As a small scale map and content maker, and someone trying to make a small living as long term disabled, I wanted to thank you for the clear call out of how hard this could hit folks like me. While I love DnD and have been a player and primary DM for 30+ years the new ethos is not filling me with joy right now.
I'm sticking with 5e, I'm already heavily invested in it. I'm also one of those guys that doesn't like the online digital direction of d&d and will always prefer sitting around the table with my friends.
Excellent analysis. I think you are correct re: Foundry vs One D&D VTT. However, I still think people will play in person. My players (including young ones in the target demographic) prefer to play in-person. RPGs are a form of communion. Players have a spiritual connection that cannot be duplicated. My prediction is this ONE D&D will be a different genre of game, the same way D&D spun off from miniature wargaming. Also, I predict the OSR will EXPAND, as older players feel abandoned. We'll see. Peace.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 It seems that D&D One is more of a video game versus a paper and pen game. I suspect, it will have some sort of a wizard to level you up. You'll never have to worry about the fiddly rules in the background - spells and spells slots will be presented, as they will be baked straight into the system. I think this will have the effect of closing off a lot of the creativity and joint storytelling aspect. Imagine, you just enter in some keywords - fog, twilight, marsh, and the game pulls up your scenario versus your players imagining it. Perhaps it is a D&D Light and a D&D full body?
I said this immediately after I heard the announcement to my group. It will be great if its moddable, and awful if it isn't. If it allows importing of content, a community will start and people will make the tokens for it.
Would be amazing if they did figure a way to make third party content in dnd one. I know with how sluggish Wiz is to adapt non forgotten realms content that eberron would be unavailable for ages
The new VTT looks like hot trash. There's no way it's as good as foundry. And it's in unreal 5, which makes modding much harder for the average person. No one likes modding in c++
I actually disagree, I don't think they ever announced it would be non customisable. It has to be customisable by its nature otherwise it not real dnd but a dnd licensed product. (like the board games)
My favorite class (warlock) of which I have played many over the years, I have had maybe 1 or 2? that cast "eldritch blast" The others threw a black trident made of shifting black shadow almost fighting against being held in this dimension. Books that thump into the enemy, slashing a blade through the air in front sending a slice of energy across the battle field, rocks or boulders that crashed into enemies and knocked the off their feet (knock back) or shattered and hit everyone (can't remember that invocations name). And these are just one example! All of the "how do you swing your sword?" "Is your longsword a Katana or a Shamshir? Khopesh or Yataghan? Kilij?" My monk has 15 different unarmed attacks pulled from Muay Thai, Capoiera, and Eskrima. I get to describe each as I roll the exact same die and use the same mechanical ability. Is this impossible with Oculus? No, but if you're seeing it, I wonder how much quelching will happen.
I agree, by monopolizing the D&D system and all but forcing players into using official content, it takes the charm that set D&D, nay the entire ttrpg scene, apart from other forms of entertainment.
I can't wait for the D&D Beyond Dungeon Packs! $3.99 for 2 random board objects? $2.99 for a singular Mini in a singular randomly assigned color scheme as determined by Wizards of the coast? And don't forget the Paint By Numbers Pack of two brush colors for $4.99! What a steal when the subscription prices is 24.99 a month! After all, if 4e D&D taught me anything it was that being trapped in a system designed to try to cut out all 3rd party content and funnel literally all of the money to Wizards is the best idea ever, and is only enhanced by it now all vanishing if you don't keep all your friends locked in and paying a monthly sub fee forever! /s
Considering Wizards struggles to put $10 worth of content in most of their $50 books, and most actual video game developers struggle to put out $5 worth of content for their live service games each month, I doubt the $30 tier would be worthwhile. This is a power play by a company that vastly overestimates their capabilities if they think cutting homebrew out is a good idea.
yuh. dnd went through a MASSIVE surge after critical role but wotc has vastly overestimated dnd's peak and especially current popularity. it has dipped. hard. not lower than it was before cr but its down bad lmao. most laymen and 9 to 5'ers have heard of dnd, true. but almost no one in the real world has ever played the game. 50 million, thats nothing. that number is EVERYONE WHO HAS PLAYED, including casuals and people that wont play again. and a tiny fraction of those people play now. and an even smaller fraction of those people play regularly. and a fraction of those people use vtts. and a fraction of those would pay for one. and a fraction of those would pay an insanely greedy 30 bucks. dndbeyond right now only has 420k subscribblers and an ABYSMAL AWFUL PATHETIC 12,000 active users. whatever team that is being paid six figures a piece to provide wotc with their market research is doing some SERIOUS arse kissing for short term benefits lmao. they better have their resume updated when this new garbage fails miserably.
The best two campaings I've had are 3rd party. Shoutouts to Call from the Deep (JVC) and Grim Hollow (Ghostfire), they seem to do what WotC can't. So yeah, gatekeeping Dnd so 3rd party companies can't publish content on the same level is the same as shooting themselves on the foot.
This is a power play by hasbro that has told wotc to multiply its earnings, which they accomplished through MtG. In response hasbro said do it again, and now wotc is stretching to find anything else they can overmonetize
@@aa-tx7th Bob world builder's video actually proves that critical roll did absolutely nothing for dnd's popularity; it was actually entirely stranger things.
Ironic you should call out the grognards like myself who think we'll still be playing on paper in the future after the apocalypse. That's exactly what I'm preparing for. Collecting many RPG books and sealing them so that they may be dug up and played in the future on paper, and pencil. As God intended.
I would also suggest collecting them in a storage medium and keep it sealed into a faraday bag(easy to buy or make) since I guarantee that computers would be able to be repaired.
We can become RPG Mentats; "It is by initiative alone I set my dice in motion. It is by the bonus of INT that thoughts acquire speed, the fingers acquire cheeto stains, the stains become a finger licking good. It is by initiative alone I set my dice in motion."
I agree with all the "hyperbole" and would go as far as to say that this will be step one into turning D&D into a "service" and gating access to all "your" books (which won't really be your books) behind a subscription where you'll own nothing and be happy. Soon you'll have to pay a monthly sub just to play D&D and get access to all your digital tokens, which you'll have to pay extra for.
This is their attempt to crack the code. How do we bypass market saturation and get our customers to be consistently buying our product? Continually spending money so we can profit? I'd like to think it wasn't Gary's primary motivation, and part of the reason he got forced out of his own company. He had more of a love for the game, and his detractors were all business. It wasn't personal, just business.
@Several Fighters. I'm sorry there isn't more than a "thumbs up" button for this comment. WotC are definitely going down the Microsoft route here . . .
Think this might be the end of D&D as the primary entry point to the wider hobby. There has always been a large faction of people who start with b&D never go beyond D&D, but I think this will both wall off from the rest of the hobby in a way that does not happen when you buy your books at a hobby shop or on drive through and by creating a very different set of expectations of what a role playing game will deliver that Call of Cthulhu or even Vampire is not going to be able to deliver. I also think this is being driven not by people in the D&D space but by higher-ups at Hasbro. I think executives at Hasbro do not understand why a brand that is at least as well known as magic the gathering probably more so and maybe even as well known as Monopoly is not producing magic the gathering or Monopoly type revenues year in and you're out. By setting up the virtual tabletop where you get everything in one package and they can rotate content like they do magic cards to get subscriptions wizards can now provide Hasbro executives with the kind of revenue stream they expect from a brand as well known as DND.
Not only that, but by bringing everything into the same digital space, they solidify the DnD branding - which can lead to more movies, more action figures, more monetization off the DnD brand. The game? Was DnD just a game?
D&D has been out performing other products. I like having the combination of digital and physical and probably won’t use all the DDB features. I only use battle maps and am happy with what I use currently. But I like that there are options for others who want them. The more accessible they make it the more people I can share my hobby with.
WoTC is trying to do inovation for inovation sake, most parties still play table top but they think most people play on their shitty platform because thats the only they have metrics for. Virtual tabletops is a niche of a niche that people just cared about during The pandemic, but the it will never best the thrill of rolling dice and playing with real minis
@@A_Thieving_Fox Is D&D out performing Mr. Potato Head? Is it out performing Monopoly? Is it out performing My Little Pony or Nerf? Those are core Hasbro brands and D&D, as a brand, is expected to play at that level. D&D is doing well for a hobby game, but until I see more numbers than I have, I'm not buying it is performing as a corporate brand the way the C-suite in Providence expects.
At the end of the Little Brown books one of the last sentences if not the last is " why let us do your imagining for you " with the new virtual tabletop, we seem to be coming to a D&D built on the exact opposite premise: let us do all your imagining for you. As for me, I'm just going to remember the old infocom ads from the early 80s where they claimed their text adventures used the best graphics card available your brain.
Playing in person is a large part of the experience. As far as my group is concerned, playing online is a completely different game. Yes, I do believe in another 50 years there will be people playing on pen and paper around a table because that is the best way to play the game.
Yeah, people still play advanced D&D still and prefer it, having added rules and such to fix some of the issues with that system. Same for 3.0/3.5 it is still played to this day. Hell Im sure some do enjoy 4e(and that is perfectly fine)
True. My group still has a ton more fun around a table than in front of black screen, and I'm also one of like 30-40 people from in and around Cracau taking part in every single boardgaming meetup in southern Poland. So yeah, tabletop games aren't dead.
As somebody with 30 years experience running professionally I can unilaterally say that is the opposite of the truth. Using online tools can create a much more immersive experience. It all depends on what tools are using and how you're using them. Using my method I regularly cause emotional outbursts in my players from the perspective of their character and and often complaints of having nightmares. I never experienced such emerson with my players at table. That thing said drunk DnD at a table is at a table it's so much fun.
Even now in-person games are only a small portion of games. The ability to play virtually is probably the number one reason D&D has exploded in recent years.
As someone who’s played D&D since 1st edition, I have some hesitation regarding One D&D. I agree with you regarding the VTT maps and imaging. I do like most of the character creation changes. (Didn’t like seeing that eldritch blast is gone.) But as a retired person on a limited income, I can’t spare the money for a monthly subscription in order to access the rules and play the game. Guess folks like me will be forced to stick with 5e, other VTT platforms and the kindness of DMs willing to help players out.
The general rumor is class specific spells like eldritch blast will be in class features, just not on the big spell lists. There will certainly be groups that ignore anything that requires a monthly subscription. It’s possible you might have to find new groups if your current one is gung-ho about all the new shiny things, but there will be more old schoolers out there too. My main group still plays 3.5, it’s the one the most people have the most fun with, and we already have the books. Why change something that’s working for us?
i've played since the red box as well. this new step, i think, is at odds with the 'free to play if one person's got one of the manuals' attitude of earlier editions
>Guess folks like me will be forced to stick with 5e Kind of what happened with my group when 4e came out. We all tried it then went back to 3.5 until 5e came out. Some even jumped ship and started using Pathfinder. ... I wonder if the people over on Pathfinder 2 are starting to think this might be a bankable misfire in the making over at Wizards.
My concern about the VTT is how minis work. Are the new minis going to be WotC's version of Disney Infinity/Skylanders? Do we buy minis with bases that are uploaded to the VTT program? Are the minis going to be available on the VTT for 99 cent downloads for small and tiny, but $1.99 for medium, and increase based not only on size, but also if they're named (ie. Strahd and Demogorgon are $10 each)?
Or will you need to pay 1$ a month to access your mini vaults or something? and have a tier level, tier one lets you create 3 minis as a player, tier 2 allows you to make 10, tier 3 20, and tier 4 unlimited number.
I could see a tier pay system like you said. MM Minis are $0.99/each while campaign specific minis and named minis have a different tier. WotC is in it for the money. D&D Beyond already does something similar before they were purchased.
Oh! Like, will the mini's have a code in them like the books for a digital copy? That would be interesting, and a smart way to go about it. If they do digital mini rentals, I feel like that would just kill it, especially if it's a subscription to use the program. I could see packs being sold, or made available, with the purchase of a module. It would be kind of weird to buy, let's say, Curse of Strad, and his mini/token not be available to use.
@@frickzillafrik9573 I hate to agree with you on that one, though there are already DMs that do that. Now, if they made blank/basic tokens available for free, that would be smart. Like, tokens you could upload your own images to, or even like a basic low level monsters like goblins, zombies, and wolves. If you want actual 3D minis, I could see you having to pay for that. It's true that WotC are in it for the money, but they can't make EVERYTHING have a cost, or else no one would play it, and One DnD will just end up with as poor of a rep as 4e did.
I think you hit the nail on the head that the "leak" was to test the waters ($30 a month? Hell, no.) Regarding crits - I think a better to handle them (if you wanted to remove them from spells, damage increasing features, and natural attacks) would be to make 'critical hit' a weapon property (which also applies to unarmed attacks).
They were very quick to say it was a fake picture, rather than release a "we don't comment on leaks" type statement. To me that indicates that this was a fake made by an angry fan...all it takes is one, and there are plenty out there that think some of the One D&D stuff is the end of the world, so the idea that its fan made is hardly a reach.
"Critical hits as a weapon property" exists in 3e, weapons had a Critical Threat range, and if your unmodified d20 roll landed within that, and the modified roll is considered a hit, then you would roll a second time. If you hit the AC a second time you have a confirmed Critical Hit.
My dude, if you cannot afford 30 a month STOP playing D&D right now cus it will bankrupt you. I spend that much on dice alone and have over 50 sets (at least...those are just the ones I have access too without popping open tubs from the garage (0.0)....not to mention miniatures, paints, terrain...god I could go on for HOURS. Hell I pay more than 30 dollars a month on video game subscriptions I barely have the time to pay. My thinking is this, if that is true, that much to get access to that kind of gaming online is actually not that bad. And for the crits, 3e had a similar system.
@@shawnadams1460 my gamer, not being able to justify 30 a month on stuff is the worst excuse to stop playing d&d. You need approximately $12 to start playing d&d: dice, and a $0.10 printed sheet from your local library. That's it, dice are all the extra materials you really need. You dont even need to own any of the books, thanks to sites like dungeonmastersvault
I wonder if my great grandchildren will enjoy dnd like I did while huddled in their bunkers under blankets stitched together from the clothes of fallen comrades.
I do believe in due time, this will come back to bite their own ass with their whole VTT thing. Companies really underestimate what their community do for their products sometimes.
THe VTT as shown in the concept vid is pie in the sky. Doing this stuff to this level of fidelity online is REALLY HARD, and WotC have NO EXPERTISE in this area. If it ever happens, we won't be seeing it for years, and it's just as likely to be an expensive disaster as it is a success.
I feel like the official VTT will be a polarizing topic in the community just like VTT's were in general before the pandemic pretty much forced it on us. My guess is we'll probably see part of the community moving their games entirely to the new VTT, part of the community trying it and only using it occasionally, and part of the community swearing off it altogether. For those who already play primarily on a third party VTT like Roll20, they will probably feel comfortable on the official VTT from WotC and expectations will gradually move more towards a fully integrated and 3D rendered experience going forward, leaving 3rd party VTT's behind unless they adapt. This doesn't feel like a fad to me, and I see this moving even more burden onto the DM's to fork over tons of cash and enormous time investments so the players can feel more immersed in the game. As a DM, I'm not a fan of this shift, but as Cody mentioned, I think it's inevitable and it's just the new normal we will all have to get used to if we're going to keep up with new editions. If you don't care about moving to new editions going forward, this really won't impact you other than it's going to be harder to find new players since they likely will all be moving on without you.
@@Klijpo It just looks like a shinier version of the VTT that was supposed to come out with 4e. That one also didn't manifest - for tragic reasons - but either way, it's a massive undertaking, in a field that WotC have little to no exp in. Basically I think folks shouldn't worry about this destroying the hobby - it definitely won't be ready in time for the edition release, and may never come out at all.
Should have mentioned the crazy shipping cost for anyone outside the USA. Making these new bundles a hard no for people outside the center of the universe. I understand it and get it that you can't have a company loss money on book sales via shipping costs. But I talked to my group last night we have decided to stick with 5e and block out all the buzz and wait a few years for the dust to settle before we make any moves. Thanks for the Video!
I fully agree with all your points, pretty much. I'm so glad you brought up the inevitable issues with the official VTT. My group is mostly set up with good PC builds, but one of our guys has a non-gaming laptop and is forced to rely on roll20 or Foundry being hosted from another person's PC. Who knows how this would go for him... I am mega happy that you mentioned the point about how maps often distract players from the game, so to speak. In my experience, any time we have a battle map or dungeon crawl map on the VTT, whoever is playing (myself included) becomes too entrenched in worrying about the exact positioning of our character tokens rather than focusing on the roleplay or exploration. On the flip side, whoever is DMing (myself included) sometimes just sits and waits for our tokens to pass over a trap square or something, then says "oh wait wait wait stop moving there." And then it's like "well I guess I'm saving or taking damage now, woohoo so fun..." At that point we're not playing D&D, we're playing "nudge images around on a bigger image until something happens." These are all of course mistakes that can be corrected and adapted to as you learn and grow as a player/DM. But I worry that WotC's official push for this new VTT is going to make a lot of lesser experienced folks put too much focus on the maps, and less focus on the game. (I would LOVE to see a more in-depth video about this topic btw, even outside of the upcoming official VTT! I have many thoughts on it myself.) Some more predictions: a) Maps become either fully or partially monetized by WotC... possibly even for third party maps made publicly available through the service. I've been following the video game industry and playing video games long enough to know *exactly* where this type of shit leads and I really, REALLY don't like it. b) The work and time required to make your own maps skyrockets. c) The more details and style that the map shows, the less room for the human imagination to make the experience cooler. Sure, theater of the mind is the obvious counter to this, but you cannot argue the fact that having a simple-to-use VTT to track positioning, status effects, HP, etc. is unbelievably helpful. And let's not ignore the obvious thing here - if you use WotC's VTT, you can be damn sure you'll be playing by WotC's rules. Literally and figuratively. No other systems, just whatever edition of D&D they deem current. No third party mods. No owning the software yourself. These three points, each on their own is enough to prevent me from having ANY desire to leave Foundry. (Though I would be more than happy to be wrong on any of these.)
People always forget about other countrys where the conversion to the local currency makes those subscritions unrealistic. I don't know how things will happen in USA, but here in South America I can garantee that people will still play DnD the old fashion way
Somewhere in a near, virtual tabletop future: Player: "Using my immense strength, i topple one of the pillars and send it careening towards the huddled mass of goblins at the base of the stairs. How do we show that in the VTT?" DM: "Ummmmmmm..." For myself personally I'm all for a smoothly integrated digital platform, but it seems like we're going to lose a few things like flexibility and improvisation. I don't feel great about that.
The VTT won't show that. You roll your dice, and the DM describes what happens. The trick is remembering that you still can try to topple the pillar, even though you know the VTT won't show it happening. It's a VTT, not a video game. You get 3D tokens.
@@Karajorma On a honest-to-god table I could use a physical object or draw it on a battle map. In a VTT that uses a 2D perspective I could modify the PNG in something like MS Paint, or just use some tokens to represent it. But in Unreal Engine 5, that is at least an order of magnitude harder to do. If there's no asset that matches what i'm looking for do I have to create the 3D model myself? Does that require a license? You can just handwave all this and use theater of the mind, but then what's the point of the fancy 3D VTT?
@@samdoorley6101 and on a 3D VTT you'lll just grab some barrels, scatter them around and say "pretend they are fallen bits of pillar" Sure it won't look perfect, but it won't look perfect in anything other than theatre of the mind.
I’ve played every edition since the first edition (yeah, I’m that old), and I can honestly say that I’ve reached the point of tapping out on this new “model.” VTT, sorry, hard pass. I prefer my D&D in person and around a table. I get it that some people don’t have that luxury. Subscription model? I’m not made of cash. Overall, I like some of the changes, but I see where this is headed and since I’m a cursed forever DM, I will only go along with this until my players start subsidizing me.
I think the VTT as shown has a better than evens chance of being an expensive disaster that never happens. That stuff is hard, and WotC will have to pivot into becoming a game developer it it is ever to work. In any case, it's years away.
There's something special having books, when the GM sets up the table for combat, having your own miniature model, playing in candlelight, (pizza) grease stains on the map, etc. IMO computers ruin the immersion of sitting around a table with friends.
I think people are overly concerned about the VTT. It won't, in any sense, be mandatory. If you play face to face now, you'll be able to play OneD&D in the same way as you did before. I'll probably pick up the new books out of general interest. I might even play them a bit. I doubt very much I'll touch the new VTT, as Codie says I see it as a too flashy distraction from the game I want to play.
@@jbaidley If they're going to invest the amount of money required to build this thing, you can bet the "suits" are going to want to make it mandatory so they can recoup the investment and profit from MTX. WotC ill be a totally different company if they do this, with the vast majority of employees being videogame developers.
I like VTTs when they make playing the game easier -- i.e. looking up a rule quickly, drag-and-drop enemies with stat blocks, tracking damage, etc. Otherwise, they are a poor substitute for visual imagination and storytelling. Players do exactly what you said -- they get fixated on visual details on a map and start to limit themselves on what they can interact with and what they can do. Most have become accustomed to this limitation due to video games, which cannot give the freedom to do everything you could do in your imagination. Yes, pictures are helpful, maps are helpful, being able to "see" the space you could only imagine can be fun, but Imagination > VR/tech every time.
nailed it, vtts are so often a barrier to ease of use than a tool to allow you to focus on the improv and player interaction, which is the ONLY important asset of dnd over a video game and frankly the vtts make dnd a bastardization of a really really slow video game that forces you to program and crunch its numbers and its horrendous. i dont know, even rolling dice isnt nearly as fun as acting and improvisation or creating a world. face it people dnd is far better on paper. it just is. if youre gonna use a screen and want fancy graphics then final fantasy, witcher, and divinity 2 are far far superior experiences. dnd is trying to compete with video games and its gonna fail every single time. its better if it stayed in its little niche forever and stopped trying to be something it isnt good at... wotc needs to move away from the screens and focus on the rulebooks, content, and testing. nothing else. but of course money. the insanely expensive books just arent enough profit for wotc i guess. another f!&king subscription service. no one is "allowed" to own anything. oh well if wotc wants to be nasty we can always just pirate their sh!t.
I agree, but lets face it....the younger than us generation does NOT see the world that way. This could be IMO a very good tool to bring new players in and teach them the game, but then you go the extra mile as a DM to show they how to play without all the tools. Just as an example, I got my daughter to play a little homebrew 5e game with 4 of her friends, I went HAM man, im talking maps, figurines (some painted by me others were the 2d ones on stands for NPC's etc). I did all that to keep their attention...a feat I am quite proud of, and it worked. They got the basics of the game, stayed mostly in character and have now completed 3 campaigns over the last 2 1/2 years. Now they barely use anything unless they are in combat.
@@shawnadams1460 I’m not sure that us gen-z:ers are as different to older generations as you think. I’m part of a pretty big ttrpg-club that’s made up entirely of people born in the 2000:s, and I don’t think any of the groups really use vtt:s. That might have something to do with the rpg-culture here in Sweden though, since it’s not as D&D-focused, and it’s harder to find good digital stuff for other games.
Many people don't have the luxury of a local gaming group and VTTs are great for that. They will never beat the experience of being at a real table with friends. If I were alive in 150 years I would still be playing pen and paper the way Gygax intended.
I have not playtested to be fair, but a concept I think that would help balance the nat 20/1 rolls is to give inspiration to nat 1’s instead of 20’s. Let a PC learn from mistakes and help prevent players from being stuck with unlucky rolls.
Imagine trying to get someone into another TTRPG coming from this new VTT environment. There's a dramatic hyperbolic part of me screaming that this is going to cripple a lot of VTTs and impact the bar to entry for a lot of other TTRPGs. I think it's already troubling how much market share D&D owns. This scares me that it could get much worse. I hope I'm wrong.
I think you're going to see the same thing that happened with Warhammer+ and Vampire 5e. A significant part of the market is filthy casuals that just buy the hardcovers as shelf fillers and eagerly offer their very strong opinions on subreddits. Those people will not buy a subscription service and Hasbro will desperately flounder to redefine success. They'll stick with it for 5 years and then launch 6e.
Bruh first they came after my video games and now even my ttrpgs are adopting live service models. Literal books are going to be updated regularly, accessible through a monthly subscription. I guess we’ll just never pay for things upfront anymore
So as for the VTT, I do hope they make 2 (the 3D one and a 2D one) now as for the 3D thing, TaleSpire already exists so there has already been a market out for 3D VTT players, and while yes artist who make tokens for 2D might suffer, there are people who specialize in 3D modeling so while the gate closes for one group it opens for another. My Fear with the 3D VTT though is USER INTERFACE I feel that thing is either going to be VERY Steep learning curve and super clunky or be so minamilistic you are going have to manually do a ton of work (because its integrated with D&D beyond though i feel it might be on the simpler side) ideally though they would make a 2D mode if they don't though that kinda actually is good news for places like Roll20 and Foundry as they still have a area. As for the Playtest itself, my group play tested it and for the most part we love almost everything about it, my favorite change and prob one of the ones i see get a lot of hate, is the new grapple changes and making them unarmed attacks, in plays test this FELT AMAZING, it was so much simpler to do, i felt like i could cc a target for longer now since grapple save is END of turn they are grappled the entire turn and making a grapple as an opportunity attack ohhh boy thats fun. Inspiration felt nice, never felt over bearing or too much but felt nice. Backgrounds 100% yes, i basically home brewed a version of this anyways. The big change though the Crit rule change .. im pretty sure this was thrown in there as like a "gotcha" they KNEW people would hate this change but now when feed back comes and they change it they can say "see look we listen and changed this due to feed back" Also i know im entering conspiracy theory territory here, but wouldnt it be a smart tactic to also make sure more players take the survey since "you don't want crits to stay this way right? take our survey". But yeah the Play Test makes the rest look promising, I for one am excited to see what they have next
That hero forge idea is great. If only i could be used on a 3d VTT for Fantasy Flights Genesys system and if hero forge be able to make non humanoids and large scale models.
I am someone who **has** to use 2d vtts. My computer is over 10 years old and I literally cannot afford another one. I am against the 3d and VR stuff cause I can't afford it. I am someone who owns Foundry, and it works amazingly for me. I can afford to go into a subscription based system where I don't get to use my stuff when I can't afford to pay extra money. I literally have books I was given from other people that are quite literally falling apart. If I had money and I mean a lot of money, I would build my dream desktop and vr setup and potentially subscribe to this. I just struggle to keep up with this stuff cause I keep getting bulldozed by life and have no way to afford much of anything else unless I am dumpster diving for stuff. And yes I did do it when a shop was closing down and throwing away their extra books and minis. They tried to soak everything down in paint to keep people from getting anything good.
My group is pretty collectively fed up with WotC in general. After this (heavily homebrewed) 5e campaign is done I think we've all agreed to move on to another system entirely.
my potato has issues running Owlbear Rodeo + chat + online monster stats, so, yeah, DDB+ ain't for me. about the new Crit rules: I love how it's written that the DM shouldn't ask for a roll if there is no success or failure condition. hence, "I want to use Charisma to ask the King to give me his position. here, NAT 20! it's a Crit! I'm king now!" *will be answered* with "I didn't ask for a roll, so nothing like this happened. if you change what you wanna accomplish I may ask for a roll."
Imagine the 2 - 6 hours you spend preparing for the session. Now imagine having to learn how Unreal Engine works and then spending 60 hours custom building the map for your players to spend 3 hours in. If it loads in the first place and doesn't result in an error message for 1/3rd of the party.
Yep. I would place a wager that this will be quietly dropped (at least in the form shown) when it becomes apparent how hard it will be to make and keep running. It will turn WotC into a videogame developer if it is to work as shown, given the amount of devs they'll need to hire to build and keep it functional. That means it will also be expensive...
@@Klijpo Tbf, WotC was wanting to make more video games anyway. That being said, I vaguely remember D&D NEXT and 4th Edition supposedly having the same functionality as what they're stating in the One D&D trailer. Surely, they wouldn't lie to us a third time, right?
I find it unlikely that you'll need to use Unreal Engine's development tools. You'll use the VTT's editors and tools, which should be similar to learning a mix of Talespire and Foundry. Now I agree with "map building will take longer", and its the main reason I haven't joined Talespire even though I backed them. One thing that can help is to compare building a virtual map to building a map with Dwarven Forge: You should not build the same kinds of maps than those you can draw. It works better with bespoke individual rooms, or if you are playing with maps made for a ready-made adventure.
@@mateusfarias1524 I suppose. It's still gonna feel easier to make the maps in-person rather than use the VTT. Those new pop-up maps will probably help too
I mean, this is just silly. I'm not even defending the VTT, but the idea that DMs will need to learn UE5 to use it is silly. Literally hundreds of games have built in, drag and drop map makers/level building tools. There are dozens of legitimate concerns about the VTT, let's not just make stuff up because it ends up hurting real conversation on the subject.
I think there should be dwarven subraces. I don’t care about separating mountain and hill dwarves, but there should be room for things like duergar and arctic dwarves.
Idk if its covered already but One DND (the Virtual version) needs to make sure that random choices that players make can be reflected seamlessly. As a DM, this would be amazing to use BUT will this keep up with my players and their random decisions?
All that we need is the ability to drag a token anywhere, edit character sheets, and to quickly draw or drop stuff. So far their preview looked more Dwarven Forge than Baldur’s Gate, so I’m hopeful. Not that my potato pc can run it anyhow.
Old school D&D DM and I have never liked VTTs. Playing online has never been my thing. The problem is I know I’m a dinosaur, I don’t even play video games. I’ll likely have to adapt or choose a new hobby as my players move away from in person games. I play D&D to enjoy time hanging out with friends not to play a video game.
I think in-person, pen and paper RPGs are here to stay. Playing online is fun as well but I personally just don't get the same magic of shared imagination as I do in person. I'm sure WOTC"s new venture will be a success but friends around a table are where the soul of tabletop lies for me.
I will give you my answer...... As a player since the early 1980s I think Pathfinder 2E just got a new player. After the half ass Spelljammer set I am done. I have problems looking at a computer screen for extended periods of time so the digital crap can bugger off. I hope 6E repeats 4E success for DnD.
I'm always glad to hear your opinions and takes on new content. Honestly even though its a big ol' monologue for something as invested as we are in this topic it feels like a discussion. My opinions are changing and growing. Change isn't really good or bad, it's just change.
You didn't just call it, you freaking NAILED it. Speaking of conspiracy theories -- do you think they'll refuse to sell the with-digital-code books through Amazon?
About the Nat20 rule giving inspiration, I saw in a reddit about doing the opposite, giving the inspiration on a nat1. So you break bad luck streaks and the players have a better overall experience.
I hate to be negative, but I neither like WotC to imitate Apple with their closed system, nor the digital first approach they are clearly aiming for. The VTT will not offer the full scale of options that a free form game can. Those so called new options will actually limit games IMHO.
Hit the nail on the head, love the content and agree with a lot of the things you say in every video! Thanks for helping us all be better DMs and Players! Keep up the great work!
I have two players in my regular game who would never be able to run a 3D VTT on their computer. They have enough problems with dynamic lighting on Roll20. I'd be happy with a 2D version that I could use the books I've purchased. But if you can't upload your own maps or tokens, I'm not interested. I run enough third-party content (not to mention third-party maps to replace the official, bare-bones maps Wizards has been giving us) that a VTT I can't upload to is useless to me.
I'm not switching to One, at least not quickly. Ive got too much money and time in 5e, and I exclusively run in-person games. If there are good things in One, I can adapt them to 5e, probably with little fuss. If D&D One turns out to be superior, then I might switch eventually. Cost and quality are going to be huge factors. Time will tell.
Everyone that I know that plays D&D doesn't have a lot of money to put to a subscription service and will refuse......tho we dont play 5E anyway. mostly pathfinder 1E or other systems
As someone that plays in a Roll20 game and runs a in person one, this change makes me worried that they are going to start releasing "updates" or "patches" to the game instead of making sure it's right in the first place. If you can't trust the content you buy in a book or recreate in Roll20 to be not broken (or changed in 60 days) that's a huge determent to everyone.
I think pushing out a VTT that's limited exclusively to D&D and will see people pushed into the whole 'sunken cost fallacy' territory through a significant amount of MTX is incredibly unhealthy for the market of tabletop rpgs in general - which is WOTC's general goal and point, I suppose. Don't like it at all.
@@reddjack340 There's a decent chance that will happen. Game Dev is hard, and WotC have no expertise in doing anything like this. Even if it happens it's going to be years before it's ready.
The unreal engine is...great. It's nice. The VTT looks pretty. I also 100% think that it's going to be a terrible addition to the game. It will decimate the market share of 3rd party content, and I honestly don't follow or care too much on WOTC's design decisions when it comes to maintaining their brand, promoting organized play, and 'balancing' for Adventure's league. It is a huge barrier to entry when it comes to learning, and setting up. I already spend probably an extra 2 hours finding/building maps, importing creatures, finding tokens,etc. And that's with easy to find PICTUREs. Good F-ing luck finding reasonable 3D models for tokens, walls,etc. The ONLY benefit I can see is if they somehow make it so you can import STL files as tokens. The way they presented it, it also looks like it'll have 0 automation. The only reason I would ever bring a VTT to an in-person game, or prefer it to the current options is if it relieves a lot of the burden of the rules and math. I don't want to now have to break out my 20ft radius sphere marker in the VTT, move it around and then spend 5 minutes as the player asks me (or does it themselves) positioning it in 3D space while struggling with the controls to maximize the number of baddies it hits because now a 'point you can see' can be literally free-floating.
I'll be honest, WotC pushing digital subscriptions so they can update or fix their mistakes sounds just awful. They've already established with their last several books that they are not putting the time and effort to make it worthwhile, so now they will put out half a book, riddled with errors, let people buy it and play it for months, then when complaints get big enough, they "fix it" by releasing the actual usable stats for online. This will double dip their profits and it's disgusting. It's apt that you used GW as their fan base absolutely hates the online aspect and how cheap they are with everything else. One D&D seems like a turning point I don't want. I think I'll stick with 5e or switch over to Pathfinder 2e.
The warhammer approach to D&D sounds like a nightmare hellscape. I don't want quarterly balance changes, I want a definitive hardcover book on my shelf. Stop trying to make everything a Live Service, damn it!
My initial reaction was "this needs more context". There are too many gaps in information to know how this will turn out. Crit fails/success on everything seems too much like a coin toss rather than a dice roll but, we don't know what else they are implementing to balance it. As always, house rules > rulebook.
100% agreed. I've always seen the rulebooks as just a basic foundation to be built upon. Hell, I've homebrewed 5e so much, I call it my own version of 5.1e, and my friends always tell me we're playing "Temples and Wyverns" rather than "Dungeons and Dragons" lol.
I think my only issue with the focus on giving inspiration would be that you get it on a Nat 20. I think it would make more sense for it to be given on a Nat 1 as a “you failed, but get ‘em next time champ”. Where as a Nat 20 could maybe give Inspiration to another member of the party. That’s probably how I would rule it.
I started playing D&D In 1983. I bought the books, full set, and then another (2nd Ed.) and then 3rd,,, Hey 3.5 shortly thereafter. THEN I bought pathfinder COREBOOK and that was the last book I bought. My games are CORE BOOK only pathfinder 1 (or other games I already own) and I do get some push-back from the Power-Gamers, BUT here is what I say. If you cannot make an interesting character from what is in THAT ONE BOOK, maybe you just cannot make an interesting character. Nowadays it is Star Wars d6 on Roll20. Already had that book. At some point 20 years in, I had already spent enough money and re-tooled my game to the rules enough times to be over it. 4th Edition being so horrible fed into it. Played it once.... Once was enough.
As someone who likes to play a variety of different systems, the VTT actually bums me out. Now it will be even harder to convince people to try new systems. Look at how maligned the Pathfinder community is by the 5e community all because they just want more people to play their game. This is going to amplify the edition wars mentality that current 5e players already have, and make it even harder to get newer players to test other systems. 5e fans already think that anyone who doesn't play their system eats babies and kicks puppies just for daring to like a thing they've never tried. I don't even want to imagine how much more insufferable they'll be after 6e comes out.
Agreed. I mean, I’ve honestly wanted basically that style of a VTT for ages (and I’m still shocked that nobody has really done it and been successful before now), but I REALLY wish it wasn’t coming from WotC, because its features are probably not going to be very compatible with other games/systems, and it’ll just continue to solidify 5E’s monopoly over the TTRPG-sphere.
I actually have a similar house rule for awarding inspiration I call ‘embrace the suck’. When someone gets a nat 1 they get inspiration. It changes the mindset of complete avoidance to accepting their character failed at something because they still get a little something out of it
Really wish I could find that video clip of the pre-4e VTT marketing. The lighting and render quality are better with this one (thanks, Unreal 5!). But it otherwise "reads" the same, even with similar marketing copy.
The codes in books thing kinds of pisses me off because you only get the code if you buy the book from Wizards, it screws the local gaming stores, so they can keep their codes as far as I am concerned.
Lovely video, I'm somewhat excited specially as I enjoy the visual aspect quite a lot. Ill be looking forward to it but its gonna really depend on how well they make this system. Currently TTS, foundry and pen and paper (hopefully getting 3D printed minis in the future) are still king for me and its gonna take quite a lot to shift but still looking forward to the possible innovations its bringing, and if it flops 5e and 3.5 still exist, not to mention other systems and subsystems. hope you all have a great day o/
It's because Crawford was tired of answering the question "Can I crit when I use a ranged spell attack?" every other week, and people telling WotC in the surveys "What? I didn't know you could crit. I just said you can't, and we've been going that route." As Crawford said in the interview, lot of the listed changes in the playtest are house rules other groups used because they either didn't read or understand the original rules.
@@KevinVideo If that's the reason it's pathetic. Another possibility is damage envy, how come the spell caster can crit and hit 12 foes and I only get to hit one. Well it's up to people that like to play spell casters to tell D&D they don't like the changes. Who knows it may even help.
I'm all for advancement, modernization and everything, but I will never change my playstyle, dice MUST be THROWN by HAND, players must be in the same table, voices must be real and everyone must share the same nachos bowl.
I am with you 100% that's the best way to play though not as doable at times for instance with my group at 1 point we did all play together around a table but some players moving across the country and some moving a few hours away made it so us doing an in person game (luckily weekly and ill admit that) extremely hard for some and impossible for others so even though I agree 100% with you I had to evolve my playstyle though I do wish I could play around the table with my group sadly life prevents us from doing so
@@Vergil4H755 I'm sorry to hear that, man... roleplaying with your friends around you is a bonding experience and one I cherish dearly, fortunately I can still make it happen and hope you will be able to do so again soon, meanwhile, it's important to keep your guys close, even if it is not sharing the Nachos bowl. Have fun my friend
Thanks Cody - Some thoughts.... 1: WotC is wanting to go away from the REAL tabletop and moving into a virtual world, which is OPPOSITE of what I wanted. 2: Will FLGS be able to sell me a Book/code combos or are they going to keep it for themselves? 3: I will house rule Crits on Spells and what I believe needs to be kept from 5E, as always. 3: 3D maps/minis are going to take away from the classic 2D maps and overlays on a ROLL20 TV setup for in person. Doesnt look like the existing modules on D&DBeyond will be there once this launches and they go full into 1D&D.
I can see them doing a tie-in with Hero Forge. WOTC could embed Hero Forge's character generator, allowing players to create "their" character, which (for a price...) would be both their token on the VTT and a pre-coloured miniature printed just for them by Hero Forge.
@@moniXluv yeah, i know about these piggy banks, also they are wargamers not roleplayers. Not sure if other part of TRPG community will be so eager to spend tons of money without any other alternatives.
Talespire does this and its really cool, but I do have some issues with Heroforge. Heroforge figures wind up being a lot more expensive than other miniatures. Sure, its a custom STL, but it winds up being around $8. Its a cool feature, but I don't want to be paying double or triple what other minis cost. Maybe if all digital files were allowed then it'd be amazing but as it stands I don't think its worth it
I am playing the game I play. Cool tools are simply that, tools. I am not going to use WOTC VTT plain and simple. I agree that a map should be just for the dungeon/battle map. Overland maps and world maps are cool and helpful but I am not going to do stop motion or claymation games. 3D and tokens? When miniatures came on the scene in the 70s-80s we used poker chips and pennies for adversaries. I am not adverse to going back to that again. So nostalgic.
With the new crit rules, I'm of 2 minds. On the one hand, it feels good to say that even with a -1 Strength save, there's a value in rolling that DC25 saving throw to avoid getting thrown off an airship, or rolling a DC40 concentration check. On the other hand, if my bonus is high enough to pass a DC10 save/check, the idea that rolling a natural 1 (for a total of 13) means the extremely dexterous rogue falls down the last stair to land flat on his face just doesn't feel right. Or if my wizard managed to get a +9 for constitution saves, a paper cut really shouldn't be enough to break concentration. Same thing with ability checks: I'm ok with 20=automatic success, but only if I as the DM can still decide what success means for this character in this context. If the halfling is doing a perception check from the doorway to look for hidden traps, would he really be able to see the invisible spider hiding in the corner of the top bunk bed? Probably not, but maybe he sees hints that there is SOMETHING in the room without knowing exactly what or precisely where. Which is the way I would probably run it under the current rules, anyways.
Well in case of the spider in the room on the bunk bed, the rogue would declare he is checking for traps. Which means that the spider could still be lying in wait unseen.
@@pyresti That's the problem with just giving us the character creation and a handful of updated rules: how do these things work mechanically? My take on this with Reliable Talent and similar features is that Reliable Talent (the specific rule) would trump the Natural 1 (the general rule). Reliable Talent says that any roll lower than 9 (or 7, or 10...) is treated as a 9 (or 7, or 10), so you didn't actually roll a 1; you rolled a 9. That would be in contrast to something like Aura of Protection with Death Saves. Assuming that AoP applies to Death Saving Throws (I think it should apply for everyone except the Paladin himself, since a creature doesn't need to be able to hear or see or even be aware of the aura for it to apply), the wording of the Death Save makes it clear that a "1" on the die is 2 failures and a "20" on the die automatically brings you back, regardless of any modifiers; any other roll can be modified, such as by AoP. But I'm sure there will be arguments about it.
I personally hate that reliable talent negates a natural 1 (if you play with the auto success/auto failure on all d20 rolls as so many people already do, and that I think make the game better). I love that the new concept is to formalize this. There’s almost nothing in the game as exciting as seeing that 20 come up, regardless of what you’re attempting to do, and likewise, nothing as scary as seeing a 1 appear. When those mean nothing special (as in the official rules for saves and ability checks in 5e), it’s actually an incredibly defeating feeling, and I’ve seen it suck the fun out of a table because the DM ruled that the nat 20 didn’t do anything. I say embrace the chaos, including the chaos of a rogue tripping on their feet. Even world class athletes sometimes stumble and face plant. The nat 1 auto failure reflects that.
@@marcusstusek5843 conversely as a DM I hate my players assuming a nat 20 will mean success. I let them roll for something if it might be possible for someone but maybe not the person who has chosen to do it. A -1 and a +8 in a skill makes a huge difference. I'd like to have it apply to ability checks as an official optional rule. Then tables can decide if they want to apply it
I'm going to be a bit on the "unpopular Opinion" route. I don't like One DnD at all. There's maybe two things I like about it: Languages, and letting the Backgrounds do a bit more than just what they did before. That's it. I don't like how they handle races, while Yes, the first level feats are great for players, I feel like it's going to be a nightmare on rules lawyering which 5e already had problems with (If I were to go back to 5e, I will be pulling some small things from DCC to make it less of a nightmare and more fun for my players, like the "Mighty Deed Die" for fighters, Barbarians, and Rangers to replace the Feats and clerics automaticly get Lay on hands (and the Druid Equlivent for Druids) not taking up a spell slot so they can pick an extra spell to name a few, and if you pick a background, you just know all the details of your origonal occupation (an apthoicarist is going to automaticly know herbs and what will heal, so they'll just get a higher die on that check, same with a bucher being able to cut down fleshy things) to just name a few things. but the players will be able to build their own charater like the 5e way), and the way they're handling Half races are.... yeesh. Also Orcs feels problematic lore wise. I get they're trying to feel cool, but there's some major raceist things that they took away with one the newer book before One DnD. Ardlings are just Aasamirs with more "Good vs Evil" vibes and animal heads, and same with Teiflings. So that's going to be a huge problem as time goes on where people will be focusing on the good and Evil parts and no nuiances (which yes, was a problem in 5e, but there was more discussions about it than really people hyper focusing on it.) And while I'm happy they are giving players an VTT option, but it's going to be a nightmare for third party people. (actually One DnD is just going to be a nightmare for 3rd party overall, I still feel like they should adpot the Goodman Game model to let people create third party content and modules as it would actually bring even more people into the game, and UA is not really satifying that as it's super restrictive in comparison). I'm not against VTT in any form at all because my players (since I can't actually meet up with them as they live in different states) have trouble focusing if there's no visuals. When they're visuals games are smoother and they enjoy it more because they're not getting fustrated. So I'm not against the VTT aspect. What I am against is how they're handling it. I've seen other systems do much better with VTT and be open for everyone and more freeing for everyone. This ain't it in what DnD is doing. Again, I know I'm of the Unpopular opinon area, but me and my players aren't going to One DnD any time soon. Even my players who enjoy 5e. (I enjoyed the Beta of 5e back in Pax East one time. It felt Magical and enjoyable when I didnt know anything going in. It felt like a compleately different game when I started the offical version with my first group that fell through. But also it felt far easier to abuse in several cases. I know any game can be abused, but some of the homebrewing to stop the machanic abuse in 5e has gotten a bit rediculious when there are easier ways for 5e after talking to one of my players about it.)
As a player first introduced to D&D through the Basic and Advanced rule systems on through 2e and beyond… here we go again. Big picture, this is about making money. It always has been. I am sure there are those who work within the industry that genuinely care to evolve and produce a better overall product, but the main motivation is profit. It was going to change eventually and as players/DMs our only opportunity to help shape this new edition into something that meets our expectations is to use the play test and provide the feedback. Ultimately, if you don’t like what is finalized you can still play older editions like so many have already. I feel most of the hoopla over this is mostly newer players who were ushered into playing/DMing with 5e now going through what players/DMs of older editions have experienced. Yes 5e was a good system that in my opinion just need a few minor shakeups, but change happens whether we want it or not. Again, try it and provide feedback. That’s all we can do as this is happening regardless.
Thank you for publicly acknowledging that One D&D is simply 6th Ed. Many people in the community believe WotC and that it will be "backwards compatible." I mean it would hurt book sales between now and 2024 but I prefer honesty.
Wasn't really a hard prediction to make 😆. I dislike the videogame nature of the direction it's taking, which is why I prefer a stripped down roll20 over, say, foundry. I'm a big proponent of dndbeyond though, and have most of the books bought up on there, (plus a paper copy of the core books, because you just have to)... If nothing else, ease of use and consultation is a winner.. Then of course it saves on trees and weight lifting. The reason I don't like the videogame nature of the evolution is that it takes away from my mental picture of my character and the monsters he faces... No amount of quality art in the form of pixels can ever substitute the vibe of what my mind can conjure up. Plus there's always going to be a stark contrast between the online experience and rolling dice in between bowls of snacks and looking your friend in the eyes. (And yes, both campaigns in involved in are online..i miss the rl experience). This evolution is and always was inevitable and the writing was on the wall even before dndbeyond appeared on the scene and yes, this is going to eventually become a dlc fest... It remains to be seen how much pushback there will be, which depend entirely on the price point they're going to make the game workable at. If I suddenly find that i have to pay 30-50 euro a month to play something that, when, with the books and any single one of the existing free vtts, I can do at a fraction of that cost.. And then have to pay a bunch of money every time a new monster comes out to add it to my library... I might just pick the cheaper route
I like roll20 because I like to play other games than dnd, It is wonderful to find games (usualy) for games like palladiums megaverse(rifts) savage worlds, and so on and so forth.
On the new playtest rules, I've been covering them on my channel but here's the gist of it. Character origins, Good. Crits. Bad. Fix player death at low levels, not the crits. Inspiration. Good intentions, bad execution. Grapple rules. Very good.
I think the survival of other VTTs is going to depend on accessibility like you already pointed out. Just like the advent of the TV, a lot people are going to continue to listen to their radio dramas until TVs are accessible to them. Some day most people will look back and wonder how the heck we played D&D in our imagination with paper but there will still be people around who do it. The problem might come when technology facilities a new level of game design that can only be experienced with that technology and not replicable by pen and paper (or too hard to do so). But I'll still be holding on to my 3.5, 4e, and 5e books.
I like the changes in rules that the D&D One is offering. Now, if WotC is moving to a more digital/video-gamey approach, with a subscription model as the preferred way to play, I might move back to other games like Call of Cthulhu, Vampire and Numenéra.
I agree. The new UA rules for character creation is great, but the VTT idea just baffles me. There's too many variables to take into account when programming a game. What if a player wants to use broken terrain as cover? Or a weapon? What if they want to use a Spell in a slightly improvised way? Or a weapon? What if a DM house rules using a healing potion as a bonus action rather than an action as I do? It'll take longer to make something like that than it'll be satisfying to wait for or play. As for a monthly subscription? I understand why, as it'll be a guaranteed stream of income that they wouldn't normally have, but nickel and diming your customers is a great way to get them to walk away if they feel they aren't getting what the price is worth. Especially if financial troubles hit them or the population at large and they have to start making budgetary cuts in their life. Also, I don't think DnD as a brand is big enough to sustain a game that'll surely cost as much as that to make. Hell, most game devs would be hard pressed to make $5 worth of new content in a game monthly, let alone $10-30. And the DnD brand is sadly waning a bit. Critical Role gave them a huge explosion in popularity, but a lot of that audience is leaving, as are a lot of Critical Role's viewers. Their numbers aren't what they once were.
Thanks for the shout out. I think a lot of players will still want tokens for the existing VTT's. Especially for every system that is not straight DnD. So I'm not overly worried. If sales drop a lot, well then I had a good run and might be able to find time to actually play more games. :)
I’ve been at DMing for 31 years. I’ve played just sooo many systems and iterations of those systems. Change is constantly going to happen. Some of it good . Some not so good. I’ve stayed with some additions and never considered going to the next ( white wolf’s world of darkness). I’ve changed additions each time ( gurps) . Even going back and forth for nostalgias sake ( DnD, adnd, DnD 2.5, dnd3.5, and 5e). Some systems I’m more than happy have almost never changed ( palladium’s rpg system and extended multiverse of books). In the end it comes down to just a few things as to weather or not I’ll move on to a systems next iteration. Cost vs. value, weather the new fixes or brings enough interesting content, and finally how much I have already invested into the old content. We of course all get into hobbies for different reasons. Mine was cheap and unlimited entertainment. Many of my books have been with me for 31 years. I still reference them to this day. I’ll never be willing to pay full price for modern world of darkness. I’ll buy each book palladium puts out. As for DnD, I’ve just enough to get by. With 5e currently being the majority. After all I can do fantasy in almost any system. Is it worth buying into a new iteration of DnD? I’ll see once all the ua is out. It mite just be me buying a new phb and DM’s guide. If I’m On line , I’m good with discord, pdf’s , and owlbear rodeo. Having said that my players mite, have , and will want different things. I’m already asked to use DnD beyond for are adventures . For the purpose of character sheets and shared books.
I actually do think a sort of "financial revolt" may occur. Places like fantasy grounds and roll20 might attract players with lower spending costs, or people who aren't interested in purchasing the physical books. How many people in the market fit that criteria? Well, it depends. On one hand, the people who want to buy physical copies are likely to be the grognards who don't like the digital aspects of the game, but they are also the people who wouldn't want to purchase a subscription they won't use. On the other hand, the newer digital generation might want both the book and the digital copy, but may have other things they have to consider when it comes to spending their (comparatively) small amount of cash on hand. So, long story short, I suspect D&D is actually shooting themselves in the foot by trying to corner the market; now that people have had a taste of D&D in the popular imagination, its not much of a jump to make for them to move onto other RPGs.
@@Zac_Frost I'm not here to make a judgement call one way or the other when it comes to it being "good" for the hobby, but I'm not confident that the changes they have made will help their business model.
@@wesleyjudson599 You're right. I just honestly think it won't be that great for the hobby, as it'll limit what you can do in game. For instance: Say a Fire Bolt misses and blasts a chunk out of a wall, and your player wants to prop that up and use it as a type of shield with temporary HP or to grant them partial cover. How do you do that in this? Or if they want to sling that at the enemy that shot the Fire Bolt at them? Do they have to be proficient in "wall chunk" as a weapon type for the attack roll? Is there a strength minimum for it? Just my thoughts.
I still plan to stick with roll20. While I got a good pc, my players struggle running stuff on roll20. Plus I have mixed feelings about the new edition, to the point where I'll stick with 3.5 or even switch over to PF 2e.
Personally I like the majority of the suggested changes. From playing all versions of D&D over the last 42 years, I am always excited to see what’s coming, especially after 10yr + of the same system. I am very happy that it doesn’t appear to be “change for change sake” as it looks to be well thought out thus far. It feels they are building on the current systems core pillars of the game we love.
I feel you are way off mark with the idea that theater of mind should be changed for a ttrpg. Going virtual will create too much for visual cues, and ground people in the virtual assets. This happens with pen and paper maps using cheetos as figures. If you think it will not translate to the nth degree by using 3d models in a 3d dungeon you are sorely mistaken. This is not to say some people will still be able to keep their head cannon separated, but that slice of the pie will be much smaller than it already is. Also I am going out on a limb here and saying that the entry level knowledge needed to make assets such as custom maps, tokens, and arrangements will be a gatekeeping factor. This will lead to cash shopping pre-made stuff, and the same dozen or so modules being the base landscape of what players have to use. I prefer to just make on the fly doodles, and small visual aides to enhance theater of the mind. Too much scenery is a bad thing, too many visual effects subtract from player input. Why would you describe what something looks like when the video game tokens are already doing that? This will expand the market to more people for sure, but I am out. I will stick to being a grognard playing advanced dungeons and dragons. I will be the guy leading the table in the cave as you put it.
As a dabbler in 3d models and sometimes gm I can understand how hard this going to be a jump in medium. Also this going to almost kill any chance of me running a hard sci-fi game in the future as if everyone whining “just run 5e” now wasn’t enough.
The whole "one D&D" idea is a malarkey. Its just another edition with a new naming scheme. It is not the end all be all of D&D, it will get replaced. Its just for marketing for those who get uppity about changing DMGs
One it feels like love for the LGS 2 taking away the background feature For me feels like y even hav the background if it doesn't do anything U can just say ok put ur 3 ability scores points across 2 or 3 scores Choose languages Pick to skills A tool And a feat because without an actual feature for ur background it doesn't really matter which one u pick
I've seen a few youtubers talk about this UA now and so far everyone has sped past the way half races are being done now e.g. Half-Elf. You pick a human or elf trait group and then just say that you are a Half-Elf. Surely there are more people out there that find this extremely mechanically unsatisfying to be a Half-Elf in name only?
If they are being truthful with the backwards compatibility you can still play the old Half-Elf. You just have to choose whether you get your ASI increase from the race or background, you can’t get both. That is assuming it is truly backwards compatible.
HARP from ICE has used more or less the same system for a couple of decades. I don't have my copy in front of me right now, but I believe you could do even three races combos of quarter elf quarter dwarf and half human or similar.
@@megaairsoft15 a commenter on another video said the official word is “backwards compatible unless a specific change has been made”. The context was since they made a new alert feat you could no longer take the old one. Therefore I can also see the official rule be that since they made a change to half-races you can no longer play the old ones. (Again, just pulling from another comment, they might have been mistaken).
@@armorclasshero2103 you can always change whatever rules you want as long as everyone agrees. But an ever growing list of “rules I don’t want to follow, can I use this in your game?” that you have to pull out if you want to join a new group is hardly ideal. Thus discussions about what rules people want before WotC makes everything official.
More glad than ever that I kept all my old 3.5e (and 5e) libraries. We can just keep playing old pen & paper D&D like we did when we fell in love with it in the first place.
As a small scale map and content maker, and someone trying to make a small living as long term disabled, I wanted to thank you for the clear call out of how hard this could hit folks like me. While I love DnD and have been a player and primary DM for 30+ years the new ethos is not filling me with joy right now.
Ill support you. I do not play 5e so independents like myself will always exist and support folks like you! Hang in there.
I dumped dnd.
Throw in your lot with the non dnd players. OSR, Talsorian etc.
@@whitecreamymilk8436 I’m looking into systems to do content for, so will be checking out a lot.
Where can we find you? I have Foundry for three games, so I'm in constant need of maps for combat, plus I love supporting small creators.
I'm sticking with 5e, I'm already heavily invested in it. I'm also one of those guys that doesn't like the online digital direction of d&d and will always prefer sitting around the table with my friends.
Excellent analysis. I think you are correct re: Foundry vs One D&D VTT. However, I still think people will play in person. My players (including young ones in the target demographic) prefer to play in-person. RPGs are a form of communion. Players have a spiritual connection that cannot be duplicated. My prediction is this ONE D&D will be a different genre of game, the same way D&D spun off from miniature wargaming. Also, I predict the OSR will EXPAND, as older players feel abandoned. We'll see. Peace.
I’m concurring with the Professor here. I’m an OSR DM and look forward to the Grognards like me to continue to push the old school play forward.
What a worthless fucking comment.
"different genre"
absolutely!
times change… and I feel older every new baseball season!
@@Wraithing I’m editing a video on this subject right now. Watch Tuesday.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 It seems that D&D One is more of a video game versus a paper and pen game. I suspect, it will have some sort of a wizard to level you up. You'll never have to worry about the fiddly rules in the background - spells and spells slots will be presented, as they will be baked straight into the system. I think this will have the effect of closing off a lot of the creativity and joint storytelling aspect. Imagine, you just enter in some keywords - fog, twilight, marsh, and the game pulls up your scenario versus your players imagining it. Perhaps it is a D&D Light and a D&D full body?
I said this immediately after I heard the announcement to my group. It will be great if its moddable, and awful if it isn't. If it allows importing of content, a community will start and people will make the tokens for it.
TTS 2.0
Would be amazing if they did figure a way to make third party content in dnd one. I know with how sluggish Wiz is to adapt non forgotten realms content that eberron would be unavailable for ages
You'll be able to customize things... for a microtransaction probably.
Oh, they're going to let you mod. They will own anything and everything you upload/alter. If it's good enough, they'll sell it back to you
The new VTT looks like hot trash. There's no way it's as good as foundry. And it's in unreal 5, which makes modding much harder for the average person. No one likes modding in c++
IIRC roleplaying games were about imagination. A centralized, official, not-customizable VTT seems very against that.
Hear hear, I vote revolting because it just seems they are trying to make an mmo of some kind and not actually dnd
I actually disagree, I don't think they ever announced it would be non customisable. It has to be customisable by its nature otherwise it not real dnd but a dnd licensed product. (like the board games)
My favorite class (warlock) of which I have played many over the years, I have had maybe 1 or 2? that cast "eldritch blast"
The others threw a black trident made of shifting black shadow almost fighting against being held in this dimension. Books that thump into the enemy, slashing a blade through the air in front sending a slice of energy across the battle field, rocks or boulders that crashed into enemies and knocked the off their feet (knock back) or shattered and hit everyone (can't remember that invocations name).
And these are just one example! All of the "how do you swing your sword?" "Is your longsword a Katana or a Shamshir? Khopesh or Yataghan? Kilij?" My monk has 15 different unarmed attacks pulled from Muay Thai, Capoiera, and Eskrima. I get to describe each as I roll the exact same die and use the same mechanical ability.
Is this impossible with Oculus? No, but if you're seeing it, I wonder how much quelching will happen.
I agree, by monopolizing the D&D system and all but forcing players into using official content, it takes the charm that set D&D, nay the entire ttrpg scene, apart from other forms of entertainment.
@@pokegard why revolt? Just don't participate. It's way more healthy.
I can't wait for the D&D Beyond Dungeon Packs! $3.99 for 2 random board objects? $2.99 for a singular Mini in a singular randomly assigned color scheme as determined by Wizards of the coast? And don't forget the Paint By Numbers Pack of two brush colors for $4.99! What a steal when the subscription prices is 24.99 a month! After all, if 4e D&D taught me anything it was that being trapped in a system designed to try to cut out all 3rd party content and funnel literally all of the money to Wizards is the best idea ever, and is only enhanced by it now all vanishing if you don't keep all your friends locked in and paying a monthly sub fee forever! /s
Considering Wizards struggles to put $10 worth of content in most of their $50 books, and most actual video game developers struggle to put out $5 worth of content for their live service games each month, I doubt the $30 tier would be worthwhile.
This is a power play by a company that vastly overestimates their capabilities if they think cutting homebrew out is a good idea.
yuh. dnd went through a MASSIVE surge after critical role but wotc has vastly overestimated dnd's peak and especially current popularity. it has dipped. hard. not lower than it was before cr but its down bad lmao.
most laymen and 9 to 5'ers have heard of dnd, true. but almost no one in the real world has ever played the game. 50 million, thats nothing. that number is EVERYONE WHO HAS PLAYED, including casuals and people that wont play again. and a tiny fraction of those people play now. and an even smaller fraction of those people play regularly. and a fraction of those people use vtts. and a fraction of those would pay for one. and a fraction of those would pay an insanely greedy 30 bucks.
dndbeyond right now only has 420k subscribblers and an ABYSMAL AWFUL PATHETIC 12,000 active users.
whatever team that is being paid six figures a piece to provide wotc with their market research is doing some SERIOUS arse kissing for short term benefits lmao.
they better have their resume updated when this new garbage fails miserably.
The best two campaings I've had are 3rd party. Shoutouts to Call from the Deep (JVC) and Grim Hollow (Ghostfire), they seem to do what WotC can't. So yeah, gatekeeping Dnd so 3rd party companies can't publish content on the same level is the same as shooting themselves on the foot.
This is a power play by hasbro that has told wotc to multiply its earnings, which they accomplished through MtG. In response hasbro said do it again, and now wotc is stretching to find anything else they can overmonetize
Hasbro basically wants dnd to be making mtg money because dnd is more famous than mtg.
@@aa-tx7th Bob world builder's video actually proves that critical roll did absolutely nothing for dnd's popularity; it was actually entirely stranger things.
Ironic you should call out the grognards like myself who think we'll still be playing on paper in the future after the apocalypse.
That's exactly what I'm preparing for. Collecting many RPG books and sealing them so that they may be dug up and played in the future on paper, and pencil. As God intended.
I would also suggest collecting them in a storage medium and keep it sealed into a faraday bag(easy to buy or make) since I guarantee that computers would be able to be repaired.
@@MyAramil Good idea!
We need them on clay tablets as the paper books might struggle with global heating... Now I understand the need for metal dice!
@@MyAramil They probably won't. If the supply system breaks down no more parts.
We can become RPG Mentats; "It is by initiative alone I set my dice in motion. It is by the bonus of INT that thoughts acquire speed, the fingers acquire cheeto stains, the stains become a finger licking good. It is by initiative alone I set my dice in motion."
I agree with all the "hyperbole" and would go as far as to say that this will be step one into turning D&D into a "service" and gating access to all "your" books (which won't really be your books) behind a subscription where you'll own nothing and be happy. Soon you'll have to pay a monthly sub just to play D&D and get access to all your digital tokens, which you'll have to pay extra for.
Ding ding ding. Winner.
This is their attempt to crack the code. How do we bypass market saturation and get our customers to be consistently buying our product? Continually spending money so we can profit? I'd like to think it wasn't Gary's primary motivation, and part of the reason he got forced out of his own company. He had more of a love for the game, and his detractors were all business. It wasn't personal, just business.
The "no more editions, its just D&D" thing is purely a marketing thing. When sales start to stagnate or even drop off there will be a new edition.
Oh boy, I sure can't wait for D&D windows 11.
@@RAFMnBgaming I think after One D&D, it's gonna be D&D 87.5 Ultimate Final Director's Cut next.
I remember Microsoft saying the same thing about windows a few years ago. Then they announced a new version and got sued for it.
@Several Fighters. I'm sorry there isn't more than a "thumbs up" button for this comment. WotC are definitely going down the Microsoft route here . . .
Think this might be the end of D&D as the primary entry point to the wider hobby. There has always been a large faction of people who start with b&D never go beyond D&D, but I think this will both wall off from the rest of the hobby in a way that does not happen when you buy your books at a hobby shop or on drive through and by creating a very different set of expectations of what a role playing game will deliver that Call of Cthulhu or even Vampire is not going to be able to deliver.
I also think this is being driven not by people in the D&D space but by higher-ups at Hasbro. I think executives at Hasbro do not understand why a brand that is at least as well known as magic the gathering probably more so and maybe even as well known as Monopoly is not producing magic the gathering or Monopoly type revenues year in and you're out. By setting up the virtual tabletop where you get everything in one package and they can rotate content like they do magic cards to get subscriptions wizards can now provide Hasbro executives with the kind of revenue stream they expect from a brand as well known as DND.
Not only that, but by bringing everything into the same digital space, they solidify the DnD branding - which can lead to more movies, more action figures, more monetization off the DnD brand. The game? Was DnD just a game?
D&D has been out performing other products. I like having the combination of digital and physical and probably won’t use all the DDB features. I only use battle maps and am happy with what I use currently. But I like that there are options for others who want them. The more accessible they make it the more people I can share my hobby with.
WoTC is trying to do inovation for inovation sake, most parties still play table top but they think most people play on their shitty platform because thats the only they have metrics for.
Virtual tabletops is a niche of a niche that people just cared about during The pandemic, but the it will never best the thrill of rolling dice and playing with real minis
@@philipearakaki Real minis are cooler. Having the DM just drop a 64 inch Dragon Miniature on the table is way better than one on a VTT by terameters.
@@A_Thieving_Fox Is D&D out performing Mr. Potato Head? Is it out performing Monopoly? Is it out performing My Little Pony or Nerf?
Those are core Hasbro brands and D&D, as a brand, is expected to play at that level.
D&D is doing well for a hobby game, but until I see more numbers than I have, I'm not buying it is performing as a corporate brand the way the C-suite in Providence expects.
At the end of the Little Brown books one of the last sentences if not the last is " why let us do your imagining for you " with the new virtual tabletop, we seem to be coming to a D&D built on the exact opposite premise: let us do all your imagining for you.
As for me, I'm just going to remember the old infocom ads from the early 80s where they claimed their text adventures used the best graphics card available your brain.
Playing in person is a large part of the experience. As far as my group is concerned, playing online is a completely different game. Yes, I do believe in another 50 years there will be people playing on pen and paper around a table because that is the best way to play the game.
It’s why I’m not worried. The game will not be ruined by a VTT.
Yeah, people still play advanced D&D still and prefer it, having added rules and such to fix some of the issues with that system. Same for 3.0/3.5 it is still played to this day. Hell Im sure some do enjoy 4e(and that is perfectly fine)
True. My group still has a ton more fun around a table than in front of black screen, and I'm also one of like 30-40 people from in and around Cracau taking part in every single boardgaming meetup in southern Poland. So yeah, tabletop games aren't dead.
As somebody with 30 years experience running professionally I can unilaterally say that is the opposite of the truth. Using online tools can create a much more immersive experience. It all depends on what tools are using and how you're using them. Using my method I regularly cause emotional outbursts in my players from the perspective of their character and and often complaints of having nightmares. I never experienced such emerson with my players at table. That thing said drunk DnD at a table is at a table it's so much fun.
Even now in-person games are only a small portion of games. The ability to play virtually is probably the number one reason D&D has exploded in recent years.
As someone who’s played D&D since 1st edition, I have some hesitation regarding One D&D. I agree with you regarding the VTT maps and imaging. I do like most of the character creation changes. (Didn’t like seeing that eldritch blast is gone.) But as a retired person on a limited income, I can’t spare the money for a monthly subscription in order to access the rules and play the game. Guess folks like me will be forced to stick with 5e, other VTT platforms and the kindness of DMs willing to help players out.
The general rumor is class specific spells like eldritch blast will be in class features, just not on the big spell lists.
There will certainly be groups that ignore anything that requires a monthly subscription. It’s possible you might have to find new groups if your current one is gung-ho about all the new shiny things, but there will be more old schoolers out there too. My main group still plays 3.5, it’s the one the most people have the most fun with, and we already have the books. Why change something that’s working for us?
i've played since the red box as well. this new step, i think, is at odds with the 'free to play if one person's got one of the manuals' attitude of earlier editions
Agree completely.
Ignore everything. You will be better without even hearing from WoTC
>Guess folks like me will be forced to stick with 5e
Kind of what happened with my group when 4e came out. We all tried it then went back to 3.5 until 5e came out. Some even jumped ship and started using Pathfinder.
... I wonder if the people over on Pathfinder 2 are starting to think this might be a bankable misfire in the making over at Wizards.
My concern about the VTT is how minis work. Are the new minis going to be WotC's version of Disney Infinity/Skylanders? Do we buy minis with bases that are uploaded to the VTT program? Are the minis going to be available on the VTT for 99 cent downloads for small and tiny, but $1.99 for medium, and increase based not only on size, but also if they're named (ie. Strahd and Demogorgon are $10 each)?
Or will you need to pay 1$ a month to access your mini vaults or something? and have a tier level, tier one lets you create 3 minis as a player, tier 2 allows you to make 10, tier 3 20, and tier 4 unlimited number.
I could see a tier pay system like you said. MM Minis are $0.99/each while campaign specific minis and named minis have a different tier. WotC is in it for the money. D&D Beyond already does something similar before they were purchased.
@@MyAramil DM's about to be rarer. I wouldn't pay thousands for mini tokens when I can use cutouts or virtual circle tokens for basically free
Oh! Like, will the mini's have a code in them like the books for a digital copy? That would be interesting, and a smart way to go about it. If they do digital mini rentals, I feel like that would just kill it, especially if it's a subscription to use the program. I could see packs being sold, or made available, with the purchase of a module. It would be kind of weird to buy, let's say, Curse of Strad, and his mini/token not be available to use.
@@frickzillafrik9573 I hate to agree with you on that one, though there are already DMs that do that. Now, if they made blank/basic tokens available for free, that would be smart. Like, tokens you could upload your own images to, or even like a basic low level monsters like goblins, zombies, and wolves. If you want actual 3D minis, I could see you having to pay for that. It's true that WotC are in it for the money, but they can't make EVERYTHING have a cost, or else no one would play it, and One DnD will just end up with as poor of a rep as 4e did.
Professor Dungeon Master @Dungeon Craft described it best as, "Wizards wants to make D&D the next Apple." - not verbatim.
I think you hit the nail on the head that the "leak" was to test the waters ($30 a month? Hell, no.)
Regarding crits - I think a better to handle them (if you wanted to remove them from spells, damage increasing features, and natural attacks) would be to make 'critical hit' a weapon property (which also applies to unarmed attacks).
They were very quick to say it was a fake picture, rather than release a "we don't comment on leaks" type statement. To me that indicates that this was a fake made by an angry fan...all it takes is one, and there are plenty out there that think some of the One D&D stuff is the end of the world, so the idea that its fan made is hardly a reach.
"Critical hits as a weapon property" exists in 3e, weapons had a Critical Threat range, and if your unmodified d20 roll landed within that, and the modified roll is considered a hit, then you would roll a second time. If you hit the AC a second time you have a confirmed Critical Hit.
My dude, if you cannot afford 30 a month STOP playing D&D right now cus it will bankrupt you. I spend that much on dice alone and have over 50 sets (at least...those are just the ones I have access too without popping open tubs from the garage (0.0)....not to mention miniatures, paints, terrain...god I could go on for HOURS. Hell I pay more than 30 dollars a month on video game subscriptions I barely have the time to pay. My thinking is this, if that is true, that much to get access to that kind of gaming online is actually not that bad. And for the crits, 3e had a similar system.
@@shawnadams1460 my gamer, not being able to justify 30 a month on stuff is the worst excuse to stop playing d&d. You need approximately $12 to start playing d&d: dice, and a $0.10 printed sheet from your local library. That's it, dice are all the extra materials you really need. You dont even need to own any of the books, thanks to sites like dungeonmastersvault
@@shawnadams1460 my dude, that statement is a lot more damning toward yourself than the person you were replying to.
I wonder if my great grandchildren will enjoy dnd like I did while huddled in their bunkers under blankets stitched together from the clothes of fallen comrades.
I do believe in due time, this will come back to bite their own ass with their whole VTT thing. Companies really underestimate what their community do for their products sometimes.
And the more open it is for making modifications to better suit the table, the better.
THe VTT as shown in the concept vid is pie in the sky. Doing this stuff to this level of fidelity online is REALLY HARD, and WotC have NO EXPERTISE in this area. If it ever happens, we won't be seeing it for years, and it's just as likely to be an expensive disaster as it is a success.
I feel like the official VTT will be a polarizing topic in the community just like VTT's were in general before the pandemic pretty much forced it on us. My guess is we'll probably see part of the community moving their games entirely to the new VTT, part of the community trying it and only using it occasionally, and part of the community swearing off it altogether.
For those who already play primarily on a third party VTT like Roll20, they will probably feel comfortable on the official VTT from WotC and expectations will gradually move more towards a fully integrated and 3D rendered experience going forward, leaving 3rd party VTT's behind unless they adapt. This doesn't feel like a fad to me, and I see this moving even more burden onto the DM's to fork over tons of cash and enormous time investments so the players can feel more immersed in the game. As a DM, I'm not a fan of this shift, but as Cody mentioned, I think it's inevitable and it's just the new normal we will all have to get used to if we're going to keep up with new editions. If you don't care about moving to new editions going forward, this really won't impact you other than it's going to be harder to find new players since they likely will all be moving on without you.
@@Klijpo It just looks like a shinier version of the VTT that was supposed to come out with 4e. That one also didn't manifest - for tragic reasons - but either way, it's a massive undertaking, in a field that WotC have little to no exp in.
Basically I think folks shouldn't worry about this destroying the hobby - it definitely won't be ready in time for the edition release, and may never come out at all.
Should have mentioned the crazy shipping cost for anyone outside the USA. Making these new bundles a hard no for people outside the center of the universe. I understand it and get it that you can't have a company loss money on book sales via shipping costs. But I talked to my group last night we have decided to stick with 5e and block out all the buzz and wait a few years for the dust to settle before we make any moves. Thanks for the Video!
I fully agree with all your points, pretty much. I'm so glad you brought up the inevitable issues with the official VTT. My group is mostly set up with good PC builds, but one of our guys has a non-gaming laptop and is forced to rely on roll20 or Foundry being hosted from another person's PC. Who knows how this would go for him...
I am mega happy that you mentioned the point about how maps often distract players from the game, so to speak. In my experience, any time we have a battle map or dungeon crawl map on the VTT, whoever is playing (myself included) becomes too entrenched in worrying about the exact positioning of our character tokens rather than focusing on the roleplay or exploration. On the flip side, whoever is DMing (myself included) sometimes just sits and waits for our tokens to pass over a trap square or something, then says "oh wait wait wait stop moving there." And then it's like "well I guess I'm saving or taking damage now, woohoo so fun..." At that point we're not playing D&D, we're playing "nudge images around on a bigger image until something happens."
These are all of course mistakes that can be corrected and adapted to as you learn and grow as a player/DM. But I worry that WotC's official push for this new VTT is going to make a lot of lesser experienced folks put too much focus on the maps, and less focus on the game. (I would LOVE to see a more in-depth video about this topic btw, even outside of the upcoming official VTT! I have many thoughts on it myself.)
Some more predictions:
a) Maps become either fully or partially monetized by WotC... possibly even for third party maps made publicly available through the service. I've been following the video game industry and playing video games long enough to know *exactly* where this type of shit leads and I really, REALLY don't like it.
b) The work and time required to make your own maps skyrockets.
c) The more details and style that the map shows, the less room for the human imagination to make the experience cooler. Sure, theater of the mind is the obvious counter to this, but you cannot argue the fact that having a simple-to-use VTT to track positioning, status effects, HP, etc. is unbelievably helpful.
And let's not ignore the obvious thing here - if you use WotC's VTT, you can be damn sure you'll be playing by WotC's rules. Literally and figuratively. No other systems, just whatever edition of D&D they deem current. No third party mods. No owning the software yourself. These three points, each on their own is enough to prevent me from having ANY desire to leave Foundry.
(Though I would be more than happy to be wrong on any of these.)
Que foundry getting locked out of dndbeyond...
@@armorclasshero2103 oh... damn, I didn't think of that. One more reason to be worried 😟
I have a bad feeling this is gonna happen. Yet don't forget gacha and or pointless bundles. For models and assets for said models.
People always forget about other countrys where the conversion to the local currency makes those subscritions unrealistic. I don't know how things will happen in USA, but here in South America I can garantee that people will still play DnD the old fashion way
How long until you can buy NFT character portraits???
Please God no.
@@Taking20 that’s what they’re doing. Raising the bar of entry for the community and then shipping crap.
“Bored Elf NFT”
@@Maethalion Bored Elf NFT has me dying!
Like, how much would a Drizzt, Elminster, Vecna, etc. NFT go for? "uh bro, im the only one who can play as Drizzt, i have the NFT, see?"
Somewhere in a near, virtual tabletop future: Player: "Using my immense strength, i topple one of the pillars and send it careening towards the huddled mass of goblins at the base of the stairs. How do we show that in the VTT?" DM: "Ummmmmmm..." For myself personally I'm all for a smoothly integrated digital platform, but it seems like we're going to lose a few things like flexibility and improvisation. I don't feel great about that.
The VTT won't show that. You roll your dice, and the DM describes what happens. The trick is remembering that you still can try to topple the pillar, even though you know the VTT won't show it happening. It's a VTT, not a video game. You get 3D tokens.
It was pretty hard to do that with minitures unless you had model pillars too. I don't think we're necessarily going to lose flexibility.
@@Karajorma On a honest-to-god table I could use a physical object or draw it on a battle map. In a VTT that uses a 2D perspective I could modify the PNG in something like MS Paint, or just use some tokens to represent it. But in Unreal Engine 5, that is at least an order of magnitude harder to do. If there's no asset that matches what i'm looking for do I have to create the 3D model myself? Does that require a license? You can just handwave all this and use theater of the mind, but then what's the point of the fancy 3D VTT?
@@samdoorley6101 and on a 3D VTT you'lll just grab some barrels, scatter them around and say "pretend they are fallen bits of pillar"
Sure it won't look perfect, but it won't look perfect in anything other than theatre of the mind.
I’ve played every edition since the first edition (yeah, I’m that old), and I can honestly say that I’ve reached the point of tapping out on this new “model.” VTT, sorry, hard pass. I prefer my D&D in person and around a table. I get it that some people don’t have that luxury. Subscription model? I’m not made of cash. Overall, I like some of the changes, but I see where this is headed and since I’m a cursed forever DM, I will only go along with this until my players start subsidizing me.
I think the VTT as shown has a better than evens chance of being an expensive disaster that never happens. That stuff is hard, and WotC will have to pivot into becoming a game developer it it is ever to work. In any case, it's years away.
There's something special having books, when the GM sets up the table for combat, having your own miniature model, playing in candlelight, (pizza) grease stains on the map, etc. IMO computers ruin the immersion of sitting around a table with friends.
I think people are overly concerned about the VTT. It won't, in any sense, be mandatory. If you play face to face now, you'll be able to play OneD&D in the same way as you did before.
I'll probably pick up the new books out of general interest. I might even play them a bit. I doubt very much I'll touch the new VTT, as Codie says I see it as a too flashy distraction from the game I want to play.
@@jbaidley If they're going to invest the amount of money required to build this thing, you can bet the "suits" are going to want to make it mandatory so they can recoup the investment and profit from MTX. WotC ill be a totally different company if they do this, with the vast majority of employees being videogame developers.
@@Klijpo they already have pivoted that way. they opened a new aaa gaming subsidiary headed by former bioware manager.
I don't mind the $60 for Shadow of the Dragon Queen, but an additional $47 for shipping to Canada is out of the question.
I like VTTs when they make playing the game easier -- i.e. looking up a rule quickly, drag-and-drop enemies with stat blocks, tracking damage, etc. Otherwise, they are a poor substitute for visual imagination and storytelling. Players do exactly what you said -- they get fixated on visual details on a map and start to limit themselves on what they can interact with and what they can do. Most have become accustomed to this limitation due to video games, which cannot give the freedom to do everything you could do in your imagination. Yes, pictures are helpful, maps are helpful, being able to "see" the space you could only imagine can be fun, but Imagination > VR/tech every time.
nailed it, vtts are so often a barrier to ease of use than a tool to allow you to focus on the improv and player interaction, which is the ONLY important asset of dnd over a video game and frankly the vtts make dnd a bastardization of a really really slow video game that forces you to program and crunch its numbers and its horrendous.
i dont know, even rolling dice isnt nearly as fun as acting and improvisation or creating a world.
face it people dnd is far better on paper. it just is. if youre gonna use a screen and want fancy graphics then final fantasy, witcher, and divinity 2 are far far superior experiences.
dnd is trying to compete with video games and its gonna fail every single time. its better if it stayed in its little niche forever and stopped trying to be something it isnt good at...
wotc needs to move away from the screens and focus on the rulebooks, content, and testing. nothing else.
but of course money. the insanely expensive books just arent enough profit for wotc i guess. another f!&king subscription service. no one is "allowed" to own anything. oh well if wotc wants to be nasty we can always just pirate their sh!t.
I agree, but lets face it....the younger than us generation does NOT see the world that way. This could be IMO a very good tool to bring new players in and teach them the game, but then you go the extra mile as a DM to show they how to play without all the tools. Just as an example, I got my daughter to play a little homebrew 5e game with 4 of her friends, I went HAM man, im talking maps, figurines (some painted by me others were the 2d ones on stands for NPC's etc). I did all that to keep their attention...a feat I am quite proud of, and it worked. They got the basics of the game, stayed mostly in character and have now completed 3 campaigns over the last 2 1/2 years. Now they barely use anything unless they are in combat.
@@aa-tx7th i think the problem is that hasbro wants d&d to be making at least as much money as mtg, since it's nominally a more famous IP.
@@shawnadams1460 I’m not sure that us gen-z:ers are as different to older generations as you think. I’m part of a pretty big ttrpg-club that’s made up entirely of people born in the 2000:s, and I don’t think any of the groups really use vtt:s. That might have something to do with the rpg-culture here in Sweden though, since it’s not as D&D-focused, and it’s harder to find good digital stuff for other games.
What a terrible grognard take. If imagination was better than reality, then no one would play roll20, foundry, or FG.
Many people don't have the luxury of a local gaming group and VTTs are great for that.
They will never beat the experience of being at a real table with friends.
If I were alive in 150 years I would still be playing pen and paper the way Gygax intended.
There will now be two hobbies. D&D and TTRPGS. I will be in the latter camp.
Dnd is gonna be a Talespire where you pay for the minis (or rent them, bc everything is a monthly fee now, and no one owns anything)
This video.
Also known as "Taking20 the victory lap"
I have not playtested to be fair, but a concept I think that would help balance the nat 20/1 rolls is to give inspiration to nat 1’s instead of 20’s. Let a PC learn from mistakes and help prevent players from being stuck with unlucky rolls.
Imagine trying to get someone into another TTRPG coming from this new VTT environment. There's a dramatic hyperbolic part of me screaming that this is going to cripple a lot of VTTs and impact the bar to entry for a lot of other TTRPGs. I think it's already troubling how much market share D&D owns. This scares me that it could get much worse. I hope I'm wrong.
I think you're going to see the same thing that happened with Warhammer+ and Vampire 5e. A significant part of the market is filthy casuals that just buy the hardcovers as shelf fillers and eagerly offer their very strong opinions on subreddits. Those people will not buy a subscription service and Hasbro will desperately flounder to redefine success.
They'll stick with it for 5 years and then launch 6e.
Bruh first they came after my video games and now even my ttrpgs are adopting live service models. Literal books are going to be updated regularly, accessible through a monthly subscription. I guess we’ll just never pay for things upfront anymore
Actually you'll never "own" things any more.
So as for the VTT, I do hope they make 2 (the 3D one and a 2D one) now as for the 3D thing, TaleSpire already exists so there has already been a market out for 3D VTT players, and while yes artist who make tokens for 2D might suffer, there are people who specialize in 3D modeling so while the gate closes for one group it opens for another. My Fear with the 3D VTT though is USER INTERFACE I feel that thing is either going to be VERY Steep learning curve and super clunky or be so minamilistic you are going have to manually do a ton of work (because its integrated with D&D beyond though i feel it might be on the simpler side) ideally though they would make a 2D mode if they don't though that kinda actually is good news for places like Roll20 and Foundry as they still have a area.
As for the Playtest itself, my group play tested it and for the most part we love almost everything about it, my favorite change and prob one of the ones i see get a lot of hate, is the new grapple changes and making them unarmed attacks, in plays test this FELT AMAZING, it was so much simpler to do, i felt like i could cc a target for longer now since grapple save is END of turn they are grappled the entire turn and making a grapple as an opportunity attack ohhh boy thats fun. Inspiration felt nice, never felt over bearing or too much but felt nice. Backgrounds 100% yes, i basically home brewed a version of this anyways.
The big change though the Crit rule change .. im pretty sure this was thrown in there as like a "gotcha" they KNEW people would hate this change but now when feed back comes and they change it they can say "see look we listen and changed this due to feed back" Also i know im entering conspiracy theory territory here, but wouldnt it be a smart tactic to also make sure more players take the survey since "you don't want crits to stay this way right? take our survey".
But yeah the Play Test makes the rest look promising, I for one am excited to see what they have next
That hero forge idea is great. If only i could be used on a 3d VTT for Fantasy Flights Genesys system and if hero forge be able to make non humanoids and large scale models.
@@alasiadarthe001actual9 Titancraft lets you make monsters in a similar way to hero forge
Smart take
I am someone who **has** to use 2d vtts. My computer is over 10 years old and I literally cannot afford another one. I am against the 3d and VR stuff cause I can't afford it. I am someone who owns Foundry, and it works amazingly for me. I can afford to go into a subscription based system where I don't get to use my stuff when I can't afford to pay extra money. I literally have books I was given from other people that are quite literally falling apart. If I had money and I mean a lot of money, I would build my dream desktop and vr setup and potentially subscribe to this. I just struggle to keep up with this stuff cause I keep getting bulldozed by life and have no way to afford much of anything else unless I am dumpster diving for stuff. And yes I did do it when a shop was closing down and throwing away their extra books and minis. They tried to soak everything down in paint to keep people from getting anything good.
My group is pretty collectively fed up with WotC in general. After this (heavily homebrewed) 5e campaign is done I think we've all agreed to move on to another system entirely.
They will basically destroy the number one rule of dnd: any rule can be added, removed, or altered for the fun of it
Edit: grammar
my potato has issues running Owlbear Rodeo + chat + online monster stats, so, yeah, DDB+ ain't for me.
about the new Crit rules: I love how it's written that the DM shouldn't ask for a roll if there is no success or failure condition. hence, "I want to use Charisma to ask the King to give me his position. here, NAT 20! it's a Crit! I'm king now!" *will be answered* with "I didn't ask for a roll, so nothing like this happened. if you change what you wanna accomplish I may ask for a roll."
Imagine the 2 - 6 hours you spend preparing for the session.
Now imagine having to learn how Unreal Engine works and then spending 60 hours custom building the map for your players to spend 3 hours in. If it loads in the first place and doesn't result in an error message for 1/3rd of the party.
Yep. I would place a wager that this will be quietly dropped (at least in the form shown) when it becomes apparent how hard it will be to make and keep running. It will turn WotC into a videogame developer if it is to work as shown, given the amount of devs they'll need to hire to build and keep it functional. That means it will also be expensive...
@@Klijpo Tbf, WotC was wanting to make more video games anyway. That being said, I vaguely remember D&D NEXT and 4th Edition supposedly having the same functionality as what they're stating in the One D&D trailer. Surely, they wouldn't lie to us a third time, right?
I find it unlikely that you'll need to use Unreal Engine's development tools. You'll use the VTT's editors and tools, which should be similar to learning a mix of Talespire and Foundry.
Now I agree with "map building will take longer", and its the main reason I haven't joined Talespire even though I backed them.
One thing that can help is to compare building a virtual map to building a map with Dwarven Forge: You should not build the same kinds of maps than those you can draw. It works better with bespoke individual rooms, or if you are playing with maps made for a ready-made adventure.
@@mateusfarias1524 I suppose. It's still gonna feel easier to make the maps in-person rather than use the VTT. Those new pop-up maps will probably help too
I mean, this is just silly. I'm not even defending the VTT, but the idea that DMs will need to learn UE5 to use it is silly. Literally hundreds of games have built in, drag and drop map makers/level building tools. There are dozens of legitimate concerns about the VTT, let's not just make stuff up because it ends up hurting real conversation on the subject.
I think there should be dwarven subraces. I don’t care about separating mountain and hill dwarves, but there should be room for things like duergar and arctic dwarves.
Idk if its covered already but One DND (the Virtual version) needs to make sure that random choices that players make can be reflected seamlessly. As a DM, this would be amazing to use BUT will this keep up with my players and their random decisions?
All that we need is the ability to drag a token anywhere, edit character sheets, and to quickly draw or drop stuff. So far their preview looked more Dwarven Forge than Baldur’s Gate, so I’m hopeful. Not that my potato pc can run it anyhow.
Old school D&D DM and I have never liked VTTs. Playing online has never been my thing. The problem is I know I’m a dinosaur, I don’t even play video games. I’ll likely have to adapt or choose a new hobby as my players move away from in person games. I play D&D to enjoy time hanging out with friends not to play a video game.
I think in-person, pen and paper RPGs are here to stay. Playing online is fun as well but I personally just don't get the same magic of shared imagination as I do in person. I'm sure WOTC"s new venture will be a success but friends around a table are where the soul of tabletop lies for me.
I will give you my answer...... As a player since the early 1980s I think Pathfinder 2E just got a new player. After the half ass Spelljammer set I am done. I have problems looking at a computer screen for extended periods of time so the digital crap can bugger off. I hope 6E repeats 4E success for DnD.
I'm always glad to hear your opinions and takes on new content. Honestly even though its a big ol' monologue for something as invested as we are in this topic it feels like a discussion.
My opinions are changing and growing. Change isn't really good or bad, it's just change.
You didn't just call it, you freaking NAILED it. Speaking of conspiracy theories -- do you think they'll refuse to sell the with-digital-code books through Amazon?
Too early to predict. However, there is HUGE value in working with Amazon, both logistically and consumer base wise.
I love when Cody can really rub our noses in things
About the Nat20 rule giving inspiration, I saw in a reddit about doing the opposite, giving the inspiration on a nat1. So you break bad luck streaks and the players have a better overall experience.
My biggest issue is just the name One D&D. What's next? The Series X D&D?
I hate to be negative, but I neither like WotC to imitate Apple with their closed system, nor the digital first approach they are clearly aiming for. The VTT will not offer the full scale of options that a free form game can. Those so called new options will actually limit games IMHO.
Hit the nail on the head, love the content and agree with a lot of the things you say in every video! Thanks for helping us all be better DMs and Players! Keep up the great work!
I have two players in my regular game who would never be able to run a 3D VTT on their computer. They have enough problems with dynamic lighting on Roll20. I'd be happy with a 2D version that I could use the books I've purchased. But if you can't upload your own maps or tokens, I'm not interested. I run enough third-party content (not to mention third-party maps to replace the official, bare-bones maps Wizards has been giving us) that a VTT I can't upload to is useless to me.
Nothing against the new stuff but I'll be sticking with pencil/paper, sitting around a table with my friends.
I'm not switching to One, at least not quickly. Ive got too much money and time in 5e, and I exclusively run in-person games. If there are good things in One, I can adapt them to 5e, probably with little fuss.
If D&D One turns out to be superior, then I might switch eventually. Cost and quality are going to be huge factors.
Time will tell.
Everyone that I know that plays D&D doesn't have a lot of money to put to a subscription service and will refuse......tho we dont play 5E anyway. mostly pathfinder 1E or other systems
As someone that plays in a Roll20 game and runs a in person one, this change makes me worried that they are going to start releasing "updates" or "patches" to the game instead of making sure it's right in the first place. If you can't trust the content you buy in a book or recreate in Roll20 to be not broken (or changed in 60 days) that's a huge determent to everyone.
It's not a bug when it's a feature
I think pushing out a VTT that's limited exclusively to D&D and will see people pushed into the whole 'sunken cost fallacy' territory through a significant amount of MTX is incredibly unhealthy for the market of tabletop rpgs in general - which is WOTC's general goal and point, I suppose. Don't like it at all.
Yup. I'm hoping dearly for this vtt to crash and burn, for the sake of 3rd party publishers and a healthy landscape
@@reddjack340 There's a decent chance that will happen. Game Dev is hard, and WotC have no expertise in doing anything like this. Even if it happens it's going to be years before it's ready.
It really boils down to the two things gamers don't like:
1. The way things are
2. The upcoming changes
The unreal engine is...great. It's nice. The VTT looks pretty. I also 100% think that it's going to be a terrible addition to the game.
It will decimate the market share of 3rd party content, and I honestly don't follow or care too much on WOTC's design decisions when it comes to maintaining their brand, promoting organized play, and 'balancing' for Adventure's league.
It is a huge barrier to entry when it comes to learning, and setting up. I already spend probably an extra 2 hours finding/building maps, importing creatures, finding tokens,etc. And that's with easy to find PICTUREs. Good F-ing luck finding reasonable 3D models for tokens, walls,etc. The ONLY benefit I can see is if they somehow make it so you can import STL files as tokens.
The way they presented it, it also looks like it'll have 0 automation. The only reason I would ever bring a VTT to an in-person game, or prefer it to the current options is if it relieves a lot of the burden of the rules and math. I don't want to now have to break out my 20ft radius sphere marker in the VTT, move it around and then spend 5 minutes as the player asks me (or does it themselves) positioning it in 3D space while struggling with the controls to maximize the number of baddies it hits because now a 'point you can see' can be literally free-floating.
Thank you Wizards for helping me move to Pathfinder 2E. You did me a great service!
I'll be honest, WotC pushing digital subscriptions so they can update or fix their mistakes sounds just awful. They've already established with their last several books that they are not putting the time and effort to make it worthwhile, so now they will put out half a book, riddled with errors, let people buy it and play it for months, then when complaints get big enough, they "fix it" by releasing the actual usable stats for online. This will double dip their profits and it's disgusting. It's apt that you used GW as their fan base absolutely hates the online aspect and how cheap they are with everything else. One D&D seems like a turning point I don't want. I think I'll stick with 5e or switch over to Pathfinder 2e.
The warhammer approach to D&D sounds like a nightmare hellscape. I don't want quarterly balance changes, I want a definitive hardcover book on my shelf. Stop trying to make everything a Live Service, damn it!
My initial reaction was "this needs more context". There are too many gaps in information to know how this will turn out. Crit fails/success on everything seems too much like a coin toss rather than a dice roll but, we don't know what else they are implementing to balance it. As always, house rules > rulebook.
100% agreed. I've always seen the rulebooks as just a basic foundation to be built upon. Hell, I've homebrewed 5e so much, I call it my own version of 5.1e, and my friends always tell me we're playing "Temples and Wyverns" rather than "Dungeons and Dragons" lol.
I think my only issue with the focus on giving inspiration would be that you get it on a Nat 20. I think it would make more sense for it to be given on a Nat 1 as a “you failed, but get ‘em next time champ”. Where as a Nat 20 could maybe give Inspiration to another member of the party. That’s probably how I would rule it.
I did exactly this last year. It works pretty well.
I started playing D&D In 1983. I bought the books, full set, and then another (2nd Ed.) and then 3rd,,, Hey 3.5 shortly thereafter. THEN I bought pathfinder COREBOOK and that was the last book I bought. My games are CORE BOOK only pathfinder 1 (or other games I already own) and I do get some push-back from the Power-Gamers, BUT here is what I say. If you cannot make an interesting character from what is in THAT ONE BOOK, maybe you just cannot make an interesting character. Nowadays it is Star Wars d6 on Roll20. Already had that book. At some point 20 years in, I had already spent enough money and re-tooled my game to the rules enough times to be over it. 4th Edition being so horrible fed into it. Played it once.... Once was enough.
They're going to have to give codes in books for game stores because I'm never ever paying for shipping to the UK like I would for Dragonlance...
As someone who likes to play a variety of different systems, the VTT actually bums me out.
Now it will be even harder to convince people to try new systems. Look at how maligned the Pathfinder community is by the 5e community all because they just want more people to play their game.
This is going to amplify the edition wars mentality that current 5e players already have, and make it even harder to get newer players to test other systems.
5e fans already think that anyone who doesn't play their system eats babies and kicks puppies just for daring to like a thing they've never tried. I don't even want to imagine how much more insufferable they'll be after 6e comes out.
Agreed. I mean, I’ve honestly wanted basically that style of a VTT for ages (and I’m still shocked that nobody has really done it and been successful before now), but I REALLY wish it wasn’t coming from WotC, because its features are probably not going to be very compatible with other games/systems, and it’ll just continue to solidify 5E’s monopoly over the TTRPG-sphere.
I actually have a similar house rule for awarding inspiration I call ‘embrace the suck’. When someone gets a nat 1 they get inspiration. It changes the mindset of complete avoidance to accepting their character failed at something because they still get a little something out of it
I do the same. I also give it out if they choose to fail.
I expect the VTT to be just as good as the last two they made!
Really wish I could find that video clip of the pre-4e VTT marketing. The lighting and render quality are better with this one (thanks, Unreal 5!). But it otherwise "reads" the same, even with similar marketing copy.
The codes in books thing kinds of pisses me off because you only get the code if you buy the book from Wizards, it screws the local gaming stores, so they can keep their codes as far as I am concerned.
Lovely video, I'm somewhat excited specially as I enjoy the visual aspect quite a lot. Ill be looking forward to it but its gonna really depend on how well they make this system. Currently TTS, foundry and pen and paper (hopefully getting 3D printed minis in the future) are still king for me and its gonna take quite a lot to shift but still looking forward to the possible innovations its bringing, and if it flops 5e and 3.5 still exist, not to mention other systems and subsystems. hope you all have a great day o/
As soon as I saw the new changes near the end of 5E and how the prices are increasing I decided that I am no longer going to touch 5E or One D&D
Gotta say as well. I do NOT understand removing crits on spell attacks. Such an odd decision.
I agree, give D&D feed back. Feed back starts on Sept 1.
It's because Crawford was tired of answering the question "Can I crit when I use a ranged spell attack?" every other week, and people telling WotC in the surveys "What? I didn't know you could crit. I just said you can't, and we've been going that route." As Crawford said in the interview, lot of the listed changes in the playtest are house rules other groups used because they either didn't read or understand the original rules.
@@KevinVideo If that's the reason it's pathetic. Another possibility is damage envy, how come the spell caster can crit and hit 12 foes and I only get to hit one. Well it's up to people that like to play spell casters to tell D&D they don't like the changes. Who knows it may even help.
@@michellejean11 what spell attack can hit 12 enemies?
@The Mystery Gamer oh yeah! That too.
It's going to be one heck of a hit to FG/Roll20
I'm all for advancement, modernization and everything, but I will never change my playstyle, dice MUST be THROWN by HAND, players must be in the same table, voices must be real and everyone must share the same nachos bowl.
I am with you 100% that's the best way to play though not as doable at times for instance with my group at 1 point we did all play together around a table but some players moving across the country and some moving a few hours away made it so us doing an in person game (luckily weekly and ill admit that) extremely hard for some and impossible for others so even though I agree 100% with you I had to evolve my playstyle though I do wish I could play around the table with my group sadly life prevents us from doing so
@@Vergil4H755 I'm sorry to hear that, man... roleplaying with your friends around you is a bonding experience and one I cherish dearly, fortunately I can still make it happen and hope you will be able to do so again soon, meanwhile, it's important to keep your guys close, even if it is not sharing the Nachos bowl. Have fun my friend
Can I double dip though?
Thanks Cody - Some thoughts.... 1: WotC is wanting to go away from the REAL tabletop and moving into a virtual world, which is OPPOSITE of what I wanted. 2: Will FLGS be able to sell me a Book/code combos or are they going to keep it for themselves? 3: I will house rule Crits on Spells and what I believe needs to be kept from 5E, as always. 3: 3D maps/minis are going to take away from the classic 2D maps and overlays on a ROLL20 TV setup for in person. Doesnt look like the existing modules on D&DBeyond will be there once this launches and they go full into 1D&D.
I can see them doing a tie-in with Hero Forge. WOTC could embed Hero Forge's character generator, allowing players to create "their" character, which (for a price...) would be both their token on the VTT and a pre-coloured miniature printed just for them by Hero Forge.
Sounds too costly
Just imagine spending more than 100 dollars on 3d miniatures
@@dentheduck2095 tell that to Warhammer players
@@moniXluv yeah, i know about these piggy banks, also they are wargamers not roleplayers. Not sure if other part of TRPG community will be so eager to spend tons of money without any other alternatives.
Talespire does this and its really cool, but I do have some issues with Heroforge. Heroforge figures wind up being a lot more expensive than other miniatures. Sure, its a custom STL, but it winds up being around $8. Its a cool feature, but I don't want to be paying double or triple what other minis cost. Maybe if all digital files were allowed then it'd be amazing but as it stands I don't think its worth it
I am playing the game I play. Cool tools are simply that, tools. I am not going to use WOTC VTT plain and simple. I agree that a map should be just for the dungeon/battle map. Overland maps and world maps are cool and helpful but I am not going to do stop motion or claymation games. 3D and tokens? When miniatures came on the scene in the 70s-80s we used poker chips and pennies for adversaries. I am not adverse to going back to that again. So nostalgic.
With the new crit rules, I'm of 2 minds. On the one hand, it feels good to say that even with a -1 Strength save, there's a value in rolling that DC25 saving throw to avoid getting thrown off an airship, or rolling a DC40 concentration check. On the other hand, if my bonus is high enough to pass a DC10 save/check, the idea that rolling a natural 1 (for a total of 13) means the extremely dexterous rogue falls down the last stair to land flat on his face just doesn't feel right. Or if my wizard managed to get a +9 for constitution saves, a paper cut really shouldn't be enough to break concentration. Same thing with ability checks: I'm ok with 20=automatic success, but only if I as the DM can still decide what success means for this character in this context. If the halfling is doing a perception check from the doorway to look for hidden traps, would he really be able to see the invisible spider hiding in the corner of the top bunk bed? Probably not, but maybe he sees hints that there is SOMETHING in the room without knowing exactly what or precisely where. Which is the way I would probably run it under the current rules, anyways.
Well in case of the spider in the room on the bunk bed, the rogue would declare he is checking for traps. Which means that the spider could still be lying in wait unseen.
I also wonder for rogues how this would affect reliable talent but we haven't seen much of the new rules so hard to know yet.
@@pyresti That's the problem with just giving us the character creation and a handful of updated rules: how do these things work mechanically? My take on this with Reliable Talent and similar features is that Reliable Talent (the specific rule) would trump the Natural 1 (the general rule). Reliable Talent says that any roll lower than 9 (or 7, or 10...) is treated as a 9 (or 7, or 10), so you didn't actually roll a 1; you rolled a 9.
That would be in contrast to something like Aura of Protection with Death Saves. Assuming that AoP applies to Death Saving Throws (I think it should apply for everyone except the Paladin himself, since a creature doesn't need to be able to hear or see or even be aware of the aura for it to apply), the wording of the Death Save makes it clear that a "1" on the die is 2 failures and a "20" on the die automatically brings you back, regardless of any modifiers; any other roll can be modified, such as by AoP.
But I'm sure there will be arguments about it.
I personally hate that reliable talent negates a natural 1 (if you play with the auto success/auto failure on all d20 rolls as so many people already do, and that I think make the game better). I love that the new concept is to formalize this. There’s almost nothing in the game as exciting as seeing that 20 come up, regardless of what you’re attempting to do, and likewise, nothing as scary as seeing a 1 appear. When those mean nothing special (as in the official rules for saves and ability checks in 5e), it’s actually an incredibly defeating feeling, and I’ve seen it suck the fun out of a table because the DM ruled that the nat 20 didn’t do anything. I say embrace the chaos, including the chaos of a rogue tripping on their feet. Even world class athletes sometimes stumble and face plant. The nat 1 auto failure reflects that.
@@marcusstusek5843 conversely as a DM I hate my players assuming a nat 20 will mean success. I let them roll for something if it might be possible for someone but maybe not the person who has chosen to do it. A -1 and a +8 in a skill makes a huge difference. I'd like to have it apply to ability checks as an official optional rule. Then tables can decide if they want to apply it
I'm going to be a bit on the "unpopular Opinion" route. I don't like One DnD at all. There's maybe two things I like about it: Languages, and letting the Backgrounds do a bit more than just what they did before. That's it. I don't like how they handle races, while Yes, the first level feats are great for players, I feel like it's going to be a nightmare on rules lawyering which 5e already had problems with (If I were to go back to 5e, I will be pulling some small things from DCC to make it less of a nightmare and more fun for my players, like the "Mighty Deed Die" for fighters, Barbarians, and Rangers to replace the Feats and clerics automaticly get Lay on hands (and the Druid Equlivent for Druids) not taking up a spell slot so they can pick an extra spell to name a few, and if you pick a background, you just know all the details of your origonal occupation (an apthoicarist is going to automaticly know herbs and what will heal, so they'll just get a higher die on that check, same with a bucher being able to cut down fleshy things) to just name a few things. but the players will be able to build their own charater like the 5e way), and the way they're handling Half races are.... yeesh. Also Orcs feels problematic lore wise. I get they're trying to feel cool, but there's some major raceist things that they took away with one the newer book before One DnD. Ardlings are just Aasamirs with more "Good vs Evil" vibes and animal heads, and same with Teiflings. So that's going to be a huge problem as time goes on where people will be focusing on the good and Evil parts and no nuiances (which yes, was a problem in 5e, but there was more discussions about it than really people hyper focusing on it.)
And while I'm happy they are giving players an VTT option, but it's going to be a nightmare for third party people. (actually One DnD is just going to be a nightmare for 3rd party overall, I still feel like they should adpot the Goodman Game model to let people create third party content and modules as it would actually bring even more people into the game, and UA is not really satifying that as it's super restrictive in comparison). I'm not against VTT in any form at all because my players (since I can't actually meet up with them as they live in different states) have trouble focusing if there's no visuals. When they're visuals games are smoother and they enjoy it more because they're not getting fustrated. So I'm not against the VTT aspect. What I am against is how they're handling it. I've seen other systems do much better with VTT and be open for everyone and more freeing for everyone. This ain't it in what DnD is doing.
Again, I know I'm of the Unpopular opinon area, but me and my players aren't going to One DnD any time soon. Even my players who enjoy 5e. (I enjoyed the Beta of 5e back in Pax East one time. It felt Magical and enjoyable when I didnt know anything going in. It felt like a compleately different game when I started the offical version with my first group that fell through. But also it felt far easier to abuse in several cases. I know any game can be abused, but some of the homebrewing to stop the machanic abuse in 5e has gotten a bit rediculious when there are easier ways for 5e after talking to one of my players about it.)
As a player first introduced to D&D through the Basic and Advanced rule systems on through 2e and beyond… here we go again. Big picture, this is about making money. It always has been. I am sure there are those who work within the industry that genuinely care to evolve and produce a better overall product, but the main motivation is profit. It was going to change eventually and as players/DMs our only opportunity to help shape this new edition into something that meets our expectations is to use the play test and provide the feedback. Ultimately, if you don’t like what is finalized you can still play older editions like so many have already. I feel most of the hoopla over this is mostly newer players who were ushered into playing/DMing with 5e now going through what players/DMs of older editions have experienced. Yes 5e was a good system that in my opinion just need a few minor shakeups, but change happens whether we want it or not. Again, try it and provide feedback. That’s all we can do as this is happening regardless.
Thank you for publicly acknowledging that One D&D is simply 6th Ed. Many people in the community believe WotC and that it will be "backwards compatible." I mean it would hurt book sales between now and 2024 but I prefer honesty.
Wasn't really a hard prediction to make 😆.
I dislike the videogame nature of the direction it's taking, which is why I prefer a stripped down roll20 over, say, foundry.
I'm a big proponent of dndbeyond though, and have most of the books bought up on there, (plus a paper copy of the core books, because you just have to)... If nothing else, ease of use and consultation is a winner.. Then of course it saves on trees and weight lifting.
The reason I don't like the videogame nature of the evolution is that it takes away from my mental picture of my character and the monsters he faces... No amount of quality art in the form of pixels can ever substitute the vibe of what my mind can conjure up.
Plus there's always going to be a stark contrast between the online experience and rolling dice in between bowls of snacks and looking your friend in the eyes.
(And yes, both campaigns in involved in are online..i miss the rl experience).
This evolution is and always was inevitable and the writing was on the wall even before dndbeyond appeared on the scene and yes, this is going to eventually become a dlc fest...
It remains to be seen how much pushback there will be, which depend entirely on the price point they're going to make the game workable at.
If I suddenly find that i have to pay 30-50 euro a month to play something that, when, with the books and any single one of the existing free vtts, I can do at a fraction of that cost.. And then have to pay a bunch of money every time a new monster comes out to add it to my library...
I might just pick the cheaper route
If dnd becomes a 30usd a month rent to play I am going the cheapest route (streaming talespire to my players and pirating books)
I like roll20 because I like to play other games than dnd, It is wonderful to find games (usualy) for games like palladiums megaverse(rifts) savage worlds, and so on and so forth.
On the new playtest rules, I've been covering them on my channel but here's the gist of it.
Character origins, Good.
Crits. Bad. Fix player death at low levels, not the crits.
Inspiration. Good intentions, bad execution.
Grapple rules. Very good.
Every other VTT that has 5e available will now receive a cease and desist from WOTC
I think the survival of other VTTs is going to depend on accessibility like you already pointed out. Just like the advent of the TV, a lot people are going to continue to listen to their radio dramas until TVs are accessible to them. Some day most people will look back and wonder how the heck we played D&D in our imagination with paper but there will still be people around who do it.
The problem might come when technology facilities a new level of game design that can only be experienced with that technology and not replicable by pen and paper (or too hard to do so). But I'll still be holding on to my 3.5, 4e, and 5e books.
I like the changes in rules that the D&D One is offering.
Now, if WotC is moving to a more digital/video-gamey approach, with a subscription model as the preferred way to play, I might move back to other games like Call of Cthulhu, Vampire and Numenéra.
I agree. The new UA rules for character creation is great, but the VTT idea just baffles me. There's too many variables to take into account when programming a game. What if a player wants to use broken terrain as cover? Or a weapon? What if they want to use a Spell in a slightly improvised way? Or a weapon? What if a DM house rules using a healing potion as a bonus action rather than an action as I do? It'll take longer to make something like that than it'll be satisfying to wait for or play.
As for a monthly subscription? I understand why, as it'll be a guaranteed stream of income that they wouldn't normally have, but nickel and diming your customers is a great way to get them to walk away if they feel they aren't getting what the price is worth. Especially if financial troubles hit them or the population at large and they have to start making budgetary cuts in their life.
Also, I don't think DnD as a brand is big enough to sustain a game that'll surely cost as much as that to make. Hell, most game devs would be hard pressed to make $5 worth of new content in a game monthly, let alone $10-30. And the DnD brand is sadly waning a bit. Critical Role gave them a huge explosion in popularity, but a lot of that audience is leaving, as are a lot of Critical Role's viewers. Their numbers aren't what they once were.
Thanks for the shout out. I think a lot of players will still want tokens for the existing VTT's. Especially for every system that is not straight DnD. So I'm not overly worried. If sales drop a lot, well then I had a good run and might be able to find time to actually play more games. :)
I’ve been at DMing for 31 years. I’ve played just sooo many systems and iterations of those systems. Change is constantly going to happen. Some of it good . Some not so good. I’ve stayed with some additions and never considered going to the next ( white wolf’s world of darkness). I’ve changed additions each time ( gurps) . Even going back and forth for nostalgias sake ( DnD, adnd, DnD 2.5, dnd3.5, and 5e). Some systems I’m more than happy have almost never changed ( palladium’s rpg system and extended multiverse of books). In the end it comes down to just a few things as to weather or not I’ll move on to a systems next iteration. Cost vs. value, weather the new fixes or brings enough interesting content, and finally how much I have already invested into the old content. We of course all get into hobbies for different reasons. Mine was cheap and unlimited entertainment. Many of my books have been with me for 31 years. I still reference them to this day. I’ll never be willing to pay full price for modern world of darkness. I’ll buy each book palladium puts out. As for DnD, I’ve just enough to get by. With 5e currently being the majority. After all I can do fantasy in almost any system. Is it worth buying into a new iteration of DnD? I’ll see once all the ua is out. It mite just be me buying a new phb and DM’s guide. If I’m On line , I’m good with discord, pdf’s , and owlbear rodeo. Having said that my players mite, have , and will want different things. I’m already asked to use DnD beyond for are adventures . For the purpose of character sheets and shared books.
Im thinking back to pathfinder 1 for me and my friends
I actually do think a sort of "financial revolt" may occur.
Places like fantasy grounds and roll20 might attract players with lower spending costs, or people who aren't interested in purchasing the physical books.
How many people in the market fit that criteria? Well, it depends.
On one hand, the people who want to buy physical copies are likely to be the grognards who don't like the digital aspects of the game, but they are also the people who wouldn't want to purchase a subscription they won't use.
On the other hand, the newer digital generation might want both the book and the digital copy, but may have other things they have to consider when it comes to spending their (comparatively) small amount of cash on hand.
So, long story short, I suspect D&D is actually shooting themselves in the foot by trying to corner the market; now that people have had a taste of D&D in the popular imagination, its not much of a jump to make for them to move onto other RPGs.
Roll20 and foundry both require dndbeyond, which hasbro will block them from.
Well said. There's good to it, but I think the bad outweighs it a little.
@@armorclasshero2103 roll20 does not require D&D beyond. It connects to D&D beyond, for the convenience, but it has full functionality without it.
@@Zac_Frost I'm not here to make a judgement call one way or the other when it comes to it being "good" for the hobby, but I'm not confident that the changes they have made will help their business model.
@@wesleyjudson599 You're right. I just honestly think it won't be that great for the hobby, as it'll limit what you can do in game. For instance: Say a Fire Bolt misses and blasts a chunk out of a wall, and your player wants to prop that up and use it as a type of shield with temporary HP or to grant them partial cover. How do you do that in this? Or if they want to sling that at the enemy that shot the Fire Bolt at them? Do they have to be proficient in "wall chunk" as a weapon type for the attack roll? Is there a strength minimum for it?
Just my thoughts.
I still plan to stick with roll20. While I got a good pc, my players struggle running stuff on roll20. Plus I have mixed feelings about the new edition, to the point where I'll stick with 3.5 or even switch over to PF 2e.
Personally I like the majority of the suggested changes. From playing all versions of D&D over the last 42 years, I am always excited to see what’s coming, especially after 10yr + of the same system. I am very happy that it doesn’t appear to be “change for change sake” as it looks to be well thought out thus far. It feels they are building on the current systems core pillars of the game we love.
I feel you are way off mark with the idea that theater of mind should be changed for a ttrpg. Going virtual will create too much for visual cues, and ground people in the virtual assets. This happens with pen and paper maps using cheetos as figures. If you think it will not translate to the nth degree by using 3d models in a 3d dungeon you are sorely mistaken.
This is not to say some people will still be able to keep their head cannon separated, but that slice of the pie will be much smaller than it already is.
Also I am going out on a limb here and saying that the entry level knowledge needed to make assets such as custom maps, tokens, and arrangements will be a gatekeeping factor. This will lead to cash shopping pre-made stuff, and the same dozen or so modules being the base landscape of what players have to use.
I prefer to just make on the fly doodles, and small visual aides to enhance theater of the mind. Too much scenery is a bad thing, too many visual effects subtract from player input. Why would you describe what something looks like when the video game tokens are already doing that?
This will expand the market to more people for sure, but I am out. I will stick to being a grognard playing advanced dungeons and dragons. I will be the guy leading the table in the cave as you put it.
As a dabbler in 3d models and sometimes gm I can understand how hard this going to be a jump in medium. Also this going to almost kill any chance of me running a hard sci-fi game in the future as if everyone whining “just run 5e” now wasn’t enough.
If I can't run what I want I guess I'll bug out of the hobby.
The whole "one D&D" idea is a malarkey. Its just another edition with a new naming scheme. It is not the end all be all of D&D, it will get replaced. Its just for marketing for those who get uppity about changing DMGs
One D&D is a new edition, just calling it a new name. There are going to be new GM, Players books etc,. It's just a money grab.
One it feels like love for the LGS
2 taking away the background feature
For me feels like y even hav the background if it doesn't do anything
U can just say ok put ur 3 ability scores points across 2 or 3 scores
Choose languages
Pick to skills
A tool
And a feat because without an actual feature for ur background it doesn't really matter which one u pick
I've seen a few youtubers talk about this UA now and so far everyone has sped past the way half races are being done now e.g. Half-Elf.
You pick a human or elf trait group and then just say that you are a Half-Elf. Surely there are more people out there that find this extremely mechanically unsatisfying to be a Half-Elf in name only?
If they are being truthful with the backwards compatibility you can still play the old Half-Elf. You just have to choose whether you get your ASI increase from the race or background, you can’t get both.
That is assuming it is truly backwards compatible.
HARP from ICE has used more or less the same system for a couple of decades. I don't have my copy in front of me right now, but I believe you could do even three races combos of quarter elf quarter dwarf and half human or similar.
@@megaairsoft15 a commenter on another video said the official word is “backwards compatible unless a specific change has been made”. The context was since they made a new alert feat you could no longer take the old one. Therefore I can also see the official rule be that since they made a change to half-races you can no longer play the old ones. (Again, just pulling from another comment, they might have been mistaken).
@@bob8mybobbob are wizards going to come to your house and make you use the new rule? 😆
@@armorclasshero2103 you can always change whatever rules you want as long as everyone agrees. But an ever growing list of “rules I don’t want to follow, can I use this in your game?” that you have to pull out if you want to join a new group is hardly ideal. Thus discussions about what rules people want before WotC makes everything official.
More glad than ever that I kept all my old 3.5e (and 5e) libraries. We can just keep playing old pen & paper D&D like we did when we fell in love with it in the first place.
Agreed. Third party books are so much better than anything WotC is producing.