PDA

View Full Version : Plaguestone module combat tracker using 'Medium Animal #' in combat tracker



yarnevk
August 10th, 2019, 21:33
In this module the first encounter has a 'Caustic Wolf' and three 'Mangy Wolf' but they all show up in the combat tracker as 'Medium Animal #' which is a name from the traits rather than the names in the encounter window.

I was expecting to see 'Caustic Wolf', 'Mangy Wolf 1', 'Mangy Wolf 2', 'Mangy Wolf 3' in the combat tracker (if I recall D&D 5e ruleset works that way)

I do not see any option to make it use the actual names rather than the generic names, beyond the tedious manually editing all the names in the combat tracker.

Talutha
August 10th, 2019, 22:11
They are listed like this because the creatures are not identified. If you click on the ID button on the combat tracker next to the creature's token(has a no smoking symbol on it) it will give it the proper name.

yarnevk
August 11th, 2019, 03:22
Indeed in this module on that encounter table the ID button defaulted as not selected.

Personally I think it should be the other way around that the encounters are setup to have to manually mark those things for the GM who does not want players to know what they are - but maybe it should be a ruleset option to override whatever is set on the encounter table.

There should also be an override on the combat tracker since someone could take a Nature check to see if they know what the beast is during the encounter if it is marked as unknown.

Since it is already metagamey by using a wolf icon on the map regardless of what the tracker name is, the knowledge check is not really to know what the name of the beast is but if they know what danger it is.

So I think this is metagame protection being taken to far.

Although in this encounter the boss wolf is a Caustic Wolf so I can see why a GM might want to hide that while other GMs would probably telegraph it saying you can see green drool dripping from his mouth.

Trenloe
August 11th, 2019, 06:08
There should also be an override on the combat tracker since someone could take a Nature check to see if they know what the beast is during the encounter if it is marked as unknown.
There is an override on the combat tracker - that's what @Talutha was mentioning.

You can also ID the NPCs in the encounter before adding to the CT.

It's one click. Not too much of a hassle, and whereas you might not thing it's a nice feature, others do...

yarnevk
August 11th, 2019, 11:40
Went back and looked carefully and found the override was indeed in the combat tracker. The font is running into the icon, so the word ID is not legible, and the red obscures it fairly well. I thought it was just a red marker on the icon highliting it was an enemy. The eye icon for map visibility is much more contrasting, larger and surrounded by empty space and was much more readable.

The feature would be much nicer if the GM could set the default the way they prefer (ID or not) so that it is automated for the majority of their NPC (likewise for magic items) with the overrides for the minority exceptions. That is much better than having to remember to manually click everything just because the module author has a contrary opinion about how the GM should run their game.

damned
August 11th, 2019, 12:20
If you think the default behaviour ught to be different you can add it or vote on it on the wishlist.

You can also change the ID/non-ID in the Encounter before you add it to the Combat Tracker.

I am sure that there could be code written to set default behaviour in Options but I believe it would be non trivial so please add it to the wish list and see if it gains any traction.

Trenloe
August 11th, 2019, 13:36
This is base Fantasy Grounds code. That is, it will have to be changed by SmiteWorks in the CoreRPG ruleset. As damned says, put your request in the wishlist and see if the devs think it’s a worthwhile change.

yarnevk
August 11th, 2019, 20:10
This is not because of base FG code.

I just checked many of my D&D 5e modules and they all had the encounter tables defaulted set to ID. With that ruleset I do not have to click on every monster in the encounter or tracker to get them the proper names. Adding encounters in 5e is simply a one click operation.

So not defaulted to ID is specific to PF2 ruleset (or this module - do not have others yet)

Bidmaron
August 11th, 2019, 20:33
yarnevk, the default being the way it is was a vast majority opinion back when this feature was added. You are in the VAST minority who wants it the other way. I doubt this will change any time in the future because your wishlist will get almost no votes (assuming you do it). As for using the wolf token, unless they are concealed, the people can at least SEE what the thing looks like. That is not radioing anything. It's kind of hard to believe someone thinks clicking one option on an encounter string is burdensome, but wish away!

Ckorik
August 11th, 2019, 20:36
This is not because of base FG code.

I just checked many of my D&D 5e modules and they all had the encounter tables defaulted set to ID. With that ruleset I do not have to click on every monster in the encounter or tracker to get them the proper names. Adding encounters in 5e is simply a one click operation.

So not defaulted to ID is specific to PF2 ruleset (or this module - do not have others yet)


Yes - and it's super annoying in 5e - however I'm very happy that it works the way it should in Pathfinder.

yarnevk
August 12th, 2019, 01:13
That certainly is an opinion you can have that it should be that way - all the more argument for the option to set the ID default behavior so that every DM/GM can run the game easily the way they want to - and not the way you think they should.

The point is if it is different in 5e that is proof that it is not a base FG issue as suggested, but something specific to the ruleset that makes it different. In which case there is a setting somewhere that is defaulting it differently, which indeed could be toggled by a UI.

If you want 5e players migrating to PF2e telling them they are doing things wrong it is not going to make it a success. This has nothing to do with version differences, DM/GM are free to decide if people have to do nature checks to identify beasts (or not) or just rule that they would already know so no check is needed in either system.

yarnevk
August 12th, 2019, 01:18
kind of hard to believe someone thinks clicking one option on an encounter string is burdensome, but wish away!

Here is someone that thinks having to turn off ID on all the monsters in 5e was super annoying. So yes people do find it being defaulted away from what they prefer to be annoying.

It turns what should be one click to add the encounter into multiple clicks for each monster group, and if you miss doing it you have to scroll thru the entire combat tracker and do it for all the monsters.


Yes - and it's super annoying in 5e - however I'm very happy that it works the way it should in Pathfinder.

damned
August 12th, 2019, 01:40
Hi Guys,
Please take a step back. The posts are niggling and and need not be.
We have differences of play styles in lots of different areas.

The toggle behaviour would be CoreRPG and not ruleset specific and should be added to the wishlist.

Trenloe
August 12th, 2019, 02:42
This is not because of base FG code.
I was referring to your request to have an option to change the default ID setting. That *IS* in the base FG CoreRPG code. Which is why we’re saying add your request to the FG wishlist.

As has been said, step back from this and stop making a mountain out of a mole-hill. It’s one click off a mouse to give you what you want. You’ve already spent more time arguing than you would take to change the ID setting in all of the encounters in all of the PF2 products released so far.

My recommendation - add your request to the wishlist. Post the link here so others who want this can vote on it. Then move on.

yarnevk
August 12th, 2019, 18:57
Could you explain why this is core RPG when the two rulesets behave differently. By that argument both 5e and pf2e would behave identically.

Being dismissive of suggestions because of not wanting to do extra clicks is not leading to good UI design. One of the challenges for Fantasy Grounds is that it has a high barrier of entry and poor useability. Removing unecessary clicks is part of good UI design.

Trenloe
August 12th, 2019, 19:30
Could you explain why this is core RPG when the two rulesets behave differently. By that argument both 5e and pf2e would behave identically.

Being dismissive of suggestions because of not wanting to do extra clicks is not leading to good UI design. One of the challenges for Fantasy Grounds is that it has a high barrier of entry and poor useability. Removing unecessary clicks is part of good UI design.
Whether an encounter is set with the creatures ID'd or not ID'd is set in each encounter. Create a new campaign with only the CoreRPG ruleset, create an encounter and add a NPC - you will see the ID button here. This is what we've been trying to get across - encounter ID is programmed in the CoreRPG ruleset, not in 5E, not in PF2. Your request to set a campaign level default thus has to be set in CoreRPG.

Let's look at this specific issue. Your complaint is that in Fall of Plaguestone the default for encounters is to have the creatures set as not Identified.


This has nothing to do with the ruleset. It is a design decision by the Fall of Plaguestone DLC creator.
I completely support this design decision for a number of reasons - it isn't possible for the GM to accidentally give away the name of creatures without deciding to ID them, etc.. The main reason being that to identify a creature (via the "Recall Knowledge" skill action) in Pathfinder Second Edition is an actual action - it is not done for free. Therefore, the PCs don't automatically know what they have encountered until they spend action/s to successfully identify the creatures.

As has been stated, this is a design decision, which only a very small vocal minority seem to disagree with. We already have one user posting in this thread to support that design decision (start with encounter not ID'd) and others (moderators, ruleset designers, old hands, etc.) who support it as well. There have been hundreds of this product and AP part 1 purchased. If this was such a big issue then I would have expected hearing a lot more complaints about it.

Sure, this is not how *you* want to run your game. It isn't at all forcing you to run in a specific way, because there are 2 places (the encounter itself and the combat tracker) where you can change this functionality with the click of a button.

You've expressed the opinion that there should be a campaign option to change the default behaviour. This is where we have asked you multiple times to create a request for this in the wishlist, as it is base CoreRPG ruleset functionality, to add a default option that overrides what has been entered in the encounter record.

I hope the above explains why your request to add an option is base CoreRPG ruleset functionality, and why the DLC designer has made their decision to start with encounters not identified - which makes good design sense with PF2 requiring actions to identify creatures. This probably won't change your opinion, but it will hopefully allow you to understand the background better and where changes would need to be made.

My recommendation to you is to add your request to the wishlist. Post the link here so others who want this can vote on it. Then the main FG devs can make a decision as to whether the ability to set the creature identification default is added as an option to CoreRPG in the future. If this is not good enough for you, then I suggest you investigate creating an extension that will provide the functionality you desire.

yarnevk
August 13th, 2019, 20:43
So what you are saying is that all the 5e encounter authors decided to change each encounter away from the coreRPG encounter default of not ID?

Regardless of the table argument of should (or not) a player know what they are facing - should not this ID setting be only for the players combat tracker? The GM should be able to see the ID names on their GM combat tracker regardless of the players knowing it or not. Running this encounter with the boss wolf being named the same is confusing because at a glance you do not realize it is actually the boss because they have the same non-id name, you have to open up every wolfs attack abilities or click on their NPC links to figure out which one is the boss. This is the same idea as hidden creatures are not shown on the players map/tracker but are shadowed on the GM map/tracker.

Trenloe
August 13th, 2019, 21:14
Creature naming in the combat tracker is CoreRPG controlled as well.

Please make any requests for any feature changes/additions in the FG wishlist.

Note that the creature ID functionality is fairly recent, so I'm sure the devs will be looking for ways to improve the functionality.

Trenloe
August 13th, 2019, 21:22
So what you are saying is that all the 5e encounter authors decided to change each encounter away from the coreRPG encounter default of not ID?
No. That's not what I've been saying at all.

As I mentioned in post #16 , it was a design decision to enter the encounters in Fall of Plaguestone as not identified. Which, as I also said, makes sense for Pathfinder Second Edition as you don't automatically identify creatures. I've outlined this in detail in post #16.

yarnevk
August 13th, 2019, 22:07
So what you are saying is the coreRPG has it set by default to ID, and the PF2e encounter authors changed it in the encounter table whereas 5e encounter authors did not. So a CoreRPG feature to set the default to preferred ID or not does not do anything for released encounters - this is only if you are authoring your own encounter tables.

Actually the rules are that the GM decides if a roll is required in both systems - so please stop trying to say this is because PF2e rules are different. The only difference is in PF it is defined as an action, whereas in 5e the DM can decide that for themselves (accounting for action economy it is taking away the attack in 5e). I have 5e seen streams go all different ways by the same DM in the same game on this - deciding they could not know so no check, surely know so no check, or not sure so roll a check with or without costing an action. If I recall even the PF2e dev running a game said you would know so no need to check.

I would not say it is a new CoreRPG feature when tracker/map icon visibility already distinguishes between GM/PC trackers/maps, but rather the implementation of the ID for tracker/map name visibility was a feature left incomplete since it does it for both the GM/PC trackers/maps when it should just be the PC trackers/maps.

Trenloe
August 13th, 2019, 22:34
Yes, an option to override default encounter ID settings would work to override encounters created as non-ID'd. You seem to want to keep guessing how things work and how changes would actually be implemented without fully appreciating the architecture and what can and can’t be done and how layered rulesets operate.

I stand by all I’ve stated in this thread as to what would need to be changed in CoreRPG and what needs to be logged as a feature request. I kinda know what I’m talking about as I have a little bit of knowledge about these rulesets, PFRPG2 in particular (I’m the ruleset developer).

As I’ve said multiple times - log your requests for feature changes in the FG wishlist. It doesn’t matter whether you view the current implementation as incomplete or not - you need to log your request for a change. I’m guessing you haven’t actually done that?

Trenloe
August 13th, 2019, 23:36
You know what, I've wasted far too much of my time on this thread. I wanted to not just dismiss @yarnevk's opinions and lack of understanding of how FG works, and spend my time educating and explaining the background to this issue and options available. But they either aren't reading what I'm saying, don't understand it or don't believe what I'm saying - I'm guessing from some of the arguments probably the latter.

I've spent about 2 hours of my time responding in depth to this thread. I now feel that time was wasted. I could have spent that much more constructively developing PFRPG2 features and converting the Bestiary DLC. Heaven only knows how many encounters @yarnevk could have changed to ID'd in the time they've spent in this thread - probably enough to last a lifetime.

In the end, it comes down to this - the developer has made a decision to tag the encounters in their PFRPG2 FG conversions as not ID'd. That's their decision and I'm fine with it. If a different developer decides to have encounters as ID'd, or the current FG developer changes their mind and starts producing encounters that are now ID'd, then I'm fine with that too. It's not a big deal. There are two places where this can be changed with the click of a button - one click! Changing this in the PFRPG2 DLC material is not what a majority wants - far from it, there is one person complaining about this, and more than one supporting it!

@yarnevk - you are the sole voice wanting this changed. It's not a game breaker and it's not stopping you running your games how you want to run them - one button click does that for you. Assuming you're still not happy with this, the process for requesting a change has been outlined to you many times in this trhead. Whether you don't believe us or not when we tell you the changes you want need to be done in the CoreRPG ruleset - that's up to the SmiteWorks developers to decide where they'd make that change, if they make it at all.

To be perfectly frank, continuously questioning what I'm saying is getting very tiresome (and beginning to border on disrespect to be honest), so I'm going to leave this thread how.

yarnevk
August 14th, 2019, 21:52
Again you are being dismissive resorting to the click argument.

That sort of response is unprofessional considering you are engaged in a customer service position as a developer when you are contracted to develop the ruleset.

It is understood that it is not the ruleset that enforces the change, but rather the adventure module developer decided to do it that way. And of course the only reason to do it is as someone already said about 5e - that the number of clicks for the DM/GM is super annoying to change it to be the other way.

Had this been posted to the 5e forum saying can we please change the module defaults to hide the names, because it is super annoying it defaults to showing it to the players? Would your response also have been just as dismissive that it is only a few clicks to change it?

By that argument there was no reason to change the behavior between 5e and pf2e modules - because it is just a few clicks either way. Obviously it was changed because someone thought the extra clicks was annoying. So stop dismissing requests for change over how many clicks you think are not annoying.

Bidmaron
August 15th, 2019, 00:38
New content should be made with identification hidden. The feature hasn’t been around long. Old content might not support it. For newer content, if something was released with identification not (edited to add NOT) hidden and someone complained, I believe most content developers would fix it without any complaint.
You are becoming a royal pita if you haven’t figured that out. Were it up to me (and it isn’t) you’d be voted off the island. That almost never happens but it has happened once.

Trenloe
August 15th, 2019, 17:58
Again you are being dismissive resorting to the click argument.
I think you're being very hypocritical saying this. You have dismissed everything the people in this thread have been trying to tell you - people who have much more knowledge and experience of the underlying Fantasy Grounds architecture and code.


By that argument there was no reason to change the behavior between 5e and pf2e modules - because it is just a few clicks either way. Obviously it was changed because someone thought the extra clicks was annoying. So stop dismissing requests for change over how many clicks you think are not annoying.
This again shows that you're not grasping what we're trying to tell you. The ability to identify creature names has only been added to the FG rulesets (those based on CoreRPG) recently. Before then, there was no option to do this at all. Setting up encounters as unidentified is a *new* thing, and it's great that the PF1 and PF2 products take advantage of this. Hopefully other FG DLC developers will consider doing the same for future products and take advantage of the new encounter ID functionality.


Had this been posted to the 5e forum saying can we please change the module defaults to hide the names, because it is super annoying it defaults to showing it to the players? Would your response also have been just as dismissive that it is only a few clicks to change it?
What you fail to grasp is that you're the only one asking for this. One person! As I have said multiple times, there are 5 people in this thread who want encounters set as unidentified. Already your request is in the minority (5-1 against). Additionally, there are at least 26 PF1 and PF2 products that do this - that's probably over 1000 product sales and no one has mentioned this as an issue before - not even mentioned it, let alone argued the toss to the level you have. You are by far and away the very small vocal minority on this issue.

Ultimately, this is the reason why I will not be implementing your request. I've said this before, but you either aren't reading or you don't believe me (I'm guessing a bit of both based off your incessant arguing and demands):


You are in the vast minority here. No one else is asking for it, and a bunch of people have said they like the PF2 products the way they are. This simple fact should be enough for most people, but oh no! not for you, you are completely dismissing this very important point.
If you think other people would like it, why don't you add it to the wishlist so others can vote on it? Do you do this - oh no! You don't want to do that - why? Is it because you think that he who shouts loudest gets what he wants? Not on these forums you don't. You see, we're not like most forums on the internet - here we support and help those who are polite and reasonable, and respect and appreciate other people's opinions. I have tried to respect yours - by spending an inordinate amount of time trying to explain how things work and why I'm not going to advocate changing the way the PF2 encounters have been setup in the official DLC. But all you do is dismiss everything I, and others, have been trying to tell you.
Here we get back to the "one click" argument, in tandem with the above two points. If this was such a hassle for the GM to change, one way or the other, and the desire to have encounters default to ID's or non-ID'd was an equal split among the community (which it isn't - see point #1 above) then I'm sure that things would be looked at in a different way. But, it's not. There is a simple way to change the deployed functionality (one-click) - which you keep dismissing.


I think you're the type of person who loves an argument, never sees things any way except your own, and always has to have the last word. So I'm not going to bang my head against a wall trying to educate you and argue with you, because it's simply a waste of time. You should realise that being the one person incessantly arguing when you're in the vast minority is not going to get you anywhere, all it's going to do is annoy a bunch of people and any goodwill you may have had is going to evaporate.

I'm going to leave this thread open for a while, so you can have the last word - I hope that makes you at least a little bit happy. ;) Then I'll close the thread as we're going nowhere and you're the only person even mentioning this, let alone making such a ridiculous song-and-dance about it...