WotC Roll for Combat got to try the 3D vtt and he seems to like it. Live streaming now.

[Retreater]

I'm sorry, but how can one be anti-WotC or pro-WotC? Buy what you like, ignore the rest.

This week, I'm going to be running three different groups with a combined total of 15 unique players. That's a lot of influence, not only in my spending, but also in what the group purchases, plays, and interacts with as a brand. Many of these are new to the hobby. Some of them are teenagers. I feel a responsibility to teach them that there's more out there than the monolithic juggernaut that runs the industry - especially with its issues over the past year.
I feel it's an ethical decision - like choosing to support local businesses, recycle, or purchasing farm-to-table. It's like buying an album or merch to support your favorite band instead of giving them fractions of a penny to stream songs on Spotify.
According to industry folks I trust (like Matt Colville), WotC pays terribly. They treat their designers poorly. Their products are (at least for my tastes) less quality in terms of writing, art, and creativity.
It's against my ethical standards to support WotC or to encourage any of my players to do the same.

 

[Parmandur]

And I disagree that they're selling more.

RFC's just looking for more digital sales and D&DB's a huge potential market for them.

Which is it, are D&D sales tanking (no evidence for this, all metrics are strong), or is it a huge market...?

How could anyone familiar with RFC's content not be skeptical, cynical, and suspicious of this new RFC video?

Because their complaints, at their grouchiest, were grounded in something.

It's a staggering display of the clout wielded by RFC

LOL, a YouTube channel with 17,000 subscribers is not really "clout". It's a niche hobby discussion group.

RFC reports that they spent a lot of time talking to Cao and some other D&DB designer. They may have bought a ticket like everyone else, but they probably got more attention than everyone else.

No reason to think Cao wasn't spending rine with just about everyone who came in, to gather real feedback.

 

[Oofta]

I thought he did address many of the issues. While he was not invited, the people giving the demo recognized him immediately and he was able to chat with one of the devs and get their insight into everything.

Mark certainly has the more balanced approach to topics. I started following RFC during the OGL news cycle, so it's been an almost constant anti-WotC position from Stephen Glicker. Which is what makes my head spin about this new take about WotC.
It's not just that he concedes that the VTT is a well designed tool. It's all these points he's made in the past that he doesn't seem to acknowledge or temper in the latest video. As his audience, many of us still share these concerns.

1.) He said the 2024 revision was simply an excuse for WotC to distance themselves from the the OGL and 5th edition SRD to force out third party companies. He now says it has beautiful art and he's looking forward to getting it. (In my mind, if his previous opinions were valid, "beautiful art" isn't a good enough reason to support such a dastardly plan.)
2.) On many occasions, he said the new VTT is a means to undermine other companies such as Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, and Foundry VTT, by creating a "walled garden ecosystem fueled by microtransactions" that would destroy D&D and turn it into a video game. He now says it has nice graphics and a smooth UI. (Again, in my mind, if those previous opinions were valid, "nice graphics and a smooth UI" isn't enough to make us want this service.)

He changed his tune because of what he saw. That they are not implementing rules, they are not going crazy with animation. They even removed the minimal animation of a melee attack. They are attempting to recreate the tabletop experience, static minis and all. The developers would like to see people using this for other games such as PF as well.

3.) He said the C-suite at Wizards and Hasbro don't care about the game and that they're in the position to "milk customers dry" with unnecessary cash grabs that probably make the game worse. He now says they completely know what they're doing for the betterment of the hobby, and everyone should get on board. (And to me, that's not enough of a statement to make me want to throw my support behind the company.)

Apparently the C-suite executives watched some of his streams and felt that maybe there had been some impact based on the push-back received. I don't remember them saying that "..they [C-Suite] completely know what they're doing for the betterment of the hobby, and everyone should get on board."

They talked about how it was a better approach to use a carrot rather than a stick and that the stick may have worked 5-10 years ago but it was stupid to think about it last year.

So he didn't do a good job to me, as a supporter of his channel and frequent customer of his products, to convince me to believe him - because he didn't address the core issues he has been ranting against for nearly a year. It's one of those moments of "I really should've been taking this guy with a grain of salt the whole time" moments.

Honestly, I've spent nearly a calendar year since the OGL news cycle in anti-WotC echo chambers (not here on ENWorld, obviously), so maybe I need to rethink those sources (of whom Stephen Glicker is only one).

I'm okay with people changing their minds when they get new information, in fact it raises my opinion of them.

 

[Parmandur]

Mark certainly has the more balanced approach to topics. I started following RFC during the OGL news cycle, so it's been an almost constant anti-WotC position from Stephen Glicker. Which is what makes my head spin about this new take about WotC.
It's not just that he concedes that the VTT is a well designed tool. It's all these points he's made in the past that he doesn't seem to acknowledge or temper in the latest video. As his audience, many of us still share these concerns.

1.) He said the 2024 revision was simply an excuse for WotC to distance themselves from the the OGL and 5th edition SRD to force out third party companies. He now says it has beautiful art and he's looking forward to getting it. (In my mind, if his previous opinions were valid, "beautiful art" isn't a good enough reason to support such a dastardly plan.)
2.) On many occasions, he said the new VTT is a means to undermine other companies such as Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, and Foundry VTT, by creating a "walled garden ecosystem fueled by microtransactions" that would destroy D&D and turn it into a video game. He now says it has nice graphics and a smooth UI. (Again, in my mind, if those previous opinions were valid, "nice graphics and a smooth UI" isn't enough to make us want this service.)
3.) He said the C-suite at Wizards and Hasbro don't care about the game and that they're in the position to "milk customers dry" with unnecessary cash grabs that probably make the game worse. He now says they completely know what they're doing for the betterment of the hobby, and everyone should get on board. (And to me, that's not enough of a statement to make me want to throw my support behind the company.)

So he didn't do a good job to me, as a supporter of his channel and frequent customer of his products, to convince me to believe him - because he didn't address the core issues he has been ranting against for nearly a year. It's one of those moments of "I really should've been taking this guy with a grain of salt the whole time" moments.

Honestly, I've spent nearly a calendar year since the OGL news cycle in anti-WotC echo chambers (not here on ENWorld, obviously), so maybe I need to rethink those sources (of whom Stephen Glicker is only one).

I mean, to me it reads like he calmed down from unfounded Doomerism and took a look at what is on offer and liked it...?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Choose any of them. It doesn't mean anything. There's no automatic maps loaded, no automated encounters, or characters. Nothing to set up, or delete. It just opens the Maps app under that name. And that name is only a) to provide a link for other people to view the Maps for your game, b) to connect characters built in the character builder, and encounters built in the encounter builder, to that campaign.

It seems you do not have a need for a), nor any of b), so all you're going to get is the Map Browser. Select the Map you want from one of the basic maps, drop whatever monsters you want and any tokens you want to represent the PCs, and go to town.


We're discussing the Maps tool, not the 3D VTT.

Thanks, I guess I'll give it another attempt!

I really found the "pick one of these things, none of which you want" to be a barrier to entry. I'm not one who assumes that if they force you to make a choice, that none of those choices matter.

Is there a way to create your own tokens? It seems like a lot of creatures don't have any images associated with them. (Plus I'd like to define what my PCs look like, even if they're not in DDB).

 

[Nikosandros]

I'll admit that when WotC was considering the elimination of the OGL, I got upset, mostly because I feared that it would impact many OSR creators. Now that this seem to be not on the horizon, I went back to my usual apathy about the players in the industry...

 

[Clint_L]

Is this a good time to mention that Glicker was also full of praise for Matt Mercer and announced that he is now planning to watch all of the Vox Machina campaign of Critical Role? Because that also happened.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Mark certainly has the more balanced approach to topics. I started following RFC during the OGL news cycle, so it's been an almost constant anti-WotC position from Stephen Glicker. Which is what makes my head spin about this new take about WotC.
It's not just that he concedes that the VTT is a well designed tool. It's all these points he's made in the past that he doesn't seem to acknowledge or temper in the latest video. As his audience, many of us still share these concerns.

1.) He said the 2024 revision was simply an excuse for WotC to distance themselves from the the OGL and 5th edition SRD to force out third party companies. He now says it has beautiful art and he's looking forward to getting it. (In my mind, if his previous opinions were valid, "beautiful art" isn't a good enough reason to support such a dastardly plan.)
2.) On many occasions, he said the new VTT is a means to undermine other companies such as Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, and Foundry VTT, by creating a "walled garden ecosystem fueled by microtransactions" that would destroy D&D and turn it into a video game. He now says it has nice graphics and a smooth UI. (Again, in my mind, if those previous opinions were valid, "nice graphics and a smooth UI" isn't enough to make us want this service.)
3.) He said the C-suite at Wizards and Hasbro don't care about the game and that they're in the position to "milk customers dry" with unnecessary cash grabs that probably make the game worse. He now says they completely know what they're doing for the betterment of the hobby, and everyone should get on board. (And to me, that's not enough of a statement to make me want to throw my support behind the company.)

So he didn't do a good job to me, as a supporter of his channel and frequent customer of his products, to convince me to believe him - because he didn't address the core issues he has been ranting against for nearly a year. It's one of those moments of "I really should've been taking this guy with a grain of salt the whole time" moments.

Honestly, I've spent nearly a calendar year since the OGL news cycle in anti-WotC echo chambers (not here on ENWorld, obviously), so maybe I need to rethink those sources (of whom Stephen Glicker is only one).

You see, I think the problem was in believing that the OGL debacle was a result of some dastardly joined up plan, instead of something like a clash of cultures. I can just as easily believe that it came about because some executive that never operated in an open source environment (or did not believe in such) came to D&D and could not comprehend that a corporation would manage its ip in that fashion and set about changing that. That kind of cultural ignorance can be and is often hugely destructive. But the idea that there was a dastardly plan to eliminate the third party market never flew with me. Is the third-party market even big enough for WoTC to care?
That said, @SlyFlourish is correct, there are dangers in what is happening. D&DBeyond and the play ecosystem it creates could become so cosy that people would not want to go elsewhere. Become a captive market and then the temptation to milk that audience could become real.
I am not worried about D&D beyond becoming a toxic hell of microtransaction in the near future.
On the other hand, in the more distant future, if it became unmoored from the rest of the ttrpg hobby, that could be another story.

 

[Parmandur]

Is this a good time to mention that Glicker was also full of praise for Matt Mercer and announced that he is now planning to watch all of the Vox Machina campaign of Critical Role? Because that also happened.

All part of the corporate chip implants, no doubt.

 

[Velderan]

Is this a good time to mention that Glicker was also full of praise for Matt Mercer and announced that he is now planning to watch all of the Vox Machina campaign of Critical Role? Because that also happened.

I don’t recall him ever being critical of Mercer. He’s mentioned before that they manage their brand intelligently and he’s of the opinion they’ll move away from D&D in favor of Daggerheart if the game lends itself better to their streaming format. He’s said the animated show format was what got him to finally follow the story because it’s condensed down into something he has time to invest in, so not a huge surprise if he liked it that he’d be more willing to invest the time in the streams.