Fantasy Grounds Unity engine

[epithet]

...
If you doubt this, just look at the Wiki. Unless one of the community folks does so, the only thing that really gets much update from SW is the API wiki (and even that lapses in some cases). There is a ruleset tutorial in there, and look at how out-of-date it is. It is almost useless.

And this is not SW's fault. I think there focus is spot-on. Work on getting Unity out, and continue evolving what we have. Add a few rulesets if possible. I believe their focus is entirely appropriate.
...

Say what now? You're right that the wiki is almost useless, but I can't agree that it isn't SW's fault. Sure, making the Unity version a reality is important, but I don't think it is "entirely appropriate" that someone who picks up Fantasy Grounds as a new user has to figure out how to use it without reasonably complete documentation. Hell, I've been using FG heavily for years now and I still have questions for which there are no published answers. While FG does have a remarkable community that is very helpful, it's not really appropriate to depend on a forum to replace a user's guide.

[ddavison]

The wiki has been getting updated fairly recently with new tutorials, set up guides and other commonly requested items. The focus previously was on making video tutorials on the YouTube channel. We've decided to go back and start updating the non-video stuff as well since it is easier to consume for some people and easier to search.

Making a system that is easy to support any game system ever made is a great task to strive towards but is not the most financially sound target. Combine every single game system ever created and it is less popular than D&D 5E. Industry reports, our own analytics and those of our competitors that are posted publicly all point to the same conclusion. Some systems, such as 40K, Vampire and the like are worthwhile alongside an official license. Other systems are not even financially viable with a license and much less-so without a license.

With all that said, we want to support as many games as we possibly can. If we can pair up a community dev with a small Indie publisher to support the fans and return a bit of money back to these creative folks, we will. As a result, we have around 1200 DLC from around 80 different publishers and Indie artists. This covers 22 official rulesets. There are 42 fan-made rulesets on top of this and systems like CoreRPG and MoreCore that support multiple systems.

[Guoccamole]

Doug, you make it sound easy!-) TY

[Bidmaron]

I stand by my post. SW is, in my opinion of the gaming software market (and this includes pro fantasy, another team I have the utmost of respect for), the most responsible and reasonable in the balance between putting food on their tables and supporting the community they love.

If there is a documentation problem, it is guys like me that are to blame for that because SW is moving their platform forward in ways that are just fabulous. We need to figure out a way to fill in the gaps while SW marches on!

[damned]

Say what now? You're right that the wiki is almost useless, but I can't agree that it isn't SW's fault. Sure, making the Unity version a reality is important, but I don't think it is "entirely appropriate" that someone who picks up Fantasy Grounds as a new user has to figure out how to use it without reasonably complete documentation. Hell, I've been using FG heavily for years now and I still have questions for which there are no published answers. While FG does have a remarkable community that is very helpful, it's not really appropriate to depend on a forum to replace a user's guide.

Have you read the Users Guide?

[Andraax]

While FG does have a remarkable community that is very helpful, it's not really appropriate to depend on a forum to replace a user's guide.

Have you tried clicking here?

[epithet]

Have you read the Users Guide?

Have you tried clicking here?

Of course I have. There is a lot of useful information for a new user, but it has some serious holes in it. Like I said, I've been using the software now for several years, and I've run into plenty of situations where the documentation is non-existent and the answers you get on the forum are based on obsolete information, no matter how helpful the poster is trying to be.

I'm sure you'd like an example, right? Information about critical hits and how to modify them is simply not in the documentation for D&D 5e, with one exception. The combat tracker effect for critical damage (eg "DMG: 1d8 slashing, critical") is documented, but that might lead you to believe that you could add a line of damage to an item on your actions tab with "slashing,critical" damage... you can't. There's not really anywhere that tells you up-front that you're going to have to learn different sets of effect vocabulary for weapon properties, combat tracker effects, and PC sheets, and NPC sheets.

If you want to learn how to expand the critical range of a weapon, you're not going to find that on in the user guide. Nowhere outside of the forums is it documented that adding a trait called "Improved Critical" will give your NPC a expanded crit range of 19-20. Likewise, nowhere in the user guide will you find out that you can add a weapon property of "crit range 19" to do that the same thing with a single weapon on the PC sheet without having to apply it to all the weapon attacks in that range (melee, ranged) in the weapons meta dialog. No official documentation exists of the fact that you can accomplish this on the combat tracker using "CRIT: 19" as an effect.

Let me be clear--I'm not down on Smiteworks or Fantasy Grounds, I use the hell out of the latter and appreciate the constant work that the former put into the program. All I'm saying is that the documentation is woefully incomplete. One of the reasons for that, it seems from my observation, is that Moon Wizard will implement a "fix" for a problem someone is having or a new class that has just been released in Somebody's Guide to Something, and not tell anyone outside of the test version thread or a sometimes cryptic reference in the patch notes. There doesn't seem to be a process by which that is translated into plain text instruction in the user guide. A corollary is that the fix or implementation is often limited in scope, leading to a patchwork that can be confusing, without any clear map to the dungeon.

[LordEntrails]

Incomplete documentation on software is not unique to FG. Nor is it even particularly surprising that new and advanced features are poorly documented. Doesn't the agile methodology say something like "only document what must be documented when it must be documented"?

Specifically I'm looking at a software company I've worked with intimately for almost two decades. Last year they grossed over $1 billion USD. They are considered to have much better than average documentation in the industry they are in (enterprise product life cycle management software). Yet I personally open 1-2 dozen tickets a year with them for issues that are simply not documented.

That company, just like SmiteWorks, has to balance resources. Do they spend time improving their software? Or documenting it? It's not one or the other, it's a matter of degrees and priorities.

Another thought, Doug, John, Carl, et al are capable of doing software development and software documentation. The community is capable of doing documentation, but not (generally) development. So, leaving much of the documentation to the community is a bonus, because that means SW can spend more of their time on development (which we generally can not).

Now that doesn't mean SW isn't responsible for documentation, but really, Mr. Z has already said he has the Crit issue on his list for updating, give him a chance to get it updated. If their are other shortcomings in the documentation, point them out, and they will be prioritized. Or, write up a draft of the wiki page you want updated/created/changed and post it so the wiki mods can review it and update/add it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a one side vs another issue. It's a discussion (a civil one) where their is not perfect solution or absolutely correct answer. Their are caveats, trade-offs, and opinions.

[Valyar]

If there is a will, there is a way. Maintaining documentation is not impossible task, if you approach the problem the right way. The more you delay this, the more tedious work you will have to do and the more your body and mind will rebel against it, finding excuses not to do it. There is no excuse for lack of or bad documentation.

Code snippets with examples, screenshots, comments in XML/LUA files are just few examples of what can be done. Video tutorials are inefficient - they require more time to produce and deliver far less than a well written documentation.

[Ampersandrew]

Video tutorials are not inefficient - they waste more time to produce and deliver far less than well written documentation.

I think that mabe you have written the complete opposite of what you were trying to say.