzU150s/XmrsSq2E15I/AAAAAAAANOQ/5nbbh62f8qEr78KwGRTq2ntwgj6x0xN1QCLcBGAsYHQ/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/EAkGXAyXkAAp9j3.jpeg)

When I tripped across this, I was surprised by the number of people who answered with option 5. I didn't even think such a person existed. I thought 3 was the weakest possible human imagination.

If you don't have a battle map and miniatures and that sort of thing, a 3 is probably the weakest imagination you could have and still play, but you would be very bad at it and wouldn't enjoy it very much. You can extrapolate that spectrum to something else like a person's ability to keep track of conditions, modifiers, and other game rules. VTT isn't taking someone who is a 1 and turning them into a 5. What VTT does is allow someone who answers 5 to play the game in the first place. More importantly, it also allows someone who answers with 3 or 4 to enjoy the game rather than feeling like it's too much for them.

Here's the thing - everyone can do theater of the mind, even if the individual mental picture varies by person.  If someone is so unimaginative that they can't do TotM at all, then they're probably too much of a gormless buffoon to bother trying to game with in the first place.

Clinically this isn't true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia#:~:text=Aphantasia%20is%20the%20inability%20to,has%20since%20remained%20relatively%20unstudied.

Note the list of notable people with the condition include a couple of fantasy aiithors and the founder of Pixar.

Quote from: Mistwell on August 22, 2022, 10:18:11 PM
Naw, WOTC are the last ones to that bandwagon and they resisted about as long as they could. Their designers prefer Theater of the Mind and moved away from minis in 5e relative to 4e. But third parties made minis and terrain cheaper and people bought it and used it. Then they didn't make a VTT and STILL don't have one, but third parties made those and people used them and bought them. Then the pandemic hit and people REALLY used VTTs so now WOTC is finally after over a decade giving in to the fad.

  That's true ... but it's only half the story. 4E was going to be all-in on virtual integration, remember? I think the reluctance may have been due to getting so seriously burned on that, and being reluctant to risk it again until they were in a position of strength.

  Also, upper management has changed considerably from 4E to early 5E to Irrelevant (my current name for "One D&D" ;) ).

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 08:48:06 PM
The type of game I most like -- sandbox campaigns with detailed tactical combat -- are hard for VTT. You either give up most of the bells and whistles, or you give up all your free time prepping. 

This is not my experience, unless you are talking about VTT-specific bells & whistles such as Roll20's dynamic lighting. I certainly get almost everything on a VTT I get on a real tabletop, with the possible difference being it's easier to do 3D on a 3D tabletop than a 2D computer screen - isometric battlemaps do help though. I find that for sandbox dungeon crawling the VTT is arguably superior, since I'm not limited by the size of my real table top. I can have an incredibly large dungeon level map scaled to token size, no problem.

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXAW5LbqkFsiVcyfCXhBuSHeuZRk7GJmMLR8GSSZlKoY-NQLBmGw0preqTQt4cdsXETKLvnaG7_NaIDmHfg_V45i8QzEQuxcVJ__h4wy9P-Ws7hlhzunaXKdWBghnsQyoZhoO7c_pro0CEiXkV3_lOvTh-Tr1UFcXaqqK-4B8XGK_3qxS4PHXHuc-B/s1920/Screenshot%20(147).png) Generic City Ruins Terrain, post-battle

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgJuEvlRjx5mBGGA8vjiWeOmAgs29wskoevdUyabJ_Gs_RQ_iDDdqlTnlQ4YZFqceeXjnwlDsoesW5dqRPwWGFkmjV3Vy3GMSlHm_XWMjtzZigyznlaZwUBpaLKxeS4v4Ltu2jmPZteUYM6kXGvM854TnVb3HwBYl-YTa5b4pRnNAxUfTEjuv-aHmh/w640-h360/Screenshot%20(146).png) A prepped VTT dungeon. I've had no complaints over using B&W maps.

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirFP38PmGEFMbK_wunBI1j00jQfCCLcOKxwdrK6nIWltxME7VfzpzPAvA0oRz-pbxEJUyh7RYwiG2RbSUQYLO8hUYstZXQLEwq6RYwyIOLEnMuhSU6KHD3ffDgj6snqEbdZk_DL3a-72zwTWnRR3HtUY9rw3LmDHzF6-7GMpjC4G-8hUju5PF2yJm8/s1920/Screenshot%20(145).png) VTT battle map during ongoing battle.

An isometric style vampire tower map prepped for play:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRagr3tYdOV5jld80R5sufR8CrmiisjJSq3PlXM2XGqrWy2Pm5QNasW74NHL0ne85CqObw72sOKkBY5P4hN62ZfVMAsLg78K67L7NZbUtIdTyEtUEi_jb4MUnlAuPA2tF4nrNt4ztlV72uafX9Z4WaCbLoFz6ihPE2Xvm0QplIPgexWu2HlILlYSnG/w640-h360/Screenshot%20(148).png)
These maps are great for when flying PCs are whizzing up and down the outside of the tower.  ;D

IME the biggest risk to immersion is not from overly simple maps, but from the uncanny valley effects you can get from trying too hard to look 'real'. WoTC's 1D&D  seems to be plunging right into the uncanny valley.

Quote from: Wisithir on August 22, 2022, 09:29:43 PM
All a VTT combat map does for those that lack imagination is let them play a boardgame on the combat map without appreciating the world they cannot imagine.

The VTT allows everyone to see the world exactly the same (for whatever that is worth).
Also the VTT takes mystery away (Oh, it's just an Umber Hulk, I was scared for a minute by your description).

There's one possible good long-term effect of this strategy:  WotC might work themselves out of the table-top RPG market, and take the D&D brand with them in the process. 

Sure, then table-top shrinks back to the niche hobby it was in the early D&D days.  That means the people who like table-top for what it is go to other games.  Word of mouth on forums and PDFs are a heck of a lot easier than passing mimeographed rules around.  We might even get to the point where some people play online D&D, some play table-top RPGs, and some play both.  The same way that many people overlap playing table-top RPGs now and video games.  It might even get a little easier to recruit players for table-top when the distinctions are more stark.

Even if Wotc were to go under tomorrow games will still be kept playing both online and in person.

To think that it's going to go back like it was before where we played  in our parents basement and no one knew about it. Is either being incredibly purposefully  naive or perhaps delusional.

I would n like to see a less Woke publisher at the helm of D&D. To act like online gaming and the popularity of it is going to become less it's not going to happen imo.

Their is softwares that allow both players ands DMs from across the world to get in contact with each other. To allow us to seek out RPGs that we want to play not just the popular ones. Why would people okay less on Discord or use RollD20 less if Wotc went broke.

That why sometimes I call many people here anti-tech. It's like they don't like it do because of that it won't go anywhere,

i wonder whether some are running their VTTs in an optimal way. It is just not true that you cannot improvise and freewheel maps and encounters in VTTs as you would do in a F2F tabletop session.
Both are great ways to play TTRPGs. However, the main reason for VTTs is convenience, both in seeking players (the entire world is available to you), and in playing from the comfort of your own home. That helps when you have to juggle a family too. Some people also find that the visuals complement (not replace) their own imagination. 

Quote from: Abraxus on August 23, 2022, 11:03:54 AM

That why sometimes I call many people here anti-tech. It's like they don't like it do because of that it won't go anywhere,

How I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.  I don't really care.

Lol sure you don't care 🤷‍♂️ yet you felt the need to post anyway to try for a " gotcha" moment.

People who truly don't care don't waste the time to write a post back.

Using your own words whatever helps you sleep at night as well.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 23, 2022, 11:12:53 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on August 23, 2022, 11:03:54 AM

That why sometimes I call many people here anti-tech. It's like they don't like it do because of that it won't go anywhere,

How I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.  I don't really care.

It's not a bomb. It's just a largely inoffensive piece of software. There are potential issues here if they turn D&D into a "service" and gate everything behind a sub, but that's just a bad business practice that doesn't necessarily need to follow from the mere existence of the software.

A case can also be made for TotM vs reliance of VTT visual aids, and the superiority of face2face vs online play. But that is largely a matter of preference or opportunity.

Quote from: Abraxus on August 23, 2022, 11:03:54 AM

Their is softwares that allow both players ands DMs from across the world to get in contact with each other. To allow us to seek out RPGs that we want to play not just the popular ones.

Correct. This is personally very important to me too, as someone who also plays other games other than the latest editions of D&D. An orders of magnitude larger pool of players improves the odds of obtaining desired players.

I knew that reply was coming.  OK, my bad for walking right into it, consciously.  Let's try this:

I don't care what WotC D&D is or becomes because it doesn't affect me.  Or rather, don't care very much because it doesn't affect me.  I sort of, kind of, care a tiny bit about random other people who it does affect, but you know how that goes in the hierarchy of care.

I also find it laughably obtuse when rabid technophiles try to play the Luddite card on people--who do tech for a living and thus don't want it all the time in their entertainment.  As in, I'm truly amused and smiling right now just thinking about it.  If I hadn't come to a relaxed view of that particular blind spot, I'd have dropped out of the tech fields a long time ago.

But yeah, WotC should do what they think is best for their business.  If that's not what's best for some of us, we'll check out.  They don't mind losing us as customers.  We don't mind getting off their customer list.  It's win-win.

I'm mainly replying here to tell people to chill and not worry about it.  The owners of D&D have done things not in the best interest of having good games before.  They'll do it again. 

I'm not a rabid technophile by any means and to a certain extent I agree with much of what you said and your position on the topic.

It's just that at the same time the technological genie when it comes to tech and RPGs is not going back into the lamp imo.

It's just too often many in gaming hate something and claim it will fail simply because they hate it without proof. I wish I could do more face to face gaming. With no one near me running a game and the last one before the DM became a woke duck was on the other side of the city. My options now are limited in terms of gaming.

Quote from: Abraxus on August 23, 2022, 12:08:17 PM

It's just that at the same time the technological genie when it comes to tech and RPGs is not going back into the lamp imo.

That's true.  It won't be a straight line in most cases, though.  That is, the genie being out of the bottle will cause side effects, and who knows where those will go for good, ill, or indifferent?  We are only guessing.  And it's not like it is all that important in life, only somewhat in the world of pretend elves.

Quote from: Abraxus on August 23, 2022, 11:03:54 AM
That why sometimes I call many people here anti-tech. It's like they don't like it do because of that it won't go anywhere,

On the contrary, I'd guess that the average user here is at least as tech savvy as the average consumer.  In fact it may be that many of us have considered the implications of RPGaaS (Role Playing Games As A Service) and feel their are implications to the hobby other than just as a VTT.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 23, 2022, 12:03:11 PMThey don't mind losing us as customers.  We don't mind getting off their customer list.  It's a win-win.

Quote from: Abraxus on August 23, 2022, 12:08:17 PM
I'm not a rabid technophile by any means and to a certain extent I agree with much of what you said and your position on the topic.

It's just that at the same time the technological genie when it comes to tech and RPGs is not going back into the lamp imo.

It's just too often many in gaming hate something and claim it will fail simply because they hate it without proof. I wish I could do more face to face gaming. With no one near me running a game and the last one before the DM became a woke duck was on the other side of the city. My options now are limited in terms of gaming.

The issue isn't with the tech per se but with who is implementing it, how it will be implemented and the ramifications:

WotC is liable to start baning people from the app for wrongthink but keeping their money (we've seen this already in vidya).

There are opensource VTTs, I only wish those were simpler to implement on the GM and Player side, then we might start seeing SOME sense being hammered into the big dogs.

Speaking of that Owlbear Rodeo is about to launch the stable 2.0 version, free and paid tiers available and they said they would be releasing the version 1.0 as opensource. I hope they succeed in both fronts.

Quote from: overstory on August 22, 2022, 01:44:19 PM
Interesting non-political points raised against the One D&D agenda

Disagree on key points. OneD&D wokeness garbage aside, VTTs are good for the hobby. D&D VTTs will spur non-D&D publishers to pursue creating similar VTTs for their own settings (either that or lose a portion of the customer base that prefers that style of play). Evolution through innovation is a good thing.
I also like having the choice of playing either F2F or VTT for any D&D or non-D&D setting.

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:09:29 PM

Quote from: overstory on August 22, 2022, 01:44:19 PM
Interesting non-political points raised against the One D&D agenda

Disagree on key points. OneD&D wokeness garbage aside, VTTs are good for the hobby. D&D VTTs will spur non-D&D publishers to pursue creating similar VTTs for their own settings (either that or lose a portion of the customer base that prefers that style of play). Evolution through innovation is a good thing.
I also like having the choice of playing either F2F or VTT for any D&D or non-D&D setting.

Sorry, don't VTTs exist already? I'm sure I have over 2 years gaming on Roll20.

Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them? Of getting banned for wrongthink outsiode their website?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:12:40 PM

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:09:29 PM

Quote from: overstory on August 22, 2022, 01:44:19 PM
Interesting non-political points raised against the One D&D agenda

Disagree on key points. OneD&D wokeness garbage aside, VTTs are good for the hobby. D&D VTTs will spur non-D&D publishers to pursue creating similar VTTs for their own settings (either that or lose a portion of the customer base that prefers that style of play). Evolution through innovation is a good thing.
I also like having the choice of playing either F2F or VTT for any D&D or non-D&D setting.

Sorry, don't VTTs exist already? I'm sure I have over 2 years gaming on Roll20.

Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them? Of getting banned for wrongthink outsiode their website?

There are still not enough quality non-D&D VTTs IMHO.
However, VTT technology (and resultant popularity) has come a long way in the past ~ 15 years or so.. They will only get better and more popular as time goes on.

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:18:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:12:40 PM

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:09:29 PM

Quote from: overstory on August 22, 2022, 01:44:19 PM
Interesting non-political points raised against the One D&D agenda

Disagree on key points. OneD&D wokeness garbage aside, VTTs are good for the hobby. D&D VTTs will spur non-D&D publishers to pursue creating similar VTTs for their own settings (either that or lose a portion of the customer base that prefers that style of play). Evolution through innovation is a good thing.
I also like having the choice of playing either F2F or VTT for any D&D or non-D&D setting.

Sorry, don't VTTs exist already? I'm sure I have over 2 years gaming on Roll20.

Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them? Of getting banned for wrongthink outsiode their website?

There are still not enough quality non-D&D VTTs IMHO.
However, VTT technology (and resultant popularity) has come a long way in the past ~ 15 years or so.. They will only get better and more popular as time goes on.

Which doesn't address my arguments:

Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? (RPGs As A Service)
Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them?
Of getting banned for wrongthink outsiode their website?

If you ask me we need more opensource of good quality and easy to implement VTTs not more corpo slug. Owlbear Rodeo promised to release the code of their v1.0 after they launch the v2.0. I'm all for more of that. Being able to host MY OWN VTT for my games in an easy way and that the players can access as easy as they currently access Owlbear Rodeo? Sign me the fuck up!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:29:50 PM

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:18:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:12:40 PM

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:09:29 PM

Quote from: overstory on August 22, 2022, 01:44:19 PM
Interesting non-political points raised against the One D&D agenda

Disagree on key points. OneD&D wokeness garbage aside, VTTs are good for the hobby. D&D VTTs will spur non-D&D publishers to pursue creating similar VTTs for their own settings (either that or lose a portion of the customer base that prefers that style of play). Evolution through innovation is a good thing.
I also like having the choice of playing either F2F or VTT for any D&D or non-D&D setting.

Sorry, don't VTTs exist already? I'm sure I have over 2 years gaming on Roll20.

Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them? Of getting banned for wrongthink outsiode their website?

There are still not enough quality non-D&D VTTs IMHO.
However, VTT technology (and resultant popularity) has come a long way in the past ~ 15 years or so.. They will only get better and more popular as time goes on.

Which doesn't address my arguments:

Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? (RPGs As A Service)
Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them?
Of getting banned for wrongthink outsiode their website?

If you ask me we need more opensource of good quality and easy to implement VTTs not more corpo slug. Owlbear Rodeo promised to release the code of their v1.0 after they launch the v2.0. I'm all for more of that. Being able to host MY OWN VTT for my games in an easy way and that the players can access as easy as they currently access Owlbear Rodeo? Sign me the fuck up!

I had never argued for WotC or any corpo creating an RPGAAS or renting the game from them so I am not sure what to say here?
That being said, I agree to stay away from the corporate stuff. I had been a big fan of older VTTs like OpenRPG, kLooge. Werks, and ScreenMonkey. However, I've been looking at developing my own.

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:47:34 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:29:50 PM

Which doesn't address my arguments:

Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? (RPGs As A Service)
Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them?
Of getting banned for wrongthink outsiode their website?

If you ask me we need more opensource of good quality and easy to implement VTTs not more corpo slug. Owlbear Rodeo promised to release the code of their v1.0 after they launch the v2.0. I'm all for more of that. Being able to host MY OWN VTT for my games in an easy way and that the players can access as easy as they currently access Owlbear Rodeo? Sign me the fuck up!

I had never argued for WotC or any corpo creating an RPGAAS or renting the game from them so I am not sure what to say here?
That being said, I agree to stay away from the corporate stuff. I had been a big fan of older VTTs like OpenRPG, kLooge. Werks, and ScreenMonkey. However, I've been looking at developing my own.

But the vid IS ABOUT a corpo creating their own RPGsAAS.

This is the crux of the matter. IDGAFF if people think F2F is better (I would prefer to play that way but I'll take what I can get). The real issue is that this is the first step towards RPGsAAS.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 23, 2022, 04:17:35 AMLive play is just better.

You can have fun playing online, but playing live is more fun.  Period.

I feel sorry for those that think online is better. I cannot even imagine the substandard live game experiences that they lived through to make them think that way.

I agree that live play is better.

My last live game ended with the pandemic and has yet to revive. But during that time I've played consistently two games a week online with my long time groups (one of those two going back 22 years at this point - though we used to play in person and now more than half our players are in other states).

So if I had to play live-only, I'd be simply not playing at all and missing out on a lot of fun and a huge relief during the pandemic from life's stresses.

Still, I'd love to return to gaming live and I have hopes that will happen with the beginning of next year or so. Even if it moves to once a month rather than the prior weekly or bi-weekly game.

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:18:56 PM
There are still not enough quality non-D&D VTTs IMHO.

This is the chance for the small guys to fix their quality or die.

Watched that video posted a few times earlier on the thread and it was interesting. The way he describes it he expects them to create a Grand Theft Auto type sandbox of Sword Coast. If that is true this seems like a baby-step towards becoming a videogame company. The video game market is massive and they can take a short-cut by using DMs instead of an advanced AI, at least in the short run. I expect they'll have a roster of paid DMs and online games ready to go and they'll have a sort of open table thing going somewhere on the site.

What the video misses is that people dump video games after a year of play no matter how much they've paid for microtransactions. It is not like an Apple product where you buy hardware and apps (which are far more expensive than microtransactions). People won't stay with this because of Microtransactions but Wizards is likely to make a boatload of extra money because of those Microtransactions and that's reason enough there.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 23, 2022, 02:36:30 PM

Quote from: Lancer on August 23, 2022, 01:18:56 PM
There are still not enough quality non-D&D VTTs IMHO.

This is the chance for the small guys to fix their quality or die.

If WOTC has indeed received a multi-hundred million dollar boost in capital towards this project, how likely is it that the little guy can keep up?  Obviously there have been a number of good products that have come out of small teams (open source and otherwise), but that's been in a market where some of the big players haven't necessarily worried about VTS and other tools.  If WOTC now has a vested interest in that business space, they will certainly have the capability of crushing the little guy no matter the quality of the product.

If characters can be buffed through microtransactions, then that is what WotC will push because it makes them money. Remember Pun-Pun from 3.x? That ridiculous thought experiment about character optimization that lets you start out as a God at level 1? That will become the norm with microtransactions guiding character creation and no DM to say "no" to the player.

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 23, 2022, 04:41:52 PM
If characters can be buffed through microtransactions, then that is what WotC will push because it makes them money. Remember Pun-Pun from 3.x? That ridiculous thought experiment about character optimization that lets you start out as a God at level 1? That will become the norm with microtransactions guiding character creation and no DM to say "no" to the player.

You might be jesting but I've got a sneaking suspicion that DMs will become embattled or that WotC wants to completely remove DM's somehow. I don't know how, just that I see this as player empowerment and the player going, "this is a totally legal character based on true one d&d you have to let me play it"

Quote from: S'mon on August 23, 2022, 08:16:45 AM
...
IME the biggest risk to immersion is not from overly simple maps, but from the uncanny valley effects you can get from trying too hard to look 'real'. WoTC's 1D&D  seems to be plunging right into the uncanny valley.

This.

D&D's VTT looks high-end. But what kind of computer will the average user need to have to run it and take advantage of all it's bells and whistles?

VTT's are best staying fairly abstract rather than trying to give fancy AAA video game like experiences.  Not that the basic graphics couldn't be a bit better, but the user interface in virtually every VTT out there still needs a lot of work.

Quote from: rkhigdon on August 23, 2022, 04:30:03 PM
...

If WOTC has indeed received a multi-hundred million dollar boost in capital towards this project, how likely is it that the little guy can keep up?  Obviously there have been a number of good products that have come out of small teams (open source and otherwise), but that's been in a market where some of the big players haven't necessarily worried about VTS and other tools.  If WOTC now has a vested interest in that business space, they will certainly have the capability of crushing the little guy no matter the quality of the product.

WotC has been spending hundreds of millions buying up video game outfits.

The 'little guy' can't keep up.

I was a bit surprised WotC hasn't engaged in some GW style type behavior to run out some of their erstwhile competition. But upon reflection I realized that their competition did that for them already. Part of D&D's recent ascendancy is that there is no VtM to give them anything resembling competition. There are no readily visible alternatives.

All WotC has to really do to sink most other VTT's is to have all official D&D content on their VTT.

Place's like roll20 will not be able to have the latest D&D adventure path maps and tokens all ready to go come 2024.

Most will go under. A few will find their niche and service other RPG players.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 23, 2022, 07:48:42 PM

Quote from: rkhigdon on August 23, 2022, 04:30:03 PM
...

If WOTC has indeed received a multi-hundred million dollar boost in capital towards this project, how likely is it that the little guy can keep up?  Obviously there have been a number of good products that have come out of small teams (open source and otherwise), but that's been in a market where some of the big players haven't necessarily worried about VTS and other tools.  If WOTC now has a vested interest in that business space, they will certainly have the capability of crushing the little guy no matter the quality of the product.

WotC has been spending hundreds of millions buying up video game outfits.

The 'little guy' can't keep up.

I was a bit surprised WotC hasn't engaged in some GW style type behavior to run out some of their erstwhile competition. But upon reflection I realized that their competition did that for them already. Part of D&D's recent ascendancy is that there is no VtM to give them anything resembling competition. There are no readily visible alternatives.

All WotC has to really do to sink most other VTT's is to have all official D&D content on their VTT.

Place's like roll20 will not be able to have the latest D&D adventure path maps and tokens all ready to go come 2024.

Most will go under. A few will find their niche and service other RPG players.

Hasbro is trying to sell the movie studio that made the D&D movie... I think they're gonna pivot towards only making toys, if this includes vidya we'll find out in time.

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on August 23, 2022, 05:20:21 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 23, 2022, 04:41:52 PM
If characters can be buffed through microtransactions, then that is what WotC will push because it makes them money. Remember Pun-Pun from 3.x? That ridiculous thought experiment about character optimization that lets you start out as a God at level 1? That will become the norm with microtransactions guiding character creation and no DM to say "no" to the player.

You might be jesting but I've got a sneaking suspicion that DMs will become embattled or that WotC wants to completely remove DM's somehow. I don't know how, just that I see this as player empowerment and the player going, "this is a totally legal character based on true one d&d you have to let me play it"

I wish that I was joking, but that is the future that I see. Whoever has the most money to spend on microtransactions, will have the most powerful character.

They're giving me so many reasons to stick with 2014 D&D. DnD Beyond will no longer be useable, but Roll20 should be ok.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:29:50 PM

Which doesn't address my arguments:

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:29:50 PMWhy do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? (RPGs As A Service)

We don't

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:29:50 PM
Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them?

Nothing good. Probably so they can control how the game is run/played.   I am a fan of subscription version of Microsoft Office, that makes sense.  But for role playing games and for D&D, I think it's really bad for players and the DM.  It's about them controlling what we do.  Screw that.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:29:50 PM
Of getting banned for wrongthink outsiode their website?

As woke as WOTC is getting, you can bet money that this will happen.  No doubt they will put in their terms of service that if they ban you for wrongthink, you're money wont be refunded.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:29:50 PM
If you ask me we need more opensource of good quality and easy to implement VTTs not more corpo slug. Owlbear Rodeo promised to release the code of their v1.0 after they launch the v2.0. I'm all for more of that. Being able to host MY OWN VTT for my games in an easy way and that the players can access as easy as they currently access Owlbear Rodeo? Sign me the fuck up!

Yes, more competition and less monopiles are always a good thing.

I for one look forward to running homebrew games using pirated info and software stolen from the WotC retards.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 23, 2022, 07:48:42 PM

Quote from: rkhigdon on August 23, 2022, 04:30:03 PM
...

If WOTC has indeed received a multi-hundred million dollar boost in capital towards this project, how likely is it that the little guy can keep up?  Obviously there have been a number of good products that have come out of small teams (open source and otherwise), but that's been in a market where some of the big players haven't necessarily worried about VTS and other tools.  If WOTC now has a vested interest in that business space, they will certainly have the capability of crushing the little guy no matter the quality of the product.

WotC has been spending hundreds of millions buying up video game outfits.

The 'little guy' can't keep up.

I was a bit surprised WotC hasn't engaged in some GW style type behavior to run out some of their erstwhile competition. But upon reflection I realized that their competition did that for them already. Part of D&D's recent ascendancy is that there is no VtM to give them anything resembling competition. There are no readily visible alternatives.

All WotC has to really do to sink most other VTT's is to have all official D&D content on their VTT.

Place's like roll20 will not be able to have the latest D&D adventure path maps and tokens all ready to go come 2024.

Most will go under. A few will find their niche and service other RPG players.

The problem is that ttrpgs in general are not a growth sector for a variety of reasons. Nobody with resources has any incentive to compete with D&D when you can make mobile shovelware that brings in vastly more money with vastly more RoI.

In fact, the reason I decided to go into crpg co-writing is because that's actually a growth sector. If I tried making a ttrpg (whether an original product or a 3pp tie-in to whatever's trendy) without existing connections in the hobby, then nobody would play it. ttrpg players in general are insular and unwilling to play anything beyond their favorite game that they developed nostalgic feelings for as a kid or teen. Some aren't like that, but they're not big enough to make a difference.

I'm better off releasing a crpg to garner interest, then a ttrpg adaptation thereof.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 24, 2022, 10:17:19 AM

In fact, the reason I decided to go into crpg co-writing is because that's actually a growth sector. If I tried making a ttrpg (whether an original product or a 3pp tie-in to whatever's trendy) without existing connections in the hobby, then nobody would play it. ttrpg players in general are insular and unwilling to play anything beyond their favorite game that they developed nostalgic feelings for as a kid or teen. Some aren't like that, but they're not big enough to make a difference.

I'm better off releasing a crpg to garner interest, then a ttrpg adaptation thereof.

I believe that this is also why many of the great game designers of the early days left the hobby to get into writing other things.  More money, less headaches and they don't have to deal with asshole fans.

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 24, 2022, 11:59:57 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 24, 2022, 10:17:19 AM

In fact, the reason I decided to go into crpg co-writing is because that's actually a growth sector. If I tried making a ttrpg (whether an original product or a 3pp tie-in to whatever's trendy) without existing connections in the hobby, then nobody would play it. ttrpg players in general are insular and unwilling to play anything beyond their favorite game that they developed nostalgic feelings for as a kid or teen. Some aren't like that, but they're not big enough to make a difference.

I'm better off releasing a crpg to garner interest, then a ttrpg adaptation thereof.

I believe that this is also why many of the great game designers of the early days left the hobby to get into writing other things.  More money, less headaches and they don't have to deal with asshole fans.

Yeah, it's so unfortunate. Ttrpgs have the flexibility of the human brain to make them dynamic and reactive in a way that video games aren't. But so often I get the impression that most players don't actually want that sort of creativity unless the game itself goes out of its way to foster creativity (e.g. toolkit games or ones with multiple campaign settings). Which would explain why all ttrpgs dramatically declined in the 90s precisely when video games were becoming more and more expressive.

Anyway, I'm really annoyed that aasimars were sidelined in favor furbait Ardlings. I was expecting a furbait race to show up eventually simply because they're so common elsewhere, but this is just insulting. Especially when they're reverting tieflings back to their 2e/3e-style backgrounds as fiendish planetouched.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 24, 2022, 10:17:19 AM
...
The problem is that ttrpgs in general are not a growth sector for a variety of reasons. Nobody with resources has any incentive to compete with D&D when you can make mobile shovelware that brings in vastly more money with vastly more RoI.

In fact, the reason I decided to go into crpg co-writing is because that's actually a growth sector. If I tried making a ttrpg (whether an original product or a 3pp tie-in to whatever's trendy) without existing connections in the hobby, then nobody would play it. ttrpg players in general are insular and unwilling to play anything beyond their favorite game that they developed nostalgic feelings for as a kid or teen. Some aren't like that, but they're not big enough to make a difference.

I'm better off releasing a crpg to garner interest, then a ttrpg adaptation thereof.

RPG's were always a cottage industry. D&D's success as the industry leader has always been an outlier.

In my opinion; A BIG part of the decline of non-D&D games outside of their own mismanagement is that the economy has never really recovered from the 2008 crash, and the economics of making already low margin print products competitive with D&D has gotten even harder, and has stayed that way.

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 24, 2022, 11:59:57 AM
...
I believe that this is also why many of the great game designers of the early days left the hobby to get into writing other things.  More money, less headaches and they don't have to deal with asshole fans.

TSR was known for being notoriously miserly with its creative talent. So of course they left.

WotC has not proven to be much better.

One Technique in particular favor by WotC is the written by committee aspect of everything that they put out. There are no modules adventures or supplements with a "Written by:" with just one name like you would see in the early TSR era.

Anyone with actual talent is prevented from gaining individual notice...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 24, 2022, 01:36:14 PM
...
Yeah, it's so unfortunate. Ttrpgs have the flexibility of the human brain to make them dynamic and reactive in a way that video games aren't. But so often I get the impression that most players don't actually want that sort of creativity unless the game itself goes out of its way to foster creativity (e.g. toolkit games or ones with multiple campaign settings). Which would explain why all ttrpgs dramatically declined in the 90s precisely when video games were becoming more and more expressive.
..

The first part in bold is what truly sets RPG's apart from all other games, and will keep the hobby going forever.

The second part in bold is why RPG's will always be a bit of a cottage industry (market leader excepted).

To make RPG's work you need to have a reasonably intelligent person acting as the GM, and a decent portion of players like that as well. And there are degree's of this within the hobby itself: A lot of people are just not that creative, don't trust their creativity, or are unwilling to move away from 'official' product. And that effect is what WotC is doubling down on with their VTT.

But even then - you need a hobbyist GM to make the game run. The Hobbyist GM is the true pillar of support holding up the hobby.

I think that their VTT initiative is an attempt to create 'casual' GM's by having tons of turnkey premade Adventure Paths and content. They want to make it as easy as possible to "GM" for D&D. For all the talk of having this modular virtual playground - there is only a tiny percentage of Hobbyist GM's that will take the time to really use all the bells and whistles.

I think that the D&DOne + VTT  will be tied at the hip with their adventure anthology and AP releases after 2024.

Yes, you can get the hardback book; But even more importantly the same AP is available at launch ready to go with all the bells and whistles in the OneVTT...

Now 'anyone' can "GM" for D&D - All the Content and Creativity is done for you.

In my opinion: WotC knows 6 session "campaigns" do not reliably create the hobbyist GM that will keep the games network effect intact moving forward into the future.

Having their D&D product fully integrated with a VTT allows them to lower the bar and have 'casual' GM's. With the integrated VTT you will just need someone willing to jump in and paint by the numbers.

Will this lead to a degradation of the in-game experience, compared to a game run by a good GM?

Yes.

But that doesn't matter.

WotC is not interested in making new GM's better. They desperately want a way to monetize the player base that traditionally buys much less product than the hobbyist GM's.

RE: One D&D

If they have the Players Choose their Class, before their Race & Background; are they suggesting that What You Do or What Role You Fill, is more important than Who You Are?

Hmm......  That's interesting.....

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 24, 2022, 01:36:14 PM

Yeah, it's so unfortunate. Ttrpgs have the flexibility of the human brain to make them dynamic and reactive in a way that video games aren't. But so often I get the impression that most players don't actually want that sort of creativity unless the game itself goes out of its way to foster creativity (e.g. toolkit games or ones with multiple campaign settings). Which would explain why all ttrpgs dramatically declined in the 90s precisely when video games were becoming more and more expressive.

Anyway, I'm really annoyed that aasimars were sidelined in favor furbait Ardlings. I was expecting a furbait race to show up eventually simply because they're so common elsewhere, but this is just insulting. Especially when they're reverting tieflings back to their 2e/3e-style backgrounds as fiendish planetouched.

I agree, I love video games but there is no comparing a video game to a a TTRPG.

I am just afraid that WOTC is going to destroy D&D and make it into something stupid.  I am already looking at alternatives to jump to like Labyrinth Lord and the like in case I need to abandon ship to make sure WOTC gets no more money from me.

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 24, 2022, 09:46:57 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 23, 2022, 01:29:50 PM
Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them?

Nothing good. Probably so they can control how the game is run/played.   I am a fan of subscription version of Microsoft Office, that makes sense.  But for role playing games and for D&D, I think it's really bad for players and the DM.  It's about them controlling what we do.  Screw that.

Kinda off topic, but disagree about this part. ALL products as a "service" are a scam to keep customers paying in perpetuity. Office software is ancient at this point and no major innovations have been made in that area in decades. You can even get non-Microsoft office software for free.

The only reason to build a subscription "service" around them is to prevent people or even companies getting by with just perfectly serviceable MS Office software they purchased decades ago. Similar for Adobe CC, though, least some innovation has been made in graphics software the past few years.

IMO Software as a Service was the initial trial to test that sort of business model, and get the public acostumed to the idea of paying forever instead of just paying a one time fee. Now that it's become a proven business model they're moving to market other products as a service as well. Games are an obvious fit, since video games are already software and TTRPGs now have a digital presence as well. But there's already a push for even "Vehicle as a Service" as well. All for your convenience, of course, cuz that's how they try to convince you it's for your own good, when in reality it's about ensuring that the company gets an assured steady cash flow.

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 12:41:06 AM

QuoteAnd that's something. You're acknowledging this issue, which is good. :)

It's also good that you're finding a niche within the tabletop rpg industry. Lots of publishers don't even bother to ask themselves what the needs of potential customers are, that aren't being met. I've also heard that all mention of ACKS and Autarch is a forbidden topic on RPGnet. That blows my mind. It also probably embodies "the bleak side of a network effect". :(

The moderators of RPG.net consistently defamed me with false accusations. When I asked the owners to stop their staff from defaming me, they instead simply banned any discussion of my game. If they weren't allowed to defame me, then no one would be allowed to say anything at all. So I definitely have been on the bleak side of the network effect! But the good news is that there is a counter-network slowly forming. It's much smaller but it's the beginning of something.

They really have no shame. :(

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 12:41:06 AM

QuoteI've been thinking about this lately, and it seems like few tabletop rpg publishers want to take any useful lessons from the board game industry.....or they avoid consciously thinking about building their own IP.

I'd be curious as to what you see as the chief lessons to take from the board game industry. That seems like a REALLY worthwhile discussion.

I would like to delve into that, but this probably isn't the right thread for it. I'll just say that even the simpler tabletop rpgs tend to have a steeper learning curve than most board games, not necessarily due to rules density......but due to presentation of information. Most rpg publishers have never figured out (or even acknowledged) the accessibility problem that 'normies' have with roleplaying games. Board games don't have that problem, in regards to accessibility.

And the truth is that since most TTRPGs look like college textbooks, that makes them NOT intellectually or emotionally accessible for most people. Take note that I'm not making a statement on human intelligence here, but rather that TTRPGs are still GAMES.....and lots of normies struggle to accept "a college textbook"....

.....as an actual GAME. :-X

Quote from: amacris

Quote
Instead, we hear some people advocating that nearly all gaming will inevitably be consigned to a digital ghetto, and that if we're not playing VTT in the near future, then we won't even be playing rpgs at all. This idea that the architects of the Coronahoax will successfully lock everyone up in their homes for the next 20 years, and that face-to-face gaming will be permanently over......is not realistic. People have a breaking point, and eventually need to have face-to-face social interactions.....as digital interactions are a poor surrogate for that.

In my opinion, tabletop RPGs have one major feature that neither boardgames nor videogames have, and that is that the live GM is able to provide total agency to the players to do what they want to do. In Axis & Allies you cannot decide to research an Antarctic base for the Axis, but if it were an RPG you could. Unfortunately, VTT works against this in every way. Instead of being able to freely improvise, the GM becomes constrained by the limits of the VTT. I've noticed this in running ACKS live and ACKS in VTT.

Yeah. I really don't know how to sandbox or do things off my head very well in VTT. In fact, VTT feels like it fills a very similar spot as computer gaming. Both activities (possibly) involve:

* playing a game on a computer
* tapping away at a keyboard
* staring at glowing pixelated images on a screen
* adventuring in dungeons
* creating characters
* adjusting stats for characters
* equipping characters
* speaking with friends via voice chat

This is why I say, why play with a VTT, when I can play a regular computer game instead? And truthfully, neither of these activities (VTT or computer games) involve tabletop gaming. VTT is just VR; it's "virtual reality".....playing a game on a computer. Sure, both activities can be fun....but VTT does not involve the tabletop, just because my computer might be theoretically seated on a table. Personally, I treat VTT as a separate hobby from tabletop gaming, that actually has more in common with computer games. ???

Quote from: amacris

Quote
I've also noticed multiple game publishers shutting down their blogs and forums, and using Facebook, Discord, and Reddit to communicate with customers instead. That is a major mistake, as these game companies are OUTSOURCING their ability to communicate with potential customers, to the point that it leaves them extremely vulnerable........if these gaming companies offend the wrong person, and end up being removed from these platforms.

Everybody is sure they won't get cancelled until they get cancelled. Myself, I'm on redundant platforms. I'm on Patreon AND Locals. I host my own website. I'm on Twitter, Facebook, and Gab. I have my own mailing list with the member list downloaded from the platform, and I use both Substack and Mailchimp to distribute. I crowdfund on three different platforms.

It simply blows my mind how much trust people still have in mainstream institutions, after years of Coronahoax evil and wankery. Nobody ever thinks they'll be cancelled, or contemplates the potential ramifications of a "social credit score".

"Cancelled?! That will never happen to me! I'm not posting anything obscene!" :o

I had a ProBoards forum where I posted material for tabletop roleplaying games.....for about 7 or 8 years. I even posted information there about TTRPG freelancing, including freelancer rates and whatnot. It's not a forum I shared with people, and mostly just used it for myself. But I also had a HIDDEN "off topic" section, where I posted socio-political stuff and Coronahoax info. Within MONTHS of me posting Coronahoax info (in the section that potential posters cannot see), ProBoards nuked my site. I did not post anything obscene. >:(

I no longer have any illusions that trusting mainstream institutions is possible. We don't live under a system of objective law any more, and western civilization is no longer "high trust". That's why it behooves us to DECENTRALIZE our means of communication and monetization as much as we possibly can.

This is also why I don't trust Hasbro. The techophiles in this thread are absolutely NOT thinking about this situation rationally, and how it could affect us in regards to the 'Great Reset', and a potential social credit score.

It's not an exaggeration to say that Hasbro is a Satanically evil groomer megacorporation that exploits Chinese slave labor, sells actual pedophile dolls that giggle when you rub the crotch, and unapologetically utilizes convicted pedophiles in their Magic tournaments. One of their employees revealed that they're weaponizing Critical Race Theory propaganda against children (Babylon 2.0 wankery), and Hasbro even receives NWO bribe money.....in the form of ESG investment capital, probably involving the injection of many millions of dollar$ from BlackRock and Vanguard.

If Hasbro's attempt to jam most tabletop gamers into a digital ghetto were to actually succeed, they'd not only mostly kill the tabletop gaming hobby and the TTRPG freelancing industry, but customers could probably count on having their social media accounts policed for voicing "wrongthink".....and then "fired" as customers for vocally opposing:

* abortion
* LGBTQ+ groomer propaganda
* pedophilia and human trafficking
* mass migration of the Third World into western Europe
* mask mandates
* vaccines/mRNA gene therapy/genetic modification/human microchipping
* the banking cartels, and usury
* the NATO war against Russia, using Ukraine as a proxy
* Satanism and child sacrifice (no, I'm not kidding)

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I absolutely don't care if people enjoy VTT, since VTT has been around for years. But people need to remember that Hasbro is not controlled by gaming nerds. Hasbro is a giant and wickedly evil mega-corporation that is controlled by the same men who control nearly all billion dollar mega-corporations, and who have a Satanic obsession with massive global population reduction. And that OBSESSION controls the activities of all companies that receive ESG investment capital.

Quote from: amacris on August 22, 2022, 12:41:06 AM

Quote
Publishers must absolutely have rigid control over their methods of communicating with customers. Remember when Vox Day had his blog nuked by Blogger? He didn't break any rules, but he disrupted the precious "Globohomo narrative". Fortunately for him, he anticipated this......and was instantly ready with a backup clone blog that he personally controlled. In other words, DECENTRALIZATION is necessary.

But....of course, Hasbro wants massive centralization. ::)

Not just Hasbro! But yes. Amen.

Quote
Meanwhile, we have too many content creators who are just releasing pdfs, or the occasional rpg books.......which doesn't actually do anything to make rpgs more accessible for people. Most people understand the concept of a board game, but lots of people struggle with the concept of a tabletop rpg...and can't visualize it. ???

When I brought up examples of "optimizing the face-to-face experience"....my point was that rpg publishers need to start thinking outside the box, because a lot of the 'normies' need this type of stuff to help them find inspiration...when they're engaging in the face-to-face social activity of a roleplaying game.

One of the things I'm doing is using comics as a means to help promote my RPG. The comic book comes with cool Magic-style trading cards that serve as miniature character sheets for the RPG. I'm sure there are other ideas worth thinking about.

There are, but this isn't the thread for it. :)

Start a new thread and let's discuss it there, then!

(And I agree with your other comments but further exploration of them would violate our generous host's rules.)

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 24, 2022, 11:32:29 PM
If Hasbro's attempt to jam most tabletop gamers into a digital ghetto were to actually succeed, they'd not only mostly kill the tabletop gaming hobby and the TTRPG freelancing industry...

• Howard Stern was the king of all media, then he got a great paycheck to move to Sirius FM. I'm sure his audience is huge but he basically disappeared from the public square. Occasionally he'll say something wild but basically he's disappeared.
• Oprah was the Queen of talkshows, then she started her own network that I'm sure is doing great, but she basically disappeared from the public square. I see her magazines in the grocery store but otherwise she's just not in the news the same way anymore.

If Wizards doesn't manage this move to digital very carefully it may be a similar phenomena. They trade visibility for cash in a closed market. If could be a breath of fresh air for the rest of the tabletop market as Wizards concentrates their money and efforts on the online space.

Quote from: amacris on August 24, 2022, 11:53:27 PM
Start a new thread and let's discuss it there, then!

(And I agree with your other comments but further exploration of them would violate our generous host's rules.)

I think I'd better start a new thread. :)

Hold on. I lost phone and Internet connectivity at my place, and my smart phone isn't working properly either. To be continued though. :)

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 25, 2022, 12:00:13 AM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 24, 2022, 11:32:29 PM
If Hasbro's attempt to jam most tabletop gamers into a digital ghetto were to actually succeed, they'd not only mostly kill the tabletop gaming hobby and the TTRPG freelancing industry...

• Howard Stern was the king of all media, then he got a great paycheck to move to Sirius FM. I'm sure his audience is huge but he basically disappeared from the public square. Occasionally he'll say something wild but basically he's disappeared.
• Oprah was the Queen of talkshows, then she started her own network that I'm sure is doing great, but she basically disappeared from the public square. I see her magazines in the grocery store but otherwise she's just not in the news the same way anymore.

If Wizards doesn't manage this move to digital very carefully it may be a similar phenomena. They trade visibility for cash in a closed market. If could be a breath of fresh air for the rest of the tabletop market as Wizards concentrates their money and efforts on the online space.

....maybe. :(

The problem here, is that for the first time ever.....I feel like Hasbro has a (slight) chance at achieving their objectives, and that would be horrible. I do, however, hope that Hasbro partially boxes themselves into obscurity, but we'll see what happens.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 25, 2022, 12:00:13 AM

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb on August 24, 2022, 11:32:29 PM
If Hasbro's attempt to jam most tabletop gamers into a digital ghetto were to actually succeed, they'd not only mostly kill the tabletop gaming hobby and the TTRPG freelancing industry...

• Howard Stern was the king of all media, then he got a great paycheck to move to Sirius FM. I'm sure his audience is huge but he basically disappeared from the public square. Occasionally he'll say something wild but basically he's disappeared.
• Oprah was the Queen of talkshows, then she started her own network that I'm sure is doing great, but she basically disappeared from the public square. I see her magazines in the grocery store but otherwise she's just not in the news the same way anymore.

If Wizards doesn't manage this move to digital very carefully it may be a similar phenomena. They trade visibility for cash in a closed market. If could be a breath of fresh air for the rest of the tabletop market as Wizards concentrates their money and efforts on the online space.

"Oh, nah! Don't yeah throw DnD in that that briar patch!"

Out of sight, out of mind. Watching WotC cause DnD to vanish up it's own ass would do nothing but make me giggle.

Neverwinter Nights has an incredibly robust toolkit for creating and running your own adventures digitally. I'm really surprised WotC didn't try to tap into that. It certainly looks more impressive than a VTT, which is a plus when you're trying to monetize.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 02:22:41 PM
Neverwinter Nights has an incredibly robust toolkit for creating and running your own adventures digitally. I'm really surprised WotC didn't try to tap into that. It certainly looks more impressive than a VTT, which is a plus when you're trying to monetize.

Probably because there's no way to ensure their garden stays closed. The moment you let the software out, people will start making their own adventures.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 25, 2022, 03:01:08 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 02:22:41 PM
Neverwinter Nights has an incredibly robust toolkit for creating and running your own adventures digitally. I'm really surprised WotC didn't try to tap into that. It certainly looks more impressive than a VTT, which is a plus when you're trying to monetize.

Probably because there's no way to ensure their garden stays closed. The moment you let the software out, people will start making their own adventures.

You can monetize that easily with DLC.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 06:00:57 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 25, 2022, 03:01:08 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 02:22:41 PM
Neverwinter Nights has an incredibly robust toolkit for creating and running your own adventures digitally. I'm really surprised WotC didn't try to tap into that. It certainly looks more impressive than a VTT, which is a plus when you're trying to monetize.

Probably because there's no way to ensure their garden stays closed. The moment you let the software out, people will start making their own adventures.

You can monetize that easily with DLC.

That's not what they're looking for. They want to retain total control of the platform, so they can squeeze every penny they can.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 25, 2022, 08:28:28 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 06:00:57 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on August 25, 2022, 03:01:08 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 02:22:41 PM
Neverwinter Nights has an incredibly robust toolkit for creating and running your own adventures digitally. I'm really surprised WotC didn't try to tap into that. It certainly looks more impressive than a VTT, which is a plus when you're trying to monetize.

Probably because there's no way to ensure their garden stays closed. The moment you let the software out, people will start making their own adventures.

You can monetize that easily with DLC.

That's not what they're looking for. They want to retain total control of the platform, so they can squeeze every penny they can.

" The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. "

Other posters have pointed out that it requires a lot of time and effort to create detailed virtual environments online, even with all of the features that WotC seems to want to offer. So, could WotC actually be trying to create a pool of full-time, paid DMs for this purpose? That way, they could also control what was actually happening at the gaming table, because many players might then expect that all DMs run their games this way. Needless to say, players would have to pay for these professional DMs, just as they do now, the difference being that the DM services would be offered as part of a subscription package that includes all kinds of different products.   

Absolutely scummy. NWN was never that scummy. Shame on WotC

Quote from: Rhymer88 on August 26, 2022, 02:41:25 AM
Other posters have pointed out that it requires a lot of time and effort to create detailed virtual environments online, even with all of the features that WotC seems to want to offer. So, could WotC actually be trying to create a pool of full-time, paid DMs for this purpose? That way, they could also control what was actually happening at the gaming table, because many players might then expect that all DMs run their games this way. Needless to say, players would have to pay for these professional DMs, just as they do now, the difference being that the DM services would be offered as part of a subscription package that includes all kinds of different products.

I believe that is one of the goals in the short term (long term would be AI control and a full computer game model). The bottleneck in gaming is the ability to get a group and a DM that knows what they are doing together. By controlling everything they could guarantee both. And as suggested this would mean they control everything in every game to some extent.

Quote from: Corolinth on August 22, 2022, 09:17:31 PM
I some of you guys have lost the plot. Companies are in business to make money. They make that money by selling customers something they want. There's no plot to eliminate theater of the mind because WotC can't monetize it (they've been monetizing theater of the mind for 20+ years), virtual tabletop is already popular and WotC wants a slice of the pie.

That video that was posted about VTT inhibiting player imagination is interesting and makes some good points, but there's a glaring flaw in the argument that's going overlooked. Not all players have equal capabilities. VTT is filling in a gap for players who's imagination is insufficient to construct the world. There are a lot of players who will not play theater of the mind at all because they find it too difficult to enjoy the game. This made the rounds on the internet recently. What is in your mind when you imagine an apple?:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xZ3uuzU150s/XmrsSq2E15I/AAAAAAAANOQ/5nbbh62f8qEr78KwGRTq2ntwgj6x0xN1QCLcBGAsYHQ/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/EAkGXAyXkAAp9j3.jpeg)

When I tripped across this, I was surprised by the number of people who answered with option 5. I didn't even think such a person existed. I thought 3 was the weakest possible human imagination.

If you don't have a battle map and miniatures and that sort of thing, a 3 is probably the weakest imagination you could have and still play, but you would be very bad at it and wouldn't enjoy it very much. You can extrapolate that spectrum to something else like a person's ability to keep track of conditions, modifiers, and other game rules. VTT isn't taking someone who is a 1 and turning them into a 5. What VTT does is allow someone who answers 5 to play the game in the first place. More importantly, it also allows someone who answers with 3 or 4 to enjoy the game rather than feeling like it's too much for them.

Any tabletop game requires one to use their imagination. If one can not or does not want to use their imagination than the hobby is not for them and they absolutely must be gatekept out. They have plenty of other options in terms of video games.

I do realise that this is not what's happening. And WotC want more money so are catering to those with no imagination whatsoever. Like the Critical Role lot who just want to re-enact their favorite scenes and won't let you deviate from the Mercer doctrine.

Some other publishers are trying to do this for their ttrpg IPs too. Like Paradox. This only exacerbates the homogeneity and worship thereof that I've come to despise in the ttrpg scene.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 02:22:41 PM
Neverwinter Nights has an incredibly robust toolkit for creating and running your own adventures digitally. I'm really surprised WotC didn't try to tap into that. It certainly looks more impressive than a VTT, which is a plus when you're trying to monetize.

I have amazing memories of NwN from my childhood. I'd credit it as being the reason I eventually got into TTRPGs at all. Neverwinter Nights in my opinion is the game closest to the spirit (not the rules) of DnD. Giving you an unprecedented tool box at the time. Which people used to make single player campaigns that were better than anything Bioware made from the release of NwN onwards. You had a dedicated DM client with tools to help run a virtual game of DnD years before Virtual tabletops were a thing.  And then you get into the persistent worlds. Mini MMOs catering to all kinds of tastes. From PvP, RP, and so on. There's even a Star Wars server that's pretty fun and very ambitious. A lot of the persistent worlds have all kinds of custom scripts and innovative features and back in the day competed with one another to innovate.   

If One DnD was just NwN 3 I'd champion it. Not as a replacement for DnD. But an awesome alternative.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 26, 2022, 09:25:55 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 02:22:41 PM
Neverwinter Nights has an incredibly robust toolkit for creating and running your own adventures digitally. I'm really surprised WotC didn't try to tap into that. It certainly looks more impressive than a VTT, which is a plus when you're trying to monetize.

I have amazing memories of NwN from my childhood. I'd credit it as being the reason I eventually got into TTRPGs at all. Neverwinter Nights in my opinion is the game closest to the spirit (not the rules) of DnD. Giving you an unprecedented tool box at the time. Which people used to make single player campaigns that were better than anything Bioware made from the release of NwN onwards. You had a dedicated DM client with tools to help run a virtual game of DnD years before Virtual tabletops were a thing.  And then you get into the persistent worlds. Mini MMOs catering to all kinds of tastes. From PvP, RP, and so on. There's even a Star Wars server that's pretty fun and very ambitious. A lot of the persistent worlds have all kinds of custom scripts and innovative features and back in the day competed with one another to innovate.   

If One DnD was just NwN 3 I'd champion it. Not as a replacement for DnD. But an awesome alternative.

What was your favorite module outside Bioware?  Mine was the Shadow Lord series.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 23, 2022, 08:33:05 AM

Quote from: Wisithir on August 22, 2022, 09:29:43 PM
All a VTT combat map does for those that lack imagination is let them play a boardgame on the combat map without appreciating the world they cannot imagine.

The VTT allows everyone to see the world exactly the same (for whatever that is worth).
Also the VTT takes mystery away (Oh, it's just an Umber Hulk, I was scared for a minute by your description).

Your understanding of what the good VTTs can do then is massively lacking.

Just a basic one a local DM had years ago had features like map reveal based on line of sight. Monster counters hidden in true nature till revealed. Or false counters. Lighting effects even. Though fairly simple for the time. Mid 2000s.

And VTTs have improved since.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 23, 2022, 07:48:42 PM
I was a bit surprised WotC hasn't engaged in some GW style type behavior to run out some of their erstwhile competition.

WOTC did exactly that with thir store franchise back in the early 2000s by copying GW's wretched business practices. Even now locally there is bad blood over what they did to small stores locally.

So yes they have done it before and since its WOTC, they can and possibly will try such stunts again some day.

Quote from: Omega on August 30, 2022, 06:25:42 AM
Your understanding of what the good VTTs can do then is massively lacking.

Can they display a beast not in the software library?

Quote from: Snowman0147 on August 30, 2022, 01:40:31 AM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 26, 2022, 09:25:55 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2022, 02:22:41 PM
Neverwinter Nights has an incredibly robust toolkit for creating and running your own adventures digitally. I'm really surprised WotC didn't try to tap into that. It certainly looks more impressive than a VTT, which is a plus when you're trying to monetize.

I have amazing memories of NwN from my childhood. I'd credit it as being the reason I eventually got into TTRPGs at all. Neverwinter Nights in my opinion is the game closest to the spirit (not the rules) of DnD. Giving you an unprecedented tool box at the time. Which people used to make single player campaigns that were better than anything Bioware made from the release of NwN onwards. You had a dedicated DM client with tools to help run a virtual game of DnD years before Virtual tabletops were a thing.  And then you get into the persistent worlds. Mini MMOs catering to all kinds of tastes. From PvP, RP, and so on. There's even a Star Wars server that's pretty fun and very ambitious. A lot of the persistent worlds have all kinds of custom scripts and innovative features and back in the day competed with one another to innovate.   

If One DnD was just NwN 3 I'd champion it. Not as a replacement for DnD. But an awesome alternative.

What was your favorite module outside Bioware?  Mine was the Shadow Lord series.

Swordflight had the most unprecedented level of reactivity I've ever seen out of a CRPG. It'd give you multiple options to solve a quest and even class based options for each class. And it reacted when you thought outside the box like a real GM would. It still amazes me just how reactive that module series is.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 30, 2022, 09:07:16 AM

Can they display a beast not in the software library?
[/quote]
Just like on my physical tabletop, I can throw together a quick sketch, cut it out, and throw it on a standy. The good-enough-proxy lives!

And make a note that I need to find something appropriate to that for the next time it comes up.

Just like at any other table. Except that I can probably Google an image and cut that out to make a much higher quality proxy than I could with my bagful of markers and a 3 x 5 card.

Or if one is using Discord one creates a channel names it monster pictures. Then find one on the internet and copies and pasted it.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 30, 2022, 10:31:33 AM
Just like on my physical tabletop, I can throw together a quick sketch, cut it out, and throw it on a standy. The good-enough-proxy lives!

And make a note that I need to find something appropriate to that for the next time it comes up.

Just like at any other table. Except that I can probably Google an image and cut that out to make a much higher quality proxy than I could with my bagful of markers and a 3 x 5 card.

Yes, you can do work-arounds with anything. Pity the DM that does a Lamentation style game with only a few very unique monsters.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 30, 2022, 12:38:58 PM
Yes, you can do work-arounds with anything. Pity the DM that does a Lamentation style game with only a few very unique monsters.

If he can't be bothered to do a modicum of prep the exact same he'd need to for an analog tabletop game, maybe that's a DM you shouldn't be spending your time with, yeah?

Quote from: SHARK on August 21, 2022, 09:21:59 PM
Greetings!

You know, if by circumstance or preference, you like playing D&D online with VTT and whatever--good for you. Go for it.

As for myself, I like getting together with my friends, in person, face-to-face. I enjoy ordering up food at a restaurant with them, or serving up food personally. I enjoy drinking together, and lighting up fine cigars. I enjoy making coffee for everyone. I enjoy hearing them laugh, and seeing their faces, their expressions, their antics. Hearing them scream in hatred or triumph.

I enjoy rolling dice and moving painted miniatures across the table.

I enjoy gaming together, with them. Face-to-face.

Fuck the digital BS. All that online digital BS will always and forever be a sad, poor substitute for what I described experiencing above.

In-person gaming is in my view, the absolute best. Simple as that. In-person gaming is what we as a community, as a hobby, should prioritize, emphasize, celebrate and promote.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quoted FTW.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 30, 2022, 12:43:03 PM
If he can't be bothered to do a modicum of prep the exact same he'd need to for an analog tabletop game, maybe that's a DM you shouldn't be spending your time with, yeah?

You are throwing your money away if you are paying to do the exact same thing.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 30, 2022, 07:18:52 PM
You are throwing your money away if you are paying to do the exact same thing.

I can sleep equally well on the ground or on a cot – but I prefer a cot. I can sleep on the ground if I have to, but I'd prefer sleeping bag. I'd really prefer a king size bed in a five star hotel – but if I can't have what I'd prefer, I'll take what I can get rather than do without.

Only a fool gives up tools to make their given experience better. Only the truly foolish consider it noble.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 30, 2022, 09:07:16 AM

Quote from: Omega on August 30, 2022, 06:25:42 AM
Your understanding of what the good VTTs can do then is massively lacking.

Can they display a beast not in the software library?

Thats the same fake bitching as used against minis.

Try again please.

But to answer your fake question. All the ones I've seen allowd for creation of the tokens.

Now if we are talking about 3d VTTs. Those are still getting traction and support. I know TableTopSimulator allows for porting in models. But it is not a function I have tried. Apparently theres a fairly broad range now of models. But as said. Its an area I have not delved into other than the superficial.

Similar to the Neverwinter PC game. Out of the box it had a fairly ok selection. But of course there is going to be ones not covered. Bitching about that is well past pedantic. And people have been making new models for it even now. For me NW just lacked other elements that I wanted from a VTT.

I think as 3d VTTs advance the short-comings will become fewer and fewer just as they did got the 2d versions.

Will WOTC ever put out a good one? Odds are no. Or of they do. They will promptly start trying to ruin it. Failure is the only option.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 30, 2022, 07:18:52 PM

Quote from: SquidLord on August 30, 2022, 12:43:03 PM
If he can't be bothered to do a modicum of prep the exact same he'd need to for an analog tabletop game, maybe that's a DM you shouldn't be spending your time with, yeah?

You are throwing your money away if you are paying to do the exact same thing.

See MapTools and TokenTools (https://www.rptools.net/).  Free and open source so it's yours to modify.
I was using it to run the mega-dungeon BarrowMaze.  We play face-to-face but we've got a large monitor in the game room which haven't used until now.
I have copied in the map and the handouts as well as all the dungeon specific critter pictures.
Learning curve is a little steep.
Getting fog of war working correctly requires one to basically trace the outlines of the walls in you dungeon map image.
If I have time in the next couple of days/weeks I'll post some screen shots.

Quote from: DocJones on August 30, 2022, 11:00:17 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 30, 2022, 07:18:52 PM

Quote from: SquidLord on August 30, 2022, 12:43:03 PM
If he can't be bothered to do a modicum of prep the exact same he'd need to for an analog tabletop game, maybe that's a DM you shouldn't be spending your time with, yeah?

You are throwing your money away if you are paying to do the exact same thing.

See MapTools and TokenTools (https://www.rptools.net/).  Free and open source so it's yours to modify.
I was using it to run the mega-dungeon BarrowMaze.  We play face-to-face but we've got a large monitor in the game room which haven't used until now.
I have copied in the map and the handouts as well as all the dungeon specific critter pictures.
Learning curve is a little steep.
Getting fog of war working correctly requires one to basically trace the outlines of the walls in you dungeon map image.
If I have time in the next couple of days/weeks I'll post some screen shots.

As a poor man's solution, for in person gaming inside of a dungeon; I have created a deck of index cards, with different simple images drawn on each card.  Laying down one or two cards at a time, allows me to maintain the mystery of what the players shouldn't be able to see yet.  Cheap, quick, and easy to create and use.

I'm not referring to ICRPG.  I'm just drawing out generic hallways, intersections, rooms, dead ends, etc. that I can use over and over again.

I'm of a very mixed mind on One D&D which is a truly awful name BTW and I hope at least they change that if nothing else.

I'm not a grognard so I very much DO like having a fully indexed online wiki style set of rulebooks. My games of the past few years have all been on Roll20 and I've DM'd 100s of hours of games there. The fact that everything is in the SRD, hyperlinked, indexed, searchable has been a godsend for the simple reason that a Roll20 game by its very nature is harder to setup and manage then a tabletop game. I can't just easily "redraw" a tactical map for instance. Everything has to be pre-staged including monster tokens.

Any shortcut that helps keep my overhead down I welcome. I use a combination of multiple monitors and hardcover books to keep my game flow very fast & smooth even during complex combat sections. If the VTT can do this at least as well as R20 or even better, that part I welcome with open arms.

I saw one video with a guy concerned about the 'gamification' of using a VTT so that people approach it as a videogame instead of a tabletop RPG. There is -some- merit in that statement and I say that as someone that ran an actual Neverwinter Nights campaign for a few years. It is important as a DM to 'set the tone' for your table so I would just remind people not to get too hung up on the visuals (which were amazing at the time) and remember you have full license & freedom. After a few sessions this wasn't an issue anymore.

I'd love to see a VTT that is isometric like NWN but easy to use. I saw a couple posts on this thread talking about NWN but the truth of the matter is this. Even with that powerful toolset crafting modules and running games in NWN was hard. A real time combat and movement system did not help. It was a weird animal a hybrid of CRPG and TT. Module creation? Forget it, if you did not have some basic programming or scripting knowledge you were incredibly limited.

My 'vision' for an ideal VTT would be something like Talespire (check it out on Steam) with a very intuitive fast UI for creating simple encounter maps.

Now the not so great stuff- They seem to be going all in on the wokey shit what with all races are now just basically window dressing and a halfling can breed with an orc because... reasons. There are many changes that appear to be simply political in nature with no true mechanical benefit, I will never get behind that sort of madness.

Codifying critical effects (Nat 1/ Nat 20) seems to be a very mixed and controversial change. I'm somewhat more ambivalent about that. There just appears to an overall homogenization to everything tracks very well with the culture at large and the left leaning agenda that there be absolutely no deviation from a standard homogenized uniformity of everything. While at the very same time and in maximum Orwellian fashion calling this complete uniformity, lockstep, and homogenization something as absurd as "Diversity" when it is the polar opposite.

There are also the legit concerns about the walled garden / gatekeeping but the truth of the matter is, they are appealing to the younger audience that grew up in a world where this is quite common. Interacting with a book, pen and paper, is a totally alien concept. Opening your phone to do something is as natural as breathing so of course WOTC will capitalize on that.

My go to VTT is Tabletop Simulator.  It has the features I want now and a pay system that I prefer (buy once, no subscription, most resources are free, but premium DLC is available for specific games.)

Quote from: zircher on August 31, 2022, 11:09:12 AM
My go to VTT is Tabletop Simulator.  It has the features I want now and a pay system that I prefer (buy once, no subscription, most resources are free, but premium DLC is available for specific games.)

And it has the advantage of not necessarily being game specific, so you can play a variety of tabletop experiences with whatever level of support you really want.

Most of the time I am perfectly happy to have a hand-drawn contour map and some half decent looking chits to push around in a lot of games. Or the equivalent of cardboard standys for individual infantry.

And sometimes I want to go the extra mile, put in actual terrain, go get some nice models, and make everything look cool. As well as have character sheets which do their own calculations, etc.

But that's just like my table at home. Sometimes it's just a convenient shorthand representation for what's happening, sometimes it's a critical part of the interface for the wargame that we're playing.

I think a lot of people get too hung up on the idea of "tech" at the table and forget that a book is a piece of technology. As is the pencil. As it is a piece of paper. You use the right tool for the right job for the problem at hand.

Quote from: zircher on August 31, 2022, 11:09:12 AM
My go to VTT is Tabletop Simulator.  It has the features I want now and a pay system that I prefer (buy once, no subscription, most resources are free, but premium DLC is available for specific games.)

My go-to was Fantasy Grounds after Roll20 started pushing woke nonsense.
It had a steep entry price for a GM licence (but getting it means none of my friends have to buy it so we can all 'share' my account) and had some quirks to adjust to.  But we made the change and never went back, currently if we can't use Fantasy grounds for whatever reason we just tend to play by post since roll20 only leaves a bad taste in our mouths.

I can also agree with the thread sentiment that "IRL is better", but I've also been in the situation of "online TRPG or no TRPG" with all my friends going away to university, military, or Germany.

Arguing over VTTs is all well and good, but I think it misses the important issues raised by OneDnD and their effect on the industry, especially for RPGs other than DnD. 

Quote from: rkhigdon on August 31, 2022, 12:30:11 PM
Arguing over VTTs is all well and good, but I think it misses the important issues raised by OneDnD and their effect on the industry, especially for RPGs other than DnD.

I'm not sure there's that much to debate, really. One D&D doesn't really seem to offer anything particularly new or desirable to the current player base while providing a lot of potential threat from Hasbro, and as a result it's just likely to be a net gain for every other RPG on the planet as there will be people – some people, anyway – who will be looking for new things to play.

Outside of D&D, the "industry" is largely a vanity press and is pretty hobby-centric. That's not a slur or a slam, that's just an honest assessment of the economic impact.

There's not really much in the way of debate on the issue. The facts seem pretty cut and dry. Which is why conversation has wandered so widely.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 12:45:15 PM

Quote from: rkhigdon on August 31, 2022, 12:30:11 PM
Arguing over VTTs is all well and good, but I think it misses the important issues raised by OneDnD and their effect on the industry, especially for RPGs other than DnD.

I'm not sure there's that much to debate, really. One D&D doesn't really seem to offer anything particularly new or desirable to the current player base while providing a lot of potential threat from Hasbro, and as a result it's just likely to be a net gain for every other RPG on the planet as there will be people – some people, anyway – who will be looking for new things to play.

Outside of D&D, the "industry" is largely a vanity press and is pretty hobby-centric. That's not a slur or a slam, that's just an honest assessment of the economic impact.

There's not really much in the way of debate on the issue. The facts seem pretty cut and dry. Which is why conversation has wandered so widely.

I think that your cut and dry facts may be a product of your community.

My eldest son is in university and is DMing or playing in 2-3 games a week of 5e over the summer, each with a different set of 5-6 players ages 16-24, via VTT so spread across a couple of continents. As far as I can tell that demographic is pretty uniformly looking forward to OneD&D; they think it does offer plenty that's new & desirable, and aren't feeling threatened. He's read some commentary on the internet, but doesn't really see any debate, and comes to the opposite conclusion you do.

(Checking his calendar, it looks like there's 6.5 hours a week of gaming - Curse of Strahd and Tales from the Yawning Portal; the group that finished Out of the Abyss during lockdowns was playing in a heavily customised version of the Runewild but being American uni students most of them are too busy with jobs to play, and the group that was playing various Powered by the Apocalypse games has fallen apart.)

Quote from: Naburimannu on August 31, 2022, 03:24:46 PM
My eldest son is in university and is DMing or playing in 2-3 games a week of 5e over the summer, each with a different set of 5-6 players ages 16-24, via VTT so spread across a couple of continents. As far as I can tell that demographic is pretty uniformly looking forward to OneD&D; they think it does offer plenty that's new & desirable, and aren't feeling threatened. He's read some commentary on the internet, but doesn't really see any debate, and comes to the opposite conclusion you do.

(Checking his calendar, it looks like there's 6.5 hours a week of gaming - Curse of Strahd and Tales from the Yawning Portal; the group that finished Out of the Abyss during lockdowns was playing in a heavily customised version of the Runewild but being American uni students most of them are too busy with jobs to play, and the group that was playing various Powered by the Apocalypse games has fallen apart.)

Your son is a sweet summer child and it must be nice to not have any experience with edition rollovers or the behavior of the corporate entities who have owned the IP for decades. He hasn't quite become cynical yet.

We both know he will.

I'm not sure what he's looking forward to in One D&D given that the corporate messaging has been "not a lot is changing and it will be broadly compatible with everything you already own."

You'll notice that I did not say that the current audience is feeling threatened – I said that One D&D is offering threat. And it does for the multitude of reasons that everyone has talked about regarding the inevitable creeping mechanical incompatibilities, desire for centralized control, increased focus on "the One True Way", etc., etc.

The difference between him and many/most of us is that we've seen this tango danced before and we know how it turns out with people who actually do have some of the best interests of their audience at heart, which combined with the current people pulling the strings on the IP who clearly have agendas which are not about "making the game better," don't feel anyone with experience with reassurance.

And that's the thing. Every new edition has fanboys; that's the nature of the hobby. Every new edition is someone's first edition, which they will play until the ink rots off the page and they will champion as the best version of the game possible in human imagination. (Look around. Look at the person next to you. It's probably that guy.)

That doesn't change in either direction what is likely to be the fallout of One D&D: a goodly chunk of the community is going to be resentful that there aren't any notable changes that are meaningful to their play and that everyone is going to expect them to upgrade/update their books, rebuy everything, and only talk about the new hotness. Those people have no reason to stop playing what they already have, but some of them will be interested in getting away from the community that put a bad taste in their mouth.

They'll be looking for new ways to engage in the hobby they already have.

It's as good an opportunity for the rest of the industry/market as anything that ever happens. (After all, it's one of the reasons that Pathfinder exists. And OSR in general. And a bunch of games which aren't bad D&D clones.)

That's just a basic understanding of marketing and a long experience of the industry.

To repeat myself:

"Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? (RPGs As A Service)
Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them?
Of getting banned for wrongthink outside of their website?

If you ask me we need more opensource of good quality and easy to implement VTTs not more corpo slug. Owlbear Rodeo promised to release the code of their v1.0 after they launch the v2.0. I'm all for more of that. Being able to host MY OWN VTT for my games in an easy way and that the players can access as easy as they currently access Owlbear Rodeo? Sign me the fuck up!"

We've already seen other corporations banning people for wrongthink and keeping their money. Those sweet summerchilds will get a rude awakening since the goalpost keeps moving further and further left.

We've also seen WotC trying to force people into RAW play, how hard will it be to play with your own houserules on their VTT?

If you include slavers as bad guys will you get banned for wrongthink?

No, I don't see an upside to OneD&D.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 04:47:58 PM
"Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? (RPGs As A Service)
Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them?
Of getting banned for wrongthink outside of their website?

Personally, I think the idea of "RPG As a Service" is kind of intriguing. There are a lot of things that you can do within the context of a constructed, dynamically updatable, standardized publication chain that could be really good for games, consumers, and the industry at large. I can imagine that being really cool for a smaller business and a smaller game.

I just don't trust Wizards to do it well. Yet I don't think that D&D is necessarily the best IP for it to be part of.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 04:55:55 PM
Personally, I think the idea of "RPG As a Service" is kind of intriguing. There are a lot of things that you can do within the context of a constructed, dynamically updatable, standardized publication chain that could be really good for games, consumers, and the industry at large. I can imagine that being really cool for a smaller business and a smaller game.

I just don't trust Wizards to do it well. Yet I don't think that D&D is necessarily the best IP for it to be part of.

I wouldn't trust anyone to do that well over the time I'd want to use it.  Maybe a couple of years.

Just think, someone could start a kickstarter for that option.  Then we'd have the prospect of a game that people could pay for and not get or get late ... and if they do get it late, it could be taken away later.  What's not to like?

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 04:55:55 PM
There are a lot of things that you can do within the context of a constructed, dynamically updatable, standardized publication chain that could be really good for games, consumers, and the industry at large.

Oh, really? Like what?

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 04:55:55 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 04:47:58 PM
"Why do we need WotC or any other corpo creating their own RPGAAS? (RPGs As A Service)
Where's the advantage of not owning the game but renting it from them?
Of getting banned for wrongthink outside of their website?

Personally, I think the idea of "RPG As a Service" is kind of intriguing. There are a lot of things that you can do within the context of a constructed, dynamically updatable, standardized publication chain that could be really good for games, consumers, and the industry at large. I can imagine that being really cool for a smaller business and a smaller game.

I just don't trust Wizards to do it well. Yet I don't think that D&D is necessarily the best IP for it to be part of.

Like what? Paying over and over to line the pockets of WotC/Hasbro?

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 31, 2022, 05:04:59 PM
Oh, really? Like what?

Some of the things that Lancer is doing border on Game As a Service particularly with CON/COM and the way that they update the application every time they release an supplement to integrate the mechanical bits. That sort of symbiotic development is definitely interesting.

Is it really good for everything? Absolutely not. I would no more advocate for that being every game that I would every game being solo/co-op functional, even though most of the games I run on the tabletop these days are solo/co-op functional.

I think some people lose sight of the fact that having different things in the marketplace is better than having one thing in the marketplace, and having multiple approaches toward engaging the audience is always and without question better than having a single approach toward engaging the audience.

Wizards seems to have forgotten that lesson and a lot of people in the hobby have overcorrected so far that they've are advocating for the opposite of that lesson. I don't think that's particularly healthy for anyone, including the industry.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 06:21:30 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 31, 2022, 05:04:59 PM
Oh, really? Like what?

Some of the things that Lancer is doing border on Game As a Service particularly with CON/COM and the way that they update the application every time they release an supplement to integrate the mechanical bits. That sort of symbiotic development is definitely interesting.

Is it really good for everything? Absolutely not. I would no more advocate for that being every game that I would every game being solo/co-op functional, even though most of the games I run on the tabletop these days are solo/co-op functional.

Games as a Service has a definite meaning: As long as you pay you can play.

They also come with a set of problems (beyond not owning the game) you keep ignoring: Getting banned for out of site behaviour, the server disapearing and you get left holding air, the price rising beyond what you can pay, pay to win...

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 06:21:30 PM
I think some people lose sight of the fact that having different things in the marketplace is better than having one thing in the marketplace, and having multiple approaches toward engaging the audience is always and without question better than having a single approach toward engaging the audience.

How many AAA games are left that allow you to create your own server? NONE, because "having different things in the marketplace" is a lie the corporation pushes to make you buy into their BS games as a service and microtransactions until that's all that's left.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 06:21:30 PM
Wizards seems to have forgotten that lesson and a lot of people in the hobby have overcorrected so far that they've are advocating for the opposite of that lesson. I don't think that's particularly healthy for anyone, including the industry.

So, Wizards wants the marketplace to be one thing, people in the hobby have "overcorrected so far that they've are advocating for the opposite"... Meaning for more than one thing in the marketplace.

You're not making sense.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 06:21:30 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 31, 2022, 05:04:59 PM
Oh, really? Like what?

Some of the things that Lancer is doing border on Game As a Service particularly with CON/COM and the way that they update the application every time they release an supplement to integrate the mechanical bits. That sort of symbiotic development is definitely interesting.

Is it really good for everything? Absolutely not. I would no more advocate for that being every game that I would every game being solo/co-op functional, even though most of the games I run on the tabletop these days are solo/co-op functional.

I think some people lose sight of the fact that having different things in the marketplace is better than having one thing in the marketplace, and having multiple approaches toward engaging the audience is always and without question better than having a single approach toward engaging the audience.

Wizards seems to have forgotten that lesson and a lot of people in the hobby have overcorrected so far that they've are advocating for the opposite of that lesson. I don't think that's particularly healthy for anyone, including the industry.

Yeah, I don't know. Live updates to rules seems like just a way to lock people in. FOMO sells subscriptions. These are games of imagination, which everyone already has, so it's kind of sad that FOMO causes people think they need more than just a rule book, pencils, paper, and dice. Don't have the latest mechanic? Wing it. That's what the GM is for.

Definitely has a "one true way" stink to it. RPG systems and supplements are tools to be used an modified to one's needs, but integrating them into the tabletop creates an official way and discourages or outright prevents customization in that environment.  An X years old resource that is still usable is terrible from the perspective of a business that wants to resell it every X/Y years.  There is a case for subscription for security and upkeep but dead tree products do not need either, digital leasing requires both and locks in revenue stream.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 06:59:59 PM
Games as a Service has a definite meaning: As long as you pay you can play.

I don't know if you noticed this but – that's every game.

But you could just be ignorantly painting everything as a subscription, which is one possible game model. It wouldn't be one I supported, but it's certainly possible. And some games could make a good living from it. We do have some in the digital domain which do so, so it's fairly obvious that it's possible to do so in a hybrid domain.

I would counter that the definite meaning is more on the order of:

As long as you keep offering me something worth paying for, I'll pay for it.

You seem to really love ongoing support by releasing supplements. You're not getting them out of the goodness of the creator's hearts – they're selling them.

(Which incidentally brings up a reasonable idea for the structure of a subscription service – not having to buy supplements for the mainline but subscribing to the content which gets released more consistently over time. Again, I'm not saying it's a perfect model or that every game should have it, but it's an interesting model to play with or experiment with. Someone should.)

Quote
They also come with a set of problems (beyond not owning the game) you keep ignoring: Getting banned for out of site behaviour, the server disapearing and you get left holding air, the price rising beyond what you can pay, pay to win...

It would be really tough to say that "I keep ignoring" those issues when I haven't been engaged in talking about them. And I would suggest that those are possible complications in the model.

They are also not necessarily guaranteed complications and largely are failures of trust in management and trust in audience than inherent features of the model in general.

Interestingly, every single bit of that except for pay to win is a potential failure mode of online forums, including this one. And yes, that includes "the price rising beyond what you can pay" observing that the current price is zero.

And yet we don't have you railing against the idea of someone running an online forum because it could fall prey to any of those failure modes. Instead, you're more likely to complain (I hope) about one actually falling to one of those failure modes.

I hope. That hope is small, however.

Quote
How many AAA games are left that allow you to create your own server? NONE, because "having different things in the marketplace" is a lie the corporation pushes to make you buy into their BS games as a service and microtransactions until that's all that's left.

You're – not that bright, are you? Because nearly every AAA game released in the last 20 years allows you to create your own server, run your own server, choose the rules for your own server, and administrate your own server however you see fit. Whether it be Minecraft or Call of Duty. Pretty much every multiplayer game in between, in fact.

It would help if you knew what you were talking about before you pronounce things as though they were unassailable fact. It would be even better if they were unassailable fact before you pretended that they were. This may be asking too much. I don't fully understand your capabilities. But I'm going to pretend as if you can because it makes me feel better to believe that.

Don't disabuse me of the notion.

Quote
So, Wizards wants the marketplace to be one thing, people in the hobby have "overcorrected so far that they've are advocating for the opposite"... Meaning for more than one thing in the marketplace.

You're not making sense.

Wizards is making their own set of bad decisions, which is their right to do so as individuals and business, and are receiving due criticism and distrust because of both historical choices and current choices. People in the hobby – and I'm looking at you at the moment – are backlashing so hard that you're advocating stupid exclusionary choices which ironically mirror Wizards' bad choices without actually improving on, failing inevitably in much the same way.

I'm making perfect sense.

Your endless negativity when it comes to a different idea that you dismiss out of hand is getting in the way of you actually making a good point, which is a shame because I believe there might be one buried under there somewhere. There are legitimate concerns and questions to be raised for the hobby in general. But you're doing yourself and your position no honor by being a reactionary asshole.

Again, which is a shame, because I think it's certainly possible.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 31, 2022, 07:10:18 PM
Yeah, I don't know. Live updates to rules seems like just a way to lock people in. FOMO sells subscriptions. These are games of imagination, which everyone already has, so it's kind of sad that FOMO causes people think they need more than just a rule book, pencils, paper, and dice. Don't have the latest mechanic? Wing it. That's what the GM is for.

The supplement treadmill locks people in, right? The endless cavalcade of expansions and splat-books which sell new options and potentially more powerful options within the context of the game?

FOMO sells everything.

Unless you would like to advocate for the position that a game should be sold as a single book, at a single time, and never thereafter updated or expanded with more content. I would disagree with but respect to that position because at least it's consistent.

It's terrible for creators who, themselves, would like to continue selling you things, making money, sleeping indoors and eating – but that may not be a concern. Maybe it's not.

If we're going to get all the way down to it, nobody needs more than the pencils, paper, and dice. If we're going to get really all the way down to it, they don't need any of those things – they can just tell stories to each other. But those things are tools to facilitate telling those stories, shaping those experiences, and reaching a meeting of minds so those stories can be told.

So what do we want? Do we want no hobby industry because the truth is that you don't need anything that it produces to have those experiences? After all, if you really want rules – you can just make them up and tell them to somebody else. You don't have to buy a book.

Or do we want an industry where creators can make money and perhaps even consistently make money selling things that other people want and which serve their needs as tools for creating the experiences they want with other people?

I have to be honest – the latter sounds a lot better unless my definition of "better" is so narrow as to be monomaniacally selfish. It's certainly an option, but is it a good or healthy one?

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 08:34:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 06:59:59 PM
Games as a Service has a definite meaning: As long as you pay you can play.

I don't know if you noticed this but – that's every game.

But you could just be ignorantly painting everything as a subscription, which is one possible game model. It wouldn't be one I supported, but it's certainly possible. And some games could make a good living from it. We do have some in the digital domain which do so, so it's fairly obvious that it's possible to do so in a hybrid domain.

I would counter that the definite meaning is more on the order of:

As long as you keep offering me something worth paying for, I'll pay for it.

You seem to really love ongoing support by releasing supplements. You're not getting them out of the goodness of the creator's hearts – they're selling them.

(Which incidentally brings up a reasonable idea for the structure of a subscription service – not having to buy supplements for the mainline but subscribing to the content which gets released more consistently over time. Again, I'm not saying it's a perfect model or that every game should have it, but it's an interesting model to play with or experiment with. Someone should.

Quote
They also come with a set of problems (beyond not owning the game) you keep ignoring: Getting banned for out of site behaviour, the server disapearing and you get left holding air, the price rising beyond what you can pay, pay to win...

It would be really tough to say that "I keep ignoring" those issues when I haven't been engaged in talking about them. And I would suggest that those are possible complications in the model.

They are also not necessarily guaranteed complications and largely are failures of trust in management and trust in audience than inherent features of the model in general.

Interestingly, every single bit of that except for pay to win is a potential failure mode of online forums, including this one. And yes, that includes "the price rising beyond what you can pay" observing that the current price is zero.

And yet we don't have you railing against the idea of someone running an online forum because it could fall prey to any of those failure modes. Instead, you're more likely to complain (I hope) about one actually falling to one of those failure modes.

I hope. That hope is small, however.

Quote
How many AAA games are left that allow you to create your own server? NONE, because "having different things in the marketplace" is a lie the corporation pushes to make you buy into their BS games as a service and microtransactions until that's all that's left.

You're – not that bright, are you? Because nearly every AAA game released in the last 20 years allows you to create your own server, run your own server, choose the rules for your own server, and administrate your own server however you see fit. Whether it be Minecraft or Call of Duty. Pretty much every multiplayer game in between, in fact.

It would help if you knew what you were talking about before you pronounce things as though they were unassailable fact. It would be even better if they were unassailable fact before you pretended that they were. This may be asking too much. I don't fully understand your capabilities. But I'm going to pretend as if you can because it makes me feel better to believe that.

Don't disabuse me of the notion.

Quote
So, Wizards wants the marketplace to be one thing, people in the hobby have "overcorrected so far that they've are advocating for the opposite"... Meaning for more than one thing in the marketplace.

You're not making sense.

Wizards is making their own set of bad decisions, which is their right to do so as individuals and business, and are receiving due criticism and distrust because of both historical choices and current choices. People in the hobby – and I'm looking at you at the moment – are backlashing so hard that you're advocating stupid exclusionary choices which ironically mirror Wizards' bad choices without actually improving on, failing inevitably in much the same way.

I'm making perfect sense.

Your endless negativity when it comes to a different idea that you dismiss out of hand is getting in the way of you actually making a good point, which is a shame because I believe there might be one buried under there somewhere. There are legitimate concerns and questions to be raised for the hobby in general. But you're doing yourself and your position no honor by being a reactionary asshole.

Again, which is a shame, because I think it's certainly possible.

WUT?

No, when I buy a RPG book I own it, I don't need to keep paying to play the game.

Games as a Service require you to keep on paying if you wish to keep on playing.

"exclusionary choices"... Care to point exactly what those are and who am I excluding?

No, never mind, since you just lost all respect or good will by resorting to calling me names:

"Reactionary Asshole"

Listen doorknob, to be a reactionary you need to be part of the status quo, I'm not, WotC IS, therefore I'm clearly a revolutionary and you're a bellend that needs to go fuck himself.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 11:32:54 AM

Quote from: zircher on August 31, 2022, 11:09:12 AM
My go to VTT is Tabletop Simulator.  It has the features I want now and a pay system that I prefer (buy once, no subscription, most resources are free, but premium DLC is available for specific games.)

And it has the advantage of not necessarily being game specific, so you can play a variety of tabletop experiences with whatever level of support you really want.

Most of the time I am perfectly happy to have a hand-drawn contour map and some half decent looking chits to push around in a lot of games. Or the equivalent of cardboard standys for individual infantry.

And sometimes I want to go the extra mile, put in actual terrain, go get some nice models, and make everything look cool. As well as have character sheets which do their own calculations, etc.

But that's just like my table at home. Sometimes it's just a convenient shorthand representation for what's happening, sometimes it's a critical part of the interface for the wargame that we're playing.

I think a lot of people get too hung up on the idea of "tech" at the table and forget that a book is a piece of technology. As is the pencil. As it is a piece of paper. You use the right tool for the right job for the problem at hand.

Right. TTS was surprisingly good at doing exactly what it claims to be. And it is ridiculously versatile within certain limits which probably wont be limits for long.

At the end of this post is a vid showing off a session run in TTS and it has certainly come a fair distance. Looks to still lack one or two features I'd like to see. But for running a straightup VTT D&D RPG session it looks pretty good. I'd more likely use it with a flat map and counters. But the 3d side seems to be moving ahead.

As for tech and a dislike of. Personally I think it is more a dislike of the wrong tech or in some cases tech for just tech's sake. Which for many can be a huge turn off. We see this in the board gaming biz fairly often. And there is hard hard hard resistance to any board game that relies totally on an app to run for example because apps can end up being pulled and tech advances may make them no longer playable. And then you have a paperweight.

And other people just do not want to be chained to a monitor or a phone just to play a damn game. There is always going to be differing thresholds of what someone will accept and what they will not. I will never buy a game that is app dependent. I will be very reluctant to use a computer at the table. But. I am fine with using computers for VTT because it allows me to game with friends far and wide.

But we keep coming back to the problem with WOTC that we are seeing with other venues. That the VTT can go sour if they go woke. What is a VTT made by or for WOTC going to be like? Yeahhhh. No thanks.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 08:42:15 PM
No, when I buy a RPG book I own it, I don't need to keep paying to play the game.

Games as a Service require you to keep on paying if you wish to keep on playing.

You're being disingenuous or dense. Or at least asserting that Games as a Service only has one possible manifestation and are railing against your own strawman. At this point, any of the above could be true.

GAAS could just as easily be focused on the support architecture for a game experience. Sell an irrevocable app or book and then sell support software, digital environments, the whole 9 yards with the expectation that updates would come regularly and as part of whatever mechanism that services paid for.

One could make the strong argument that we have several examples of GAAS that go back to the beginning of what could be thought of as the tabletop gaming industry. Miniature wargaming very much functions on that kind of a model, with the service being the production and maintenance of miniatures and officially recognized mechanical updates on a regular basis.

Can you continue playing third edition Warhammer? Absolutely. All day long and twice on Sunday. Are you going to get into any officially sponsored and sanctioned tournaments or in other ways engage with the current echo system of the IP? Definitely not; they're interested in advancing the service and providing the service.

"Pay to play" is how you have an industry and not just a bunch of people who get together and wave things at each other.

Quote
"exclusionary choices"... Care to point exactly what those are and who am I excluding?

At any point have you been anything other than utterly dismissive of the underlying concept of GAAS? Or the people who want to talk about it in good faith? Or even the people who want to criticize Wizards in good faith while speculating about how they could do it better and not just focusing on how they're fucking it up?

No. The answer is no.

You're not interested in having a discussion, you want to take a big crap over anything and everything that isn't exactly the One True Way you think something exists.

That's your prerogative but I am not compelled to not point it out.

Quote
No, never mind, since you just lost all respect or good will by resorting to calling me names:

"Reactionary Asshole"

Listen doorknob, to be a reactionary you need to be part of the status quo, I'm not, WotC IS, therefore I'm clearly a revolutionary and you're a bellend that needs to go fuck himself.

Don't like it, don't be it. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and you're not playing Glorantha...

I will point out that you just declared, publicly, that while you are tenaciously and rapidly holding onto the most possible conservative position (not in the political sense but in the technical sense), that nothing in the industry should change, that a new concept must inevitably fail, and that unless it's done to your satisfaction in accordance with what has gone before you will say not a single positive word about any concept, and maintaining that Wizards, for whom the main complaint that pretty much all of us here have is that they are changing in bad ways, in ways which are unhealthy for both their audience and the industry – that you're not part of the status quo and Wizards is.

You do realize that's stupid, right? I feel like the necessity of asking the question begs the question, but that's definitional.

Perhaps I was wrong and you really don't have a point under all that. I'd say that's a terrible shame.

Quote from: Omega on August 31, 2022, 08:48:41 PM
At the end of this post is a vid showing off a session run in TTS and it has certainly come a fair distance. Looks to still lack one or two features I'd like to see. But for running a straightup VTT D&D RPG session it looks pretty good. I'd more likely use it with a flat map and counters. But the 3d side seems to be moving ahead.

One of the interesting things about TTS is that you absolutely can use it with a flat map and counters. It's not even hard. The mechanisms for doing so are literally as easy as loading up a flat plane with the JPEG that you've drawn up for your map and loading up counters with smaller JPEGs that you've drawn up for your counters, and telling them how thick they should be – and then you literally just push them around on the map just like you would on the tabletop.

Not a lot of people play their TTRPGs that way because there is a certain cachet and coolness to having 3D models, lighting models, and the whole 9 yards, just like a lot of people like to have as many fiddly minis on the table as they possibly can even while playing an RPG which is focused in the theater of the mind.

But you don't have to.

Look at the number of boardgames which are available in Tabletop Simulator which effectively have flat boards and chits. Hugely popular.

Quote
As for tech and a dislike of. Personally I think it is more a dislike of the wrong tech or in some cases tech for just tech's sake. Which for many can be a huge turn off. We see this in the board gaming biz fairly often. And there is hard hard hard resistance to any board game that relies totally on an app to run for example because apps can end up being pulled and tech advances may make them no longer playable. And then you have a paperweight.

And other people just do not want to be chained to a monitor or a phone just to play a damn game. There is always going to be differing thresholds of what someone will accept and what they will not. I will never buy a game that is app dependent. I will be very reluctant to use a computer at the table. But. I am fine with using computers for VTT because it allows me to game with friends far and wide.

A lot of people are afraid of distraction, and that's a legitimate. Being in a digital environment provides different pressures for the experience for everyone at the table. Is it meaningfully different than the chance that the cat will walk in and everyone goes off rails giving it some pets? That the pizza arrives? That people are getting texts from their girlfriend?

The individual qualities differ but the overall concern is both valid but probably unnecessary.

Concerns about access and availability are legitimate when it comes to digital domain game tools. But it's not like we haven't had concerns about access and availability of books, whether you just built an entire glass of orange Fanta across the table onto the Players' Guide or the new supplement you can't afford yet drops a big upgrade to your favorite class.

Personally, I am interested in games which are tech-enhanced. That is to say, I can run everything out of the book if I want to – but an online tool makes it easier and faster and/or more convenient for me to focus on the parts of the game that I enjoy and less on the parts of the game that I find a little tedious or just annoying overhead.

I think you're going to see a lot more of that as we go forward because it saves so much trouble and is obviously useful without being absolutely required. Give me the choice between buying another (ANOTHER!) new different variant set of dice or loading an app on my cell phone? I'm taking the app. Every time, now. And if they don't have an app, I'm building a website which rolls those dice and makes them pretty for me.

The virtual tabletop is just an extension of that concept. It doesn't replace the game, it extends the game. It expands the game in the experience you can have with the game. If your VTT comes with a cool little doohickey that allows you to track things in game that you can't necessarily do with something on your real table – you'll use it. Because it's right there and it's convenient and it provides you something you wouldn't otherwise have.

Just like the other players at the VTT; something convenient and that you wouldn't otherwise have.

Quote
But we keep coming back to the problem with WOTC that we are seeing with other venues. That the VTT can go sour if they go woke. What is a VTT made by or for WOTC going to be like? Yeahhhh. No thanks.

But, having had this discussion, we can look at this problem in a more useful way:

Is it the technology that's a problem? No, not really. It's the fact that we don't trust Wizards to provide the service that we would like to enjoy. As producers, they have burned the trust from us as a community and as an audience, and most importantly as a market, so we aren't willing to give them the power to screw us.

Could Wizards make something awesome? Certainly! They have a ton of money, they can hire great artists, they can even hire a few decent programmers. I don't think that any of us doubt that they could manage to create a technically appropriate environment and tool.

We don't trust them to manage it. We don't trust them as community arbiters. We don't trust them to have control over whether we can play with what we pay for in ways that we expect to be able to.

Put that way, it's clear that the problem is not with the technology or even the expectations of the technology – it's with the expectation of Wizards as an organizational entity and as an agent of trust.

We don't trust them. And they aren't signaling any reasons that we should; on the contrary, they are signaling as hard as they can that we cannot trust them and should not trust.

That's the real problem. It's their problem.

That might not turn out to be important in the scale of the market that they cater to. It's quite possible that they can make an absolute butt load of money while engaging in practices that we find organizationally questionable.

And that will go chugging right along right up until it can't, when someone like Critical Role or other corporately recognized signal figure does something that they don't like and gets deplatformed for violating the latest update to the Woke liturgy. And then the schisms will begin.

In the meantime, the rest of us will be playing games that we like using tools that we enjoy with people we want to spend time with and having a great experience, and we can laugh as their architecture comes tumbling down.

I'm cool with that.

Quote from: Batjon on August 20, 2022, 03:00:39 AM
The mental patients have taken over the insane asylum.

Quite literally true.

At 1:00 into the one D&D world reveal trailer Perkins goes on about how with 5e "They did a smart thing."  by creating a "stable, well loved" version of the game."

There was no "They".

There was Mearls. (Not that he was any great champion of D&D's legacy...)

From info dropped on other forums, along with things Pundit has mentioned - he had to fight his own Dev team to get 5e as simple as it was. Perkins and crew wanted to make a more complicated game. A different game...

So now Mearls got bounced, and the cool kids have their shot.

Except that because of 5e's big success the opportunity that they have inherited is a bit of a poisoned pill.

They have to ride the line between what they really want to do with the game, and what 5e fans will tolerate. And there is also the question of the consistently declining quality of their releases...

The 50th release will give 5e a boot at the time, but I think that they will be unable to help themselves going forward, and we will see another Dr. Who situation play out in real time.

Quote from: Jaeger on August 31, 2022, 09:19:43 PM
From info dropped on other forums, along with things Pundit has mentioned - he had to fight his own Dev team to get 5e as simple as it was. Perkins and crew wanted to make a more complicated game. A different game...

You know – the funny thing is that I actually believe that a more complicated, different game could have been a perfectly viable D&D edition. It wouldn't be the first time and it probably won't be the last, and it's not like we don't know that "system mastery" is a thing that a lot of D&D players enjoy displaying in a social context.

Is that what the market wants right now? For D&D? I'm not sure even the market knows. It would have to be well educated on their choices and that is something very explicitly being avoided by a lot of the people involved.

So now the mental patients are truly running the asylum, not just filling out the paperwork but deciding where the social outings go. It's probably not going to end well.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 08:53:55 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 08:42:15 PM
No, when I buy a RPG book I own it, I don't need to keep paying to play the game.

Games as a Service require you to keep on paying if you wish to keep on playing.

You're being disingenuous or dense. Or at least asserting that Games as a Service only has one possible manifestation and are railing against your own strawman. At this point, any of the above could be true.

GAAS could just as easily be focused on the support architecture for a game experience. Sell an irrevocable app or book and then sell support software, digital environments, the whole 9 yards with the expectation that updates would come regularly and as part of whatever mechanism that services paid for.

One could make the strong argument that we have several examples of GAAS that go back to the beginning of what could be thought of as the tabletop gaming industry. Miniature wargaming very much functions on that kind of a model, with the service being the production and maintenance of miniatures and officially recognized mechanical updates on a regular basis.

Can you continue playing third edition Warhammer? Absolutely. All day long and twice on Sunday. Are you going to get into any officially sponsored and sanctioned tournaments or in other ways engage with the current echo system of the IP? Definitely not; they're interested in advancing the service and providing the service.

"Pay to play" is how you have an industry and not just a bunch of people who get together and wave things at each other.

Quote
"exclusionary choices"... Care to point exactly what those are and who am I excluding?

At any point have you been anything other than utterly dismissive of the underlying concept of GAAS? Or the people who want to talk about it in good faith? Or even the people who want to criticize Wizards in good faith while speculating about how they could do it better and not just focusing on how they're fucking it up?

No. The answer is no.

You're not interested in having a discussion, you want to take a big crap over anything and everything that isn't exactly the One True Way you think something exists.

That's your prerogative but I am not compelled to not point it out.

Quote
No, never mind, since you just lost all respect or good will by resorting to calling me names:

"Reactionary Asshole"

Listen doorknob, to be a reactionary you need to be part of the status quo, I'm not, WotC IS, therefore I'm clearly a revolutionary and you're a bellend that needs to go fuck himself.

Don't like it, don't be it. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and you're not playing Glorantha...

I will point out that you just declared, publicly, that while you are tenaciously and rapidly holding onto the most possible conservative position (not in the political sense but in the technical sense), that nothing in the industry should change, that a new concept must inevitably fail, and that unless it's done to your satisfaction in accordance with what has gone before you will say not a single positive word about any concept, and maintaining that Wizards, for whom the main complaint that pretty much all of us here have is that they are changing in bad ways, in ways which are unhealthy for both their audience and the industry – that you're not part of the status quo and Wizards is.

You do realize that's stupid, right? I feel like the necessity of asking the question begs the question, but that's definitional.

Perhaps I was wrong and you really don't have a point under all that. I'd say that's a terrible shame.

Could be, have you ever seen one? Nope

You're a total doorknob, yes I am dismissive of a practice that has been proven to be anti-consumer, you want to be a cooonsumer? Go ahead, no one can stop you, but your demand that I stop pointing out the serious issues with GAAS is stupid.

Are you seriously this stupid? Yes, I'm totally against anti-consumer practices, so sue me.

As for the rest of your drivel go fuck yourself you bellend.

GAAS are anti-consumer, it's a subscription model where you don't own jack shit and can be banned without getting your money back for wrongthink, it's also (in the case of RPGs) a way to enforce the One True Way and to keep you buying their shit (microtransactions) and to very likely to establish a pay to win mechanic.

Go ahead, give all your money to the corporation, who can stop you? Or me pointing out the obvious pits is causing you cognitive dissonance?

The corporation is not interested in the hobby like the creator is. The corporation in interested in profits, and often short term gains over long term growth to maximize shareholder value. One and done releases are qualitatively preferable to endless shovelware treadmill releases. If the creator only has enough good ideas for one core book and one supplement, then all I want is those 2 books worth of good ideas in a two book package instead of years of weekly filler releases. Goods as a Service is antithetical to ownership and perpetual licenses. Downloadable DRMed and online content stops working when the provider pulls it or folds, but offline DRM-free products work in perpetuity. Public Libraries are are a great resource, but I like owning my own books too, while a commercial library would have no vested interest in letting me buy once when it can milk me every month, possibly on top of an initial fee too.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 08:40:25 PM
Unless you would like to advocate for the position that a game should be sold as a single book, at a single time, and never thereafter updated or expanded with more content. I would disagree with but respect to that position because at least it's consistent.

It's terrible for creators who, themselves, would like to continue selling you things, making money, sleeping indoors and eating – but that may not be a concern. Maybe it's not.

There's a world of difference between selling supplements, splat books, and modules and selling a subscription. You're making this out as if it's one or the other extreme. Yeah creators gotta eat. They've been doing that for decades. Now we have the 800 pound gorilla incumbent moving to a service model. This is a company whose most recent book of adventures featured "creators" with zero tabletop experience. These are the creators that the service model is gonna feed? Oh those poor people! LMAO More like greed fucking execs need new vacation properties.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 31, 2022, 10:04:22 PM

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 08:40:25 PM
Unless you would like to advocate for the position that a game should be sold as a single book, at a single time, and never thereafter updated or expanded with more content. I would disagree with but respect to that position because at least it's consistent.

It's terrible for creators who, themselves, would like to continue selling you things, making money, sleeping indoors and eating – but that may not be a concern. Maybe it's not.

There's a world of difference between selling supplements, splat books, and modules and selling a subscription. You're making this out as if it's one or the other extreme. Yeah creators gotta eat. They've been doing that for decades. Now we have the 800 pound gorilla incumbent moving to a service model. This is a company whose most recent book of adventures featured "creators" with zero tabletop experience. These are the creators that the service model is gonna feed? Oh those poor people! LMAO More like greed fucking execs need new vacation properties.

LOL, missed that part.

If the creator wants to keep eating he needs to keep producing shit people want to buy. He can sell it for as much as the market is willing to give him for his stuff.

But we're not talking about the creator, we're talking of a megacorporation (Hasbro) who pays shit to it's writters, and will continue to do so no matter how much imbeciles like squidlord line their pockets.

Just look at AAA videogame publishers, who gets rich? The top dogs, the developers, writters and artists get paid shit. Something that remains true even when the industry is makes way more than all of Hollyweird combined.

So it's a "Won't someone think of the creators!?" argument to shill for the megacorporation that wants to fuck the consumer without lubricant.

"Don't ask questions, just consume our products."

"Nevermind the man behind the curtain."

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 31, 2022, 10:16:15 PM
If the creator wants to keep eating he needs to keep producing shit people want to buy. He can sell it for as much as the market is willing to give him for his stuff.

But we're not talking about the creator, we're talking of a megacorporation (Hasbro) who pays shit to it's writters, and will continue to do so no matter how much imbeciles like squidlord line their pockets.

Just look at AAA videogame publishers, who gets rich? The top dogs, the developers, writters and artists get paid shit. Something that remains true even when the industry is makes way more than all of Hollyweird combined.

So it's a "Won't someone think of the creators!?" argument to shill for the megacorporation that wants to fuck the consumer without lubricant.

Exactly. OneD&D not about creators; it's about mega-corp squeezing every last dime out of their IP and their customers.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 31, 2022, 10:04:22 PM
There's a world of difference between selling supplements, splat books, and modules and selling a subscription. You're making this out as if it's one or the other extreme. Yeah creators gotta eat. They've been doing that for decades. Now we have the 800 pound gorilla incumbent moving to a service model. This is a company whose most recent book of adventures featured "creators" with zero tabletop experience. These are the creators that the service model is gonna feed? Oh those poor people! LMAO More like greed fucking execs need new vacation properties.

I'm pretty sure I've said on more than one occasion that subscriptions to core books are not the only way that GAAS could function and probably isn't ideal.

But, that said, is a subscription option for supplements, assuming no supplements are going to be coming out anyway and individually priced, such a terrible architecture? What would the subscription price have to be in terms of percentage less than the shelf price of those supplements in order to mitigate the value of the risk a subscriber would take and waiting to buy the supplement itself? How about if the subscription provided early access to given supplement content?

How about a supplement for extra tools of some quality?

I am, pointedly, not the one trying to say it has to be one of the other extreme. I have repeatedly said that there are a multitude of different things that could be done within the architecture, and tried to present a number of options which would at least be interesting. That somebody could make a living with.

As I said in a previous post, the problem is not the idea of GAAS. Not really. The problem is that none of us trust Wizards to provide a service that will be evenhandedly provided so that we get to play games we like in the ways we want and get the value from our money.

I absolutely agree that Wizards has been an absolutely shitty company and betrayed a lot of trust. But that's been true for a very long time. (I'd say starting about the time just after AD&D was released, but I'm a cynic.)

I'm not sure why people can't just handle the idea of Games as a Service and different ways it might be done well from weather Wizards is going to do it well.

There's no question that Wizards is going to do a shit job of it. I'm not sure there's more than two posters who have posted to this forum in the last five years who aren't in agreement that is 87% likely, if not more.

That's already been beaten, the horse has been turned into a bloody smear, and the remnants have been consumed by bacteria. There are only so many times you can Boogaloo on the microscopic traces remaining.

Does it serve any purpose to picket the scab preemptively?

The real agenda of D&D One online is the following:

-Removal of the DM from the game.

-Why?

Think about it, finding a good DM is hard.  The average game in D&D lasts 6 or less sessions and people quit and move on.  What if with your digital tabletop they can offer you your sandbox with other players, who just log in and you can have professionally voice actored DM's like Matt Mercer be your DM for the first Group D&D Module!!! 

Yeah, they are going to do that.  They'll charge you full price for the module, they'll give you a Matt Mercer Voice Actor DM and they will go to great and I do mean great strides to ensure your as the paying customer never die, never have any real threat to your character and its all about babying the party.  The digital tabletop looks nice, but they are going to use it for an AI DM to remove the DM from D&D.  I guarantee you at sometime in D&D 6E, possibly including launch they will put that in as an option.  If WotC removes the DM from play, they can put out whatever they want for indoctrination and the players just have to accept it because that's the game they bought.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 31, 2022, 11:07:14 PM
The real agenda of D&D One online is the following:

-Removal of the DM from the game.

-Why?

Think about it, finding a good DM is hard.  The average game in D&D lasts 6 or less sessions and people quit and move on.  What if with your digital tabletop they can offer you your sandbox with other players, who just log in and you can have professionally voice actored DM's like Matt Mercer be your DM for the first Group D&D Module!!! 

Yeah, they are going to do that.  They'll charge you full price for the module, they'll give you a Matt Mercer Voice Actor DM and they will go to great and I do mean great strides to ensure your as the paying customer never die, never have any real threat to your character and its all about babying the party.  The digital tabletop looks nice, but they are going to use it for an AI DM to remove the DM from D&D.  I guarantee you at sometime in D&D 6E, possibly including launch they will put that in as an option.  If WotC removes the DM from play, they can put out whatever they want for indoctrination and the players just have to accept it because that's the game they bought.

It's a shame they won't just ask customers what they want.  That's how a smart company does business.  It's much easier to sell someone what they already want.

WotC has a DM problem.  The DM's want actual content and rules, but WotC can't deliver rules or lore anymore.  If they put any lore out the sensitivity writers they hired tears them to shreds.  So what to do, what to do?  Well they released Spelljammer with as little as humanly possible page content and useful content to a DM, save the module I guess?  IMHO, WotC is going to push for DMless content sooner rather than later and this will be last edition where the DM is considered part of the game.  By the time the transition the younger players gender.... I mean to digital they can drop the DM. 

By dropping the DM, WotC no longer has to write compelling content and world building.  They can put out player centric content and the "forever dm's" can now play as well.  They might even give you an option to overrule Digital Matt Mercer if at least 50.0001% of the group allows it.  It seems like a win win when putting yourself in a leftist thought bubble.  They want to control creative content, what better way than selling a boxed module with a preconceived ending w/o a DM to fix it.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 11:05:14 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 31, 2022, 10:04:22 PM
There's a world of difference between selling supplements, splat books, and modules and selling a subscription. You're making this out as if it's one or the other extreme. Yeah creators gotta eat. They've been doing that for decades. Now we have the 800 pound gorilla incumbent moving to a service model. This is a company whose most recent book of adventures featured "creators" with zero tabletop experience. These are the creators that the service model is gonna feed? Oh those poor people! LMAO More like greed fucking execs need new vacation properties.

I'm pretty sure I've said on more than one occasion that subscriptions to core books are not the only way that GAAS could function and probably isn't ideal.

But, that said, is a subscription option for supplements, assuming no supplements are going to be coming out anyway and individually priced, such a terrible architecture? What would the subscription price have to be in terms of percentage less than the shelf price of those supplements in order to mitigate the value of the risk a subscriber would take and waiting to buy the supplement itself? How about if the subscription provided early access to given supplement content?

How about a supplement for extra tools of some quality?

I am, pointedly, not the one trying to say it has to be one of the other extreme. I have repeatedly said that there are a multitude of different things that could be done within the architecture, and tried to present a number of options which would at least be interesting. That somebody could make a living with.

As I said in a previous post, the problem is not the idea of GAAS. Not really. The problem is that none of us trust Wizards to provide a service that will be evenhandedly provided so that we get to play games we like in the ways we want and get the value from our money.

I absolutely agree that Wizards has been an absolutely shitty company and betrayed a lot of trust. But that's been true for a very long time. (I'd say starting about the time just after AD&D was released, but I'm a cynic.)

I'm not sure why people can't just handle the idea of Games as a Service and different ways it might be done well from weather Wizards is going to do it well.

There's no question that Wizards is going to do a shit job of it. I'm not sure there's more than two posters who have posted to this forum in the last five years who aren't in agreement that is 87% likely, if not more.

That's already been beaten, the horse has been turned into a bloody smear, and the remnants have been consumed by bacteria. There are only so many times you can Boogaloo on the microscopic traces remaining.

Does it serve any purpose to picket the scab preemptively?

Shills gonna shill.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 31, 2022, 11:07:14 PM
The real agenda of D&D One online is the following:

I disagree. The real agenda is to placate executives at Hasbro (not at WotC, but higher up) who do not understand why such a well-known brand as D&D which even has a Netflix tie-in isn't bringing in a constant revenue stream like other well-known Hasbro brands like Magic: the Gathering, Monopoly, etc.

I half expected D&D 4 to be what they tried with the corresponding edition of Gamma World: character abilities as M:tG collectible cards. That would provide the revenue stream Hasbro execs expect for such a well-known brand.

M:tG is explainable as "geek baseball cards" and has the revenue to match. Wizards needs to find a way to make D&D just as easily to explain and create a similar revenue stream.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 31, 2022, 11:14:02 PM
It's a shame they won't just ask customers what they want.  That's how a smart company does business.  It's much easier to sell someone what they already want.

This isn't about customers. It's about numbers for executives in Providence. They want WoW or M:tG numbers for a famous brand.

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 01, 2022, 12:31:16 AM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 31, 2022, 11:07:14 PM
The real agenda of D&D One online is the following:

I disagree. The real agenda is to placate executives at Hasbro (not at WotC, but higher up) who do not understand why such a well-known brand as D&D which even has a Netflix tie-in isn't bringing in a constant revenue stream like other well-known Hasbro brands like Magic: the Gathering, Monopoly, etc.

I half expected D&D 4 to be what they tried with the corresponding edition of Gamma World: character abilities as M:tG collectible cards. That would provide the revenue stream Hasbro execs expect for such a well-known brand.

M:tG is explainable as "geek baseball cards" and has the revenue to match. Wizards needs to find a way to make D&D just as easily to explain and create a similar revenue stream.

Exactly, and to do so they need to turn the players/GMs into eternal paypigs with their Games as a Service OneD&D.

It's not about providing value to their consumers, it's not for the poor creators, it's to line the pockets of the shareholders.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 01:29:22 AM
Exactly, and to do so they need to turn the players/GMs into eternal paypigs with their Games as a Service OneD&D.

It's not about providing value to their consumers, it's not for the poor creators, it's to line the pockets of the shareholders.

Agreed.

The West Coast has always hated the D&D brand, because it originated in the Midwest.

Owning it is revenge.
Milking it dry is a bonus.
Locking it up under IP law so no one can revive it is Final Victory.

And advancing the progressive agenda through brand content is pure gravy.

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
...

I absolutely agree that Wizards has been an absolutely shitty company and betrayed a lot of trust. But that's been true for a very long time. (I'd say starting about the time just after AD&D was released, but I'm a cynic.)

I'm not sure why people can't just handle the idea of Games as a Service and different ways it might be done well from weather Wizards is going to do it well.

There's no question that Wizards is going to do a shit job of it. I'm not sure there's more than two posters who have posted to this forum in the last five years who aren't in agreement that is 87% likely, if not more.
...

Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 01, 2022, 08:43:01 AM

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 11:05:14 PM
...

I absolutely agree that Wizards has been an absolutely shitty company and betrayed a lot of trust. But that's been true for a very long time. (I'd say starting about the time just after AD&D was released, but I'm a cynic.)

I'm not sure why people can't just handle the idea of Games as a Service and different ways it might be done well from weather Wizards is going to do it well.

There's no question that Wizards is going to do a shit job of it. I'm not sure there's more than two posters who have posted to this forum in the last five years who aren't in agreement that is 87% likely, if not more.
...

Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

That's one of the problems with this hypothetical pie in the sky "good" implementation of a GAAS model; it's not based on anything real that's actually going on (or likely to be the way it's actually implemented), but some idealized notion of what GAAS could potentially (mayyybe) be. And that idealized GAAS model still ignores ALL the other pitfalls of such a system: perpetually paying for access to content you'll never own vs actually owning the books, being locked out of the game when the servers go down, being limited to options that have been programmed into the system vs being able to homebrew/improvise stuff, etc. Pitfalls that will happen, regardless of how that GAAS is implemented.

And it all hinges on the "service" being able to provide some hypothetical "value" we have no guarantee it will consistently provide. And the moment it stops providing it (assuming that it ever did), you can of course always cancel your subscription—and have NOTHING to show for it once it lapses.

Right now I can get a core books and whatever supplements I actually want (no, a supplement treadmill I can simply ignore is not in anyway comparable to a sub) and if I stop shelling dollars I still get to keep what I already got. With GAAS all that stuff goes away.

People that fall for "Games as service" BS are the sorts that say doing coke is a hobby.

These weak willed addicts are ruining videogames, and Im not suprised they justify it in other hobbies.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 01, 2022, 08:43:01 AM
Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

If that encourages some other players in the space to get involved and do things differently, even if slightly differently, and those differences are better – we get better things. If it encourages other players in the space to get involved and do things extremely differently because it's not always great to sell something that is exactly like something else in the market, even better for us.

The core of your argument is just as easily read "if Wizards publishes what we think of as a bad D&D that becomes popular, how is that good for us? Isn't it better they just published no D&D at all?"

Which I'm sure there are some supporters of in this forum, but I think that is ultimately unhealthy on multiple levels. And, pointedly, I don't even like D&D or the community that's grown up around it in these latter days, but I consider it good for the hobby and good for the industry, such as it is, that they have a successful game out there.

If only so that if someone asks "what's that thing you're doing?", I can reply "it's kind of like D&D except way better!" and they have a chance of understanding what I'm talking about.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 09:46:50 AM
perpetually paying for access to content you'll never own vs actually owning the books

It's more than pay-to-access: you'll be able to purchase power-ups for your character, so it's also pay-to-win. Similar to Magic, but without the option to roll your own around your own private gaming table.

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better

That argument can be made for ANYTHING. "Yes the mongols are poor caretakers but maybe one of them will be good one day". More realistically it opens up the possibility of even more exploitation in the future.

Star Trek was better off dead then revived as the clusterfuck it is now. "Making bad content is better then no content" is a lie.

Do you have a monetary stake in this or something?

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 01, 2022, 08:43:01 AM
Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they never are. :D

In theory, a games as service could work.  In practice, the hurdles are insurmountable. 

Let's take something like the Microsoft Office subscription service.  In contrast to WotC, whatever else you want to say about Microsoft, they do have some experience doing things as services (including a lot of experience doing it the wrong way, but that's not necessarily a net negative in the long run if that is your thing).  I'm in my 50's, I've used Office professionally and personally since 1990, continuously.  I can afford the sub.  It's only real perk is that it comes with multiple licenses--exactly the number of licenses I need.  So I can afford it, I need to keep it semi-upgraded, and it's a mild price smoothing and benefit for my situation.  For me, as the ideal customer for their service--it's more or less a wash on meeting my needs, compared to the way I used to buy a license.  Sometimes they force an upgrade when I'd rather not, but after 32 years, I'm wise to how to navigate that.  As it happens, the latest change to the UI on styles is highly annoying for how I like to work--and it will be another major change before they fix the problem, at least.  So I'd skip the current version if I could.

Now let's extrapolate this out to a WotC D&D game as service.  How many people are going to fit the ideal of how they intend it to work?  How close are they going to come to the ideal in implementation?  When it doesn't work, what options will be available to work around it?  And the biggest question of all--if it is going to be so great and wonderful, why is it that they have it as the only option to force everyone into it?  Companies that manage to turn a good product into a halfway decent service learn pretty darn quick that the first thing you do is make the subscription an option for early adopters, so that you can work out some of the kinks.

SquidLord is being blinded by the elevator pitch.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 01, 2022, 10:38:28 AM

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better

That argument can be made for ANYTHING. "Yes the mongols are poor caretakers but maybe one of them will be good one day". More realistically it opens up the possibility of even more exploitation in the future.

Yup it's basically more arguments on the basis of empty hypotheticals that aren't really that way, we have no reason to believe they will be, but theoretically they COULD be (possibly, mayyybe).

Quote
Star Trek was better off dead then revived as the clusterfuck it is now. "Making bad content is better then no content" is a lie.

Do you have a monetary stake in this or something?

I have to wonder.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 01, 2022, 10:50:55 AMSquidLord is being blinded by the elevator pitch.

Or a self-conscious content addict.

"Its not an addiction, you guys are just passing up a potentially great experience!"

Quote from: SquidLord on August 31, 2022, 08:53:55 PM
...
GAAS could just as easily be focused on the support architecture for a game experience. Sell an irrevocable app or book and then sell support software, digital environments, the whole 9 yards with the expectation that updates would come regularly and as part of whatever mechanism that services paid for.

One could make the strong argument that we have several examples of GAAS that go back to the beginning of what could be thought of as the tabletop gaming industry. Miniature wargaming very much functions on that kind of a model, with the service being the production and maintenance of miniatures and officially recognized mechanical updates on a regular basis.
...

True, true.  Games Works has that grind/exploit nailed down tight.  When my son and his friends wanted to get into WH40K, I specifically told them, "You're only renting the game.  In a few years, the rules will change again."  GW is genius (in a most vile way) to build a culture where only the very latest rules and minis were considered acceptable to tournament (and often daily) play.  Of course, that really does work out as an Anti-GAAS message to me.  But hey, if you're a soul-less crack house, you still have to pay the bills.

I have only ever seen one of those microtransactions models done in a pro-consumer way once.

The base game was free. Play was on a daily timer limit, but you could spend cash to permanently unlimit it. And there was a 60$ spending csp so it didn't keep you on a money hook.

It was exclusively pro-consumer. But nobody has adapted that model since. Because it was pro-consumer.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 01, 2022, 10:50:55 AM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 01, 2022, 08:43:01 AM
Okay, for sake of argument, let's say you convince us that games as a service is good. WotC still implements a shit version of it as you say, WotC is successful despite that because they have the largest market share by far and the most recognized IP, and other publishers copy the model because they saw that WotC was successful. How is that good for us?

In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they never are. :D

In theory, a games as service could work.  In practice, the hurdles are insurmountable. 

Let's take something like the Microsoft Office subscription service.  In contrast to WotC, whatever else you want to say about Microsoft, they do have some experience doing things as services (including a lot of experience doing it the wrong way, but that's not necessarily a net negative in the long run if that is your thing).  I'm in my 50's, I've used Office professionally and personally since 1990, continuously.  I can afford the sub.  It's only real perk is that it comes with multiple licenses--exactly the number of licenses I need.  So I can afford it, I need to keep it semi-upgraded, and it's a mild price smoothing and benefit for my situation.  For me, as the ideal customer for their service--it's more or less a wash on meeting my needs, compared to the way I used to buy a license.  Sometimes they force an upgrade when I'd rather not, but after 32 years, I'm wise to how to navigate that.  As it happens, the latest change to the UI on styles is highly annoying for how I like to work--and it will be another major change before they fix the problem, at least.  So I'd skip the current version if I could.

Now let's extrapolate this out to a WotC D&D game as service.  How many people are going to fit the ideal of how they intend it to work?  How close are they going to come to the ideal in implementation?  When it doesn't work, what options will be available to work around it?  And the biggest question of all--if it is going to be so great and wonderful, why is it that they have it as the only option to force everyone into it?  Companies that manage to turn a good product into a halfway decent service learn pretty darn quick that the first thing you do is make the subscription an option for early adopters, so that you can work out some of the kinks.

SquidLord is being blinded by the elevator pitch.

I still hate Software as a Service because it's ultimately just a scheme to have people continuously pay for code that was already done decades ago under the notion that you need to pay for all those quality of life changes (like interface updates nobody wants and are really an excuse to sell you software) that you don't really need. It's an artificial way to keep the money flowing their way and prevent you from relying on decades old software that already does everything you truly need.

But when it comes to SAAS, at least you can write it off as a business expense, assuming that you still work in an industry that relies on that software and make enough to cover the costs. But with GAAS you don't even have that. It's just a luxury expense that's just another hole in your pocket, for something that you didn't even need to pay that much before. Professional software can go up to thousands of dollars for an entire suite when purchasing it as a one time fee product, making $10-$50+/mo a viable alternative. Game books don't even cost that much.

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

Real Gaming as a Service has never been tried.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 01, 2022, 10:38:28 AM

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better

That argument can be made for ANYTHING. "Yes the mongols are poor caretakers but maybe one of them will be good one day". More realistically it opens up the possibility of even more exploitation in the future.

Star Trek was better off dead then revived as the clusterfuck it is now. "Making bad content is better then no content" is a lie.

Do you have a monetary stake in this or something?

Someone, someday, somewhere, could, maybe, possibly...

Weasel words, can ANYONE point to a single implementation of GAAS that's not to turn the costumer into an eternal paypig with zero rights?

It should be easy, there's several in the Video Game industry. No?

Lets see if widening the scope helps, can ANYONE point at a XAAS that's not designed to extract the maximum ammount of cash from the consooooomer in exchange for the bare minimum? No?

But lets say that (right now) Hasbro isn't the greedy megacorporation that it is, they manage to create a GAAS implementation that doesn't have microtransactions, etc.

How long until to maximize the shareholders profits all of that starts creeping in?

Can ANYONE guarantee this won't happen? Nope

So, given that we KNOW that Hasbro is a shitty megacorp, that they print in Chyna! in tissue paper (I'm exagerating) the cards for MtG (Their biggest moneymaker) in order to extract the maximum possible from their consumer base.

The reader will excuse my Mount Olympus sized grain of salt when discussing them doing ANYTHING that's not anti-consumer.

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

If that encourages some other players in the space to get involved and do things differently, even if slightly differently, and those differences are better – we get better things. If it encourages other players in the space to get involved and do things extremely differently because it's not always great to sell something that is exactly like something else in the market, even better for us.

That's a lot of "ifs."

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
The core of your argument is just as easily read "if Wizards publishes what we think of as a bad D&D that becomes popular, how is that good for us? Isn't it better they just published no D&D at all?"

No. The core of my argument is that a) innovation does not always lead to a better product, b) there is no evidence that subscription models will lead to better TTRPGs, and c) we've seen many control-freak and predatory subscription models in adjacent industries such as video games.

Your argument is: Someone, somewhere, at some time, might get it right, so let's let WotC get it wrong.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 11:25:07 AM
I still hate Software as a Service because it's ultimately just a scheme to have people continuously pay for code that was already done decades ago under the notion that you need to pay for all those quality of life changes (like interface updates nobody wants and are really an excuse to sell you software) that you don't really need. It's an artificial way to keep the money flowing their way and prevent you from relying on decades old software that already does everything you truly need.

Well, yeah.  It would be difficult to imagine a more ideal fit for a customer than me right now. About the only thing would be someone panicked about updates to the point of having to have every update immediately.  And yet, I'm not a great fit, merely an adequate one.  Moreover, that is only me in the last few years.  For the majority of that 32 years, it would have been a notable, net loss for me.  In other words, the problem with those kind of services is that when everything works out close to perfect, they are not awful.  As their near perfect customer, I'm sitting right on the edge of going to Open Office.  All it would take is one bad step by them or one change in my situation to send me that way.

WotC doing D&D as a subscription is like fighting a red dragon by yourself as a level 1 monk.  Yes, there is a possible chain of events that might happen where that works, but no reasonable person expects it. 

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 11:29:11 AMWeasel words, can ANYONE point to a single implementation of GAAS that's not to turn the costumer into an eternal paypig with zero rights?

Yes, but it remains an indie game that doesn't make a ton of money (Fantasy Strike). Not a fighting game coniseur, so I can't comment on how good it is. But its owned by 1 dude that quit WOTC because he found MTG both exploitative and undermines that game design. He is kind of an arrogant douche (and SJW), but he did give up a steady revenue stream for a pro-consumer principle, so I have allot of respect for him.

But thats an exception, and its not made with the intent of making more money then normal. And by virtue of not trying to court addicts, it doesn't make a ton of cash.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 01, 2022, 12:04:13 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 11:29:11 AMWeasel words, can ANYONE point to a single implementation of GAAS that's not to turn the costumer into an eternal paypig with zero rights?

Yes, but it remains an indie game that doesn't make a ton of money (Fantasy Strike). Not a fighting game coniseur, so I can't comment on how good it is. But its owned by 1 dude that quit WOTC because he found MTG both exploitative and undermines that game design. He is kind of an arrogant douche (and SJW), but he did give up a steady revenue stream for a pro-consumer principle, so I have allot of respect for him.

But thats an exception, and its not made with the intent of making more money then normal. And by virtue of not trying to court addicts, it doesn't make a ton of cash.

I never did big national tournements but in my state i was one of the better players for a time. Fabtasy Strike is exactly what it set out to be, a Fighting game pretty much anyone could pick up. Bit its a bit ridgid to the point the standard format is a kind of 3v3 without tag mechanics like Marvel vs. Capcom as every character is stuck deeeeep into their niche. What im saying is, the game is good in its niche. One thing is it didnt come out as a free to play game that was a later update.

Part of the reason its got such a friendly business model is basically that despite being a but of an asshole, the developer really, REALLY loves fighting games and his intent was to have a simple game to bring newbies into the scene as a whole, unfortunately that didn't really work out.

Quote from: Slambo on September 01, 2022, 12:43:11 PMPart of the reason its got such a friendly business model is basically that despite being a but of an asshole, the developer really, REALLY loves fighting games and his intent was to have a simple game to bring newbies into the scene as a whole, unfortunately that didn't really work out.

Yup. 'If GAAS was just made purely as projects of love, then yes they will be consumer friendly'.

No ****. A totalitarian dictatorship may be the best place in the world to live if all of its governmental workers are humble and kind and smart and exclusively concerned for their citizens. But the structure doesn't lend itself to it naturally.

Companies always want to make money, but that isn't a terrible thing. They make money by creating stuff that people are willing to pay money for. If they don't provide good value, then people go elsewhere. I don't think that tabletop RPG consumers are addicts like gambling. I think the major jump to Pathfinder around the time of 4th edition D&D showed that players can and will switch games. It's pretty easy to jump from official D&D to Pathfinder or many other RPGs.


For subscription services in general, they make money by convenience. Thinking of music and movies, subscriptions generally provide more content per dollar spent, but with more restrictions on what you get and you need to keep paying. The prior model was individual title rentals and purchase - like Blockbuster rentals or simply collecting CDs/DVDs. Nowadays, though, most people prefer a streaming package like Netflix or Spotify. These services provide a lot more content per dollar spent compared to, say, the old days of Blockbuster stores when one would pay to rent individual movies. That benefits many customers. The company benefits by having a steadier source of income rather than boom-bust with the popularity of individual titles.


In terms of tabletop RPGs, the prior model was the supplement and edition treadmills. An RPG company will try to make a new "must buy" edition update to get its customers to pay more, which is either successful or not. If they don't change enough, then existing customers won't pay for minor improvements. What has pissed me off in the past is that often edition updates cater increasingly to the hard-core players (like GURPS and Hero System, in my opinion, but also other games), and make the game less friendly to beginners.

Personally, I did and still do often rent individual movie titles, but I've tried a number of subscription services like Netflix and Hulu. For me, the key is about price point. I'll start a subscription service when there's something I want to watch, and I'll cancel it when I don't have stuff I want to watch. If someone were to release a new subscription service tabletop RPG, I might be interested if: 

1) The entry point is cheaper than buying all the core books, which would let me try out the game for a few months with my group. If we don't like it, we can end the subscription and have paid less to give the full game a try.

2) If I really keep playing that game for many years, then it might end up costing more than the core books - but if I'm really playing it continuously, then I may be getting value out of my money. A possible benefit for me in that case is avoiding the edition treadmill. I was very annoyed at some edition updates, like Hero System 5th and 6th and GURPS 4th. The extensive changes meant it was harder for me to use the material I developed for previous editions. If the company were motivated to make rule updates as smooth and easy as possible, then that would be an improvement in my eyes.

These are big ifs, though, and I'd have to consider the real case seriously.

Quote from: jhkim on September 01, 2022, 02:59:43 PM
Companies always want to make money, but that isn't a terrible thing. They make money by creating stuff that people are willing to pay money for. If they don't provide good value, then people go elsewhere. I don't think that tabletop RPG consumers are addicts like gambling. I think the major jump to Pathfinder around the time of 4th edition D&D showed that players can and will switch games. It's pretty easy to jump from official D&D to Pathfinder or many other RPGs.


For subscription services in general, they make money by convenience. Thinking of music and movies, subscriptions generally provide more content per dollar spent, but with more restrictions on what you get and you need to keep paying. The prior model was individual title rentals and purchase - like Blockbuster rentals or simply collecting CDs/DVDs. Nowadays, though, most people prefer a streaming package like Netflix or Spotify. These services provide a lot more content per dollar spent compared to, say, the old days of Blockbuster stores when one would pay to rent individual movies. That benefits many customers. The company benefits by having a steadier source of income rather than boom-bust with the popularity of individual titles.


In terms of tabletop RPGs, the prior model was the supplement and edition treadmills. An RPG company will try to make a new "must buy" edition update to get its customers to pay more, which is either successful or not. If they don't change enough, then existing customers won't pay for minor improvements. What has pissed me off in the past is that often edition updates cater increasingly to the hard-core players (like GURPS and Hero System, in my opinion, but also other games), and make the game less friendly to beginners.

Personally, I did and still do often rent individual movie titles, but I've tried a number of subscription services like Netflix and Hulu. For me, the key is about price point. I'll start a subscription service when there's something I want to watch, and I'll cancel it when I don't have stuff I want to watch. If someone were to release a new subscription service tabletop RPG, I might be interested if: 

1) The entry point is cheaper than buying all the core books, which would let me try out the game for a few months with my group. If we don't like it, we can end the subscription and have paid less to give the full game a try.

2) If I really keep playing that game for many years, then it might end up costing more than the core books - but if I'm really playing it continuously, then I may be getting value out of my money. A possible benefit for me in that case is avoiding the edition treadmill. I was very annoyed at some edition updates, like Hero System 5th and 6th and GURPS 4th. The extensive changes meant it was harder for me to use the material I developed for previous editions. If the company were motivated to make rule updates as smooth and easy as possible, then that would be an improvement in my eyes.

These are big ifs, though, and I'd have to consider the real case seriously.

Movie and show streaming services are a different deal because they can offer access to literally hundreds, if not thousands of titles of entertainment media most people are unlikely to watch more than once for a minuscule fraction of what it would cost to get all those titles individually in DVD/Blueray formats, making it a vastly more convenient and affordable alternative to simply paying the sub in most cases. The only comparable deal in the tabletop world would be to get access to vast libraries of RPG books from different game companies, not just D&D.

And tabletop games also follow a different dynamic in their use than movies or shows. Watching movies/shows is a passive, usually one time activity. You may occasionally want to re-watch a movie or show, but usually you'll just watch them once then move on to the next. With TTRPGs you'll be referencing the books over and over again. Even if you watch a movie/show more than once you will never (ever!) watch them as often as you'll have to reference the books for an ongoing game. With software it's a similar deal to TTRPG books—you'll be using them over and over again for extended periods of time, specially if they're work tools.

Movies/shows are just about the only thing I can think of where I can see the value of paying a subscription rather than blowing hundreds if not thousands of dollars on physical copies of entertainment you're (usually) only going to watch once. But stuff like software and TTRPG books are for ongoing projects. It's almost always more convenient to have permanent access to them than renting them out.

The only reason software subs succeed is because massive and well established megacorps with near monopolistic control of the entire market in their respective industries (like Microsoft and Adobe, where you will HAVE to deal with them if you want to operate within the professional world) have started to gate access to their software, forcing you to get a sub if you want to work. But I'm not sure WotC/D&D have that luxury, or that it would be good or "convenient" for us if they succeed. Hopefully it will just lead to a new 4e/Pathfinder situation if they try.

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 01, 2022, 11:25:38 AM

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

Real Gaming as a Service has never been tried.

It kind of has though... World of Warcraft being the gold standard. I realize that is a GAME as a service vs. gaming as a service which is somewhat splitting hairs but my point is that successful MMOs are a 'proof of concept' for this model and have nearly 20 years of proving that the model works.

They also have DLCs, microtransactions, some are pay to win, others are not, there is a whole plethora of models that have been tried, tested, succeeded, and failed over the past 2 decades. This idea that is totally uncharted water is not entirely accurate.

The primary difference here is that this is not a CRPG, this is a gaming system and so there are several layers of complexity beyond your typical MMO setup. Conversely, there are far fewer players in any given game world. And once again, there is precedent here. NWN basically already did this 20 years ago quite well. It leaned in more on the CRPG side than the TT side, but that is easily remedied by going back to turn-based. So there is not a real technology challenge here either.

I've decided to draw my line on Squid's side since it seems people are piling onto him perhaps w/o understanding his point which is that technology moves on and generations raised on it come to expect it. You will convince few Zoomers that owning a physical copy of a hardback book is somehow better than downloading an app with the same content.

This is where the far left routinely just loses the plot. Just because you want things to be a certain way, this doesn't not mean reality will suddenly bend and twist itself to comport with your wants or views. No amount of repeating the same falsehood will alter this. So what I'm saying is that they are not doing this in a vacuum. The Critical Role Crowd (for lack of a better word) will be all in on this business model and they are legion compared to the 'old schoolers' who want things to remain static.

I am in no way defending Gaming as a Service even if it sounds like I am, it is merely that I accept that time and technology continues to flow forward and digging in my heels to scream about it will not prevent it. I know this because I now have a copy of MS-Office on a subscription basis (as an example) that I simply did not need. My perfectly good old copy of Office which was a single purchase worked fine, but the business model moved on. Ditto for Anti-virus, cloud-based systems in business, etc. etc.

We are all welcome to vent about it of course, but at the end of the day like any for profit business they are going to maximize revenue. Simple as. To me, a better use of time, would be to try and mold the product into something that at least brings some value and doesn't just turn into a woke nightmare. That is my far bigger concern than just simply the mechanical bits & bobs of a VTT. The content ownership walled garden thing, you are not going to escape it sadly. This is not specific to WOTC or even TT RPGs, all industries are tilting towards this as I offered a few examples above.

Quote from: Darkwind on September 01, 2022, 04:12:01 PMI've decided to draw my line on Squid's side since it seems people are piling onto him perhaps w/o understanding his point which is that technology moves on and generations raised on it come to expect it.

Thats not necacarily a good thing. Maybe in the future we will have electro prods installed in our necks to zap us when our overlords get anoyed and gen LGBT will say thats a good thing.
The new generation is now 'used too' abusive micro-transactions. So what? 'Roll over to abuse because its new' is not a good argument. Talking about the sorry nature of humanity in relation to convenience culture or consumerism is not in it of itself a positive argument.

This entire forum is founded on rejecting anything past OD&D (well not me, but in general). Why is it that when it comes with a computer its now a good thing?

MMOs are also still a good example and others have already pointed out their pitfalls even in a 'optimal' scenario:

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 09:46:50 AMAnd that idealized GAAS model still ignores ALL the other pitfalls of such a system: perpetually paying for access to content you'll never own vs actually owning the books, being locked out of the game when the servers go down, being limited to options that have been programmed into the system vs being able to homebrew/improvise stuff, etc. Pitfalls that will happen, regardless of how that GAAS is implemented.

Still good on you for playing devils advocate.

Quote from: Darkwind on September 01, 2022, 04:12:01 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 01, 2022, 11:25:38 AM

Quote from: SquidLord on September 01, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
If nothing else, it opens up the possibility that someone else can do it better and has a better chance of getting funding because someone successfully used the buzzword before and made a tonne of it.

Real Gaming as a Service has never been tried.

It kind of has though...

It was meant as a snarky comment on the "just because all the things you can point to were failures doesn't mean anything" riffing on similar comments about why the USSR/PRC/whatever weren't really communist.

I did get the first word wrong, though...it should have been True GaaS.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 03:57:22 PM
Movies/shows are just about the only thing I can think of where I can see the value of paying a subscription rather than blowing hundreds if not thousands of dollars on physical copies of entertainment you're (usually) only going to watch once. But stuff like software and TTRPG books are for ongoing projects. It's almost always more convenient to have permanent access to them than renting them out.

The only reason software subs succeed is because massive and well established megacorps with near monopolistic control of the entire market in their respective industries (like Microsoft and Adobe, where you will HAVE to deal with them if you want to operate within the professional world) have started to gate access to their software, forcing you to get a sub if you want to work.

There are tons of non-megacorps that also have subscription models for their software, including tiny startup companies. Going further, there are a lot of people who lease their cars rather than buying (in the U.S., apparently 27% of new cars are leased rather than bought). Many people buy season passes to their favorite sports teams rather than tickets for individual games. So I don't think successful subscription model is unique to music and movies.

In general, the balance of subscription versus buying depends a ton on the price point. How long will you be using the stuff, and how cheap is the subscription package compared to individual purchases.

Personally, I have a huge bookshelf covered in RPG books - but I'm not sure that's the preferred model for a lot of people. Most of those I never touch for years. Also, I tend not to play the same RPG continuously for years. I've often switched out what RPG I play. So we had a year-long Call of Cthulhu campaign, for example, before switching over to D&D, and then Mutant Year Zero. At other times I've played many other games.

As a specific example, I've played three short campaigns using GURPS 4th edition - but I've never bought any of the 4th ed books. If there were a subscription model (especially if it went by month), I might well have signed up for it during the time I played in those campaigns. If I could have paid a small amount for access, that would have been better for me than paying a bunch for all the core books used in the games.

Quote from: jhkim on September 01, 2022, 06:04:05 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2022, 03:57:22 PM
Movies/shows are just about the only thing I can think of where I can see the value of paying a subscription rather than blowing hundreds if not thousands of dollars on physical copies of entertainment you're (usually) only going to watch once. But stuff like software and TTRPG books are for ongoing projects. It's almost always more convenient to have permanent access to them than renting them out.

The only reason software subs succeed is because massive and well established megacorps with near monopolistic control of the entire market in their respective industries (like Microsoft and Adobe, where you will HAVE to deal with them if you want to operate within the professional world) have started to gate access to their software, forcing you to get a sub if you want to work.

There are tons of non-megacorps that also have subscription models for their software, including tiny startup companies. Going further, there are a lot of people who lease their cars rather than buying (in the U.S., apparently 27% of new cars are leased rather than bought). Many people buy season passes to their favorite sports teams rather than tickets for individual games. So I don't think successful subscription model is unique to music and movies.

In general, the balance of subscription versus buying depends a ton on the price point. How long will you be using the stuff, and how cheap is the subscription package compared to individual purchases.

Personally, I have a huge bookshelf covered in RPG books - but I'm not sure that's the preferred model for a lot of people. Most of those I never touch for years. Also, I tend not to play the same RPG continuously for years. I've often switched out what RPG I play. So we had a year-long Call of Cthulhu campaign, for example, before switching over to D&D, and then Mutant Year Zero. At other times I've played many other games.

As a specific example, I've played three short campaigns using GURPS 4th edition - but I've never bought any of the 4th ed books. If there were a subscription model (especially if it went by month), I might well have signed up for it during the time I played in those campaigns. If I could have paid a small amount for access, that would have been better for me than paying a bunch for all the core books used in the games.

Not all of those things are the same tho:

Leasing a car, most of the time at least part of what you pay for the lease (assuming you're not bein a disingenuopus twat and including car rental when you go on a trip) gets taken into account if you want to buy the car. Furthermore the car gets devalued overtime, something a PDF doesn't.

Season passes: isn't that buying tho? I buy the pass and because I give them more money IN ADVANCE I get to see the games cheaper than if I bought individual tickets for each game, assuming I go to enough games of course. I might be mistaken but this doesn't sound like renting a PDF either.

Finally, no, the main point of contention isn't the price point, it's the huge ammount of pitfalls the GaaS model has, and that ALL of those are anti-consumer.

Not all VTTs suffer from the same pitfalls and, so far as I know, none suffers from the GaaS pitfalls, except maybe if you think that paying for a service is exactly the same as GaaS, in such case every service is equally bad. But since only a moron would propose such a thing and you're not a moron I'm not gonna go that route.

Furthermore, I could play D&D on several different VTTs, some of which aren't subscriptions but buy once, others are totally free but with a steep learning curve and if I owned the books in whatever format I could also play in person.

So, I buy the books ONCE and can play forever. Which is exactly what's bothering Hasbro, they want to turn you into a paypig.

From what you write you might be happy being a consoooooomer. I'm not, and I will kieep advocating against this model wherever it crops out because it's anti-consumer.

Which is funny... I'm the openmarkets capitalist pig and you're the leftist "liberal" and yet you're here shilling for megacorporations...

Many older gamers are collectors and buy games and modules they know they probably won't play and have bookshelves full of games they can't quite give away, yet.... It'll be interesting to see how that works out with a subscription model where you don't 'own' anything.

Quote from: Ruprecht on September 01, 2022, 11:59:58 PM
Many older gamers are collectors and buy games and modules they know they probably won't play and have bookshelves full of games they can't quite give away, yet.... It'll be interesting to see how that works out with a subscription model where you don't 'own' anything.

I like to open up books from different editions, and see how "x" was changed and rewritten.

But now I have drawn a line at woke rules changes, so nothing new with D&D or Pathfinder will appeal to me.  Now I am just enjoying my bookshelf, and thinking about the OSR.

Quote from: Ruprecht on September 01, 2022, 11:59:58 PM
It'll be interesting to see how that works out with a subscription model where you don't 'own' anything.

The answer for me is 'no thank you' (with a hell of a lot more cursing.)  Of course, I'm not the lemming demographic that they are targeting.  I have no loyalty to the D&D brand, perhaps some nostalgia, but nothing that generates revenue for them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:33:33 PM

So, I buy the books ONCE and can play forever. Which is exactly what's bothering Hasbro, they want to turn you into a paypig.

Kind of, but not exactly.

I think the suits in Providence telling the geeks in Renton just want revenue higher and steadier. Hasbro corporate would be just as happy with the traditional supplement/module treadmill because selling a $20 module every month would up the stream, especially if they released a $5-10 player book each month with new powers/abilities/etc for the current levels in the adventure path.

It would probably have a more explainable cost structure and might (note, might) be cheaper than running a VTT (people seem to really underestimate the costs of providing SaaS in the software industry...I doubt toy and game companies will learn from that).

Right now we have to convince the suits the costs will skyrocket and revenues will either be flat or not rise as much as costs. The purity arguments, the pro-consumer arguments won't stop this.

A "this is going to cost you money" argument might.

  Why would I argue with them?  When a dipshit I dont like is about to screw themselves over....I prefer to let nature sort it out.

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 02, 2022, 11:26:58 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:33:33 PM

So, I buy the books ONCE and can play forever. Which is exactly what's bothering Hasbro, they want to turn you into a paypig.

Kind of, but not exactly.

I think the suits in Providence telling the geeks in Renton just want revenue higher and steadier. Hasbro corporate would be just as happy with the traditional supplement/module treadmill because selling a $20 module every month would up the stream, especially if they released a $5-10 player book each month with new powers/abilities/etc for the current levels in the adventure path.

It would probably have a more explainable cost structure and might (note, might) be cheaper than running a VTT (people seem to really underestimate the costs of providing SaaS in the software industry...I doubt toy and game companies will learn from that).

Right now we have to convince the suits the costs will skyrocket and revenues will either be flat or not rise as much as costs. The purity arguments, the pro-consumer arguments won't stop this.

A "this is going to cost you money" argument might.

I agree with oggsmash: Why would I want to disuade them? I honestly believe that D&D needs to get cut short for the sake of the hobby. IMHO the sooner D&D/Pathfinder and the other "big" dogs die out the better for the hobby.

Who I want to disuade is the customer from letting Hasbro fuck them in the ass.

Also you're wrong, I'm exactly right. Your own example proves it: IF they could generate enough money with the edition/module threadmill they would. But they know it's got diminishing returns and they have probably already reached the plateau and started the downwards road, probably exacerbated by their woke BS.

But they can't, they might have learned the lesson from the past, so they look at AAA vidya and they see people getting rich by milking the customer, banning the customer for wrong think, etc.

So the Wokes in WotC see this and notice it could accomplish the goals of their corporate masters and their own in one fell swoop: Turn the customer into an eternal paypig and get rid of all those nasty wrongthinkers by banning them from the platform.

Heck they might have (and I bet they did) even convinced the suits in Hasbro that this will protect their brand and help them get more sales.

Plus the WotC megalomaniacs have long been pushing for the One True Way being playing what the creator wrote RAW.

What better way to achieve all of that? If you think about it they could even force the threadmill on you:

Just put an expiration date on the modules, so you can't play the same module with a new group 2 years down the road. Citing convenience reasons they remove your ability to create your own maps, etc. For your own good of course, this is way more convenient "you don't have to waste all that time preparing a campaign/session/whatever, We have already done it for you!".

You can bet your bottom dollar the consooooooooomers will scream this is just great and ask dady Hasbro to oppress them harder.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:33:33 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 01, 2022, 06:04:05 PM
In general, the balance of subscription versus buying depends a ton on the price point. How long will you be using the stuff, and how cheap is the subscription package compared to individual purchases.

Finally, no, the main point of contention isn't the price point, it's the huge ammount of pitfalls the GaaS model has, and that ALL of those are anti-consumer.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:33:33 PM
So, I buy the books ONCE and can play forever. Which is exactly what's bothering Hasbro, they want to turn you into a paypig.

Your contention is about becoming a "paypig" - but then you say that the contention isn't the price point. I don't think that makes sense. If I'm paying *less* for the same content via subscription, then how I am I a "paypig"?

In practice, the vast majority of tabletop RPG players out there don't keep playing the same edition of the game for decades. They switch out to new games and/or new editions. I'm not saying that either subscription or traditional is best - just that there are pitfalls of each, and who is the paypig depends on the price point comparison.

The traditional edition and supplement treadmill is just as much about making customers into paypigs, convincing them to buy a new set of books every 5-10 years. The question is about value delivered for content.

it's not about price.

1. With a traditional book, you trade money for the book after the book has been written. The author is motivated to make it a damn good book because he wants to sell a lot of copies. He might have an idea of how good it will sell based on past books, but he's still motivated to swing for the bleachers because he doesn't want months or years of hard work to go to waste.

2. With a subscription, you pay in advance for merely the promise of good material. If good material is released at a decent frequency, you are happy. If mediocre material is released slowly, you might hope that next month is better and stay subscribed. Or you might cancel. You paid in advance, so the company doesn't really care.

What's more, the author of subscribed material doesn't have to do great work. He can do average work, just good enough so that the cancelation rate is manageable. The author can see the cancelation rate and the new subscriber rate in real time, so he knows exactly how hard to try. He is not motivated to do his best work.

The subscription model flips the business upside down: Instead of "Show me good material and I might buy it" we have "Pay for good material and I might supply it." Even worse, new material trickles out (compared to a book release), so it's hard to judge whether quality and rate good or not. There's always next month, and hoping is easier than canceling.

I have no problem with Patreon or KS style pre-orders especially when it's a small guy. But this is WotC/Hasbro and they have no reason to flip the model other than greed.

Quote from: jhkim on September 02, 2022, 02:38:50 PM
In practice, the vast majority of tabletop RPG players out there don't keep playing the same edition of the game for decades.

If the new game is better yes. Generally not for the same consumptive reason as one has a subscription to a MMO.

"Because people buy new different games means a subscription service to the same game is an equivalent"

I have no idea why so many people play goalkeeper for purely exploitative systems.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 02, 2022, 03:12:17 PM
1. With a traditional book, you trade money for the book after the book has been written. The author is motivated to make it a damn good book because he wants to sell a lot of copies. He might have an idea of how good it will sell based on past books, but he's still motivated to swing for the bleachers because he doesn't want months or years of hard work to go to waste.

This is the platonic ideal, maybe, but - so many game books don't live up to their reviews or the hype around them. (Also very true in my experience of Kickstarters, which you seem at least somewhat approving of?) Or they read fine but don't work well in play. Or the stuff sells because of marketing. There are plenty of people who seem to make decent money on DriveThruRPG who display no motivation to write good books, just write lots of books & count on consumers to buy indiscriminately.

Quote from: Naburimannu on September 02, 2022, 04:03:24 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 02, 2022, 03:12:17 PM
1. With a traditional book, you trade money for the book after the book has been written. The author is motivated to make it a damn good book because he wants to sell a lot of copies. He might have an idea of how good it will sell based on past books, but he's still motivated to swing for the bleachers because he doesn't want months or years of hard work to go to waste.

This is the platonic ideal, maybe, but - so many game books don't live up to their reviews or the hype around them. (Also very true in my experience of Kickstarters, which you seem at least somewhat approving of?) Or they read fine but don't work well in play. Or the stuff sells because of marketing. There are plenty of people who seem to make decent money on DriveThruRPG who display no motivation to write good books, just write lots of books & count on consumers to buy indiscriminately.

How do you know? Maybe people like stuff you don't. What constitutes good material is subjective. In any case, problems with material quality don't magically go away with a subscription. The same issues with hype-marketing and poor playability will still exist. And they will probably get worse, e.g., you will see beta-testing of rule tweaks on the subscriber base or ham-fisted "fixes" that get rolled back in a couple of months.

You can't can flip through the promise of subscribed material at the library or book store or read a friend's copy.

Quote from: jhkim on September 02, 2022, 02:38:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:33:33 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 01, 2022, 06:04:05 PM
In general, the balance of subscription versus buying depends a ton on the price point. How long will you be using the stuff, and how cheap is the subscription package compared to individual purchases.

Finally, no, the main point of contention isn't the price point, it's the huge ammount of pitfalls the GaaS model has, and that ALL of those are anti-consumer.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:33:33 PM
So, I buy the books ONCE and can play forever. Which is exactly what's bothering Hasbro, they want to turn you into a paypig.

Your contention is about becoming a "paypig" - but then you say that the contention isn't the price point. I don't think that makes sense. If I'm paying *less* for the same content via subscription, then how I am I a "paypig"?

In practice, the vast majority of tabletop RPG players out there don't keep playing the same edition of the game for decades. They switch out to new games and/or new editions. I'm not saying that either subscription or traditional is best - just that there are pitfalls of each, and who is the paypig depends on the price point comparison.

The traditional edition and supplement treadmill is just as much about making customers into paypigs, convincing them to buy a new set of books every 5-10 years. The question is about value delivered for content.

So, your contention is that you can pay their subscription for 10 years and still pay less than by buying the books?

Without the books how can you play at home? Are you going to use their app and make all your players use it too? What if one doesn't want to? What if one got banned for being too far left? Are you happy with them determining with who you can play?

Buying the books ONCE has a definitive meaning doesn't it? How can you seem to think I'm okay with the edition/module threadmill? But then again, if you do buy the 2nd edition now you have 2 sets of books and can play both. Is that true on their walled garden? If one edition has been deemed "problematic" by the twatteraty, will it remain unchanged or at all?

The question is about OWNING the game, it's about property rights. But you're happy if a megacorporation wants to take your property rights away.

On the other hand I much rather own the game and play it until I die if I can't afford or don't want to buy the next edition.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 02, 2022, 07:15:59 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 02, 2022, 02:38:50 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:33:33 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 01, 2022, 06:04:05 PM
In general, the balance of subscription versus buying depends a ton on the price point. How long will you be using the stuff, and how cheap is the subscription package compared to individual purchases.

Finally, no, the main point of contention isn't the price point, it's the huge ammount of pitfalls the GaaS model has, and that ALL of those are anti-consumer.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 01, 2022, 06:33:33 PM
So, I buy the books ONCE and can play forever. Which is exactly what's bothering Hasbro, they want to turn you into a paypig.

Your contention is about becoming a "paypig" - but then you say that the contention isn't the price point. I don't think that makes sense. If I'm paying *less* for the same content via subscription, then how I am I a "paypig"?

In practice, the vast majority of tabletop RPG players out there don't keep playing the same edition of the game for decades. They switch out to new games and/or new editions. I'm not saying that either subscription or traditional is best - just that there are pitfalls of each, and who is the paypig depends on the price point comparison.

The traditional edition and supplement treadmill is just as much about making customers into paypigs, convincing them to buy a new set of books every 5-10 years. The question is about value delivered for content.

So, your contention is that you can pay their subscription for 10 years and still pay less than by buying the books?

Without the books how can you play at home? Are you going to use their app and make all your players use it too? What if one doesn't want to? What if one got banned for being too far left? Are you happy with them determining with who you can play?

Buying the books ONCE has a definitive meaning doesn't it? How can you seem to think I'm okay with the edition/module threadmill? But then again, if you do buy the 2nd edition now you have 2 sets of books and can play both. Is that true on their walled garden? If one edition has been deemed "problematic" by the twatteraty, will it remain unchanged or at all?

The question is about OWNING the game, it's about property rights. But you're happy if a megacorporation wants to take your property rights away.

On the other hand I much rather own the game and play it until I die if I can't afford or don't want to buy the next edition.

One D&D is following the Build Back Better plan... You will own nothing, and like it (or else).

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 03, 2022, 08:28:37 AM
One D&D is following the Build Back Better plan... You will own nothing, and like it (or else).

Well, like a stopped clock, they are correct in at least one or two cases:  We'll pay them nothing, and quite like it! :D

Quote from: Ruprecht on September 01, 2022, 11:59:58 PM
Many older gamers are collectors and buy games and modules they know they probably won't play and have bookshelves full of games they can't quite give away, yet.... It'll be interesting to see how that works out with a subscription model where you don't 'own' anything.

I remember  when Amazon's Kindle system "burped" and caused everyone to lose their books which were on the Kindle subscription model. There were a lot of pissed off customers. I wasn't worried, because all of my books were either dead tree or PDF and couldn't be touched by Kindle.

And lets also separate subscription from the new X as service.

A book/magazine series may be a subscription. You get each new book at a discount but once you stop subscribing you retain everything up till that point. In addition they can't really edit what you have.

Roll20/ World of Warcraft is more X as service. As you loose alot of stuff/everything when you stop subscribing, making stopping doing so more difficult. You also have to go along with any changes imposed on you.

The two are NOT enterchangable. Yet many times defenses for X as service are defended with X as subscription.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 02, 2022, 03:12:17 PM
What's more, the author of subscribed material doesn't have to do great work. He can do average work, just good enough so that the cancelation rate is manageable. The author can see the cancelation rate and the new subscriber rate in real time, so he knows exactly how hard to try. He is not motivated to do his best work.

The subscription model flips the business upside down: Instead of "Show me good material and I might buy it" we have "Pay for good material and I might supply it." Even worse, new material trickles out (compared to a book release), so it's hard to judge whether quality and rate good or not. There's always next month, and hoping is easier than canceling.

I have no problem with Patreon or KS style pre-orders especially when it's a small guy. But this is WotC/Hasbro and they have no reason to flip the model other than greed.

*If* a creator is in the business for the long-term, then they are just as motivated to put in best effort. The subscription model mutes the peaks and valleys somewhat, but long-term prospects depends critically on overall quality. Much like with any series from a creator, the creator can think "Well, #6 in the series sucks - but people will still keep coming for #7." But any bad material reduces overall interest.

Patreon and Kickstarter are enabling of short-term scams where the creator puts out a lousy product and gets a bunch of money for it. But then they'll get very little (if anything) for their next project. So if someone is in it for the long-term (as a big company would be), then they won't want to do this.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 03, 2022, 11:05:27 AM
And lets also separate subscription from the new X as service.

A book/magazine series may be a subscription. You get each new book at a discount but once you stop subscribing you retain everything up till that point. In addition they can't really edit what you have.

Roll20/ World of Warcraft is more X as service. As you loose alot of stuff/everything when you stop subscribing, making stopping doing so more difficult. You also have to go along with any changes imposed on you.

Yes, agreed there is a difference. With subscription licensing, you only have access to the product as long as you keep paying. Once you stop paying, you no longer have anything. It's like leasing a car without the option to buy, a service like Spotify, or World of Warcraft (as I understand it).

As one more variation, there are permanent licenses - like buying a game on Steam or buying a movie on Amazon Prime. It's a one time purchase and you then have access to the product permanently, but it's still maintained by the company and you only have access through their service.

As I said, I've always bought my car, never leased. I've never used Spotify - I own the music that I play as MP3s. I don't play World of Warcraft or any other subscription games. Still, I have used some subscription licensed services, like movie/TV channels and some software.

Quote from: jhkim on September 03, 2022, 03:59:36 PMAs I said, I've always bought my car, never leased. I've never used Spotify - I own the music that I play as MP3s. I don't play World of Warcraft or any other subscription games. Still, I have used some subscription licensed services, like movie/TV channels and some software.

How to put it. Motive is everything. Is the people behind a product are motivated primarily with making a good product, then even a X as service model, if they truly picked it for this reason, would be the best thing you could experience it as. Some people like MMOs, even if it means loosing everything at the end. And MMO's are not inherently evil. Servers cost allot to maintain, and expansions cost money to develop.

But this is almost transperantly not what is happening (as evidenced by the pressure on MTG for instance). Making more money isn't a problem. Its the motivation how to do it, as well as how the people that want to make the money see their customers, as well as the self-respect the customers have for themselves.

Its like...playing devils advocate for hitler after he had invaded france. Re-taking lost territories? Maybe. Poland? OK already bad but I guess its small. France? OK thats just wrath and greed.
This isn't coming from a bunch of devs thinking 'How do we deliver the best product delivery system'. Its coming from men in suits that want to prey on the thick and weak willed.

In no way do I see a way that TTRPGs as a service model needs to exist that can't be under a subscription or some other model. I can't imagine any benefits it offers (even excluding all the inherent drawbacks) that really justify its existence.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 03, 2022, 06:49:30 PM
Its like...playing devils advocate for hitler after he had invaded france. Re-taking lost territories? Maybe. Poland? OK already bad but I guess its small. France? OK thats just wrath and greed.
This isn't coming from a bunch of devs thinking 'How do we deliver the best product delivery system'. Its coming from men in suits that want to prey on the thick and weak willed.

Comparing a company selling a game to Hitler invading France sounds insanely over-the-top to me.

This isn't selling drugs or casino games. There have been some detractors charging that D&D is addictive since back in the 1980s, but I think their arguments are ultimately flawed - and psychological studies have backed that up. D&D is popular because it is fun. It is no more addictive than any other game. The same goes for X-as-a-service products like Spotify. I might not buy into it personally, but I don't think it is comparable to Hitler.

I am reminded of anti-D&D activists of the 1980s saying how I was being mind-controlled, or Ron Edwards in the 2000s talking about the "brain damage" of White Wolf players. I don't believe these. There is no mind control hidden in tabletop RPGs. The people who are playing WotC D&D are doing so because they find it fun, not because the evil corporation has warped their brains.

Quote from: jhkim on September 04, 2022, 12:35:22 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 03, 2022, 06:49:30 PM
Its like...playing devils advocate for hitler after he had invaded france. Re-taking lost territories? Maybe. Poland? OK already bad but I guess its small. France? OK thats just wrath and greed.
This isn't coming from a bunch of devs thinking 'How do we deliver the best product delivery system'. Its coming from men in suits that want to prey on the thick and weak willed.

Comparing a company selling a game to Hitler invading France sounds insanely over-the-top to me.

This isn't selling drugs or casino games. There have been some detractors charging that D&D is addictive since back in the 1980s, but I think their arguments are ultimately flawed - and psychological studies have backed that up. D&D is popular because it is fun. It is no more addictive than any other game. The same goes for X-as-a-service products like Spotify. I might not buy into it personally, but I don't think it is comparable to Hitler.

I am reminded of anti-D&D activists of the 1980s saying how I was being mind-controlled, or Ron Edwards in the 2000s talking about the "brain damage" of White Wolf players. I don't believe these. There is no mind control hidden in tabletop RPGs. The people who are playing WotC D&D are doing so because they find it fun, not because the evil corporation has warped their brains.

But you choosing to address the OBVIOUS hyperbole and not his valid point and then comparing critics of OneD&D with the people pushing the satanic panic doesn't "sound insanely over-the-top" to you?

Quote from: jhkim on September 04, 2022, 12:35:22 PMComparing a company selling a game to Hitler invading France sounds insanely over-the-top to me.

Because I compared it to the reality of existing service games many, many times, and you brush them off each time. Because the reality is already over the top, but you don't care.

QuoteThe people who are playing WotC D&D are doing so because they find it fun, not because the evil corporation has warped their brains.

And most people drink and smoke because they like the experience as well. Gambling is also fun for gambling addicts. And we are not even talking about current D&D but theoretical service based D&D, so your example is just completly pointless.

Im not talking about some abstract satanic symbol printed in a magic card. Im talking about recorded phenomenon, with a TON of research conducted on how to extract thousands of dollars from the people with poor self control.
I advocate for stronger self control over government regulation, but I also advocate for ethics on the side of people that release a product as well.

Is conning the elderly with overpriced jewelry OK because 'they have fun' buying it? Nobody warps their brains to buy stuff.

Quote from: jhkim on September 04, 2022, 12:35:22 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 03, 2022, 06:49:30 PM
Its like...playing devils advocate for hitler after he had invaded france. Re-taking lost territories? Maybe. Poland? OK already bad but I guess its small. France? OK thats just wrath and greed.
This isn't coming from a bunch of devs thinking 'How do we deliver the best product delivery system'. Its coming from men in suits that want to prey on the thick and weak willed.

Comparing a company selling a game to Hitler invading France sounds insanely over-the-top to me.

This isn't selling drugs or casino games. There have been some detractors charging that D&D is addictive since back in the 1980s, but I think their arguments are ultimately flawed - and psychological studies have backed that up. D&D is popular because it is fun. It is no more addictive than any other game. The same goes for X-as-a-service products like Spotify. I might not buy into it personally, but I don't think it is comparable to Hitler.

I am reminded of anti-D&D activists of the 1980s saying how I was being mind-controlled, or Ron Edwards in the 2000s talking about the "brain damage" of White Wolf players. I don't believe these. There is no mind control hidden in tabletop RPGs. The people who are playing WotC D&D are doing so because they find it fun, not because the evil corporation has warped their brains.

Other than calling them men in suits (my preferred term is men in long pants), he's spot-on.

It doesn't even need to be SaaS subscriptions. Any time there is not a *physical* product that can be retroactively changed, there is an impetus to put out the best product you can the first time because changing the content costs so much.

Now, we get digital products that *should* be easily edited the first time. Instead, we get poorly edited content or we get buggy software.  It shouldn't take 3 patches and a years worth of free beta testing (well, free to the creator - they've already charged the customer full price for an unfinished alpha) fix something that should have been as close to correct as possible the first time.

Maybe some old news can shed some light on The One D&D Agenda, specifically potential VTT plans:

https://hasbro.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/hasbro-appoints-new-leadership-wizards-coast

QuoteHasbro, Inc. (NASDAQ: HAS) today announced that Cynthia W. Williams has been appointed President of its Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming division and that Tim Fields has been appointed Senior Vice President and General Manager of Digital Gaming, both effective February 21, 2022.

Ms. Williams joins Hasbro from Microsoft, where she most recently served as General Manager and Vice President, Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team, and most notably drove the expansion of Xbox Gaming and the acceleration of game-creator growth. Prior to joining Microsoft, Ms. Williams spent more than a decade at Amazon, where she led the global growth of their e-commerce direct-to-consumer business Fulfillment by Amazon.

Mr. Fields joins Hasbro from Kabam Games, one of the most successful mobile gaming studios in North America, where he served as CEO for the past five years. Under his leadership, Kabam developed and operated numerous AAA games, including Marvel Contest of Champions, Disney Mirrorverse, Fast and Furious and Transformers: Forged to Fight. A 26-year veteran of the video game industry, Tim has held a range of leadership positions at major publishers, including Capcom, Microsoft and Electronic Arts.

...Blah, blah, blah...

Mr. Fields will report to Ms. Williams. As Senior Vice President and General Manager of Digital Gaming, he will be responsible for all digital gaming, including internal and external development of Wizards' growing portfolio of story-led projects."

Mr. Fields recent specialty has been so-called "AAA" mobile games that are low cost, or free to play, and that rely on microtransaction monetization to generate revenue.

A bit of what he's all about in his own words:

How to entertain the world... and make them stay - Tim Fields | Kabam


They will 100% implement as much of this stuff as possible in the OneVTT:

The Psychology of Loot Boxes and Microtransactions:
http://platinumparagon.info/the-psychology-of-loot-boxes-and-microtransactions/

Insert More Coins: The Psychology Behind Microtransactions:
https://www.tuw.edu/psychology/psychology-behind-microtransactions/

If anyone here believes that Mr. Fields will not have a big hand in the development and implementation of the D&DOne VTT; you are completely naive, and your ability to recognize what is right in front of your face is beyond repair.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 04, 2022, 05:12:33 PMHow to entertain the world... and make them stay - Tim Fields | Kabam

But he said entertained. Which makes all the other terrible things he works around illegitimate.

If successful, I'm sure the stockholders will be amused.  He sure isn't working for the consumers.

Many years ago, I had the option to move to Seattle and get into video game development.  Best decision I did not make.  My soul is still intact and I'm not in the 'habituation' business.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 04, 2022, 05:12:33 PM
Maybe some old news can shed some light on The One D&D Agenda, specifically potential VTT plans:

https://hasbro.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/hasbro-appoints-new-leadership-wizards-coast

QuoteHasbro, Inc. (NASDAQ: HAS) today announced that Cynthia W. Williams has been appointed President of its Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming division and that Tim Fields has been appointed Senior Vice President and General Manager of Digital Gaming, both effective February 21, 2022.

Ms. Williams joins Hasbro from Microsoft, where she most recently served as General Manager and Vice President, Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team, and most notably drove the expansion of Xbox Gaming and the acceleration of game-creator growth. Prior to joining Microsoft, Ms. Williams spent more than a decade at Amazon, where she led the global growth of their e-commerce direct-to-consumer business Fulfillment by Amazon.

Mr. Fields joins Hasbro from Kabam Games, one of the most successful mobile gaming studios in North America, where he served as CEO for the past five years. Under his leadership, Kabam developed and operated numerous AAA games, including Marvel Contest of Champions, Disney Mirrorverse, Fast and Furious and Transformers: Forged to Fight. A 26-year veteran of the video game industry, Tim has held a range of leadership positions at major publishers, including Capcom, Microsoft and Electronic Arts.

...Blah, blah, blah...

Mr. Fields will report to Ms. Williams. As Senior Vice President and General Manager of Digital Gaming, he will be responsible for all digital gaming, including internal and external development of Wizards' growing portfolio of story-led projects."

Mr. Fields recent specialty has been so-called "AAA" mobile games that are low cost, or free to play, and that rely on microtransaction monetization to generate revenue.

A bit of what he's all about in his own words:

How to entertain the world... and make them stay - Tim Fields | Kabam

They will 100% implement as much of this stuff as possible in the OneVTT:

The Psychology of Loot Boxes and Microtransactions:
http://platinumparagon.info/the-psychology-of-loot-boxes-and-microtransactions/

Insert More Coins: The Psychology Behind Microtransactions:
https://www.tuw.edu/psychology/psychology-behind-microtransactions/

If anyone here believes that Mr. Fields will not have a big hand in the development and implementation of the D&DOne VTT; you are completely naive, and your ability to recognize what is right in front of your face is beyond repair.

This kinda reminds me of the scene from Heartbreak Ridge where the general tells the Logistics Officer turned Infantry Officer that he should have stuck with Logistics because he's a disaster as an Infantry Officer. 

A mobile gaming company is definitely *not* who I would want leading things in trying to get a company that has traditionally been terrible at digital gaming to create their own VTT.

OneDnD is going to have to beat *all* of their VTT competitors, all of their character creation tool competitors, and best them both at a price point people are comfortable with.  All while guaranteeing lifelong access to content that won't get deleted or edited for wokeness.  Actually it doesn't even need to be edited for wokeness - the 1st printing of Deities and Demigods would have been quickly disappeared if it were a digital product. As a hardcover book, I managed to quietly grab a copy of it from a used bookstore for $3.

Don't get me wrong - PDFs are great as a backup to your physical books, but they can't replace them. Likewise VTTs are a necessary evil, but can't replace the social aspect of in person gaming.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 04, 2022, 09:29:31 PMDon't get me wrong - PDFs are great as a backup to your physical books, but they can't replace them. Likewise VTTs are a necessary evil, but can't replace the social aspect of in person gaming.

There is also the space aspect. I love allot of books for reference but I don't own a libraries worth of space for PDFs.

And you nailed the VTT aspect. Most hot and up and coming VTT are on a one time purchase and you can pay to have it hosted on a server separately. How does WOTC plan to compete with that.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 04, 2022, 09:29:31 PM
...

OneDnD is going to have to beat *all* of their VTT competitors, all of their character creation tool competitors, and best them both at a price point people are comfortable with.  All while guaranteeing lifelong access to content that won't get deleted or edited for wokeness. 
...

No they wont.

They have D&D. They just have to be "Good Enough."

Now, they can't completely suck. But as long as they are on par, the market is theirs.

Because come 2024 all official D&D VTT adventures, books etc., will be available only on one platform.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 04, 2022, 11:30:52 PM
...
And you nailed the VTT aspect. Most hot and up and coming VTT are on a one time purchase and you can pay to have it hosted on a server separately. How does WOTC plan to compete with that.

They don't need to. They have D&D.

All these other VTT have only done relatively well because WotC could not get their own VTT off the ground for various reasons.

So WotC had to play ball, allowing them to integrate with D&D beyond, and have adventure paths in their format.

The problem all these other VTT have is that the majority of their user base exclusively plays WotC D&D.

Now they are going to be cut out. No more D&D beyond, or AP integration.

The real question is this; come 2024, how do they plan to to compete with WotC?

Market Leader + Good Enough = No can defend.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2022, 12:47:09 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 04, 2022, 09:29:31 PM
...

OneDnD is going to have to beat *all* of their VTT competitors, all of their character creation tool competitors, and best them both at a price point people are comfortable with.  All while guaranteeing lifelong access to content that won't get deleted or edited for wokeness. 
...

No they wont.

They have D&D. They just have to be "Good Enough."

Now, they can't completely suck. But as long as they are on par, the market is theirs.

Because come 2024 all official D&D VTT adventures, books etc., will be available only on one platform.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 04, 2022, 11:30:52 PM
...
And you nailed the VTT aspect. Most hot and up and coming VTT are on a one time purchase and you can pay to have it hosted on a server separately. How does WOTC plan to compete with that.

They don't need to. They have D&D.

All these other VTT have only done relatively well because WotC could not get their own VTT off the ground for various reasons.

So WotC had to play ball, allowing them to integrate with D&D beyond, and have adventure paths in their format.

The problem all these other VTT have is that the majority of their user base exclusively plays WotC D&D.

Now they are going to be cut out. No more D&D beyond, or AP integration.

The real question is this; come 2024, how do they plan to to compete with WotC?

Market Leader + Good Enough = No can defend.

My guess is that those who ONLY play 5e will migrate to WotC's VTT.

Those who play other games besides probably won't, they already do the work for those other games.

As for Roll20 et all competing... IF they're smart they will cut their prices. I'm betting on Roll20 going even woker.

Also, since people BOUGHT those books they own them, I don't think even WotC will be stupid enough to start removing access to stuff people paid for from day 1.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2022, 12:47:09 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 04, 2022, 09:29:31 PM
...

OneDnD is going to have to beat *all* of their VTT competitors, all of their character creation tool competitors, and best them both at a price point people are comfortable with.  All while guaranteeing lifelong access to content that won't get deleted or edited for wokeness. 
...

No they wont.

They have D&D. They just have to be "Good Enough."

Now, they can't completely suck. But as long as they are on par, the market is theirs.

Because come 2024 all official D&D VTT adventures, books etc., will be available only on one platform.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 04, 2022, 11:30:52 PM
...
And you nailed the VTT aspect. Most hot and up and coming VTT are on a one time purchase and you can pay to have it hosted on a server separately. How does WOTC plan to compete with that.

They don't need to. They have D&D.

All these other VTT have only done relatively well because WotC could not get their own VTT off the ground for various reasons.

So WotC had to play ball, allowing them to integrate with D&D beyond, and have adventure paths in their format.

The problem all these other VTT have is that the majority of their user base exclusively plays WotC D&D.

Now they are going to be cut out. No more D&D beyond, or AP integration.

The real question is this; come 2024, how do they plan to to compete with WotC?

Market Leader + Good Enough = No can defend.

You give them too much credit. TSR and WoTC have *never* landed a winning digital product other than the FR Atlas, which is a niche product.

It doesn't have to be "good enough." It has to "not suck too much." There is a distinct difference between the two. If someone else's product works with less hassle even if it has less features, that's who they have to compete with.  That's key: if it is too difficult to use easily with a steeper learning curve than their competitors, they'll lose.

Right now, I use a combination of Campaign Cartographer 3 suite and various other tools to create battle maps on a VTT.  But that's me - I'm an engineer who understands how CAD systems work, so CC3 had a lower learning curve for me. I've tried various VTTs and they all suck to one degree or another because they try to do too much - acting like a virtual DM rather than just displaying a battlemap with representations if the PCs and NPCs being the big one. So I typically just use a
vertically mounted camera for display of the real tabletop or a direct display of maps in CC3 and use Skype for comms.

That's going to be the problem for them - integration.  No one has truly done an integrated system that combines a VTT with a virtual DM with a document library. Maybe I'll be wrong and OneD&D will achieve it. Their track record says otherwise.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2022, 12:47:09 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 04, 2022, 09:29:31 PM
...

OneDnD is going to have to beat *all* of their VTT competitors, all of their character creation tool competitors, and best them both at a price point people are comfortable with.  All while guaranteeing lifelong access to content that won't get deleted or edited for wokeness. 
...

No they wont.

They have D&D. They just have to be "Good Enough."

Now, they can't completely suck. But as long as they are on par, the market is theirs.

Because come 2024 all official D&D VTT adventures, books etc., will be available only on one platform.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 04, 2022, 11:30:52 PM
...
And you nailed the VTT aspect. Most hot and up and coming VTT are on a one time purchase and you can pay to have it hosted on a server separately. How does WOTC plan to compete with that.

They don't need to. They have D&D.

All these other VTT have only done relatively well because WotC could not get their own VTT off the ground for various reasons.

So WotC had to play ball, allowing them to integrate with D&D beyond, and have adventure paths in their format.

The problem all these other VTT have is that the majority of their user base exclusively plays WotC D&D.

Now they are going to be cut out. No more D&D beyond, or AP integration.

The real question is this; come 2024, how do they plan to to compete with WotC?

Market Leader + Good Enough = No can defend.

Time will tell, but I think WotC might take a severe hit in non-English-speaking markets, because D&D generally isn't as dominant there as in North America.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 01:16:56 AM
...
As for Roll20 et all competing... IF they're smart they will cut their prices. I'm betting on Roll20 going even woker.

Also, since people BOUGHT those books they own them, I don't think even WotC will be stupid enough to start removing access to stuff people paid for from day 1.

I don't think they will. Everything was bought through D&D beyond which they now own, and are going to integrate with their VTT.

It would be easy for them to honor All past purchases for the D&D VTT. Because they are a "legacy" customer it would be smart to give them a 'coupon' or some kind of introductory discount to initially sign up for the VTT.

If anything for the first several years WotC can afford to have the subscription fee's for their VTT to be ridiculously low.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 01:16:56 AM

My guess is that those who ONLY play 5e will migrate to WotC's VTT.

Those who play other games besides probably won't, they already do the work for those other games.

True. There is certainly nothing compelling them to go.

The issue is with the established VTT's; how do they react to losing half of their subscription base (5e players) to WotC's VTT?

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 09:19:35 AM
...

You give them too much credit. TSR and WoTC have *never* landed a winning digital product other than the FR Atlas, which is a niche product.

True. But the guy that they hired (Tim Fields) to make this stuff work; has landed winning product.

The proof will be in the pudding however.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 09:19:35 AM
...It doesn't have to be "good enough." It has to "not suck too much." There is a distinct difference between the two. If someone else's product works with less hassle even if it has less features, that's who they have to compete with.  That's key: if it is too difficult to use easily with a steeper learning curve than their competitors, they'll lose.

WotC is helped in this case by virtue of all the other VTT's not being very intuitive to use themselves.

And by "Good Enough": I mean basically on par with everything else out there.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 09:19:35 AM
...That's going to be the problem for them - integration.  No one has truly done an integrated system that combines a VTT with a virtual DM with a document library. Maybe I'll be wrong and OneD&D will achieve it. Their track record says otherwise.

Well, they are not advertising or promoting a virtual DM to my knowledge.

So in theory their integration should be no more difficult than what is already being done when D&D beyond AP's are available to buy through roll20.

Just with much better graphics.

Of course this all depends on the execution. Yes, they could utterly pooch it. But they are not really doing anything out-there technology wise. They are essentially dipping their toes into proven tech, just with a bigger budget than anyone else.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2022, 04:05:31 PMBut the guy that they hired (Tim Fields) to make this stuff work; has landed winning product.

True but in a different industry. Collective power cards didn't make D&D 4e a mega success (nor where the cards ultra great sellers on their own) despite super successful MTG people working on the project.

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2022, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 01:16:56 AM
...
As for Roll20 et all competing... IF they're smart they will cut their prices. I'm betting on Roll20 going even woker.

Also, since people BOUGHT those books they own them, I don't think even WotC will be stupid enough to start removing access to stuff people paid for from day 1.

I don't think they will. Everything was bought through D&D beyond which they now own, and are going to integrate with their VTT.

It would be easy for them to honor All past purchases for the D&D VTT. Because they are a "legacy" customer it would be smart to give them a 'coupon' or some kind of introductory discount to initially sign up for the VTT.

If anything for the first several years WotC can afford to have the subscription fee's for their VTT to be ridiculously low.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I meant removing your access to stuff you bought if you don't migrate to ONED&D. Since when you bought it it wasn't tied to any particular VTT I don't think they would, should maybe not even could remove your access to it.

Which creates an interesting conundrum: Lets say I own several of their 5e shit on Roll20 which I use on my games and I don't want to migrate to their VTT. Now what? Would it be legal for them to remove my access to the stuff I paid for to use on my current VTT?

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2022, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 01:16:56 AM

My guess is that those who ONLY play 5e will migrate to WotC's VTT.

Those who play other games besides probably won't, they already do the work for those other games.

True. There is certainly nothing compelling them to go.

The issue is with the established VTT's; how do they react to losing half of their subscription base (5e players) to WotC's VTT?

Assuming they will lose ALL of the 5e players, I'm not so sure about that.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 04:16:42 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2022, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 01:16:56 AM
...
As for Roll20 et all competing... IF they're smart they will cut their prices. I'm betting on Roll20 going even woker.

Also, since people BOUGHT those books they own them, I don't think even WotC will be stupid enough to start removing access to stuff people paid for from day 1.

I don't think they will. Everything was bought through D&D beyond which they now own, and are going to integrate with their VTT.

It would be easy for them to honor All past purchases for the D&D VTT. Because they are a "legacy" customer it would be smart to give them a 'coupon' or some kind of introductory discount to initially sign up for the VTT.

If anything for the first several years WotC can afford to have the subscription fee's for their VTT to be ridiculously low.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I meant removing your access to stuff you bought if you don't migrate to ONED&D. Since when you bought it it wasn't tied to any particular VTT I don't think they would, should maybe not even could remove your access to it.

Which creates an interesting conundrum: Lets say I own several of their 5e shit on Roll20 which I use on my games and I don't want to migrate to their VTT. Now what? Would it be legal for them to remove my access to the stuff I paid for to use on my current VTT?

Quote from: Jaeger on September 05, 2022, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 01:16:56 AM

My guess is that those who ONLY play 5e will migrate to WotC's VTT.

Those who play other games besides probably won't, they already do the work for those other games.

True. There is certainly nothing compelling them to go.

The issue is with the established VTT's; how do they react to losing half of their subscription base (5e players) to WotC's VTT?

Assuming they will lose ALL of the 5e players, I'm not so sure about that.

So, let's say I currently use Hero Lab and roll20. Or Fantasy Grounds and Excel. Or *any* combination of things where I'm relying upon WotC to play nice so that I don't have to do a bunch of work myself.  For arguments sake, Hero Lab and roll20.  Now WotC shits all over me by not letting them compete. If I have the time, I continue to use Hero Lab and roll20, just doing everything myself and not buying any of their digital product.

I can see WotC screwing this up by not allowing any competition - RPGers can be a spiteful lot. We saw how well things went when there was a pushback against PDF products a decade or so ago - lots of 0-day PDFs showed up on various sites.  Was it enough to make a dent? No, but it was enough for them to sit up and take notice.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 05, 2022, 04:08:23 PM
...
True but in a different industry. Collective power cards didn't make D&D 4e a mega success (nor where the cards ultra great sellers on their own) despite super successful MTG people working on the project.

Apples and oranges.

WotC is merely introducing an in-house version of proven technology that people already like and use to play D&D online.

It should be a lay-up for them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 04:16:42 PM

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I meant removing your access to stuff you bought if you don't migrate to ONED&D. Since when you bought it it wasn't tied to any particular VTT I don't think they would, should maybe not even could remove your access to it.

Which creates an interesting conundrum: Lets say I own several of their 5e shit on Roll20 which I use on my games and I don't want to migrate to their VTT. Now what? Would it be legal for them to remove my access to the stuff I paid for to use on my current VTT?

I don't think that they will remove access to what will effectively be digital "Legacy Product".

But I'm sure all post 2024 digital product will only be compatible with the D&D VTT.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 05, 2022, 01:16:56 AM

Assuming they will lose ALL of the 5e players, I'm not so sure about that.

They don't need to lose all - Just a majority would be a big financial hit.

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 05, 2022, 04:34:49 PM
So, let's say I currently use Hero Lab and roll20. Or Fantasy Grounds and Excel. Or *any* combination of things where I'm relying upon WotC to play nice so that I don't have to do a bunch of work myself.  For arguments sake, Hero Lab and roll20.  Now WotC shits all over me by not letting them compete. If I have the time, I continue to use Hero Lab and roll20, just doing everything myself and not buying any of their digital product.

I can see WotC screwing this up by not allowing any competition - RPGers can be a spiteful lot. We saw how well things went when there was a pushback against PDF products a decade or so ago - lots of 0-day PDFs showed up on various sites.  Was it enough to make a dent? No, but it was enough for them to sit up and take notice.

Why would WotC allow anyone to integrate with new D&D beyond material after 2024? That would defeat the whole purpose of them developing their in-house VTT.

Roll20 etc., are free to "compete", they just will not have the new official WotC integration like they had in the past...

And WotC can easily get around much of the bitterness by offering sweetheart sign up deals to those that bought legacy product.

I suspect that WotC is not overly concerned about GM's like you with the time to continue using what you have anyway. Like I hinted at in a previous post; their goal With the VTT is to monetize the player base with microtransactions.

Foundry already scrapes D&D Beyond for content. If WoTC cuts off Fantasy Grounds or Roll20 for new content I can guarantee that people will scrape content for that.

It is not the user that takes the huge hit, it is the VTT company not selling future WoTC product.

Now, I play many other things than D&D 5e so I will have a good use case for Fantasy Grounds. That does not help replace the WoTC revenue they get if it goes away. And they already are not hosting any of the play test materials.

Quote from: Myrdin Potter on September 05, 2022, 06:07:34 PM
Foundry already scrapes D&D Beyond for content.

What do you mean scrapes?

Quote from: jeff37923 on September 03, 2022, 10:42:41 AM
I remember  when Amazon's Kindle system "burped" and caused everyone to lose their books which were on the Kindle subscription model. There were a lot of pissed off customers. I wasn't worried, because all of my books were either dead tree or PDF and couldn't be touched by Kindle.

I remember when Kindle decided one publisher didn't have the right to sell a public domain book they were selling and disappeared every already purchased copy. Poof, gone from you Kindle. I assume they got their money back or something. The point is that kind of power is scary and easily abused.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 05, 2022, 06:19:15 PM

Quote from: Myrdin Potter on September 05, 2022, 06:07:34 PM
Foundry already scrapes D&D Beyond for content. If WoTC cuts off Fantasy Grounds or Roll20 for new content I can guarantee that people will scrape content for that.

It is not the user that takes the huge hit, it is the VTT company not selling future WoTC product.

Now, I play many other things than D&D 5e so I will have a good use case for Fantasy Grounds. That does not help replace the WoTC revenue they get if it goes away. And they already are not hosting any of the play test materials.

What do you mean scrapes?

It means that Foundry has a process that looks at D&D Beyond material and copies it into their own system. (I don't know Foundry - but that's what the term means.) Digital user content like text or images are very easy to copy.

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-is-web-scraping-and-how-to-use-it/

It also links via a Chrome extension and lets you do VTT stuff with the base content.

WoTC has not stopped that, yet.

Quote from: jhkim on September 05, 2022, 07:41:08 PMIt means that Foundry has a process that looks at D&D Beyond material and copies it into their own system. (I don't know Foundry - but that's what the term means.) Digital user content like text or images are very easy to copy.

Ah that makes sense. Yeah Foundry is awesome as it courts fan material. Including useful modules and such.

In this sense WOTC is competing with the 'modding scene' effectively.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 04, 2022, 02:10:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 04, 2022, 12:35:22 PMThe people who are playing WotC D&D are doing so because they find it fun, not because the evil corporation has warped their brains.

And most people drink and smoke because they like the experience as well. Gambling is also fun for gambling addicts. And we are not even talking about current D&D but theoretical service based D&D, so your example is just completly pointless.

Im not talking about some abstract satanic symbol printed in a magic card. Im talking about recorded phenomenon, with a TON of research conducted on how to extract thousands of dollars from the people with poor self control.
I advocate for stronger self control over government regulation, but I also advocate for ethics on the side of people that release a product as well.

Is conning the elderly with overpriced jewelry OK because 'they have fun' buying it? Nobody warps their brains to buy stuff.

I'm not sure what research specifically you're talking about here as applying to OneD&D. You're implying that it will be addictive and marketing is abusing addicts. That seems similar to arguments that MMORPGs like World of Warcraft are addictive (as well as social media like Twitter). Here's what I've looked over about such addiction -

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_addiction.html

I don't think these apply to a virtual tabletop. I don't think MMORPG studies are applicable more broadly to other RPGs, and even then, I take just about any psychological studies with a big grain of salt because of problems with reproducibility.

I might well have criticisms of WotC's offering once I get the details, but I don't see a subscription virtual tabletop as inherently preying on addiction or similarly unethical. I suspect I will consider it similar to any other corporate-produced game.

Quote from: jhkim on September 06, 2022, 09:00:45 PMI'm not sure what research specifically you're talking about here as applying to OneD&D.

So I guess your completly ignorant of the microtransactional design process, skinner boxes, or the loot box model sweeping through videogames, and your last experience is purely with MMOs like World of Warcraft.

OK to summarize it briefly, with an inexact example:

Yes things like WOW are skinner boxes. You devote time to have the mental satisfaction of seeing your numbers go up. And there are a few rare addicts for whom that consumes all their time. Thats not what I am talking about.

Imagine if in World of Warcraft, you made it that ressurection after dying took 10 times as long (like 10 minutes), or instantly if you paid a dollar. But not even a dollar directly. 125 Warcraft coins. And you can only buy Warcraft coins in bundles of 670 for 8 dollars, with a 10% discount if you grabbed a bundle of 6,030 coins.

And then you strung that allong through all the core gameplay. Yes you can level up for killing monsters, but there is a cap on your progress (first every 10 levels, then every 5 levels, then 3, then 1 level) unless you get a  mega crystal which is intentionally designed to only drop once every 7 days (and only at 12 AM on a tuesday and if you miss that period its another 7 days wait)....Or of course instantly with 67 megaboons (only 5 cents per 10 boons).

And then lootboxes might be instead of paying directly for Warcraft coins or Megaboons, or Thriftgifts (which is a thing that actually allows you to repair your epic gear, which breaks down otherwise), you paid for a random chance to get one of them. A gamble effectively, except you don't even get money as a payout.

All of these tricks are designed to make you loose track of how much money you spend, or tap into the gambling addict, or people with weak self control, or people that want to play with friends, or just prey on human weakness. This IS recorded to work extremly effectivly and make so much money that the core experience is free.....Because the core experience is basically unplayable without either 25 times the normal free time required, or a continous stream of about 5-10 dollars an hour (after say the first 3 being free-ish).

How is this relevant to D&D?

Because WOTC hired basically a head honcho of such a buisness model to work on their VTT framework (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-onednd-agenda/msg1229191/#msg1229191).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 06, 2022, 09:57:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 06, 2022, 09:00:45 PMI'm not sure what research specifically you're talking about here as applying to OneD&D.

So I guess your completly ignorant of the microtransactional design process, skinner boxes, or the loot box model sweeping through videogames, and your last experience is purely with MMOs like World of Warcraft.

OK to summarize it briefly, with an inexact example:

Yes things like WOW are skinner boxes. You devote time to have the mental satisfaction of seeing your numbers go up. And there are a few rare addicts for whom that consumes all their time. Thats not what I am talking about.

Imagine if in World of Warcraft, you made it that ressurection after dying took 10 times as long (like 10 minutes), or instantly if you paid a dollar. But not even a dollar directly. 125 Warcraft coins. And you can only buy Warcraft coins in bundles of 670 for 8 dollars, with a 10% discount if you grabbed a bundle of 6,030 coins.

And then you strung that allong through all the core gameplay. Yes you can level up for killing monsters, but there is a cap on your progress (first every 10 levels, then every 5 levels, then 3, then 1 level) unless you get a  mega crystal which is intentionally designed to only drop once every 7 days (and only at 12 AM on a tuesday and if you miss that period its another 7 days wait)....Or of course instantly with 67 megaboons (only 5 cents per 10 boons).

And then lootboxes might be instead of paying directly for Warcraft coins or Megaboons, or Thriftgifts (which is a thing that actually allows you to repair your epic gear, which breaks down otherwise), you paid for a random chance to get one of them. A gamble effectively, except you don't even get money as a payout.

All of these tricks are designed to make you loose track of how much money you spend, or tap into the gambling addict, or people with weak self control, or people that want to play with friends, or just prey on human weakness. This IS recorded to work extremly effectivly and make so much money that the core experience is free.....Because the core experience is basically unplayable without either 25 times the normal free time required, or a continous stream of about 5-10 dollars an hour (after say the first 3 being free-ish).

How is this relevant to D&D?

Because WOTC hired basically a head honcho of such a buisness model to work on their VTT framework (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-onednd-agenda/msg1229191/#msg1229191).

But, but... MMORPGs aren't addictive! I have a study to back it up! Never mind you're not talking about MMORPGs or even sugesting that D&D or similar games are addictive, here's my study that totally debunks the strawman I built in my head!

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 06, 2022, 09:57:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 06, 2022, 09:00:45 PMI'm not sure what research specifically you're talking about here as applying to OneD&D.

So I guess your completly ignorant of the microtransactional design process, skinner boxes, or the loot box model sweeping through videogames, and your last experience is purely with MMOs like World of Warcraft.

The topic is about D&D, though. D&D also has rewards and loot, but even with a virtual tabletop, it isn't a video game. To clarify, I never played World of Warcraft or any other MMORPGs. I don't play any video games, really, except a few phone games (which might also qualify as addictive and which have microtransactions). I play a lot of RPGs and board games including virtual tabletops for both, though - and that is the topic of discussion here. I've also studied some addiction studies and some theory on gamification.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 06, 2022, 09:57:28 PM
OK to summarize it briefly, with an inexact example:

Yes things like WOW are skinner boxes. You devote time to have the mental satisfaction of seeing your numbers go up. And there are a few rare addicts for whom that consumes all their time. Thats not what I am talking about.

Imagine if in World of Warcraft, you made it that ressurection after dying took 10 times as long (like 10 minutes), or instantly if you paid a dollar. But not even a dollar directly. 125 Warcraft coins. And you can only buy Warcraft coins in bundles of 670 for 8 dollars, with a 10% discount if you grabbed a bundle of 6,030 coins.

And then you strung that allong through all the core gameplay. Yes you can level up for killing monsters, but there is a cap on your progress (first every 10 levels, then every 5 levels, then 3, then 1 level) unless you get a  mega crystal which is intentionally designed to only drop once every 7 days (and only at 12 AM on a tuesday and if you miss that period its another 7 days wait)....Or of course instantly with 67 megaboons (only 5 cents per 10 boons).

And then lootboxes might be instead of paying directly for Warcraft coins or Megaboons, or Thriftgifts (which is a thing that actually allows you to repair your epic gear, which breaks down otherwise), you paid for a random chance to get one of them. A gamble effectively, except you don't even get money as a payout.

All of these tricks are designed to make you loose track of how much money you spend, or tap into the gambling addict, or people with weak self control, or people that want to play with friends, or just prey on human weakness. This IS recorded to work extremly effectivly and make so much money that the core experience is free.....Because the core experience is basically unplayable without either 25 times the normal free time required, or a continous stream of about 5-10 dollars an hour (after say the first 3 being free-ish).

How is this relevant to D&D?

Because WOTC hired basically a head honcho of such a buisness model to work on their VTT framework (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/the-onednd-agenda/msg1229191/#msg1229191).

I believe that these are effective marketing strategies, but they're not new. Much of this was true of arcades back in the 1980s. You'd buy tokens rather than coins, there were randomized rewards, and a countdown to keep your life by paying more money at the end of a game. It could easily cost several dollars an hour to play your favorite arcade games.

I'll believe that modern video games implement these strategies more effectively than 1980s arcades, but I don't think the companies are doing anything different in principle. Further, small operators use the same strategies as big ones. Broadly, some of the most abusive scams that I've encountered have been from small companies or individuals rather than major corporations. Marketing entertainment and leisure is always full of tricks and schemes - whether that's breakfast cereal with randomized toy surprises, sodas, fast food, card games, or anything else.

I will likely have criticism of the OneD&D product once it comes out. But I also think it will be not terribly different from plenty of other products. Yes, they'll probably learn from some of the video game strategies - just as 4th ed D&D learned from collectible card games. It's part of a general spectrum of marketing - and small press use marketing strategies to drive purchases just as much, if not necessarily as effectively.

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2022, 05:01:13 PMI believe that these are effective marketing strategies, but they're not new.

Ammonia and bleach are also not new but they act completly differently together. And your point about comparing addiction tactics as 'marketting', and comparing them to a completly different format of arcades is also noted.

At this point I assume your either malicious, or would require WOTC to come into your house and rob you at gunpiont before you said anything against them.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 07, 2022, 05:07:48 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 07, 2022, 05:01:13 PMI believe that these are effective marketing strategies, but they're not new.

Ammonia and bleach are also not new but they act completly differently together. And your point about comparing addiction tactics as 'marketting', and comparing them to a completly different format of arcades is also noted.

At this point I assume your either malicious, or would require WOTC to come into your house and rob you at gunpiont before you said anything against them.

It sounds like you think WotC is doing something against me currently, and that I should be speaking out against them for what they're doing. Is that right? If so, what are they doing against me currently? Or is it just that I should be objecting to what they will do in the future as part of their OneD&D plan?

I don't even think it needs to be malicious.

It's enough to say, "It's WotC; they'll manage to fuck it up somehow..."

All we have to do is look at their track record for in-house digital anything. It's what we in the government proposal business refer to as the "Past Performance" section of an RFP.

The fact is that WotC had previously brought in "experts" in the digital arena and they still fucked it up. OneD&D will be no different. All you have to do is ask yourself "why would an expert leave to come work at WotC for shit wages? If they're experts they should have offers elsewhere."

Quote from: 3catcircus on September 08, 2022, 08:24:36 PM
I don't even think it needs to be malicious.

It's enough to say, "It's WotC; they'll manage to fuck it up somehow..."

All we have to do is look at their track record for in-house digital anything. It's what we in the government proposal business refer to as the "Past Performance" section of an RFP.

The fact is that WotC had previously brought in "experts" in the digital arena and they still fucked it up. OneD&D will be no different. All you have to do is ask yourself "why would an expert leave to come work at WotC for shit wages? If they're experts they should have offers elsewhere."

Ding ding ding. Give that man the prize. Even if WotC wasn't run by woke cultists with the spines of jellyfish, their track record on this sort of thing is hilariously bad.

Until 'Pundit's video on One D&D, I did not see the now apparently overt politically left push in the current WOTC D&D development.  I considered it more of just corporate hive mind just following what they believe to be the safe marking path.  Now the One D&D campaign, highlighted by 'Pundit's one game to rule them all theme.  One D&D is taken right out of the modern US socialist play book.  It is the slogan used in all the US socialist municipal administrations, such as

• One Seattle  https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/one-seattle-plan
• One Portland https://www.facebook.com/ONEPortlandOregon/
• One NYC https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/
• One Boston https://www.onebostonday.org/
• One Atlanta https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/mayor-s-office/projects-and-initiatives/one-atlanta-strategic-transportation-plan

I guess the WOTC D&D development team buys into this and wants to show that their product hip with the new order.

Anyway, now after several weeks since the One D&D announcement more diehard D&D 5e social media personalities are starting to get concerned, because they see that One D&D appears to be a strategy to take over the culture and stop all house rule modding that every DM does.  People that want rigidly enforced rules play computer RPGs that exist for decades.  They can even create their custom adventures for these, but the computer will always enforce the rules. 

The whole point of tabletop RPGs is the interactive experience and the off the rails dynamics between the DM and players at the table.

...or we can take the WOTC path
One D&D
One Ring
One Seattle
One Germany
One Russia
One Cuba
One China
One Venezuela
One World

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 09, 2022, 08:07:01 AM
Ding ding ding. Give that man the prize. Even if WotC wasn't run by woke cultists with the spines of jellyfish, their track record on this sort of thing is hilariously bad.

That is how Microsoft worked back in the 90s but then ended up dominating markets anyway because of their size.

I'm still salty about WotC effectively taking down fun and free 3.5 stuff away from easy access on their website and the similar online disappearances of some of my favorite character sheet templates. Now we see the broader picture. It was all to make room for this, a product which I do not presently want and in all likelihood will never play. Heck, I'd have preferred more low quality 5e supplements with questionable messaging to this. At least those our 5e DM might inadvisably try to salvage. I dunno exactly how to articulate it in ways that other folks or the video haven't yet, but I feel like this is a sneaky attack on DM and Player Group autonomy, homebrew, in-person socialization and connection, and ideological freedom within the hobby.

Quote from: KindaMeh on September 24, 2022, 03:39:24 PM
I'm still salty about WotC effectively taking down fun and free 3.5 stuff away from easy access on their website and the similar online disappearances of some of my favorite character sheet templates. Now we see the broader picture. It was all to make room for this, a product which I do not presently want and in all likelihood will never play. Heck, I'd have preferred more low quality 5e supplements with questionable messaging to this. At least those our 5e DM might inadvisably try to salvage. I dunno exactly how to articulate it in ways that other folks or the video haven't yet, but I feel like this is a sneaky attack on DM and Player Group autonomy, homebrew, in-person socialization and connection, and ideological freedom within the hobby.

We need some OGL OSR retroclones of some of that 3.5 stuff IMHO.

I'm working on 2.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 24, 2022, 04:17:58 PM

Quote from: KindaMeh on September 24, 2022, 03:39:24 PM
I'm still salty about WotC effectively taking down fun and free 3.5 stuff away from easy access on their website and the similar online disappearances of some of my favorite character sheet templates. Now we see the broader picture. It was all to make room for this, a product which I do not presently want and in all likelihood will never play. Heck, I'd have preferred more low quality 5e supplements with questionable messaging to this. At least those our 5e DM might inadvisably try to salvage. I dunno exactly how to articulate it in ways that other folks or the video haven't yet, but I feel like this is a sneaky attack on DM and Player Group autonomy, homebrew, in-person socialization and connection, and ideological freedom within the hobby.

We need some OGL OSR retroclones of some of that 3.5 stuff IMHO.

I'm working on 2.

Behold, hope.  :)

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 03, 2022, 11:05:27 AM
And lets also separate subscription from the new X as service.

A book/magazine series may be a subscription. You get each new book at a discount but once you stop subscribing you retain everything up till that point. In addition they can't really edit what you have.

Roll20/ World of Warcraft is more X as service. As you loose alot of stuff/everything when you stop subscribing, making stopping doing so more difficult. You also have to go along with any changes imposed on you.

The two are NOT enterchangable. Yet many times defenses for X as service are defended with X as subscription.

Very. I used to have a comic book subscription. When that subscription ran out I stopped getting new comics. The comics I had did not just vanish.

A subscription MMO on the other hand. I played on one from the start as a subscriber and found out the hard way one day just how much they hose you when that subscription runs out.  Stuff I'd payed for separately with cash were "tee-hee! Thats subscription only! Sucker!" One of my local players got an lifetime subscription to a MMO on launch and about a year later it closed down. I saw a number of flash games tun this as a scam. Set up game, offer bonuses or items for cash. Then a few months later. Poof. Gone.

Games as a service is one of the most mentally stunted things to think is a good thing ever.

And for those who think it cant be done. Guess again. It can. Its just no one has tried to actually implement one as a RPG.

Quote from: engrgmr on September 24, 2022, 12:51:00 PM
Anyway, now after several weeks since the One D&D announcement more diehard D&D 5e social media personalities are starting to get concerned, because they see that One D&D appears to be a strategy to take over the culture and stop all house rule modding that every DM does.

Do you have any references showing One D&D wants to stop all house rules?

Chris Perkins is running point on the DMG, and it would be a huge shift given his work in the 5e DMG, games he runs, interviews, and even play reports/DM notes.

Quote from: engrgmr on September 24, 2022, 12:51:00 PM
One D&D is taken right out of the modern US socialist play book.  It is the slogan used in all the US socialist municipal administrations, such as

• One Seattle  https://www.seattle.gov/opcd/one-seattle-plan
• One Portland https://www.facebook.com/ONEPortlandOregon/
• One NYC https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/
• One Boston https://www.onebostonday.org/
• One Atlanta https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/mayor-s-office/projects-and-initiatives/one-atlanta-strategic-transportation-plan

You left out, "One Bookshelf".

Quote from: KindaMeh on September 24, 2022, 03:39:24 PM
I'm still salty about WotC effectively taking down fun and free 3.5 stuff away from easy access on their website and the similar online disappearances of some of my favorite character sheet templates. Now we see the broader picture. It was all to make room for this, a product which I do not presently want and in all likelihood will never play. Heck, I'd have preferred more low quality 5e supplements with questionable messaging to this. At least those our 5e DM might inadvisably try to salvage. I dunno exactly how to articulate it in ways that other folks or the video haven't yet, but I feel like this is a sneaky attack on DM and Player Group autonomy, homebrew, in-person socialization and connection, and ideological freedom within the hobby.

Something I learned along time ago. Download local copies of all that shit and turn it into PDFs. I have archived PDF copies of every single 3.x posting that was actual game content (free adventures, bonus lore, mechanics, etc.) They tried at some point to prevent offline access to the HTML files due to the inclusion of some type of JavaScript checks...

Actually - that "download it, STAT!" applies equally to any type of online content

Will One D&D have an OGL?

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 26, 2022, 09:49:01 PM
Will One D&D have an OGL?

It's 5e. This is not a new edition according to WOTC. The OGL already exists...

In my opinion it serves WotC's purposes to be able to say that they have an OGL - yet never update it with the OneDnD changes..

Quote from: Jaeger on September 26, 2022, 09:58:27 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 26, 2022, 09:49:01 PM
Will One D&D have an OGL?

It's 5e. This is not a new edition according to WOTC. The OGL already exists...

In my opinion it serves WotC's purposes to be able to say that they have an OGL - yet never update it with the OneDnD changes..

I meant with the One D&D changes included.  Will they allow 3rd party content to be 100% compatible with One D&D?

The question, will they replace the existing 5E SDR with the newly updated one.

Good question.

I think they will do again like they did with 5e. At first deny a SRD and cancel any translation agreements.

Then realize they just shot themselves in the foot... again. And open it up. Again.

Its WOTC. Never expect anything sane. If its stupid and hurts the brand. They WILL consider doing it and odds are high they WILL then do it.

There isn't anything that really appeals to me about the OneD&D playtest material more than the original rules that they released in '15.

It only swings me further away from wanting to use their game to pretend to be an elf than 5E does.

Quote from: Dropbear on September 28, 2022, 12:31:16 PM
There isn't anything that really appeals to me about the OneD&D playtest material more than the original rules that they released in '15.

It only swings me further away from wanting to use their game to pretend to be an elf than 5E does.

Just saw part of one of their videos where they're apparently trying to tie feats to having level and class type requirements. They're not going in the wrong direction with Wokeness, but mechanically as well. I don't know many whose complaint about 5th Ed is that they wanted to go back to feat trees. Just more opportunity for the OSR to expand.

I'm not a fan of feat-trees or tying feats to classes, but I'm a fan of feats, as a concept at least. And the ones they included in the Character Origins document looked pretty good. They didn't include any of the higher level ones, so I'm not sure if they're really gonna mess them up, or how badly yet.

Like I've said here and elsewhere, I liked most of the changes they made in the released document so far, just not the rationale for getting rid of racial modifiers. But at least going with what's included in the document, background modifiers aren't even set in stone, cuz custom Backgrounds are a standard option. So you can just use the existing backgrounds as a baseline to determine your proficiencies and feats, if you like any of them (or just build your background 100% from scratch), then set the ASIs by using the old racial modifiers as a basis instead.

People are just drowning themselves in a glass of water over a largely meaningless change that can be easily ignored or even bypassed by going with the established rules (without even having to house rule anything), like the change never took place.

Does anyone have the actual documents for OneDnD, or is it all locked up behind D&DBeyond?

Quote from: Zelen on September 29, 2022, 03:59:35 PM
Does anyone have the actual documents for OneDnD, or is it all locked up behind D&DBeyond?

You can get it free from here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/one-dnd

Don't know if you need an account to download it (I was already logged in when I did it, so don't know how it works without one), but I only have a free account and never bought anything from them, and was able to download it without problems.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2022, 04:27:08 PM

Quote from: Zelen on September 29, 2022, 03:59:35 PM
Does anyone have the actual documents for OneDnD, or is it all locked up behind D&DBeyond?

You can get it free from here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/one-dnd

Don't know if you need an account to download it (I was already logged in when I did it, so don't know how it works without one), but I only have a free account and never bought anything from them, and was able to download it without problems.

Need to be logged in to access.

Tenkar's Tavern had a discussion about this recently on YouTube.
When it comes to the OGL and SRD: apparently there was a court case about it with WoTC and the judge ruled that the OGL and SRD cannot be replaced. they exist in perpetuity. Has something to do with game mechanics (cannot be copyrighted?)

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 26, 2022, 11:04:42 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on September 26, 2022, 09:58:27 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on September 26, 2022, 09:49:01 PM
Will One D&D have an OGL?

It's 5e. This is not a new edition according to WOTC. The OGL already exists...

In my opinion it serves WotC's purposes to be able to say that they have an OGL - yet never update it with the OneDnD changes..

I meant with the One D&D changes included.  Will they allow 3rd party content to be 100% compatible with One D&D?

I suspect access to the changes will require selling third party product through their OneD&D site, giving them much more control over what compatible products can include.

Quote from: wmarshal on September 29, 2022, 12:58:24 PM
Just saw part of one of their videos where they're apparently trying to tie feats to having level and class type requirements. They're not going in the wrong direction with Wokeness, but mechanically as well. I don't know many whose complaint about 5th Ed is that they wanted to go back to feat trees. Just more opportunity for the OSR to expand.

I wonder if that's aimed at Pathfinder players, especially 2e ones.

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 30, 2022, 12:09:56 PM

Quote from: wmarshal on September 29, 2022, 12:58:24 PM
Just saw part of one of their videos where they're apparently trying to tie feats to having level and class type requirements. They're not going in the wrong direction with Wokeness, but mechanically as well. I don't know many whose complaint about 5th Ed is that they wanted to go back to feat trees. Just more opportunity for the OSR to expand.

I wonder if that's aimed at Pathfinder players, especially 2e ones.

Which is hilarious, since most PF2E feats are more like SWADE edges in my opinion. They typically do have a skill-level requirement, but if you're playing with those feat trees anyways you should have that in the bag. The retraining rules also allow for PCs to adjust if they grab something that doesn't work out for them.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 30, 2022, 12:23:25 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on September 30, 2022, 12:09:56 PM

Quote from: wmarshal on September 29, 2022, 12:58:24 PM
Just saw part of one of their videos where they're apparently trying to tie feats to having level and class type requirements. They're not going in the wrong direction with Wokeness, but mechanically as well. I don't know many whose complaint about 5th Ed is that they wanted to go back to feat trees. Just more opportunity for the OSR to expand.

I wonder if that's aimed at Pathfinder players, especially 2e ones.

Which is hilarious, since most PF2E feats are more like SWADE edges in my opinion. They typically do have a skill-level requirement, but if you're playing with those feat trees anyways you should have that in the bag. The retraining rules also allow for PCs to adjust if they grab something that doesn't work out for them.

I'm played in a PF2E campaign. Retraining and the feat trees were a thorough pain in the ass.

As far as being like SWADE edges, only somewhat. Over a 20 level build in PF2E you'll pick something like 30 feats divided by race feats, class feats, skill feats and general feats, each with their own subsets. In a SWADE campaign over 20 advances one is likely to pick up 10 edges, and the edge trees are simpler than PF2E.

SWADE and its edges are very different because SWADE is halfway between a skill and level system and its own internal mathematics is complicated and requires allot of knowledge.

Pathfinder 2e on the other hand has VERY, VERRY ridgid maths. Its feat treas are a real chore to learn and I feel waste allot of space.

I mean SWADE doesn't have classes normally, and even when it does it rarely has feat trees more like feat shrubs.

Quote from: wmarshal on September 30, 2022, 01:19:05 PM

I'm played in a PF2E campaign. Retraining and the feat trees were a thorough pain in the ass.

...Over a 20 level build in PF2E you'll pick something like 30 feats divided by race feats, class feats, skill feats and general feats, each with their own subsets. ...

I have the PF2 rules, and yeah; The featapalooza in that game is absolutely ridiculous. It does do some things that would have been improvements on 5e - but then: feats.

Speaking of improving 5e...

Remember the whole: "DnDOne will be 100% backwards compatible."

I can see that they are going all-out to make that happen LOL...

(https://i.imgur.com/At4o3Q0.png)

Quote from: Jaeger on September 30, 2022, 04:36:05 PMRemember the whole: "DnDOne will be 100% backwards compatible."

All of the below looks extremly backwards compatible and I hate 5e. 5e is barely a system and has nearly no kind of mechanical spine, so nothing listed below breaks any sort of compatibility with it.

Its gonna be a degree more woke, but the successor looks as tepid in any of its changes as its predacessor.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 30, 2022, 06:15:34 PM
Its gonna be a degree more woke, but the successor looks as tepid in any of its changes as its predacessor.

Agreed.

Orcs are vanilla as Hell, as are the other races. And orcs haven't been orcs for a long time. I don't see anything woke in the 21 page playtest document. It reads very similar to the 5e PHB.

And while I do believe many of the people at WotC do in fact hate me because of my political choices, I do not think they hate TTRPGs or want to sink the hobby.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 30, 2022, 06:15:34 PM
...
All of the below looks extremly backwards compatible and I hate 5e. 5e is barely a system and has nearly no kind of mechanical spine, so nothing listed below breaks any sort of compatibility with it.
...

I disagree.

Everything is so "Revised" that new core books will need to be bought, and adventure material will need to be converted.

Yes, 3.5 was technically "fully backwards compatible" to 3.0.

But the practical differences were enough that most groups just moved over to 3.5 outright.

Quote from: FingerRod on September 30, 2022, 07:31:45 PM
... I don't see anything woke in the 21 page playtest document. It reads very similar to the 5e PHB.

It's a rules reference playtest doc. They're not so stupid as to get on their high horse in that...

I give Ray Winniger credit - he's far more savvy than the sparkletrolls on twitter.

The woke will be in the marketing and play culture that WotC D&D is cultivating. They will continue to do what they have been doing and inserting little bit more woke elements here and there in the lore for supplements and adventure paths.

The slow lobster boil will continue.

Quote from: FingerRod on September 30, 2022, 07:31:45 PM
And while I do believe many of the people at WotC do in fact hate me because of my political choices, I do not think they hate TTRPGs or want to sink the hobby.

They will sink D&D by default because they hate the culture and generation of gamers that created the hobby, and the underlying mythology that D&D was originally based on.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 01, 2022, 04:00:08 PMYes, 3.5 was technically "fully backwards compatible" to 3.0.

3e has a mechanical spine more complex then '+2->+6 over 20 levels' (+ some class benefit sprinkles). Its a broken spine, but 5e "fixed" most issues of past editions by just not even trying to be ambitious about anthing at all, and fixing by amputation (and before you OD&D me, even it had more of a mechanical understanding of itself). I have seen MUCH better efforts from 1 man teams. For materials that where released for free. And actually are much more fully backwards compatible with 2e and older materials.

'Oh but It won't be balanced with 5es classes!!!!' . Because 5es classes and sub-options where so very balanced internally already. If your playing 5e, your not very concerned with any sort of mathematics or design elements as an underpin.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 01, 2022, 04:00:08 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on September 30, 2022, 07:31:45 PM
... I don't see anything woke in the 21 page playtest document. It reads very similar to the 5e PHB.

It's a rules reference playtest doc. They're not so stupid as to get on their high horse in that...

I give Ray Winniger credit - he's far more savvy than the sparkletrolls on twitter.

The woke will be in the marketing and play culture that WotC D&D is cultivating. They will continue to do what they have been doing and inserting little bit more woke elements here and there in the lore for supplements and adventure paths.

The slow lobster boil will continue.

I am aware that it is a playtest document. The fact remains, they did not change Race. While they did water down Orcs, they did not virtue signal or wet themselves as one might expect. There is nothing in either playtest document.

Am I betting they will remain non-woke? No way!  :) Every core book release since Xanathar's has been marching more and more left. But I'm also not claiming there is a OneDnD Agenda until there is evidence. The post I was agreeing with was stating the same thing you are with respect to what they will do with supplements and adventure paths.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 01, 2022, 04:00:08 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on September 30, 2022, 07:31:45 PM
And while I do believe many of the people at WotC do in fact hate me because of my political choices, I do not think they hate TTRPGs or want to sink the hobby.

They will sink D&D by default because they hate the culture and generation of gamers that created the hobby, and the underlying mythology that D&D was originally based on.

Perhaps, but this is not evidence they are motivated to sink the hobby or hate TTRPGs—which is what I said.

Do you believe the people creating OneDnD hate TTRPGs and want to sink the hobby?

One can certainly believe they hate the TTRPG community and games as constituted. Being Woke is a totalitarian ideology. Any segment or element that doesn't bend the knee drives them insane. They can seek to purge the current TTRPG environment in the hopes of rebuilding it.

Quote from: wmarshal on October 01, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
Being Woke is a totalitarian ideology.

Sort of. Its also incoherent. We have a human desire to believe that every tyrant or bad person is cackling evil with a master plan.

Wokists often destroy with a genuine belief that they are doing everybody a solid, and what they pervert counts as creation and will stand the test if time. and the culture and everyone as a whole are behind them.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2022, 04:39:52 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on October 01, 2022, 04:00:08 PMYes, 3.5 was technically "fully backwards compatible" to 3.0.

I have seen MUCH better efforts from 1 man teams.

Al Aho once said Awk was one of the most complex projects he wrote because it was three people (him, Brian Kernighan, and Peter Weinberger) which made design much harder. He said it was mostly accomplished by them each writing their part and only having to worry about the interfaces.  As Fred Brooks realized on OS/360, Aho saw that adding people didn't add to the quality or shorten the time after a certain point. Aho concluded three people was probably the ideal size.

I see no reason why the unity of smaller teams leading to better implementations of systems that is evident in software shouldn't apply to game systems.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 01, 2022, 05:14:42 PM
Am I betting they will remain non-woke? No way!  :) Every core book release since Xanathar's has been marching more and more left. But I'm also not claiming there is a OneDnD Agenda until there is evidence. The post I was agreeing with was stating the same thing you are with respect to what they will do with supplements and adventure paths.

I'll claim there is an evident OneD&D agenda, but it has nothing to do with woke or culture war.  It was hashed about earlier in this thread:

"To convert D&D from sporadic large purchases with less hook into purchases for next month's purchase and a disproportional distribution of expenditures born by about one in five players to a continuous small purchase via subscription purchase by 90%+ of players revenue model."

The Headquarters in Providence will tolerate woke insertions from the west coast office as long as they don't interfere with that and will encourage them if they are convinced it makes subscription more likely. 

And yes, I can convince of a theory of why woke would work. If wokeness can move D&D's revenue stream from DM's buy a new hardback every three months and players do everywhere to $5-10/month memberships used about as often as gym memberships that would be a sweet spot. The cost of the online systems would be low due to low utilization while the "look, I'm supporting $FOO" for the cost of a Starbucks would provide a strong revenue steam. I just have no access to any of the data that would be useful to evaluate that strategy.

48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

And they say feats are optional...

Subclass = pre-selected thematic Feat Tree.

They just have you make one choice at level 3 instead of looking at an array of options every time you would select a new "Class ability"...

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 01, 2022, 06:04:04 PM

Quote from: wmarshal on October 01, 2022, 05:38:18 PM
Being Woke is a totalitarian ideology.

Sort of. Its also incoherent. We have a human desire to believe that every tyrant or bad person is cackling evil with a master plan.

Wokists often destroy with a genuine belief that they are doing everybody a solid, and what they pervert counts as creation and will stand the test if time. and the culture and everyone as a whole are behind them.

No one believes himself a villain.

Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, same for Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Doesn't mean they were or that they weren't villains.

That they geniunely believe their destruction is a good thing I don't doubt, doesn't make them any less of a villain, in fact I would argue it makes them worse.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
[/b][/i]

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2022, 07:07:28 PMNo one believes himself a villain.

The true nature of evil is pathetic. I know that. I just mean to say that if you want to find wokists discussing evil plans around a desk will find themselves without that.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:11:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2022, 07:07:28 PMNo one believes himself a villain.

The true nature of evil is pathetic. I know that. I just mean to say that if you want to find wokists discussing evil plans around a desk will find themselves without that.

Except they do, that they think their plans virtuous means jack shit. They're not twirling their moustaches while cackling about how they're going to extort One Million Dollars! from the world doesn't make them les villains or their plans less evil.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits" Matthew 7:16-20

Pundit U saw this coming years ago. The WW crowd jumping on WOTC to change the game. Gary said 3e wasn't D&D so what can you expect from ONE? Same SJW BS.

I'm turning DND players to GURPS and they THANK ME. 5e is a limited version of ttrpg with heavily confused design concept.

Run other games for your players 😉

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

I am certainly a "real people". And I have never been a fan of the proliferation of subclasses. YMMV.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

I bet like 20 of tbose will be wizard schools and cleric domains

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 08:27:34 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

I am certainly a "real people". And I have never been a fan of the proliferation of subclasses. YMMV.

Im not a fan of them either. I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

But yes, I really cannot stand them. I cannot remember if anyone cited them in Jhkim's thread about min-maxing, but I have seen some truly retarded combinations put forth. I limited them in my campaigns. Of course, I also limited races and classes as well based on the world I built.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 08:27:34 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM

Quote from: dkabq on October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?

I run a DCC campaign. That's six classes (Warrior, Wizard, Cleric, Thief, Dwarf, Halfling; no Elves) for me to keep track of. I have allowed a Ranger and an Assassin. Both as sub-optimal variants of the Warrior and Thief. That's brings the class total to eight. Six-times more than that sounds like a nightmare to me. YMMV.


I am certainly a "real people". And I have never been a fan of the proliferation of subclasses. YMMV.

Im not a fan of them either. I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

But yes, I really cannot stand them. I cannot remember if anyone cited them in Jhkim's thread about min-maxing, but I have seen some truly retarded combinations put forth. I limited them in my campaigns. Of course, I also limited races and classes as well based on the world I built.

I run a DCC campaign. That's six classes (Warrior, Wizard, Cleric, Thief, Dwarf, Halfling; no Elves). I have allowed a Ranger and an Assassin, as sub-optimal versions of the Warrior and Thief. That's a total of eight classes. Six times that is a nightmare for me. YMMV.

I"ve not played a lot of 5E so I could be wrong but in the videos 've seen character "builds" seem a big deal and these builds just seem like min/maxing with possible story wrapped around it to give credibility.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

Quote from: Effete on October 04, 2022, 03:34:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

Help me out. Are you trying to counter a point I made? Are you adding emphasis?

Quote from: Effete on October 04, 2022, 03:34:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

And?

Seriously, the "subclasses" part of each class amount to about 3-4 class traits spread across the entire level range of the class. Some of them are literally just adding options to the spell list or picking another item from a list of options available at 1st level.

The subclasses rarely alter the core function of the class enough that the GM would have to memorize all hundred of them; just maybe reference the half-dozen or less actually in use at their table (and if the feature is relevant enough, they'll be able to account for it just like they do the wizard unlocking 5th level spells (i.e. figure it out when it happens).

I also don't see too many people use many options outside of core and Xanathar's Guide... almost all the others are extremely edge case and niche. Is a subclass no one uses or even goes looking for actually a problem?

So, yeah, this subclass thing just feels like a whole lot of bitching over a non-issue to me. 5e's got way more structural problems to complain about than the existence of "too many" subclasses.

ETA: You want bloat, every time the spellcasters gain access to a new level of spells from a massive and ever growing list adds way more bloat than any of the subclasses do... but no one ever complains about the massive bloat of ever more niche spells because... tradition?

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2022, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 04, 2022, 03:34:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

And?

Seriously, the "subclasses" part of each class amount to about 3-4 class traits spread across the entire level range of the class. Some of them are literally just adding options to the spell list or picking another item from a list of options available at 1st level.

The subclasses rarely alter the core function of the class enough that the GM would have to memorize all hundred of them; just maybe reference the half-dozen or less actually in use at their table (and if the feature is relevant enough, they'll be able to account for it just like they do the wizard unlocking 5th level spells (i.e. figure it out when it happens).

I also don't see too many people use many options outside of core and Xanathar's Guide... almost all the others are extremely edge case and niche. Is a subclass no one uses or even goes looking for actually a problem?

So, yeah, this subclass thing just feels like a whole lot of bitching over a non-issue to me. 5e's got way more structural problems to complain about than the existence of "too many" subclasses.

ETA: You want bloat, every time the spellcasters gain access to a new level of spells from a massive and ever growing list adds way more bloat than any of the subclasses do... but no one ever complains about the massive bloat of ever more niche spells because... tradition?

I already addressed some of this at another one of the half a dozen threads or so essentially dealing with this same topic:

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/will-we-look-back-and-view-the-5-0-to-one-dd-transition/msg1232115/#msg1232115

Also, I complain about the spell bloat all the time. I HATE endless variants of "Inflicts X damage type", "heals damage", "imposes condition", etc. spells. And the 9 arbitrary spell levels only compound this, by spreading them out across 9 poorly defined levels that need to be filled with inconsistently powered spells.

The existence of other poorly implemented bloat in D&D doesn't justify more of it, though.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 04, 2022, 09:19:20 AM
Also, I complain about the spell bloat all the time. I HATE endless variants of "Inflicts X damage type", "heals damage", "imposes condition", etc. spells. And the 9 arbitrary spell levels only compound this, by spreading them out across 9 poorly defined levels that need to be filled with inconsistently powered spells.

The existence of other poorly implemented bloat in D&D doesn't justify more of it, though.

At a certain point you have to recognize that one of the things people like is that it's weird and idiosyncratic and bloated.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 04, 2022, 09:19:20 AMI already addressed some of this at another one of the half a dozen threads or so essentially dealing with this same topic:

I pretty much agree about the bad design. Its just bloat, waste, fake choices, and poor balance, has been a core of 5es (maybe all of D&Ds) identity since early playtests. Why are people suddenly up in arms?

I advocate for Worlds Without Number every chance I get, because 5e has had all these issues since forever.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 04, 2022, 09:19:20 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2022, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 04, 2022, 03:34:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

And?

Seriously, the "subclasses" part of each class amount to about 3-4 class traits spread across the entire level range of the class. Some of them are literally just adding options to the spell list or picking another item from a list of options available at 1st level.

The subclasses rarely alter the core function of the class enough that the GM would have to memorize all hundred of them; just maybe reference the half-dozen or less actually in use at their table (and if the feature is relevant enough, they'll be able to account for it just like they do the wizard unlocking 5th level spells (i.e. figure it out when it happens).

I also don't see too many people use many options outside of core and Xanathar's Guide... almost all the others are extremely edge case and niche. Is a subclass no one uses or even goes looking for actually a problem?

So, yeah, this subclass thing just feels like a whole lot of bitching over a non-issue to me. 5e's got way more structural problems to complain about than the existence of "too many" subclasses.

ETA: You want bloat, every time the spellcasters gain access to a new level of spells from a massive and ever growing list adds way more bloat than any of the subclasses do... but no one ever complains about the massive bloat of ever more niche spells because... tradition?

I already addressed some of this at another one of the half a dozen threads or so essentially dealing with this same topic:

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/will-we-look-back-and-view-the-5-0-to-one-dd-transition/msg1232115/#msg1232115

Also, I complain about the spell bloat all the time. I HATE endless variants of "Inflicts X damage type", "heals damage", "imposes condition", etc. spells. And the 9 arbitrary spell levels only compound this, by spreading them out across 9 poorly defined levels that need to be filled with inconsistently powered spells.

The existence of other poorly implemented bloat in D&D doesn't justify more of it, though.

I also think spell bloat diminishes the flavor of the different caster classes. In looking at OSE spell lists I think their is something to be said to keeping to small spell lists with minimal overlap. The difference between the Magic-User and Illusionist spell list allow the Illusionist to remain flavorful, and could have the Magic-User looking with envy at some of the Illusionist spells. My group runs with ACKS, which is often about having more options, but in my next campaign I may look at shrinking the spell list.

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 10:11:47 AM
At a certain point you have to recognize that one of the things people like is that it's weird and idiosyncratic and bloated.

   Yes. D&D's major selling points are being ubiquitous, being well-supported, and being D&D--a specific type of psychotronic fantasy born in the 70s and refined and refracted through every decade and numerous forms of media since then.

  People who privilege something else--elegance, simplicity, flexibility, detail--over the D&Dness typically move on to other systems eventually.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 04, 2022, 01:21:00 PM

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 10:11:47 AM
At a certain point you have to recognize that one of the things people like is that it's weird and idiosyncratic and bloated.

   Yes. D&D's major selling points are being ubiquitous, being well-supported, and being D&D--a specific type of psychotronic fantasy born in the 70s and refined and refracted through every decade and numerous forms of media since then.

  People who privilege something else--elegance, simplicity, flexibility, detail--over the D&Dness typically move on to other systems eventually.

Out of weird, idiosyncratic, and bloated, one of those things is not like the others.  Granted, "bloat" is subjective in some case.  Where I think you can make a real case against it in D&D is where the bloat fails to deliver on the other two.

Having 30 first level spells for a wizard to pick from is bloat.  If they are all decent spells, or at least weird spells with a niche, then the GM can always say no.  (There won't actually be 30 decent first level spells, but for the sake of argument ...)   The GM can cut down the list to a more manageable 8 to 12 as starting options (or options period), and/or have some of them be gained randomly.  That's bloat, but it is bloat the same way that a lot of pulp magazines had bloat.  You throw a bunch of crazy stuff against the wall, only some of it will stick.  Not a coincidence, either, given D&D's imaginative roots.

However, if half the spells are merely rehashed, restated versions of the same thing, then better to drop them altogether.  That's pure bloat that serves no useful purpose and makes the GM's job harder.

This has been an on again, off again problem with D&D even from the mid to late 1E days.  It gets worse in all the WotC versions due to the same drive to be somehow comprehensive and complete that they inherited from 2E that sucked some of the charm out of the 2E core books.  2E at least had the somewhat valid excuse that the rules were running complete and bland to service the charm in the various settings.   The one time WotC really took some chances and exercised some imagination with a setting (4E), they managed to all but drown it in extreme power bloat.  The same problem is there in 3E and 5E, but it's more hidden because they don't make the mistake of jumping, screaming, and pointing to their mistake.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 04, 2022, 01:50:59 PM
Out of weird, idiosyncratic, and bloated, one of those things is not like the others.  Granted, "bloat" is subjective in some case.  Where I think you can make a real case against it in D&D is where the bloat fails to deliver on the other two.

Having 30 first level spells for a wizard to pick from is bloat.  If they are all decent spells, or at least weird spells with a niche, then the GM can always say no.  (There won't actually be 30 decent first level spells, but for the sake of argument ...)   The GM can cut down the list to a more manageable 8 to 12 as starting options (or options period), and/or have some of them be gained randomly.  That's bloat, but it is bloat the same way that a lot of pulp magazines had bloat.  You throw a bunch of crazy stuff against the wall, only some of it will stick.  Not a coincidence, either, given D&D's imaginative roots.

However, if half the spells are merely rehashed, restated versions of the same thing, then better to drop them altogether.  That's pure bloat that serves no useful purpose and makes the GM's job harder.

   Granted ... but one person's bloat is another person's "essential element of D&D." Witness the angst over assassins (who were only a slight thief variation) being absent in 2E, or the relegation of gnomes (who have always had trouble finding a niche) to the PHB2 in 4E.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 04, 2022, 01:58:15 PM
   Granted ... but one person's bloat is another person's "essential element of D&D." Witness the angst over assassins (who were only a slight thief variation) being absent in 2E, or the relegation of gnomes (who have always had trouble finding a niche) to the PHB2 in 4E.

It becomes an editorial decision.  I'm more hardcore on the cut side of that argument.  If I've got 12 classes, then I'll cut out the weakest 4, whatever they are, in principle.  (It's never quite that easy, but you get the idea.)  However, even assuming I lose that battle, I still think there is a separate line of minimum usefulness and quality.  Either put in the work to make it worth having or leave it out.  For the assassin, either make it more than a variant rogue and keep it, or accept that you can't and drop it.  Possibly robbing some element of it that appealed as an option or starting point for something else that you can run with.  People would have been a lot more accepting of the "assassin" going away if they had spun the idea off in another direction that seemed to many players more interesting than what it replaced.

Edit:  For all such changes, there is a certain amount of knee jerk reaction that is thoughtless and essentially bogus.  There is a certain amount of reaction to having one's ox gored (especially with power gamers that see their tricks getting blown up).  However, on the more thoughtful side, I think some of the negative reactions to changes are because the change is seen as essentially intellectually and imaginatively bankrupt.  Or in some cases, a change is seen as evidence of a trend in that direction, even if the person can't quite put their finger on exactly why that is.

Many spells could be boiled down into simplified templates, it's true. You could have "Direct Damage Dealing Spell - [Level]d6 damage. Choose one save type for half damage."

And while this would probably more elegant, clear, allow for better roleplaying of specific characters ... it'd also bland-enough that I don't think players would appreciate it. Even though theoretically this type of thing can be solved with proper setting material, the casual playerbase would see the architecture being exposed and get turned off.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 04, 2022, 06:57:06 AM
Help me out. Are you trying to counter a point I made? Are you adding emphasis?

Just adding emphasis and pointing out that WotC will almost certainly expand subclasses once the new edition rolls out.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2022, 09:02:20 AM
And?

And nothing.
I was just adding context to the discussion.

I have nothing against sub-classes as a mechanic, but with an average of 9 per class (many so niche they're practically useless, as you point out), I think it's clear that it's just content for content's sake.

QuoteETA: You want bloat, every time the spellcasters gain access to a new level of spells from a massive and ever growing list adds way more bloat than any of the subclasses do... but no one ever complains about the massive bloat of ever more niche spells because... tradition?

I do. I've being complaining about spell bloat and feat bloat back during the 3.x days. It's one of the main reasons I turned my back on anything D&D for almost two decades. I skipped out on PF, 4e, and only played my first game of 5e three years ago. For me, both as a player and GM, bloat is a huge red flag. It slows down the game, and it's often a gigantic waste of money since the "new content" is either severely underwhelming or results in power creep. Two things I don't want in a game.