How important is it for a DM to have the Ultimate License?

[Cabales]

I'm continuing to learn FG and am planning on DMing in the relatively near future. Most of the posts by DMs in these forums say they have the Ultimate License, but I'd prefer to avoid doing that if possible. I already need to buy quite a few books, so I'm trying to keep the initial investment to a minimum. Will it be difficult to find players if I'm running the standard License? That seems like quite a burden for the DM.

[LordEntrails]

It's not necessary at all.

If you don't have a regular group, then I don't think you have any obligation to pay for others to play. As you already are aware, even without buying the ultimate license, you have other expenses the players don't.

And, if you are running any of the major games (5E, PF, SW) you won't have trouble finding players.

[JohnD]

I have an Ultimate license. If I had it to do over, I would go with the Standard instead.

LordEntrails has the rest of it pretty well summarized as well.

[Full Bleed]

Will it be difficult to find players if I'm running the standard License? That seems like quite a burden for the DM.
It is a burden for the GM (unless his players help offset the cost). And, frankly, I think you'll be more likely to find better quality players if you don't rely on an Ultimate License to attract free-loaders. ;)

[Erin Righ]

Ultimate licence is ABSOLUTELY necessary as is the purchase of every addon for every game you are playing, have played or think you might someday want to play. Break out that VISA baby, we're supporting SMITEWORKS! But seriously it is all unnecessary, those with standard licences will speak up and you'll soon be up to your Funions in dead orcs and laughing players, If youcould handle a grumpy old fart playing I might even join myself, been meaning to give this new-fangled 5E a shot

[Tabulazero]

I have an Ultimate license. I play regularly a long-term campaign with the same group of players every two weeks. The ultimate license saves us money when compared to each of the player buying his/her standard version or paying a pro-licence at Roll20 on a subscription basis.

If you intend to play regularly a long-term campain then I would suggest that you take a look at owning your VT via the ultimate license. If it is for casual or ad-hoc play, then a Standard licence will nicely do the trick.

[Cabales]

Thanks guys. This is more or less what I'd reasoned out myself, but seeing such a large percentage of the DMs posting with an ultimate license made me wonder. I don't have a group that is transitioning to FG. I'm entering into this solo and will be trying to put together groups and build long term campaigns and relationships that way, so I will definitely not be receiving money from the group towards any licenses. I don't mind purchasing all the various modules and adventures I'm interested in, but the cost of the Ultimate License was floating around like a turd in the punch bowl. I'll just grab the standard license for now and see how things go. I can always upgrade to Ultimate down the road if there's a good reason to do so.

[Ram Tyr]

The difference is in the size of the pool of players for your campaign. The ultimate license allows you to get people to play in your campaign that have not bought or subbed a license. The standard requires players to have bought or subbed a license. Obviously, having a pool of players that includes anyone is a larger pool of players than have bought / subbed a license.

*Old man voice*
Back in my day... everyone had to buy a Fantasy Grounds license because there were no subscriptions and there was no ultimate license. When I compared things... I bought a FG license BECAUSE of the purchase requirement. I did this with a group and we wanted to ensure that everyone was committed to playing and not just going to disappear after a session or two. We feared that if we went with one of the free alternatives we would have to spend time dealing with that problem. (Obviously, FG was also the better alternative but that makes sense since it wasn't free.) It worked for us then.
*end old man voice*

In any event, that doesn't mean that everyone that doesn't purchase / sub a license is a flaky player... but everyone has to make a decision whether they want to have to weed out folks from that pool of people... and pay for the privilege of doing so. So, there is a burden of recruitment for any campaign. The question is what bothers you more! Separating out the wheat from the chaff from a larger pool that includes free players or doing so from a smaller pool of players that have all put their money where there mouth is.

Specifically to you... You may have personal reasons why an ultimate license makes sense for you. Things like... you are going to be GMing an established group of friends (none of whom will ever DM themselves) and the total cost is cheaper this way. You like the idea of being able to introduce new friends to the game since they don't have to buy anything to 'try out' a session with you. If one of those applies, well, you have your answer.

As to recruiting... some games come together fast. Some take time. The variables are many. The time you are willing to run, the system you are willing to run, the type of game you are willing to run... whether it is summer time and some people play less rpgs to do other stuff... whether it is winter time when lots of people are looking to play to stay out of the cold... (All this seasonal stuff obviously depends on whether you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. :) )

If you don't expect that your game will come together immediately, take the pressure off yourself, you'll do fine.

[LordEntrails]

If you are looking to build a long term group, there is a suggested Blog (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/entry.php?241-How-to-Build-a-Successful-Long-term-Gaming-Group) to read. Also, as a DM I suggest you read this (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?36014-GM-Advice)post.

[Black Hammer]

I like my ultimate license because I have to do the bulk of my recruiting outside of the FG forums or groups. Right now, I have zero active players I found through here, so being able to tell Steam, Reddit, or G+ people that they don't need to drop cash on a license means I can run with FG instead of roll20.

[dracklor]

Got the Ultimate license myself because my regular group has a couple of members that have cash flow issues at times and can't splurge as much as I can.

If everyone can afford to get a standard license then there is no need to go for the higher tier, but if you have more than one player that needs to use the demo version then the Ultimate is a necessity.

[Cabales]

If you are looking to build a long term group, there is a suggested Blog (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/entry.php?241-How-to-Build-a-Successful-Long-term-Gaming-Group) to read. Also, as a DM I suggest you read this (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?36014-GM-Advice)post.

Thanks very much! I will read these. my current plan is to run through things as a player while I'm getting more comfortable with the rules (Haven't played or been a DM in close to 30 years). Then I plan to run a few one shots or short campaigns to get acclimated. Once I've done that I'll try to get a longer term campaign setup. Probably start with published modules while I work on writing my own campaign over time. I hope to be running those one shots by mid November.

[Cabales]

I like my ultimate license because I have to do the bulk of my recruiting outside of the FG forums or groups. Right now, I have zero active players I found through here, so being able to tell Steam, Reddit, or G+ people that they don't need to drop cash on a license means I can run with FG instead of roll20.

Is that because the rule systems are less popular ones? If I'm sticking with 5E, PF, and SW should I expect to see that?