why not more vtt gamers (pathfinder) want to use fg?

[tahl_liadon]

.
i have to admit that every time i come looking for a pathfinder game -- to play or run, it's discouragingly sparse: at best one listing for a game per visit that i've made. there are other communities that i belong and the listings are plentiful. this is mainly because, i surmise, the vtt tool is free (roll20 more specifically) and has a low learning curve for new players.

i post this partly to find a solution, but more to get feedback from the community itself, as well as peeps behind fg development/marketing why this is so. i really enjoy the interface and ease of fg, as player or gm. i just wish there were much more users.

some questions:

pricing: does the lite (free) version have enough features that would allow more traction
learning curve: is fg too complicated to learn for a quick game? (i personally think it quite well-done, but then again i have used it for years).
quick-play: would a quick-play version of fg worth developing -- similar to the idea of the card version, or beginner box, of pathfinder?
conversion: how can we boost the number of more subscribers/new users/gms: would a limited time of free-play, in conjunction with a quick-play (see quick-play below) model help?
visibility: is there enough advertising of the pathfinder society forum on other pathfinder community?
membership: a community success is based on members participation -- what is the current membership under the pathfinder forum -- any way to mobilize/engage them?
games offered (for gms): why aren't there more games served up? do any/all questions above affect your decision to offer more games?


are my perceptions incorrect?

well, hopefully, this will stimulate some minds and generate some discussion activity...

[Griogre]

I personally believe there are several interesting dynamics in play here.

1) Players don't really care which VTT they use. The experience for the player is pretty good across all major VTTs. That being the case, players tend to flock to the free VTTs for games. Why pay if you don't have to? Especially if you don't have any idea of different VTTs pros and cons.

2) GM's want a VTT that minimizes data input, handles the game rules and is easy to use. Handles the game rules and easy to use are often opposing forces. I believe that GMs tend to flock to VTTs that have the least preparation time. Everyone hates large amounts of data input and the time spent doing it.

3) In case of ties GMs and Players both go to an official VTT for the game. In Pathfinder's case that would be Piazo's VTT. This gives Piazo a competitive advantage over other VTTs, especially if they won't license their material to the other VTTs.

4) Players who can't find games and really want to play, eventually go to where the GM's are. For example on Roll20 there are very few GMs compared to players.

5) GMs who can't fill games will first pay for a player(s) VTT cost, mostly to avoid having to do data input into another VTT.

6) GMs who still can't fill games will go to where the players are.

For GMs in particular, cost doesn't always mean money - it can also mean time time spent not actually running the game. For both GMs and Players cost also includes the time and aggravation required to learn to use a VTT's interface.

[oracular]

Roll20 is the new kid on the block, has been getting good press lately, requires no upfront cost, and is accessible from any modern browser on any operating system. There are issues of course... I personally find the UI horrible. Fantasy Grounds is well known by those of us who game via VTT a lot, but the average player doesn't seem to be aware of it. I run an online game and a home game and most of my players are new to tabletop rpg's or haven't played in like 15+ years. Most have heard of Roll20, but have not heard of FG II. Why is that? I suppose it's related to the fact that it's new and on the web. Instant gratification etc...

[mghauber]

My two cents as a new user....for what it is worth. I just played my first PFS game on Sunday after having the program for 6 months now. I wouldn't say the program is difficult to learn, but does take some time to learn and figure out Everything it can do. I was hesitant because as a person who only gets to spend a few nights a week on a good week playing with it, I wanted to be familiar enough with it so that my noobness wouldn't infringe or slow down play.

I have used other vtts and no others come close to encompassing all that FG does, so this is the one I would like to use. There have been some folks on the forums who have helped and ran tutoring sessions, but there is still a lot you need to learn for yourself....and that takes time.

Perhaps advertising a game that is designed for learning the nuts and bolts while gaming without too much pressure would attract more noobs like me....or perhaps I'm off base....like I said, the opinion of one.

Fantasy Grounds is incredible, and thanks to those who develop it and continue to build on it.

[Trenloe]

B]pricing: [/B]does the lite (free) version have enough features that would allow more traction
Point of clarification here - the "lite" version is not the free version. The lite is the player only version and needs to be purchased.

[oracular]

I have used other vtts and no others come close to encompassing all that FG does, so this is the one I would like to use.


I see that opinion posted a lot and I realize this is the FG forum... but as someone who has been using various VTT's for years I can say there are many things FG does not have that other VTT's do have. You won't notice them as much as a player, but if you're a GM who likes to get creative with map graphics you will find FG a bit lacking. As an example, Maptools is far more encompassing in that regard and simply blows FG out of the water. The scripting/macro capabilities are also very extensive. However, I and many others find the interface lacking. FG is a great program that is very rules oriented as well, while presenting it in a nice UI. The scripting is more set in stone obviously, but that has many benefits and few drawbacks.

The fact that everything is all ready to go (with a complete ruleset) and the gui is clean and well presented is the main reason I like it. Nobody has to sit around fiddling with macros and what not. It makes running a game pretty easy on both the GM and the players. Plus, it still has the best 3d dice! ;)

There was some mention of possibly using Unity in the next big version. As a coder and Unity advocate, I'm all for that. It could mean multiplatform support (tablet versions and web player plugin in anybody?). That plus expanded mapping capabilities, a nice ruleset wizard, custom 3d dice... some asses would be kicked.

[mghauber]

I agree that other programs are more "map friendly" than FG...and dynamic FOW is a big draw to other programs as well. I actually LOVE designing maps and use Gimp, Adobe, etc to do them. However, what I have found is that at the end of the day, a hand drawn line map in a great session will be far more satisfying than a pristine map with no story element or opportunity to game.

We are gamers and most of us have probably been gaming since graph paper was the shiznit...I am in this category. I game because it is great cerebral excersise with the right group and the right adventure. Ultimately, FG gives you the tools to GAME and does so without equal. I have tried them all...that's my story and I'm sticking to it...

But let's not digress from the subject....why not more gamers? I just wanted to offer my thoughts as a noob...I feel anyone who tries FG will be hooked once they get past the learning curve...which I didn't find difficult, just time consuming. I am envious of all on the forums with more experience with it. Wish I would have found it sooner....

[Weltengeist]

I'm afraid that while the usual arguments about FG2 advantages and disadvantages are of course all valid, there is in my observation only one that seems to have a major impact on the number of users: Money.

I'm playing a lot online with a large variety of players (my guess is that I played with about 100 different online players in the past 4 years), and I frequently hear "I don't want to use FG2". And when asking why this is the case, I hear lots of reasons, but in the end, they turn out to be excuses for: "It costs money". It's not even about "It's too expensive", it's simply "It costs money". They wouldn't use it if a license cost $5. Of course, this is quite frustrating, but that's the tide of the times: There's a whole generation now that grew up learning that cheap is always better, and "for free" is the ultimate cheap. There's a reason why huge companies like Google or Facebook don't charge their private users - they know quite well they would go out of business in no time since a large percentage of their users would switch to a free competitor straight away. In terms of roleplaying, this goes so far that I know quite a lot of players and even GMs that never spent a single cent on their hobby (with the possible exception of buying some cool dice), getting their material entirely from filesharing servers. And these people will even complain about the bad quality of the stuff they don't pay the authors for.

Note that I'm not advocating making FG2 available for free here. I'm just stating the obvious: If you offer a service for a fee that others offer for free, you have to be A LOT BETTER than those others. Whether this is the case for FG2, everyone has to decide for him/herself.

[Qai]

Would be curious if the devs would consider something along the following lines: once v3 goes live, cease development on FG within the current application framework, apart from bug fixes. At this point, port FG to Unity with new features etc. Once the Unity version goes live, everyone who currently has a license migrates their license to the Unity version and the v3 FG is made available for free. This would knock all other free VTTs right off the grid.

[Nickademus]

"It costs money". It's not even about "It's too expensive", it's simply "It costs money".

I'm not in touch with that many players online outside of the FG community, but the players I do know fall into this group. This is why I got the Ultimate license, to counter their excuse with "But it IS free, for players in my games."

[tahl_liadon]

.
i am thinking two critical factors that made roll20 successful: free (and apologize for having misrepresented fg lite as a free product) and *very* light in terms of features (translate: low learning curve). as someone has accurately mentioned, roll20 is so fresh to the scene, yet it is hugely successful and popular as the go-to vtt platform.

yes, roll20 does suck bad in many things, and lacking even more in others, but oddly and ironically enough, that's the secret to its success! it's as close to paper-and-pencil as it gets (relatively speaking). you see, right off the bat, people have already tooted horns on their favorite vtt (which is fine, of course), but notice how the focus is on how complex or "tight," or feature-rich and awesome graphics the app is. one thing that shrivels the balls of a typical player (sorry, ladies, but not meaning to be exclusive, mere evoking the visceral the best way i know how) more than facing a balor demon with a dead party in tow is this: macros.

the thing about roll20 is that a new player -- at pathfinder and/or at vtt -- can wing it with this online app and still have an immersive and enjoyable session without getting jarred by macros and other tech stuff (although on may do some of this in roll20). roll20 offers so few features -- and the necessary features that are available are so easy to use makes it a quick success. on top of the ease-of-use, it is ubiquitous because it is playable on practically any browser, *and* coupled with google hangout (voip) to give the player a complete experience. all for free. it's a no brainer.

if fg wants to compete in this arena, it needs to offer something similar. i'm thinking of bait-and-switch scheme: give the new user a pencil for free, then hook 'em in with a color pencil or two -- show them how awesome it can be, then smack 'em with the whole 64-color set with a built-in sharpener! (it's the best metaphor i can think of right now, but you get the picture...). it's not unlike the in-store purchase of apple apps.

[Nickademus]

Perhaps then Fantasy Grounds should put a little effort into promoting that it can be logged into and used simply as a dice-rolling app without the heavy learning curve.

My stance on this is the same as in the previous threads: the problem isn't that the product costs money and has a high learning curve, but rather that not all GMs are buying ultimate licenses and hosting demos to teach the features. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect everyone to buy ultimates, but it would solve the 'it costs' problem for players. The lack of demos is a more feasible problem to tackle.

[Qai]

About Roll20 being the closest to PnP. I find that players are actually apathetic to this aspect, and in fact, don't really care where they play or how close it is to true PnP as long as it's free. The attitude I very frequently encounter is: "you're the GM, whatever you choose... as long as it doesn't cost me money". For a player, apart from possible connection issues with firewalls and routers, FG is in no way any more complicated than Roll20 in a GUI sense - just move tokens around provided by the GM. I can't speak for everyone else who has a license, but I can tell you that for me, FG is all about the GM side of things, which I cannot even begin to fathom implementing in another VTT having been spoiled by FG. For a GM that wants to minimize prep time and just work with squares and circles in Roll20... well... then... this person isn't the target audience for something like FG in the first place - FG is all about taking a long time to prep so that as a GM you can really immerse your players in a roleplaying environment.

[damned]

another thing that is happening is people looking for pick up games or whatever the right term is - they want to turn up have a chat and start a game. you need a lot of players and gms turning up at similar time to facilitate that. but if that starts to happen it can snowball. so - is that the type of gaming that FG users want? i think a lot of people do turn up here looking for that experience and leave cos they dont get a game in an hour or a day or a week or sometimes a month. how to change that? well you cant really unless you have gms that want to run one-shots and pick up games. i dont want to run those - at www.fg-con.com - yes but not on a regular basis. i want to build a story and have players look forward to the next installment.

the steam thing could get some traction going - but i wold think you would look at doing something like $1.99/month (can you even do monthly billing?) for a player or gm license. just let people have at it. many of them (maybe most of them) might not ever come back for month 2 but they would give it a go. they might come back at a later date.

[Metzik]

New to FG and Roll20 as well, haven't played any of them yet, but to me it seems easier to find a game through the LFG in Roll20. On the FG site, there are several ways to go, which is good if you are patient, but if you're not it be a bit frustrating. It's harder to get an overview in FG I think.
And a clean up of the game calendar might be of use as well as hyperlinked GM names in the posts in it.

[Qai]

God dag. Velkommen til FG. You'll find that FG caters more to the crowd that is dedicated to long-term, slow-paced, very immersive atmosphere. Not always, but in general. Roll20 is geared more towards pick-up games, bash 'em up, and goodbye. Roll20 in this respect is great if you want to try out a new RPG and see if it's something you want to invest more time in. One of the biggest hurdles with the FG community is the lack of traffic compared to Roll20. Sadly, too, too many people see $ associated with FG, and just look away without giving it a second thought not realizing that they can actually find games where the GM has an Ultimate license.

[Dracones]

For my local group that went online the GM went Roll20 for Savage Worlds because of the price. It was frustrating because I have an ultimate license for FG, the SW ruleset and even Deadlands Noir/Adventure deck, etc which just annihilates anything Roll20 can do but because of the buy in I couldn't get the new-to-VTT GM to go the FG2 route.

I've used roll20, I've spent 100+ hours writing an application for Maptool and can say without a doubt that FG beats the other VTT's hands down for game systems that revolve around the character sheet(which is most systems). I think that should get even stronger with FG3 and CoreRPG for people to build off it.

But people really have issues with the pay model. It's stupid. FG is something you pay for once and use for years. But there's some sort of psych issues on how people spend money. $30 for pizza on game night? Yeah no problem. $20-30 to buy a license for software you'll use for years? Woah there, that's a lot of money! :confused:

[Blacky]

But people really have issues with the pay model. It's stupid. FG is something you pay for once and use for years. But there's some sort of psych issues on how people spend money. $30 for pizza on game night? Yeah no problem. $20-30 to buy a license for software you'll use for years? Woah there, that's a lot of money! :confused:
Not to mention all the books the GM has to buy.

But one thing is, communication. For example, I know a lot of people who thought 3.0.0 was going to ask us to pay something for the upgrade. Added to the fact that 2.x and 3.x network aren't compatible, some people were very cranky about it. Yes the 3.0.0 upgrade is free, but there was no communication to this.

More work on communication would help FG, and to spread its effort more work on the FG website would help too. The documentation isn't good at all, the feature list is quite dry, the system requirement are sadly out of date, and so on. As for pure communication, there still people who believe FG can't work on their Linux or Mac machine. I have no idea if this is a thing of the past or not, but to find out one need to dig deep into the forums, look at community made old post, it's not reassuring at all. And the list go on.

Of course SmiteWorks can't invest a lot of time and money in this. And most of us would like time and money to be invested in bug hunting and features and nothing else. But there are ways around that. Community ways.

[Laramie Wall]

I guess I never think about pick up games. To me, I've never gotten into the module based, con style of play. I've played in essentially nothing but home games, usually with a highly modified rule set. So for that, FG was a no brainer.
As far as it costing money... I'm a huge fan that you get what you pay for. Sure, I can get a free VTT that may have a better built in mapper.... OR, I can use FG and fractal mapper. It cost a few $$, but my crew was on board. I bought the ultimate license, and I'm happy with it. A brilliant code monkey player of mine has made a lot of excellent modifications.

Anyway, I'm happy with the product for the price paid.

[Yospeck]

Another important aspect is the instant hookup with webcams that you get in Roll20, which is why most people doing YouTube videos of their sessions (ie. itsmejp, who is one of the bigger ones) will go with a system that has webcams already built into the system. So the systems viewers are seeing on YouTube and are being advertised are the ones like Roll20.

[Blacky]

Another important aspect is the instant hookup with webcams that you get in Roll20
I'm not sure that an important aspect at all. I find that people using video during gaming are the exception, not the norm. Most people don't have the bandwith necessary to handle peer-to-peer videochat with 5 or 6 people (hell, a lot of people don't have the necessary bandwith to do decent videochat one on one), especially on top of gaming. And maybe even more important, it requires a lot of pixel real estate to have any interest ( a 100×100 video window has limited point, if any).

It's most certainly the future of VTT, to emulate physical tabletop rpg. But the technology isn't here yet for most people. With fiber to the home (or VDSL in some cases), and a dedicated third screen or a television to handle video display, that's another story. But we aren't there yet, far from it (look at map size advices on these forums for example, most people wince at file bigger than a couple of MB).

[Yospeck]

I didn't say "Another important aspect is the instant hookup with webcams that you get in Roll20", I said:

"Another important aspect is the instant hookup with webcams that you get in Roll20, which is why most people doing YouTube videos of their sessions will go with a system that has webcams already built into the system."

Which was to highlight the point that:


So the systems viewers are seeing on YouTube and are being advertised are the ones like Roll20.

Which was the more important part. As a standalone feature it's not a big deal. I've gone 6+ years using Fantasy Grounds without using a webcam as it's not necessary on its own. However, when people are putting their videos up on YouTube of their gaming sessions then the vast majority of them are using webcams so you can see the group or at least the DM (and most podcasters don't use VTTs anyway). So that was my point, the systems that are getting the most exposure on YouTube are Roll20, if you go into the /r/dnd section of Reddit anyone talking about a VTT instantly talks about Roll20 because it's the one people know and if not one they have used personally at least likely the one people have seen the most about even though FG has been around way longer. Smite just don't do the best job at getting the name out there.

[Isamill]

I don't believe that money is an issue as a lot of people have stated, the cost to start up is minimal (how many people will spend $100 on the latest game as it hits the stores and have completed the game in less than 20 hours of playing) I believe that the marketing could be improved by going to gaming magazines, although I have never been to a RPG convention but FG should have displays at them, for those who are teachers or professors flyers at their schools or universities. I realize that FG probably doesn't have the capitol to spend big on marketing but there is a a great number of dedicated members who can promote the virtues of the system (which are pretty darned good) and word of mouth is huge
Another issue is finding a game to join particularly for members who have incompatible timezones such as us down here at the bottom of the planet, and I agree with someone else who stated that people nowadays are impatient and if they haven't found a game in week they give up - it took me damn near 6 months before I found a fantastic group and am currently having the most awesome adventures with a great bunch of guys

[Blacky]

Sorry Yospeck, ’got it now. And indeed yes, this has an impact on the image and perception of the VTT.

Isamill, I agree that finding a good group is essential. It's 80-90% of the success or failure of the virtual tabletop gaming experience. But there's currently nothing to find say good group, because “good” is a very personal definition. To each is own.

First, most if not all tools are for English speaking people. There goes out 93% of the world right there (the % is probably lower for roleplayers, but I doubt it goes lower than 80% for audio gaming). Then, one will need to find people playing what he wants to play (or discover), meaning some kind of very powerful and fast but very easy tool to browse (and not sort/find, unless we want people only playing what they know). And then, there's the style; the GNS Theory is quite a good tool in that area but probably insufficient by itself.

To sum it up: there's not much (if any thing) currently to help the gamers, apart from a few vtt softwares.

[dulux-oz]

Hi Guys (& Girls - let's not be sexist),

I thought long and hard about posting what I'm going too, for a number of reasons, including the fact that I can come across a bit... strong sometimes, and also that I don't want to seem self-serving - believe me, I do enough of that already. :)

But the more I sit here and the more I read the various threads such as this one (and the more my honey malt bourbon warms my innards after along, long, LONG day at work), the more I think what I have to say needs to be said - maybe not by me, but said by someone.

As there's no-one else here, it'll have to be me!

So here goes!

<alcohol assisted rant>

Those of you who have been around the FG Forums for any length of time will recognise my handle - and also know by now some of my professional and RPGing background. As I've lurked around these posts I've come to recognise various people as well - people such as Trenloe, Blacky, Nickademus, JohnD, Dakadin, damned, dr_venture, Zeus, PhantomWhale, Xorn, & DosWelk, to name but a few - and of course JPG and Mr. D. Davison, our esteemed developers. In that time I've learned to appreciate and respect these individual's opinions, writings, and other contributions to our wonderful hobby and to our wonderful community here at FG. So I hope NONE of them take the following in any other way than in the way it is intended. (That's as a helpful point-of-view, for those who weren't sure.)

As I said, I've read and re-read this thread and others like it about how FG "isn't stacking up" against Roll20 in the popularity stakes - and one thing (apart from the arguments about price) that re-occurs again and again is the "steep learning-curve" issue. OK, so let's teach people how to use FG. We can do this with Tutorials, with written Documentation, with live demonstrations - there are all sorts of ways.

This is one thing myself and my Players came up against, and I thank Xorn (& others) for their Tutorial Vids which help teach me what I needed to know about using FG. The trouble is, those Tutorial Vids are now somewhat "out-of-date", especially with the new FG 3.x and the Cascading Ruleset Model. And the trouble with out-of-date Tutorials is that, even though you and I know the information is still 99% relevant, newbies tend to see that the video is for an older version of FG, they see that the interface is different, and they think (or can think) that they are no-longer relevant. The same goes for the User Documentation.

Which brings me to my own (Tutorial Videos) and a series of questions which I hope people can answer - or at least have a think about:

I produce my videos to help people out. I don't make anything from them and I'm not looking too. So while I "self-plug" I do so more from a position of "spreading the word" than from "making a buck". (Please take the following Qs with this is mind.)

1) Are people not finding my Videos?
Yes, they're getting decent view numbers on YouTube, but not nearly enough to indicate that enough people are finding them to make a difference to the general level of competence with FG.

2) If people aren't finding them, why not?
Are they getting lost in the clutter? Are they too long? Too short? Too detailed? Not detailed enough? They're aimed at beginners - at least the beginning ones are - I haven't gotten around to more advance topics yet. I'm just so sorry its taking me so long!

3) Why hasn't SmiteWorks taken me up on my offer to allow them to put the videos up with the other Tutorial Videos on the FG Downloads page?
That would go some way to solve the situation of out-of-date Tutorials, etc, etc, etc. Actually, I think I know this one - JPG and Mr. D are so incredibly busy that they haven't gotten around to it yet.

4) Or are they of such poor quality that no-one thinks they are worthy to sit beside DosWelk's and Xorn's?
I sometimes think this myself - in my darker, more self-obsessed moments :)

FG is such a wonderful VTT, it literally wipes the Hard Drives of those other systems - but if the learning-curve is what's stopping people, let's DO something about it. I want to see FG live, grow and thrive. I want to continue conversing, sharing, discussing and, yes, even arguing with the great community here. I want to be part of this fantastic world and to share it with as many others as I can. I want... well, enough about what I want. :)

Anyway, in any effort to help alleviate the learning-curve I'll mention that, for those that don't know, the link to my Tutorial Videos is in my Sig, below. Watch 'em if they'll help, ignore them if they don't - either way, I've tried to help, and that's about all anyone can do.

</alcohol assisted rant>

Cheers

[Trenloe]

<alcohol assisted rant>

To be perfectly honest I don't think there is any one thing that stops people using FG - there are a number of things that get mentioned frequently: cost to play, thick-client not browser based, no cloud support, steep learning curve, no in built voice, no in built video, it's too complex, it doesn't play XXX, etc., etc.. A lot of these reasons will result in people never even looking at Fantasy Grounds, so videos/tutorials are not the only thing missing in getting people playing FG. Where videos, tutorials and documentation really come into play is once people start looking at Fantasy Grounds - perhaps when someone has downloaded the demo and are feeling a little bit lost, or thinking of taking the plunge and want to get a better feel for it.

Kudos to you dulux_oz for doing the videos. If you're feeling a little bit under appreciated (which I'm guessing is part of the reason for the above honey malt bourbon aided post), then please don't be and realise that you and your videos are very much appreciated. What I have realised in my couple of years on the forums here is that you can push and push and push something to the point that the regulars start to complain about you spamming everyone, but there will always be people who miss the obvious no matter how hard you try.

I think it definitely is time for SmiteWorks and/or the community to get their thinking caps on and come up with a more efficient new user experience. Perhaps a team of a few people could get together and come up with some ideas - perhaps even put a proof of concept site together? Blacky and dr_venture have been mentioning ideas for a more organised site for current users to find rulesets, extensions and module - perhaps this could all be combined into one?

But, I'd like to see this done in conjunction with SmiteWorks. As I have mentioned on other threads the danger is that a couple of members of the community produce something really useful outside of the FG website and it is great for a couple of years but then those people move on or lose interest and it slowly dies, perhaps with the current community losing access to the resources available on that site. Whatever is done should be available to all of the community for as long as SmiteWorks have a server connected to the internet (which I hope is forever!)...

[dulux-oz]

No, I'm not feeling under-appreciated (not how I intended to come across) - you guys have already given me plenty of kudos and reputation points and "atta-boys" (and arguments and "pull your head ins" as well :) ).

What I am concerned about is the re-current theme I see on a number of threads where people say that FG has a steep learning-curve - I hear the same type of complaint professionally when we introduce new software into an organisation. The solution invariably is to provide training to the users in the new system, thus turning them from Nay-Sayers into Software-Champions. If we can do the same thing with FG...

And I'm not so sure people don't at least look at some Tutorials and Documentation BEFORE making up their minds about using a product - no, not everyone, but at least some.

Obviously its not just one thing that stops people from using a product, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to eliminate or at least mitigate some of those things (I know that's not what you were implying, Trenloe).

I suppose I just get/got a little frustrated that this "learning-curve" thing comes up again and again and we, as a community, HAVE a solution (in which my Videos play a part) and yet it doesn't seem to be getting through to people.

And I'm also concerned that I do come across as spamming some times - again, never my intent - just trying to help where I can, whether that's with the Videos or with Rulesets & Extensions or with passing on some of the things that I've learnt both professionally and as a gamer for the last 30 plus odd years.

As for the booze, it was more of a warning/apology that the language, spelling, logic, etc might be a little off - and also maybe an excuse for the level of "heart-on-the-sleave" stuff that was there. :p

Anyway, Cheers

[hangarflying]

<alcohol assisted rant>


Hey DO,

Literally one minute before I read your post, I had texted your YouTube channel to my players and made a strong recommendation for them to watch the videos. I find them to be exactly what I need. They're very descriptive and presented at a pace that makes it easy to follow. Now, you just need to finish the tutorials! ;)

I haven't read the entire thread, but I think the key to this whole thing is informing the GMs that Fantasy Grounds is the best resource for running and managing a table-top rpg online. As far as the players are concerned, they don't care. They just want to connect and play, and every VTT allows them to do it for free. So, cater to the GMs and the players will follow.

[br0k30n3]

I'm new here , but I think something that someone should look into is a virtual tutorial, possibly interactive tutorial. Maybe even something in a e-class format, that would walk someone through creating their own rulesets and modules step-by-step. Something that would teach those with minimal coding experience , or even RP experience. Instead for example loading a demo campaign , walk the person into creating a demo campaign, and with the lua ISE, Have the Person run the example Campaign they just created using simple Bots to control a couple simple actions for would be players through the example Campaign. I think that it would be a huge help for people not only have access to the references,but to have a interactive crash course into utilizing features.

[damned]

3) Why hasn't SmiteWorks taken me up on my offer to allow them to put the videos up with the other Tutorial Videos on the FG Downloads page?
That would go some way to solve the situation of out-of-date Tutorials, etc, etc, etc. Actually, I think I know this one - JPG and Mr. D are so incredibly busy that they haven't gotten around to it yet.



:) I started discussions with DD regarding writing some instructions/user-guide for Castles&Crusades but it hasnt gone any where of late...
I think there is room for SW to leverage off community members willingness to do some of these more mundane tasks...

[JohnD]

Learning curve is not arduous in my opinion. I suppose someone who expects to get everything for free in life, or wants to leave brain in cupboard most of the time might have difficulty though.

Brand new to FG I learned by observing a Rolemaster game, probably the most challenging rule set to figure out. Those who know the system they want to play, should use that inherent leg up and instinctively start trying things. DM is a little more challenging, I admit, but rare is anything in life that doesn't require a brain in your head instead of the cupboard.

What is primarily stopping people is their own unwillingness to make an effort. Sure, tutorials and how to videos are great, not saying they're not a positive addition (would have liked DO's when I started), but if effort, inclination and desire aren't there, none of the rest matters.

Case in point; a childhood friend I gamed with for 15 years, then played NWN and NWN2 with refused to even consider trying FG out, when it would have been free for him because of my Ultimate license. Didn't even want to look at it. 20 years of combined gaming experience and not a second of "not sure but I will at least have a look since you say it's great". No amount of videos, tutorials, price reductions, additional features or whatever was going to result in his joining this community.

Not to say that, on a larger scale, some additional promotion wouldn't help, but there will always be those you will not reach because they don't want to be reached.

[damned]

you ought to lock the cupboard door and hide the key - you know - just as a prank :)

[Moon Wizard]

One idea I have been thinking about is creating an inline set of tutorial windows for each ruleset. I think that this would improve the learning curve over time as they are refined. My initial vision is to have a window pop-up on initial launch that details the basics of interaction (right click menus, data entry, etc.); and then overlays for most windows available via '?' buttons.

The biggest challenge is that this a a rather large project to do for every ruleset. The new layered ruleset system actually simplifies this a fair amount, but ruleset specific help overlays would still be needed (character sheets, NPC sheets, combat tracker, etc.)

So, this is on my list as well as more textual documentation (which is required for certain aspects, especially effects).

Once I get 5E and Steam integration spinning up, that may be my next project. Of course, I have to weigh that vs. improved networking, better matchmaking, image/map improvements and more.

Cheers,
JPG

[Carthar]

Give all full licences the ability to have one "spectator" at the table. There is no better tutorial than watching an expert apply his trade. Advertise games in session on the website and encourage people to drop in and watch.

Carth*

*new to FG, so this might already be there, in which case you should probably advertise it is.

[br0k30n3]

Give all full licences the ability to have one "spectator" at the table. There is no better tutorial than watching an expert apply his trade. Advertise games in session on the website and encourage people to drop in and watch.

Carth*

*new to FG, so this might already be there, in which case you should probably advertise it is.

I'm not sure how effective that would be unless the spectator could somehow share the GM and players screen( you could use team viewer) because everything is really at the end user side. It would not be like being at a real table where you would be able to watch everything happen in front of you. Because of the nature of the VTT your really not going to learn anything unless you do it.

[Blacky]

Where videos, tutorials and documentation really come into play is once people start looking at Fantasy Grounds - perhaps when someone has downloaded the demo and are feeling a little bit lost, or thinking of taking the plunge and want to get a better feel for it.
Which is a vicious circle. Because some people who bought or seriously looked at FG were stopped by the lack of ruleset, of quality ruleset, of features, or perception of those, and they talk. They write about it. They answer questions about online/remote roleplaying. And even if some of those criticisms or rants are fully or partially untrue or unjust, they stick around, for a long time.

Any thing done to improve these area have a lot of inertia.

But there's also a lot of justified criticisms. No serious documentation is one: try some Google search like you just bought FG a couple of days ago, you got things scattered around several forums, some technical incomplete things on the FG website, some things on Youtube or Vimeo, some things on the Wiki which is up or down or up or gone week to week, there's no central serious repository. And a lot, if not most answer found via Google are either obsolete, seriously truncated, or just plain wrong.

And I'm talking about the ~10% of the people who do speak English, the 90% other aren't simply there.


But, I'd like to see this done in conjunction with SmiteWorks. As I have mentioned on other threads the danger is that a couple of members of the community produce something really useful outside of the FG website and it is great for a couple of years but then those people move on or lose interest and it slowly dies, perhaps with the current community losing access to the resources available on that site.
Agreed. SmiteWorks need to guarantee some things. It could be as simple as a community. subdomain with liability waivers where SmiteWorks is officially just a technical hoster and nothing more. Setting this up with a Mediawiki should take about 10 minutes, let's say 30 with optimizations and various backup scripts and so on. Maybe some work to integrate it with the forum (auth & skin).

It could also be as simple as a new moderation policy, allowing moderators to edit Thread titles to improve clarity and future searches, split&merge threads more aggressively, and move threads when they don't belong in a specific subforum. After a decision is made, it takes the few minutes necessary to send a mail or a post with those new guidelines to the moderators.

And there's more things to be done that takes time but can be outsourced once a clear internal strategy is established. From In-software context help to commented/community dev documentation, from software localization to website & community i18n, from auto generated diff by releases to mailing list updates, and I'm sure there dozen more ideas around.

What we need if a synergy of will, time, and spark. SmiteWorks are the only ones who can do some things, or can decide if there's a will or not, but they can't do all by themselves and without slaving the community away (this is proprietary, we won't see the kind of personal investment that exists in open-source and libre softwares) having it respond with productions, comments, ideas, and small personal touches that add up (adding one line on one page of a wiki is a small thing, do that once a week with the other 50% active people and it does produce some work, and encourage more people to do the same). And if some things cost money to begin with, crowdfunding may work if done right with a lot of honesty and transparency.

Right now apart from some Kickstarters ideas, one KS project, and Steam greenlight, I don't remember (but I may be wrong) any thing coming from SmiteWorks.

I do believe things are needed (and like, 2 or 3 years ago). I do believe that the work done on 3.0 was great and needed if not very public/non-geek friendly; and is (was?) the perfect time to rethink some others things around it. But the orientation of said things, and the scope of it, can only be determined by SmiteWorks. We can explain what's the biggest priorities, and then give ideas/comments/help on their development and production, but no one personal initiative will work. With the added difficulty of the inertia I spoke earlier, knowing than even if for the next 300 days there's ton of work on much needed area, the reputation and perception of FG won't change much in those times, it can take months after that.

[damned]

What would be on peoples ideal list and priority list for this repository of goodness?

Mine would probably be (priority with *):

Basic GM Guide *
Basic Players Guide *
Advanced Features Guide
Community Ruleset Repository
Community Ruleset Guidelines
Extension Repository *
Video Library *
Programming Tutorials

[dulux-oz]

Hey Guys, for what its worth, I've probably got the resources to host AND maintain a/the Wiki (which I'll do for free) - but:

1) I'm not going to be the only Moderator, some of you will have to join me in that task,
2) The server is NOT mirrored, nor is the link, so I CAN NOT guarantee 100% uptime - 99%+ uptime (without the guarantee), but not 100%,
3) I'm sometimes away from the server for weeks at a time due to work, and even being able to VPN in this means that if something "Bad" happens it could be down for an extensive period of time
4) Other clarifications I haven't thought of - yet!

So, provided SW is cool with all that, AND we can come up with at least three Moderators (more if we multi-language) than I'm happy to go ahead - Mr. D, JPG?

[Mgrancey]

What are responsibilities for a Moderator in a Wiki?

[dulux-oz]

The same as a Moderator in a newsgroup, forum, etc - to keep an eye on the content, help to make sure its not being spammed or set up as a virus deposit, approve/disapprove controversial edits and posts, sanction users if required, etc, etc, etc.

As I see it, the Moderators and SW (as some sort of voting group) would have final say over accuracy of the material - somewhat similar to the way the Moderators of Wikipedia do things - so obviously the volunteer Moderators would need to be individuals who SW and a large part of the FG community trust.

Is that what you were asking? :)

Cheers

[Mgrancey]

Hmm. I'm not big on social media so I'm not sure I can say I would be interested in staying a moderator, but I would be willing to help with getting it setup. Creating use guides for players and GMs, creation of modules,

Might suggest for first couple of sections:

Basic Fantasy Grounds Use -- Covers universal icons, fields, PC preference options, functions, dice usage, and Character Import/Export.
Basic GM Fantasy Grounds Use -- Covers setting up Story Encounters (Basic Style and Formatting templates: Basic Text, Chat Frame, Links, Heading, List) Preferences, Characters, Images, NPCs and Encounters, Items and Tokens, Basic Combat Tracker use.
Advanced GM FG Use -- Tables, Modifiers, Effects, Exporting, Party Sheet, Calendar, Advanced Style templates: Table, Combat Tracker
_???? Rulesset_ Use -- Covers the specifics of of a Particular rules set, both PC and GM

[damned]

Hey Guys, for what its worth, I've probably got the resources to host AND maintain a/the Wiki (which I'll do for free) - but:

1) I'm not going to be the only Moderator, some of you will have to join me in that task,
2) The server is NOT mirrored, nor is the link, so I CAN NOT guarantee 100% uptime - 99%+ uptime (without the guarantee), but not 100%,
3) I'm sometimes away from the server for weeks at a time due to work, and even being able to VPN in this means that if something "Bad" happens it could be down for an extensive period of time
4) Other clarifications I haven't thought of - yet!

So, provided SW is cool with all that, AND we can come up with at least three Moderators (more if we multi-language) than I'm happy to go ahead - Mr. D, JPG?

Im only guessing - but if I were SW Id be happy to let people contribute content but I would want it on my own server/services so I retain full control of it...

[dulux-oz]

Mgrancey => That's a good list - I'm sure it'll come in handy.

As I understand it, the ability to add articles, edits, etc to a Wiki is open to those who register/get a user account. In this case any Moderators would be in addition to any Authors and their job would be to make sure the info is correct, etc, etc, etc. This shares the load around AND allows for SW (as Moderators themselves) to keep control.


Im only guessing - but if I were SW Id be happy to let people contribute content but I would want it on my own server/services so I retain full control of it...

I was under the impression that the existing Wiki was non-operational because of hosting issues (among others), hence my offer. Of course SW has to have control - never any doubt of that. But the boys are so busy (at least as far as I understand things) that they can't find the time to do a/the Wiki - again, hence my offer.

Explicitly, (again, as I see it) you would have the "lines of authority" (as such) as SW, then the Moderators, than Authors (ie registered users with an account), then everybody else - again, this is more or less how Wikipedia does things and I think its not a bad model.

Anyway, there's the offer. If SW want to take me up on it then great, if not, its no big deal. If we do go ahead and people want to be Moderators then that's great too - the boys from SW and the Moderators will have to "sit down" and have a chat about exactly how to run things, of course. And if people want to be Authors that's also great.

Cheers

[Moon Wizard]

I posted on this last year a bit. The challenge was that I wanted to have a hosted documentation solution that did not require 2 logins or separate maintenance. Sadly, after poking at this and trying solutions for the last year, I don't think anything is going to do what I wanted. I probably looked at a dozen, but they lacked single sign-on and/or ability to organize content easily into manuals/guides.

Documentation updates are next on my list after 3.0.3 (which I just pushed for test release) and 5E testing (which is in limited release, see 5E forum).

I was going to give the built-in vBulletin Articles system a go next to see if that was going to be a good long-term solution. If that doesn't fly, I'll probably just install MediaWiki (as Blacky has been pushing for ;)).

There are a few reasons why I feel MediaWiki is not the best. (Separate login, Limited ability to lockdown content editing rights to specific users, Limited formatting options, Manual organization of content) Some of this may go away as I dig in, but I want to try the built-in vBulletin articles first.

Regards,
JPG

[dulux-oz]

Kewl!

As I said, it was just an offer to host if resources were a problem (it still stands, btw) :)

Cheers

[Nickademus]

Kewl!

As I said, it was just an offer to host if resources were a problem (it still stands, btw) :)

Cheers

This is unacceptable. Not a single shameless plug for tutorials.

[dulux-oz]

This is unacceptable. Not a single shameless plug for tutorials.

You keep taking the p!ss and I WILL start spamming indiscriminately - up to now I've only mentioned the Videos in Threads & Posts that were relevant to learning, training or newbies asking questions that they could get the answers to by watching someone's videos - mine or whoever's. As mine are the most-up-to-date (that I know of) then it makes sense to steer people to those videos.

I'm deeply, deeply hurt! "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"

:p :)

[Moon Wizard]

Believe me, I appreciate the offer. However, I also want to make sure it has a home on the SmiteWorks website for long-term supportability.

It's quite a bit of work, but I'm hoping to set it up so that people can help me publish and update the documentation.

Regards,
JPG

[Blacky]

Hey Guys, for what its worth, I've probably got the resources to host AND maintain a/the Wiki (which I'll do for free)
I can do it too. Have been able to do it since I bought Fantasy Grounds in fact, plus a good record for uptime and durability (aka not going away in a year or two). The reason I didn't offer is that the community needs something strong, durable, but more importantly with the perception of said durability.

Meaning, SmiteWorks needs to host it, or at the very very least control the DNS entries.


I posted on this last year a bit. The challenge was that I wanted to have a hosted documentation solution that did not require 2 logins or separate maintenance.
Frankly, it's an issue, but not a blocking one in my opinion. I could live with a double auth.


Sadly, after poking at this and trying solutions for the last year, I don't think anything is going to do what I wanted. I probably looked at a dozen, but they lacked single sign-on and/or ability to organize content easily into manuals/guides.
Last time I looked (3 or 4 years back), there was nothing strong and simple out of the box. But per se with some coding skills, it's far from unmanageable. Most if not all decent software have an easy single entry point for auth, if not a full API.


I was going to give the built-in vBulletin Articles system a go next to see if that was going to be a good long-term solution. If that doesn't fly, I'll probably just install MediaWiki (as Blacky has been pushing for ;)).

There are a few reasons why I feel MediaWiki is not the best. (Separate login, Limited ability to lockdown content editing rights to specific users, Limited formatting options, Manual organization of content) Some of this may go away as I dig in, but I want to try the built-in vBulletin articles first.
;)
I'm not pushing Mediawiki per se, it's just that it's a strong software, robust, with serious development, and it ain't going nowhere. It will still be around and kicking in a lot of years (because Wikipedia rely on it). It's well known, powerful out of the box, with a lot of plugins if needed, is ready for i18n, etc. But frankly, anything that will do the job is fine.

Dokuwiki is another example of something that works nicely. It has a powerful yet simple API for external auth, with a lot of existing plugin. It lacks categories and templating which are needed in my opinion, but it's another example of something usable.

I'm very skeptical of vBulletin used in this fashion. It's proprietary. It's slower than, well almost anything else (apart from mammoths like Magento) both from the client and the server point of view, and I feel it lack some features.

If the goal is to have something with community input or user generated content, a single place to host everything, my feeling is that several key things are necessary:

revisions: It's a must have, because it protects the pages content from any errors or malevolence, because of that it helps people contribute because they don't feel like a mistake on their part will be the end of the world, because in short nothing is ever lost.
decent UI and data entry: whatever the format (text, images, files, etc.) putting something in it should be simple, powerful, and user friendly (the current vBulletin image hosting is absolutely not for example, even if some part of that is because of admin errors).
labels: of some sort (could be specific metadata, special taxonomy, namespaces, tags, whatever), with tools to go with it. Whatever it is, each resource should be labeled for a FG release (and if necessary a specific ruleset or extension or whatever). The current state of affairs is that one can easily apply some advice read here or there that's obsolete because it was written for let's say FG 1.x or earlier 2.x version. Just a few days ago on another forum I saw someone perceived as a FG specialist explain to a newbie that do write a ruleset he needed to hack away from the X ruleset, which was hacked away from an old D&D 3.5 ruleset. No mention of CoreRPG, no mention of ruleset layering. I like what the Dwarf Fortress community is doing in that area, each resource is labeled for a specific version, with the older one just one click away.
templates: having a specific structure to organize a specific type of content helps writing it, and is invaluable for readability. Especially important if this will host FG resources (ruleset, extensions, modules, etc.)
i18n ready: even if SmiteWorks decides that i18n/l10n aren't be pursued right now, they will be down the line at some point.
tag&categories: things needs to be organized, and browsable.
comments: some kind of tools or linking system to be able to question what's in a page, and getting answers without defacing the page. That's usually the weakest point of the various Wiki softwares.


As for the double auth issue, I do believe with a minimum amount of code a Mediawiki could be made to use the vBulletin auth. A few years back there was nothing working out of the box, but I had someone whip up something doing just that quite fast. If necessary I could try to dig up said code, even if I can't promise it will be clean one. There's also several Mediawiki extension for external auth that could be adapted by someone who knows a little PHP.

[Moon Wizard]

I looked into MediaWiki single sign-on to vBulletin last year, and the only add-on I found was abandonware for an old version of vBulletin. I don't really want to maintain, so I would just go double auth if I go this route. I agree on the MediaWiki durability.

I agree with your data points as well, but MediaWiki only really gives you decent data entry, tags/labels, i18n and comments. It doesn't really have templates per se, though we could create "examples"; the organization is completely manual (i.e. index managed as a separate content page); and the thing you didn't mention was the ability to lock down sections to specific subsets of users (which MediaWiki did not do well last time I looked, either public or limited to author).

Cheers,
JPG

[Blacky]

Mediawiki does templating: look here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infobox) for a basic explanation for example (basically parameters templates & transclusion).

For the double auth, it could be possible to open source it. I'm sure there's a lot of people who have exactly the same issue, open sourcing an extension could help with it maintenance.

You're right it doesn't do indexes and hierarchical taxonomy and things like that. As a wiki, it's much more free form. However I'm not sure it matters that much. Given that I suppose the current “documentation” is also done by hand, and the fact that unless you want it for something very narrow, very specific, plan to fill it by yourself you can't predict what will be put into it. A community effort grows organically, and can start from unexpected places (a graphic tutorial here, an xml control analysis there, a skin extension here, a beginner's LUA must read there, and so on).

But again, a lot of things depend on what you and SmiteWorlks want to achieve. A coding reference isn't the same as a user manual which is different from a community repository which is different from a resources repository which is different from… well you get the idea. This is also why I mentioned Mediawiki in the first place, or any wiki software it's the best tool to do a little bit of everything. If you have a specific game plan with specific needs, something else more specialized might be better for it.

As for access control; Mediawiki doesn't do it at all by choice, and won't do it at all. And the few extension that does, last time I checked do it horribly wrong (mostly because the software was designed against such a thing). Dokuwiki does it very well on the other hand. But I don't understand why such a thing would be needed

One requirement I forgot is that it needs to be written in decent html, meaning it should be search engine friendly. Having an integrated search with the vB forum is a plus, but even that can't compete with Google (especially since there's still a time delay in the search ;) .

[Moon Wizard]

The user control is to allow a small subset of people to own sections of content. For example, I would like Phantomwhale to own the official Savage Worlds manual, unless they choose to open it up to other contributors.

I'm a proponent of having a single official source for each topic/system. Then, people can add additional community pages to expand or suggest modifications. Then, one of the owners can incorporate into official content with a consistent presentation.

Basically, I prefer to have a set of "product managers" for each section of content, and an area where people can post anything as well.

Also, I'm concerned about spam or troll issues with an open wiki.

JPG

[Blacky]

It's a choice.

In my humble opinion, it's probably a mistake. It means you'll have to heavily rely on a lot of people if you want to cover a lot of ground. Some people consistently have time to do this, each week for several years. Most don't. And it's a whole process to note each and every bit of information that needs to be added. People will need to check if an interesting answer in the forums are added to the “site”, if the moderator doesn't forget or simply didn't realize it was important.

It also means there's less an incentive for the community, the regular Joe Gamer, to create content.

If there was an open wiki today, I would add that the frame bitmap are limited to 2048×2048px for example (since you didn't put it in the manual yourself ;) ). But tomorrow or next week, I'll probably forget this needs adding. And yet, since I'm no coder, I'll never have this type of moderator or special status for the coding/XML section of “the site” nor should I want one. Yes I could check if it's online (if the search works, if I have time, courage) and then do another search to find the moderators for this section than PM each one with this, than a few days later check again if it's online and if not ask again. But realistically, I'll probably never bother doing all that.

An author can't think about all the possible things. Hell you wrote FG2/3 and CoreRPG, and I'm sure some people do things with it you never thought of :)

In my opinion, it's all about the user experience. Every effort should be made to lower the bar for user generated content, for people, regular Joe Gamer to add pertinent data. Even a single line might helps (hell, the 2048 limitation would have saved me around 15 hours at that time). Badly formated data is better than no data (and I'm the typographic-layout über fascist :D ).

If for some reason it spins out of control, lowering the user experience of reading “the site”, that's another story. But imho, it should be as easy and as open as possible in the beginning.

As for spam, it's an issue for every thing nowadays. It's a point against a double auth, having integrated auth from vBulletin would help (it should be easy to create an automated user group after several posts and days, and limit “site” entries only for this group). On top of that, if a software is any decent you'll have several options and/or plugins to combat spam.

But as for anything, moderation is needed yes. If just for clean up, and such. But that's not a problem imho. Some people are Mediawiki (for example) specialists and can handle that while they can't do graphics or write XML coding pages or whatever.

But again, it all depends on what you want to achieve with “the site”.

PS: if you'll decide to go the control-everything-way, one software option is Wordpress. It's a very solid piece of software, very easy and powerful and robust, and there's a lot of tools and plugins to manage roles, ownership of articles&resources, and so on.

[Blacky]

As for access control; Mediawiki doesn't do it at all by choice, and won't do it at all.
To be precise, Mediawiki doesn't do full ACL. Meaning hiding pages, restricting reads, and such.

But it can protect page, meaning edition would be restricted (but yeah, out of the box there's no granularity about page protection).