# What do you think One D&D will do to the VTT industry?



## Hex08 (Aug 24, 2022)

Let me start by saying I don't play D&D anymore, I stopped when 4E came out, so I am probably not totally up to date with all of the latest news. However, from what I understand, with the integration and updates to D&D Beyond One D&D is going to offer a 3D VTT environment.  For those of you who play 5E, or even if you don't, what do you think will happen to the existing VTT industry where D&D is generally the most played RPG on most of them? If you are a 5E player, _*assuming the new VTT works and is any good*_, do you envision abandoning your current VTT in favor of D&D Beyond?

It seems to me that this will probably hurt the existing VTTs as people migrate to D&D Beyond although I don't believe they will all disappear. Even if WotC still offers support for other systems with everything else One D&D will offer it just makes sense to me that a lot of people will move there. My hope is we end up seeing more support for other systems on existing VTTs but they are such a small slice of the pie compared to D&D that the player base gained won't equal what may be lost.


----------



## SakanaSensei (Aug 24, 2022)

I have a very hard time believing, after seeing a lot of other kinda clunky 3d VTTs, that WotC is going to somehow make it as usable as something like Foundry. It sure as heck ain't gonna be as easy to plop things into as Owlbear Rodeo. And people aren't going to be able to use their very pretty, evocative maps from creators like Czepeku Maps. 

So I don't think it's going to have all that big an impact after the first year or so when people are trying to make it work. Humans are inherently lazy and I just don't see it being laziness compatible.


----------



## payn (Aug 24, 2022)

Well, I bought foundry and so far I haven't had to spend much money on it. I can do whatever I need to do with it (though it can be time consuming). So, its not like 1DD VTT is going to take it away from me.


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 24, 2022)

WotC will absolutely be pulling the licenses from other VTTs and saber rattling over them including anything that’s not in the SRD once their VTT is on the market. Guaranteed.

I don’t know that I completely agree with this video, but it’s worth a listen.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> WotC will absolutely be pulling the licenses from other VTTs and saber rattling over them including anything that’s not in the SRD once their VTT is on the market. Guaranteed.
> 
> I don’t know that I completely agree with this video, but it’s worth a listen.



Nah. While it’s possible, they don’t need to in order to protect their profits, and it would be an enormous blow to their image. 

They sell more product by letting other platforms sell their product, than they’d gain in customers who they just screwed out of their past purchases on a platform they’ve already learned to use.


----------



## Mort (Aug 24, 2022)

So far pretty skeptical of the 3D VTT.

It looked pretty on a demo. But for actual DMs to use it for actual play?  It just seems like it will be difficult and clunky to use.

I, for one, can't stand having to be a set designer as well as DM!

It was hard enough to adjust to Roll20 during the pandemic, and that's 2d and fairly easy to find stuff for and drop it in.

If they can make this so it helps with prep or is even prep neutral (as opposed to highly involved and time consuming)  I'll be truly impressed. But I have serious doubts.


----------



## Hex08 (Aug 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> WotC will absolutely be pulling the licenses from other VTTs and saber rattling over them including anything that’s not in the SRD once their VTT is on the market. Guaranteed.



I'm inclined to agree. Walled gardens are common enough and accepted by user bases; whether it's Apple's app store or Sony selling PlayStation games. I see no reason why WotC won't move as much of their content as possible to their new system. It may take some time to mature but I believe it's going to happen. If Hasbro can make more money with a subscription or microtransaction model, they will, and I don't see it alienating enough players to matter. Plus, it's not like the VTT is all you will be getting out of the subscription so if you are getting other content and WotC integrates everything migrating to a new VTT, once it matures will just make sense.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 24, 2022)

Mike Shea talks about this in this video at 26:49.  Basically, there is a significant chance they just won't get this thing to work well enough.  Shea also thinks they will keep their license with roll 20 etc, and just let other VTTs do 2d tabletops.  Personally I have no interest in a 3d VTT


----------



## Catolias (Aug 24, 2022)

I imagine at first there will be no big changes. Over time, though, it would be reasonable to assume that Hasbro/WotC will want to restrict access and redirect to their proprietary VTT. If they don’t make people use their VTT and pay the subscription, why develop it?

At first too, this might be necessary as the 1D&D VTT might be buggy at first and criticised for being crap (remember Apple Maps first foray?). I also imagine they might take over an established vtt too. I would not be surprised if rules-neutral VTT will become a fond memory.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Aug 24, 2022)

My suggestions:

- The PC miniatures can be virtual avatars of the players, at least to be useful for streamers who produce their actual-play shows, or machinimas. Youtubers using this VTT would be a great advertising.

- Quest creator with the option of solo-games, something like the classic gamebooks "Endless Quest" or "Choose your own adventure", with the IA as DM. 

- Option of VTT to be used for wargames. 

---

Haven't you thought about it? Hasbro may have got a special advantage for its VTT, the licences. We shouldn't be surprised if in a future this VTT sells packs based in famous franchises: Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, Elder Ring, Warcraft, Elder Scrolls, Everquest, God of War.. in later VTT for modern and sci-fi settings, then we can see Flash Gordon, Terminator, Predator, Aliens, Ghostbuster, Walking Dead, Resident Evil.


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 24, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Mike Shea talks about this in this video at 26:49.  Basically, there is a significant chance they just won't get this thing to work well enough.  Shea also thinks they will keep their license with roll 20 etc, and just let other VTTs do 2d tabletops.  Personally I have no interest in a 3d VTT



My concern is that WotC won’t care. Once it’s viable, even if shaky and worse than any other VTT, WotC has no reason to keep those other licenses active.

But then, this is all solved by people simply not insisting their VTT of choice has perfect brand integration. You can still use D&D Beyond and roll dice in Roll20. You don’t have to have officially released modules on Roll20 or Foundry. You can put in all the work of finding or scanning or importing the maps, tokens, etc for all the modules you run. That will be an easy sell, right?

Even if D&D Beyond is 10% easier to use, people will flock to it. If they have a sub that gives you all the books and access to the VTT and you have all the maps, minis, tokens, etc there and can easily part it out and reform it…yeah, people will flock to it. If it works.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> My concern is that WotC won’t care. Once it’s viable, even if shaky and worse than any other VTT, WotC has no reason to keep those other licenses active.
> 
> But then, this is all solved by people simply not insisting their VTT of choice has perfect brand integration. You can still use D&D Beyond and roll dice in Roll20. You don’t have to have officially released modules on Roll20 or Foundry. You can put in all the work of finding or scanning or importing the maps, tokens, etc for all the modules you run. That will be an easy sell, right?
> 
> Even if D&D Beyond is 10% easier to use, people will flock to it. If they have a sub that gives you all the books and access to the VTT and you have all the maps, minis, tokens, etc there and can easily part it out and reform it…yeah, people will flock to it. If it works.



Side question: do you use maps in your dnd style games, or do you have the players draw their own?


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 24, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Side question: do you use maps in your dnd style games, or do you have the players draw their own?



I run theater of the mind specifically to avoid the headache of maps, minis/tokens, terrains, storage, flocking getting everywhere, etc. Players are free to draw their own maps. But I don't correct them if they're wrong.

If they have the time to survey an area and properly map it, and I have a map for that, I'll give it to them. Or vague overland maps that are more "in world" maps, not to scale etc, they can have those, sure. For my West Marches 5E game I had a hex map and I revealed the hexes as the various groups explored. They seemed to dig that.

I've played with maps and lighting and tokens etc on Roll20. It's fine, I guess. Way more time goes in than fun comes out. But, when someone insists on some kind of markers or minis & maps set up, I use index cards, dry-erase boards, dry-erase hex/square mats, Legos, beads, wood blocks, or whatever else is handy in face-to-face games...or I'll draw up a quick thing on Roll20 if I have to.

I play in other people's games and a lot of them seem to be really into the maps and lighting tricks on VTTs. Some obsessively so. I had a DM delay a game because he couldn't get the fancy lighting to work right on Roll20. It took him hours and hours to figure out how to set up the lighting for some room and he was way proud of it, turned out we were in that room for maybe two minutes of game time. He showed off the cool lighting, we all said some variation of "that's neat" then we left the room.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I run theater of the mind specifically to avoid the headache of maps, minis/tokens, terrains, storage, flocking getting everywhere, etc. Players are free to draw their own maps. But I don't correct them if they're wrong.
> 
> If they have the time to survey an area and properly map it, and I have a map for that, I'll give it to them. Or vague overland maps that are more "in world" maps, not to scale etc, they can have those, sure. For my West Marches 5E game I had a hex map and I revealed the hexes as the various groups explored. They seemed to dig that.
> 
> ...



Yeah I'm going to start a OSE campaign with The Hole in the Oak and I'm wondering if I could just run it theater of the mind.  This group is 5e players, and usually we use owlbear rodeo, but I increasingly find pushing tokens around a screen to just not be interesting.  



LuisCarlos17f said:


> The PC miniatures can be virtual avatars of the players, at least to be useful for streamers who produce their actual-play shows, or machinimas. Youtubers using this VTT would be a great advertising.




The issue for streamers is that a lot of people don't watch, they just listen to the game like a podcast.  So they have to be able to describe what's going on without referencing a shared image.


----------



## overgeeked (Aug 24, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Yeah I'm going to start a OSE campaign with The Hole in the Oak and I'm wondering if I could just run it theater of the mind. This group is 5e players, and usually we use owlbear rodeo, but I increasingly find pushing tokens around a screen to just not be interesting.



Oh, neat. Hope it goes well. Love me some OSE and I've heard great things about Hole in the Oak. I've no experience with Owlbear Rodeo.

You absolutely can run most combats with theater of the mind. It all depends on what works for you and your players. I have one person in one of my D&D groups who will literally refuse to play without some kind of maps and minis. So definitely check with your players first.

If you have or are planning to get some of Sly Flourish's stuff, there's some good tips in Lazy DM's Workbook and Lazy DM's Companion. He might have free versions up on his blog or on YouTube. It amounts to 4-6 pages of great advice. The short, short version is: over describe, err on the side of simpler combats, recap often, and be generous to your players. You'll likely want to give monsters/combatants interesting physical descriptions etc to mark them in the players' minds. "The guard with the limp is by the fireplace, the guard with the eye patch is at the table playing cards." There's also some old Dungeon Craft videos where he's talking about Ultimate Dungeon Terrain where he talks about essentially theater of the mind play.

It can be a lot of fun but it takes some getting used to and trust all around. Have fun with it.

ETA: Started a thread for it. Hopefully others will chime in.


----------



## MNblockhead (Aug 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> My concern is that WotC won’t care. Once it’s viable, even if shaky and worse than any other VTT, WotC has no reason to keep those other licenses active.
> 
> But then, this is all solved by people simply not insisting their VTT of choice has perfect brand integration. You can still use D&D Beyond and roll dice in Roll20. You don’t have to have officially released modules on Roll20 or Foundry. You can put in all the work of finding or scanning or importing the maps, tokens, etc for all the modules you run. That will be an easy sell, right?
> 
> Even if D&D Beyond is 10% easier to use, people will flock to it. If they have a sub that gives you all the books and access to the VTT and you have all the maps, minis, tokens, etc there and can easily part it out and reform it…yeah, people will flock to it. If it works.



Yeah, this.  I'll keep Foundry for other systems. But if the WotC's VTT is play ready, I would certainly jump to it to at least run WotC published material. I have only run one WotC published adventure (Curse of Strahd) since 5e came out. I usually run home brew and third party stuff. But if their VTT is easy to use and has everything prepped AND also automates area of effect spell saves and damages and other  things to speed up combat, not only would I likely to jump to their VTT I would likely focus on WotC published material. 

I like the VTT experience.  I hate the prep.


----------



## payn (Aug 24, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> I like the VTT experience.  I hate the prep.



I think this is the next stage of VTT evolution. Making the prep quicker and easier.


----------



## Hex08 (Aug 24, 2022)

MNblockhead said:


> I like the VTT experience.  I hate the prep.



I'm the opposite. I deal with the VTT experience because it lets me play with friends that I don't live close to anymore, but I do like the prep (usually). I always kind of enjoyed the prep for my games almost as much as running the game itself.

My fear is with 3D VTTs and tons of automation it will eventually start to feel like a video game rather than an RPG.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> WotC will absolutely be pulling the licenses from other VTTs and saber rattling over them including anything that’s not in the SRD once their VTT is on the market. Guaranteed.



They could but they went back to the OGL after 4e and they did not need to. They allow the DMSGuild. I know that they could pull it but the publicity would be very bad and they really do not need. If the Digital D&D table is that good it will pull the traffic on its own merit.


overgeeked said:


> I don’t know that I completely agree with this video, but it’s worth a listen.



The predictions are possible but if WotC are really smart they will set up the VTT to allow non WoTC games. Publish and API to allow the community to support non WoTC games and make a ton of money selling terrrain assets and skins to play CoC or Shadowrun, via MTX.
Done really right Digital D&D could become the "Metaverse" and forget what ever Zukerberg is arsing around with.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 24, 2022)

i really do not  believe WoTC will pull third party licences. If their VTT is good enough it will pull the playerbase in on its own merit and the other rival systems will stagnate and wither on the vine. If it is not good enough an environment hostile to third parties will not really help. DMs will use  it if it makes things easier.  If it only makes running published material easy but no customisable that will restrict the uptake. 
If is makes homebrew harder that will limit the uptake. 
D&D is a DM's game this has to be a value proposition to DMs


----------



## embee (Aug 24, 2022)

I think that their VTT will be a boon to both nVidia and AMD. Because it looks like it will melt graphics cards. 

Seriously, I think it will piss people off. 

I run Roll20. And it runs decently enough on my PC (with an AMD Ryzen 7 3700 and a trusty GTX 1070) but its limited by the power of the weakest user. And I don't see how WOTC's offering will get around that hurdle. We get annoyed enough when Roll20 chokes up on our Saturday night sessions. 

I can only imagine how bad this will be.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 24, 2022)

embee said:


> I think that their VTT will be a boon to both nVidia and AMD. Because it looks like it will melt graphics cards.
> 
> Seriously, I think it will piss people off.
> 
> ...



I would have though that Roll20 issues would be either server side or client bandwidth. I would not have expected the client machines to make any difference. 
On FantasyGrounds most issues we have had are bandwidth rather than machine performance.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 24, 2022)

1. IF they get it to work, WotC will likely move all future D&D support from other VTTs. Eventually, if players want to play the most current edition and new products, they'll have no choice but to go to the new 3D VTT. Being the biggest game on the market, support for all other VTTs will dry up, effectively marking the end for many. Roll20 will be the first to go, because there isn't as much customization possible, it doesn't handle other systems that well, and D&D is such a major part of their games. Foundry will linger on with Pathfinder, Warhammer, and Free League games, but it will be primarily for "other games." Fantasy Grounds will continue to run older editions and Pathfinder, and will continue to shrink as those old systems further wane in popularity. Whiteboards, Zoom, and other "DIY" online solutions will remain unchanged.

2. But they won't get it to work.


----------



## Mort (Aug 24, 2022)

embee said:


> I think that their VTT will be a boon to both nVidia and AMD. Because it looks like it will melt graphics cards.
> 
> Seriously, I think it will piss people off.
> 
> ...




Yeah, even with Roll20's relatively modest needs we often have at least a few drops/slowdowns  most sessions.

I can't even imagine what a truly graphics heavy VTT would do for that!


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Aug 24, 2022)

Even the possibility that WotC will pull the license will make many people reluctant to buy into a 3rd party VTT.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 24, 2022)

Retreater said:


> 1. IF they get it to work, WotC will likely move all future D&D support from other VTTs. Eventually, if players want to play the most current edition and new products, they'll have no choice but to go to the new 3D VTT. Being the biggest game on the market, support for all other VTTs will dry up, effectively marking the end for many. Roll20 will be the first to go, because there isn't as much customization possible, it doesn't handle other systems that well, and D&D is such a major part of their games. Foundry will linger on with Pathfinder, Warhammer, and Free League games, but it will be primarily for "other games." Fantasy Grounds will continue to run older editions and Pathfinder, and will continue to shrink as those old systems further wane in popularity. Whiteboards, Zoom, and other "DIY" online solutions will remain unchanged.
> 
> 2. But they won't get it to work.



With regard to 2, they will get it to work if they spend the time and money. 
With regard to point 1, they might do what you say but they do not have to. 
A VTT does not need full automation to be viable. 
It is two years to 2024. I really doubt they will have anything other than  beta by then. We could be out to 2027 before we see the release version.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 24, 2022)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Even the possibility that WotC will pull the license will make many people reluctant to buy into a 3rd party VTT.



Not really. It will affect 3rd party VTTs like FantasyGrounds that rely on developer automation. VTTs that do not provide built-in automation or have user tools to provide automation have a better chance. 
However I think it is premature to say the sky is falling.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 24, 2022)

I don't believe WotC will pull the licence from other VTTs. They're all revenue streams for D&D products. Instead, I'd expect them to expand the functionality of their own VTT beyond just D&D, allowing it to compete with others as a semi-general purpose VTT.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 24, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I don't believe WotC will pull the licence from other VTTs. They're all revenue streams for D&D products. Instead, I'd expect them to expand the functionality of their own VTT beyond just D&D, allowing it to compete with others as a semi-general purpose VTT.



To be honest that is what I expect also.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Aug 24, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> WotC will absolutely be pulling the licenses from other VTTs and saber rattling over them including anything that’s not in the SRD once their VTT is on the market. Guaranteed.
> 
> I don’t know that I completely agree with this video, but it’s worth a listen.



I basically don't at all, except that it could damage other VTTs.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Aug 24, 2022)

Anyway I see no reason to be down on it until it shows something to make me doubt it.


----------



## embee (Aug 24, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I would have though that Roll20 issues would be either server side or client bandwidth. I would not have expected the client machines to make any difference.
> On FantasyGrounds most issues we have had are bandwidth rather than machine performance.



It's a combination of the two. If someone has a bad connection, that will slow everything down. If someone's browser doesn't render fast enough, that will slow everything down. And then you superimpose that on server load which, as you can imagine, is highest on the weekends.

I don't have a lot of faith in WOTC's simply because it's going to add to the load on every front.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 24, 2022)

embee said:


> It's a combination of the two. If someone has a bad connection, that will slow everything down. If someone's browser doesn't render fast enough, that will slow everything down. And then you superimpose that on server load which, as you can imagine, is highest on the weekends.
> 
> I don't have a lot of faith in WOTC's simply because it's going to add to the load on every front.



Oh! I will believe in the WoTC VTT when I see it in action. I mean I like the idea of it. But while I see no need for the woe and gloom the challenge they have set themselves is considerable.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 25, 2022)

It will give other VTTs a modest boost, because WotC is going to delay releasing it until it's a super-high end 3D VTT which is _incredibly hard to do from scratch_. It's years off, if it ever comes. (I am betting against it ever coming.) So while people get fired up for the idea of it, they're going to look at what else is available and go with those.

Now, WotC could course correct and start with a 2D VTT, integrate it with the Encounter Builder, etc., and start the monetization train. If that happened, it would be extremely bad news for Fantasy Grounds and Roll 20. But WotC rolled a Natural 20 for hubris, so they're insisting on doing this the hard way, despite their abysmal track record.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 25, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> WotC will absolutely be pulling the licenses from other VTTs and saber rattling over them including anything that’s not in the SRD once their VTT is on the market. Guaranteed.
> 
> I don’t know that I completely agree with this video, but it’s worth a listen.



Of all the people who spout nonsense about D&D on YouTube, that smug dude is right near the top.


----------



## Lazybones (Aug 25, 2022)

As someone who is fairly well-invested in Fantasy Grounds (I DM two weekly 5e campaigns), I am open to the idea of a new VTT with added functionality. But I run almost exclusively homebrew, and I need a system that is friendly to the builder. With FG, there was a learning curve, but now I am familiar enough with it to build what I need fairly quickly, either grabbing a map online and plopping down LOS/lighting or quickly throwing something together using the included builder tools (which have gotten a lot more functional over the last few years). But 3D adds a level of complexity that goes well beyond just adding a Z-axis. Any toolset they include would have to be similar to what was in the original Neverwinter Nights' Aurora build engine (i.e., super easy to add unique content) to get me to switch.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 25, 2022)

Lazybones said:


> As someone who is fairly well-invested in Fantasy Grounds (I DM two weekly 5e campaigns), I am open to the idea of a new VTT with added functionality. But I run almost exclusively homebrew, and I need a system that is friendly to the builder. With FG, there was a learning curve, but now I am familiar enough with it to build what I need fairly quickly, either grabbing a map online and plopping down LOS/lighting or quickly throwing something together using the included builder tools (which have gotten a lot more functional over the last few years). But 3D adds a level of complexity that goes well beyond just adding a Z-axis. Any toolset they include would have to be similar to what was in the original Neverwinter Nights' Aurora build engine (i.e., super easy to add unique content) to get me to switch.



I am in a similar position and I think the old Aurora engine would represent the upper limit of the complexity I would be willing to handle.


----------



## Yora (Aug 25, 2022)

I'll actually be mildly surpised if these plans ever lead to something entering full service. And even then it might never be much more than an also ran, with a few dedicated fans that ignore the technical shortcomings that never get resolved.


----------



## ReshiIRE (Aug 25, 2022)

I'm not sure WoTC will pull off their VTT, but having used Talespire, a 3D semi-VTT (in terms of playing maps - it doesn't have automation on the level of something like Foundry), the concept can work. But it takes a _lot_ of work.


----------



## Hex08 (Aug 25, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I'd expect them to expand the functionality of their own VTT beyond just D&D, allowing it to compete with others as a semi-general purpose VTT.



I honestly hope that isn't the case and I find it unlikely. 

Assuming their VTT works, because of the sheer size of the D&D player base and if they support other games then we can defiantly say goodbye to most other VTTs. The non-WotC VTT competition just won't have the customer base to support them because D&D tends to be the gateway to other RPGs in general so those playing other games may likely stick with WotC's VTT to play the other games. That would be horrible for those of us who don't play D&D and want a VTT. 

I also find it unlikely that WotC will support other games because they don't already. There are other games with OGLs or the equivalent and Hasbro/WotC doesn't produce material for them. I believe there are two reasons for that. First, they want D&D to be and remain the 800-pound gorilla in the room and letting in other games will drain a small number of players from the core product. Second, the player base for most other RPGs is so small comparatively that to a company like Hasbro it probably won't make financial sense to support them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 25, 2022)

Retreater said:


> 1. IF they get it to work, WotC will likely move all future D&D support from other VTTs. Eventually, if players want to play the most current edition and new products, they'll have no choice but to go to the new 3D VTT. Being the biggest game on the market, support for all other VTTs will dry up, effectively marking the end for many. Roll20 will be the first to go, because there isn't as much customization possible, it doesn't handle other systems that well, and D&D is such a major part of their games. Foundry will linger on with Pathfinder, Warhammer, and Free League games, but it will be primarily for "other games." Fantasy Grounds will continue to run older editions and Pathfinder, and will continue to shrink as those old systems further wane in popularity. Whiteboards, Zoom, and other "DIY" online solutions will remain unchanged.
> 
> 2. But they won't get it to work.



None of that is at all likely to happen, though. 

This is such an extremely odd prediction.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 25, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I honestly hope that isn't the case and I find it unlikely.
> 
> Assuming their VTT works, because of the sheer size of the D&D player base and if they support other games then we can defiantly say goodbye to most other VTTs. The non-WotC VTT competition just won't have the customer base to support them because D&D tends to be the gateway to other RPGs in general so those playing other games may likely stick with WotC's VTT to play the other games. That would be horrible for those of us who don't play D&D and want a VTT.
> 
> I also find it unlikely that WotC will support other games because they don't already. There are other games with OGLs or the equivalent and Hasbro/WotC doesn't produce material for them. I believe there are two reasons for that. First, they want D&D to be and remain the 800-pound gorilla in the room and letting in other games will drain a small number of players from the core product. Second, the player base for most other RPGs is so small comparatively that to a company like Hasbro it probably won't make financial sense to support them.



This VTT isn't going to take over the industry and oust all other competitors. WotC may be the 800lb gorilla in the tabletop world, but this is a new avenue for them, and one in which there are already dominant participants that D&D players routinely use and prefer.

And this is a specialised engine, designed to have all the bells and whistles for those who want the full 3D experience. That's not going to be everyone.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 25, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I don't believe WotC will pull the licence from other VTTs. They're all revenue streams for D&D products. Instead, I'd expect them to expand the functionality of their own VTT beyond just D&D, allowing it to compete with others as a semi-general purpose VTT.



Yep. Every licensed vtt is essentially a storefront that sells D&D books. 

You don’t generally make _more_ money by getting rid of all the third party stores that sell your product.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 25, 2022)

MarkB said:


> And this is a specialised engine, designed to have all the bells and whistles for those who want the full 3D experience. That's not going to be everyone.



Also this. A 3D vtt using a legit video game engine used to make AAA games is not a direct competitor to roll20. They’re different products, with different appeal.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 25, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> They sell more product by letting other platforms sell their product, than they’d gain in customers who they just screwed out of their past purchases on a platform they’ve already learned to use.




We can hope they are wise enough to see this, yes.


----------



## Hex08 (Aug 25, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yep. Every licensed vtt is essentially a storefront that sells D&D books.
> 
> You don’t generally make _more_ money by getting rid of all the third party stores that sell your product.



Or they can sell it themselves directly to the consumer, cut out the middleman and increase their profits. 

Like I said in my initial post, I no longer play D&D so maybe I am missing something, but this One D&D initiative sounds like a fully integrated D&D experience in an era where more people are willing to play online. Since people, especially younger people, are more willing to subscribe to services rather than owning physical product and pay for content using microtransactions I find it hard to believe that if One D&D becomes a fully realized product that it won't dominate the market. Whether people slowly abandon other VTTs over time, Hasbro stops offering new content to existing ones or Hasbro pulls licenses altogether seems irrelevant, the D&D offering will win out because of its size and other VTTs will suffer and some will disappear.


----------



## Vael (Aug 25, 2022)

I think this is putting the cart a mile in front of the horse. Maybe I'm just cynically remembering the never delivered VTT for 4e, but this is the part of One DnD that I'm least interested in and most skeptical about.

That said ... brand recognition is brand recognition, and if (and that's a huge IF), the product is good, easy to use and well integrated with the rest of DnD Beyond, it'll quickly be the elephant in the room, without WotC even needing to revoke licenses or other such hardball tactics.


----------



## Hex08 (Aug 25, 2022)

MarkB said:


> this is a new avenue for them, and one in which there are already dominant participants that D&D players routinely use and prefer.



I would imagine Research in Motion, the makers of Blackberry smartphones, thought the same thing when the iPhone was released. (And now I feel old....)


MarkB said:


> And this is a specialised engine, designed to have all the bells and whistles for those who want the full 3D experience. That's not going to be everyone.



It doesn't seem to me that it matters if it appeals to everyone, just that if it appeals to most. I'm not predicting the end of all other VTTs if One D&D succeeds, just that it will have a negative impact on other VTT platforms.


Vael said:


> I think this is putting the cart a mile in front of the horse.



I don't disagree, that's why I put the caveat "_*assuming the new VTT works and is any good" *_in my original post.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 25, 2022)

Umbran said:


> We can hope they are wise enough to see this, yes.



Sure. I’m not sure what behavior within the last 8-10 years would make us skeptical of that. 


Hex08 said:


> Or they can sell it themselves directly to the consumer, cut out the middleman and increase their profits.
> 
> Like I said in my initial post, I no longer play D&D so maybe I am missing something, but this One D&D initiative sounds like a fully integrated D&D experience in an era where more people are willing to play online. Since people, especially younger people, are more willing to subscribe to services rather than owning physical product and pay for content using microtransactions I find it hard to believe that if One D&D becomes a fully realized product that it won't dominate the market. Whether people slowly abandon other VTTs over time, Hasbro stops offering new content to existing ones or Hasbro pulls licenses altogether seems irrelevant, the D&D offering will win out because of its size and other VTTs will suffer and some will disappear.



Seems to me that the mindset of Winninger et al, is the “rising tide raises all ships” mentality. So while they could 180 on that and go hard on the proprietary exclusivity thing, but like…doesn’t seem likely.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 25, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> None of that is at all likely to happen, though.
> 
> This is such an extremely odd prediction.



I don't think it's an odd prediction at all. In fact, it's based on WotC's precedent of consistently failing to deliver on every big tech promise. 

But, let's say they pull off a miracle of technology and surprise everyone in two years. 

Why would they want you to play on their tabletop? To get you into their ecosystem, purchasing your tokens and other assets from them. Do you think they want you making custom tokens on the Tokenizer site for free and using them on your free subscription to Roll20 - when they've spent a fortune to create and promote this new software? 

Luckily, they've never pulled access to digital content before or limited our ability to purchase them, right? 

If Roll20 can't get the current edition of D&D (their cash-cow), they're done. If you can't get new modules the new core rules, they're done. Especially when WotC is going to start throwing out bundled copies of what you buy (initially) on their 3D tabletop. Why stay around on Roll20?

Foundry isn't going to fare much better. Its saving grace is that it handles other systems (such as Free League's stuff and Pathfinder 2) better than Roll20. There's no way WotC isn't going to slap the D&D Beyond Foundry importers with a cease and desist (they've already shut it down once). Simply put, there will be no way to get access to official content except through the proprietary VTT.    

Simply put, there's no way WotC is going to let you buy your content and continue to use it for years when they can limit you to a subscription access - this is the HBOMax, Disney+, Spotify economy now. 

I know this sounds ridiculous to people on these boards who are huge WotC fans, because I guess you think WotC are your friends? They are a business, a darn big business. They are targeting a new demographic of players who have grown up not owning their media on CDs/vinyl, or DVDs/VHS. They would rather have a constant revenue stream based off subscriptions than to constantly create new content for old grognards like us. 

And to let you run Re-Discovered Mine of Phandelver (or whatever the first adventure is going to be called) by purchasing a module that you're going to own on Fantasy Grounds (which you also own) instead of their subscription-based VTT, that's like Netflix putting the new season of Stranger Things on ABC.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 25, 2022)

Retreater said:


> know this sounds ridiculous to people on these boards who are huge WotC fans, because I guess you think WotC are your friends? They are a business, a darn big business.





Neighbor, I don’t think my FLGS are my friends. 

You are completely ignoring the direction the company has taken since launching the next playtest, and stuck with for 8+ years through constantly growing sales, which is to promote the hobby as a whole and grow the DND brand, going out of their way to actively give platforms to 3pp. 

The people making D&D have probably never been as responsive to fans and willing to change things to suit fan reactions in my lifetime. 

Not because they are anyone’s “friend” (what an utterly nonsensical notion. Way to insult the basic intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you), but because it is the strategy that has propelled them to a level of success wherein their mini-boss is taking his bosses job, and they’ve become the primary moneymaker in their parent company’s stable.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 25, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Or they can sell it themselves directly to the consumer, cut out the middleman and increase their profits



And dramatically reduce sales volume, and strike an incredible blow to the brand and the company’s reputation.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 26, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not because they are anyone’s “friend” (what an utterly nonsensical notion. Way to insult the basic intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you), but because it is the strategy that has propelled them to a level of success wherein their mini-boss is taking his bosses job, and they’ve become the primary moneymaker in their parent company’s stable.



My intent isn't to insult anybody. I assume everyone posting on here has at least basic intelligence, probably well above that.
But look at precedence. Look at the rest of the entertainment market zeitgeist, and I think you can see where I'm coming to these observations.


----------



## Galandris (Aug 26, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The people making D&D have probably never been as responsive to fans and willing to change things to suit fan reactions in my lifetime.
> 
> Not because they are anyone’s “friend” (what an utterly nonsensical notion. Way to insult the basic intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you), but because it is the strategy that has propelled them to a level of success wherein their mini-boss is taking his bosses job, and they’ve become the primary moneymaker in their parent company’s stable.




This strategy being selling Magic the Gathering cards


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Aug 26, 2022)

Vael said:


> I think this is putting the cart a mile in front of the horse. Maybe I'm just cynically remembering the never delivered VTT for 4e, but this is the part of One DnD that I'm least interested in and most skeptical about.
> 
> That said ... brand recognition is brand recognition, and if (and that's a huge IF), the product is good, easy to use and well integrated with the rest of DnD Beyond, it'll quickly be the elephant in the room, without WotC even needing to revoke licenses or other such hardball tactics.



I doubt there will be a murder suicide that takes out the guy who was making the tabletop.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 26, 2022)

Retreater said:


> My intent isn't to insult anybody. I assume everyone posting on here has at least basic intelligence, probably well above that.
> But look at precedence. Look at the rest of the entertainment market zeitgeist, and I think you can see where I'm coming to these observations.



I don’t think there is a way to tell us that we must think wizards are our friends without suggesting that we are idiots, frankly, but I’ll take you at your word wrt intention.

Look at video games, toys, and board games. They’re a better predictor of what wizards might do than tv and movie based media franchises and distributors. 


Galandris said:


> This strategy being selling Magic the Gathering cards



This is a bit of an outdated sentiment, IMO. MtG is a huge moneymaker, sure, but so are the dnd books and so are licensed products that use the IP. That said, selling magic cards depends on not ruining thier reputation, so…


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Aug 26, 2022)

Retreater said:


> My intent isn't to insult anybody. I assume everyone posting on here has at least basic intelligence, probably well above that.
> But look at precedence. Look at the rest of the entertainment market zeitgeist, and I think you can see where I'm coming to these observations.



I have watched this and I still can’t see what you see.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 26, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Look at video games, toys, and board games. They’re a better predictor of what wizards might do than tv and movie based media franchises and distributors.



Does Nintendo let you play Mario Kart on Steam? 
If you don't want to follow the TV/streaming media connection, then consider first party video games. You're not playing Halo on Playstation. They want to sell you an Xbox and the Game Pass service.


----------



## Hex08 (Aug 26, 2022)

I think what most people are missing is that Hasbro/WotC doesn't have to pull anything from existing VTTs, they could even increase support, for them to negatively impact other VTTs. The whole premise of my original post was based on the idea that WotC is able to pull off all of the promises of One D&D (farfetched or not) and if that if that is the case I don't see many convincing arguments supporting the idea that most people who play D&D, the most popular RPG by far, wouldn't migrate to that service. If they migrate to that service, I don't see how that won't negatively impact other VTTs.

I'm not saying that Fantasy Grounds, Foundry or any other VTT are going to lose access to WotC material (although they could lose stuff that requires a license). My point is that the modern consumer who is so used to subscription-based models vs physical ownership (Netflix subscriptions vs Blu-ray sales), walled gardens (Apple's app store and the like) and microtransactions that most of the player base will naturally migrate to One D&D and that's bad for the competition.

Once again, I don't play D&D but to think that Hasbro worries about competitors digital store fronts seems silly to me because, from my limited understanding, Hasbro doesn't make products like the 5E Players Handbook available as a PDF. If they aren't willing to sell such an important book as a PDF via their own website, let alone DriveThru RPG, then I don't see why they would want to consider helping what will be their competition.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 26, 2022)

MonsterEnvy said:


> I have watched this and I still can’t see what you see.



You've gotta be extremly pessimistic with an anxiety disorder. I guess that's my superpower.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 26, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Once again, I don't play D&D but to think that Hasbro worries about competitors digital store fronts seems silly to me because, from my limited understanding, Hasbro doesn't make products like the 5E Players Handbook available as a PDF. If they aren't willing to sell such an important book as a PDF via their own website, let alone DriveThru RPG, then I don't see why they would want to consider helping what will be their competition.



But they sell it now on D&D Beyond (which they now own). And unlike a PDF, you have to use their service to open the proprietary format, which they can alter or remove at their discretion.


----------



## Hex08 (Aug 26, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> And dramatically reduce sales volume, and strike an incredible blow to the brand and the company’s reputation.



Cutting out the middleman and increasing profits isn't likely to do what you are suggesting but even if it does, Hasbro is, in the end, a publicly traded corporation. As long as that's the case their profit motive is really all that matters.


----------



## Hex08 (Aug 26, 2022)

Retreater said:


> But they sell it now on D&D Beyond (which they now own). And unlike a PDF, you have to use their service to open the proprietary format, which they can alter or remove at their discretion.



Cool, thanks' for pointing out my error. Like I said, I don't play the game so I'm not sure about all that is going on with 5E. However, that is kind of is my point (and I think yours in prior posts). Drive sales/subscribers to their service at the expense of other services. If that's how they sell their digital products now why should I believe it would be any different with the fully integrated One D&D service and their VTT (once again, assuming they can deliver on their promise).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 26, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Or they can sell it themselves directly to the consumer, cut out the middleman and increase their profits.
> 
> Like I said in my initial post, I no longer play D&D so maybe I am missing something, but this One D&D initiative sounds like a fully integrated D&D experience in an era where more people are willing to play online. Since people, especially younger people, are more willing to subscribe to services rather than owning physical product and pay for content using microtransactions I find it hard to believe that if One D&D becomes a fully realized product that it won't dominate the market. Whether people slowly abandon other VTTs over time, Hasbro stops offering new content to existing ones or Hasbro pulls licenses altogether seems irrelevant, the D&D offering will win out because of its size and other VTTs will suffer and some will disappear.



A few things.

Foundry isn’t really the middleman. They’re paying wizards to make wizards money at vanishingly little overhead from wizards. Intentionally cutting them would be at least as dumb as telling Target, Amazon, and FLGSs to suck it and not letting them sell D&D books.

As far as competition goes, I think that


Retreater said:


> Does Nintendo let you play Mario Kart on Steam?
> If you don't want to follow the TV/streaming media connection, then consider first party video games. You're not playing Halo on Playstation. They want to sell you an Xbox and the Game Pass service.



sure, because the console is sold at a loss, so they make their profit via individual games and subscription services. 

Like…they’ve had a subscription service and been unfriendly toward third parties, and it contributed to the major deterioration of their reputation and brand. And they’re making vastly more profit now. 

I guarantee that even if 5e hadn’t blown up and was just fairly successful, let’s say 3.5 level player-base, their current model would still be simply more profitable than what you are claiming they will most likely do. 

I don’t think you’re taking into account that they are selling the books on a dozen platforms, and only a couple cost them literally anything to do, and all of them individually make them more money than it cost to produce the product. 

They also take a sizeable chunk from DMsGuild, which exist _only_ due to a thriving and engaged player base that _mostly_ views the company as either neutral or as good folks doing their best. (I fall between those)

It would literally be idiotic to hard-line centralize all of that into one singular source that will have just, from the player base perspective, blatantly betrayed the players at large in a short-sighted and aggressive money-grab. 

Again, not letting roll20 sell people new PHBs would be like killing their relationship with Target or with all FLGSs. Just to what, get a portion of the users from each third party to switch over to their platform, shrinking the overall digital user base, and losing money? And then you suggest they’re going to voluntarily lose even more players by requiring a subscription and micro transactions to play D&D digitally? 

And all of that is _before_ considering all the people who own multiple digital copies on different platforms, in addition to physical.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 26, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Cutting out the middleman and increasing profits isn't likely to do what you are suggesting but even if it does, Hasbro is, in the end, a publicly traded corporation. As long as that's the case their profit motive is really all that matters.



It’s guaranteed to do exactly that. It is rarely more profitable to become the only storefront for a product that already sells like crazy on a dozen platforms, because you lose customers, and no one is buying the same product 3 times via the same platform. 

Right now, every vtt on the internet that sells content access (so every legal vtt that wants to let you easily make a PHB+ D&D character) is a storefront selling the product, and by doing so contributing to the growth of the industry as a whole, which directly leads to more PHB sales both physical and digital. 

Having the easiest, shiniest, most convenient, and official, vtt will make them gobs of money, but it isn’t likely to make them more money than they are currently making from all of the licensed sales that cost wizards effectively _nothing_ to facilitate. (Every book for 5e makes its money back just on physical copy)

Clearly the better strategy is to _do both. _To keep making that licensed profit, and make the new direct relationship profit from what is basically a luxury version of what other vtts offer.  

And then we get to the second part. 5e fixed their broken reputation. There are holdouts who still dislike them for old sins, but they are overwhelmingly outnumbered just by the people who don’t even know about those past missteps. 

Part of why is that they invited everyone into the tent, with the OGL, DMsGuild, and friendly 3rd party licensing relationships, and a general ethos of “a rising tide raises all ships”, ie that the growth of the 3pp market, the indie market, etc, leads to the further growth of D&D . 

Doing a 180 on that, effectively invalidating hundreds of dollars of purchases on average (per user), and basically telling people, “if you want D&D, you can only get it through us now.” would unquestionably sink their rep lower than it was in 2012.


----------



## BigZebra (Aug 26, 2022)

I am looking forward to this VTT actually. I can't see them pulling support for other VTTs - not in a long long time any way. I don't think they are that stupid. It will result in less sales, bad goodwill etc.
What I do hope happens is that they will open up the older versions to the other VTTs. Currently only Fantasy Grounds has a license for 1e/2e. I would love to be able to play 4e and 3.5e on Roll20 etc.
Also I think this propels the other VTTs to focus on the long tail end of RPGs and not only 5e. There are so many great games I'd like to play on Roll20 (WFRP, Shadowrun, Star Wars, etc.) that have either none or minor support. Now that WotC will undoubtedly pull many users to their platform, I hope Roll20 will step up a bit (thye have been a bit lazy IMO).

Also all the glib about WotC and digital tools _hidr hidr_ is just ridiculous outdated nonsense. It is not 2008 anymore.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 26, 2022)

Retreater said:


> You've gotta be extremly pessimistic with an anxiety disorder. I guess that's my superpower.



I have agreed with you that what you say is possible but I still find it unlikely. However, if they pull the licences from Roll20 or from FantasyGrounds that does not prevent us from continuing to play on those platforms. It makes it harder sure, but no more difficult than playing at the table. 
They would have to stop printing books also. They could do that also but at that point they would have generated enough ill will that people would be heading over to Pathfinder. 
In some ways the biggest danger would be that they do not do any of these bad things but the new VTT is so sweet, and supports other games so well that it becomes dominant in the market and in 10/20 years they become dominant in VTT play as Google or Microsoft in their areas. 
And I think it will take at least 20 years. 10 to get the VTT into a state where it is good enough to become the goto platform, and another 10 to take over the online ttrpg space.


----------



## Galandris (Aug 26, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is a bit of an outdated sentiment, IMO. MtG is a huge moneymaker, sure, but so are the dnd books and so are licensed products that use the IP. That said, selling magic cards depends on not ruining thier reputation, so…




In their Q2 2022 earning calls, they told that MtG is generating 70% to 80% of WotC revenue. Given that some revenue must also come from DnDBeyond (even if it's an early acquisition), licencing to VTT and D&D videogames (they mention Dark Alliance in 2021 as a reason to explain the apparent lessening of revenue on the overall D&D segment, due to a comparison effect) and films, I'd still say that MtG dwarf book sales. Even if there is no other revenue for WotC than book sales and we take the highest estimate, it's still more than 2 to 1 and up to 5 to 1 in the latest quarter.

Note that I'd say that D&D branding will contribute a lot to the future film (though I wish them to attract viewers from outside the gamerspace), I wouldn't say so for the video games, where it is mostly generic fantasy (or building on its own brand, like BG3 or BG: DA or minsc and boo's plushies).


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit (Aug 26, 2022)

At the moment I use Beyond and AboveVTT for D&D and Foundry for everything else. From what we know OneVTT may well be based on micro transactions or suchlike, which makes it a hard nope for me. 
In that case I hope to be able to keep on using Above. If not we will play much less D&D and go with Foundry when we do, even though I find it a bit clumsy to combine with Beyond. And if they pull third party licenses we will stop playing D&D.

But as I've written before, I'm optimistic that OneVTT won't be finished or will be in a bad state by 2024, so hopefully it won't have any impact on other VTTs for the foreseeable future.


----------



## TheSword (Aug 26, 2022)

To be honest I have more than enough maps, tokens etc to run Roll20 campaigns until I’m 70+. The character sheets are easy enough to modify.


----------



## beancounter (Aug 26, 2022)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I believe that once WoTC achieves a certain market share percent with their VTT, they will lock out all other VTTs from D&D Beyond.

Yes, it will piss off a bunch of people, it won't be enough to make a material difference to their bottom line.

I also believe that they will charge  a substantial subscription fee for the bare bones version of their VTT, and will have "tiers" that will have additional features, for a higher price.

I also believe that they will engage in micro transactions starting with (but not limited to) the virtual miniatures.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 26, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Foundry isn’t really the middleman. They’re paying wizards to make wizards money at vanishingly little overhead from wizards. Intentionally cutting them would be at least as dumb as telling Target, Amazon, and FLGSs to suck it and not letting them sell D&D books.



To my knowledge, Foundry pays them nothing (since they have no official content whatsoever.) Other companies (Fantasy Grounds, Roll20) do, and Wizards makes a little off each sell of a book - but I doubt if Wizards makes a steady income from the Roll20 subscription fees.


doctorbadwolf said:


> sure, because the console is sold at a loss, so they make their profit via individual games and subscription services.



Yeah. And a group that buys one PHB and passes it around is also a "loss" for Wizards (when it has the potential to also sell subscriptions, multiple microtransactions, etc.) 


doctorbadwolf said:


> It would literally be idiotic to hard-line centralize all of that into one singular source that will have just, from the player base perspective, blatantly betrayed the players at large in a short-sighted and aggressive money-grab.



And what do you think the clever marketing term "One D&D" means if not creating a singular source? The whole promo video was about bringing all the players to the D&D community (including the VTT). 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Doing a 180 on that, effectively invalidating hundreds of dollars of purchases on average (per user), and basically telling people, “if you want D&D, you can only get it through us now.” would unquestionably sink their rep lower than it was in 2012.



Not if they have the devoted fan base now. Many people were not devoted to their brand, and honestly many weren't ready for online play at that time. Now they've let the VTT market grow past them, and like any other major company they want to get a big chunk of that pie. 
It's just hearsay, but I've heard they make more money on the MtG: Arena game than they do the physical cards. Wizards must be eyeing that success to see how it can be duplicated with D&D. And that's through getting their players in one space playing the game and purchasing the content from them.
Would Wizards want you playing MtG on Board Game Simulator? Not when you can buy into the MtG: Arena ecosystem.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 26, 2022)

And let's also ask: is One D&D a revision or new edition? We've heard "revision," and what has WotC done with revisions in the past?
Can you buy the 3.0 Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, or DMG on DM's Guild? 
What about when they released Monsters of the Multiverse? Did they pull the old material from being able to be purchased on VTTs and D&D Beyond? 
I think it's a fair assumption that WotC is going to pull the 5th edition content that we're currently playing as soon as a viable revision is released. (So, if the 5.5 DMG is released in 2025, that's when they'll pull the 5.0 DMG.) 
But, hey, it doesn't matter. I'm just posting my predictions and getting laughed at for my opinions by the WotC fans who think their company is beyond making business decisions that follow past practices and things eluded to in their current marketing.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 26, 2022)

Retreater said:


> But, hey, it doesn't matter. I'm just posting my predictions and getting laughed at for my opinions by the WotC fans who think their company is beyond making business decisions that follow past practices and things eluded to in their current marketing.




*Mod Note:*
When your point rests on taking pot-shots at people who disagree with you, your point is weakened, and moderators come and give you messages in red text telling you to not insult folks.

So, really, while it may feel good in the moment, it doesn't actually help you.  Resist the urge.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 28, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I have agreed with you that what you say is possible but I still find it unlikely. However, if they pull the licences from Roll20 or from FantasyGrounds that does not prevent us from continuing to play on those platforms. It makes it harder sure, but no more difficult than playing at the table.
> They would have to stop printing books also. They could do that also but at that point they would have generated enough ill will that people would be heading over to Pathfinder.
> In some ways the biggest danger would be that they do not do any of these bad things but the new VTT is so sweet, and supports other games so well that it becomes dominant in the market and in 10/20 years they become dominant in VTT play as Google or Microsoft in their areas.
> And I think it will take at least 20 years. 10 to get the VTT into a state where it is good enough to become the goto platform, and another 10 to take over the online ttrpg space.



Another thing to remember is that 5e has an SRD and OGL. 

All other platforms have to do is allow homebrew, even if they can’t safely allow you to share in their public market without review. 

Wizards would be hard pressed to actually stop people playing D&D on those platforms. 

And the last time they moved to a new system that was different enough you couldn’t OGL reverse engineer it easily and issued a much more restrictive license for that new system, Pathfinder took off, and the fanbase fractured. 

Imagine what shareholders would think of the leadership at wizards if they caused their vastly larger new player base to fracture like that, and turn D&D once more into a topic that almost instantly sours any conversation with edition war battle lines.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 28, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> WotC will absolutely be pulling the licenses from other VTTs and saber rattling over them including anything that’s not in the SRD once their VTT is on the market. Guaranteed.



I find this to be unlikely, but I see no need to speculate beyond that when we will know the answer soon enough!


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 28, 2022)

Retreater said:


> And let's also ask: is One D&D a revision or new edition? We've heard "revision," and what has WotC done with revisions in the past?
> Can you buy the 3.0 Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, or DMG on DM's Guild?



You cannot by the PHB or DMG as far as I can tell, but there a lot of 3e books available on the DMsGuild.


Retreater said:


> What about when they released Monsters of the Multiverse? Did they pull the old material from being able to be purchased on VTTs and D&D Beyond?



I don't know about VTTs, but though you can't buy the old version of D&D Beyond, you still have it if you purchased it.


Retreater said:


> I think it's a fair assumption that WotC is going to pull the 5th edition content that we're currently playing as soon as a viable revision is released. (So, if the 5.5 DMG is released in 2025, that's when they'll pull the 5.0 DMG.)



Yes and no.  I think pretty much everything except the PHB, DMG, & MM will still be available.  Not 100% sure about Volo's.  Did those stat blocks get replaced by MotM? Regardless, I think the correct move is to no longer sell the 2014 PHB, DMG, & MM. Not sure why you think that is an issue.


Retreater said:


> But, hey, it doesn't matter. I'm just posting my predictions and getting laughed at for my opinions by the WotC fans who think their company is beyond making business decisions that follow past practices and things eluded to in their current marketing.



Man, you have gotten so sour over the past year or so.  It is a game, don't take people's internet opinions* to heart. Relax or maybe take a break from forums for a bit. It seems like this all getting in your head to much.

*I say "internet opinions" because people often think and feel differently in person vs. how the act/feel on the internet. This medium is not a natural way for humans to interact, so don't assume people are behaving normally while using it.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 28, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Imagine what shareholders would think of the leadership at wizards if they caused their vastly larger new player base to fracture like that, and turn D&D once more into a topic that almost instantly sours any conversation with edition war battle lines.



I think that is something a lot of worriers are missing. 5e has been so successful in no small part because of how inclusive they have been.  They have really embraced 3PP and homebrew.  It just seems unlikely they will reverse course now when everything they have been saying is that they plan to stay the course!


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 28, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Cutting out the middleman and increasing profits isn't likely to do what you are suggesting but even if it does, Hasbro is, in the end, a publicly traded corporation. As long as that's the case their profit motive is really all that matters.



I agree, but what you suggest would not increase their profits. So, by your logic, they will not do it!


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 28, 2022)

Retreater said:


> My intent isn't to insult anybody. I assume everyone posting on here has at least basic intelligence, probably well above that.
> But look at precedence. Look at the rest of the entertainment market zeitgeist, and I think you can see where I'm coming to these observations.



Do you mean the precedent of bringing back the OGL, an SRD, providing free Basic version, and creating the DMsGuild (the first time ever for any 3PP to use D&D IP)?

I have no love for WotC (or TSR). I skipped 2e and 3e because I didn't care for those products / editions.  However, if I look at what WotC has done since 4e, it seems they have tried to be as fan friendly as possible. That doesn't mean they always get it right, IMO, but I also realize that I am probably not the typical D&D fan.

PS - You may not have intended to be insulting, but you comment was insulting the way you phrased it.  However, intent is hard to truly discern across the internet.  I am reminded of that regularly.


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 28, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Imagine what shareholders would think of the leadership at wizards if they caused their vastly larger new player base to fracture like that, and turn D&D once more into a topic that almost instantly sours any conversation with edition war battle lines.




I would guess that the people at wotc more closely connected to the game understand the dangers of splitting the fanbase, but that the shareholders and more corporate types are the ones pushing for digital integration, exclusivity, microtransactions, and the like.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 28, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> I would guess that the people at wotc more closely connected to the game understand the dangers of splitting the fanbase, but that the shareholders and more corporate types are the ones pushing for digital integration, exclusivity, microtransactions, and the like.



I doubt most shareholders know much about it really, and they definitely don't much power to push for anything. I have shares in lots of companies, but have 0 ability to affect their business practices.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 28, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> I think that is something a lot of worriers are missing. 5e has been so successful in no small part because of how inclusive they have been.  They have really embraced 3PP and homebrew.  It just seems unlikely they will reverse course now when everything they have been saying is that they plan to stay the course!



Absolutely. 


Malmuria said:


> I would guess that the people at wotc more closely connected to the game understand the dangers of splitting the fanbase, but that the shareholders and more corporate types are the ones pushing for digital integration, exclusivity, microtransactions, and the like.



Sure. And the ones who own enough to actually push for things and force the company to fire people, those shareholders will turn around and call for resignations and firings if wizards not only starts to tank but also poisons the well.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Aug 28, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Let me start by saying I don't play D&D anymore, I stopped when 4E came out, so I am probably not totally up to date with all of the latest news. However, from what I understand, with the integration and updates to D&D Beyond One D&D is going to offer a 3D VTT environment.  For those of you who play 5E, or even if you don't, what do you think will happen to the existing VTT industry where D&D is generally the most played RPG on most of them? If you are a 5E player, _*assuming the new VTT works and is any good*_, do you envision abandoning your current VTT in favor of D&D Beyond?
> 
> It seems to me that this will probably hurt the existing VTTs as people migrate to D&D Beyond although I don't believe they will all disappear. Even if WotC still offers support for other systems with everything else One D&D will offer it just makes sense to me that a lot of people will move there. My hope is we end up seeing more support for other systems on existing VTTs but they are such a small slice of the pie compared to D&D that the player base gained won't equal what may be lost.



The WotC VTT will improve the market.


----------



## CrashFiend82 (Aug 28, 2022)

I know this all pure speculation but I also don't buy the idea WOTC wants to pull their licenses. If that was the case their plan makes little to no sense. Why develop a 3D environment that doesn't necessarily compete with 2D. If the goal was market dominance they would have bought a fully functional 2D version and limited it to that instead. They make a direct profit stream with almost no risk immediately. Going 3D they are simply offering another option, an option they likely believe will outsell others but be different to make money from continued licenses. Their product becomes a luxury VTT sold at a higher price point for those that can afford it while the 2D is licensed for everyone else. Think reverse Beadle and Grim model.


----------



## CrashFiend82 (Aug 28, 2022)

I have a feeling this will be specifically targeting a subset of GMs and Players that focus on WOTC adventures. The marketing being "hey you want to play our mega selling APs online without much prep work. Here you go". Maybe bundling the adventure with DnD Beyond for the GM to read. I could easily see a subscription based Season Pass like many video games that add AL games online. Just add the players and go. Which would be great for players that don't have a local option to play at a table.

This is based on my understanding of building in 3D environments which is far more difficult than 2D. If everything, terrain, monsters, etc. Is prebuilt it would entice more casual players and DMs (ecspially, who don't have time to prep).


----------



## Galandris (Aug 28, 2022)

CrashFiend82 said:


> I have a feeling this will be specifically targeting a subset of GMs and Players that focus on WOTC adventures. The marketing being "hey you want to play our mega selling APs online without much prep work. Here you go". Maybe bundling the adventure with DnD Beyond for the GM to read. I could easily see a subscription based Season Pass like many video games that add AL games online. Just add the players and go. Which would be great for players that don't have a local option to play at a table.
> 
> This is based on my understanding of building in 3D environments which is far more difficult than 2D. If everything, terrain, monsters, etc. Is prebuilt it would entice more casual players and DMs (ecspially, who don't have time to prep).




I agree, and it might be coherent with the numbers their market research shows.

We know that most players only play in the lower-levels. Given the way adventures and mini-settings (strixhaven, spelljammers) are structured, it is much much easier to start a new party with the published adventure contained inside and let it be after that (there will be another book to play next time... so you won't have to deal with, say, your campaign world being wrecked or ending up in Netheril Empire time, it's just a cool shock effect ending). We also see a large number of players but maybe not regular players. It is possible that "groups meeting weekly to play a homebrew campaign isn't something they feel is common enough in their market to cater to heavily. People who want complex story arcs can be watching other people playing D&D (with that webshow that is apparently tremendously popular in their core (US) market, and maybe most players are just very casual players that alternative "D&D" with many other sort of activities (videogames, drinking beer, tabletop gamings, card games...) so they could be very happy with just paying for a quarterly or semesterly adventure with all the maps already done, "ready-to-play" and let the more invested players continue doing what they were doing (they will be buying book anyways).


----------



## Malmuria (Aug 28, 2022)

CrashFiend82 said:


> I have a feeling this will be specifically targeting a subset of GMs and Players that focus on WOTC adventures. The marketing being "hey you want to play our mega selling APs online without much prep work. Here you go". Maybe bundling the adventure with DnD Beyond for the GM to read. I could easily see a subscription based Season Pass like many video games that add AL games online. Just add the players and go. Which would be great for players that don't have a local option to play at a table.
> 
> This is based on my understanding of building in 3D environments which is far more difficult than 2D. If everything, terrain, monsters, etc. Is prebuilt it would entice more casual players and DMs (ecspially, who don't have time to prep).




That makes sense, especially if people will be able to plug in third party content from the DMs guild.  That way the various adventure add ons and fan fixes could be imported into people's games.  The ecosystem wouldn't be closed, but it would just make more sense as a third party to make content that could be easily plugged into dnd beyond and this new vtt.  I could also see 3d environments and such being stretch goals for various kickstarters.  I guess the potential for people to make more money on the DMs guild is good?  But, as someone who doesn't even like full color dynamically lit 2d maps, it's a bit much for me.


----------



## MNblockhead (Aug 29, 2022)

Even if WotC were to stop licensing content to other VTT developers, I think it will have more impact on some than others. I'm guessing Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds would be hit hard. I don't know that it would make much of a difference for Foundry.  Foundry doesn't have licensed content for 5e currently. As I stated earlier, if the WotC VTT is good and makes my life as a DM easier, I would definitely use it, at least for WotC adventures.  But there are other games I want to run and even for D&D, I use a lot of third-party materials. I could see some of the more expensive, subscription-based VTTs struggling if they they can't offer official WotC content, but there are plenty of VTTs that don't rely on that now.

I would hope that WotC will continue to license content to other VTTs and let their VTT compete on its features and better support for the official rules.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Aug 29, 2022)

I would expect that Rol20 and FG would quickly have something that scrapes D&D Beyond or integrates. They will lose the revenue stream of the actual modules but will survive.


----------

