Fantasy Grounds and One D&D - predictions for the future

[ddavison]

Hey friends, I wanted to take a bit of time to think over my response to this and to post something here. There were a lot of new announcements to unpack with Wizards Presents. Some of them are good for our business and others may present a few challenges. It is my job to navigate those in a way that satisfies our customers, offers something unique, and allows the business to continue and even grow.

1. One D&D - the new version of D&D
This will supposedly be backward compatible with existing 5th edition content. In addition, there are playtest materials that are available to the public. We will need to look at these on a case-by-case basis to see to what degree we will implement these playtest features. Will they be campaign options? Will we wait until closer to release? It is all still unknown at this time, but we have some experience with D&D Next and the eventual transition to the final form of D&D fifth edition, along with the updates for Tasha's, Monsters of the Multiverse, etc. We think that FGU will be a great platform to help test out playtest material more fully than on any other platform.

2. Release schedule for the rest of 2022 and 2023 and physical product bundling
We are already working on the Dragonlance content, and we have had that in-house for a while already. It looks very cool, but we won't be able to share much about it, other than we are working on it.
Here is our placeholder for its release scheduled for December 6, 2022.
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.php?id=WOTC5EDLSOTDQ

There are numerous other titles in the pipeline as well and we will plan to have these all out and available as soon as we are able to release them. It looks like D&D Beyond's physical bundles that pair with a digital version on D&D Beyond, along with early access to parts of it, will make D&D Beyond the primary place where people will go to get the first copy of these new products. In a direct competitive nature, this means that people deciding between the two will be encouraged to go with DDB instead of FG; however, this may actually help us move more units if this reduces the overall costs for people who buy on multiple platforms already.

The new schedule shows that there are even more D&D titles coming out. As long as we continue to be able to release these, we should be okay. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that every sale we make for a D&D title produces more revenue for WOTC than a game store, bookstore, or Amazon sale would.

D&D makes up a large part of our offerings, but we have many other licenses.

3. Official D&D VTT releasing some time in 2024
I think the alpha footage they showed looks very slick and I have been monitoring their recent hires for video game developers over the last few years. WOTC has invested a lot of time, energy, and money into that VTT and it looks very nice. We have discussed 3D environments internally and Carl Pinder actually had a VTT in development that had 3D interfaces that were very similar to what was shown in the alpha footage. He brought that with him when he joined the company. The big problem we see with this approach is how can we consistently create and release all the necessary 3D assets to coincide with new product releases. If we received 5 different WOTC releases each year and we had 2-3 months advanced notice of the content for each of those, there would be no way for us to produce those assets in a timely fashion and at a cost that would make it viable financially. If WOTC does it internally, they have a much better chance at being able to do that.

Will people want to play in this 3D VTT space exclusively?
I believe some will and some won't. We have 2D maps with LOS and lighting and if I look at games run on Twitch and YouTube, the vast majority of them just run theater of the mind style games. No matter how good the UI for the WOTC 3D VTT is, I can't imagine it will be any easier to run than a top-down 2D map. I have a slightly different vision for what I think people will want to use. Again, it won't satisfy everyone or even be used by everyone. Our goal is to simply create options and have those options be useable in D&D and all the other games we support.

With that in mind, here is an early peek at what we are envisioning.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bDE76MMZ7o

[Jesse0317]

Very cool Doug and thank you for taking time to give your thoughts!!

[HywelPhillips]

That looks really cool. My issue with 3D has always been the assets - having done some 3D asset building for film-making, it is a time-sink beyond the nightmares of DM's who like to homebrew or do anything outside the script of a written adventure.

2.5D is a much cleverer way to go, especially the more you can integrate it with the existing 2D maps.

Some players will love it, some will hate it, and as the DM I will definitely still want the top-down 2D map while running the game. So I'd put in my first request: make it a mode you can hop into and out of at will, independently of the other players' choices. Not an on-or-off choice for the whole game. You probably want this for performance reasons to have mercy on the poor players joining the game on a ten year old laptop with a small screen, too.

Second request - think carefully about how it will integrate with character sheets, chat window and combat tracker. FG is a glutton for screen real estate already and I can see a lot of players still wanting to retain access to those. Maybe shortcuts for popping them up and putting them away again? I think the whole UI could do with some careful streamlining in this area already, and I think this is only going to exacerbate those challenges.

Handling walls and doors is going to be an interesting challenge. Top-down maps don't give you much to go on as to what texture/image to use for line-of-sight blocking walls and you won't have assets from the module creators either. I guess a library of standard walls with the option to replace segment-by-segment or something for when you have the perfect asset?


Very much hope WOTC won't lock down One D&D and we can still use FGU to play it. Best wishes navigating the shoals of licences and so forth!

Cheers, Hywel

[Griogre]

Nice, Doug :)

I think this is a good approach. Using first person perspective and existing 2D art assets seems like a strong transition to a theater of the mind approach. It's marked contrast to Wizard's 3rd person 3D. That stuff is pretty, but it is non trivial to create and and build 3D environments for your own homebrew.

Eventually moving towards to 2.5D, range limited vision, different types of vision, and inclosed areas would seem like a natural grow path from here as well. Linking existing 2D maps and tokens to this type of view would be amazing as well.

[maugrim8866]

Very Nice update, thank you Doug!

I completely agree with the statements previously around 3d assets and those being a major hinderance to creativity in encounters. I have looked into to many 3D tools, like Talespire, Flowscape, Game Master Engine, Tabletop Simulator, etc. and although cool, I feel handy capped by the need for more assets.
For these same reasons, I have always preferred VTTs like FG, over miniatures. Miniatures are great, but assembly, painting, and storing are reasons I have not ever embraced them.

All that said , I like this approach and am looking forward to seeing more. I know it is early, but chat bubbles over the speaking token/image would be a nice addition for role play encounters. Please make this functionality available for Call of Cthulhu games as well.

[The Decepticon]

I have to say that I am a huge fan of this. I like to keep the the 2d map for exploration and some battles, but to break up the monotony of 2d battle and to show how the goblins are hiding behind the trees or the odd boulder is great.

Just thinking of walking into a room in a dungeon at the wizard is standing in front of his desk, even if it isn't battle but for visual reference and to highlight the importance of the interaction with the NPC.

Great work and I can say that I am glad that I chose FGU over the other VTTs out there.

[OverCriticalHit]

The only disaster scenario I could see is if WotC decides to stop letting other vendors resell their content, which I just don't see happening. With official content still available, FG will be just fine regarding D&D. It is a mature and very flexible platform, with a dedicated ownership team and community behind it. My hunch is that the DNDB system will be "on rails", and hard to drop custom stuff into. And possibly very expensive, although that remains to be seen.

[esmdev]

I really like this concept, it has all sorts of possibilities!

One question I have is if it is working off maps and such can some players be in the standard top down mode and others in the first person or is it exclusively one or the other?

[ddavison]

It is still early, but we are going to try to allow you to switch your mode and see if it makes sense to allow players and the GM to pick their preferred mode. I have a few doubts about having the ability to have some people in this mode and others in a different mode at the same time. We will have to try it and see.

[DCPye]

I think this first person approach can be super immersive and work really well. It'd also be a unique take within 3d VTT space. Below are the ideas that popped into my head when I watched your preview/test video:

- Linking top down battle maps/images with the 3d space. I imagine this would be done by projecting the image from a regular image on FGU to the image that displays on the floor in the 3d space (important later).

- Displaying character tokens where the tokens are on the 2d top down image, so when you move a token it moves to that same spot on the grid in the 3d space.

- Having line of sight reveal more ground just like the regular top down battle map, but on the ground in the 3d space. This is why I mentioned maybe some way of projecting the image that already existed onto the ground of the 3d space. Because you wouldn't be seeing walls in front of you, just the walls on the ground I imagine the DM could choose a background different to the horizon used in the example (unless the DM place a wall token down or something, not too sure).

I'm no expert in coding or anything so these are just ideas I think would be really cool and super unique in the VTT space. Especially with being able to potentially keep LOS and whatnot within the first-person 3d space.

[similarly]

I started playing D&D in 1985, so I realize I'm kind of in the minority here, but personally, I prefer theater of the mind for ttrpgs. I like 2d maps, I like simpler maps. I also find that even on FGU right now, when I have LOS, lighting and effects (like water effects) going, it slows down the game too much for my players, and I end up having to turn some things off. I prefer ease of gameplay over visuals.

Personally, think the new theater of the mind option you're working on for FGU looks amazing. One thing: it's easy for the average person to some up with 2d assets with transparent backgrounds that will work with it easily! This encourages homebrew.

I would encourage you to continue to differentiate FGU from the direction WotC is going.

[GregRex]

Thanks for the update Doug! It was a relief, for me, that WotC is not trying to make their VTT a clone of Fantasy Grounds (or Roll20, Foundry, etc.). I'm really happy with the current mix of pen and paper to automation features FG provides (If I recall there is something like a 70/30 rule?). Fantasy Grounds gives me the right balance of features that scratch my VTT itch.

If 3D maps were to come to FG I would rather they were unique and exclusive to our FG community. Something that comes to mind is licensed virtual Dwarven Forge map tiles. Making another premiere partnership as you have with Syrinscape would be another big win imo.

[meadegendar]

Thanks for the response, Doug.
I voiced my concerns on the Discord channel when OneDnD was announced. I agree that the 3D VTT that WOTC presented looks good and could change the game. Likewise, I also agree that it could be very expensive to maintain from a player/DM standpoint and the availability of assets. I brought my group to FGU this time last year after trying other VTT's. FGU is the best system overall when it comes to playing DnD. It is very flexible and does so much more than the others. The interface was tough to take in at first, but overtime we have gotten use to it. My only concern is Smiteworks retaining the license to distribute DnD products. This has become our home and I do not want to move again. The 2.5D concept you presented, I find to be the perfect direction to take FGU too. As you mentioned, the assets will be available from the books that we purchase, and it is just the matter of building asset libraries for backgrounds and decor. I do suggest if possible to make some changes to existing platform like the character sheet and introduce pop outs to allow for more real estate. The cool feature that you presented weeks past with dice is also a good start. I would also consider a ping to get the player's attention and a better way to provide a measurement tool outside the pointers on the fly for the players/dm to check distance without leaving it on the table. Maybe create a pointer that will fill a 5' square outwards in a straight line to show the path of something like a lightning bolt. Would also add a way to track movement and lock if the players reach their max, with a DM override if they wish to burn and action to go further. Sorry for the ramble, but from my point of view, the above will make FGU the best place to be over all others and provide what the other systems provide out of the box.

[darrenan]

Keep flying and altitude in mind when designing these features. I think this a great approach and being able to tilt your camera up to view flying creatures would be sweet.

[Jiminimonka]

I started playing D&D in 1985, so I realize I'm kind of in the minority here, but personally, I prefer theater of the mind for ttrpgs. I like 2d maps, I like simpler maps. I also find that even on FGU right now, when I have LOS, lighting and effects (like water effects) going, it slows down the game too much for my players, and I end up having to turn some things off. I prefer ease of gameplay over visuals.

Personally, think the new theater of the mind option you're working on for FGU looks amazing. One thing: it's easy for the average person to some up with 2d assets with transparent backgrounds that will work with it easily! This encourages homebrew.

I would encourage you to continue to differentiate FGU from the direction WotC is going.

Yep!

[jaharmi]

I like the ideas presented in the demo video. However, I don't see them as "theater of the mind" as much as another different view of the characters' environment. I would be extremely cautious about labeling something as "theater of the mind" when it presents the kind of view in the demo. TOTM, to me, is having no battle map, no grid, and perhaps some basic images to that give an idea of the environment and the characters' opposition ("here's what the druid looks like when it wild shapes into an owlbear").

I would love to see more TOTM options. The TOTM extension is a start. Even more basic ideas like the Sly Flourish / Lazy DM text-based combat tracking would be welcome. Something that is better and more purpose-built than posting text to Discord, and gives the advantages/automation that a VTT can provide.

I DM for two different groups, one with adult friends and one as a youth game club. The adult friends can use FG directly. The game club, not so much. I really hope that FG can expand into the browser and mobile space somehow, to support iPhones, iPads, and Chromebooks. That's the sweet spot for the youth game club. With my investment into FG, I don't want FG to be stuck with a shrinking and aging market potential.

I also wonder if there's a third party opportunity for various VTTs to develop standard import/export formats for assets, maps, NPCs, characters, modules, game rules, etc. I could see this as a way to reduce the complexity, cost, friction, and effort required to get all of that stuff into a non-first party VTT. It could be especially helpful for home-brew and third party / licensed / kickstarted content. In a first-party VTT world, the third party VTTs and content creators might be best banding together — and having something better than a downloadable PDF or ePub.

[ColinO]

I for one, as a member of the Fantasy Grounds community, am in strong support of continued relevance of the FGU platform. I am concerned that WOTC may make some bad licensing decisions in the near future in an effort to monopolize online gaming. What can the members of the gaming community do to guide WOTC away from attempting to become a monolithic provider?

[LordEntrails]

I for one, as a member of the Fantasy Grounds community, am in strong support of continued relevance of the FGU platform. I am concerned that WOTC may make some bad licensing decisions in the near future in an effort to monopolize online gaming. What can the members of the gaming community do to guide WOTC away from attempting to become a monolithic provider?
WotC seems to be pretty engaged with the community through it's social media accounts (atleast Twitter). They also periodically conduct community surveys. The surveys are about specific topics of interest to them, but are a great opportunity to have your voice heard. You can find out about he surveys through various outlets as well as through signing up for a Wizards account via their wewbsite.

[GJHippern]

Very honest take on the way ahead. You also have the advantage of 3rd party developers like AAW games who make excellent content that you host. D&D Beyond doesn't do this to my knowledge. Certainly an advantage for you to exploit.

[Aramis Dante]

Hi Doug,

Your interest in what we think is why I believe you will still have a great following. In addition to that the main advantage I see FGU has over One D&D is that your VTT allows the use of many other TRPG's were WOTC will only have their marketable brands. The other important factor is ease of use. I would not say at the moment that FGU is the easiest to use, it took quite a while for myself to learn. That being said, compared to the other options out there, FGU, is more feature rich than the others, though they are closing in on you. In addition to this your fan base is so awesome, that there is FGU academy!! Wow! All these VTT's have a learning curve though, so it really comes down to aesthetics if everything else is the same. The other factor, which is very important and which many here have shared with you, is accessibility. Using your own assets or assets you have purchased through FGU and other companies is a big plus to me. Nobody likes to be forced to use only proprietary assets when you buy into a VTT or anything else for that matter. You have an advantage here over what 3d assets will do for One D&D. You could expand on this by making your VTT extraordinary by creating a generic format where users could create their own RPG systems. That is actually what I am looking for in a next gen VTT. This way all the RPG's I have in my library I could convert to online play. I know this might be a difficult ask but that is where I see a need no one is currently fulfilling at least to the degree that an average user like myself could accomplish. In short ease of use and flexibility will win out. FGU has a lot going for it, for even though I am unwilling to learn code to make my RPG's there are others that do. I just wish it were more accessible to non-coders like myself. If you can do this, you have nothing to worry about. Even if you don't there is your loyalty base. You have great customer service, a very active and friendly community and most of all, you care.

ps. I know that asking you to create a system where players don't need to buy online manuals mays seem self-defeating. This is one of the rare cases where you have two options; 1 subscription service and 2. Let it roll, if you have assets that I can buy to save me from creating everything from scratch. I am going to buy the products. Yes, there are those who won't, but I believe most would, just having the option would be nice though. Do it before someone else does. You could also have two VTT's this one and the generic ease of use one. Just food for thought, I want you to succeed, I like your company and I like this community.
Most Sincerely James (aka Aramis Dante)

[Jiminimonka]

CoreRPG already lets you create a ruleset.

[JeffKnight]

Having dealt with WotC as a local coordinator, my gut says they will probably continue to support FGU with releases. The "worst" I could see them going is a short exclusivity period on Beyond.

My reasoning behind my gut feeling is that for the past several years, they have been functioning under the rule of "play your way." We've seen this with the recent book releases, and this mindset was confirmed on the D&D1 info stream. They just want people playing D&D. They've finally realized they will get their money somehow as long as people are playing, no matter if it is in person, or using one of the many online options. Also, with the new movie coming out, they're gearing up for a possible influx of new players.

[ColinO]

We think that FGU will be a great platform to help test out playtest material more fully than on any other platform.

I do agree it would be great to test these in FG, but, it may be quite difficult to make timely updates to FG to match all of the elements of the playtest as they are rolled out - unless SW is somehow given advance notice of playtest material.



As long as we continue to be able to release these [D&D Titles], we should be okay.

WOTC is already raising prices by pairing hard copy & digital through direct sales. I think they are trying to cut out the game stores with this approach. I suspect they will continue to monopolize direct sales with the VTT as well.



Will people want to play in this 3D VTT space exclusively? I believe some will and some won't.

I agree customer demand will be across a spectrum at first. Some players, especially young ones may be excited to try the new 3D interface. However, I think most DMs (such as myself) will prefer 2D or 2D+, due to ease of prep and being able to keep & use their existing assets. The 3D aspect makes more sense for a game like Gloomhaven where the DM's role is so small that it can be automated altogether. But unless the 3D DM-prep is reasonable, 3D VTT will just be a shiny tool that is not commonly used.

In conclusion, I fear WOTC will take (3?) years to build a 3D VTT that is not as good as the existing 2D FG. Then WOTC will shut off SM's licensing to force players to buy WOTC's substandard VTT. Customers then will have to choose 5E (or earlier) classic D&D on FG or 1DD (aka 6E) on WOTC's 3D VTT. If I'm right - that will be terrible for the hobby.

[Jiminimonka]

I do agree it would be great to test these in FG, but, it may be quite difficult to make timely updates to FG to match all of the elements of the playtest as they are rolled out - unless SW is somehow given advance notice of playtest material.


WOTC is already raising prices by pairing hard copy & digital through direct sales. I think they are trying to cut out the game stores with this approach. I suspect they will continue to monopolize direct sales with the VTT as well.


I agree customer demand will be across a spectrum at first. Some players, especially young ones may be excited to try the new 3D interface. However, I think most DMs (such as myself) will prefer 2D or 2D+, due to ease of prep and being able to keep & use their existing assets. The 3D aspect makes more sense for a game like Gloomhaven where the DM's role is so small that it can be automated altogether. But unless the 3D DM-prep is reasonable, 3D VTT will just be a shiny tool that is not commonly used.

In conclusion, I fear WOTC will take (3?) years to build a 3D VTT that is not as good as the existing 2D FG. Then WOTC will shut off SM's licensing to force players to buy WOTC's substandard VTT. Customers then will have to choose 5E (or earlier) classic D&D on FG or 1DD (aka 6E) on WOTC's 3D VTT. If I'm right - that will be terrible for the hobby.

My speculation, because that is entirely what this thread is.. WOTC will sell the rights to D&D to Smiteworks for US?$ 7.99

[The Decepticon]

My speculation, because that is entirely what this thread is.. WOTC will sell the rights to D&D to Smiteworks for US?$ 7.99

Plus tax

[LordEntrails]

Plus tax
It's always the tax that gets you :)

[Achernar22]

So here we are.....with the latest release from WOTC concerning the >$750,000 / yr, how will the latest debacle affect Fantasy Grounds?

[Jiminimonka]

So here we are.....with the latest release from WOTC concerning the >$750,000 / yr, how will the latest debacle affect Fantasy Grounds?

It won't. The post says "it won't affect the major VTT's that have licences" so its the one without licences that should be looking to get a licence.

[esmdev]

So here we are.....with the latest release from WOTC concerning the >$750,000 / yr, how will the latest debacle affect Fantasy Grounds?

The VTTs that have licenses (like FGU) have likely been paying royalties since their licenses were established.

I don't see how the owner of the intellectual property asking for a royalty for using their property is a debacle, it makes good business sense. People seem to be OMG the sky is falling. If a company with almost a million dollars in revenue cannot handle paying basic royalties for access to materials they are using there's a bigger problem at the company.

We've only seen the smallest of hints of how OGL 1.1 will be setup, and some of that might change in the next year and a half.

[Valyar]

So here we are.....with the latest release from WOTC concerning the >$750,000 / yr, how will the latest debacle affect Fantasy Grounds?

Smite Works are not publishing content, they convert WORC's own products to VTT. Therefore revenue goes to Wizards directly and I presume there are special agreement in place. What I think will be the impact on FG is that some content will be exclusive to Beyond and nothing else.