How to swap DM?

[qwortec]

I tried searching the forum here but didn't have much luck with what I assume is a common issue:

My group wants to have another player DM our game. Usually I DM and I have an ultimate license with additional 5e content books, but after several years of being the only DM I would like to play as PC. How can we go about getting the license moved over to another player? We currently use Steam version of FG but are open to whatever we need to do to change this.

[RoleforFun]

You can't. Your only option is to have someone else do a monthly sub or purchase the Ultimate license, then purchase whatever content they want to use and share for their campaign on that license. The license agreements only allow for one single user with each purchase of content, so no content-swapping to other DM's is allowed. Sorry bud.

[qwortec]

Right, I get that that's the official rule. However, it's completely unreasonable to ask someone to shell out hundreds of dollars just to swap the GM. Can we swap Steam account logins or anything to get around this?

[RoleforFun]

I don't think anyone is going to be able to help you "get around" licensing rules and terms of agreement in an official forum. Remember, this is not just Smiteworks' policy but also part of their licensing agreement with publishers. Be aware, if you do what you're attempting, and you get caught breaking the license agreement and terms of use, it's very possible your account will get locked out and you will lose access to all the content you do have. I understand your frustration as well, trust me. There's just nothing that can be done about it.

[qwortec]

Yeah, if they locked my account I feel like I'd be OK with that. I've used this software for 4 years now and I still find it janky as hell. I've grown disillusioned with FG and Smiteworks over the years. If they try to make me spend another $400+ to have another person GM a game, well they can kindly go to hell.

[RoleforFun]

That's all fine and good, but I think the problem is you're viewing it as you not having access to your own content as a player, rather than someone else purchasing the ability to use content for themselves to be a GM. You bought a license and content because you wanted to GM, and you knew that when you did so. It's not like anyone "pulled a fast one" and said you could share your content then suddenly disallowed it. These were always the rules, and that's what the money went to. Anyone else that wants to permanently have the content and be the GM is welcome to do so. After 4 years, perhaps all the players can pitch in for the content if the other person really wants to be a GM. That seems reasonable since everyone benefits (since the GM shares the content with their players in each campaign). I'm not sure if you're attempting to complain or legitimately problem-solve here. The answer is established, it is what it is.

[Trenloe]

I've grown disillusioned with FG and Smiteworks over the years. If they try to make me spend another $400+ to have another person GM a game, well they can kindly go to hell.
I know that no one wants to spend extra money. But, being realistic about a niche company trying to survive and grow (because most of us want Fantasy Grounds to be here next year, and the year after and...), what are your issues?

SmiteWorks have been instrumental in getting D&D 5e on VTTs in general, and also lead the way in getting the price of WotC VTT material reduced from the same cost of the printed material.

As Catalyst20XX mentions the cost and licensing is driven by the end publisher. SmiteWorks don't hide the fact that you can't transfer your purchases - it's in the FAQ/EULA and there are public threads on this forum where people are asking the same questions.

As a player, you will be able to access your library modules (if the GM allows it), but if the GM wants material, and also wants to share it to others who don't have it, then the new GM will have to purchase it themselves - as well as get an Ultimate license (maybe a subscription - depending on how long they'll be the GM). I'm sure there's no need to spend $400+ if the only the material that the GM really needs to run the game is looked at. And, as usual, you can always manually enter data that is perhaps only a small section of a larger product - saving the purchase of that product. Getting a license subscription, a couple of GM products (campaigns are pretty much self contained, so the MM and DMG are not required unless making up custom content), the PHB is always handy to have.

Plus, there'll be a big sale around Black Friday...

[Ken L]

I know that no one wants to spend extra money. But, being realistic about a niche company trying to survive and grow

FG currently is doing the former (surviving) and not growing by double and triple milking the cow. I've been in and seen companies do this in software, it's usually a sign they have a product problem where new users are an issue, and milking current users is the solution.

[Trenloe]

FG currently is doing the former (surviving) and not growing by double and triple milking the cow. I've been in and seen companies do this in software, it's usually a sign they have a product problem where new users are an issue, and milking current users is the solution.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying FG isn't growing because they are "double and triple milking the cow", or that they aren't growing because they aren't double and triple milking the cow? I'm confused by the wording of your statement.

[qwortec]

I get that it's niche, and that's why I've always been OK with the prices. When they got WotC to allow content that was amazing and I happily spent the money on that content. I have no problem with this.

I've run games for probably 10-12 different people and I've never had a single campaign run smoothly. Crashes, lag, suuuuuuuuper lag to the point that we can't play, bad UI, etc. etc. I've found a lot of workarounds thanks to this forum and in general the program has been good, just lots of annoyances. That's fine, it just gets grating after a while, especially when you bring in a new person and have to go through all of the programs eccentricities, then troubleshoot issues like why their brand new gaming PC running the dice rolling at 10fps. Like I said, I get it sorted, but it always feel so amateurish. I've been waiting for the Unity build for years but I've kind of given up on that.

But! It's a niche product space, and the conveniences make those problems less painful. I don't want to sound like I'm just shitting on it. I've gone out of my way to defend it and recommend it to others.

This is kind of the last straw though. I want to play as a PC. I'm fine with another player buying/subscribing to a standard license to run the game, that would be totally reasonable. However, I own 5e content that makes the GM'ing much nicer (DMG, PHB, etc.) and would like them to have access to it. If we were sitting around the table, I could lend them my books. In FG though, I can't lend them my books. Why not allow the program to see that one of the players in a session owns the material and therefore can share it with the group? Why should it force the GM to buy that material again to use it when another player already bought it? It's not like we didn't pay for all of the material. Forcing people to purchase additional copies feels sleezy.

The reality is that if I want to play my next campaign with another GM, we'll either have to find some illicit workaround to get them run my ulitmate license, or we have to swap to another VTT. I don't like either of those options. I would happily pay a reasonable fee to not have to do that. However, saying that the other GM has to purchase a STD license AND either buy the content books or manually input everything even though I have already bought that content and will be playing in the same sessions is not reasonable. I'm saying, take my money Smiteworks! I'll pay to have someone else run my game! But by locking the content I purchased from the game I'm playing in just because I'm not the GM, you've basically told me that you don't want my money and you don't want me to continue to support your product.

[qwortec]

That's all fine and good, but I think the problem is you're viewing it as you not having access to your own content as a player, rather than someone else purchasing the ability to use content for themselves to be a GM. You bought a license and content because you wanted to GM, and you knew that when you did so. It's not like anyone "pulled a fast one" and said you could share your content then suddenly disallowed it. These were always the rules, and that's what the money went to. Anyone else that wants to permanently have the content and be the GM is welcome to do so. After 4 years, perhaps all the players can pitch in for the content if the other person really wants to be a GM. That seems reasonable since everyone benefits (since the GM shares the content with their players in each campaign). I'm not sure if you're attempting to complain or legitimately problem-solve here. The answer is established, it is what it is.

You're right. Letter of the law. You read the EULA and said you were OK with it so no complaining now! When you bought the program there were only 2 VTT products in existence, so it's not like you had a lot of choice, but too bad.

Still, it feels like a bad practice and I don't have to like it. I am trying to solve the problem though for real, but I need to figure out how to do it outside of those rules because those rules suck.

[RoleforFun]

Couple things based on what you said:

1) It's WoTC policy preventing the content "lend" so it doesn't matter what Smiteworks wants to do, if you're frustrated with the license requirements then direct it at WoTC.

2) You can still use your content, if the GM allows it in their game.

3) If everyone already chipped in for the first set of content, then you all got it at a premium discount in addition to the cost sharing price. In essence, you'd be complaining that you can't have 5+ copies of a license when each individual paid a fraction of the cost of an individual copy of said license.

4) If you purchased it yourself, then you still have access to all of your content, assuming the GM allows it.

5) If this policy really really upsets you, and you feel it necessary to switch to another VTT for some reason, the license requirements will be exactly the same if they support official content and you're losing out on the extensive integration which FG offers compared to the other mainstream VTT's. Otherwise you'll be home brewing and manually coding in other VTT's which is exactly what you could do much easier in FG.

Again, I get the frustration and have personally voted to have the ability to swap GM's on the wish list. Unfortunately, the argument doesn't really stand up to reason or logic when you consider what exactly you paid for and how much you paid for it. I hope you stick around, and if not, then good luck in your future endeavors.

[Targas]

Sigh. See FAQ #1:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/faq.php?faq=fantasy_grounds_faq#faq_eula
...and this post:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?27361-One-Ultimate-account-rotate-multiple-GMs&highlight=license

enough said...

[Trenloe]

Still, it feels like a bad practice and I don't have to like it. I am trying to solve the problem though for real, but I need to figure out how to do it outside of those rules because those rules suck.
You don't like the rules, so you're going to break them. I'm sorry, but that is not solving anything "for real". That is breaking the law.

It's fine you having a different opinion and there being disagreement. It's OK to disagree. What isn't fine is advocating the solution is to break the laws you agreed to when bought and started using the products. You know, those things you probably never read but pressed "next" through?

[qwortec]

You don't like the rules, so you're going to break them. I'm sorry, but that is not solving anything "for real". That is breaking the law.

It's fine you having a different opinion and there being disagreement. It's OK to disagree. What isn't fine is advocating the solution is to break the laws you agreed to when bought and started using the products. You know, those things you probably never read but pressed "next" through?

You're not wrong. Was hopeful that maybe a solution had been created. Damned had mentioned that it was something they were looking into years ago.

[Ken L]

@Tren, you know what I'm referring to so no point beating an argument out of a dead horse. If not then.. eh.

Roll20 has content sharing but they operate on a lobby model so anyone can be the 'lobby owner' but that owner can specify another player to be GM and thus use all the 'lobby owner' content. It's not the same as players pooling their books together but it's a close approximation on the digital VTT scene.

Honestly, FG needs something akin to this. Heck, I share kindle books and get shared kindle books all the time by my co-workers. It doesn't prevent me from buying ones I return to often as they lock access to it when it's shared, and me, my books when I share it.

[Trenloe]

@Tren, you know what I'm referring to so no point beating an argument out of a dead horse. If not then.. eh.
So, this is to do with your view that FG is only just surviving and not growing? Which seems to be what you're saying here?

I honestly don't know where you get this view. There is very real data showing that FG is growing. This isn't even a "fanboys" view - let's look at some real metrics: employee growth, product use growth and product content growth:

1) SmiteWorks is expanding. A 100% increase in staff since July - 2 people just 2 weeks ago: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?46160-SmiteWorks-is-growing!

2) Sessions ran (product usage growth). Looking at the sessions ran stats released in October 2014, 2016 and 2018 (the ones I found with a quick search):
2014 - 121K
2016 = 316K
2018 = 751K.
That's pretty healthy growth.

3) Product content growth - regular product updates, weekly DLC releases and increases in official product license agreements.

All of this points towards Fantasy Grounds growing (healthily), not just "surviving" as you put it.

[RoleforFun]

Gentleman, I think this is veering off topic. Perhaps another thread or moving on to better things is the correct manuever at this point?

[Valatar]

Roll20 has content sharing but they operate on a lobby model so anyone can be the 'lobby owner' but that owner can specify another player to be GM and thus use all the 'lobby owner' content. It's not the same as players pooling their books together but it's a close approximation on the digital VTT scene.

Honestly, FG needs something akin to this. Heck, I share kindle books and get shared kindle books all the time by my co-workers. It doesn't prevent me from buying ones I return to often as they lock access to it when it's shared, and me, my books when I share it.

I agree with Ken here. There should be an option for the host to designate one of the connected people to 'take the reins' and act as GM for a session. All of the stuff has still been purchased, and the designated GM still wouldn't have access to the purchased content when not connected to the host, it seems perfectly fair.

[RoleforFun]

I agree with Ken here. There should be an option for the host to designate one of the connected people to 'take the reins' and act as GM for a session. All of the stuff has still been purchased, and the designated GM still wouldn't have access to the purchased content when not connected to the host, it seems perfectly fair.

Fair, yes. Legal, no. That's why it's so frustrating for everyone, and also why it isn't likely to change.

[damned]

I agree with Ken here. There should be an option for the host to designate one of the connected people to 'take the reins' and act as GM for a session. All of the stuff has still been purchased, and the designated GM still wouldn't have access to the purchased content when not connected to the host, it seems perfectly fair.

Its not a technically achievable feature with the way the software has been designed. The database resides on the GMs/Hosts computer.

[LordEntrails]

Don't forget you can vote on the wishlist for related ideas. Rather than getting worked up in the forums, voting lets SmiteWorks know what is important to the community and then they can weigh that with the changes that it would require in the software as well as changes to legal agreements with licensing companies.
https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40882
https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40890

[JohnD]

Oh the drama... I almost expected to find my wife in here.

[Bidmaron]

KenL has done some very great things for the community, but I must respectfully disagree with him here. And I don't think it has drifted off topic. One of the great things about these forums is that we permit open discussion and disagreement as long as it stays civil and we don't start personally attacking one another.

There are lots of business models, and SW has chosen one. Some won't agree with it. They have alternatives (although not good ones, IMO), pursue them. But register your views, by all means.

It really isn't that far off from real life, if you think about players who cannot get in the same room to play (and if you can, then share your physical books and have a blast). If it were a non-digital world and your were playing by VTC or something, you would have to physically ship your hard copies to the DM, so the notion that SW has some obligation to support a digital share of things among DMs is flawed. In fact, SW supports sharing of resources across the distance that would be impossible physically.

Yes, they could have created a different scheme with the software and license to support it, but to claim they MUST do because we could do it in person - well, I don't see the logic of it. As we've said many times, you really only HAVE to HAVE very little to run games. Just enter what you need physically. Or, let the original GM share the stuff for character creation and then transfer the characters to the new GM. Once you get going, you need very little to play a published adventure.

UP until the recent influx of Roll20'ers (and KenL, who has never made it a secret that he wanted a shared GM ability), there haven't been that many calls for this. So, it certainly doesn't seem as if FG's future rests on doing this at all, certainly not instantly.

KenL, God bless you my virtual friend. You've done some great things for us, and I hope this honest disagreement doesn't sour our digital relationship, my friend.

[Ken L]

..I honestly don't know where you get this view. There is very real data showing that FG is growing...

I get it from experience of recruiting a number of players outside the platform into FG.

Every-single-one of them found the UI un-intuitive compared to other options. I had one even say maptools was better which surprised me. FG is an acquired taste, and often a bargain of "at least it's not roll20". I myself treat FG as a tool that "I have to work with" currently until there is a better option. Disillusionment is real when looking at the technology scene and advancement in total, heck most of my bolt-ons are UI ones as I simply hate the current interface.

Either way, this has veered far off topic to those defending and flagging FG's strengths / weaknesses so it should probably be closed.

[Valatar]

Its not a technically achievable feature with the way the software has been designed. The database resides on the GMs/Hosts computer.

The players can already manipulate objects that they've been given permission to manipulate, I don't see how it's unfeasible to give one player global permission to manipulate anything while the GM's program is still hosting the database. The only effective difference between a GM and a player in most circumstances is being able to use the map masking controls and moving/rolling on behalf of NPCs.

[shadzar]

Either way, this has veered far off topic ... so it should probably be closed.

I hadn't posted in it yet. now i have, so odds are likely that it will trigger someone to automatically close it, since i am automatically wrong about everything, so they must correct my post and then close the thread quickly to win the argument by default. ;) Ya know, the fanboy-ism.


suggesting that people take more than 15 minutes is not die-hard, old guard fanboy-ism. Unless helping people to understand what someone's VTT of choice can do is defending FG to death with fanboy-ism? Maybe in some people's eyes it is...

qwortec The convoluted terminology used to confuse people about what they are purchasing is a problem as you point out. SmiteWorks runs off "license" meaning installed or connected users for the software like a business license for Photoshop.. meaning the number of connections or installations you can have rather than usability. each FG license allows X number of "demo" client packages to connect to it.

it is just the way it is and has been with crippleware*. the business model isnt about functioning product, but to make everyone have to buy it again and again. paying each time for the ability to use those crippled features.

As someone mentioned there is nothing like a shared-GM access because the nature of FG is on a hosting system. the host runs the game, as if it were a real D&D game beause everyone that hosts the game is the GM always for RPGs... not the peson with the house big enough or it doenst happen at a LGS.....

This is a reason I dumped OpenRPG long ago because the model was that the host was GM... that doesnt server well for reality in how games are played, and OpenRPG is fre. Same goes for MApTools. the host computer is the GM. So the are in the same boat as FG and it is unlikely any will change.

I am sure also TTS the host is the GM as well, and not sure if you can have more than one GM their either.

in the end you have 2 choices. the other person buys FG to be able to DM otherwise they will have no GM side controls or features. (This was discussed on All Thing Fantasy Grounds before and should be int he idea tracker for FGU to allow multiple GMs i the future; but don't hold you breathe because then everyone couldn't be charged maximum cost to be able to play the same game.)

choice #2 is to use roll20 that does allow multipl GMs no matter who paid for what. you only need to assign another player as GM. it wont remove it fromt he one with the highest paid for accoutn as they will always be GM, but they wont have to do any of the GM work and the "co-GM" can always log into that campaign and do everything, except access assets of the host unless they are provided on a "page" of the campaig, aka a map. then they can copy and paste them, use dynamic lighting, etc.

there is the obvious 3rd choice. the one everyone knows, but nobody wants spoken. though strange when it is always told to pirate images from encrypted modules in the FG store to "screencap" things and use them elsewhere from bought items around here, so no idea why the 3rd choice in this situation should go unmentioned since the forums are never cleared of people suggesting ways around the FG encryption model to "steal" images from store content that was locked in order to PROTECT THE COPYRIGHTS, just to have people everywhere around these forums tell people how to bypass that copyright protection without having to actually open the MOD files to get the image out of the zip folder. but obviously since the forums are not cleaned up of such mentions of how to pirate the images from encrypted items from the store/Vault, it must be a condoned action around here right?

Maybe someone that can navigate the ideas website can link to the multiple GMs idea so you can help upvote it for a future FG release. :)


and they can dislike it all they want, whoever they are, but FG is crippleware, for the sake of those multiple purchases..

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/315176724402798592/504557184684654592/crippleware.jpg

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/315176724402798592/504557285561860136/cripple2.jpg

if you want the crippled features of DMing, saving, etc to be fully functioning; you have to buy it. the more people you want to be able to connect, the more you have to pay.

not to mention the other person wanting to DM will have to buy all the other books as well.

Fantasy Grounds is NOT user friendly for gaming groups. As has been stated multiple times, you can't "share" books like say DNDBeyond or roll20. you have to have access to the DMs computer to be able to get use out of any book the "group" owns. unlike physical books. but if yo dont need all the books automated, you can just read things form DNDBeyond and dont bother buying them for the other GM to reduce that 2nd $400 purchase just to be able to keep playing using FG... it will only cost you the $150 Ultimate license fee to have someone else GM instead of yourself.

[damned]

Its not a technically achievable feature with the way the software has been designed. The database resides on the GMs/Hosts computer.


The players can already manipulate objects that they've been given permission to manipulate, I don't see how it's unfeasible to give one player global permission to manipulate anything while the GM's program is still hosting the database. The only effective difference between a GM and a player in most circumstances is being able to use the map masking controls and moving/rolling on behalf of NPCs.

If you say so.
Im only telling you what the developers have stated many times.

[damned]

Fantasy Grounds is NOT user friendly for gaming groups. As has been stated multiple times, you can't "share" books like say DNDBeyond or roll20. you have to have access to the DMs computer to be able to get use out of any book the "group" owns. unlike physical books. but if yo dont need all the books automated, you can just read things form DNDBeyond and dont bother buying them for the other GM to reduce that 2nd $400 purchase just to be able to keep playing using FG... it will only cost you the $150 Ultimate license fee to have someone else GM instead of yourself.

Without quoting everything you posted for brevity and not for obfuscation...

Most commercial software - and yes I very specifically mean most and not all, but indeed the vast majority - that have a free version would qualify for the definition you propose.
I propose to you that this definition is one written by and supported by people who dont believe in the value of paying for other peoples time, effort, energy, intelligence etc etc.
It is a term used for various reasons - insert your own here - that basically boil down to - I want your stuff but I dont want to pay for it.

Likewise most - and once again I very explicitly state most, meaning the majority and not all - commercial software is not licensed in a way that is either group friendly or accommodates groups.

There are competitive products that have different license agreements and each customer or potential customer will have to make their own minds up about the value of features - including licenses - and make their own decisions.

[pindercarl]

Maybe someone that can navigate the ideas website can link to the multiple GMs idea so you can help upvote it for a future FG release. :)

https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40882