FG has great functionality, expandability, and RPG support, but a clunky and dated UI

[frobnic8]

I'm really new to Fantasy Grounds and I mostly love it. I'm not new to application design and this extension (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?58226-Better-Menus-(CoreRPG-5E-etc)&p=512129&viewfull=1#post512129), as well as a few comments about it on the reddit post where I found it, made me realize how much Fantasy Ground's UI holds it back.

Thanks to my profession, I understand the limitations of software development on a large, long-running project. I also totally get how the best way to switch to Unity is to reproduce what you've got first and return to making improvements afterwards.

But I really hope that once that migration is done, there is more focus put on revamping the UX in general and the UI in particular. Fantasy Grounds is brilliant because it doesn't try to be so smart about what it automates that it gets in the way of you being in control, but still lets you automate where it can and in ways that REALLY help. The scripting for extensions is well thought out, open to everyone, and clearly expandable, and I love it for that. I also really value that ability to run it as a server myself, and not depend on external servers. The pricing models are delightfully flexible. I mean, there's so much to love here. Don't get me started on how grateful I am it runs on Linux or how there are so many RPG systems and modules being TRULY supported!

But please, PLEASE realise the current interface isn't part of the app's charm, it's a painful hurdle that users have to overcome not just to learn, but every time you need to use it.

I'm not hating on right-click context menus here, nor am I befuddled by radial menus (the glorious betamax of menus that too many interfaces left behind). But in an app that will put every scrap of screen real estate to use, there's SO much benefit to plain old menus over giant panels of buttons! In an app that is all about opening and managing your particular set of windowed resources, modern window management is SO valuable!

I'm not here to try and debate anybody. If you love FG's interface, great! But I did want to make sure that the awkwardness of these forums, whose dated look and feel echo that of FG itself, didn't stop me from at least making sure this position was heard. For some of us, the clunky interactions are a real setback. And it's likely a deal-breaker for those with less experience with older software, or even just less time and resources to take on the task of learning something that feels like it's fighting against you instead of working with you.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk. ;)

[KithKiryn]

I'd agree. Unfortunately I fell in love with Foundry VTT just after my players and I invested pretty heavily in and set up FGU so I'm kind of stuck with this. But the difference is insane. In comparison Foundry is fluid, lightweight, smooth and just works, while FGU is clunky, terribly in need of optimization and requires us to expect at least 30 minutes a night wrestling with crashes, freezes and absurdly long load times. That is if the frustration levels don't cause players to decide it's just not worth the hassle on a giveen night which always stinks but is understandable.

Well I guess my main gripe with FGU is the unwieldiness and poor optimization it seems, but a more intuitive UI and organization system would certainly help. Until then, eagerly awaiting patch notes that are more than a list of typo fixes =/

[Neovirtus]

@kithkiryn I think 95% of your frustration is with the fact that FGU is in Beta. Consider using FGC in the meantime, it has none of the issues that seem to bother you so much about FGU.

@frobnic8 I think you'll find the existing community pretty split on the UI issue. While many people will argue that they like it because it's different and doesn't feel like part of an OS or word processor or what have you, I think reactions like yours as a new user are exactly why it needs to change. While I'm accustomed to it, I still agree with a lot of your criticisms. I strongly believe FG is the best VTT out there right now, but it won't be forever with the current UI.

[KithKiryn]

That's good news and I'm sure FGU will get there eventually. Is it possible to switch from FGU to FGC in any way or would that require repurchasing?

[viviolay]

I have to agree as well. FG is my VTT of choice and I'm more comfortable with it than any other.

But I think I owned it for a couple years before I got to that point. I don't want to say its all cause of the UI, it just takes time to learn in general - but I'm sure it didn't help.

I know there are those who'll defend the UI as charming and unique and that's great. For some, it's because they're used to - like I now am. (not the same as satisfied with it)

But every time I introduce new people to FG and UI (both who have used other VTT and who are completely new to VTT with no prior influence/prejudice), I have some who struggle and I think part of it is the interface.

For my players with small screens especially, I spend time out of game talking about window management and how to optimize screen real estate, but this should be something they can figure out intuitively or is a non-issue from the bat. I didn't realize how big an issue it was until I tried celestian's Better Menus extension today and it just felt *right* for what I would want to maximize screen real estate. I already know my ranger in my party is going to be happy when he logs onto my game this upcoming week.

I levy this criticism with love, because I really do love this VTT. But I realize a whole new wave of VTTs are coming (Foundry, talespire, astral, etc) that is going to make the market more competitive. And I want me VTT of choice to continue to be competitive so that I can continue using it. Right now, I get mixed reactions when I try to get friends from other VTTs to play on FG and they often cite the issues you bring up because they had a negative experience in the past or word of mouth from others who are less enthusiastic about it.

So I really hope when FGU is out and stable, it can be the next thing to look at. Because for a good deal of people, presentation and first visual impressions matter.

[Imagix]

If you bought FGU directly from SmiteWorks, they have a 30-day refund policy. If you bought via Steam, see Steam's refund policies.

[viviolay]

If you bought FGU directly from SmiteWorks, they have a 30-day refund policy. If you bought via Steam, see Steam's refund policies.

I don’t think anyone was talking about a refund. Just expressing their opinion on one of the features of the software. (Which OP called brilliant).

I assume you’re being helpful - but depending on intent can come off as dismissive to tell someone to get a refund when they voice/express desire to discuss a concern.

Again, I don’t wanna assume intent. But just pointing that out.

[Imagix]

Refund in that if they decided they didn't want FGU, but did want FGC, they can refund FGU and buy FGC instead.

[KithKiryn]

Ahh I see. Thanks for the info but I think we *just* passed the 30 day mark. We'll just rough it out while it's developed :)

[LordEntrails]

Suffice it to say this has been discussed in detail many times before. As you noted, it is not a simple technical challenge. Nor is it a clear business decision either. I doubt you will see much response.

My experience is that SmiteWorks appreciates all the input.

[viresanimi]

If you will allow me, I will disagree whole heartedly. Yet .. not.

For me FG's UI is clearly one of its strengths. But then again, it was made by a couple of Finnish guys in the ancient history of the internet being born... or something like that. Being scandinavian myself I can see where some of the design cue's come from. And I like it. In an age where everyone put their internet buttons on the left side, which is stupid, they saw the sense and did the opposite.

As far as I see it, the "problem" FG has is that it is "different". That does not make it worse. But it does force people to stop and think about what they are doing, instead of being on familar ground with drop down menus and whatever else they are used to in Windows. Some say that is a benefit. I can see why people would think that. I happen to think that they are wrong. I DO NOT want a windows app. *shudders*

The most important bit about this conversation - and I do think OP will agree here - is that there is a need for a more flexible and customizable UI, that allows users to set the programme up the way they like it. I doubt FGC will change much or at all in this regard, and I am ok with that. But since FGU is made on Unity, it can feasably be used on a tablet I think. In that regard you will need a UI that is good for that kind of use. Big buttons and so on. On the other hand, others may sit in front of a small screen and be really concerned about screen space. Should they have options too? I should think so.

What Smiteworks really need to do, if they ever get around to making a customizable UI, is for them to understand, that players need to have access to UI profiles, so we don't have to fix it, every time we start a new campaign. Thanks! Oh, and if they will only fix their graphics that would be nice too. As in "all the frames are of slightly different sizes and buttons are placed seemingly at random with in them". God that makes reskinning a nightmare! A little standardization here please!

Anyhoo... I've always been a big proponent of choice. And for me, that is why we see disgussions like this. And while it is absolutely great that there are modders out there working on giving said choice, it really should be done by Smiteworks. From my perspective it's not really about "I hate it" or "I love it", rather than: "Hey, we're all different here, can you help us out there?"

Trust me. Smiteworks is very open to suggestions regarding improving their software, and this is a good disgussion to have in my opinion.

Just my few pixels worth of thought.


Vires Animi

[Three of Swords]

That's good news and I'm sure FGU will get there eventually. Is it possible to switch from FGU to FGC in any way or would that require repurchasing?

If I missed someone mentioning this already, my apologies. As an option, you could subscribe to classic for a few months using the monthly subscription option while Unity matures a bit, then switch back when it works for you.

If this option interests you, do it quickly. Because from what I've read, campaigns don't go from Unity back to Classic very easily (if at all). But going from Classic to Unity is supposed to be very simple (just copy the campaign folder). So changing now means less work lost.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on the Unity-to-Classic 'issue'.

[SirMotte]

Wow, I didn't know about Foundry. Will have an eye on this one. Also I love how they handle their Character sheets. Wonderful!
I agree to your statements quite a bit. A streamlined UI and the use of multiple choice menus in addition to easy entry linking (that update when changes are done at one end) would go a long way for FG!
And I totally get what was said about standardized frames for graphics in FG. Reskinning has proven to be quite an effort when some buttons have eg. 2px wider frames for no apparent reason.


Edit: What have you done! I just HAD to purchase FoundryVTT it's incredible!
Edit 2: On closer inspection, while the overall user interface of FoundryVTT is a dream come true, it lacks significantly in terms of overall content as well as combat automation (some mods help a little). But judging by the speed it is developed this will probably change very soon. SmiteWorks could really take a look at how things can be divided into folders with subfolder in subfolders in subfolders.... very handy to organize content.

[celestian]

I think the biggest hurdle for new users of FG is the interface. Once they learn it, because of the amazing automation in games, they can play just about any system.

If the UI can be modernized and made more familiar to what most expect (by adding new controls available) I think it would improve the user experience and make it easier for new FG users.

I'll keep my fingers crossed some of this is addressed in FGU at some point.

[The High Druid]

I certainly prefer the aesthetics of FG over the competition. When I started playing 5E after a few years break from RPG's I did the rounds of what was available at the time, and pretty much everything else felt like I was dealing with the front end of an old access database. And for me it took one evening of poking around to get up and running, verses several hours of youtube videos with other options and still being lost. However I definately agree screen-space is a big issue, and have frequently expressed my views on that (not exactly ui -related).

I think themes are being drastically underused here. And if the UI is altered in a significant manner I would hope most of it is done through the themes, so that those that want drop-menus etc. can simply install the appropriate one, and those that are comfortable with the existing set-up can use the existing themes.

[TXCBoy36]

While I am new the FG community, I am getting to know everyone. Personally, I really enjoy the challenge in learning the system, creating modules for game play, etc. I am also enjoying the FG College which allows for direct interaction with locals and instructors with extensive knowledge in how this system works. It gives a new enthusiasm to a game that I have played for the last 30+ years.

I am looking forward to learning even more as my time with this system progresses. It is also allowing a vehicle to reconnect with my kids out of state who enjoy playing D&D and we have been playing every weekend so I am very enthusiast about where this will all end up...

[Valatar]

I've never been a fan of the UI either. I've learned to use it out of necessity, but definitely understand why people feel it's outdated and clunky. It would be very good if a module or modules got released with variant UIs for people who aren't good with the default.

[JohnQPublic]

The UI is what made we stay with Roll20 as long as I did. It's not friendly.

[similarly]

I just invested in FG after using Roll20 for a bit, and while, at first glance, Roll20 is very intuitive, it's also very linear in the organization of information, and because of the way my brain is wired, I just like non-linear formats better. I like the way FG organizes data into categories.

[viviolay]

So I ran an epic game for DnDAL for players who never touched FG before (just a preliminary 1 hr teaching session with me prior) and when asked about their experience one of the notable things a player said...

"I didn't know Fantasy grounds looks so clean. " And he said this in a surprised tone (I believe based off what he heard from other ppl)

Note that I have the "Better Menus" extension installed that removes the sidebar in place for a small toolbar and opens up space. I now keep that installed in all my games as it's a good look on what I wish FG would look like default (regarding cleanliness/modern design). Small but impactful change.

UI makes such a big difference and altered that new players first impression and made them more receptive to learning.

[deer_buster]

As a long time owner/user of FG, I will say that I agree with the original poster. There are a great many things to love about FG. I'm super pumped that they are finally taking a step forward from the FG classic client, but in my mind it doesn't do enough to tackle the real UI/UX issues that exist.

Also, LUA is fine for a scripting language...many gaming platforms use it (although they don't limit LUA as much as FG, which allows for some very creative and useful mods in games), but the clunky way that you have to use/design the XML templates is very outdated and not intuitive or easy to figure out for most, and I hate doing it. I do hope that at some point we can get HTML templates (or something more modern by the time they get to it) to coexist or replace XML. JSON data files and HTML templates is probably where I would go if it were to happen now, but who knows what the future holds.

[similarly]

As a long time owner/user of FG, I will say that I agree with the original poster. There are a great many things to love about FG. I'm super pumped that they are finally taking a step forward from the FG classic client, but in my mind it doesn't do enough to tackle the real UI/UX issues that exist.

Also, LUA is fine for a scripting language...many gaming platforms use it (although they don't limit LUA as much as FG, which allows for some very creative and useful mods in games), but the clunky way that you have to use/design the XML templates is very outdated and not intuitive or easy to figure out for most, and I hate doing it. I do hope that at some point we can get HTML templates (or something more modern by the time they get to it) to coexist or replace XML. JSON data files and HTML templates is probably where I would go if it were to happen now, but who knows what the future holds.

Maybe you could formally suggest it as a feature? https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/

[deer_buster]

Maybe you could formally suggest it as a feature? https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/
I've already up-voted this one (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=62512), which would eliminate my complaint about developing content. It's been languishing since 2013 however, even though it is #5 on the list.

[LordEntrails]

I've already up-voted this one (https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=62512), which would eliminate my complaint about developing content. It's been languishing since 2013 however, even though it is #5 on the list.

And yet the crowd funding effort for that one failed miserably, my understanding. Perhaps a new crowd funding effort for it might succeed now?

[deer_buster]

And yet the crowd funding effort for that one failed miserably, my understanding. Perhaps a new crowd funding effort for it might succeed now?

So, you're saying that Feature Requests have to be crowd funded or they are ignored (I know that's not what you are saying, or your point)? If that is something that Smiteworks wants to crowd fund/outsource, then maybe they should be the ones sourcing the crowd funding effort (ala FGU), then it might grow legs a bit more. If content developers had something like that available to them, the amount of content could skyrocket as the barrier to entry would be a whole hell of a lot lower.

[deer_buster]

P.S. if something like that was created that not only could produce rulesets, but also extensions and modules for existing rulesets, I'd easily pledge $25-50.

[LordEntrails]

No, that's not what I'm saying. My understanding is that crowdfund attempt was not done by SmiteWorks.

My point is that this comes up from time to time, but those that want it don't realize 2 things;
1) It is incredible difficult to do. If a program is not architected originally to allow this type of API/UI/Interaction, adding one at a later date takes thousands of developer hours (like on the scale of FGU, with a lot higher risk). Which means a cost similar to FGU, and one that would only be of valuable to a small set of community developers (say less than 10%). So, rather than $40-150 per user, multiple that by an order of magnitude. As exhibited by your own statement, such a tool is not worth that much to you.
2) There's just not enough support to make such an investment a good business decision. It's an awesome idea, I would love it too. It would grow the FG community with a huge leap, but only once/short term. Their is a very finite number of rulesystems and users of those rulesystems. And the growth of new rulesystems (in the RPG market) probably would never sustain such a tool. Once the top 50? systems had rulesets, how many more would would emerge that would be financially viable? Maybe 1-2 per year?

Remember, even looking at all the different usage statistics, something like 95% of roleplayers use the top ~10 or so systems. (Number pulled out of my faulty memory, but you get the idea, and exact numbers don't really matter to make the point). And most of those systems already have FG rulesystems.

[deer_buster]

I knew that wasn't what you were saying or your point (even said so).

Hmm, seems like the "kickstarter", or whatever it was...I don't recognize the URL....was a significant order of magnitude less than FGU in goal....I may be wrong, those Euro number and Euro formatting throw me sometimes. I think it said the goal was 14,000 Euros, of which only 2,940 were pledged. Seems more doable and probably would have been if run on a more legitimate (in my mind) kickstarter page and advertised at least as well as FGU was.

And really, this tool, to be useful, would really only need to give us a WYSIWYG for the windows...the lua development is child's play in comparison. YMMV. I can't see how THAT could be so tremendously expensive.

[LordEntrails]

*shrug* I think that was before KS became the primary crowdfunding place for RPGs. But as I said, it's not about the actual numbers, but rather the relative. It would be a niche tool used by a small part of the community, with a limited life span.

I would be happy if I was wrong, and it got made, I just don't think SW ever will as I don't think it would make business sense for them. Again, would be happy to be wrong :)

[deer_buster]

It might be a niche tool, and it might not. Like I said it doesn't actually have to be a complete ruleset development toolkit to be useful. Some really creative people out there could WYSIWYG design charactersheets, popups, etc. export them to an XML and then others could then implement and automate. I dunno about the other content developers, but my "creative" side was overwritten by my logical side at birth. Design is NOT my forte. If someone say, created an aesthetically pleasing and thoughtfully laid out charactersheet for Starfinder, I would be happy to put the work in to implement it, but creating that XML layout is NOT something I like doing, at all. I have to remember what does what, where this comes from and where that comes from, and so on. I'd much rather focus on the logic.

Anyway, enough banter about it. I'm sure others have thoughts about what they like/dislike :)

[Jonin]

Wow, I didn't know about Foundry. Will have an eye on this one. Also I love how they handle their Character sheets. Wonderful!
I agree to your statements quite a bit. A streamlined UI and the use of multiple choice menus in addition to easy entry linking (that update when changes are done at one end) would go a long way for FG!
And I totally get what was said about standardized frames for graphics in FG. Reskinning has proven to be quite an effort when some buttons have eg. 2px wider frames for no apparent reason.


Edit: What have you done! I just HAD to purchase FoundryVTT it's incredible!
Edit 2: On closer inspection, while the overall user interface of FoundryVTT is a dream come true, it lacks significantly in terms of overall content as well as combat automation (some mods help a little). But judging by the speed it is developed this will probably change very soon. SmiteWorks could really take a look at how things can be divided into folders with subfolder in subfolders in subfolders.... very handy to organize content.

I haven't checked out Foundry until I saw this post. Wow it does look good. I'll definately have to grab a copy of that.

[Mytherus]

First i never understand folks that overly gripe about BETA software especially when the team working on it is communicating frequently what changes are going on and basically report on the status of each build as well as ask for feedback. Its literally a work in progress.

Now then i will use no other vtt besudes fg. I really like it quite a lot. The official support to many game systems was my initial draw before i even tried it. Foundry and other systems people bring up simply do not have the same level of support .particularly for dnd 5e my preferred system.

BUT the criticism about its UI is accurate. I agree it needs massive updating. Even simple things like...official dual monitor support over this 'well just stretch it over the other monitor" solution is awkward . No it should be designed for you to select elements of the ui and assign it for display on monitor 1 or 2. (If this happened it would be HUGE. I guarantee dms all over would love it...i would likely care less about other things being adressed in fact.)

Or even window resizing....i should be able to resize any window...including the CT....FULLY resize not like how it is now.

Thats just the simple things not even getting into the contols of interacting with the system and its features.

[Valyar]

Resizing of Windows like sheet or combat tracker is configurable and depends on the design by the ruleset developer. Sometimes you don’t want things to be resized for various reasons, sometimes it is ok to give players this option.

But yes, there is room for improvement. I hope we will get there with unity.

[NuclearMonkey]

I'd be happy if move within a map moved from middle mouse button to left (or even right).