Somebody asking for FG v Roll20 experiences

[Nylanfs]

A person on enworld is asking for experiences with both

https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?464064-Roll20-or-Fantasy-Grounds.

[JohnD]

The ignorance/misinformation that is always foisted on FG by Roll20 users astounds me. It's like there's a secret section of blatantly wrong information people just spew deliberately, or people who like to present themselves as knowledgeable just plainly aren't.

[WhtZombie]

The ignorance/misinformation that is always foisted on FG by Roll20 users astounds me.
My thoughts exactly, I was going to post but that site is a pain to logon and find\post anything. Maybe I have not outgrown my ADD but I got bored waiting for it to come up so I closed it out. I have used Roll20, but dropped it for FG. Is one better than the other? EH, hard to say in a manner that applies to everyone. I will say FG's 5e win with WotC sealed the deal for me.

[Nickademus]

I just wish people would stop saying that Roll20 is free and FG is not. None of my players pay a dime for FG. (And I believe Roll20 has a lot of pay content as well.) Bias and perspective; if someone really wanted to know about FG they would be posting here.

[Mgrancey]

Well, I had to comment and did so, pretty sure my first post wasn't offensive but when I called the guy on "Super High", $44 initial, and $60 initial, as well as laughed at him I mighta offended him.

[Mgrancey]

You know, everybody says Roll20 is easy to learn, but I have wasted more time trying to figure it out then it took me to get the basics of FG down. Its commonly said that FG has a steep learning curve, but it didn't really the basics come quickly and mastering the advanced stuff of FG takes more time but doesn't anything take time to master. All the nice little extras aren't need to play they just make it easier.

There was one guy who said he'd switch if FG had dynamic lighting and all I could think is either he's being sarcastic (which I am no good at all in catching) or he is one shallow player.

[crb31]

There was a time not long ago where I would have stood on the Roll20 bandwagon...I still play a couple games there and I have 1 campaign there. The time it took to enter encounters was just not worth 'the savings' to me. I don't think someone can really understand that the ability to quickly set something up in 5e is worth it for me.
The people who o play with on roll20 like systems that haven't created a conversion to FG, yet. So for them, it's not worth it.

[damned]

According to Roll20s numbers
69% of games are D&D3/4/5/PF - they have rulesets on Fantasy Grounds.
20.5% of the next most popular games have rulesets on Fantasy Grounds

So I think that there is a lot of coverage of a lot of games here - of course only a handful have content available - and 5e, Pathfinder and Savage Worlds have the best content options.

[ddaley]

I am using FG for running a home campaign. I am mainly using it just to display maps and such to my players, even though we play mostly table top. I bought FG because of the support for 5e and the available 5e content. But, I have to say, it has been less useful for "at the table" games than I had hoped it would be. I hoped it would speed up game play by making it quicker and easier to find rules and content. But, I often find myself just grabbing the physical books, because it is faster to find things in the books.

FG might want to look at how Realm Works presents and links content. I also own Realm Works, and am hoping they get a license to host 5e content. One of my main complaints about FG is how quickly you end up with 10 windows open and either have to start closing, minimizing, organizing them. You almost need a 4k monitor just to use the interface.

We are about to be players in a campaign that will require VTT features (our DM will be remote). I was hoping to get him to use FG, since I already own it. However, price for him was the main motivator to use another tool. When you look at the DM needing the ultimate license plus the cost of the 5e content (which is ridiculous that the FG versions cost as much as the physical versions), it was just cost prohibitive for him. I was hoping that FG would have another sale over the 4th weekend so that I could buy a license for him... I don't want to pay full price for the ultimate edition and content either!

[xanstin]

Reading that thread on enworld reminds me why I don't normally read forums....lol I am not sure why people even post they have made up their mind. Everyone cites dynamic lighting left and right but thats not free! Its $4.99 a month, and that gets you zero automation like FG has, you have to make up a bunch of macros to come close.

[Nylanfs]

Yes, but if FG proponents don't talk about that then Roll20 only gets the attention.

[brautigan1]

As someone who migrated here from Roll20, all I can say is, "What a sigh of relief." I understand these misconceptions about Roll20 vs Fantasy grounds when it comes to cost, but I have a different take on it:

FG is actually WORTH the $$ I've spent on it. Heh, you could spend as little or as much as you like on either one, honestly. But a good hobby isn't usually free. RPGing is a hobby, and it's worth the little spurts of cash I throw into it for me. Thank god I'm not into trains like my father was, lol. Holy smokes...

Two words: DATA ENTRY.

Thank you, no thanks. I mean, hey, if you WANT to do some data entry and go that super-special extra mile, you sure can -- but in FG you don't have to. In Roll20, you pretty much have to, whether as a player or a DM. In 5e here on FG as a player, the most data entry you'll do is filling out a character sheet, and it's all just drag and drop, xD. Heck, that alone is worth $$. The way FG campaigns are organized is already a thing of beauty, really. Could it use improvements? Sure. But it's light years ahead of Roll20 in the useability department.

And I really just can't understand anyone who says Roll20 is prettier to look at. Real Estate? Yeah, like a asphalt, walmart parking lot, Roll20 has it.

FG, on the other hand, treats its real estate like a garden. Yup, it can get a little crowded. Not sure I'd enjoy DMing with a small, or even a single medium-sized screen. But if you're not DMing? Pfft, it's fine. If you ARE DMing, then, well,maybe it's an issue. Monitors are pretty cheap, and RPG's aren't just another "video game" that you should expect to just buy a disc and play through it. This is a hobby. If you're a serious hobbyist, you'll probably end up shelling out some cash. If you're a mild hobbyist, and weekend warrior or w/e, then you can expect yourself to invest less. All in all, though, it's a pretty cheap hobby. But it's not just "some game I paid too much for."

It's an underrated hobby, too. And in this digital age, it's cheaper than ever.

One more thing about the $$, and people saying FG is too much, paying as much as the physical copy, and all that. How much of that do you think is actually going to FG? I've seen the YouTube vids from Doug, and not to suggest he's a weekend panhandler or anything, but I don't get the impression that he's driving around in a Ferrari (yet -- keep at it, Doug). I'd bet my bottom dollar that the folks here at FG are being as fair with price as they can be, given who they're licencing from. These guys don't want to simply stagnate, they want to grow. That much seems pretty clear.

Have you played Magic Online (speaking of EXPENSIVE hobbies -- WoTC /cough/cough)?.

..."price for him was the main motivator to use another tool. When you look at the DM needing the ultimate license plus the cost of the 5e content"...


Pitch in? Why should he bear the brunt? Heck, that guy your talking about should probably be getting paid by the rest of you anyway, if he's any good, lol. Sorta kidding there... sorta not...

[damned]

I think its a great idea for players to subsidise their GMs. Many GMs dont need it but there are plenty who it would make a deal of difference to. Support your GMs :)

[X-baby longshot]

As mostly a player i have been on both systems. I think both systems are good, I like the game play on FG better, as an old pen and paper player i really enjoy the feel of the game in FG much more then roll20. Both systems have a calendar of sort and i would say that the roll20 Looking for group system is a bit more user friendly. Think i made a post about that along time ago... Any rate i chose FG over roll20 any day!

[Mgrancey]

Whelp. Latest post will probably set some people off.

[damned]

I dont think the last 2 posts are too helpful...
They are just as one eyed and one sided and flame inducing as what you are countering....
Just my 5c worth.

[X-baby longshot]

Perhaps I miss understood the point of the post to begin with, was this to encourage discussion of the differences between FG verse roll20 or just to complain about roll 20 posters their view on another form ? My post was not one sided. As I pointed out I have played both systems and prefer FG. I also pointed out a way that I believe that FG could be better, which would be by modifying its calendar to be a bit more user friendly. If the constructive criticism isn’t welcome then so be it, however if you’re not willing to hear ideas on how you can be better then you currently are, it won’t be long until someone develops a product that will out shine this one. Again I think FG is overall a better system in total, and would take a while to list all the reasons. I for one would like to see FG become more popular, successful and have an even larger community, in order to do that the developers will need to stay ahead of the competition, and other developers, but you can’t turn a blind eye to improvements that can be made to currently working systems, such as the calendar! Competitors will continue to attempt to break new barriers and to develop an edge on FG’s system. Just my 2 cents worth!

[damned]

X-baby longshot I was not referring to your post. The first post in this thread is a link to a post on Enworld. My comment was directed to the last 2 FG posters in there.

[X-baby longshot]

X-baby longshot I was not referring to your post. The first post in this thread is a link to a post on Enworld. My comment was directed to the last 2 FG posters in there.

Well shoots! I was dead certain you were talking about my post and Mordancy’s.... Not sure what to say now other then oops!

[seycyrus]

Well shoots! I was dead certain you were talking about my post ...

Nah, he was referring to my post. A post which didn't add anything to the conversation except draw attention to the bs that is being promulgated by the roll20 crowd. Intentional deception at the best.

Sometimes, you have to run it up on the flagpole and point it out. Otherwise folks are just going to accept what they read as fact.

And for those who are propagating the bs, its a warning shot over the bow that a reconsideration of their present course might be wise.

[dulux-oz]

Well shoots! I was dead certain you were talking about my post and Mordancy’s.... Not sure what to say now other then oops!

Actually, don't feel too bad - I thought he was referring to yours and Mordancy's post as well :)

[Valarian]

Not having an EnWorld account, I'm not diving in to the debate there. However, there's a couple of things that would be nice to point out.

Firstly, once a ruleset is built in Fantasy Grounds, you can create as many campaigns with the same level of features as you like. With Roll20, unless you're a mentor level subscriber with access to the campaign duplication function, you have to start from scratch with all the macros each time. That feature alone in FG saves a lot of time when starting a new campaign.

The voice chat in Roll20, heralded as a built-in feature, isn't really a built-in feature. Roll20 uses embedded Google+ Hangouts as their voice chat feature. A Fantasy Grounds user can also go and use Google+ Hangouts to handle their voice chat, with only a little additional effort over the Roll20 offering. Using Hangouts directly would avoid the interfacing issues (dropouts) mentioned in the thread.

Oh, I was also a backer of Roll20 as it had potential. Unfortunately the developers seemed to fall in to the trap of maps, maps, maps. I like that Fantasy Grounds has the focus on the characters, NPCs and campaign functionality. The maps are incidental to everything else in my mind, and come last in the list of features I find important in a VTT. I have yet to try the character sheets in Roll20 but, again, I have a feeling that they aren't available unless you subscribe. As a backer, I count as a free player who doesn't get the adverts and I have some content available (maps and tokens). I keep trying new VTT offerings (e.g. Roll20, iTableTop, Tabletop Connect), but none of them have yet enticed me away from Fantasy Grounds.

[Nylanfs]

I copied it over for you Val. :)

[kylania]

I have yet to try the character sheets in Roll20 but, again, I have a feeling that they aren't available unless you subscribe.

I'm in a game of 5E over on Roll20 and I enjoyed the character sheet there. It's community based and frequently updated, so maybe we have that since our DM had paid for a year. However I showed my girlfriend Fantasy Grounds last night and within seconds she commented on how much nicer and easier to understand the Fantasy Grounds character sheet was for her. It didn't overwhelm her as the other sheet did.

One thing I miss from the Roll20 Character sheet is messages while rolling attacks. There's a field where you can type in something and it gets displayed as you roll. We had a lot of fun with this last game.

https://i.imgur.com/rFxauEQ.jpg

[Trenloe]

One thing I miss from the Roll20 Character sheet is messages while rolling attacks. There's a field where you can type in something and it gets displayed as you roll. We had a lot of fun with this last game.
You can pretty much do this by using the "Emote" chat (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Chat_Window#Chat_Modes) just before you roll the attack. OK, these aren't directly linked to the specific weapon. But you could drag a select few to the hotkey slots or use the Chatnomicon extension (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?24991-Chatnomicon-Chat-Extension) to have your favourites ready to go.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39085830/Screenshots/Fantasy%20Grounds/Attack%20emote.jpg

The text I entered in the chat window (and dragged to the hot key) was: /emote silently swings his sap at the back of the guard's head

[Nickademus]

One thing I miss from the Roll20 Character sheet is messages while rolling attacks. There's a field where you can type in something and it gets displayed as you roll. We had a lot of fun with this last game.

Another method from the one Trenloe mentioned that you can do this is to use a text-made modifier for the roll. Type '/mod 0 <message>' and FG will add a +0 bonus to the roll (not changing the roll of course) and will display the 'reason' for the modifier, which is the message you typed. You can also use this for normal modifiers with reasons/messages.

For instance:
/mod 0 to teach Pud who's boss
/mod -4 firing into melee
/mod 8 because I'm better than you

[Griogre]

Nice tip Nickademus.

[leozelig]

I used the Roll20 char sheet for my 5E wizard, and I thought it induced serious sensory overload, like a very dense spreadsheet. My sheet also lags every time I change tabs, which is highly annoying to me.

My groups use a separate Google hangout for voice chat, no different than you could for Fantasy Grounds. Most importantly, the FG community is much more conducive for finding a game, at least in my experience.

[Xorn]

Anytime I see the FG vs Roll20 thread (on any forum) I stick to three talking points, usually in this order:

1. Free Roll20 does not compare to $10/month FG (or just buying a license).

2. You do not need to to make a single library module to have a great FG experience. Including library modules in a comparison to Roll20 is no longer in the same ballpark; it's not even the same sport.

3. As a player, I prefer FG over Roll20, but it's not a deal-breaker. As a DM, the Combat Tracker alone makes FG a necessity--add in the campaign building tools and it's game over. (Actually game start!)

I've always firmly believed that you should target DMs for the perks of FG, because in 31 years of playing RPGs I've met very few players willing to spend money on the game.

[dulux-oz]

Anytime I see the FG vs Roll20 thread (on any forum) I stick to three talking points, usually in this order:

1. Free Roll20 does not compare to $10/month FG (or just buying a license).

2. You do not need to to make a single library module to have a great FG experience. Including library modules in a comparison to Roll20 is no longer in the same ballpark; it's not even the same sport.

3. As a player, I prefer FG over Roll20, but it's not a deal-breaker. As a DM, the Combat Tracker alone makes FG a necessity--add in the campaign building tools and it's game over. (Actually game start!)

I've always firmly believed that you should target DMs for the perks of FG, because in 31 years of playing RPGs I've met very few players willing to spend money on the game.

Excellent talking points - I'll be using these myself from now on - thank you.

[GunnarGreybeard]

I've always firmly believed that you should target DMs for the perks of FG, because in 31 years of playing RPGs I've met very few players willing to spend money on the game.
My thoughts exactly!

[JohnD]

Bingo.

[Blacky]

I've always firmly believed that you should target DMs for the perks of FG, because in 31 years of playing RPGs I've met very few players willing to spend money on the game.
You need better players :)

I never had any issues finding players willing to pay up, neither have several GM around me. That include experienced player, new players, and/or players new to VTT.

But we do play in long campaigns (several real life years). People won't pay for a oneshot of course.

[Xorn]

@Blacky:

31 years. There's a lot of players in there. My current group, we started as a face-to-face game. At Session 0, we discussed the campaign (I met three of them for the first time) and we passed around a pair of PHBs at the time. After the second session, every player had a PHB at the table--three of them bought their book at the game shop we played at that day. When the MM came out, half of them bought it, and when the DMG came out, two (both interested in DMing) bought it. Half of them bought spell cards, kickstarter dice, etc.

Around session 6 or 7, I started using FG on a laptop hooked to a bigscreen (https://imgur.com/a/dqN0S#0) to put the party window, combat tracker, and some maps up. I got a new job 1300 miles away in Montana, and we decided to keep the campaign going over Fantasy Grounds.

Every single player said they were going to buy a full license, before I told them I had an Ultimate License and they didn't need to. Actually, one of them actually bought their own Ultimate License, for face-to-face play, and optionally running an online game later.

So yes, there are exceptions. But in 31 years, they were most definitely the exception.

When I asked them about Fantasy Grounds though, they didn't actually care about which VTT we used, as long as the campaign kept going.

Which is the point I think I'm driving at--players will follow their DM--so I think the DM is who VTTs (any of them) should be marketing to.

[Blacky]

So yes, there are exceptions. But in 31 years, they were most definitely the exception.
In 31 years of VTT experience? :o


Which is the point I think I'm driving at--players will follow their DM--so I think the DM is who VTTs (any of them) should be marketing to.
Sure. 99% of the table I saw or heard about, it was the GM who chose which software to use. And that makes sense, FG doesn't offer the same experience if you play D&D or Eclipse Phase :rolleyes:

[Xorn]

Nah, about 17 years of playing over a VTT of one form or another.

[ll00ll00ll00ll]

Unwisely picking at this scab. With roll20 bringing in actual 5E licensed modules, has anyone had a chance to use any of it? I'm wondering how it compares to the FG content. I have some players in my group that are eyeballing it. I'd love to have some first hand accounts of how well it works. My first big argument against using it is the lack of the PHB in favor of the SRD... or do I misunderstand? Full disclosure, I'm invested in / biased towards the FG ecosystem, owning all of the 5e content I definitely have a horse in the fight, but I am truly interested if roll20 has somehow managed to approach parity with FG.

Also, personally I find the dynamic lighting to be a distraction, I understand it adds a layer of flash to the game, but what I really appreciate about FG is the fact that it pretty closely duplicates the feel of actual table top play, and revealing the maps to the players room by room seems a bit more "realistic" to me.

Warning: Rant / Digression (On the point of dynamic lighting, I think roll20 gets it totally wrong, and FG is heading in the same direction. The way it totally "blacks out" areas that are behind obstacles to me is too stark. It looks really great in video demos where the tokens are running all around the map, but how often does that happen "in-game"? If I had to design it I would make it control line-of-sight visibility of NPC's / traps / items, etc., leaving the floor visible, or slightly darker, instead of turning that area completely black. After all, it's fair to assume that the floor behind that column is still the same slimy stone floor as everything else. In fact, when a character goes behind a rock to inspect, while the character is there, the area is illuminated, but when returning to the other side of the rock, that area is now plunged back into darkness. If there was a way to do this like most video games handle it, it would be better, i.e.: once I've been to an area, that section is now revealed to me always, with the exception of showing hidden NPCs. Without that, the players generally don't get a great sense of where they've been on a map. I realize this would make it difficult to achieve with multiple players, but jeez... we're using computers that could easily handle the task. Perhaps FG should start a Kickstarter to fund certain development tasks... man, I'm way off the rails at this point, there's probably way more to this than my pea-brain comprehends.)

Anyways, if you're still with me, any first hand impressions of the roll20 system with the 5E licensed content vs. the FG content would be greatly appreciated.

[SirGraystone]

Another point that made me like FG better then Roll20 as a DM is having all your data on your computer instead of on the cloud.

[ddaley]

This (along with the subscription based model) is why I'll never use Roll20.


Another point that made me like FG better then Roll20 as a DM is having all your data on your computer instead of on the cloud.

[Full Bleed]

Warning: Rant / Digression (On the point of dynamic lighting, I think roll20 gets it totally wrong, and FG is heading in the same direction. The way it totally "blacks out" areas that are behind obstacles to me is too stark.
I actually don't think FG is "heading in the same direction" you're talking about. It looks like they're doing it more similar to how Maptool does it... which is to say that when something is not in Line of Sight it's shaded darker but not automatically rendered black. In MT, the unseen areas of "exposed FoW" is often called "soft fog"... indicating a memory of the exposed area without being able to see if there are new objects in the area if it's out of sight. In this regard I think MT has it right and, given what I'm seeing of FGU, I think they're going to get it right, too.

Check out their LoS previews:

https://youtu.be/do9BR7aJcLs?list=PL3h0dIaiayC-1EJwDrsKAny-6Bq4psnHO
https://youtu.be/qVppbivpWS0?list=PL3h0dIaiayC-1EJwDrsKAny-6Bq4psnHO

[ddaley]

That looks great... is there any update on a target release date for the unity version?


I actually don't think FG is "heading in the same direction" you're talking about. It looks like they're doing it more similar to how Maptool does it... which is to say that when something is not in Line of Sight it's shaded darker but not automatically rendered black. In MT, the unseen areas of "exposed FoW" is often called "soft fog"... indicating a memory of the exposed area without being able to see if there are new objects in the area if it's out of sight. In this regard I think MT has it right and, given what I'm seeing of FGU, I think they're going to get it right, too.

Check out their LoS previews:

https://youtu.be/do9BR7aJcLs?list=PL3h0dIaiayC-1EJwDrsKAny-6Bq4psnHO
https://youtu.be/qVppbivpWS0?list=PL3h0dIaiayC-1EJwDrsKAny-6Bq4psnHO

[celestian]

A person on enworld is asking for experiences with both

https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?464064-Roll20-or-Fantasy-Grounds.

Just point them to Digital Dungeon Master's vids. He did a comparison and a TON of tutorials.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb-d3Zcznj4&index=1&list=PLbGJZXIMxtFUQPTgiaz0iFhtVpCHrTN9z&t=2s

[celestian]

The voice chat in Roll20, heralded as a built-in feature, isn't really a built-in feature. Roll20 uses embedded Google+ Hangouts as their voice chat feature. A Fantasy Grounds user can also go and use Google+ Hangouts to handle their voice chat, with only a little additional effort over the Roll20 offering. Using Hangouts directly would avoid the interfacing issues (dropouts) mentioned in the thread.


Not entirely true. Roll20 also can use WebRTC which allows you to have voice/video w/o g+ hangouts.

Personally I find voice/video a un-needed part of my VTT. With discord and tons of other options I think it's best to let the VTT focus on VTT things and let the voice/video guys focus on that.

[ll00ll00ll00ll]

I actually don't think FG is "heading in the same direction" you're talking about. It looks like they're doing it more similar to how Maptool does it... which is to say that when something is not in Line of Sight it's shaded darker but not automatically rendered black. In MT, the unseen areas of "exposed FoW" is often called "soft fog"... indicating a memory of the exposed area without being able to see if there are new objects in the area if it's out of sight. In this regard I think MT has it right and, given what I'm seeing of FGU, I think they're going to get it right, too.

Check out their LoS previews:

https://youtu.be/do9BR7aJcLs?list=PL3h0dIaiayC-1EJwDrsKAny-6Bq4psnHO
https://youtu.be/qVppbivpWS0?list=PL3h0dIaiayC-1EJwDrsKAny-6Bq4psnHO


Yeah, I see what you're talking about. It's definitely better than how roll20 does it. I trust FG to do a good job with it, everything else they've done is great.

Still looking for opinions on the actual licensed content comparisons if anyone has experience with both.

[Full Bleed]

That looks great... is there any update on a target release date for the unity version?
No. But I've heard they cut Carl's time in the yard down to 30 minutes a day... and only 8 hours of Easy Street (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDnva_3fcTc)...