Dual DM Games

[Fourleaf033]

Does unity support 2 DM's or will it be like classic?

[CatDadCode]

Same as classic. I wish there was a way to co-DM though. That's the one and only thing roll20 has on FG in my opinion.

[damned]

I dont think its even on the road map.

[CatDadCode]

I know. Just fantasizing.

[seycyrus]

I know. Just fantasizing.

What's the fantasy? That FG was half price?

[CatDadCode]

What's the fantasy? That FG was half price?

That FG would someday get a co-DM mode...?

[seycyrus]

That FG would someday get a co-DM mode...?

In real life, co-DM mode is done by saying, "Ok, you DM next." Why can't that be done in FG as it is now? If you want to keep the same characters etc. just copy the campaign over to the other persons computer.

[CatDadCode]

Do you actually DM in FG? Players cannot see through fog of war. They cannot see non-public pins. They cannot access any of the tools in maps to draw, stamp, tile, etc. They cannot access any LOS functionality. They cannot access non-public maps, story entries, etc. They cannot access other players' character sheets. Yes I could have everyone disconnect, zip up my campaign, upload it to Google Drive, send it to my co-GM, they could download it and load it up. But then they don't have an ultimate license and none of the demo players can connect. Even if they do have an ultimate license they don't have all the same purchased modules I do. And even if they did have all that I would have to connect as a player and we'd have to do it all in reverse to give me back control, lmao. I don't know how you can compare this to DM'ing in person, lol. To top it off roll20 has set a precedent here because they *have* a co-GM mode; you can elevate any player in your campaign to DM and then they have access to the same tools as the main DM. That's what I wish we had here.

[seycyrus]

I'm not comparing it to anything, I was simply curious about what you meant.

But since you mention that the other person doesn't have an Ultimate license it does seem that you simply want FG at a reduced cost. As I originally stated.

Note: I'm not a SW employee or a moderator here. Merely a member of a free forum.

[CatDadCode]

No because I mean "co-GM" when I say "co-GM". They'd have to be in my campaign with me as host and all I'm doing is granting them additional privileges. They would not have the ability to go off on their own and take advantage of my purchases unless they were already in a game I am hosting. Again, roll20 does this. Even if they pay for the ultimate license we can't both join the same game and have DM powers. It has nothing to do with your cost straw man.

[seycyrus]

Ok, explain what you mean by co-DM, and how it would work in FG. Are you implying that this term is somehow universally understood? Because it isn't.

Let's go with the premise that multiple DMs each paid the for the ultimate edition, what functionality is implied?

[LordEntrails]

No because I mean "co-GM" when I say "co-GM". They'd have to be in my campaign with me as host and all I'm doing is granting them additional privileges. They would not have the ability to go off on their own and take advantage of my purchases unless they were already in a game I am hosting. Again, roll20 does this. Even if they pay for the ultimate license we can't both join the same game and have DM powers. It has nothing to do with your cost straw man.
It gets discussed once or twice a year. If you want, you can vote for it on the wishlist; https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40882

[CatDadCode]

Are you implying that this term is somehow universally understood? Because it isn't.

First of all, yes it is. Just because you don't know what I'm talking about doesn't mean it's not generally understood. Also, you literally confirmed that you know what it means to co-DM in person... AGAIN, roll20 has this already and is arguably the most popular VTT out there so yeah, people know what it is and it's a commonly requested feature here, as confirmed by LordEntrails just now. I'm here because I think FG is far superior to roll20, except on this one point. Second, are you even paying attention? I literally listed every single thing that a player cannot do while connected to a game, that they would need to do in order to co-DM. I'm gonna guess you haven't actually DM'd a game using FG. I'm not going to argue just for the sake of arguing. The whole thing is moot anyway because it's not even on the FG dev team's radar, which is fine, I was just fantasizing.

[LordEntrails]

Let's stay chill folks.

[CatDadCode]

Let's stay chill folks.

Sorry. I'm easily provoked today for some reason. Apologies to you both.

[Zacchaeus]

Ok, explain what you mean by co-DM, and how it would work in FG. Are you implying that this term is somehow universally understood? Because it isn't.

Let's go with the premise that multiple DMs each paid the for the ultimate edition, what functionality is implied?

What is meant by a Co-DM would basically be two people DMing the same game; one might be in charge of the storytelling and the other would be in charge of combat. It would require that two people be able to 'host' fantasy grounds at the same time which the current architecture doesn't allow.

[damned]

the system architecture and the database design doesnt allow for this without major rework.

[The High Druid]

It occurs to me that this could have a secondary benefit of being a way to fudge multi-monitor support (at least for those running the game), by being able to have a second instance of the program with dm powers on a second monitor