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.