| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Chyron |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 04:59:30
Hail fellow scribes,
I have a question on DDI. I did a search but could not find a scroll discussing this, but if it has been covered I do apologize.
I have not kept up much with the PnP products of WOTC since the release of the 4E FRCS book (last book I purchased). I have been instead focusing collecting older 1E-3E D&D stuff (mostly for nostalgia).
But I seem to recall that there was a promise of an online toolset that would all players to play PnP D&D remotely. And IIRC this was to be tied in to D&DI. Most specifically I remember this promo video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m20AJvdzAdo
Now that video was back in 2007, and I could find no mention of such a tool (even as a work in progress over at WOTC). Does anyone know what happened to this? Was this just vaporware?  |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jakk |
Posted - 19 Jul 2009 : 03:04:34
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
They likely would try to integrate the 4E rules... But I agree that they'd be better of without them. If they left it rules-neutral and did the die roller the right way, you could make it work for any game system. And that would sell.
...which is precisely why we won't see it. They don't want to hear our ideas of what would sell. What do we know? We're just the customers. Their priority is recruiting the people who don't want anything to do with PnP RPGs.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jun 2009 : 14:34:52
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
Still, I could see myself paying (initial purchase/monthly fee, etc) as much for a dedicated online/virtual Tabletop system, provided it;
- Was basic but well designed (don’t need fancy 3D avatars, just 2D tiles would be fine)
- Was supported (via continuous patches, updates)
- Was not ruleset specific
- Was customizable (so that data generators/rolls could be done/created on the fly)
- Included regular and voice chat (and possibly video – similar to a multi-conference service like Tinychat or some such)
The thing is, is that I get the feeling the if WOTC ever picked up this ball again, they would make it ruleset specific and try to integrate 4E rules into the framework of the program, but this is a mistake. You want the players to have and use your books (whatever edition), so you should give them a tool the helps facilitate the distance not the rules, other such fancy flash is unnecessary.
They likely would try to integrate the 4E rules... But I agree that they'd be better of without them. If they left it rules-neutral and did the die roller the right way, you could make it work for any game system. And that would sell. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jun 2009 : 14:32:37
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
And it coincides nicely with the Eberron release.
Oh, nice marketing move! 
It's good marketing, but I think it's going to lead, ultimately, to customer confusion. I see nowhere on the DDO site or forums that they are "upgrading" to 4E rules, so players are not going to be able to play Dragonborn or Tieflings, and the classes are not going to work the same way.
WotC has never worried about customer confusion before... Look how many Draconomicon and Drow of the Underdark books they've made. Look at the fact that a dominant 4E race is apparently totally unrelated to a minor 3E race of the same name. Look at the fact that even within the FR setting, we've had two books named Shining South and two named Lords of Darkness. |
| Chyron |
Posted - 12 Jun 2009 : 07:29:22
I played DDO when it was first released for about 3 months. Then once again about 2 weeks ago for a single day (on a free week trial pass).
It is definitely less than engaging when compared with some of the other MMO offerings on th emarket and it really suffers from a limited design mechanic (No open world explorable spaces, no mounts, and no usable vehicles). It has had a few minor facelifts and a new class, but nothing major to keep par with the top MMO contenders.
As far as using 3.5 rules, well yes but only to a limited extent. Their leveling system is rather different and (when combined with the Eberron setting) the game is not really recognizable as what I would consider classic D&D (but I know this is my opinion and I tend to look for a more 1st and 2nd ed feel in a D&D game). Maybe I am old school but old Everquest actually felt more like D&D to me than DDO.
The main issue for me goes back to the explorable space. You are not really getting Eberron, but just Stormreach and some instanced dungeons. Had the design really been more ambitious to try and tackle an exlporable realm/continent of Eberron with multiple cities and locations, it would have been far more attractive.
Ohh….and I just got waaaaay off topic. Sorry bout that. ;)
Still, I could see myself paying (initial purchase/monthly fee, etc) as much for a dedicated online/virtual Tabletop system, provided it;
- Was basic but well designed (don’t need fancy 3D avatars, just 2D tiles would be fine)
- Was supported (via continuous patches, updates)
- Was not ruleset specific
- Was customizable (so that data generators/rolls could be done/created on the fly)
- Included regular and voice chat (and possibly video – similar to a multi-conference service like Tinychat or some such)
The thing is, is that I get the feeling the if WOTC ever picked up this ball again, they would make it ruleset specific and try to integrate 4E rules into the framework of the program, but this is a mistake. You want the players to have and use your books (whatever edition), so you should give them a tool the helps facilitate the distance not the rules, other such fancy flash is unnecessary.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 17:05:05
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
And it coincides nicely with the Eberron release.
Oh, nice marketing move!
It's good marketing, but I think it's going to lead, ultimately, to customer confusion. I see nowhere on the DDO site or forums that they are "upgrading" to 4E rules, so players are not going to be able to play Dragonborn or Tieflings, and the classes are not going to work the same way. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 16:58:37
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
And it coincides nicely with the Eberron release.
Oh, nice marketing move! |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 16:54:07
And it coincides nicely with the Eberron release.
Although, I think they are still using 3.5 rules for the game. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 16:29:26
DDO has been around for a while... I've not played it myself (I'm not as interested in the Eber-whatsit setting, and when the game game out, the computer I was using couldn't handle it). From what I've been told, it's not bad, but it's just not enough -- you hit the level cap pretty quickly, and there's little or no endgame content.
I have no basis for this, but I'm inclined to think that they're letting people pay for free because they weren't getting enough paying players, and because they think pushing the MMO will help sales of the print game. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 14:28:30
Heh. To top it off, www.ddo.com/beta_signup/index.php?utm_source=ddo_com" target="_blank">D&D Online (the MMO) is now going to be free! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 14:25:07
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
(snip)they're handicapped by past management decisions(snip)
It is my opinion that almost all of the WotC management decisions made over the last couple of years have been bad ones. I'm beginning to be reminded of the final days of TSR. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 11 Jun 2009 : 14:12:35
The virtual tabletop (among several other tools) is currently vaporware, and WotC has stated that it is "not in active development". All of those tools, plus Gleemax were originally under development by an outside design studio called Radiant Machine. After a truly staggering amount of funding for the project, WotC bailed on them and brought everything back in-house. Since then they've had several rounds of layoffs within the whole project's management, and within the in-house coding team as well. Only one developer in the current group was part of the original team.
I've spoken at length to one of the in-house developers about the whole situation and what actually happened. A lot of things I won't get into because they trashed their NDA and I don't care to see someone fired over that. But of the people remaining in development, there were more managers than developers, and there's a Hasbro-wide hiring freeze so they can't hire anyone else, despite being seriously understaffed at this point (and having had several people leave because contract-to-hire time was up and they weren't hired full time, including people who coded large portions of the Character Builder). It's less a case of 'focused to better work on one project' than they simply don't have the people to develop anything more than one project at a time, and anything new is on top of having to spend time to keep the Compendium and Character Builder up to date each month. I feel bad for the developers, because they're trying their best under difficult circumstances, and they're handicapped by past management decisions and what was (or wasn't) finished by the original outsourcing. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 14:19:37
quote:
Originally posted by freyar
WotC also ran a survey to find out what people most wanted out of DDI. I believe that, based on that survey, WotC has decided to postpone their virtual game table indefinitely and to focus on other aspects of DDI. If you read behind the lines, anyway. 
WotC survey results announcement
EN World discussion thread
That's more than a little skewed, since they only asked subscribers... And still, two-thirds of them wanted that virtual table. Is that not enough for them? A two-thirds majority is enough to enact a decision in most democratic groups, particularly governments.
It doesn't even have to be that complicated.... A whiteboard, a mapping utility for the DM, a built-in dice roller, and voice-chat. Maybe blast templates and such for spells and effects, too. Present it just like that, with a low monthly fee. For extra money (though still not a lot), you can add icons for various monsters/races, and bundle in rulesets. Keeping those things out of the basic version enables anyone to use it, for any game in any system. And that's all you need. That would give all the conveniences of an MMO (playing when you want, in the comfort of your own home, with people that don't have to be local, all on a device you have other uses for), but still keep most of the aspects of a PnP game.
I think if Wizards tried that, and could do it well (mostly meaning keep it simple, and make sure they've got the servers to handle it), they'd be amazed at how well it would take off. |
| freyar |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 13:31:59
WotC also ran a survey to find out what people most wanted out of DDI. I believe that, based on that survey, WotC has decided to postpone their virtual game table indefinitely and to focus on other aspects of DDI. If you read behind the lines, anyway.
WotC survey results announcement
EN World discussion thread |
| Chyron |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 08:49:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Me, I think that the virtual gaming table should have been the first and only priority. I think if it had been done right, it would have done more to revitalize D&D than anything else they could have done.
Thanks for the update Wooly...
Agreed 100%. With all the fancy voice chat interfaces and conferencing software out there I am amazed that a simple, generic, gaming interface has not been created. I know that there have been a few independant efforts, but none of these have been user friendly enough to get my old gaming group on board. 
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Jun 2009 : 07:13:52
This is just going from memory, mind... But as I recall, they were working on it, but then it was revealed they'd lifted a lot of the source code from someone else. So they went back to the drawing board. And since then, there have been some layoffs and a death, if I remember correctly.
I don't think anything has been said about it for a while.
Me, I think that the virtual gaming table should have been the first and only priority. I think if it had been done right, it would have done more to revitalize D&D than anything else they could have done. |
|
|
