Combat tracker and Map Tokens

[Tryll]

I think this question is applicable for pretty much all rulesets.

I remain a bit confused about the connection between the combat tracker and the map tokens... particularly how to keep them "connected" at all. As a GM, I setup encounters, pop them into the tracker... they appear in place on my map. That part is all sweet.

Now, when it is somebody's (or something's) turn in the combat round, they get highlighted on the map. That is sweet too.

But, for instance, if a PC attacks a zombie, and points to it on the map, how do I know which one that is in the tracker... except by getting the tooltip and looking for it in the list? Is there a way to select a token, and have it light up in the tracker? Or select something in the tracker and have it indicate its map token (when it isn't that token's turn)?

I'm finding Savage Worlds Combat (with larger groups of tokens) to be pretty clumsy if I can't figure out a better tracking approach... hoping there is something I haven't been using yet already built in.

Thanks for any pointers.

[saithan]

not all but some rulesets have a minimal targeting ability where depending on the color the player sets on his dice, when he clicks that creature a ring of his color shows around that monster.

[phantomwhale]

Savage Worlds 3.2 pulled in some targeting stuff from 4E, but to be honest, with the whole "standing, lying down or off the table" philosophy of Savage Worlds miniatures, I often find myself rotating shaken "mooks" and not using the combat tracking health tracking at all for non-wild cards.

That said, I think when a character is targeting a personality, a smaller copy of the character's portrait should appear next to the targeted personality on the main combat tracker.

Of course, this involves seeding the combat map with tokens from the combat tracker (e.g. tokens that are linked to the combat tracker entries) which also tends to be a bit more effort than Savage Worlds requires. The inclusion of "encounter" planning, along with the "add all tokens to the encounter map" button, might make this a bit swifter in version 3.3 (in development).

[Tryll]

The "include tokens" for encounters already exists, at least with the SW extensions added in. No real complaints about it. Auto adds them to the map positions, etc. Sure, would be great to have it built-in.

But my issue is more "which one are you attacking?" Or, "Which one did you put an effect on?" Currently, there seems no way to associate the token and the tracker entry, in reverse... going from the map token, to its tracker entry. It's like it should be in the radial menu for tokens somehow... "Select in tracker", or the reverse from the tracker entry - "select token".

No?

[Griogre]

Sometimes too much automation slows things down, I find that happening sometimes in my 4E games when dealing with minions the 4E equivalent of extras.

For Savage Worlds, I personally do things similar to phantomWhale. I put wildcards and one token per group of extras on the tracker. I don't drag extras onto the map from the tracker. IE for a fight with Pirates, I might have two pirate wildcards and then say two groups of pirate extras. I would drag the wildcards onto the map but not the extras. I would then place unlinked tokens for the two groups. When an extra is shaken I turn it, if it is incapacitated I just delete the token off the map.

This takes us to your problem, ie unlinked tokens can't be targeted. Usually my players just draw a line pointer at the extra they are attacking if it is not obvious.

You might find this post helpful for some general tips on running SW: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=127289#post127289

[Tryll]

Rotating token would be OK, except...

1) Tokens use rotation for facing, since FG doesn't have a facing indicator
2) My campaign is using top-down tokens and detailed maps (8k)... using rotation for state really kind of blows away "realism"

Otherwise, I agree. It is a super-fast work-around that keeps the pace of the game high.

[Tryll]

I guess the same could be said for the character sheets... they are also "disconnected" from the token once the token is placed. Seems like it would be cool if opening the PC or NPC sheet that originated the token would be a cool radial menu item - "Open sheet"

Overall, there is a lot of disconnect between the maps/tokens, and the rest of the ruleset.

[phantomwhale]

The "include tokens" for encounters already exists, at least with the SW extensions added in. No real complaints about it. Auto adds them to the map positions, etc. Sure, would be great to have it built-in.

But my issue is more "which one are you attacking?" Or, "Which one did you put an effect on?" Currently, there seems no way to associate the token and the tracker entry, in reverse... going from the map token, to its tracker entry. It's like it should be in the radial menu for tokens somehow... "Select in tracker", or the reverse from the tracker entry - "select token".

No?

Ah - jolly good - your already "playtesting" the new encounters tools then :)

As I mentioned in my previous post, if a character is targeting a token, their portrait should appear on the tracker next to the targeted entry. Picture paints a thousands words (see below).

All said, I have simply taken the 4E targeting and bought over 80-90% of it to Savage Worlds (much of that was keeping the map tokens linked to the tracker even if images and the tracker are closed between sessions). Certainly open to ideas and improvements to it, as I don't use it as heavily as others may do, so some guidance and suggestions could go a long way.

https://i.imgur.com/HAukN.jpg (https://imgur.com/HAukN)

[Griogre]

Yeah that is a problem. SW doesn't use facing but if you are using top downs that will be a problem. I don't use top downs myself.

You could put a color box around the shaken ones but that kinda blows realism as well. Or drop a bead with the same problem. I've personally found its just not worth the hassle of having extras on the tracker because its too much work to find them, update them, then delete them and it takes to long.

If an extra is on the tracker and a PC does target it, it should show the PCs character token next to it so you can tell that is the one targeted. You just need to scroll up and down the tracker and make sure you push the "group" button so all extras are displayed. I'd still suggest you not place the token of the extra that is holding the initiative card because if its killed and you delete it you will delete all the sub tokens.

Just in case you weren't aware that targeted tokens on the tracker can be seen on the tracker:

https://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m222/Griogre/SWScreenCT.jpg

Edit: Out typed by PW. :p

[phantomwhale]

...I'd still suggest you not place the token of the extra that is holding the initiative card because if its killed and you delete it you will delete all the sub tokens.

Think I fixed this in 3.2 - you should be able to delete the "group leader" and the next guy down will become the leader.

Good point you have to open up the groups to find the targeting character - it's probably not ideal, but it's something ! Again, ideas for a better approach always welcomed. Stealing the 4E approach has generally been pretty good so far !

[Tryll]

I think the Savage Worlds support in FG is awesome - a big thanks to all involved.

I'll try some of the suggestions offered... maybe I'll make a little "shaken" marker or something.

But, it would be so great if the tracker and the tokens were better friends.

Heck, sometimes I use the visibility as a "blinker"... toggle on and off to find a token related to a tracker entry. That tells me they are still connected somehow. <shrug>

[Griogre]

@phantomwhale: I must have missed that change in 3.2 since I don't usually put extras on the map.

On the "open the groups" you might want to add an "Open all groups" to the top of the tracker.

@Tryll I think the real problem is the tracker bogs down with more than a dozen or so things on it. In a lot of SW settings its not that uncommon to have 20 or more extras on both sides. Long term we might really need a smart tracker that doesn't use a 1 to 1 relationship to tokens on the map where you could put down multiple tokens tied to a central token on the tracker. Or we might need a better system than the combat tracker holding everything. Maybe we need Smart Tokens that individually link back to personality sheets that keep track of their state with the tracker only holding initiative.

[Tryll]

Maybe we need Smart Tokens that individually link back to personality sheets that keep track of their state with the tracker only holding initiative.

Yes, Maptools, and some of the other Virtual Table Tops (KloogeWerks) store the character sheet data, portraits, macros, and lots of other stuff in the token itself. Makes a lot of sense in an OOP programming way. When you bring a character into a new campaign, all the player needs is that smart token.

[Tryll]

In the meantime... maybe a couple (shorter term) "wish list items" can come from this.

1) Have some form of option for the combat encounters sheet, where only certain NPCs are added to the tracker... but they all go to their map placements when "add to tracker" is selected. Perhaps a tick mark for each entry which indicates "add to tracker". This would allow use of encounters for grouping and map placement without mucking up the tracker.

2) Add some ability to the combat tracker to (temporarily) highlight an entry's token. Maybe somehow clone the visibility functionality, but use it to indicate the linked token.

Longer term, it would be great to see better token connectivity (smart tokens), as well as the ability to indicate token states visually... shaken, effect halos, etc.

Overall, FG still wins for me, but its single-layer map and disconnected token functionality holds it back from being clearly superior to the other available options. My game places a lot of emphasis on maps and tokens (probably the weakest part of FG) - so you KNOW FG is strong in all other areas if I'm still using it. ;-)

[Griogre]

1) Have some form of option for the combat encounters sheet, where only certain NPCs are added to the tracker... but they all go to their map placements when "add to tracker" is selected. Perhaps a tick mark for each entry which indicates "add to tracker". This would allow use of encounters for grouping and map placement without mucking up the tracker.


That's a good idea where only some of the tokens in an encounter are linked to the tracker, with say an x instead of a check to indicate that.


2) Add some ability to the combat tracker to (temporarily) highlight an entry's token. Maybe somehow clone the visibility functionality, but use it to indicate the linked token.

Longer term, it would be great to see better token connectivity (smart tokens), as well as the ability to indicate token states visually... shaken, effect halos, etc.


When I can't find a token that is linked to the tracker I usually double its size on the tracker so it stands out on the map and then I reset it back to normal. Maybe the tracker could be changed so when the mouse was hovered over a token on the tracker it would automatically double the token on the map in size for a bit.

A while back Josh did a proof of concept where you could change token graphics or animate them. DrZuess is doing some things with character portraits which might eventually end up on a "smart" token.

Yeah I like the OOP concept and I know how MapTools uses tokens. Battlegrounds does something similar as well, the problem is their counters aren't really linked to anything to get their stats. As far as Klooge, well lets just say I think they are a cautionary tale on having *too* much automation.

[Willot]

I think this question is applicable for pretty much all rulesets.

I remain a bit confused about the connection between the combat tracker and the map tokens... particularly how to keep them "connected" at all. As a GM, I setup encounters, pop them into the tracker... they appear in place on my map. That part is all sweet.

Now, when it is somebody's (or something's) turn in the combat round, they get highlighted on the map. That is sweet too.

But, for instance, if a PC attacks a zombie, and points to it on the map, how do I know which one that is in the tracker... except by getting the tooltip and looking for it in the list? Is there a way to select a token, and have it light up in the tracker? Or select something in the tracker and have it indicate its map token (when it isn't that token's turn)?

I'm finding Savage Worlds Combat (with larger groups of tokens) to be pretty clumsy if I can't figure out a better tracking approach... hoping there is something I haven't been using yet already built in.

Thanks for any pointers.

If there aren't too may mobs its usually not too much of a hassle, however once you get above 4 it starts to get a bit confusing and I usually have to use zombie1, Zombie2, etc as names to help keep track. I don't like doing it of course but I find it easier that way.

[Tryll]

When I can't find a token that is linked to the tracker I usually double its size on the tracker so it stands out on the map and then I reset it back to normal. Maybe the tracker could be changed so when the mouse was hovered over a token on the tracker it would automatically double the token on the map in size for a bit.


Hey, I like that one. It is a pretty good temporary solution (doing it manually), and would be a really great addition to the toolset if they would scale on mouseover in the tracker... it would be awesome to move your mouse down the tracker and have the NPC tokens scaling and unscaling till you found the right one. "Pop pop pop... there he is!"

[Tryll]

The scaling technique also has the advantage of not exposing tokens which should remain hidden.

[Tryll]

Incidentally, I agree with a moderate amount of automation, and I too left Klooge because it had too much.

But "tools" for managing the tokens and combat initiatives, I don't consider automation. Linking tokens and character sheets are not really automation either.

What I don't need is the sort of automation which calculates final Target Numbers, Hit roll successes, etc. That is the stuff that ends up getting in the way.

[Griogre]

If there aren't too may mobs its usually not too much of a hassle, however once you get above 4 it starts to get a bit confusing and I usually have to use zombie1, Zombie2, etc as names to help keep track. I don't like doing it of course but I find it easier that way.
You know in Savage Worlds there is a setting called Auto NPC numbering. Change it from off to Random (to get a random number appended) or Append (to get numbers in sequence). Most people I know use random so if they see just a token with the number five they won't know there are at least 4 others of them. The tokens do have to be on the tacker for this to work though.

[Willot]

You know in Savage Worlds there is a setting called Auto NPC numbering. Change it from off to Random (to get a random number appended) or Append (to get numbers in sequence). Most people I know use random so if they see just a token with the number five they won't know there are at least 4 others of them. The tokens do have to be on the tacker for this to work though.

Oh so there is... Damn

[Moon Wizard]

I really, really want to rebuild the entire token/map system in FG; and it will happen eventually. One of the reasons I have held off so far is because it would most likely end up requiring every ruleset to be rebuilt with the new map/token/CT assumptions. It's on my short list for the next big version, probably will have to make it 3.0 due to the ruleset changes required.

Regards,
JPG

[Tryll]

Thanks Moon_wizard. I remember you from the Klooge days... I was pretty sure the map and tokens stuff would be on your list. Really glad to hear it straight from you.

For the most part... I've seen few rulesets which actually pay much, if any attention to the tokens and maps. (I only say this because most of them seem to handle them exactly the same, but I'm sure there are details I haven't looked in to.) Still, I for one, would be all for replacing it, even at the sacrifice of rulesets which aren't maintained.

The disparity from other mapping tools is getting wide, and it is the ONLY area that FG is actually behind in the race. Would love to see it surpass the others.

It would be so exciting to have fist class maps and tokens in FG.

[Trenloe]

Still, I for one, would be all for replacing it, even at the sacrifice of rulesets which aren't maintained.
Err... not maintained doesn't mean they're not being played. Causing "older" rulesets to break with new functionality isn't a good idea - it would alienate quite a few long term loyal FG users...

[Tryll]

Well, then I suppose they would need to NOT update Fantasy Grounds and keep using the outdated rulesets. Right? Is there another choice really? Never update Fantasy Grounds?

[JohnD]

For the most part... I've seen few rulesets which actually pay much, if any attention to the tokens and maps. (I only say this because most of them seem to handle them exactly the same, but I'm sure there are details I haven't looked in to.) Still, I for one, would be all for replacing it, even at the sacrifice of rulesets which aren't maintained.
Very generous of you. :ninja:

[Tryll]

Is there something everyone is trying to protect? Perhaps I don't understand the reason behind the defensive attitude. Please enlighten me.

Are we saying that Fantasy Grounds should not be updated if it means that old rulesets which are no longer maintained may be broken?

[Trenloe]

Well, then I suppose they would need to NOT update Fantasy Grounds and keep using the outdated rulesets. Right? Is there another choice really? Never update Fantasy Grounds?
Yes, there is a choice - do what has been just done with the 2.8 -> 2.9 upgrade: develop new functionality that is tested with the "older" rulesets still being used and making sure that the upgrade doesn't break them.

One of the major strengths of Fantasy Grounds is it's support for multiple rulesets - have a look in the store and you will see many "older" rulesets available for purchase that still need to be catered for in future upgrades. Most of these aren't being "maintained" per se, but they are being sold and are being played.

[Trenloe]

Is there something everyone is trying to protect? Perhaps I don't understand the reason behind the defensive attitude. Please enlighten me.

Are we saying that Fantasy Grounds should not be updated if it means that old rulesets which are no longer maintained may be broken?
Yes there is something we are trying to protect - the Amazing Fantasy Grounds community and this fantastic, diverse ruleset supporting, product.

I'm not being defensive - I'm telling it how it is... Another major strength of Fantasy Grounds is the depth of its community. Are you saying that the developers should just concentrate on the 2 main (provided for free) rulesets in their development - 3.5E and 4E?

The ruleset you refer to in your first post (Savage Worlds) is a paid for product maintained by non Smiteworks employees. If these great developers went away and no one took up their amazing work, then Savage Worlds would fall under the "not maintained" heading you mention and by your suggested approach would result in it being broken by some future upgrade. I certainly wouldn't be happy about that - and I'm guessing you wouldn't either?

[Tryll]

OK. OK.

I've already posted my alternate solution. Please attack me there. ;)

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16941

[Trenloe]

I've already posted my alternate solution.
Cool - looks interesting! :)

Please attack me there. ;)
I'm not attacking you, just providing a bit of FG community education! :D

[Tryll]

Just kidding, no harm done. I agree the community is super-important.