R.I.P., Astral Tabletop

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I'm sort of shocked by some of the negative feedback I'm seeing on TBP. With the caveat that it's still an alpha test people are worried it's solving problems that don't exist while leaving major issues unsolved. The feel is it might be backwards adventure compatible but not player books are not going to be truly usable.

I guess I was feeling like some of the more discussed changes have been aimed at making the folks at TBP happy. If they're not happy with this and folks at the Site cant stand WotC for not being AD&D I'm not sure who the target starts to be.
 
The feel is it might be backwards adventure compatible but not player books are not going to be truly usable.

That is accurate. If they stick with the current play test then it will create a 3.0 to 3.5 situation and render thousands of products useless on the DMs Guild and made with the OGL.

I guess I was feeling like some of the more discussed changes have been aimed at making the folks at TBP happy. If they're not happy with this and folks at the Site cant stand WotC for not being AD&D I'm not sure who the target starts to be.
Honest I give a major thumbs down on the latest on the expert classes. Not because there are any technical issues but rather as a whole it feels like Jeremy Crawford and team’s house rules inflicted on all of us. Note to say there not some good points but they are in the minor section. And there some merits to the work with the list of feats.

But the class reworks is purely “Well now that I am charge this is how classes will be”.
 
True. But they aren't exactly having to re-invent the wheel here either.

And WotC has hired people with a track record of producing results.
It really depends on what you want to do and how much in the way of legs you want to give it. Sure, you can just depend on the IP and try to match or at least come close to what's out there, but they'd be better served by trying to base their requirements not on what's out there, but what will draw audiences. They're probably going to be a bit behind the eight ball with Wizards given track record for access to data and alteration of it, i.e. Mythic and Foundry will be a leg up on them to start in the fact that GMs have more customization options.
 
But the class reworks is purely “Well now that I am charge this is how classes will be”.
TBH that's how game design works. They believe that the system works better in a certain way and likely have some math and in-play experience to back it up. The thing with the playtest is that a lot of what they are putting out is no where near it's final form for 2 reasons.
1) They are likely pulling a lot of levers just to see how the community reacts. This is how you get some of the best feedback. Getting the reaction is the important part, not what the specific rule is. The rule exists to trigger a conversation around a specific topic. The best way to get an answer to something on the internet is to confidently state the wrong thing as a fact.
2) They are also likely planting some suboptimal choices in each release for reason 1 and so that when they do the full release of the rules, there can be a big list of all the things that were changed based on community feedback.

Another thing that is likely making things feel a little weird is that they are having to make sure One D&D is pretty straightforward to code. They need to make systems modular so they can easily add new content. Any opportunity to reuse a system (Likely making the ABI a feat) means it's one less feature the developers have to build out.
 
TBH that's how game design works. They believe that the system works better in a certain way and likely have some math and in-play experience to back it up. The thing with the playtest is that a lot of what they are putting out is no where near it's final form for 2 reasons.
1) They are likely pulling a lot of levers just to see how the community reacts. This is how you get some of the best feedback. Getting the reaction is the important part, not what the specific rule is. The rule exists to trigger a conversation around a specific topic. The best way to get an answer to something on the internet is to confidently state the wrong thing as a fact.
2) They are also likely planting some suboptimal choices in each release for reason 1 and so that when they do the full release of the rules, there can be a big list of all the things that were changed based on community feedback.

Another thing that is likely making things feel a little weird is that they are having to make sure One D&D is pretty straightforward to code. They need to make systems modular so they can easily add new content. Any opportunity to reuse a system (Likely making the ABI a feat) means it's one less feature the developers have to build out.
I can see the logic but honestly that sort of terrifies me that the tail is wagging the dog. Make the rules easy to program because the VTT is the important part. That takes the single most important part of RPGs (the open ended creativeness) and makes it subservient to what's predictable and programmable. That's heartless. Which is sort of the feedback I'm seeing. It has no wow or soul just new rules.

I mean it's going to sell just because it's the 50th anniversary and if they put it in a pretty package I'll probably get it. But you need people to play it for the sales to not taper off quickly.
 
TBH that's how game design works. They believe that the system works better in a certain way and likely have some math and in-play experience to back it up. The thing with the playtest is that a lot of what they are putting out is no where near it's final form for 2 reasons.
Except for the small fact they are not operating in a vacuum.

Their belief in what makes for a better system is irrelevant even if they have the math and in-play experience to back it. They are not some OSR publisher like myself with customers numbering in the hundreds who can go haring off wherever their creative whims take them. They are rather custodians of the most popular edition of D&D ever. With 5e unexpected megasuccess they are in Chess or Monopoly territory and need to make their changes very carefully.

We have been down this road several times now and have seen the result of authors believing that the system worked in a better way backed up by math and actual play.

  • D&D 3.0 to D&D 3.5
  • D&D 3.5 to D&D 4e
  • Pathfinder 1e to Pathfinder 2e
Each time this happened was devasating to the hobby and industry that surrounded the previous edition.

This doesn't mean a new edition have to be a copy of the previous. I have been publishing stuff for older material like Judges Guild and classic D&D for over 20 years now. I found some changes are considered to be in line with how the older version worked and some are not.

  • The changes to the class progression are an example of a change that is not in-line with how the older edition works.
  • The changes to race and background are fine because the change amounted to things being shuffled around between background race. Together they still have the same impact as the current 5e.
  • Likewise the change to feats probably will be OK if they take the same care in the actual feats themselves. This works as a change because the use of feats was not universal and they still kept the option of taking ability score increase. The changes previewed so far are more about flavor than anything else.
Ultimately I predict these "changes for the sake of change" playtests will impact sales negatively of any 5e product targeting player option. And will throw cold water on projects in development unless they are setting specific. The thing that will stave off the worse effects is that like most editions most of 5e's fanbase don't follow internet news closely.


1) They are likely pulling a lot of levers just to see how the community reacts. This is how you get some of the best feedback. Getting the reaction is the important part, not what the specific rule is. The rule exists to trigger a conversation around a specific topic. The best way to get an answer to something on the internet is to confidently state the wrong thing as a fact.
This is not explictly stated. The fact you had to read between the line to arrive at this make this approach a failure from the start especially it will impact current sales of anything involving player options negatively.

2) They are also likely planting some suboptimal choices in each release for reason 1 and so that when they do the full release of the rules, there can be a big list of all the things that were changed based on community feedback.
They did not do this with Next D&D I doubt they will do this with One D&D.
Another thing that is likely making things feel a little weird is that they are having to make sure One D&D is pretty straightforward to code. They need to make systems modular so they can easily add new content. Any opportunity to reuse a system (Likely making the ABI a feat) means it's one less feature the developers have to build out.
I worked with coding up different RPGs from across the history of the hobby. Starting with OD&D, RPGs always been easy to code in the sense of the development of utilities as the bulk of the material is found in various tables and lists. This includes my experience in creating character sheets and rulesets for VTTs.
 
&D I doubt they will do this with One D&D.

I worked with coding up different RPGs from across the history of the hobby. Starting with OD&D, RPGs always been easy to code in the sense of the development of utilities as the bulk of the material is found in various tables and lists. This includes my experience in creating character sheets and rulesets for VTTs.
I'm going to go with D deflagratio on this. It's one thing to code up tables that stand alone or a character sheet that interacts on a limited way with Roll20. It's another to try and do substantial automation on something like the combat system and verify it works reasonably well with all the spells, feats, class powers, racial powers etc. They're also moving as I understand it from 2D to 3D. They might start with simple pawn replacement but I would expect player and GM expectations to rise to include what "should be able to do that" when you consider 3D. Fireball maybe should now show a volumetric experience where it goes through open doors and around hallways.
My feeling is people will expect a WotC VTT to be the best of all the existing VTT's. The automation of FG, The beauty of Foundry, the player base of Roll20. Falling short of that might be viewed as a failure compared to expectations from players & GMs.
 
I'm going to go with D deflagratio on this. It's one thing to code up tables that stand alone or a character sheet that interacts on a limited way with Roll20. It's another to try and do substantial automation on something like the combat system and verify it works reasonably well with all the spells, feats, class powers, racial powers etc. They're also moving as I understand it from 2D to 3D. They might start with simple pawn replacement but I would expect player and GM expectations to rise to include what "should be able to do that" when you consider 3D. Fireball maybe should now show a volumetric experience where it goes through open doors and around hallways.
As far CRPGs go all of the points you mention are old hat and have been solved years ago. Just take your pick and tweak it, hell it has been solved for 5e with Solasta. OD&D and AD&D only have problems because they lack clear sequences for stuff like combat. But if you go with the usual roll 1d6, move or attack then you can easily run the whole game using software.

1664816024557.png

In general the rule system behind CRPGS, as a rule, are not that complex. In general, they are very very very chart heavy by tabletop standards. Take ChartRolemaster and multiply it by 5 or 10. The complexity is in other things not the rules. Nearly all tabletop systems are very easy to code up. Since we are not taking the human referee out of the loop we don't even have to come up with specifics to deal with the normally vague stuff like illusions, charm person, or command. Just focus on making finding the text reference easy when it is cast. Solasta doesn't implement every spells for that reason as the opposition is run by the background ai which will not be the case with the new VTT.

Finally, what I am not arguing is that it is trival. It is however the rules engine is straight forward and been done for many systems in the past using a variety frameworks both 2d and 3d. The rule system doesn't need to be tweaked to help with this.


My feeling is people will expect a WotC VTT to be the best of all the existing VTT's. The automation of FG, The beauty of Foundry, the player base of Roll20. Falling short of that might be viewed as a failure compared to expectations from players & GMs.

There is one definite problem and one potential problem

The definite problem is it will be a one note wonder, the D&D VTT. You will not be playing AD&D, GURPS, TFT, Runequest on this.

The potential problem is that it will be so fancy that the digital equivalent of Dwarven Forge. Spectacular to look at and use but a time sink both in prep and running a session. As well as imposing additional cost beyond paying for your rules and using the basic service as you will have the buy the assets in increments. This can be avoided by contining to support the whiteboard-text chat-rpg utilty (dice roller min) model of VTTs. To date, 3D VTTs that elminate the whiteboard hasn't done as well as their 2D counterpoints in the RPG world like Tabletop Simulator.
 
This is not explictly stated. The fact you had to read between the line to arrive at this make this approach a failure from the start especially it will impact current sales of anything involving player options negatively.
You Are correct that I'm reading between the lines, but It's a standard capital "D" Design practice to not explicitly state that you are doing this so as not to bias your audience. So I'm assuming they are likely to be doing this. They have constantly clarified that this is all playtest and nothing is final. The Key Indicator for me that they are doing this is the Crit Rules from the Character Origins document. They got changed in the next UA and it was so grandiose a change that you would think would have been saved for a more skill check or combat focused UA. Instead, they put it in the first one so they had a lot of time to collect feedback, tweak, and release additional revisions for feedback. Why would you include Great Weapon Master in a UA about Bards, Rangers, and Rogues, because you are trying to get early feedback so you can tweak more for the Martials UA and get multiple rounds of feedback.

The definite problem is it will be a one note wonder, the D&D VTT. You will not be playing AD&D, GURPS, TFT, Runequest on this.
Roll20's public data shows that this is a non-problem. The number of people who only play 5e D&D vastly outnumbers those who play the other systems. It's just a fact that all other system are just blips on the radar compared to current edition D&D. Is there a whale who won't switch because of this? Yes. But that whale will be replaced by hundreds of users who get more use out of easier to build features and they aren't introducing their player base to other systems. This is vertical integration and walled garden. D&D is probably the only game with the player base to be able to invest deeply into functionality to make D&D easier to play.


The potential problem is that it will be so fancy that the digital equivalent of Dwarven Forge. Spectacular to look at and use but a time sink both in prep and running a session.
Considering that D&D Beyond was already into public beta's for encounter planning tools before the buyout, I suspect there is going to be a lot of tools in the VTT to improve prep. They also still want D&D Beyond to be a valuable tool for supporting in person play. This is another area where being a One-Trick Pony has the advantage. They don't have to design these prep tools to accommodate a mountain of different frameworks, only One D&D. There's a lot of complexity to existing VTT's not most GM's don't use, so WoTC really only needs to meet the needs of the higher percentage of users who don't want to set the lighting levels of every single torch. So they can let a GM drag and drop of all their tiles, then they can build encounters by dragging and dropping models to their starting positions, and that auto-populates the encounter tool. There's also likely to be completed maps and building layouts that can just be dropped in. It also provides a differentiator for them to sell their modules and campaign books with 100% VTT setup done. Just spin up a session, let players import their characters, and you are playing. So you can get your epic fantasy game table experience for a fraction of the cost of Dwarven Forge and Hero Forge and be up and playing a lot quicker. We're getting lots of hints from the videos about the GM's guide getting a re-write, and I predict that part of the rewrite will be a formal framework for building adventures, and that the VTT will be able to support that. Ultimately, most of the VTT tools have been built with experienced RPG players in mind and expect them to do a lot of the heavy lifting. WoTC is likely to think about someone 100% new to RPG's and how do they make it as easy as possible to onboard.

As well as imposing additional cost beyond paying for your rules and using the basic service as you will have the buy the assets in increments. This can be avoided by contining to support the whiteboard-text chat-rpg utilty (dice roller min) model of VTTs. To date, 3D VTTs that elminate the whiteboard hasn't done as well as their 2D counterpoints in the RPG world like Tabletop Simulator.
For WoTC the first point is feature, not a bug. For the users, They are bundling a lot of the assets into the traditional rules/module purchases. As to Whiteboard style, if WoTC built one all they could really do is say, "We have achieved parity with our competitors and taken away their direct access to our content, use our service instead". In regards to the Tabletop Simulator comparison, they have the same issue that the Whiteboard systems have. They have to build their platform to support hundreds, if not thousands, of different systems, logic, and tools. With focusing on one system, they can streamline the controls a lot more and the system can understand what is happening with npc's, characters, players, and GM's to improve automations. The 3D part really only adds complexity in the art assets and animations. Where they may run into trouble is if the VTT can't run on 5+ year old computers.
All we've really seen of the VTT is them boasting about the 3d view and using Unity, which is cool and sexy and looks good in a video. They may have a whiteboard mode but that's not impressive. They may also consider Whiteboard mode to be part of an in person experience (tv tables anyone?) Imagine playing in person one week, and then next week playing in the same campaign in VTT mode without any extra work on anyone's part.
As far CRPGs go all of the points you mention are old hat and have been solved years ago. Just take your pick and tweak it, hell it has been solved for 5e with Solasta. OD&D and AD&D only have problems because they lack clear sequences for stuff like combat. But if you go with the usual roll 1d6, move or attack then you can easily run the whole game using software.

Except for D&D Beyond, you need perfect translation between VTT and in-person play. Whatever ruling is made for how something works in the VTT, it must be the standard rule for in-person play as well. People will use the VTT to justify rules arguments and will run simulations to prove how things should work. With a CRPG, you can get away with tweaks to make things work. A lot of the issues with the existing VTT's is the amount of manual tweaking people have to do to get things to work.
 
Except for D&D Beyond, you need perfect translation between VTT and in-person play. Whatever ruling is made for how something works in the VTT, it must be the standard rule for in-person play as well. People will use the VTT to justify rules arguments and will run simulations to prove how things should work. With a CRPG, you can get away with tweaks to make things work. A lot of the issues with the existing VTT's is the amount of manual tweaking people have to do to get things to work.

In my opinion; the part in Bold will have an impact on tabletop play among groups that almost exclusively play WotC D&D...

"But Rule Zero!" "Ruling not Rules!" "My table, my game!" !!!

Yeah, yeah, whatever...

The reality is that this will have an effect on the wider player culture going forward. It will be interesting to see if it is a big enough effect that GM's who are not big on RAW have to adjust to.
 
In my opinion; the part in Bold will have an impact on tabletop play among groups that almost exclusively play WotC D&D...

"But Rule Zero!" "Ruling not Rules!" "My table, my game!" !!!

Yeah, yeah, whatever...

The reality is that this will have an effect on the wider player culture going forward. It will be interesting to see if it is a big enough effect that GM's who are not big on RAW have to adjust to.
I suspect it will have a huge impact on everyone playing D&D. While people who play other system can lean more into Rule Zero, D&D will have rigidly enforced rules. The entire Min-Max community will be able to get definitive answers on a lot of things. Imagine the videos people will put out showing their optimized builds in action. Players will get upset when things that work in the VTT don't work at the table. r/D&Dmemes will have to learn the actual rules of the game :smile:. My biggest concern with the VTT is that combat is already too much of a focus with D&D and how will you make the other pillars satisfying when the mini's on the screen are doing their idle animation.

But just imagine the possibilities the VTT could do. Imagine a Hex Crawl that was like playing Oregon Trail during the travel phase. With auto-random generated encounters and terrain, so everyone is surprised.
 
Its impact will be the same as minis and Dwarven Forge. No worse or better. Because it is the new shiny, folks will and are talking about it as well as wringing their hands about it. But at the end of the day, One D&D's VTT will just be one more option in a sea of options and not the most popular one.

Right now they are not doing as good of a job as what happened with the runup with 5e. There we saw Wizards embracing third parties. Deliberately catering to fans of older editions with the reprint. Being respectful of people's opinions about what they wanted to see. They were lucky that 4e was so disastrous that they had a clean sheet to make a new design. But this time they don't and given what happened with Pathfinder 2e, they do not want to go down the same route as the 3.0 to 3.5 transition and the d20 bust. They will split the hobby if they do so.
 
Its impact will be the same as minis and Dwarven Forge. No worse or better. Because it is the new shiny, folks will and are talking about it as well as wringing their hands about it. But at the end of the day, One D&D's VTT will just be one more option in a sea of options and not the most popular one.

If they pooch the landing, then you will be absolutely correct.

If they stick the landing, then no. The OneVTT will become the dominant VTT destination for people looking to play the latest edition of D&D. The other VTT will suffer because the majority of their paying subscribers play the current edition of D&D. People will migrate to the VTT with the largest player network effect.

That being said, a lot does hinge on WOtC's ability to execute.
 
If they pooch the landing, then you will be absolutely correct.

If they stick the landing, then no. The OneVTT will become the dominant VTT destination for people looking to play the latest edition of D&D. The other VTT will suffer because the majority of their paying subscribers play the current edition of D&D. People will migrate to the VTT with the largest player network effect.

That being said, a lot does hinge on WOtC's ability to execute.
Here the thing tabletop roleplaying isn't about using Dwarven Forge. It isn't about awesome layouts with glowing lights and billowing fog. It is about what what people have time for in a hobby. People are attracted to tabletop roleplaying because it allows fantastic worlds to be created with pen, paper, & dice in the time they have for the hobby.

The VTT as it stands now complements that by allowing people to connect and communicate over the internet and take what they can make with pen & paper and show it other folks on the internet. If that all you do then the only time penalty is the time you need to take to take photo or make scan of whatever it is you want to show. Along with the one time, time sink of learning the software. In recent years folks learned it isn't as bad to use at they imagined.

Now if you use the bells & whistles sure it can be more of a time sink, dynamic lighting, and automated character sheets. But none of them are fundamental to how a VTT is useful to allow people to run a campaign across the internet. Just using Dwarven Forge or even a dry erase board is fundamental to running a face-to-face RPG campaign.

What Wizards is proposing for the One VTT is a 3D automated environment. I would not be surprised if customization will be permitted. That there will be additional 3D models you can buy. Limited house ruling of the rules and so on. But fundamentally the problem that the One D&D VTT will face is that for most it will not be something they can set up in the time they have for a hobby. The only thing that will that quick to use is buying a predefined layout whether it is just a map or an entire adventure/campaign.

It would be just like if the only way to use Roll20 is that you have to use dynamic lighting. Or the only way to play face to face is with a dwarven forge layout. Either one you setup or one already setup at the hobby store. It will not be as popular and it will not compete against the good enough solutions of whiteboard + chat/voice + dice roller. It not as flexible and is way too time consuming compared to pen, paper, and the imagination.

Then on the computer side, it still supports a RPG campaign. An equivalent CRPG or MMORPG is going to be easier to use and more convenient. The whole reason we are at this moment in the hobby is that the pandemic threw everybody onto social media. Bored out of their skull they looked at stuff to do and found out about D&D and tabletop roleplaying. Thanks to Critical Role and a bunch of other folks showing actual play, it looked kind of fun. This was already starting to happen prior to 2020, but the pandemic just threw gasoline on it and accelerated it by a couple of years.

It look kind of fun because people and referees were doing whatever with their campaigns and sessions. Which is very unlike the more regimented world of CRPG and MMORPGs.

But this is not 2008 with people still in the early cycles of figuring this internet thing for commerce and gaming. So I doubt it will be an outright failure. Instead it will be a solid niche with its fans, some interesting content but not be the world-beater that Wizards think it will be.
 
What Wizards is proposing for the One VTT is a 3D automated environment. I would not be surprised if customization will be permitted. That there will be additional 3D models you can buy. Limited house ruling of the rules and so on. But fundamentally the problem that the One D&D VTT will face is that for most it will not be something they can set up in the time they have for a hobby. The only thing that will that quick to use is buying a predefined layout whether it is just a map or an entire adventure/campaign.

The overwhelming majority of people using VTT are playing 5e.

As already discussed in this thread a great deal of them use AP's and other material from D&DBeyond, formatted for use in their VTT of choice.

Part of the reason WotC is doing their own VTT is because they want to consolidate all those people that bought D&D beyond material and their players over to one platform.

They do not care about people who like to houserule, or just drop a map and a few tokens in a simple VTT to play. That is not their target audience.

They are absolutely counting on selling to the large number of people that use pre-made product. They have the D&D beyond sales data, and they would be absolute fools to create a VTT without strong projections for how much of the online VTT 5e player base they can pull over.


But this is not 2008 with people still in the early cycles of figuring this internet thing for commerce and gaming. So I doubt it will be an outright failure. Instead it will be a solid niche with its fans, some interesting content but not be the world-beater that Wizards think it will be.

If they attract the majority of 5e VTT players to their platform; by comparison to all the other VTT they will be a world beater.

Come 2024 we will see if they are fools or not.
 
Now if you use the bells & whistles sure it can be more of a time sink, dynamic lighting, and automated character sheets. But none of them are fundamental to how a VTT is useful to allow people to run a campaign across the internet. Just using Dwarven Forge or even a dry erase board is fundamental to running a face-to-face RPG campaign.

My guess is that WoTC knows that the common complaint about VTT's are the complexities of setup, and they will be focusing a lot on reducing that. First, there's the fact that they will be selling the campaigns fully set up to use in the VTT. So you are basically looking at zero prep Curse of Strad (except for actually reading the module). They also have a lot of possibilities to provide prebuilt rooms and entire dungeons/maps. You can even get into randomly generated maps. It's also possible they can use the CR ratings (that are supposed to get an update), to help randomly generate combat along with providing premade encounters you can drag and drop. This is all the benefit of focusing on one system, they can make these tools match the rules and let it be just a couple of clicks for end users. There isn't a question about how much light the torch gives off because there is only 1 rule for the torch light. There's also the fact that they don't have to require dynamic lighting. It's just that you definitely want to show it off in any demos.

Like you said, the basic need is the ability to quickly provide a representation of the play area. But there's nothing stopping WoTC from building that quick presentation in a 3d tile based environment. You can even make miniature generation easy because you have most of the description built in to the character sheet. Take the description, armor, weapons, race, age, and weight from the character sheet and that can be fed into a model generator pretty quickly with the options to then tweak to your hearts content.

Roll20's features are all designed to be systems that have high flexibility to support any RPG rules, so they put a lot of requirements on the users and content creators to make those features match up to the game in question. With D&D Beyond, they only need it to work for 1 system. They also have a vested interest in making tools that will make map and campaign creation easier, because they need them for their own materials, Especially AL. There isn't a good reason to not give most of those tools to GM's, especially if it's behind a higher tier subscription. I do think they will allow 3rd party material so having those tools easy to use for the 3rd parties makes building for the platform much more attractive.
They do not care about people who like to houserule, or just drop a map and a few tokens in a simple VTT to play. That is not their target audience.
I agree they likely don't care about the houserule crowd. Especially in the beginning. I think they do care about the drop a map and a few tokens crowd, because they want to create a high fidelity 3d experience that takes the same effort (or less) as the most basic VTT scenario. If it's the same amount of work or less for the high fidelity experience, why wouldn't you do it? The biggest problem will be making sure it can run on anything. They just have to make sure it can run on a 4 year old i-pad/iphone.

There's also the fact that this VTT is D&D Beyond, anything backend for managing campaigns, encounters, or characters, will also be used to support non-vtt play. D&D Beyond will still provide the tools for character sheets, dice rolling, encounter/campaign management, and automating a lot of combat.
 
They do not care about people who like to houserule, or just drop a map and a few tokens in a simple VTT to play. That is not their target audience.
I think many people beyond the beginning change up modules, especially because others have read it/seen it before. to not have the ability to do any editing to a module but just run it rote limits their audience more than they might want it to be in my opinion.
 
This may just be me but I don't want to use a service that requires me to have either a Google or Apple id to link to it.
 
Oh and apparently WotC is now approving classic modules again for Fantasy Grounds so looks like it wasn't part of some new plan just a delay for some reason.
 
Oh and apparently WotC is now approving classic modules again for Fantasy Grounds so looks like it wasn't part of some new plan just a delay for some reason.
But what are we going to do with all these pitchforks now?
 
They have approved some new stuff. But if you've been reading the discord, I'm sure you saw Moon say soon after the stop that Smiteworks was going to go to WOTC and ask them if SW could at least release everything they had in production.

It certainly could be just an unexplained hiccup that no one at Smiteworks has cared to reassure the 2E discord about, after learning it wasn't intentional. But it also could be a commercial compromise. What I'll be curious about, is if the converters in the discord get assurance that starting entirely new conversion efforts isn't just a waste of time outside of personal use. That would be telling either way.
 
Hmm this seems less than good to me. Maybe it's old news and I missed it but the head of D&D is out and replaced with a new one from Microsoft. Combine that with a drop in earnings from the brand in Hasbro's latest quarterly filings and I could see a push to move to subscription service to make a new VP seem like they are going bold! I'd have preferred to see someone handling the transition who deeply knew the space.
 
I'm necroing this thread just to vent that I really miss Astral Tabletop. Foundry is a pain in the rear if the RPG you want to play isn't supported. Not to mention dealing with modules going unsupported with new Foundry releases. Astral Tabletop was a lot easier to use, IMO.
 
I'm necroing this thread just to vent that I really miss Astral Tabletop. Foundry is a pain in the rear if the RPG you want to play isn't supported. Not to mention dealing with modules going unsupported with new Foundry releases. Astral Tabletop was a lot easier to use, IMO.
I very nearly adopted Foundry recently but this is what convinced me not to.
 
I'm really digging Owlbear Rodeo. There are a lot of third party extensions that are making it into a really neat package. Astral was awesome and I miss tinkering around with it, but Owlbear is working great for me so far.
 
Roll20 still works for me. As long as SOMEONE (fan or company) has made a character sheet, I'm golden. and then from there, I occasionally buy full modules/compendiums. If they ever added fan-made compendiums, it would be perfect. That's my big complaint right now.
 
Unfortunately, there’s no monetary incentive to making an easy to use, WYSIWYG, customizable VTT. If someone did that, then they couldn’t rape you to death with microtransactions for everything.
 
Unfortunately, there’s no monetary incentive to making an easy to use, WYSIWYG, customizable VTT. If someone did that, then they couldn’t rape you to death with microtransactions for everything.

Supposedly, Role VTT and Let's Role VTT are the two easiest full VTTs that support custom RPGs. However, I've read that Role VTT mandates video and Homey don't play that. Let's Role... Let's Role looks nice, but I'm starting to get the sense of desperation on their part. When they first started up a few years ago, they claimed that there would be no subscriptions, it would be entirely free to play, and they would fund themselves by selling microtransactions. Dice skins, game systems, etc. Except a few months ago they started selling optional monthly subscriptions, and last week they sent out an e-mail practically begging people that have accounts there but haven't logged on in a while to play there. I just don't see it lasting more than a couple of years.
 
Unless something has drastically changed, Role doesn't mandate video at all. We never use video and we used Role for a bit. And it is the most customizable I've seen for non-coders. But holy shit is the output ugly and clunky. I only used it because we were playing Tiny Taverns and I could make sheets in Role. We played 5e one session there and the sheet was so cumbersome we quit and went back to Roll20.
 
I very nearly adopted Foundry recently but this is what convinced me not to.
I use Foundry and the main thing I do is just... not update if I don't need any of the features they add and it would break compatibility with an addon that I use. You can also download all the old versions of Foundry.
 
Has anyone tried Alchemy?
I backed it, but haven't activated my sub - waiting for my content to become available before I do. But the sub makes it unlikely that I'll make it past that initial phase unless it's a lot better than Foundry.
 
I made an account but the site was such a busy mess that I figured that the VTT was going to be way more than I wanted to bother with.
 
I backed it, but haven't activated my sub - waiting for my content to become available before I do. But the sub makes it unlikely that I'll make it past that initial phase unless it's a lot better than Foundry.

Yeah. Right now, I'm paying $8 per month to host Foundry VTT on Molten Hosting. My upload speed is crap (thanks Comcast), and I'm generally not thrilled by the idea of having connections directly to my desktop computer. So I kind of find the whole "Foundry doesn't need a subscription" argument a little disingenuous, considering I pay a subscription to have it hosted, as well as everyone else I know that uses it to GM with. That being said, Alchemy requires both the GM and players to subscribe if they play three or more characters on Alchemy ever. I... just don't see that happening, realistically.

I also find Alchemy's penchant for physical merchandise a little weird.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top