March Beta Release in Test

[LordEntrails]

Thanks Moon. I've got to go look at my RSW ruleset to see if I'm re-using the templates or not. My very rookie intent was to use them, but now I'm not sure I am

[deer_buster]

I guess this really boils down to with the frequency that breaking changes are being made we should really just be developing rulesets by cherry picking what we want out of CoreRPG and embedding it into any new rulesets that are being developed if we want the code to remain stable. That's not necessarily a dig on SW, but just the reality of a tiny development shop that is unable to support what the community wants.

[Moon Wizard]

I actually use new templates to avoid breaking custom code whenever possible; so this shouldn't be an issue most of the time. There are some exceptions of course for extensions, because they are trying to modify/insert into existing code which will need to change over time to add new features. I do deprecate the old templates over a 6-9 month period to give people time to grab the old versions and copy into their code, or migrate to the new templates/features.

Regards,
JPG

[bmos]

That same documentation that I wrote for the rulesets there is still being provided via the wiki:
https://fantasygroundsunity.atlassia...l+Change+Guide
Note, I started this in the last couple years to help with any CoreRPG updates to allow developers to take advantage of new changes.

Excellent! Even better than having them in forum posts. Thanks as always JPG!

[damned]

I think this is an important perspective to consider for SmiteWorks, but I think the dev community also needs to consider the overall userbase of FantasyGrounds. Most users are playing 5E with little to no extensions so understandably this is the focus during development.

I think this is a major part of it.
The bulk of SWs revenue comes from 5E.
In saying that - its not IP they own, they dont (at least as at last official post from SW) have any license for the next version - not saying they wont get one, just there is no surety on it.
SW have for years spent little to no time on other game systems themselves.
I have no hard data to support this claim but I suspect that a big reason for other platforms growth past the size of FG is due to their support of more game systems.

It boils down to time . Each hour spent by SW supporting a product costs money. They want the store rulesets streamlined which makes it easier for them to keep up. Developers abandon products with frequency. Makes sense to me.

Im not sure if this is what you are saying but I think its a self full-filling conclusion.
The lack of hundreds of rulesets is purely because of the time and effort required to make them.
There is no other barrier - no cost, no developer license fee, the vast bulk of the code is open to view and reuse.
The barrier must be substantial though because so few projects get completed.
And then those that do get completed get abandoned because the effort doesnt cease once you publish.


And we know SW arent going to make most of the rulesets either.
They have made 4 in the last 3 years and maybe 1 in the 8 years before that.

From where I sit the most likely outcome is everyone who is not playing 5E or wants to play 5E and other things is going to other platforms.
Not just the devs - the buyers too.

[superteddy57]

Four rulesets isn't correct.

by me...
Fallout 2d20
Dune
Star Trek Advetures
Vampire the Masquerade
Hunter the Reckoning
Werewolf

Cameron
Transformers
soon to be: GI Joe and so forth

So 7 as of right now. Missing three.

[Egheal]

The rulesets battle is, I think, already lost. I suppose that it is because it is (probably, just a guess, I'm not a developer) really hard to use other languages in FGU. It is automatised in Foundry.
So there is people and companies all over the world that are doing rulesets on this system.
For example Free League have rulesets for all their games on Foundry, with PC player sheets translated on the fly with a module (for me in french). Fans are doing other rulesets (you should take a look at the french version of Kult divinity lost, stunning. I'm also playing with a ruleset for Lex Arcana that is really nicely made).

So, we have for FGU a base of users mainly living in the USA, playing mostly (only) D&D. And for Foundry a (very loud and proud) fan base that is doing (for free) and playing a lot of rulesets, and D&D using a barely legal trick.
I clearly prefer SW, for the team, for the community and for the quality of their products (D&D, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu... are so nicely done) but I'm afraid of the future with a now officially supported D&D for Foundry and the impossibility of on the fly translations in FGU.

[rhagelstrom]

Some of this however might be for how a system supports actual gameplay. We haven't really had a gameplay update since lighting. One could argue that a 2.5d improves gameplay for situations where you have a lot of z axis variation. A big improvement for some systems. We have vision and we can define darkness but no way to define physical, heavily obscured sort of things from Lua but rather would need to do that from occluders. We also have no method to define what the floor is. If you want to entice rulesets some of these are very important.

[HywelPhillips]

I think there are two big battlegrounds for VTTs over the next few years.

The first is versatility of in-game experience provided. How well does the VTT support ultra-detailed tactical combat vs. theatre of the mind, pre-planned commercial modules vs. on-the-fly sandbox play. 3D with lighting and effects and spells going off like a computer game animation vs. streamlined handling of game automation and character sheets?

Roll20 is the one that's falling behind here - the level of their innovation at present is "maps can go in folders!" (Something that was clearly needed when I started using VTTs 4 years ago and has only just got added).

FGU's new beta release's 2.5D is a broadening of this capability for FGU, and it already does really well in supporting sandbox play (tables, parcels, encounters, multiple on-screen maps at once, pins) and commercial modules.

Foundry's got the edge on making it more like a computer game experience with spell animations, sound and other triggers, etc.


The second is diversity of rulesets. FGU is in danger of falling behind here. Roll20 supports many rulesets because it doesn't DO much with them. It only provides a character sheet and maybe a compendium; it has a bit more automation and facilities for the big players (5E, PF, CoC, etc) but all you really need to do to claim Roll20 "supports" a system is a character sheet, an NPC sheet and convert your PDF manual into compendiums.

Foundry has wider system support than FGU, and it doesn't seem to be getting better. I would love to run a game of Forbidden Lands on FGU because of the aforementioned support for the sandbox playstyle that FGU provides. But the (non-SW) devs have been working on it on and off for years - with no product for us to play. RuneQuest was coming and looked quite close to ready until Mad Beard Man dropped out - and now it seems to have disappeared completely. Mutant Year Zero has a ruleset courtesy of Damned (IIRC) but no official module to get the content - I don't have the time to enter that stuff by hand.

So right now if I want to play Forbidden Lands or Mutant Year Zero I will be forced, kicking and screaming, to do so via Foundry.


I wonder - is there a case for an official, higher-level version of Ruleset Maker from SmiteWorks? An approved Developer environment to assist in the speedy production of rulesets and the subsequent conversion of published material? Because right now it sounds like the community devs are not as well supported as they could be? Demonstrably the current system is preventing rather than allowing rulesets for more games to be released.

That's probably a huge investment, but I think if we're not careful Foundry will become the de facto VTT standard simply through supporting more rulesets and being less bad than Roll20

Cheers, Hywel

[bayne7400]

I have 5 rulesets active on Fantasy Grounds . Four we sell licensed products and one we cant even if we wanted to (D6). (plus one I took over and made a Honor and Intrigue extension for) The reason I have not done more isn't because of FG it is because the smaller game makers can't sell their product on Fantasy Grounds. DTRPG stops them by withholding 5% of their sales if they move to a non inclusive agreement. This is not me saying this this comes directly from the game makers. The loss from pdf sales is just much greater than what they can recover on Fantasy Grounds. Foundry on the other hand sells their products on DTRPG so this is a non issue. So we are probably never going to get a lot of the smaller games on here. Without the ability to put out licensed products generally people are not going to spend time develop.