Ridiculous slant against FG

[Mellock]

But in the grand scheme of things, I'm sure all of this doesn't really matter too much. Back to gaming, you lot! Game! GAAAAME!

[leozelig]

For game systems with a dedicated ruleset backed by a robust community, FG is far better, no question in my mind. I am a big fan of FG. I don't think we should really worry about it if someone else does not feel the same. Having used the CoreRPG ruleset for a recent DCC RPG game, I must admit it was a little disappointing - I imagine the ruleset builder will fix that. But I currently play in a DCC RPG game using Roll20, and for that game, Roll20 has been perfectly adequate - no real advantage to using FG. I have also used the OSRIC ruleset for a 1st edition D&D campaign that ran for a couple years, and it was functional but lacked many of the better features of 3.5/4e. That perspective might be hard to appreciate if you stick to the more heavily supported rulesets.

[Mellock]

I am a big fan of FG. I don't think we should really worry about it if someone else does not feel the same.

Pretty much. Anyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it goes against what I feel. And FG has a few "shortcomcings". But I also think that there is continuous improvement. Two think that come to mins is that FG is so full of features a new player can feel a little lost in the beginning. In response, it was mentioned that the devs would like to at least implement a tour, or tooltips in the future. Another point I can take away is that building a ruleset could be a lot easier. And in response, they're hoping to create the ruleset wizard to which I link in my sig.

So... all relative, and not really anything to hold against anyone.

[adammar]

I would think that people who don't like FG are the main people that should be listened to. The people who love FG aren't the customers that grow market share. FG is pretty niche - there are new software packages that are nipping at its heels. Roll20 didn't say "Let's not listen to people who want character sheets - our core subscribers already love us and will give us constant stroking about how great we are." Roll20 realized they had a weakness and made a giant step towards FG by adding that feature because they listened to the people who weren't satisfied. (I don't know how big a step because I haven't tried any of the 30+ character sheets they supposedly have.) Even if they only kind-of work they are going to grab some new users out of the FG line.

[Magnatude]

I've recently had a lot of Roll20 players come in and try FG.

One Roll20'er came in on a Demo. He at first was thinking "meh" because he tried the demo by himself without knowing all the features or how to use the features.

So I showed him a demonstration of combat, drag-drop, notes, the 3.5 mechanics and automated features... it Wowed him.
So he skypes his other Roll20 friend... "Hey come check this out! DL the Demo and pop in here..."
His friend is truly RELUCTANT to do so... but after some 20 minutes of prodding he DL's and installed the Demo and joined in.

He was impressed, he loved the Player sheet and the features, and thanked me for taking the time for the overview.
He is considering the paid version, while the first guy purchased it.

Doug, I hope you appreciate the work your Ultimate License GM are doing in promoting your product (I'm just poking his ribs, I know he does).
Without us showing first-hand how things work, most would DL the Demo and MISS everything that FG has to offer.
It's kind-of a shame, but is what it is.

[Moon Wizard]

We're definitely listening to everyone. The challenge as always is prioritizing what we work on.

It's typically not a great business decision to chase a competitor, though we are looking at all the options for product planning. My product planning list is almost 10 pages of features and notes that we would love to add, and that doesn't even cover all the wish list features and competitor considerations. Though they do overlap some. I go through a big planning cycle about once a year, and take on something big.

On top of that, we try very hard to maintain backward compatibility to support all the great developer work that's been done to date.

I personally tried running and playing in games with Roll20 late last year. While I was impressed with the ease of getting started and finding assets, the rest was just okay or very quirky, depending on the feature. We found it very hard to give up all the features we were used to on FG, and found lots of actions during the game to be confusing and time consuming, especially for GM. I will admit that our system is complex, and has its own learning challenge; but I think that is just a function of trying to build a VT for everyone (and every VT has that challenge).

The 2 things that I think Roll20 has used well has nothing to do with features. It's the freemium model and marketing they have done (including KS startup). That's how they grabbed market share. I'm guessing that Roll20 has hurt MapTools community more than FG.

We see 3-4 competitors startup every year at Gencon and online. I just met a CEO of a small company getting ready to start a new tablet one on KS. I think everyone underestimates the amount of work it takes to build and maintain a VT, especially once you start supporting specific game systems. I know it may seem like FG improves slow some times, but we also grow in a long term sustainable manner.

Our launch on Steam has brought a large influx of new users, which has had us shift our focus some in the short term to improve usability and getting started experience.

All forward progress in the long run.

Cheers,
JPG

[hawkwind]

I had a good look at the new character sheets on Roll20 last night. It's a big lap forward for them but nothing that wouldn't want to stop using FG for my pathfinder games.