Huge smile on my face

[DeadlySecret]

I updated FG and immediately after opening I see what you did there........ awh and the smile begins to grow on my face. Thank you for making life easier.

[DeadlySecret]

But then I frowned. Now I have to reorganize these back into categories.......

[Nylanfs]

The developer giveth, and the developer taketh away.

[ddavison]

Awesome. Let us know what your favorite new features are.

[DeadlySecret]

I like the extra buttons to the right (convenience is my favorite thing as a GM). It seems the organizing thing is less tedious than the previous design.

[Nickademus]

Awesome. Let us know what your favorite new features are.

I like that there is now a link button on the image window. Much easier for sharing links in the chat window (in case players want to hotbar them).

[GunnarGreybeard]

I really like almost all of the changes but I honestly have to say I hate the new minimum size width for maps/images. I run on small laptop so screenspace is important and now all my images are 2x the previous width and can't be made smaller. If there is a way to toggle off that extra identified entry box I would really appreciate knowing how.

[Niles]

I LOVE the manual die roll feature! However, I would have liked to have seen the ability for the DM to put in the roll that he wanted the player to have as opposed to the player putting in their own number. I see that the DM is able to manually input his own monster rolls, but it would have been cool for the window to have popped up on the DM's screen when the player makes a manual roll instead of the player's. This is NOT to control every roll by the DM that the players make however. My players battled Lolth recently and had a weapon that would have killed her on a 20. Do you think a 20 popped up in the two hour battle? Not once. I would have ended the epic battle much sooner if I could have manually put a 20 for the player wielding the weapon. That way, it ends much more cinematically, as opposed to "OK, you got her down to 0 h.p., she's dead."

Another advantage to the DM doing this is that if the DM puts the die roll in without the player knowing it, the players think that person really rolled the dice. The player can now roll a 20 when the DM allows it, but the player is in on it. Any way to allow the option for the DM to manually put in the die rolls of the player as the player roll the dice and make it come up what the DM wishes? Again, not to control player's rolls, but to end epic battles sooner and control story lines.

[Moon Wizard]

The purpose of the manual dice entry option was to support a better solution for using FG around a live gaming table, not to introduce the ability for GM fudging. While I did consider GM fudging of player dice, I ultimately decided against trying to build anything for a couple different reasons:

* There is no way to implement this feature without interrupting every roll that the players make. So, as long as this feature is on, after every die roll, a window would pop up for the GM with the current die result (also see next bullet), and the GM would have to approve or enter a new value, then return. In addition to a feature like this bringing the game to a snail's pace due to the interruptions for GM approval of every roll, it is blatantly obvious that the GM is fudging the dice. Neither is a hallmark of a good gaming experience.

* The FG client does not have control over the results of the dice rolled. It is a physics simulation that rolls a dice based on the vector provided by the mouse input used to roll (or a randomly generated one when pushing button to roll). Thus, we have no way of "inserting" a result into a dice roll.

Regards,
JPG

[Niles]

Thanks Moon Wizard for your reply. You reasons make sense but I would only use this to control the final outcome of a battle, for the killing blow so to speak, not to control every attack roll the players make. I don't really feel it's fudging if the GM is trying to make a more cinematic game experience for the players and that is how I would use this feature.

[Moon Wizard]

The problem isn't the concept, but the implementation. You still have to turn on the "GM fudging" for any roll you want to change, and the any roll "fudged" would be obvious that it was "being reviewed" by the GM. The only way I can see how to do to theoretically do this without significant delay would be to say ("on the next d20 roll by this player, make it a 20"), but then again, we have the same dice physics problems.

Regards,
JPG

[viresanimi]

I really like almost all of the changes but I honestly have to say I hate the new minimum size width for maps/images. I run on small laptop so screenspace is important and now all my images are 2x the previous width and can't be made smaller. If there is a way to toggle off that extra identified entry box I would really appreciate knowing how.


I brought it up in testing and even while they were streaming. As far as I understood it, the implementation was "as intended" but they would look at perhaps altering the minimum width later. With all the bugs that kept being reported and fixed, I assume that it got lost in the process since it worked. For sure, Moon Wizard has been busy for a long time, making sure that things worked. I can only guess that if enough people ask for it, they will reevaluate.

I for one would like the minimum width on images to go the way of the dodo.


Vires Animi

[Niles]

The problem isn't the concept, but the implementation. You still have to turn on the "GM fudging" for any roll you want to change, and the any roll "fudged" would be obvious that it was "being reviewed" by the GM. The only way I can see how to do to theoretically do this without significant delay would be to say ("on the next d20 roll by this player, make it a 20"), but then again, we have the same dice physics problems.

Regards,
JPG

Using the old manual die roll extension, I could call up the window to put the manual roll in, put the number I wanted before they rolled and if the player rolled in the tower, it would make the die roll come up that I, as the DM, wanted. It never would work if the rolls were dropped on the token. Then, it was instantaneous, with no delay. But of course, it only worked in the tower and then the player couldn't see the roll. If I could have that feature when they rolled on the monster token, I'd be golden because they could see the roll.

[Trenloe]

If I could have that feature when they rolled on the monster token, I'd be golden because they could see the roll.
As MW has said above, you can't change the 3D dice roll. If the players aren't rolling in the tower they'll see their dice result as the 3D dice land and then will wonder why their roll result has changed.

[Andraax]

If you have them roll in the tower, you can just say it was whatever you wanted. You don't have to actually change the value...

[Niles]

As MW has said above, you can't change the 3D dice roll. If the players aren't rolling in the tower they'll see their dice result as the 3D dice land and then will wonder why their roll result has changed.

But using the manual die roll extension, I COULD change the 3D dice roll, only because it was rolled in the tower, I was the only one that could see it. Whatever number I put in, it would come up on the 3D dice. But that was with the old extension, not the new.

[Niles]

True. Only I kind of wanted the players to see what I wanted the dice to say, so they think they really rolled it. Sorry, I replied without quote. This is in reply to Andraxx.

[Xydonus]

I'm gonna be honest, I'm not liking the changes done to the category system. I really do miss those tabs. They were simple and practical, quick and easy to use.

This just seems cumbersome, unnecessarily so. In the old system, I could have multiple tabs and create entries under those tabs for easy sorting. Now we have groups to do that with, but it is nowhere near as quick for accessing, or even creating.

It seems I can't create entries in groups which is odd. I can't say for example create a group called encounters, go to encounters and create an entry. If I do - the entry shows up not in that group, but in 'none'. I then have to click on none, click the entry, click on group encounters, and drag and drop the entry into encounters. Or create the entry in group 'None' then go to the new group and drag it there. Either way, I'm forced to do it via more windows now. If there's an improvement over organization I'm not seeing it.

[Trenloe]

But using the manual die roll extension, I COULD change the 3D dice roll, only because it was rolled in the tower, I was the only one that could see it. Whatever number I put in, it would come up on the 3D dice. But that was with the old extension, not the new.
It only changed what was printed in the chat window with that extension - it did not change the actual 3D dice roll. Unless I'm mistaken you asked above for the players to "see the roll" - i.e. the players aren't rolling in the tower they are rolling as normal and they see what number the 3D animated dice lands on. Yes, it's possible to change the result as reported in the text in the chat window, but you *can't* force the animated 3D dice to land on a specific number. This is what Moon Wizard and I have been trying to get across.

[Niles]

It only changed what was printed in the chat window with that extension - it did not change the actual 3D dice roll. Unless I'm mistaken you asked above for the players to "see the roll" - i.e. the players aren't rolling in the tower they are rolling as normal and they see what number the 3D animated dice lands on. Yes, it's possible to change the result as reported in the text in the chat window, but you *can't* force the animated 3D dice to land on a specific number. This is what Moon Wizard and I have been trying to get across.

Yeah, now that I think about it, I think you're right. It's what is printed in the chat window as the roll I wanted, not the 3D. Sorry, I misunderstood. However, there is an occasional glitch in FG where the printed text of what the die rolls and what the 3D die say are different. My group agreed we would always go with what the printed numbers say. So I can get around that. Anyway, with that said, I guess the best way for what I want to use it for, is just to let the player in on the fact that I want him or her to make a critical hit and have them input a 20, unbeknownst to the other players.

[Krimson]

The purpose of the manual dice entry option was to support a better solution for using FG around a live gaming table...

That's exactly what I wanted. To be able to take a laptop to a friend's place (who has no internet), hook it up to the big TV and run the pen and paper games we've been playing since the 80s. My one friend has some fancy brass dice he likes to use, and how can I say no to that?

The other thing I like is the Library button. I like that a lot.

[chadhill]

I just gotta say YOU GUYS ROCK!!!!

[Zacchaeus]

I'm gonna be honest, I'm not liking the changes done to the category system. I really do miss those tabs. They were simple and practical, quick and easy to use.

This just seems cumbersome, unnecessarily so. In the old system, I could have multiple tabs and create entries under those tabs for easy sorting. Now we have groups to do that with, but it is nowhere near as quick for accessing, or even creating.

It seems I can't create entries in groups which is odd. I can't say for example create a group called encounters, go to encounters and create an entry. If I do - the entry shows up not in that group, but in 'none'. I then have to click on none, click the entry, click on group encounters, and drag and drop the entry into encounters. Or create the entry in group 'None' then go to the new group and drag it there. Either way, I'm forced to do it via more windows now. If there's an improvement over organization I'm not seeing it.

It's more or less the same as before; I think it just takes a little bit of getting used to

First create your new Group; then make sure that you have selected 'All' before you begin creating whatever it is you are creating. Now create an encounter/story whatever by right clicking as usual and selecting Create New. Drag this from the creation window into the group you created. Create the next one, rinse, repeat.

[dulux-oz]

I'm gonna be honest, I'm not liking the changes done to the category system. I really do miss those tabs. They were simple and practical, quick and easy to use.

This just seems cumbersome, unnecessarily so. In the old system, I could have multiple tabs and create entries under those tabs for easy sorting. Now we have groups to do that with, but it is nowhere near as quick for accessing, or even creating

.... If there's an improvement over organization I'm not seeing it.

Truth be told, I feel the same way.

[Nickademus]

I'm gonna be honest, I'm not liking the changes done to the category system. I really do miss those tabs. They were simple and practical, quick and easy to use.

This just seems cumbersome, unnecessarily so. In the old system, I could have multiple tabs and create entries under those tabs for easy sorting. Now we have groups to do that with, but it is nowhere near as quick for accessing, or even creating.

It seems I can't create entries in groups which is odd. I can't say for example create a group called encounters, go to encounters and create an entry. If I do - the entry shows up not in that group, but in 'none'. I then have to click on none, click the entry, click on group encounters, and drag and drop the entry into encounters. Or create the entry in group 'None' then go to the new group and drag it there. Either way, I'm forced to do it via more windows now. If there's an improvement over organization I'm not seeing it.


Truth be told, I feel the same way.

Ditto.

[DeadlySecret]

So you guys preferred a more tedious method of organizing? That's absurd. Get used to what they offered you. It's actually a million times better. It took me a moment to say "nooooooooo" as I learned I had to resort things. But as I did I realize it's easier and makes more sense. Thank you developers for the changes, you made the GM's life more convenient for sure.

[Moon Wizard]

Believe me, we had many discussions about this internally. At the end of the day, we want to move to a folder-based organization method that allows nested folders. Unfortunately, tabs have many limitations (number limited by window size, no obvious way to edit name, doesn't make sense to nest, some quirky behaviors around "no group", and lack of a way to show "all groups").

For the majority of tasks that you will be performing with FG "during" a game as opposed to "prepping" for a game, these changes create a much faster and much more powerful system. Ultimately, this is where you want the most speed in your game, in order to make the game flow faster when you have players online.

We do recognize that there are a couple more steps for prepping material, and we're going to keep refining the interface to make things a little smoother for all scenarios.

Regards,
JPG

[JohnD]

So you guys preferred a more tedious method of organizing? That's absurd. Get used to what they offered you. It's actually a million times better. It took me a moment to say "nooooooooo" as I learned I had to resort things. But as I did I realize it's easier and makes more sense. Thank you developers for the changes, you made the GM's life more convenient for sure.

Sure but everyone has their own approach to using the software, so to make these definitive statements is a little over the top. Some of the discomfort is because of having to change what someone has "always done" but really the observations are valid since none of us DMs or sets up an adventure in exactly the same way I suspect.

[ddavison]

As you spend more time with it, please let us know what sort of changes can make it into a system that you might prefer over the old method. We will do our best to accommodate, while still working to improve the interface for current and future needs.

[DeadlySecret]

All I would suggest is the sorting window doesn't resize. So if I have a large list of folders I have to scroll down to see. Is it possible to make that window expand if needed/wanted?

[Moon Wizard]

Yeah, I wrestled with that. Originally, it was a full list with no dropdown, but it took up too much space when you were just playing.

I'm thinking of making the size of the group window percentage-based, so that it gets bigger as the list window gets longer.

Regards,
JPG

[LordEntrails]

Yeah, I wrestled with that. Originally, it was a full list with no dropdown, but it took up too much space when you were just playing.

I'm thinking of making the size of the group window percentage-based, so that it gets bigger as the list window gets longer.

Regards,
JPG
Or what about a Play and a Prep mode?Or the ability to "Unlock" kind of like the chat window?

[Moon Wizard]

Play and prep modes is an interesting idea. I think it crossed my mind at some point. But, as a GM, you still want to be able to access the list of groups when playing as well as when prepping, so you can switch between groups as a quick filter. So, that doesn't really save anything. Unlock is basically the same thing.

Basically, the groups is a navigation area when playing, and an organization tool for that navigation while prepping. That's why there is an edit mode button for the categories to toggle between those modes.

Regards,
JPG

[dulux-oz]

I suppose what I really miss (thinking about it) is the lack of colour. When we used the tabs the screen was way more colourful and pleasing to the eye, plus it was way faster to find the group I needed because I made sure I used consistent and contrasting colours on the Tabs.

How about putting back the Tabs as a "prefix" to the groups - then we'd have the best of both (of my) worlds?

Cheers

[ddavison]

I suppose what I really miss (thinking about it) is the lack of colour. When we used the tabs the screen was way more colourful and pleasing to the eye, plus it was way faster to find the group I needed because I made sure I used consistent and contrasting colours on the Tabs.

How about putting back the Tabs as a "prefix" to the groups - then we'd have the best of both (of my) worlds?

Cheers

Yes, John and I shared your sentiment about that. A little color goes a long way. I was also just thinking about something like that -- essentially, adding a badge or icon to a group somehow. It would serve no other purpose than adding some visual identity to the group.

[chadhill]

I suppose what I really miss (thinking about it) is the lack of colour. When we used the tabs the screen was way more colourful and pleasing to the eye, plus it was way faster to find the group I needed because I made sure I used consistent and contrasting colours on the Tabs.

How about putting back the Tabs as a "prefix" to the groups - then we'd have the best of both (of my) worlds?

Cheers

That would be great, not necessary, but convenient for those of us that are more visually mnemonic

[LordEntrails]

Play and prep modes is an interesting idea. I think it crossed my mind at some point. ...
I've mentioned it before *g* Never quite sure how it would be implemented, But I'll keep mentioning it once or twice a year and eventually the perfect use for something like that will come to your mind *G*.

[dulux-oz]

Yes, John and I shared your sentiment about that. A little color goes a long way. I was also just thinking about something like that -- essentially, adding a badge or icon to a group somehow. It would serve no other purpose than adding some visual identity to the group.

Well, if you & John could enable the badges with the same ability to change the colour and the icon like the old Tabs had, that'd be great.

Oh, and "Great minds think alike" - and then there's us! :p

And I can't resist: "Badges!? We don't need no stinking badges!" (Yes, we do!)

[Moon Wizard]

LordEntrails,
I do that all the time. Someone will mention something they want, but no good solution comes to mind. Then later, the idea will hang out and ideas will come (though not always directly relevant).

dulux-oz,
The color was probably the number one hesitation I had around changing, but the functionality gain by being able to change was quite significant. Also, there are a few other considerations (tabs create extra theming work; tabs create complexities in the database since every category needs to save tab icon, decal icon and name (vs. just a simple name) and FGU only has names right now; the tab color UI requires extra management and UI; when nesting folders (down the road), all of these things magnify)

That's not to say we won't consider it later, but for now, keeping things simple when making a change like this was needed.

Regards,
JPG

[Xydonus]

I suppose what I really miss (thinking about it) is the lack of colour. When we used the tabs the screen was way more colourful and pleasing to the eye, plus it was way faster to find the group I needed because I made sure I used consistent and contrasting colours on the Tabs.

How about putting back the Tabs as a "prefix" to the groups - then we'd have the best of both (of my) worlds?


This is what I miss the most, and why I'm finding it hard to use the current system. I'm sure in time the new interface will grow on me... Probably. What I loved about the tabs was that I could color code them and put a symbol that was appropriate for easy reference.

A Blue icon with books was my story tab. A red icon with books was where I kept my separate notes. A face on a red background were my encounter npcs. A yellow icon with 'coins' was my shopping index for the players. I found this method quick and efficient. I'm definitely going to miss the old system, no doubt about it.

I do look forward to any future non-detrimental changes (:P) that will make sorting and grouping easier for those like me who loved the tab system.