Dynamic Fog of war

[Djmaxx]

Does FG2 have a Dynamic fog of war? I have not GMed any but i have had a few people ask if it did or did not have it.

[Tiqon]

Well you can as a GM make a mask. And unmask marked areas when you need to show the players part of the map. So I would say yes :).

[Emrak]

Does FG2 have a Dynamic fog of war? I have not GMed any but i have had a few people ask if it did or did not have it.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/features/?id=maps

Last paragraph. :)

[Trenloe]

Does FG2 have a Dynamic fog of war? I have not GMed any but i have had a few people ask if it did or did not have it.
As others have said - there is the mask feature, but it is not a dynamic fog-of-war (like some other VTTs can be configured to have - if walls, etc. are "tagged" on the image).

Fantasy Grounds mask feature is more akin to the tabletop hiding and revealing of portions of a map as the players explore. But, the granularity of how much is revealed to the players each time is very fine (once you get used to using the image functionality) and so you can reveal little or lots at a time and so the GM can simulate the fog-of-war in their own required way.

[Emrak]

As others have said - there is the mask feature, but it is not a dynamic fog-of-war (like some other VTTs can be configured to have - if walls, etc. are "tagged" on the image).

What is the point of the "tagged" walls you describe? I.E., in FG I put up fog or war (or mask as you call it). PC1 tries to move his token 3 squares north. I reveal the terrain he can see. Are you saying that other VTTs auto-remove the fog? What would be the point of that? I can't imagine that a VTT could ever decide (due to fog, mist, darkness, shadows, etc...) what a player could "see" as well as the GM...

Just curious.

[Trenloe]

What is the point of the "tagged" walls you describe? I.E., in FG I put up fog or war (or mask as you call it). PC1 tries to move his token 3 squares north. I reveal the terrain he can see. Are you saying that other VTTs auto-remove the fog? What would be the point of that? I can't imagine that a VTT could ever decide (due to fog, mist, darkness, shadows, etc...) what a player could "see" as well as the GM...

Just curious.
Yes - if a GM spends the time tagging all of the map features that would block line-of-sight then some other VTTs can automatically reveal areas that the PC would see - some take into account light/vision radius as well, so the players can't see those monsters creeping along behind just outside of their light radius.

Not sure how these work with dynamic blocking other than the distance of sight based on light sources (such as fog spells etc.).

[wbcreighton]

Preview of FoW for roll20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJe4q_MQU-Y

[NeoFax]

Are you saying that other VTTs auto-remove the fog? What would be the point of that? I can't imagine that a VTT could ever decide (due to fog, mist, darkness, shadows, etc...) what a player could "see" as well as the GM...
The point would be that a PC can do it better than a GM. If there are columns, tree trunks...in the path of player1's vision how would a GM in his head know the exact split the character can see? Now do this for every character and their position relative to the blocking item in your head. Not so easy, or do you just unblock a chunk of area and say use your imagination that you can't see the goblin at position y. Most players would metagame their actions. Also, fog, mist, darkness, shadows can easily be done with use of code. The groups I play in do it all the time. It is quite funny to listen to players call out directions to one another while the Darkvision creature is tearing them up. The harder part is doing 2.5d where a halfling cannot see over a chair or a dragon can see right past that wall with a roof.

Also, blocking out a map is not hard if you block out the whole map and then cut out what wouldn't block vision. I also heard that Roll 20(I know MapTool is planning this), is looking into when you import the map the heavy dark lines automatically become VB.

[Emrak]

...do you just unblock a chunk of area and say use your imagination that you can't see the goblin at position y.

Nah, in FG you "unblock" by free drawing. Aka, you free draw the area you want exposed.

I think it is definitely a bridge too far to try to ask any GM to write any amount of code beforehand to handle visibilty when they could just reveal it on the fly instead...but that's just my opinion. I wouldn't have minded that level of work when I was young and had gobs of time, but now? Never.

[Leonal]

You can also hide tokens already placed, so that they're not revealed by unmasking.

[NeoFax]

I think it is definitely a bridge too far to try to ask any GM to write any amount of code beforehand to handle visibilty when they could just reveal it on the fly instead...but that's just my opinion. I wouldn't have minded that level of work when I was young and had gobs of time, but now? Never.
You don't have to code anything if you don't want. MT has dynamic FoW already built in as an option. All the GM has to do is draw the VBL lines and it is done. Now if he wants to use Darkness and such there is already code that others have given to the community that will automatically remove sight from the players token unless they have dakrvision.
@Leonal: MT has this as well and can also reveal the creature if the characters have a vision type that can still see it. i.e. True Vision

[Leonal]

You don't have to code anything if you don't want. MT has dynamic FoW already built in as an option. All the GM has to do is draw the VBL lines and it is done. Now if he wants to use Darkness and such there is already code that others have given to the community that will automatically remove sight from the players token unless they have dakrvision.
@Leonal: MT has this as well and can also reveal the creature if the characters have a vision type that can still see it. i.e. True Vision

Yes, I've used Maptool when my group had trouble connecting on FG so I'm familiar with its capabilities, but my comment was meant for what you can do in FG without regards to what other VTTs can do. :)

[Moon Wizard]

I've debated on this feature quite a bit.

I have used other tabletops previously with a dynamic lighting feature, and I found it cumbersome to define walls, light sources, darkness, vision, etc. All additional prep work for the GM.

However, it is a very cool feature, so it remains on the wish list as something to continue to look at. The additional GM overhead that it requires has always made it less desirable than other features for implementation when prioritizing.

Regards,
JPG

[unerwünscht]

My understanding is that Fantasy Grounds is a Virtual Table Top. The idea is that it simulates playing pen and paper rpgs as close to authentically as it can. Last I checked there was no way for my gaming group to sit around the table and manipulate field of view for each person independently.

Cool features are cool, but the more you stray from a simulated table top environment the more it becomes Neverwinter Nights Tool kit... And face the facts, the Neverwinter is cheaper... by a decent margin at this point.

[Tiqon]

Cool feature? sure! But it does not HAVE to be more work for the GM if the GM does not want to use the feature. Manual mask, as it works atm vs dynamic lightning feature does not exclude each other I hope, so its really just a matter of how much the GM wants to add to his preparation, like everything else.

The ONLY thing IMO worth considering here is if there are other features we want more ;).

I see what you mean unerwünscht and I agree with you part of the way, but I remember a young Tiqon in his teens who dreamed of one day to have moving 3D representation of the monster and pc on the table, just like they had in the chess like game they played in Star wars on the Falcon in Episode 4. I mean, just cause we used wooden sticks to wack each other when we were kids doesn't meant it was more fun than wacking each other with a LARP sword nowadays ;). Just my thoughts :).

[Griogre]

I've used MapTool and Dynamic Fog of War is real neat. I don't think it's worth the time to set up the map for me as a GM, though. Generally speaking, I agree with
unerwünscht on the economics - too.


Cool feature? sure! But it does not HAVE to be more work for the GM if the GM does not want to use the feature. Manual mask, as it works atm vs dynamic lightning feature does not exclude each other I hope, so its really just a matter of how much the GM wants to add to his preparation, like everything else.


I like you vision, but unfortunately if you only have 8 hours or some other limited amount of development time per week the developer needs to decide if he should spend it on something 80% or more of is users want or something a few percent will want. Personally, in theory, I think dynamic Fog of War would be a great Kickstarter for FG. It would allow Smiteworks to gauge interest and not take away for "normal" development.

[Trenloe]

It seems like quite a few of the members of the community would like to see something like this as "Dynamic light sources" is currently top of the FG2 development wish list: https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

[wbcreighton]

I wouldn't really be interested in it unless it was pre-done in an adventure module.

Which might be a big plus for any adventures or encounters maps that have the info pre-built, if that capability was available in FG.

So I wouldn't really use it ( unless pre-built by someone else ), but wouldn't be against adding it if there was an appetite for it.

[Griogre]

I was thinking the same. There would probably be some demand for premade maps with light blockers.

@Trenloe, yeah I know its at the top of the list. I'm not sure how many people who voted it up know the details of what is required prep-time wise for a GM, or are even GMs. In certain games it is awesome, but not so much for most.

[NeoFax]

I can prep a whole map like the ones in Book 5 of Legacy of Fire (Which are quite complex) in 10 minutes using the "mask" all and cut out what can be seen method. So, I don't know where this huge amount of extra prep time comes from. The bigger stumbling block I have heard GM's complain about is aligning the grid to the map grid.

[Tiqon]

I like you vision, but unfortunately if you only have 8 hours or some other limited amount of development time per week the developer needs to decide if he should spend it on something 80% or more of is users want or something a few percent will want. Personally, in theory, I think dynamic Fog of War would be a great Kickstarter for FG. It would allow Smiteworks to gauge interest and not take away for "normal" development.

Exacly! And thats why I wrote this line too in my post ;):

"The ONLY thing IMO worth considering here is if there are other features we want more"

been through a number of development projects in my time. And it always goes like this (almost ;)):

Customer: "We wantzz all zzzese uszze-casezzzes for uzzz" (spoken like Smeagul). *hands over big heap of paper*
Us: "Cool! So we got work for the next 5 years!" *estimates time to complete each use-case* "So here is our estimates, now priorities your use cases and as you can see if we add these to each other we will be finished in 2017.
Customer: "ehm... ok then... maybe we COULD do without this one.... and this one and..."

[Griogre]

Dynamaic Light sources is the top voted feature request by the FG community. Clearly a lot of people want it and a number of other VTTs have some version of it. I could give a detailed breakdown of why I don't think there is much advantage over simple unmasking but I don't think its that important and there are some reasons to implement the feature for either competitive or marketing reasons.

I will say that when I was in high school or college an extra 10 minutes wouldn't have bothered me. However if you only have an hour or an hour and half to prep for a game 10 minutes is a high percent of that time for what may be very little benefit. Dynamic FOW works best when you have a range of abilities to see in the dark and that it is actually dark, of course. If everyone can see in the dark or none can then you tend not to get much benefit from it. Or if the area happens to be lit anyway. *shrug*

Grid problems on a map are annoying. If its just a matter of the grid being a non integer value its easy to fix that. You just use an art program to resize the map to move the grid back to whole numbers. The really nasty ones are maps where the grid is no longer a "true" and the grid corners are not 90 degrees. There isn't going to be much you can do to get the map to align perfectly with the FG grid. In a case like that you are probably going to be better off just not using the FG grid.

[Griogre]

@Tiqon :) Very true.

[unerwünscht]

Call me silly but I think Fantasy Grounds needs to focus on simulating the things you can do at a real world gaming table before adding more things that you can't do... Honestly, if they start working on more things like this and less things like... oh better drawing tools for maps and images, I can honestly say, I WILL take my money to another project that will finish the virtual TABLE TOP functions first.

[Djmaxx]

Hey! hey! hey! I posted this topic looking for more info on FG2 not trying to start a heated debate about what they are working on. Come on people cool down a bit.


Call me silly but I think Fantasy Grounds needs to focus on simulating the things you can do at a real world gaming table before adding more things that you can't do... Honestly, if they start working on more things like this and less things like... oh better drawing tools for maps and images, I can honestly say, I WILL take my money to another project that will finish the virtual TABLE TOP functions first.

And i dont think they are working on the things that would make this any less like a real table top.

[Djmaxx]

(FYI) Fog of war is to simulate the same thing as if you have to draw the map out and you dont finish it to show what the players have not explored yet or what they can not see. So the Fog of war is something that is like a real tabletop.

[unerwünscht]

If that is the extent of the functionality that you are wanting then FG already has it with the mask layer. But what the fog of war function is talking about is a way to handle a separate mask for each player based on the location of his or her character. This is something that can not be done at a real world gaming table, and is a feature that would require a significant amount of added code to make it work correctly.

That time could be spent adding code for line thickness/color for the draw tool. Or the ability to skin dice, or a plug and play character sheet editor (for making custom character sheets on the fly), or a more 'book like' interface for the library modules, or any number of other things that would enhance the feel of the application making it more like a real world gaming table.

Automation and nifty features are awesome, and I am all for getting them added to FG.... But not at the expense of finishing the table top environment first. FG is getting closer and closer to being a game of its own and less of a VTT application.


(FYI) Fog of war is to simulate the same thing as if you have to draw the map out and you dont finish it to show what the players have not explored yet or what they can not see. So the Fog of war is something that is like a real tabletop.

[Djmaxx]

That is what you think and this thread is was started by asking a question so if you want to voice you opinion please start it in a different thread.
All i asked was if it had fog of war not if i wanted it. I was asking so that i could tell others what i had found out. not to start a debate about weather FG2 should or should not have it.

So before you go cluttering up other peoples threads please read the original post.

Thank you and have a nice day.

[unerwünscht]

Ok. Mr. 60 posts.... I did read your question, and your question was addressed by other people before I posted. I saw no need to state a fact already posted.

However, then the conversation here became one about the possibility of adding more FoW functionality, and I responded to the question at hand. The conversation continued, and now you are taking offence to the fact that you started a conversation.

That being said it is you that is derailing the conversation here, not me.

[Djmaxx]

The number of post i have made has nothing to do with the fact that if you do not want the feature do not use it. Also if you want to take your money to another system then go right ahead. That is if you can find a better one. Because i have looked it a lot of different programs and none are as advanced as FG2.

[unerwünscht]

Again beyond the scope of the actual conversation at hand. However, there are quite a few VTT applications that are starting to get caught up to FG at this point. Yet another reason why FG needs to focus on what they already do best and making that better, instead of adding new things that other VTT applications are already doing.

The comment about your post count was an indication that I probably wasn't talking to you at all... in fact I was talking to Moon and Griogre. The two people in this thread that actually have something to contribute to the conversation.

That being said, I would love to hear your actual opinion on the conversation at hand, seeing as we have yet to hear what you have to say about it. Is the current mask functionality what you are looking for, or are you looking for a dynamic FoW?

Lets try having a civil conversation instead of... whatever this is you are attempting to solicit from me.

[Djmaxx]

since you asked i think that they should work on making the mask function easier to use not really do a dynamic fog of war just improve the function that is already in use

[unerwünscht]

Now that I can not agree more with. Absolutely needs some work to make the existing feature more intuitive and user friendly. Tho, I honestly have no advice to offer on how to do that.

Edit: The wife just suggested feathered edges for the masks, and now that I think about it, I have to say this would make it look a million times better.

[Djmaxx]

That i think would make it look better (easier on the eyes)

[Trenloe]

since you asked i think that they should work on making the mask function easier to use not really do a dynamic fog of war just improve the function that is already in use
For me, just making non-rectangular revealing/hiding easier to use would be a big improvement. Perhaps clicking a number of points to make a polygon rather than the less than accurate click-drag available now for non-rectangular selection.

[unerwünscht]

For me, just making non-rectangular revealing/hiding easier to use would be a big improvement. Perhaps clicking a number of points to make a polygon rather than the less than accurate click-drag available now for non-rectangular selection.

I think you can already do that. I will play around with it and see if I can remember how tonight.

edit: I will be damned, you can't. I was sure that functionality use to be there at one point.

[Djmaxx]

That is some of the stuff that i would like to be revamped so it is easier to use

[Moon Wizard]

Added to the wish list, if you'd like to add your votes.
https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=58034

It's definitely a way easier problem to solve then adding a complete vision system.

Regards,
JPG

[bennis1980]

I'd like to see an option to make non-rectangular mask reveal the default. Most of my maps are hand drawn and have little / no straight edges and I normally use a graphics tablet to reveal the map.

Dynamic map would be great if it is easy to set up

[Doswelk]

I'd like to see an option to make non-rectangular mask reveal the default. Most of my maps are hand drawn and have little / no straight edges and I normally use a graphics tablet to reveal the map.

Dynamic map would be great if it is easy to set up

I think it comes from the fact that most maps are perceived to be square based dungeon maps.

Maybe there could be an option added to FGII to allow the default mask mode to be changed?

[bennis1980]

Yeah, hand drawn maps are not something I would give up easily. I even hand draw some digital maps in illustrator (to save having to scan them and reduce size / quality). The hardest part is getting the grid to fit snugly :)

[mattcolville]

My understanding is that Fantasy Grounds is a Virtual Table Top. The idea is that it simulates playing pen and paper rpgs as close to authentically as it can. Last I checked there was no way for my gaming group to sit around the table and manipulate field of view for each person independently.

Cool features are cool, but the more you stray from a simulated table top environment the more it becomes Neverwinter Nights Tool kit... And face the facts, the Neverwinter is cheaper... by a decent margin at this point.

Well but hang on a second.

There are D&D rules that people *often* don't use expressly because it's a pain in the butt to handle at the table. Stuff like light sources and how far they illuminate. This is a core element of a lot of old school play, and it's easy to manage if every character stands still. But once people start moving around, there's no easy way to determine who is within a light source's radius and who is not and what it reveals and a lot of groups just ignore it.

There are other rules everyone uses, but which also consume a lot of time at the table. Like LOS. Does this dude have LOS to that dude?

A lighting system could automate all of this while at the same time making the table look really cool and adding atmosphere and suspense *along with* core functionality.

I can easily imagine a feature wherein your client automatically indicates which enemies are visible to you and which you have LOS to and uses some kind of icon or something to represent that. Doesn't *necessarily* have to be dynamic lighting. Dynamic Lighting looks amazeballs but the tactical element can be achieved without it. If I have an Orc behind a pillar, there's not a huge swath of black projecting out behind the pillar denoting shadow, you just can't see the Orc. Then you move around and he automatically becomes visible. To you. Not to all other players.

That functionality would be, I have to presume, easier to code than actual dynamic lighting.

Now, that being said, Moon Wizard knows what he's talking about. The kind of dynamic lighting people think of would be...a lot of work and there are probably better things to implement, bang-for-buck wise.

But a less visually amazing system, one that handled light sources and radii and LOS without the dyamic lighting might be a good middle ground.

[mattcolville]

I wonder if, rather than expect the GM to define areas in a map that block LOS, you might build this info into counters. So you drop a pillar onto a map, the system knows that pillar blocks LOS.

[unerwünscht]

Well but hang on a second.

There are D&D rules that people *often* don't use expressly because it's a pain in the butt to handle at the table. Stuff like light sources and how far they illuminate. This is a core element of a lot of old school play, and it's easy to manage if every character stands still. But once people start moving around, there's no easy way to determine who is within a light source's radius and who is not and what it reveals and a lot of groups just ignore it.

There are other rules everyone uses, but which also consume a lot of time at the table. Like LOS. Does this dude have LOS to that dude?

A lighting system could automate all of this while at the same time making the table look really cool and adding atmosphere and suspense *along with* core functionality.

I can easily imagine a feature wherein your client automatically indicates which enemies are visible to you and which you have LOS to and uses some kind of icon or something to represent that. Doesn't *necessarily* have to be dynamic lighting. Dynamic Lighting looks amazeballs but the tactical element can be achieved without it. If I have an Orc behind a pillar, there's not a huge swath of black projecting out behind the pillar denoting shadow, you just can't see the Orc. Then you move around and he automatically becomes visible. To you. Not to all other players.

That functionality would be, I have to presume, easier to code than actual dynamic lighting.

Now, that being said, Moon Wizard knows what he's talking about. The kind of dynamic lighting people think of would be...a lot of work and there are probably better things to implement, bang-for-buck wise.

But a less visually amazing system, one that handled light sources and radii and LOS without the dyamic lighting might be a good middle ground.

I am glad someone finally brought this up. The rules for the way light sources and LoS work changes from game to game. Sure building an automated system for D&D or any given single game might not be that hard, but building a system that works correctly with every game system... not so easy to do.

[mattcolville]

Those are two different things though.

A system that checks, client-side, after your character moves, to see which enemies are A: illuminated and B: in LOS is one thing.

Then the data is a separate thing. Torches might have different illumination ranges in different editions. So what? That's just a value you change on an edition basis. They're just different numbers the system would use. The system isn't made more complex.

[unerwünscht]

Go back and look at the rules. Specifically the rules in regards to light around corners, shadows and cover, LoS in darkness and fog. Then ask Moon to look at those same rules and see if he can find one single way to do it for all systems.