Combat Tracker - Advice and Suggestions

[seycyrus]

A few days ago I inserted a few comments in the FG unity engine thread, https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?22089-Fantasy-Grounds-Unity-engine/page84, that received a few responses and a request for clarification from ddavison.

Perhaps I am doing something incorrectly, or inefficiently, so here goes.

For me, at least the way I have been using it, the issue with the CT is that it seems to handle static scenes ("You enter a cave with 4 orcs and 6 trolls, FIGHT until victory or death.") very well, but not so much simultaneous scenes nor ones that evolve and interact with other scenes.

My group seems to split the party often, not as much as they used to, but it still happens frequently. 6 PCs with 4 NPCs, means that there is a lot of potential for bifurcation. Here is example, with the party split into subgroups A, and B. In game-time, the groups are separated by 5 minutes of time and virtually 0 minutes in real time (because roleplaying exploring a 100 yd. passage doesn't take very long if there aren't any interruptions - monsters, traps/puzzles.) I use teamspeak and have multiple channels to separate the subgroups.

What I have been doing is loading the largest (by number of participants) into the CT, running that for 20 minutes of real time, and then switching to the other group (not finished with the encounter). I then run the second group ad hoc from the encounters tab (not loaded into the CT) for 20 minutes of real time before switching back to the first group. Repeat back and forth until things as needed.

Ddavison suggested I load EVERYTHING up into the CT and run it from there. I'll give this a try, but while it might seem to make sense if the groups are in fairly close proximity with each other, it intuitively seems to a poor solution if the two groups are far apart in time and/or distance would have no idea whatsoever what was going on with the other group.

To me a solution would be to have another combat tracker, but I believe I heard that this was a difficult option to implement. Perhaps moving forward into FGU would make this more of a possibility?

Another solution would be have a temporary holding place for the NPCs in an encounter. It would be useful if I could pull the actors in the CT (at least the NPCs) into a newly created encounter (or some other repository) in a way that showed and maintained their current status. That way I could purge and reload the CT as needed, and keep everything continuous. The way it is now, if Orc Chief is wounded to 8 hps, and I pull him off the CT into an encounter, it reflects his original status, say 16 hps.

This last point references what I mention early on with my comment regarding "evolving and interacting scenes". If 4 orcs get beaten up and run into the nearby cave (cave12 for example), it would be useful to be able to just drag them off the CT in their current state (hurt, crippled, etc.) and plop them into the encounter for cave12. The way I do it now, it to load 4 orcs into cave12 encounter, compare each one individually with its counterpart in the CT and adjust all of the relevant parameters - can be done, but takes more time than I like.

Is there other solutions to any of the above that I am missing?

[Zacchaeus]

Yes put everything on the CT. Use the hide/show button beside each NPC to reap veal or hide the ones currently in combat and enable the option to skip hidden actors. You can’t hide the PCs like that but they can just press end turn if they are not directly involved in the combat at that time.

The heart of FG is the Combat Tracker, so if something is not on it then not much will work. At least not easily.

Oh, and don’t split the party. I think also you may be giving yourself a headache by having things happen at different times. If part of the group are having an encounter in cave A then the rest should be having an encounter in cave B. If they aren’t having an encounter I would leave them out of it completely until you finish with the first half of the party. Having said that I would not want to sit around for that long doing nothing if I was a player.

[damned]

I believe what Doug was saying was -

Load all your PCs into the CT.
Drop them on their respective maps.
Group A runs into trouble and a fight begins - initiative is rolled.
Group A plus their NPCs all have a Combat Action - Group B on 0 init dont act in CT.

Group B reach the end of the corridor and discover that the trolls have been planning dinner with them as the main course and a second encounter begins.
Group B are already in the CT.
Add the new encounter to the CT.
Roll Init.

Everyone now acts on their init.
You might flit back and forth between maps every turn or you might have a string of actors from one map etc - it doesnt really matter - everyone just acts on their init.

[LordEntrails]

I think you've got some good ideas, but I also realize a few of the challenges in developing the logic for something like that. But I think one of the things is just the non-VTT parts of what's happening.

Does group B mind not doing anything for 20 minutes while group A does something? And vise-versa? If not and you go simultaneously, the other suggestions and keeping both groups in rounds would seem to be the approach I would (do) take.

Another thing, are the encounters easy enough that half the party can beat it? I mean in the stuff I run, (and even though I rarely try to balance encounters too much) if only half the party walked into a cave, odds are they would get their butts handed to them or be forced to flee if the other half of the party wasn't their to support them. Or maybe your parties are large (8+) and this is the a big part of the problem?

[Atua]

...You can’t hide the PCs like that but they can just press end turn if they are not directly involved in the combat at that time....

You can actually hide the PC's in the CT, firstly set them to neutral (via the helmet icon in the CT), then set them to invisible. I do this all the time with the wildshape creatures for my druid.

[CrawlingChaox]

Yeah, all you need to do is load all the actors in the combat in the CT. When you need to switch, set the PCs as Neutral and then hide them away. Problem solved.

[Valyar]

If your group is splitting and there will be two or more separate conflicts that require the CT, run all at the same time. In-game time will different yes, one of the groups will be done with the fighting earlier or later than the other, but out of game nobody will be idling. Fast-forward and other tricks are totally OK to keep all players equally engaged.

1 CT but two or more different combat maps.

[rhammer2]

Going to way too much effort. Don't run the combats separately, If they are occuring at the same time, run them at the same time.
Also, the best way to cure your group from separating is to start killing them in separate encounters that were intended for the entire group.

If it happens once in a blue moon, not an issue, but your group should not make a habit of separating.

Robert

[JohnD]

Running combat across multiple maps is a little unwieldy but not arduous.

One time I had a big combat running across 4 interconnected maps. Eight PCs, 15 or so friendly NPCs and around 65 attackers spread across all the maps. I absolutely wished for more screen real estate during those sessions, but it was epic and very memorable (and took about nine hours of game time to resolve!).

But yes, the best way to dissuade your players from splitting up is giving them the regular strength encounter in each location they split up to go into. Unless they are slow learners, you should only have to do that once or at most twice.

[Callum]

If 4 orcs get beaten up and run into the nearby cave (cave12 for example), it would be useful to be able to just drag them off the CT in their current state (hurt, crippled, etc.) and plop them into the encounter for cave12. The way I do it now, it to load 4 orcs into cave12 encounter, compare each one individually with its counterpart in the CT and adjust all of the relevant parameters - can be done, but takes more time than I like.

Is there other solutions to any of the above that I am missing?

This sort of thing happens every now and then in my games. I simply click on the eye symbol in the CT entries for the orcs, to make them invisible to the players both in the CT and on the map, then move their tokens on the map to cave12. Now, if combat continues in the current location, the orcs will be skipped automatically in the CT (assuming you have that option set), but they will retain their states. When the PCs move into cave12, I just click on the eye symbols again, and they're ready to go. If there are other creatures in cave12, I just click to add them from the cave12 encounter, and they are autoamtically mixed in with the orcs.

[shadzar]

If they are occuring at the same time, run them at the same time.
they werent happening at the same time, which was the problem and pointed out in the initial post


In game-time, the groups are separated by 5 minutes of time

This means, in theory, Group A could finish their combat before Group B ever begins. but in RPGs 5 minutes of in-game combat could take 30 minutes or more real-time, in which Group B is just sitting there at a table the want to be playing in and twiddling their thumbs waiting, in a teamspeak (why not Discord?) channel for the subgroup, so they are just talking to themselves waiting for their turn to play again.

the Combat Tracker design is the flaw that was pointed out in the FGU thread, and it was asked to prevent this couldn't each map have its own... just to bring it from that thread.

a map oriented design that just displays the participants (what is this actors nonsense anyway?) on the map in the combat tracker jsut mkes more sense to many people.

[damned]

If Group A finish before Group B then what is the issue?
If Group A are on a different map to Group B then what is the issue?

Why Actors? Because thats the terminology used in the code.
Why is participants any better?

[CrawlingChaox]

they werent happening at the same time, which was the problem and pointed out in the initial post



This means, in theory, Group A could finish their combat before Group B ever begins. but in RPGs 5 minutes of in-game combat could take 30 minutes or more real-time, in which Group B is just sitting there at a table the want to be playing in and twiddling their thumbs waiting, in a teamspeak (why not Discord?) channel for the subgroup, so they are just talking to themselves waiting for their turn to play again.

the Combat Tracker design is the flaw that was pointed out in the FGU thread, and it was asked to prevent this couldn't each map have its own... just to bring it from that thread.
I fail to see how a map-based system would solve that problem. In the scenario you proposed, you'd still have to resolve one encounter before starting the next one.
If anything, a map-based CT would make things immensely more complicated for combats that span multiple maps, which is a far more common occurrence than parties splitting in my experience.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

I would put all players in different maps (or in the same one in different locations), roll initiative for everyone and make everyone act on their turn as if they were in combat.

Players that are in combat would act. Players that are not in combat can move its movement speed and keep doing their stuf as normal.

if neither group is in combat, they ca still move, etc;

[Nylanfs]

I think I might have lost something some where. Is the 5 minutes we are talking about realtime or gametime?

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

I think I might have lost something some where. Is the 5 minutes we are talking about realtime or gametime?

He is saying that for every 5 minutes of combat in-game is equal to 30 mins in real life.
Which means the group that is not in combat would wait 30 minutes for him to finish the combat with the other group, in his example.

[Zacchaeus]

I think I might have lost something some where. Is the 5 minutes we are talking about realtime or gametime?

I don't think the figure of 5 minutes is important or necessarily accurate. What he has is a split party who are doing things at different times of the day. One party might be in a dungeon in combat and the other might be off shopping for the latest gear.

[shadzar]

i disagree @Zacchaeus. while i put 30 minutes, the initial post set up the comparison with 5:20 relation of game:real time. and that is the very crux of the conundrum caused by the singular CT. with the initial post on asking how to resolve it, and i am very curious as well since you can try all you like to say "never split the party", but do players ever listen?


If Group A finish before Group B then what is the issue?
If Group A are on a different map to Group B then what is the issue?
because what i wrote...


This means, in theory, Group A could finish their combat before Group B ever begins. but in RPGs 5 minutes of in-game combat could take 30 minutes or more real-time, in which Group B is just sitting there at a table the want to be playing in and twiddling their thumbs waiting

FG, although listed as one in GiantBomb index and last edited this year by a user by the name SmiteWorks, is NOT a game, video or otherwise. and that few minutes in-universe, takes real time to play out by REAL PEOPLE.


Why Actors? Because thats the terminology used in the code.
Why is participants any better?

Who is participating in this event? This is English.
Who are the actors in this event? This is not English.

The fact it is what is chosen in the code may be, but participants is describing in English to indicate someone is participating. Not a keyword that makes little sense. The only time "actor" is used to denote a player in a D&D game hat I know of it that Matt Mercer show that claims to be D&D while only being actors improv acting at G&S.

No DM i have ever heard say "which actors will be in this combat?"

so it is strange at any time it would appear as the term for a VTT. /shrug

you can replace "participants" with characters, combatants, etc that are also commonly used. but actors seems a weird choice to use.

I fail to see how a map-based system would solve that problem. In the scenario you proposed, you'd still have to resolve one encounter before starting the next one.
If anything, a map-based CT would make things immensely more complicated for combats that span multiple maps, which is a far more common occurrence than parties splitting in my experience.

well again, please provide me ANYTHING outside of FG that is "combat tracker" focused int he RPG world. I can provide you with thousands of adventures, campaigns, etc that are map focused dating back to the 70s, as well as non-RPGs that use turn-based combat dating back to the 50s, and some even to the 1700s and 1800s.

so it would help by #1, form following function. The tool is designed the way people do things, rather than people having to do things a specific way to use this tool. It means the tool was designed poorly, or not even designed for the task it is assigned.

why would a map-based tracker make things harder? every other VTT does it this way. they are "map-based" in that they are token-based and the token contains the relevant data for whatever the token represents. when you switch maps, you switch tokens in a split party. So any tracker would then only track the current tokens for the current combat. then when you switch to another map, it would load the states of those tokens and track them, and so on.

so if you have a combat spanning multiple maps, i can't see where the problem you mention is, unless you mean a single combat that requires more than one map because FG has a limit to map size that it supports? Unity should solve that with being 64-bit capable and allow for larger maps, more zoom depth, etc. Though I agree it is and will remain a problem for FG Classic, that will probably go unresolved.

if you mean something other than that, you will have to explain further about your multi-map combats.

[Zacchaeus]

I can't recall my party ever splitting up voluntarily but there have been situations where they have been forced to do so because of actions they took during an adventure. Once or twice this has necessitated the actors being on different maps. However since everyone was acting at the same time then it was a simple matter of just taking each actor's turn on the combat tracker as it came to them. The problem that the OP has is that he wants a solution to the problem of how to deal with a split party who are also acting at different times; and I don't think there is any real solution to that one unless you simply ignore the time difference and treat all of the actors as acting at the same time. Having multiple combat trackers I don't see as any kind of solution since that doesn't compress the time element any more than if the actors are all on the one combat tracker. I suppose the only possible benefit is that you can separate each group of actors and leave the actors who are not doing anything special sitting there until you decide you should pay them some attention.

I can't also see why a map based system would deal any more elegantly with a split party. The combat tracker handles multiple maps just fine if the party are in different areas such as some on the first floor and some on the second. As was said elsewhere by a sage head, Fantasy Grounds is not Roll20 nor any other VTT; and it does things in it's own way. So it isn't really a question of trying to force everyone to see things as you see it; it is more a question of you coming to terms with the way FG does things and seeing how the best VTT on the market works.

[Moon Wizard]

I am a champion of giving everyone to chance to express their views. However, that doesn’t mean that I always agree. Also, I have to balance needs of the business with user requests. At this point, we have no plans to change the combat tracker design.

If it’s something that you wish to pursue, the FG client can be customized through extensions to add many kinds of functionality, including the one you are discussing. If you really want map-based combat trackers, you can write your own version, or convince someone to write it for you. Basically, if you feels it’s truly the ONE way to do this, build the solution for the community, and we can see the actual usage numbers internally for your customization.

Thanks,
JPG

[shadzar]

interesting thought, write a ruleset that doesn't have a combat tracker that makes the system more versatile you say...

[CrawlingChaox]

Who is participating in this event? This is English.
Who are the actors in this event? This is not English.

I know you're not talking with me here, but I'll take the chance of not being bound to the strict professionalism damned is showing, but only by the rules of common decency and forum parlance, to say this flatly. You're universalizing (very) debatable positions, it's irritating, and you should stop of you want anyone to take your points seriously.
Aside from it being perfectly good English (a little bit on the technical side, maybe), "actor" is a piece of jargon that is way more common than you seem to realize. You have a point if you're saying that the interface should move away from jargon, but you're failing to realize that every game ever made, along with every piece of software ever written, has some form of jargon. What you're saying, in a context where words like CT, AC, THAC0, FG, condition, effect all have their own specific meaning, "I don't like this word which everyone else seems to get, so you should remove it because I'm obviously right". The criticism might have some merit, but the delivery is awfully self-centered. For some, the term "actor" has a very specific meaning which points directly to the entity being represented in the combat tracker, the entity in the software as opposed to the character in itself. "Participant" or "combatant" would be more ambiguous.


well again, please provide me ANYTHING outside of FG that is "combat tracker" focused int he RPG world. I can provide you with thousands of adventures, campaigns, etc that are map focused dating back to the 70s, as well as non-RPGs that use turn-based combat dating back to the 50s, and some even to the 1700s and 1800s.

If your examples are going back to the 1700s, I can only suppose you didn't quite grasp what I meant by "map-based", since I was referring to a way to process a set of rules in a digital environment, and digital environments tended to be quite scarce 300 years ago.

so if you have a combat spanning multiple maps, i can't see where the problem you mention is, unless you mean a single combat that requires more than one map because FG has a limit to map size that it supports? Unity should solve that with being 64-bit capable and allow for larger maps, more zoom depth, etc. Though I agree it is and will remain a problem for FG Classic, that will probably go unresolved.

if you mean something other than that, you will have to explain further about your multi-map combats.
High resolution maps are often split into multiple files. Such is the case, for instance, for Castle Ravenloft maps that can be bought online. Currently, I can use a single CT to play a fight which goes on on multiple adjacent floors of the castle (on a staircase, for example). In a map-based system, I would have to prepare each map separately and make sure that initiatives on each map-based tracker are the same, and I would have to be careful not to create duplicate entities, etcetera. This might not be what you mean, but it's what you're saying.
I could get around that issue by making all levels in a dungeon part of the same file, but (a) as you said, there is a significant memory limit; (b) I would have to manually adjust the camera way more often; (c) even if the program could handle it, it would only amount to a lot lf work to be done in the off-chance my players decided to fight on a flight of stairs or another passage, work that with the current system isn't even needed, and it would only be there to please someone who has the idea that RPGs are somehow "map-based" and they didn't want to follow the very simple thought process that led things to be as they are.
I'm all for criticism meant to improve, but that should be coupled with understanding how how things work in the first place. I'm not inclined to believe that's been the case in this discussion.

[Moon Wizard]

I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion, as it has served its purpose.

Any suggestions for improvements to the software can be added to the link in my signature below for tracking.

Thanks,
JPG