Fantasy Grounds Misinformation

[Bidmaron]

I don't own any encrypted modules because I am not a 5e guy (I don't ever see myself returning to the wotc fold after their 4e betrayal).

There is some misinformation being put out about Fantasy Grounds over at Lone Wolf on their Realm Works forums. A very notable figure says this:


A key thing that Realm Works will allow beyond a product like Fantasy Grounds is for users to seamlessly weave separate pieces of published material together into a unified whole. They can integrate content from multiple different publishers (and game systems) together in whatever way they like. They can customize it to their heart's content. They can extend it, strip out portions, change things around, and ultimately weave it in with their own material to yield a campaign world that exactly fits their personal vision. That's the Holy Grail for every GM that I've ever known, and that's what Realm Works is finally turning into reality.

As far as I know, the only thing you cannot do with an encrypted module is drag images to the images list window. Every other thing in the module you can copy and edit and your edits willl then override the module material, right?

I just want to set the record straight over there. I use both RW and FG, and they are both awesome for what they do, but I don't like it when people who should not be put out bad information. In this case it is ignorance of FG, but it is still passed off as fact.

The whole post implies that In Fabtasy Grounds you are stuck with what the publisher puts out. Can anyone who owns encrypted material confirm what I believe above do I can set the record straight over there?

[Nylanfs]

I think the key word there is "game systems" it's very difficult to use the 5e stuff with other systems.

[GunnarGreybeard]

Wouldn't that be comparing apples and oranges? Realm Works is not a VTT, as far as I am aware, it's a campaign management system.

[Nickademus]

An asset from the encrypted modules, except images, can be drug to the campaign-specific list to create a copy of the asset. After version 3.2.2 goes live, most of the assets (such as classes and races) can also be exported to custom modules, allowing the mixing and matching of content.

As for the merging of game systems, this isn't really possible with anything. They might be referring to having the data of multiple systems viewable in a single list, but that's not really a big things. I doubt RW is going to auto-convert material from one system to another as you pull it into a univeral list. Like Gunnar said, Fantasy Grounds isn't designed to view lists of material, so not being able to pull reference data from a module of a different rule system isn't something you'd expect to happen.

[Myrdin Potter]

I can weave in things from other game systems no problem with FG. Now, I need to covert them to play within the 5e rules, but I can enter my own content. Using in game tools only I have entered several large PDFs, it goes quickly once you get the hang of things.

If you unlock story entries you can easily cut and paste as well.

For purchased materials that are encrypted, you cannot change the ruleset in the master file, but you can use it. Within a ruleset, it is easy to meld materials, between notes and typing over the existing materials. I am running a campaign melding PotA and SKT right now.

[Nickademus]

I think what RW is implying is that you can't be in, for example, a 5e campaign and open a SW module, clicking on an asset and having a reference window appear that displays the asset information. Even if you change the ruleset type of the SW module, FG would probably throw an error when you tried to open the reference material as the 5e ruleset doesn't know the windowclass to display or what to do with some of the elements of the SW asset.

To a very small degree I can see the usefulness and flexibility of being able to view reference material of any ruleset in any campaign, but I don't think that feature is needed in FG.

[Bidmaron]

This is the actual link (https://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=57426&page=2) to discussion over there.

I just don't want Fantasy Grounds mischaracterized like it currently is.

[LordEntrails]

daplunk in post #7 of that thread (https://forums.wolflair.com/showpost.php?p=241536&postcount=7) does a fair job of explaining how RW is not a VTT and what a VTT does. Though he only uses a VTT (Maptools) in a very limited sense. What you quote from the user Rob later in that thread is NOT blatantly wrong when taken in context, but it is written from a specific point of view with connotations that he assumes without clarifying. From his point of view, and in the way he means (which he doesn't specify), I sure he sees what he's saying as true, and it probably is. At best/worst, it's easy to misconstrue what what he means.

After reading it several times, I 'm still not sure what the OP wanted to ask or discuss, but I think jumping in with a defense of FG would be off-topic and less than helpful. HL, RW, and FG all have overlapping capabilities, yet none do everything the others do. i.e. each has their place if you want what they do best.

If I wanted a character manager, I would use HL. But I don't. FG creates my (5E) characters with sufficient ease and I don't feel I need nor do I want to manage the characters outside of FG. FG does it well enough for my needs, but not as well as HL can do it.

If I wanted a place for world building and campaign story sharing and tracking, I would look at RW (and Obsidian Portal). But, I don't. I've done that in html a long time ago and its' fun, but not a need or interest of mine currently.

Now, if all the products worked seamlessly together, or their was one product that did everything, that would be great for the community. But, there are many challenges to integration or a do everything application.

[Bidmaron]

That user owns lone wolf. He implies that RW is the only tool that lets you customize modules. That is not true since FG let's you do it

[LordEntrails]

That user owns lone wolf. He implies that RW is the only tool that lets you customize modules. That is not true since FG let's you do it
Yes, sort of. But define "customize modules"? In FG, if I purchase LMoP, I can not import the maps into a Savage Worlds campaign without taking a screenshot or breaking the module encryption. Also, I can't take an encrypted FG module and modify the story entries or add maps to it without making a second module that is dependent on the first.
So, from those perspectives, you can't customize a module.

We, all know that I can take assets from one module and get them into another one, but, often not with a drag and drop interface. So, again, it's about perspective and connotation/word definition.

What I would suggest is to focus on educating others what FG can do, and what it does well. Recognize what each solution does best.

[Bidmaron]

It is my belief you can share the encrypted images but they do not show up in your hard drive image folder. Another thread I cannot locate said as much.

I really believe I have to clarify that you can tailor a module for your own use. How you do that is too much detail. Right now RW users reading that would have to believe that in FG you are stuck with the published module and there is nothing you can do about it.

By the way, what RW does when you translate a 'realm' from one ruleset to another is change the presentation and organization. So if one ruleset has an 'ecology' section for monsters and another doesn't your material is presented accordingly

[damned]

realmworks sell licensed products also
can they share, update, modify, open those in another system?
do they have any major publishers onboard who would restrict them from doing such things?

[Bidmaron]

damned, RW can export to xml which can then be xslt'd to whatever format you want (e.g. convert to FG xml!). You cannot export purchased content other than to back it up. In RW, you can modify copyrighted content. You can backup and copy your realms.

[Lonewolf]

Nope I just don't get the whole point of the thread. It really is trying to describe an orange by talking about apples. I have both software packages running side by side. They do completely different things.

FG runs games as VTT. It does all the in game dice rolling and book keeping.
Whilst RW is just a library of hyperlinked documents. Which is way faster to read that any source book out there due excellent cross referencing.

[damned]

damned, RW can export to xml which can then be xslt'd to whatever format you want (e.g. convert to FG xml!). You cannot export purchased content other than to back it up. In RW, you can modify copyrighted content. You can backup and copy your realms.

Sounds pretty similar to FG?
I backed realmworks and have/had 15 months membership as part of KS rewards.
I asked for it not to start *yet* as I was too busy at the time. Never got a response. Asked a couple of times.
I havent been back...

[Bidmaron]

Nope I just don't get the whole point of the thread. It really is trying to describe an orange by talking about apples. I have both software packages running side by side. They do completely different things.

FG runs games as VTT. It does all the in game dice rolling and book keeping.
Whilst RW is just a library of hyperlinked documents. Which is way faster to read that any source book out there due excellent cross referencing.

Lonewolf, there are folks there who don't need a VTT because they do face-to-face games (or so they think). And they are being misinformed that only RW will let you edit a module, and it simply isn't true. On FG, while it is true you cannot edit an encrypted module directly, you can override in the campaign and edit anything you want (well, not images, which cannot be edited in FG anyway).

And I THINK (I wish someone would confirm who has encrypted module) you can share encrypted images, but they don't show up in your images folder.

[Bidmaron]

damned, the promised content for ks backers still hasn't been delivered due to software development delays. It is a sore subject over there. The ks content should be available soon however, as the main thing holding it up was the content market, which is almost there now. The import/export had to come first.

It's worth a second look, damned. As a campaign encyclopedia, it is really the best thing out there. Obsidian Portal pales in comparison. (like not in the same universe).

[LordEntrails]

...
And I THINK (I wish someone would confirm who has encrypted module) you can share encrypted images, but they don't show up in your images folder.
A GM can share an encrypted image with one or more players just like a story entry or anything else. Can't export the image (have to screen grab it).

[ddavison]

I'm not sure how much it is worth posting stuff about FG on someone else's forums where they can be viewed as being in competition with each other in some capacity.

For encrypted modules in FG, you can unlock the story entries, make your own updates or edits, add in custom maps, move things around, change encounters, etc. with ease and then run that version in your campaign. The original module is unchanged, but you are now running your modified version. The stuff you can't do is gain access outside of Fantasy Grounds to the content, maps or images. You couldn't take a map, put it in photoshop, edit it and then use that version in place of the old one without doing a screenshot type approach or recolor all the tokens. There are plenty of cases where people add their own custom maps though. Similarly, the "locked down" portion prevents you from being able to export out your modified version for distribution to others.

You can weave stuff from multiple publishers that are all individually encrypted and add in your own homebrew stuff at the same time. Most things that are meant for use across game systems are set up to allow them to be used in all the different game systems. There are some limitations with combining stuff from distinctly different game systems because Fantasy Grounds knows what the data should look like for each of those systems. What does a Star Wars Saga NPC need to be in a D&D game? That wouldn't make sense. Similarly, spells in Pathfinder and D&D 5E are similar but they shouldn't really be swapped between systems. 3.5E and PFRPG *are* marked as compatible and the data can flow between these two. If you are an advanced user and you really want to copy just a map or an image from disparate systems, you could modify the ruleset definition to allow in other sources. Opening something like an NPC in the wrong system would generate an error message (rightly so) but you could essentially use stories and images from one system to another. I've never really done that or had much need to do it, but it could be done if you were porting stuff from one system to another.

Rob and I were on a panel at Gen Con last year and he mentioned wanting to build out RealmWorks to combine stuff like that as a sort of holy grail of RPG software for everyone and I spoke publicly that we have basically had that functionality for many years now. I just don't think he is familiar with Fantasy Grounds' capabilities beyond what others tell him.

[damned]

damned, the promised content for ks backers still hasn't been delivered due to software development delays. It is a sore subject over there. The ks content should be available soon however, as the main thing holding it up was the content market, which is almost there now. The import/export had to come first.

It's worth a second look, damned. As a campaign encyclopedia, it is really the best thing out there. Obsidian Portal pales in comparison. (like not in the same universe).

It well might be worth a second look but they already have my money and Im not giving them more right now.
TBH I dont have the time to spend on another product or eco-system.

So in regards to the KS content, when it finally does become available you will *have* to spend more on the product to use it as your KS purchased time has all elapsed? Sounds like a good deal for someone...

[Bidmaron]

I'm not sure how much it is worth posting stuff about FG on someone else's forums where they can be viewed as being in competition with each other in some capacity.


OK. I guess I'll just let it stand then. I didn't want to post until what I believed to be the case with encrypted content I got confirmed, which you just did. But I guess I won't reply unless there is a more blatant mischaracterization.

[Zhern]

TBH I dont have the time to spend on another product or eco-system. This is the biggest reason my RealmWorks goes unused at the moment. At some point, I want to use it to organize a ton of stuff, link it together and so on, but I have no idea when I will have time to do that. In the meantime, OneNote will have to suffice.

[Topdecker]

Realm Works is trying to be the app that GMs would use when they run their in-person table top game. It has zero VTT or real time features. I am not even sure why they would compare themselves to FG since the goal of FG is to provide VTT functionality.

[Lonewolf]

Lonewolf, there are folks there who don't need a VTT because they do face-to-face games (or so they think). And they are being misinformed that only RW will let you edit a module, and it simply isn't true. On FG, while it is true you cannot edit an encrypted module directly, you can override in the campaign and edit anything you want (well, not images, which cannot be edited in FG anyway).

And I THINK (I wish someone would confirm who has encrypted module) you can share encrypted images, but they don't show up in your images folder.The thing that perhaps influencing my thoughts here. Is most of my stuff is not encrypted at all. I know that because a lot of my modules where home made. Straight from the PDF files. So how things are encrypted does really matter so much to me. Beyond that when looking at the claims of how player content is shared. The RW concept is different and the new methods used will be better that how FG currently does it. Although this a comparison is still ultimately flawed from the start because there in separate product categories.

I really still don't think this is deception to say RW does something better that FG. As much as it just difficult to get the big idea behind the software across. To an audience that just never seen it before. RW is still not a VTT so any direct comparison is irrelevant. If people do not want or need a VTT then comparing RW to one just confuses people i think. Rather that a deliberate attempt to mislead it is more an attempt to sell the benefits of a product. That a lot of people simply can't comprehend because they don't see purpose behind it.

I can appreciate how difficult it is to market a revolutionary idea. This is because I when through the same routine about 15 years ago with early role playing software development. People played all together tables and the concept of even basic computer bookkeeping was just too difficult for people to grasp. They would argue that a role playing game and a computer game are different. Simply because they had never seen a VTT and where trying to think about in terms of general video games. The general consensus was that best anyone could do was program a character generator. Now a few years on we have several VTTs to choose from.


Realm Works is trying to be the app that GMs would use when they run their in-person table top game. It has zero VTT or real time features. I am not even sure why they would compare themselves to FG since the goal of FG is to provide VTT functionality.Agreed it is not a VTT. It is also not a character generator like Hero Lab. So the problem is how they identify the product and sell it. Really what they have to do is identify the problem that the product is going to fix.

RW is aimed at a completely different problem in role playing that a VTT. It does not play the game at all like a VTT. It does however bring a more comprehensive management information system (MIS). Book layout in the hobby has improved but it is nothing compared to a full hyperlinked text. In terms of searching and linking diverse campaign points into a narrative thread. To the point where the "player campaign guide" starts off completely blank and appears as characters discover it through play. The real target is to get customers out a service like https://www.obsidianportal.com/ and not replace any VTT software.

Another one of the features is it can display monster and character stats on the fly during play. Think about the difficulty in promoting that aspect...... display and not generate. Actual generation is what people are supposed to use Hero Lab for. Yet there still people out there that want that information displayed at a more appropriate point in the campaign notes. Although some will find that really useful it will never replace the other flagship product. Hero Lab users are not the really the target here either.

In another part of product pages it is even stated that "It probably makes more sense to think of it like a MMORPG". Although passed the concept of how it uses a back end cloud service again the statement becomes meaningless. It sure is not at MMORPG at all. This is something new for a problem that most people don't have or just don't see. So RW really is in a completely new product category. With all the associated marketing issues. Trying to get people to part with $50 for software then enter into a similar priced yearly subscription contract is going to be tricky. Players will also have to $6 each too. Without really clarify the "consumer problem" that it is supposed to fix. We are going to see a lot of analogies to VTTs and other software. In order to try an get the point across.

Right now the project is very much in Beta (it initial came out without font control but that has recently been fixed). The content market is what probably what will make or break the future of RW. It does offer the ability to deliver books in a unique format that nobody has really done before. The question remains if such a service is worth it to people that already have the basics built right into other software applications.

[LordEntrails]

It sounds like RW is different than ObsidianPortal. I always assumed they were competitive products... Can anyone clarify or educate me?

[Bidmaron]

Think of Realmworks as a self-building non-web wiki.
It can automatically generate most links between topics and will bring up resolution dialog as it makes links if there is a conflict.
You can also designate which information to reveal to players

[Bidmaron]

In addition to auto-linking, it can maintain relationships between topics that vary by topic category. When you create a copy and designate its category, it will populate the section headers (snippets in Realmworks vernacular). You can include masked images with pens that link to content.
You can designate synonyms for topics and contriol their player revelation (e.g. The baker who players learn is actually The Lost Prince but ultimately The Demon Prince)
You can map story topics graphically to portray action flow and decisions.
You can generate relation maps between a selection of topics
You can tag topics with terms that you can then filter on.
You can incoroporate hero lab pC and npc statistics either as hot links into HL or as views in RW
you can link to third party program data such as syrinscape or an app recognizing a uri.
This just scratches the surface.

It is one helluva campaign encyclopedia.

[Ken L]

I don't really see a need for RW when I use a personal wiki, Tiddlywiki (https://tiddlywiki.com/) is my current go to. The saving is a bit of a pain so a wrote a script makes it seamless.

[Bidmaron]

Ken, you wouldn't say that if you'd tried RW. It is awesome for what it does, but it is no FG killer, for sure.

[Lonewolf]

It sounds like RW is different than ObsidianPortal. I always assumed they were competitive products... Can anyone clarify or educate me?
This is the closest match to an existing product. It is like Obsidian Portal on steroids. It is pretty much campaign document sharing with extensive cross referencing that refreshes automatically when a new document is added.

It does this really well but that is all. It does not replace any VTT, Character generator or mapping software.

It could replace Obsidian Portal, MS Word and I suppose Google Docs if people are using stuff like that to share documents out. Honestly it is hard to come up with a list of software that it does compete with because it such a small niche product.


Think of Realmworks as a self-building non-web wiki. It can automatically generate most links between topics and will bring up resolution dialog as it makes links if there is a conflict. You can also designate which information to reveal to playersThis is by far one of the most accurate product descriptions ever. They really need more concise comparisons like this one when trying to explain it to people. Top answer :ninja:

The only thing I can add here is in addition to a self-building wiki. It also happens to be a hosting service for the wiki. So that players (with a license) can log in and see the newly created campaign content.

In terms of recommending the actual product. It is good but a lot of the perceived value is going to come down to individual group dynamics. A lot of the benefits of using this is going to depend on what types of games the GM runs. A deep campaign with a massive and complicated back story would benefit. Imagine a whole bunch of Tolkien fans running with all the Middle Earth lore in a game of The one Ring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Ring_Roleplaying_Game.

or....

A big sort of investigative campaign filled with lots of clues. Like Call of Cthulhu's Beyond-Mountains-Madness campaign book would look nice on this as it is a big 438 pages of heavy content. https://www.chaosium.com/beyond-the-mountains-of-madness-pdf/.

but....

If individuals are not running information heavy games like these or are just an expert in their own created content ( Most GMs are ). Then this might be a bit of a expensive toy.

I honestly hand on heart can't judge how much mileage people are going to get here. I like it and I wish them well. I will probably carry on using it as a stand alone product for organizing notes. Or mapping out campaigns that are not clearly defined in the source books. I can't see me doing the whole yearly subscription thing and some of the suggestions above for sharing stuff works out for me.

[Topdecker]

I honestly hand on heart can't judge how much mileage people are going to get here. I like it and I wish them well. I will probably carry on using as a stand alone product for organizing notes. Or mapping out campaigns that are not clearly defined in the source books. I can't see me doing the whole yearly subscription thing and some of the suggestions above for sharing stuff works out for me.

This is exactly where I am with it. Afraid to recommend it, but not especially wanting to say anything bad, either. I view it more as a young piece of software that has great potential.

[Ken L]

Ken, you wouldn't say that if you'd tried RW. It is awesome for what it does, but it is no FG killer, for sure.

Well I probably won't try it as it's windows only; and from their released promotional media it's not something I'd find useful. There's only a handful of applications I'm willing to use wine or virtualize windows for. Campaign management isn't one of them.

[Bidmaron]

Ken, I am a died-in-the-wool Mac guy, and I use it (with Parallels). I am not as fanatic about RW as I am FG, but it is fairly awesome. You should really give it a try though.

[LordEntrails]

This is the closest match to an existing product. It is like Obsidian Portal on steroids. It is pretty much campaign document sharing with extensive cross referencing that refreshes automatically when a new document is added. ....
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response.

Doesn't sound like something I will be looking to use now. But who knows what the future holds.

[Jay_NOLA]

Realm Works is really nice I have it, but right now it can't do a few things and you'll spend a good bit of time entering data. Also the best format to enter data is something that comes up.
If you have all your data entered it is great. A couple of other functions like player journals, a spell checker, etc. need to get done.

Realm Works does integrate with Hero Lab and some other non Lone Wolf Software and they hope to have more other party software interrogation into it.

Another piece of similar software is the Keep, made by NBOS Software, the same people who make Fractal Mapper 8 and some other programs. I did some of my older RPG Campaign, but it doesn't have all the functionality of Realm Works.

Realm Works is not a VTT which other have pointed out. If You could have some Fantasy Grounds or VTT integration with Realm Works it would be really awesome.
Also, Realm Works has had some big bugs crop up. I wasn't able to do any entry into it for a few weeks because of bugs that were affecting my realms in it in the past. Still the program is awesome, but I don't like that you will need a subscription at some point soon for online back ups and for player access to your Realms.

[ianmward]

It well might be worth a second look but they already have my money and Im not giving them more right now.
TBH I dont have the time to spend on another product or eco-system.

So in regards to the KS content, when it finally does become available you will *have* to spend more on the product to use it as your KS purchased time has all elapsed? Sounds like a good deal for someone...
I believe that the clock hasn't started, and won't until the KS content is available and the content market live.

[ArteF]

I'm in no way a pro at FG or anything like that but I haven't had any issue adding other modules to my 5e campaign. In fact I recently purchased a ton of modules to pick and choose from for content.

But I'm not sure if 4e modules would work with 5e and I'm assuming they wont because the search queries specifically let you search for 5e modules.

[Trenloe]

But I'm not sure if 4e modules would work with 5e and I'm assuming they wont because the search queries specifically let you search for 5e modules.
They won't be available. Each system specific module is tagged with the ruleset they are designed to be used with. So a 4E module would not even appear for activation in a 5E campaign. There are some things you can do manually to allow such modules to be opened, but RPG system specific data wouldn't appear correctly and/or raise errors if opened in a campaign they weren't designed for.

[ArteF]

Yea I assumed as much.

[Jay_NOLA]

The Kickstarter gave some people free subscriptions for life and others don't have that.

When the content market launches they plan to not let the clock start on when you need to purchase right away. Lone Wolf still hasn't decided what the price is going to be for a subscription. Additionally, each of your players would need a Player's version of Realm Works (or a GMs if they spent the money to be able to access the realm.

Finally, you will be able to import modules etc. into different realm systems from what I've seen on the export/import tutorial videos. So I could take a Pathfinder Realm Works module import it into my Labyrinth Lord Realm and use it and change things like stat blocks, remove hero Lab portfolios, etc. and have it fit my Labyrinth Lord Realm.

Most of the content market is going to be Pathfinder stuff from what has been said. So depending on what game you play the Content Market may not have much for you internally.

A lot of issues regarding copy right content are also coming up as realm data, etc. now can be shared.

Now if your wondering about how quick it is to enter content in for a moddule compared to fantasy grounds. This is my experience.
Fantasy Grounds module eatery is usually quicker. I did a entire 34 page module in about 4-5 hours Sunday. Realm Works takes longer as you have to break up the text in to multiple entry blocks to get the optimal use out of Realm Works.

That same module would take 12 or more hours to get into Realm Works for full optimization.


This short paragraph

An old dusty barrel is in the Room The barrel has 60gp in it.

In Realm Works has to get broken up into 2 data spinets so each sentance
is in one snippet. So you revel that the barrel is in the room. And that is has gold in it goes in another snippet that is reveled if someone looks in it.

This can get time consuming to make sure everything is entered in properly to take full advantage of Realm Works as you having to break up paragraphs of text and rewrite stuff.

The only thing I find that is time consuming in both is to enter in data for an NPC or item.

The big thing about Realm Works like I said earlier is if you get everything entered in it is great, but that is very time consuming and you don't have a best format to enter and organize stuff yet. Not enough examples showing the best way to set things up in it.

You could end up redoing stuff till you learn and decide on a good optimal way to organize everything.

Example: My first Realm was for Labyrinth Lord for the Red Tide setting and for Scarlet Heroes. I spent several months just getting spell, new character classes, world background, etc. entered in and still am not finished. I also needed to copy in entries for various LL SRD things in to Realm Works and still am not finished.

My Second realm was for Stars Without Number and I got just about all the stuff I need entered in except for some supplements in about 1/15 of the time, because I had time to learn how to use Realm Works and got to see screenshots of other people's Realms and was able to work out things better and picked up a good bit of tricks.

When Realm Works had a major bug I had to stop data entry though in that Realm.

So like I said earlier Realm Works is great if you have stuff entered in, but that takes time and you are going to end up buying stuff that already has the data entry in to avoid this.

Right now we need to see what stuff is going to be in the content market and what stuff others will enter in and make available to other Realm Works users.

[JohnD]

Personally I don't see a huge concern.

[daplunk]

To provide some understanding on what is possible with Realm Works per the original quote from Rob.

Once the Content Market launches you will be able to come along and purchase rules, adventures, supplements, pictures, etc.

Now I can create a Realm using one of the pre-built game system structures. This basically makes it so categories all contain relevant headings for that game system. Example, the monster article type includes all of the standard headings for a monster entry as it would appear in the Monster Manual. The headings are different for Pathfinder versus 5e.

With the realm created I can copy in a map of Faerun (or any map). From there I could import a pathfinder module and find a dungeon I like. I could put a pin on the Faerun map and link the two together basically starting to customize the area for my game. I could not go import a Save Worlds adventure that contains a town I like. I can drag that town to wherever it makes sense in my realm and connect it to the world map using pins per above. I can then come along and install Masks (https://www.enginepublishing.com/masks-1000-memorable-npcs-for-any-roleplaying-game) and use the relationship system to start allocating NPCs to homes and businesses. Then I might like a forest encounter from a Savage Worlds module. I'll take a copy of that and pin it to the overland map. This all happens within Realm Works and can be done incredibly quickly. I would need to modify the content I'm sure but that' part of the fun.

Now I understand that most of you rely on automated combat systems and are wondering how in the world it would be possible for this all to work when crossing systems so quickly.

The short answer is that the mechanics of the combats that come with each module won't work for me as a 5e player. I would go through in my prep and strip out all of the non d&d 5e Hero Lab Portfolios. But where Realm Works really flexes is that shouldn't matter. As I have the monster manual already entered into one of my realms, the first thing i would have done is import a copy of the 5e monster manual into this new realm. Now when i go through and prep all of the content that has been added from other systems, anywhere a monsters name is mentioned in the text that matches the name of a monster in the 5e monster manual (things like Orcs and Goblins which are common in most systems), a link will automatically generate effectively replacing the mechanics of the source content with the 5e mechanics. I will need to go through and identify any unique monsters / npcs and manually create stats for them or replace them with 5e variations but this will significantly reduce the amount of work needed to prepare the content for use with a different system.

Most users don't have players using the player version btw. We use it as a tool just for ourselves. It helps consolidate all of the information in a way that makes it easier to use. Think of it as a replacement for your rule books and adventure books that can be used to make it more efficient for you to find the information you need. Don't think of Realm Works solely as a tool you use to run and manage your game at the table. Its real power is in the designing of custom world and custom content. For anyone building their own campaign world, Realm Works can help you bring all of your ideas together into a single source of information. I suspect this will change significantly once the Web View comes out.

I think we are going to see some really cool creations once the content market goes live and people start sharing their creations.

Ultimately (and as was quoted earlier in this thread) I believe FG and RW to be two completely different tools. They are presenting and using information in two different ways and serve very different purposes. I do however believe integration between the two tools would spawn a beautiful beast. I have a very basic need for a VTT at my table while I imagine FG players could most definitely find a use for RW at their table, albeit there would need to be functionality added to allow the player screen in Realm Works to be shared over the network via FG for the two to work.

[LindseyFan]

I'm not trying to sound rude - really I am not... But the features you focused on are all available in FG. The few that aren't, are also not in RW (i.e. if you enter all the monster data for the version, then you have it for that version - not a feature).

Again not being mean, especially since all of us are passionate about our favorite core products. I just don't want new members to come along and think you are clarifying those features aren't available in FG. Especially in a thread titled "Fantasy Ground Misinformation." lol

RW sounds like a great product and I will concede that it is probably much more than most people are realizing.

[JohnD]

I still don't understand why this is being discussed here. I am probably missing something obvious. Or maybe not.

[daplunk]

Discussion is healthy IMO.

I'm a RW user currently watching FG videos to better understand the functionality as a result of the discussion that has taken place here. How is that a bad thing?

[LindseyFan]

It's not a problem at all! Thank you for understanding my post was only in the spirit of discussion too.

[LordEntrails]

Discussion isn't a bad thing. I think people are just confused why the continued discussion about what Realms Works is. It seems like that would better be discussed on the RW forums.

If the discussion were about what FG does and does not do, then I think everyone would agree this is the best place. But it seems like the continuation of this thread is just about RW and not FG.

[daplunk]

It's a discussion in the FG forums effectively about the functionality of FG vs RW for campaign management and design IMO. It could exist in either forum but ultimately it started here.

[Zhern]

As an owner of both RW and FG, I too am interested in the comparison of features. It would be great to see the best way to use both tools together instead of either/or.

[daplunk]

As an owner of both RW and FG, I too am interested in the comparison of features. It would be great to see the best way to use both tools together instead of either/or.

From the videos I've been watching there is a serious place for both. It would take the Devs to get on board though.

I'll be brutally honest, and I know this will stir emotion here. Realm Works is better suited to manage the campaign information. Just like Fantasy Grounds is better suited to manage the VTT. It's just an opinion before everyone spazes out. But the two tools are designed for different purposes. Yes FG has some good functionality for entering in the campaign information but from the few hours of YouTube videos I watched today it just scrapes the surface of what RW offers. To ease the peace though, FG poops all over RW in relation to the VTT stuff, RW isn't even in the running for that category.

Now with that in mind I think what's needed is:


RW Snippet Type: FG Map - Clicking this would trigger the map load in FG.
RW Snippet Type: FG Token (Monster, NPC, PC) - Clicking this would trigger the addition of the token in FG.
RW Player View needs to be integrated into FG. Link it so anything sent to RW player view pops up in a window within FG.
RW Sound should play through to FG.
RW Web View would need to be accessible through FG enabling users to lookup shared information from within FG.


You would still control the table, combat and the player would view all their information in FG. But the DM would read the adventure content from RW and have the ability to send information to FG to inform the players and setup combat in FG.

As you can see, I see RW as the starting point for the module content, I think that makes logical sense. The DM could push information into FG to display to the players. All of the interaction however would remain in FG.

It's just pipe dreaming but I think that would be a bloody cool product combo.

[NotRussellCrowe]

I enjoy the healthy discussions of other products that compete against or complement Fantasy Grounds. I'm not about to jump ship to another product as FG does what I need and we have an amazing community but I've always been curious about Realm Works and it certainly seems like a capable product for those who do world building. I like the fact you can have player versions that connect to the cloud and can review your world, that's a great feature. I also think there's lots of opportunity for data sharing between the products, world build in RW and export/import into FG for game time, then export/import back into RW at the end with changes to maps that were revealed or encounters made and so forth. Granted it is a lot of work I realize but there is potential for the future.

daplunk, have you found a hours 25-28 in the day to make some more CC3+ videos? :)

Happy gaming!

[daplunk]

RW doesn't compete with FG. They are seriously two completely different products. I would challenge that except for very small circles they are aimed at two different crowds. They use the same information but what they do with it is completely different. I personally feel the player view is lacking in RW. Don't get me wrong, it works. But as someone who plays at the table we don't all have laptops in front of us. To take advantage of player version currently we would need to do that which takes away from the experience. Once the player version is available on the web then that will change completely. I can absolutely see my players using their phones / tablets to look stuff up.

I think import export could work as a manual work around, and someone has already figured out how to import to Realm Works from Obsidian Portal which is pretty cool. But ultimately to really make it useful for the VTT crowd I feel direct live access is what's needed. The ability for Realm Works to send data to FG would be game changing.

Haha, i really should sleep more. I do need to make some more of those, they seem to be rather popular. I'm afraid my players opened up a portal to Waterdeep so I have been scrambling to create the city and populate it with just enough items to quench their magic item thirst without completely breaking the game. Manged to get the Trader Ward structure done. Now I just need to move the NPCs in to each location and have them put some items up for sale.

https://s31.postimg.org/7gdfcb0qv/2017_02_20_22_48_19_Realm_Works_Deadly_Dept.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/7gdfcb0qv/)

[dulux-oz]

@daplunk: are you aware that there exists a full colour 12 * a0 poster map of water deep done with CC (& CD/DD) which I believe is also available in the original cc files as well - I know because I own two copies, one of which used to cover my entire games room wall from floor to ceiling (its now in storage).

TSR (WotC) put it out in the early days of CC3 - its beutiful

[daplunk]

@daplunk: are you aware that there exists a full colour 12 * a0 poster map of water deep done with CC (& CD/DD) which I believe is also available in the original cc files as well - I know because I own two copies, one of which used to cover my entire games room wall from floor to ceiling (its now in storage).

TSR (WotC) put it out in the early days of CC3 - its beutiful

Yeah in pretty sure the image above is what you are talking about. It was sold as the Forgotten Realms Interactive Atlas. It's incredible. I've spent all night exporting the maps from cc3+ and porting them into Realm Works, copying all the location descriptions from old 2ed and 3ed Waterdeep supplements and putting it all together. Next I will start dragging all the npcs from Masks around and allocate them to shops that don't already have named npcs. I'm basically building the interactive forgotten realms 2.0 :) I'll probably only ever need 2% of what I'm putting in for actuals games but just in case ;)

[LordEntrails]

I had commented about the thread as it seemed to me to wonder from a discussion on either how they compare or how they could be used to together. It seems to have wandered back (if it ever left :o).



I'll be brutally honest, and I know this will stir emotion here. Realm Works is better suited to manage the campaign information. Just like Fantasy Grounds is better suited to manage the VTT. It's just an opinion before everyone spazes out. But the two tools are designed for different purposes.

I don't think it will stir any emotions here. I think that comparison/statement was made back on page 1. As I said earlier, I'm sure RW does campaign management better. But, FG does it adequate for my needs/wants (which are VERY limited right now). I can image times in my past when I would have loved it. Heck, I had built two web sites (not pages) way back when for different campaigns I ran.

[Zhern]

I'd also throw out the two excellent extensions from Dulux-Oz that help with campaign management too. The organizations and locations extensions definitely help with campaign organization. As an aside, I did look into the contents of an *.rwexport from Realm Works. It is all XML/text, so there really isn't any reason that it can't be parsed and imported into FG in some manner, provided that all the information from the realm entry is contained within and not stored externally in the RW cloud. At first glance it looks like it is all there but I'll need to do some more analysis to make sure.

[daplunk]

Exporting works fine but you won't be able to Export official content from the Content Market as that will be restricted. Based on the tests I've seen with the export to html and word script the export contains all the text pictures links etc. So if FG has a way to handle the import it could very well work. Could be an efficient way to get data in actually.

[ddavison]

If you are coming from RW, you might be interested in checking out the Story Templates and some of the stuff you can do with those.

We have these inside some of the official products, like the DMG, Volo's Guide and now the Curse of Strahd. Here is a great community built version. There are other nice ones on DMsGuild for Fantasy Grounds as well.
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?36405-Merchants-Taverns-Side-Quests-and-NPCs-JimSocks-s-quot-Content-Generator-2017-quot-Module

[daplunk]

Yeah that's cool!

Ive achieved something similar in RW by adding Inspiration Pad Pro files and running those. That gives me random generation of npcs, monsters, encounters, treasure, etc however it pops up as a separate application. Very cool that you can do that in tool.

[Zhern]

Exporting works fine but you won't be able to Export official content from the Content Market as that will be restricted. Based on the tests I've seen with the export to html and word script the export contains all the text pictures links etc. So if FG has a way to handle the import it could very well work. Could be an efficient way to get data in actually.

The import would mostly be for those that want to import their campaigns that they have entered themselves. For me it would be for importing any of the content I have conned my wife into entering into RW for me.

[Bidmaron]

Daplunk we should be able to use dulux's DOE extension to drive inspiration pad pro just like you did in your RW video.