Is fantasy grounds lacking this?

[nathal]

I would like Fantasy Grounds to allow a greater variety of dice rolls, like 1D8+1d4 in a single roll. There should also be an easier way to simulate our own character sheets from within the program. An easy editor.

Also, why can't I import jpgs images? There is no way to easily and quickly upload a jpg image as a handout or map. Again, I'm talking about within the program itself.

Snap to grid and resize grid feature is an absolute must for imported miniatures maps. Of course, be able to create tokens. Why doesn't Fantasy Grounds support imported images and map grids? Being unable to import our own JPG images makes it useless to my game group.

[madman]

I would like Fantasy Grounds to allow a greater variety of dice rolls, like 1D8+1d4 in a single roll. There should also be an easier way to simulate our own character sheets from within the program. An easy editor.

I believe you can do the dice thing by dropping two different dice into a quick bar slot or into the damage space on a weapon and spell slots.



Snap to grid and resize grid feature is an absolute must for imported miniatures maps. Of course, be able to create tokens. Why doesn't Fantasy Grounds support imported images and map grids? Being unable to import our own JPG images makes it useless to my game group.

You can do this also, there are extensions (Image tools) is one I think. and 3.5, 4E support this directly. you create a grid and then you can move it and +/- it to fit as an overlay. As far as creating tokens go, there are two programs out there that create tokens from any image you drag and drop into them(one is token tool, the other comes with kloogeworks in the free download)


Also, why can't I import jpgs images? There is no way to easily and quickly upload a jpg image as a handout or map. Again, I'm talking about within the program itself.

You can take any .jpg, .png and drop it into the appdata>campaigns>images folder and it hotloads in seconds.

There are tons of people around that will help, just ask.
Chris

[Trenloe]

I would like Fantasy Grounds to allow a greater variety of dice rolls, like 1D8+1d4 in a single roll.
Type: /die 1d8+1d4 in the chat window. Also, as Madman says you can drag different dice types to a weapon/action to build up the dice used.


There should also be an easier way to simulate our own character sheets from within the program. An easy editor.
I'm not sure what you're looking for here - there is a character sheet editor within the program for each ruleset.


Also, why can't I import jpgs images? There is no way to easily and quickly upload a jpg image as a handout or map. Again, I'm talking about within the program itself.
Yes you can - see Madman's answer in post #2.


Snap to grid and resize grid feature is an absolute must for imported miniatures maps. Of course, be able to create tokens. Why doesn't Fantasy Grounds support imported images and map grids? Being unable to import our own JPG images makes it useless to my game group.
Yes you can do all of this - snap to grid, import images, tokens etc.


Fantasy Grounds is lacking...
All of the things you find FG "lacking" are actually there. Have you actually started a campaign in FG and looked at what it can do - followed the user guides found in the "library" link at the top of this page, looked at some of the videos available in the downloads section??

Perhaps your post title should have been "I don't know how to do this, can this be done?" As Madman says, there are plenty of people around here who are generally willing to help - so just ask... :)

[nathal]

Thank you for the responses. I will delve more into it, and you'll note I changed my subject line. ;-)

I was frustrated because I wanted somebody to use it to run a game, and the issues I posted were his reasons for not trying it.

My suggestion would be to take these features and make them more obvious / easier to find in some future update.

[nathal]

You said drop maps into appdata>campaigns>images folder...but I can't find that progression of folders in my windows file directory. I found Fantasy Grounds II folder in my program file folder, but nothing about appdata. What am I missing?

[GunnarGreybeard]

Also, why can't I import jpgs images? There is no way to easily and quickly upload a jpg image as a handout or map. Again, I'm talking about within the program itself.Just to clarify, there is no "import button" type feature built into Fantasy Grounds. You would need to access your folder structure and drop/move the image(s) in your campaign's image directory. Once you do that they will pop up in your FG under the Images icon when your campaign is running in FG but there is no in-program Import image feature.

[Doswelk]

You said drop maps into appdata>campaigns>images folder...but I can't find that progression of folders in my windows file directory. I found Fantasy Grounds II folder in my program file folder, but nothing about appdata. What am I missing?

Start/All Programs/Fantasy Grounds II/Application Data Folder/

Will get you where you need to go.

[nathal]

I probably didn't see it in the main directory because I hadn't created a campaign yet.


Start/All Programs/Fantasy Grounds II/Application Data Folder/

Will get you where you need to go.

[nathal]

That sure would be an intuitive feature. Any plans on such a thing?


Just to clarify, there is no "import button" type feature built into Fantasy Grounds...

[Moon Wizard]

It's something on our wish list. The rough idea is that when you dropped a file onto FG, it would check to see if it was a supported image file, then it would ask you where you would like to put it (images/handouts, portraits, tokens).

Regards,
JPG

[unerwünscht]

You know, honestly this functionality has never occurred to me before being mentioned here, now I don't know if my games can make it without it.

[Doswelk]

It's something on our wish list. The rough idea is that when you dropped a file onto FG, it would check to see if it was a supported image file, then it would ask you where you would like to put it (images/handouts, portraits, tokens).

Regards,
JPG

Oh that would be nice :)

[nathal]

I dropped an image into the specified file, and it worked. Thanks for the tip. However, I had no options on dynamically resizing the image. The window that appeared was huge! I suppose I'd have to resize the image by pixels before dropping it into the image folder. Also, the grid was not visible when I tried to create that overlay.

[Doswelk]

Grab a corner of the image with the mouse, hold down CTRL and drag to re-size window.

:)

[nathal]

Oh, it was a secret! Or not...maybe I should start the practice of reading the manual? But seriously, note to developers: it would be intuitive if resizing worked just like other windows.


Grab a corner of the image with the mouse, hold down CTRL and drag to re-size window.

:)

[Griogre]

The Ctrl and drag right bottom corner works on all resizeable windows.

[Moon Wizard]

In v2.9, rulesets can be updated to allow resize arrows to appear when mousing over right and bottom edges of resizable windows. However, it takes an update to the ruleset in order to adapt to the various graphics used by the ruleset. The provided 3.5E and 4E rulesets will be updated for the v2.9 release. Also, I'm thinking that a resize corner graphic would be a nice addition as well, but up to each ruleset as well since graphics are ruleset defined.

Regards,
JPG

[dr_venture]

I wish more of this stuff was not ruleset-specific. With Sorcerer gone, the C&C ruleset has no update on the horizon, and for me personally, every new option like this that gets added to the core functionality but not added to the ruleset makes the C&C ruleset just look worse and worse. The precedent as time goes on is that if your ruleset doesn't have a Sorcerer or a DrZ maintaining it, the ruleset is kind-of a dead end.

I'd *much* prefer a simple, fairly generic, non-stylized control for resizing windows (and closing them, for that matter - I *hate* having to close windows via the radial) that gets added to windows by default. At least that way new functionality becomes available by default unless somebody kills it. Certainly include the code hooks so that developers can modify it if they wish, and graphics folks can update the default graphics if the default offends, but at least the majority of rulesets won't get left behind.

[Moon Wizard]

I agree completely. However, the way that the original developers built the system provide vast flexibility, but poor upgradability.

I have no way to add a capability like the close buttons, resize arrows or resize graphics automatically; because the graphics for every ruleset are unique and customized. So, I can't make any assumptions about layouts or graphics.

For example, I originally planned to turn on the resize arrows for all rulesets. However, the issue turned out that the graphic offsets for right and bottom edges of the window graphics varied dramatically between rulesets and well as within rulesets. The end result was that you would get a resize arrow anywhere from a quarter inch to a full inch away from the visible edge of the window, which was just confusing. I had to add customizable offsets to allow the ruleset developer to tell the client where the "graphical edge" of the window is for the graphics they are using.

I am always looking at ways to make additions that do not require ruleset updates. My initial approach for every new feature is to enable for all rulesets. (Example: Delete confirmation menu changes in v2.9)

In the long run, I'd like to make the ruleset development a little more "layered" so that all rulesets can be updated by updating the FG "core" ruleset. However, this requires completely new functionality to support ruleset layers, and the other rulesets would need to be rebuilt anyways. I'm open to suggestions from a technical viewpoint. ;)

Regards,
JPG

[unerwünscht]

Well Moon,
It works like this. I have made quite a few of the lower end rulesets, and stopped working on almost all of them. The reason being is they are not very popular, and it is way too much work to keep them updated all the time. I would MUCH rather rewrite them from the ground up one last time than have to update them every few months to add features to them.

So if you have these awesome ideas that could update across the board, maybe it is time for FG3. Just make a blanket statement that the way rulesets are handled in FG3 is fundamentally different from previous versions, and start from there.

I do however think that if that is the direction things are going to go, there needs to be a way for the average user to configure the rules that he wants to use. For instance the ability to turn on/off various forms of automation.

I also think that if you are going to make the jump to FG3 a more Instant Messenger style chat window setup would be VERY useful for the whispers etc.

I have a million other ideas if you want me to list them out, but won't take up your time if you do not want them. :)

[dr_venture]

It's easy to complain and come up with suggestions, but it's much harder to solve them in a practical way.

The only thing I could suggest would be to maybe have a preferences dialog and/or configuration file with could allow individual features to be turned on or maybe tweaked by a moderately knowledgable person in some simple fashion on a ruleset by ruleset basis. Maybe put the whole thing in a ruleset-specific and/or combined XML config file, so when the features are added to a new version, like the resize handles, a simple adjustment can be made to the config file to nudge them in the correct direction for a specific ruleset or even window. By the time the new FG version leaves dev, perhaps most of the popular rulesets would already have config files that could be shared or even distributed with the app.

I guess what my thinking boils down to is that it's a lot easier for most of us to tweak something's location or graphic (or just switch off a feature in a config file) than it is to implement a core functionality from scratch. Dunno if that really solves the problem or not - my gut tells me that that might be solving one problem and causing another.

Maybe another approach would be to develop some more UI-based tools to customize rulesets and make the development and upkeep process less finicky. A very simple example: I can certainly code web sites from scratch in Notepad, but I'd hate to have to do that, as opposed to using Dreamweaver.

It sure is easy to describe work for others to perform. :D I know you guys are working with what you got, and I appreciate it!

[phantomwhale]

I think automation tweaking is in most rulesets, and will continue to be very ruleset specific given there is little commonality between RPG dice-rolls and modifiers (other than they HAVE dice rolls and modifiers - which is baked into the core system).

Building rulesets of a upgradable common base is clearly the solution for me. How to do it with what we have now is not so clear. Either a clever, more flexible core ruleset and extension system might get us there, or some larger FG engine re-write (FG3, as unerwunscht puts it) is required.

All I can say is I'm here to put the effort into SWEX / DLR (and potentially more) with whatever we decide is the right technical steps. Happy to chew over specific ideas too - just struggling to come up with anything nuts and bolts myself without really understanding the core engine architecture and limitations.

[nathal]

It might work to have a core ruleset that is devoid of system specifics but has maximu graphic and UI upgrades. I could live with that. Also, the idea of some easy, UI for system tweaks would be nice. I can say this because I use amgame system thqt is not one of the supported rulesets anyway.




Building rulesets of a upgradable common base is clearly the solution for me. How to do it with what we have now is not so clear. Either a clever, more flexible core ruleset and extension system might get us there, or some larger FG engine re-write (FG3, as unerwunscht puts it) is required.

[Moon Wizard]

Yeah, that's why I came up with the "layered" ruleset idea. I like that approach, because it would work similar to the way extensions work now, but it would allow a "base" ruleset to exist that any ruleset could use as a starting framework or maybe just a generic sheet plus dice tabletop.

It's very similar to the idea of a foundation, core and base community rulesets; but it would be easier to keep up to date and incorporate new features for all rulesets built on it.

I'm also thinking that it is a "FG3" feature, since it requires ruleset rewrites to take advantage of the "base" functionality. However, I think that the approach I am considering would not break current rulesets (but not sure until I actually build the feature).

Cheers,
JPG

[nathal]

I'll look forward to FG3 then. So that's my wishlist: 1) import images into different areas within the UI. 2) better window manipulation and grid customization 3) easy-to-use ruleset customization within the program itself (no programming sense required) 4) more customization of dice rolls in the core set (like throw 1D10+1D8+1D4+2 and have it add it for me) 5) some in-program way to create simple tokens.

I'll be sticking with this and seeing how it evolves... I like the community.


Yeah, that's why I came up with the "layered" ruleset idea. I like that approach, because it would work similar to the way extensions work now, but it would allow a "base" ruleset to exist that any ruleset could use as a starting framework or maybe just a generic sheet plus dice tabletop.

It's very similar to the idea of a foundation, core and base community rulesets; but it would be easier to keep up to date and incorporate new features for all rulesets built on it.

I'm also thinking that it is a "FG3" feature, since it requires ruleset rewrites to take advantage of the "base" functionality. However, I think that the approach I am considering would not break current rulesets (but not sure until I actually build the feature).

Cheers,
JPG

[Doswelk]

4) more customization of dice rolls in the core set (like throw 1D10+1D8+1D4+2 and have it add it for me)
I'll be sticking with this and seeing how it evolves... I like the community.

Right! I can show you how to do #4 right now :)

MZqeFHtkMQI

[Zeus]

I like the fact that FGII is very extensible, certainly wouldn't want to see that aspect of it changed, however I appreciate the overhead of maintaining rulesets in line with the latest features and so will 2nd the layered/abstracted approach to future ruleset development.

If the current API and engine could be expanded to allow for easier overriding of objects (without the need to override whole classes and/or scripts) the whole process of ruleset building could be significantly simplified for the average GM.

[nathal]

Oh, I see that last step was to right click and hit an equals sign. Got it.


Right! I can show you how to do #4 right now :)

MZqeFHtkMQI

[Callum]

Oh, I see that last step was to right click and hit an equals sign. Got it.
Yes, but note that you only need to do that if you want to see the total displayed in the chat window. You can drag-and-drop the roll onto other fields, and they will use the result without you needing to display the total first.

[Trenloe]

Oh, I see that last step was to right click and hit an equals sign. Got it.
Or, if the ruleset you're using has the option "show roll totals" (or something similar) then enable that and every roll you make will also have the total shown.

Also, if you want to do something like 1d10+1d8+1d4+2 as part of the /die command, make sure you use lower case "d".

[Doswelk]

That was the first time I'd ever run up the 3.5e ruleset (not got around to properly building FGII on my MAC yet) so I may well have missed some basic 3.5e settings out.

I have to admit I liked the theme.

<wanders off to rip the theme into a Savage Worlds version>

[nathal]

Thank you again. That's even more reason to go with a core ruleset with all of the goodie options, and built back up from that foundation. IN the meantime, it's nice to learn all the tricks.


Or, if the ruleset you're using has the option "show roll totals" (or something similar) then enable that and every roll you make will also have the total shown.

Also, if you want to do something like 1d10+1d8+1d4+2 as part of the /die command, make sure you use lower case "d".