Looking at Options Data

[Moon Wizard]

As I was working on a few fixes today related to a particular option and I got curious about usage for that option, I decided to pull all the options data for 5E sessions over the last 6 months. I thought others might find the information interesting.

The data is based on sessions, so the data will be skewed somewhat by very active users. Also, options will tend to be skewed towards the default option, since not everyone changes the options. Finally, this was not a rigorous look at the data, more of an rough overview.

Game (CoreRPG)


Chat: Set GM voice to active CT
Off* 93.1%, On 6.9%


Chat: Show all whispers to GM
Off* 89.1%, On 10.9%


Chat: Show GM rolls
Off* 76.8%, On 23.2%


Chat: Show portraits
On* 100%


Chat: Show roll totals
On* 99.4%, Off 0.6%


Party: Show character inventory to clients
Off* 88.7%, On 11.3


Table: Dice tower
Off* 66.2%, On 33.8%



Combat (CoreRPG)


Add: NPC numbering
Append* 93.5%, Random 6.0%, Off 0.5%


Player: Ring bell on turn
Off* 84.1%, On 15.9%


Player: Show turn order
On* 98.1%, Friend 1.3%, Off 0.6%


Turn: Show effects
Off* 89.1%, On 11.9%


Turn: Skip hidden actor
Off* 93.3%, On 6.7%


Turn: Stop at round start
Off* 97.2%, On 2.8%



Token (CoreRPG)


Auto-scale to grid
80% of Grid* - 88.9%, 100% of Grid - 10.5%, Off - 0.6%


Facing indicator
Off* 95.7%, On 4.3%


Show name
Tooltip* 95.5%, On 3.1%, Hover 0.9%, Off 0.5%



Combat (5E)


Add: Auto NPC initiative
Group* , Off 4.2%, On 14.7%


NPC: Rolls (Variable or Fixed)
Variable* 99.6%, Fixed 0.4%


View: Bar Colors
Standard* 96.8%, Tiered 3.2%


View: Health - Ally
Detailed* 96.5%, Off 0.3%, Status 3.2%


View: Health - Non-ally
Status* 97.6%, Off 1.6%, Detailed 0.8%


View: Wound Categories
Simple* 94.0%, Detailed 6.0%



Token (5E)


GM: Show effects
On* 98.1%, Hover 0.4%, Mark 0.3%, Mark Hover 0.1%, Off 0.5%, Tooltip 0.6%


GM: Show health
Dot* 95.0%, Bar 3.8%, Bar Hover 0.4%, Dot Hover 0.1%, Off 0.4%, Tooltip 0.3%


Player: Show Ally effects
On* 97.6%, Hover 0.4%, Mark 0.4%, Mark Hover 0.0%, Off 0.6%, Tooltip 1.0%


Player: Show Ally health
Dot* 86.8%, Bar 6.1%, Bar Hover 0.7%, Dot Hover 0.1%, Off 0.8%, Tooltip 5.5%


Player: Show Enemy effects
On* 97.1%, Hover 0.4%, Mark 0.5%, Mark Hover 0.1%, Off 0.9%, Tooltip 1.0%


Player: Show Enemy health
Dot* 88.5%, Bar 3.1%, Bar Hover 0.3%, Dot Hover 0.3%, Off 2.3%, Tooltip 5.5%



House Rules (5E)


CT: Auto death rolls
On* 89.0%, Off 11.0%


CT: Roll init each round
Off* 96.7%, On 3.3%


CT: NPC hit points
Standard* 91.4%, Max 1.1%, Random 7.5%


Damage: Massive system shock
Off* 98.3%, On 1.7%


Attack: Fumble/crit tables
None* 93.4%, Both 5.6%, Critical Only 0.4%, Fumble Only 0.6%


PC: Encumbrance
Standard* 97.3%,


PC: Healing variants
Standard* 98.4%, Fast 0.6%, Slow 1.0%


PC: Inspiration slots
Standard* 96.0%, 2 Slots - 1.3%, 3 Slots - 2.7%


Map: Diagonal distance
Standard* 96.5%, Variant 3.5%




EDIT:
Another interesting option setting for 5E campaigns:

Top 10 Desktop Decals
81.3% = Off (Default)
11.6% = SmiteWorks (Possibly Old Default Years Ago)
3.1% = D&D Base (D&D logo shorthand; Default when using WotC theme)
2.7% = Lost Mine of Phandelvar (Dragon vs. Party)
1.9% = Curse of Strahd #1 (Strahd Coat of Arms)
1.3% = D&D Logo (D&D logo words)
1.3% = Player's Handbook (Giant vs. Adventurer)
1.1% = Xanathar's Guide to Everything #4 (Ship Harbor)
0.8% = Hoard of the Dragon Queen (Dragon Breath vs. Adventurer)
0.8% = Out of the Abyss #1 (Demogorgon)

Regards,
JPG

[FG_Dave]

Thanks for the data John!

I am surprised more DM/GM's don't have show all whispers turned on. :D

[notrealdan]

Very interesting!

“Tyranny of the default” is a powerful force.

Or SW have very reasonable defaults! :)

[JohnD]

Please don't remove any options.

[LordEntrails]

Come on JohnD, do you really want to option to turn off Portraits :)

But yea, I would be very concerned if any options were de-optonalable!

Thanks for the data Moon, appreciate it.

[JohnD]

Come on JohnD, do you really want to option to turn off Portraits :)

But yea, I would be very concerned if any options were de-optonalable!

Thanks for the data Moon, appreciate it.

I'm more concerned with my own (apparently) almost unique combination of the (apparently) lesser used options potentially disappearing. Not too worried, just wanted to put it out there to please not remove stuff. :)

[Moon Wizard]

What options are those? ;)

I have a couple that I'm considering removing/simplifying. Less options = less user confusion, less startup learning, and less maintenance. So, I try to review regularly. Just like I review community extension usage for possible new baseline features.

Cheers,
JPG

[Moon Wizard]

Added Top 10 decal choices to first post.

Cheers,
JPG

[JohnD]

Add: NPC numbering Append* 93.5%, Random 6.0%, Off 0.5%
Player: Show turn order On* 98.1%, Friend 1.3%, Off 0.6%
Facing indicator Off* 95.7%, On 4.3%
Add: Auto NPC initiative Group* , Off 4.2%, On 14.7%
CT: Roll init each round Off* 96.7%, On 3.3%
CT: NPC hit points Standard* 91.4%, Max 1.1%, Random 7.5%

These are the ones that stand out the most for how I run games. I prefer initiative change each round and that nobody knows the order of action in any round, with occasional exceptions.

I'll say it again; please don't remove options. :)

[Zacchaeus]

That is very interesting.

There are some extremely low usage percentages for many of those options and the decals is shocking because I keep getting asked on Discord when are we getting decals for this or that module but it would seem that those asking are the only ones using them.

[Valyar]

Please don't remove any options in future, only add more! :)
This statistics probably shows that many people accept the defaults and/or don't understand what the other setting means.

[Zacchaeus]

Please don't remove any options in future, only add more! :)
This statistics probably shows that many people accept the defaults and/or don't understand what the other setting means.

I think the statistics though are pointing to the fact that in virtually every case you can remove every single option and just default everything to the most commonly used one. Sure those that fall into the sometime tiny percentages of people who use an option won't be happy but the vast bulk of users won't even notice.

[dulux-oz]

Just like I review community extension usage...
Cheers,
JPG

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing those figures, if you have them - please?

Cheers

[Zacchaeus]

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing those figures, if you have them - please?

Cheers

I think he didn't put them up because he didn't want to give away the secret that no-one uses those DOE ones :)

[twistedtechmike]

I'm with JohnD, and happen to use the majority of his same options.

[Atua]

I really like the options where you can randomize initiative roles for each individual enemy and also randomise their hit points. It is something that I found was useful in face to face games (well the initiative order one anyway, because if enemies go in a group, you can sometimes get really bad spiky NPC damage) but really hard to implement in face to face games, timewise anyway. For FG it is so simple.

[Trenloe]

There are some extremely low usage percentages for many of those options and the decals is shocking because I keep getting asked on Discord when are we getting decals for this or that module but it would seem that those asking are the only ones using them.
Considering there were approximately 290,000 5E sessions in the last 6 months, even a small percentage is a few thousand sessions.

But, yeah, it does go to show that people asking for stuff can be in a very small majority sometimes.

[dulux-oz]

I think he didn't put them up because he didn't want to give away the secret that no-one uses those DOE ones :)

Yes, that's what I suspect is happening - but it would be nice to actually know (because then I can relax and not worry about keeping everything up to date).

[Kelrugem]

Add: NPC numbering Append* 93.5%, Random 6.0%, Off 0.5%
Player: Show turn order On* 98.1%, Friend 1.3%, Off 0.6%
Facing indicator Off* 95.7%, On 4.3%
Add: Auto NPC initiative Group* , Off 4.2%, On 14.7%
CT: Roll init each round Off* 96.7%, On 3.3%
CT: NPC hit points Standard* 91.4%, Max 1.1%, Random 7.5%

These are the ones that stand out the most for how I run games. I prefer initiative change each round and that nobody knows the order of action in any round, with occasional exceptions.

I'll say it again; please don't remove options. :)

I am in the same boat, I also use some of the other "rare" options :)

I am also not sure if people also mean the options when they say that FG has a steep learning curve, the standard options are good for most use cases such that standard options can be taken at the beginning (and, thus, first ignored). But the thing about maintenance makes sense of course. Personally I would prefer when options are not taken away :)

[Moon Wizard]

I wasn't looking at any of those options for removal, so you're good. ;)

It was more likely options that have 99+% default or under 1.0% for that option that also had code that we need to maintain. While I agree that more options always seems like a good thing, streamlining is also a good thing. There are other areas that I want to streamline as well; but not enough time for everything.

The original option I was looking at was the Fixed NPC damage variant rule for 5E. As I expected, the numbers were extremely low. Given that the variant rule is used to speed up play, and FG already does that for damage rolls, I can understand why it's use is so low.

Cheers,
JPG

[Kelrugem]

I wasn't looking at any of those options for removal, so you're good. ;)

Yay :D

Ah, okay, what you say makes sense, especially with respect to such variant rules :)

[celestian]

I was actually thinking of breaking the options window into tabs (tho a tree would be nicer). Client, Game, Combat, Token, House Rules. That way it's not a monolithic list of configuration but a little more organized. With the current configuration I still have to scroll around to find what I want and I've been using it a while.

I'm mostly thinking about this because there are some "optional" rules in the AD&D books I'd like to have listed but dont want to just have it lost in the list.

[Moon Wizard]

Yeah, it's definitely gotten bigger. The current implementation is very similar to a tree. Click on a header and the list collapses.

The most common alternate implementation I've seen in other software is the dual list. (i.e. Sections in one list, then show Details in right list after selecting section, default to first section). Not sure that's really better though.

Tabbed interface would match other windows within FG, and is conceptually similar to dual list. At some point, it would be nice to develop a built-in tab control. ;)

Regards,
JPG

[Talyn]

I'd much prefer to see (no clue what the actual 'names' of these dialog types are) something like Notepad++, Acrobat Pro, and, well, most other modern software use where you have a small clickable 'list pane' on the left and the actual options appear on the right. (Possibly what you were talking about wrt "common alternate implementation?"

That would allow more space for more options (YAY!) and 'optional options' from extensions could be wrapped in at the bottom of the list, or in a separate pane/container.

(Here's Acrobat and NP++ together)
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27453&stc=1&d=1559166597

[Moon Wizard]

It wouldn't be that advanced, more like two lists. (one for headers, and one for individual options) (similar to above, but simpler)

You can already define alternate individual option window types (checkboxes, etc.); but instead of monkeying with that, everyone uses the default option cycler. (because it's relatively easy)

Cheers,
JPG

[Bidmaron]

Instead of deprecating you could have an advanced option that contains the lesser used options. That would also drive up the usage because there are folks that like to think they are advanced and would pick an option just to prove it.

[LordEntrails]

Here's an idea... The ability to save a campaigns setting file and then share it. It would be useful for importing into campaigns or sharing with other DM's (or even with a module).

Just cuz, you know, you didn't have anything to work on...

[ddavison]

My guess is that you could swap the current default to the least popular option, wait a month and then the next month stats would be exactly reversed. The one exception might be the decals.

[hawkwind]

I tend to use the same options in ever campaign so it would be great to be able to set a personalized default setting i could carry between games

[Valyar]

I tend to use the same options in ever campaign so it would be great to be able to set a personalized default setting i could carry between games
Good idea :)

[LordEntrails]

Added the campaign settings save/share idea to the wishlist; https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/fg2app?ia=126366

[mattekure]

Hmm, I should add a suggestion for allowing us to save a preset for the shared/unshared status of modules. I have plenty of modules that are set to share by default, and I have to turn them off with nearly every campaign.

[Zacchaeus]

Hmm, I should add a suggestion for allowing us to save a preset for the shared/unshared status of modules. I have plenty of modules that are set to share by default, and I have to turn them off with nearly every campaign.
I believe if you copy the modulestate.xml file from an existing campaign to a new one that's what'll happen.

[mattekure]

I believe if you copy the modulestate.xml file from an existing campaign to a new one that's what'll happen.

Ooh, I'll test that. that would be perfect.

[LordEntrails]

I believe if you copy the modulestate.xml file from an existing campaign to a new one that's what'll happen.
Yes, but an actual function and UI built to do that would be nice :)