Ridiculous slant against FG

[ajf412]

I joined the forums to figure out how to uninstall FG, because I gave both FG and R20 a try. Before I came to these forums, I posted on my gaming guild's site about why I wont be using FG over R20, and many of them match up with the blogger's post.

I don't think Fantasy Grounds is the way to go when compared to Roll 20. FG is definitely geared toward the fantasy genre. It's setup is more complicated, and causes me undue worry (am I making the correct choices on creation?). Roll 20 allows for deep customization, and starts off as much of a blank slate as you desire. It also allows for quick internet search for tokens and backgrounds, as well as custom made, and premium purchases. It's true that FG is one time purchase, while R20 is subscription based, but R20 free is still very nice, and at least as good as FG. The biggest factor though, is that FG requires some sort of purchase for a group to even get started, while Roll 20 would allow us to play for free, and we'd only have to pay for subscription IF we desired even more custom choices (API coding). Another is that Roll 20 doesn't require any downloads or installs. It's all completely web based, which I like.

Not that I'm blasting FG. I'm sure it's a wonderful program for those that like it's UI. Like Blender, some people love the UI, and some people (like me) absolutely hate it enough to spend money on another program. So while "free" is nice, it doesn't mean everything. It all comes down to user preference, and what straws break the camel's back.

[Rivetgeek]

I've trashed about three replies to this thread, particularly since the OP saw fit to vomit comments all over my blog. After sleeping on it, I've distilled it down to this:

The intention was never to "bash" Fantasy Grounds, only as darrenan said lay out what I'm looking for and how Roll20 stacks up to the offerings out there. The process of looking at the various VTTs out there and making a decision about which one to use is an involved one - the fact I didn't settle on FG for the reasons that I did Roll20 is relevant to the discussion, because it is something that I looked at. I didn't elaborate on the factors that went into not choosing FG, so maybe I should here. If I were to just look at this website, based on solely first appearances, I would deduce that FG was for D&D. A lot is made of the presence of 3.5 and 4 rules sets, with the ability to add other systems not given prominence. The demo includes a 3.5 adventure. That's totally cool - D&D and it's derivatives are the big dogs in the rpg world, and huge majority of roleplayers play only that. But for those gamers like myself, it says, "This product is not for me". The CoreRPG "rules" are not called out explicitly on the features page - I had to look in the wiki to find them, and when I looked at it in the demo I found very little that other VTTs don't already offer. The exceptions that have been presented here to some of my statements belie a familiarity with the platform that, frankly, someone who is just looking at it, or running the demo, won't have. Hell, I can't even create my own rules set with the demo in order to figure it out if it would work for the systems I do play. As an example, I have no freaking idea how I would implement roll xd6, take the highest, add 1 for each additional 6 rolled. That's a real dice mechanic for a system that I'm likely to play. Yes, I realize that the regular dice would work just fine - but crap, I could do that in any VTT. I'm no stranger to "rolling up my sleeves" - I'm a database engineer, I solve problems of how to make things work typically before the software engineers even start writing code. I don't have to try to create my own or customize FG to work with the games I play to know that the task would be time consuming and daunting - I can see it in the wiki documentation.

I'm sure Fantasy Grounds is great for those that need or want the functionality and look and feel that it offers. But to take a few comments - every single one of them true in nearly every respect, at the very least from the matter of impressions and opinion - and turn it into insults to my technical ability, my status as a True Roleplayer, or any other ad hominems doesn't bode well for your community. I never said that FG users were troglodytes, or that the software didn't work, or that it sucked. Only that it takes work to get it to the point where it uses most of the capabilities (which is true - another blog post pegged his work at getting a functioning D&D 2e rules set working at 20-30 manhours); it costs a reasonable amount of money (also true - and say what you want, $24 for a player license is still 2400% more than "free"); it requires a client download for every player (which is fine, unless your intent is to lower the barrier to entry into the game - which applies to cost as well); and that the UI at first appearance looks like it might be too "heavy" for me (face it, being able to resize and move around windows still means there are windows that need to be resized and moved around).

The reason that I didn't, for example, search out other people's reviews or thoughts about FG was because that was not the point of my post. If it had been, I would have. So, I apologize for any misunderstanding - but not for the content, tone, or intent of something that was my opinion and my own experience. I don't run a news organization, I don't have to be fair and balanced. I also bear no responsibility for someone else's willful ****-stirring - that's completely their own fault if they felt moved to elevate an innocuous post to something that it wasn't.

[ajf412]

doesn't bode well for your community.

Absolutely. Made me think of UDK's community, which is exactly why I don't use their engine.

[Trenloe]

I've trashed about three replies to this thread, particularly since the OP saw fit to vomit comments all over my blog. After sleeping on it, I've distilled it down to this:
...
...

Thanks for taking the time to visit and present some feedback on your blog and where you're coming from.

[seycyrus]

RIvetGeek seems to have a penchant to misrepresent the facts. I called foul because his comparison consisted of comparing present day roll20 to some unknown version of FG that he looked at some unknown number of years ago.

That is ridiculous, simply stated. How could it be anything else?

As a scientist, my pursuit of integrity, won't allow that to stand unchallenged. I dare say, that if one of the FG community reviewed the current FG against a version of roll20 *THREE OR MORE YEARS OLD* the other members of the community would take him to task for such sloppiness.

EDIT: About me vomiting comments all over his blog. This statement is another indication of WH's desire for the dramatic. Go take a look at the posts in question.

[Valarian]

To be facetious, Roll20 wasn't around three or more years ago

[JohnD]

Meh... haters gonna hate as the kiddies say.

Makes no difference to me what some random on the internet thinks as long as I am enjoying myself gaming with my chosen platform.

[seycyrus]

To be facetious, Roll20 wasn't around three or more years ago

So, that would only be slightly more ridiculous.

In order of level of ridiculousness, we have.

1) Comparing a system based on a version that did not exist.
2) Comparing a system based on a dream you had.
3) Comparing a current system to a system three years ago.

[Magnatude]

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions.
This guy is just voicing what he sees...

Doug tried to show a lot of features on one screenshot, and it looked cluttered.

I'm not sure if he has actually gamed in Fantasy Grounds. ?
Theres a lot of noise on Steam... mostly people who THINK with is a "new" application and don't realize FG has been around for over a dogs age.
It is what it is... I say let them miss out. Just play.

[seycyrus]

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions.
This guy is just voicing what he sees...

Doug tried to show a lot of features on one screenshot, and it looked cluttered.

Well, this screenshot is something that originally attracted me to FG. It brought back nostalgic memories of Ravenloft. Even back then my logical assumption was that windows could be moved around as required. How/why one would think in this day and age that overlapping windows that obfuscate text might be an inescapable restriction in a program is beyond me.

I'm not sure if he has actually gamed in Fantasy Grounds. ?

No, he hasn't. His comparison is based on a fuzzy recollection of some version of FG that he tinkered with an unknown amount of years ago.