Doc_Waldo
December 6th, 2010, 08:06
For over a year I played D&D 4E using MapTools and enjoyed it very much. In MT's you utilize frameworks, much like extensions are used in FG II. Although you don't have to use a framework with MT's, it really adds to the functionality. I worked with a group and a player that programed and he created an incredible framework that had the ability to track conditions, auto roll against targets, deal damage....many of the basic things that are done in FG II's via the combat tracker. I enjoyed playing in MT's and still believe it a great virtual gaming arena, and in pure sense of "mapping" (i.e. quickly building a map on the grid, dragging tokens and images right on the grid, moving the tokens around, lighting effects). MT's focus is heavily on the map itself, everything is based around the map, and thus in my opinion, MT's mapping tools, especially lighting or what is called "masking" in FG is much better than FG II.
So why did I switch?
I almost didn't. The demo program you down load is crap! You can't get any idea how 4E works. If I was the development company and D&D 4E was a large portion of owners, I would quickly make an adjustment to the demo version you download; however, I have no idea how many 4E players there are--one of the big selling points is the "mod's", and the 4E interface. No of which I could experience in the demo...although that may have changed.
Anyway, the one strength of MT's is also it's biggest weakness...namely the map. Since everything is based around the map, it is difficult, although it is possible, to add additional material to the session, i.e. images, handouts, text being dragged to the chat.
The ability to create a story or the actual adventure background, text, and other items that can be dragged to the chat window, along the with incredible ability to link everything, is what sets FG II's apart. It was in fact watching a video by Xeorn (sp) that pushed me over the edge to purchase the software and give it a chance.
As a DM I can now load in a full prebuilt adventure into a campaign, with the ability to then simple drag over pre-typed text into the chat for all players or drag on top of separate players, so they can just see it. This is very cool and very helpful to me as a Dm. This was simple to difficult to do efficiently in MT's.
In addition, the ability to link everything together is pretty amazing. Yes, if you come from MT's, it's very wierd at first to have all these windows up, because again, MT's focused on the map; whereas, FG II, is a whole encompassing process, the map becomes just one part of the whole story. Having text to read, chat to drop, pictures that are linked to quickly show players, etc. This again is wonderful from a DM's standpoint, and once I got use to the "clutter", it made the experience more of a "table" game rather than just a dungeon crawl.
Dice! What else can I say, I think this is one of the coolest features of FG II's. I'm a visual guy, and I love having the ability to roll dice that roll (albeit I really wish they made a sound! It just kills me they don't, but I suspect the developers must have a good reason...please tell me you have a good reason.)
In MT's everything is rolled in scripts and you don't see anything except the result. You hit a "macro" that you have programed in and it executes the attack, most of the time combining the hit and damage in one, and in the framework I used in MT's, we utilized targets, so it would display the attack (we had it look just like the D&D 4E cards, with the attack roll, and if it hit the target, would then spit out the damage).
One thing that I do miss that MT's did was if you moved your mouse over the actual number, or another word which you would define, it would display a "tool tip", with the actual breakdown of the number, i.e. +1 str bonus, +1 enhancement, +2 combat advantage. I know FG II's does this, it just doesn't look as cool :)
With all that being said, because most, if not all of the major frameworks for MT's rolled both the attack and the damage (if hit), it automated the battles a little more that I like. I really appreciate the fact that I and the players get to roll an attack roll, and then roll for damage--this once again helps to still keep the "at the table" feeling.
In MT's you could manage conditions, and in the visual respect, MT's kills FG II's here. MT's, with the proper framework, utilizes little icons that attack to the player tokens representing each conditions. Some frameworks try and automate this process, while others let you just set each one up, but none of them really are on the level of FG II's combat tracker for fully integrated.
Originally, I thought because of the lack of visual condition icons, I would not be very impressed with combat tracker, and also because I had used a framework which did a good job at trying to manage the different conditions, albeit with manual reminders to set and take off, etc., I felt it really would be a down step. I was wrong.
The CT is pretty amazing (once you figure it out). It is more robust than MT's and more reliable. Everything is right there for you as a DM and the ability to have it catch things like "prone" and "marks" it truly amazing. What makes it even head and shoulders above is that with a little work by the DM's in parsing you can very, very quickly create an encounter with powers and you don't have to type in a think for powers. Literally you could drag a monster into the CT and go away feeling confident the powers are correct with just a quick glance of the eye. You just can't do this import type stuff yet accurately in MT's. You can do so basic stuff, but the complicated powers just has to be checked and rechecked for accuracy for the automation parts to work, i.e. condition trackers, in MT's.
I have been very happy working FG II's, more than I thought. Don't get me wrong, there are some things that FG II's is lacking, and I not all has been roses for my first 2 sessions.
Even with the bumps in the road for the first several sessions, I love FG II's and continue to be amazed at how it helps me as a DM, be a better DM. I loved MT's, but feel FG II's is worth the additional money you have to spend, because it just brings the whole experience together. As I figure out more and more of the mistakes I make and grab different extensions and tools from others here, and finally figure out tricks of the trade, FG II becomes more and more powerful. The learning curve drops off quickly. I am confident that in another month or so I will no longer really be spending time trying to figure things out, but being able to focus on enjoying DMing...and also playing soon. It's all about having fun, and FG II for me makes that easier. Great product and support, and great community. Thanks.
**Update. I moved my 2nd session problem to another post so this could focus on the MT's vs FG II.**
So why did I switch?
I almost didn't. The demo program you down load is crap! You can't get any idea how 4E works. If I was the development company and D&D 4E was a large portion of owners, I would quickly make an adjustment to the demo version you download; however, I have no idea how many 4E players there are--one of the big selling points is the "mod's", and the 4E interface. No of which I could experience in the demo...although that may have changed.
Anyway, the one strength of MT's is also it's biggest weakness...namely the map. Since everything is based around the map, it is difficult, although it is possible, to add additional material to the session, i.e. images, handouts, text being dragged to the chat.
The ability to create a story or the actual adventure background, text, and other items that can be dragged to the chat window, along the with incredible ability to link everything, is what sets FG II's apart. It was in fact watching a video by Xeorn (sp) that pushed me over the edge to purchase the software and give it a chance.
As a DM I can now load in a full prebuilt adventure into a campaign, with the ability to then simple drag over pre-typed text into the chat for all players or drag on top of separate players, so they can just see it. This is very cool and very helpful to me as a Dm. This was simple to difficult to do efficiently in MT's.
In addition, the ability to link everything together is pretty amazing. Yes, if you come from MT's, it's very wierd at first to have all these windows up, because again, MT's focused on the map; whereas, FG II, is a whole encompassing process, the map becomes just one part of the whole story. Having text to read, chat to drop, pictures that are linked to quickly show players, etc. This again is wonderful from a DM's standpoint, and once I got use to the "clutter", it made the experience more of a "table" game rather than just a dungeon crawl.
Dice! What else can I say, I think this is one of the coolest features of FG II's. I'm a visual guy, and I love having the ability to roll dice that roll (albeit I really wish they made a sound! It just kills me they don't, but I suspect the developers must have a good reason...please tell me you have a good reason.)
In MT's everything is rolled in scripts and you don't see anything except the result. You hit a "macro" that you have programed in and it executes the attack, most of the time combining the hit and damage in one, and in the framework I used in MT's, we utilized targets, so it would display the attack (we had it look just like the D&D 4E cards, with the attack roll, and if it hit the target, would then spit out the damage).
One thing that I do miss that MT's did was if you moved your mouse over the actual number, or another word which you would define, it would display a "tool tip", with the actual breakdown of the number, i.e. +1 str bonus, +1 enhancement, +2 combat advantage. I know FG II's does this, it just doesn't look as cool :)
With all that being said, because most, if not all of the major frameworks for MT's rolled both the attack and the damage (if hit), it automated the battles a little more that I like. I really appreciate the fact that I and the players get to roll an attack roll, and then roll for damage--this once again helps to still keep the "at the table" feeling.
In MT's you could manage conditions, and in the visual respect, MT's kills FG II's here. MT's, with the proper framework, utilizes little icons that attack to the player tokens representing each conditions. Some frameworks try and automate this process, while others let you just set each one up, but none of them really are on the level of FG II's combat tracker for fully integrated.
Originally, I thought because of the lack of visual condition icons, I would not be very impressed with combat tracker, and also because I had used a framework which did a good job at trying to manage the different conditions, albeit with manual reminders to set and take off, etc., I felt it really would be a down step. I was wrong.
The CT is pretty amazing (once you figure it out). It is more robust than MT's and more reliable. Everything is right there for you as a DM and the ability to have it catch things like "prone" and "marks" it truly amazing. What makes it even head and shoulders above is that with a little work by the DM's in parsing you can very, very quickly create an encounter with powers and you don't have to type in a think for powers. Literally you could drag a monster into the CT and go away feeling confident the powers are correct with just a quick glance of the eye. You just can't do this import type stuff yet accurately in MT's. You can do so basic stuff, but the complicated powers just has to be checked and rechecked for accuracy for the automation parts to work, i.e. condition trackers, in MT's.
I have been very happy working FG II's, more than I thought. Don't get me wrong, there are some things that FG II's is lacking, and I not all has been roses for my first 2 sessions.
Even with the bumps in the road for the first several sessions, I love FG II's and continue to be amazed at how it helps me as a DM, be a better DM. I loved MT's, but feel FG II's is worth the additional money you have to spend, because it just brings the whole experience together. As I figure out more and more of the mistakes I make and grab different extensions and tools from others here, and finally figure out tricks of the trade, FG II becomes more and more powerful. The learning curve drops off quickly. I am confident that in another month or so I will no longer really be spending time trying to figure things out, but being able to focus on enjoying DMing...and also playing soon. It's all about having fun, and FG II for me makes that easier. Great product and support, and great community. Thanks.
**Update. I moved my 2nd session problem to another post so this could focus on the MT's vs FG II.**