Players seeing all dice rolls

[ZoranDob]

Are there any plans to have an option for players to see each other's rolls in chat? Thanks.

[JohnD]

That's a setting the DM sets.

[Zacchaeus]

If you are talking about Unity then currently the player only see their own dice actually rolling. The other players dice and the GM dice only show shadows.

[ZoranDob]

If you are talking about Unity then currently the player only see their own dice actually rolling. The other players dice and the GM dice only show shadows.

Thanks Zacchaeus. It is Unity that I am referring to. Are there any plans to have this option added?

[Zacchaeus]

I can't remember. Moon Wizard posted something somewhere about it but I can't remember where or what he said, sorry.

[Moon Wizard]

We don't have plans to change this right now; but it is something on our list to review in the future to see what might make sense.

Regards,
JPG

[Griogre]

Players being able to see other player's dice rolls and cheer and groan at the crits and fumbles are a big part of having the digital dice, IMO.

[Stv]

Players being able to see other player's dice rolls and cheer and groan at the crits and fumbles are a big part of having the digital dice, IMO.

Definately agree with Griogre on this, not seeing other playes rolls will detract from the playing experience massively (at my table at least).

Cheers, Steve.

[A Social Yeti]

I notice the feed shows me the outcomes of the rolls for my whole party, just not actual watching the die roll.
So i get to see who hits/misses/crits still.


HOWEVER. What we the players miss out sharing in, is the tiltly 20/2, will it 20 will it miss stuff.
In terms of a die actually being rolled and what's the bother of doing physics dice rolls anyway?
I can't actually understand the design effort point, unless the whole table shares in that roll's wobble excitement together.


But in terms of dealing right now when only the outcomes are seen but not the actual physics roll. This means the player rolling or the GM kinda need to be providing active play calls like a sports announcer to give it the excitement.
Don't just let the outcome be read by each on their own, but give a flavorful description of your hit/miss/crit, to help replace the die roll watching excitement we'd normally get to at the table.

It is everyone getting to see the die wobble momentarily in the uncertainty of outcomes, that we can see potentially coming on the hit/miss numbers showing on the top while it's not obvious which way it is going to land.
When you and you alone sees this, then no one else at the table shares in that brief second of excitement, no big yes or oohhhh to be had if only you are the one watching that go on.

[Kyler]

You can see other player rolls in FGC correct? At least when we play we can. Why would this change?

[Zacchaeus]

You can see other player rolls in FGC correct? At least when we play we can. Why would this change?

Because the dice roll mechanics in Unity are a lot more complex. A lot of information would need to be send to a lot of players in order to accomplish what is a pretty complex architecture - and would more than likely cause a lot of lag on the dice rolls (which with my internet is bad enough as it is).

[A Social Yeti]

Because the dice roll mechanics in Unity are a lot more complex. A lot of information would need to be send to a lot of players in order to accomplish what is a pretty complex architecture - and would more than likely cause a lot of lag on the dice rolls (which with my internet is bad enough as it is).

This is why the design here makes me scratch my head and wonder, "what were they thinking/why was this the good idea to them?"
It just does not make sense to me as is.

They went through a lot of effort to make those dice roll, so the one person rolling them could watch it go on alone in a vacuum away from all the other players at the table?

I can't imagine this as a design that provides useful value to the players for all the programing effort and CPU time it takes.

It would'a been way more players at table sharing in the moment exciting/interesting, to watch a pRNG wheel spin animation or whatever, at least together as the group.
Then to get physics dice rolls alone.

So it seems a waste of effort in deign for how it's a basically solo player game feature (watch my die roll alone) injected into a group played game part where we'd all be watching in anticipation together, and white knuckling over the tilty hit/miss we can see wobbling on top.


We do have that moment of tilty die time, that winds up feeling empty and missed compared to the IRL table top, cause we don't share in it with anyone.

So the only thing that the physics roll dice could'a been stand in for from IRL, does not go on as long as the player rolling can't share in that moment with anyone else. Any kind of shared in, what's it going to be moment, is what we get at the table. And FG does not have that, it thought we just personally had so much fun watching the die roll alone on our own that all the effort was put in so we can solo watch the dice roll?

[Griogre]

Because the dice roll mechanics in Unity are a lot more complex. A lot of information would need to be send to a lot of players in order to accomplish what is a pretty complex architecture - and would more than likely cause a lot of lag on the dice rolls (which with my internet is bad enough as it is).

I shouldn't, really, in the best case - they should only have to send the number seed/position and have each client roll the dice locally. Similar to what happens when you double click on a dice rolling field in FGC.

[Neovirtus]

I don't know anything about the technical limitations, but it seems to me like this is something that was definitely a downgrade from FGC. I think this should be a higher priority than a lot of the "bells and whistles" that are so commonly asked for around here. This is basic functionality a virtual table top software should have.

[roanoke13]

as VTT is used to be a shared experience, having players see what other players roll (visible dice) is very important.
Every week my players always complain about this especially when crit / fumble are rolled.

I can understand that this may not be important to some, but why the option isnt included seems a HUGE oversight to me.

[Granamere]

I am still mainly using FGC but would it be possible to have the shadow effect go on until the dice reveal happens then have it appear to all of the clients with the value of the dice roll? Whoever is the roller would still see the "real" dice.

[A Social Yeti]

I am still mainly using FGC but would it be possible to have the shadow effect go on until the dice reveal happens then have it appear to all of the clients with the value of the dice roll? Whoever is the roller would still see the "real" dice.

That's would not be the table sharing in the excitement of the actual dice rolling.

You know the wobbly die that holds for a second on the 20/2 edge and we can all see it may roll either way, and that split second that seems to last for a minuet and the whole table gasps or cheers together as they watch it happen.

There is no actual difference between the feed printing "miss" or "hit" for us to read, than to just show us an image of a die with a number on it, after the roll.

That's why i described that a pRNG number scramble or spinner or any other version where the whole table actually gets to watch together would be a superior design choice, to the physics simulated die roll we share in the moment of with no one.

We all watch it happen and anticipate together, that's it that the feature we get at the table that is part of the shared excitement of the play, that the virtual table design explicitly skipped out on?
It is the kind of design that would make me ask: Did the people that made that ever actually play at a real life RP table? It is one of the things shared in by the players and to choose to not have it is a real head scratcher to me.

Especially so after i notice how the die rolled so real and did the whole actually tiltly crit/miss stuff. They had to go through a good bit of effort to do that, for what? Watching that alone, sharing it with no one? I am genuinely baffled as to why this was considered better than a pRNG we could all share in the anticipation excitement moment.

[Kelrugem]

That's would not be the table sharing in the excitement of the actual dice rolling.

You know the wobbly die that holds for a second on the 20/2 edge and we can all see it may roll either way, and that split second that seems to last for a minuet and the whole table gasps or cheers together as they watch it happen.

There is no actual difference between the feed printing "miss" or "hit" for us to read, than to just show us an image of a die with a number on it, after the roll.

That's why i described that a pRNG number scramble or spinner or any other version where the whole table actually gets to watch together would be a superior design choice, to the physics simulated die roll we share in the moment of with no one.

We all watch it happen and anticipate together, that's it that the feature we get at the table that is part of the shared excitement of the play, that the virtual table design explicitly skipped out on?
It is the kind of design that would make me ask: Did the people that made that ever actually play at a real life RP table? It is one of the things shared in by the players and to choose to not have it is a real head scratcher to me.

Especially so after i notice how the die rolled so real and did the whole actually tiltly crit/miss stuff. They had to go through a good bit of effort to do that, for what? Watching that alone, sharing it with no one? I am genuinely baffled as to why this was considered better than a pRNG we could all share in the anticipation excitement moment.

As Zacchaeus said, there was once an explanation for this, and when I remember it correctly, it is not possible anymore with Unity to simply send the seeds to each other and let the computers do all their simulation as in FGC. But I do not remember the reason anymore, and maybe I completely mix that up :) But I remember that Moon Wizard said they will look at that again, just not for release :)

For me personally I do not need shared dice, even at a table I never cared for the rolls of the other players, I normally just wait for until they said there result :) (as player or GM) So, for me personally there is no difference in the feeling :D But I can understand the excitement when one is interested into that :) So, I hope that it will be changed for you all then :)

[LordEntrails]

Mention seed numbers reminded me that there was a discussion about precision. If I remember correctly and all that... FGU uses a 32 bit random number seed for the random dice generation. But the current function (OOB?) that sends the seeds between clients only supports 16 bit numbers. So, without that function being updated, different results would show up on the clients who didn't make the actual roll.

As said, it's valuable and would be looked at, but it doesn't make sense to me to hold up full release to resolve or re-implement this feature.

[Neovirtus]

...it doesn't make sense to me to hold up full release to resolve or re-implement this feature.

I don't think anyone here is making an argument for that. As far as I'm concerned FGU has been fully operational and ready for release for some time.

I do however think that this was never reported as a "Known Difference" from FGC and I believe it should jump to the top of the list of things to remedy. I didn't realize it was happening because my players never said anything and it's not visible from the GM side (or as a GM also running a Player instance). That said, if I had known I would have been beating on this drum throughout the beta. The 3D dice rolling visuals are a huge part of what makes FG great and I think this issue really harms the product.

[Granamere]

If this is a big deal to you I would make sure you put it on the wishlist and get your players to upvote it.

https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/

From my point of view and from what I have heard from my players testing it out this has never even come up but we are mainly using classic currently so maybe they did not notice the difference when we have been testing Unity.

[Neovirtus]

I firmly believe that bug fixes and known issues shouldn't be subject to majority rule. But it seems like this is somewhere in the gray space between a Known Difference between FGC/FGU, a deprecated feature, and a feature request. Please vote below.

https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/fg2app?ia=134681

[roanoke13]

IT IS IN !!!!!!

Awesome thank you's to the FG team for including dice rolling for player viewing last patch!!!

now we just need GM rolls to be visible so that, "the dice may fall where they may"

SUPER KUDOS!!!!

[LordEntrails]

now we just need GM rolls to be visible so that, "the dice may fall where they may"
You mean the option "Show GM Rolls"?

[Kelrugem]

You mean the option "Show GM Rolls"?

Due to the context they probably mean the physical dice :) (players can see other players' dice (no shadow) and they ask probably something similar for the GM dice :) )

[kevininrussia]

yeah, I'm up for showing the DM dice too. Option please :-)

[Nylanfs]

If I'm not mistaken rolling in the dice tower as GM automatically shows the rolls right?

[A Social Yeti]

And it is now doing this.
I've played all of 4 sessions in FGU.
The first three were just dice shadows for all other players for all rolls in or out of the tower.

Now in our 4th session suddenly we all get to see all the rolls of the other players except in the dice tower.



This is the kind of "we have plans" stuff that i feel ought to be more shared with the public.
not when, just what?

Because as a long time RPGer, when i look at your designs for an VTT tool, and i see things that anyone with actual real world RPG table xp would expect to get are in fact missing.

What do you imagine i can rationally assume of you, as a free market for profit product?

You are not kidding yourselves that i should assume to just place blind faith in you when you have your hand out for money do you?
So this is the deal. I must assume of your perceived short comings, that which is statistically reasonable in the market.
Which would not be, you got my back, it would be that you try to get my monye for as little effort (costs) as you can manage to get for.
So missing obvious features don't get the assumption that you do in fact plan for it, when you do not say what features you do or do not plan to have up front.
To assume that of you would be irrational to the market's average behavior. And looking like you expected me to make uninformed money spending choices, only backs up the average market behavior assumption model.


But i get it. Rational based purchasing decisions is not what the market's middle bell demographic is know for. So following the trends would mean, only a smaller slice of the market pie is going to be more hesitant about funding you.

[Neovirtus]

And it is now doing this.
I've played all of 4 sessions in FGU.
The first three were just dice shadows for all other players for all rolls in or out of the tower.

Now in our 4th session suddenly we all get to see all the rolls of the other players except in the dice tower....

Yes... It was bugged before. Now it is fixed. Not sure I follow the thrust of the rest of your rant.

[A Social Yeti]

Yes... It was bugged before. Now it is fixed. Not sure I follow the thrust of the rest of your rant.

It is that if FG had any public facing info on what the design functions/features that are planned were to expect.
Then when something that seems integral to replicating the tabletop experience is perceived as missing.

People could know:
design does include this, just not in yet or is bugged.
vs.
the design of FG actually lacks that feature, it was not considered or planned to have such.


To pay in advance for an entirely unknown feature set, is basically an irrational purchase decision.
And as long as anyone wants to hang the "early access" label, i can't exactly pretend they are somehow blissfully unaware of that.

I assume when it drops the EA label, they will actually post a full features/functions list for the product.
And for now until that's out, missing features can't be assumed just broken, they are in fact missing by design and so a poor design that failed to notice key elements of the game table that should be replicated.

Basically any business with the hand out for the monye, insults my intelligent if they assume to get my monye on just good feelings and trust, but not info on plans of features and functions for what is being paid for.


All my research says this is the best VTT app i can find, but that's not changing that when i see questionable things i do call them out.
Early access and too little info on the design plans, is a buyer bewared rad flag in today's market ecosystem.

[LordEntrails]

It is that if FG had any public facing info on what the design functions/features that are planned were to expect.
You really like this idea. I can tell you after 5 years of experience with FG this is not going to happen, no matter how much you would like it. I could be wrong though.


To pay in advance for an entirely unknown feature set, is basically an irrational purchase decision.
Good thing there is a free demo that you can use to learn this if the existing documentation is not fully known.

I will say I'm unaware of any software program that actually as a fully detailed public feature list. Even the programs my company pays millions of dollars for has all sorts of undocumented features and even the change logs don't tell us everything that has changed.


Basically any business with the hand out for the monye, insults my intelligent if they assume to get my monye on just good feelings and trust, but not info on plans of features and functions for what is being paid for.
Then don't give them your money. If the existing documentation and free demo can't tell you enough, then you are not going to get what you want.


All my research says this is the best VTT app i can find, but that's not changing that when i see questionable things i do call them out.
Early access and too little info on the design plans, is a buyer bewared rad flag in today's market ecosystem.
I agree this is the best VTT available. And I've made the choice that as a buyer I am aware of the risks associated with spending money on it. And I'm fine with that. If you are not, then everyone can understand you choosing to spend your money elsewhere. What I'm having trouble understanding is all the time and effort you are putting into worrying about something you can't change. IF FG, including the company practices and community are not what you are willing to spend money on, then I do suggest you spend your time and money finding another program that will give you want you want. We wish you well.

[A Social Yeti]

You really like this idea. I can tell you after 5 years of experience with FG this is not going to happen, no matter how much you would like it. I could be wrong though.


Good thing there is a free demo that you can use to learn this if the existing documentation is not fully known.

I will say I'm unaware of any software program that actually as a fully detailed public feature list. Even the programs my company pays millions of dollars for has all sorts of undocumented features and even the change logs don't tell us everything that has changed.


Then don't give them your money. If the existing documentation and free demo can't tell you enough, then you are not going to get what you want.


I agree this is the best VTT available. And I've made the choice that as a buyer I am aware of the risks associated with spending money on it. And I'm fine with that. If you are not, then everyone can understand you choosing to spend your money elsewhere. What I'm having trouble understanding is all the time and effort you are putting into worrying about something you can't change. IF FG, including the company practices and community are not what you are willing to spend money on, then I do suggest you spend your time and money finding another program that will give you want you want. We wish you well.


I find this demo is a rather ify one to make such claims really.
RPGers play a specific rule set, and they play with other players.
As a GM the demo can not give you any sense at all of what it will be like to GM for players.
Only what it is like to pretend to be the players to your GMing. Pretty massive reality gap to demo there.
And the basic free rules leave so much out, you quickly hit the wall of, if only you had the paid for books you'd really see what it does.


I finds it is less of a real demo and far more the feature that is how pay for GMs can even exist. Because who'd pay $50 for the app to then gamble on paying a GM that may or may not be any good? I'd be real sure that only people that first paid $50 for the app , so they could then pay a GM to run game for them, would too small a market demographic to generate a viable pay for GM market in this one VTT app.

It is to my judgement less of a demo than the marketing frames it as, and more of the design requirement if you want to sell it as a pay to get a GMs app.

I will admit my reverse design eye is fairly cynical, but then bills to pay and a needed minimum revenue stream are very real product design influences no matter who you are.




You make a little bad assumption here on me though:

I say i find this is the one to buy, but even though i make that call, i still call out what i see that i find questionable none the less.

Which, well at least to me, seems to give no indication of personal emotional worry about the expense.

Is it the early access market?
And is a hand out for monye with too little info about what you are going to get not a well established red flag in the market space?
Not a promise of bs, but something that ought to make anyone rubbing two brain cells together a little skeptical and maybe wanting to ask more questions, seek some more solid data to make an informed chocie before handing over the monye?

And doubly so for anyone operating in game market zone.
Expect gamers to know what
risk/reward is
and what
player agency is.

And if in the market the r/r is or is not reasonable and if i can or can't have the needed data to be making an informed decision (agency).

I'm no one's fanboi, even the stuff i already bought in for. If anyone wants to be great, then criticism and critique is what they seek out far more than praise.

[LordEntrails]

I really don't understand most of your statements. I'll try to reply to those that I do.

If the free demo doesn't give you the sense of running a game that you want/need. Then either join a game through one of the groups and play as a player for free (FG College and other Discord groups are available, plus the forums). Yes you are going to be limited to some rulesets more than others, but its possible to get in to a free game and get the full player experience. If that still isn't adequate, then buy a license from the FG Store. You can also buy all the books etc and then if it doesn't work for you, get a full refund within 30 days.

Otherwise it sounds like you are saying; hey, give me everything for free and I'll use it for however long it takes me to decide if I want to buy it and if so then I will pay for it. I don't know any products that do anything like that. When I bought a new car I had 24 hours. When I buy clothes I don't get forever to evaluate them. When I buy a video game I have a limited return policy (often only for defects).

I'm sorry for my bad assumptions. I assume I have made more than one, but its because I really just don't understand what you are trying to get at.

I will agree that criticism is good. Hence one of the reasons I suspect SW is so adamant about keeping their community open to all respectful discourse. And even though they often don't comment, I do know the decisions makers do read most of the forums, and they are always glad of all feedback, positive or negative. But because I really don't understand most of your feedback (except the desire to have a public development plan) I don't see how they can use it constructively. Note, that's me. I've often been proven to be less insightful or understanding than the SW leadership.

I have no idea why paid GMing is even a factor here. Maybe that's what you want to get into or something and somehow think the FG license model should accommodate that differently than the Ultimate license does. FG has nothing to do with my revenue stream, not sure what you are referring to there. If you mean the revenue stream for SmiteWorks, not sure that's your decision to influence other than as one of a hundred thousand customers.

IMO, FG has a generous refund policy for those who feel a free demo of everything except networking (FGU) or everything except content creation (FGC) is not adequate for you.

[Kelrugem]

I think I can jump in here :) What the social Yeti (cool name by the way :D) tries to say is that it is difficult to understand FG's power as a new user. The marketing could improve in that aspect a bit, indeed. When I played still on Roll20, I needed two attempts of trying FG to understand its power. The point which sold me FG was its incredible automation (which really helps for 3.5e then) :) But that is/was nowhere really advertised, in my first attempt I did not see anything related of effects in the list of properties of FG. The standard trailer back then emphasized the official modules, the physical dice etc., but it didn't really emphasize in what FG differs when compared to other VTTs (beside how hosting and licensing works). So, in my first attempt FG looked for me just like Roll20 but with a nicer UI (yup, I like the UI, lol :P). Since I wanted dynamic lighting, I sticked with Roll20 then.

Then I have seen someone playing on FG and have seen the effects and how they affect automation. So, I tried FG again, and then FG immediately caught me. Along my way I then found aaaaall other nice features :)

Yes, a complete list of features is difficult, especially because it might differ by the ruleset. But a little more elaborated list of features, especially focusing on automation and other aspects which you still rarely find in the other major VTTs, could be useful to sell FG to other people :) (now you could also add LoS to that and its types, how you can dynamically build a map etc.; honestly, FGU's ability to build maps is incredible in my opinion, such that I honestly think on just building maps there instead of using CC3+ etc.. Compared with other VTTs that became another really strong advantage now, even more so when we have dynamic lighting, too)

[Griogre]

I do agree with Social Yeti in theory, but the "design blueprint" of FGU is FGC with a few noted examples. Basically, it's just like FGC except a 64 bit application with better networking code and with preliminary LOS code. The port to Unity also caused interface and asset storage structural changes.

Obviously, this is less helpful to people who never used FGC extensively, but both applications still share the same feature list and I think this is the point Social Yeti is making, that the newcomers don't know what the final version FGU 1 is supposed to be because they don't know the ins and outs of FGC.

This thread was about FGU not matching an FGC feature which I personally have found to be important and fun. I didn't think "rolling real dice" was that important when I first came to FG from another VTT, but the cheers and groans of my players at the results of die rolls turned out to be important to making FG feel like you are playing around the table. Others agreed, and Smitework was responsive and fixed the issue.

I think what bothered Social Yeti is a "random" comment on the boards got such a quick response for apparently, to him, no reason while for other comments from people tell the suggestor to put it on the wish list. The difference here was that "real dice rolling" was one of the major features and major selling points of FGC.

[A Social Yeti]

I really don't understand most of your statements. I'll try to reply to those that I do.

If the free demo doesn't give you the sense of running a game that you want/need. Then either join a game through one of the groups and play as a player for free (FG College and other Discord groups are available, plus the forums). Yes you are going to be limited to some rulesets more than others, but its possible to get in to a free game and get the full player experience. If that still isn't adequate, then buy a license from the FG Store. You can also buy all the books etc and then if it doesn't work for you, get a full refund within 30 days.

Otherwise it sounds like you are saying; hey, give me everything for free and I'll use it for however long it takes me to decide if I want to buy it and if so then I will pay for it. I don't know any products that do anything like that. When I bought a new car I had 24 hours. When I buy clothes I don't get forever to evaluate them. When I buy a video game I have a limited return policy (often only for defects).

I'm sorry for my bad assumptions. I assume I have made more than one, but its because I really just don't understand what you are trying to get at.

I will agree that criticism is good. Hence one of the reasons I suspect SW is so adamant about keeping their community open to all respectful discourse. And even though they often don't comment, I do know the decisions makers do read most of the forums, and they are always glad of all feedback, positive or negative. But because I really don't understand most of your feedback (except the desire to have a public development plan) I don't see how they can use it constructively. Note, that's me. I've often been proven to be less insightful or understanding than the SW leadership.

I have no idea why paid GMing is even a factor here. Maybe that's what you want to get into or something and somehow think the FG license model should accommodate that differently than the Ultimate license does. FG has nothing to do with my revenue stream, not sure what you are referring to there. If you mean the revenue stream for SmiteWorks, not sure that's your decision to influence other than as one of a hundred thousand customers.

IMO, FG has a generous refund policy for those who feel a free demo of everything except networking (FGU) or everything except content creation (FGC) is not adequate for you.


based on this i would assume that you do not have a whole lot of xp in the "early access" market in general. Like you've maybe not considered funding up to say 10 different early access agmes yet? You've maybe not sunk a fe hundred dollars into a hand full of EA projects to discover the EA market bell curve.
Basically the main POV i have here is explicitly due the hanging of the EA label over the FGU product.

Early access with hand out is a bell curve of fly by night con jobs, good intention but in way over their head noobs, legit and practiced developers with creditable history that still fail to deliver too, and some that totally turn out what they claim they will turn out for your EA money.
And basically a bit of a red flag in that market space is, too little info on specific features/functions that are planned.
I can't care when, just what is the question. And as far as i can tell FG has given no actual reply.
Not even to put in print to say
FGU is intended to be all the core features that FGC already has, that unity can support.

If they had said even this one simple thing, then i could not have imagined that they just so spectacularly failed to understand the IRL RPG table, that they just didn't even plan to allow the all see dice rolls to go on in the first place.

Now imagine FGU is done and they remove the EA label.
Do you imagine most consumers buy a product when the description amounts to, it does great stuff, buy ti to find out more.

I am using the free demo a lot, i am playing in game with somoen else. But it really does only go so far, and not very far at into the xp of what it will be like to run a game.
And seeing as paying for it is to run game more than be in one...kinda misses a bit of the point of a demo then in my POV. But does fit a proper feature for the function of pay for GMs not being as inciting if you gotta pay $50 first to find out if paying them is worth while or not.
I do not believe you could as well sell the product to those GMs if they knew the players could not join them without a $50 fee first to someone else.


not asking for free, asking for a normal features description of a product for sale.
And FG just had the unique situation of an established FGC base they didn't need to explain that to i see.

[SilentRuin]

based on this i would assume that you do not have a whole lot of xp in the "early access" market in general. Like you've maybe not considered funding up to say 10 different early access agmes yet? You've maybe not sunk a fe hundred dollars into a hand full of EA projects to discover the EA market bell curve.
Basically the main POV i have here is explicitly due the hanging of the EA label over the FGU product.

Early access with hand out is a bell curve of fly by night con jobs, good intention but in way over their head noobs, legit and practiced developers with creditable history that still fail to deliver too, and some that totally turn out what they claim they will turn out for your EA money.
And basically a bit of a red flag in that market space is, too little info on specific features/functions that are planned.
I can't care when, just what is the question. And as far as i can tell FG has given no actual reply.
Not even to put in print to say
FGU is intended to be all the core features that FGC already has, that unity can support.

If they had said even this one simple thing, then i could not have imagined that they just so spectacularly failed to understand the IRL RPG table, that they just didn't even plan to allow the all see dice rolls to go on in the first place.

Now imagine FGU is done and they remove the EA label.
Do you imagine most consumers buy a product when the description amounts to, it does great stuff, buy ti to find out more.

I am using the free demo a lot, i am playing in game with somoen else. But it really does only go so far, and not very far at into the xp of what it will be like to run a game.
And seeing as paying for it is to run game more than be in one...kinda misses a bit of the point of a demo then in my POV. But does fit a proper feature for the function of pay for GMs not being as inciting if you gotta pay $50 first to find out if paying them is worth while or not.
I do not believe you could as well sell the product to those GMs if they knew the players could not join them without a $50 fee first to someone else.


not asking for free, asking for a normal features description of a product for sale.
And FG just had the unique situation of an established FGC base they didn't need to explain that to i see.

Based on all your commentary that I've picked up on in random times I read it - you seem to be thinking this is not for you. Bottom line as its been explained before, this is not a giant company. It has limited resources, and has presented that up front. Your theme seems to be the same commentary in multiple threads - you want more - your disappointed with what you see - but you have not actually invested in anything outside of the free demo version. There is no crime in that. If you've made the call its not what you want then its not what you want. Its not worth the money, to you, that they are asking for. That's perfectly fine. Everyone has different needs and expectations and this will not satisfy everyone.

I've explained why FGU is a fit for me. You've explained in many posts I've stumbled onto that it is not something you think is worth the money you'd be required to pay to be a DM.

My suggestion is to simply be a player, leave the money outlay to the DM's that wish to run campaigns. You play for free - you get what you pay for. Or move on and don't worry about it. Give it a year and check back then - if its still not up to your standards - tell it like it is and move on again.

Point being - the number of times you've stated your opinion I'm sure has been received by the powers that be. I mean if I, an utter nobody and only here since June has seen it multiple times, I'm sure they have also.

Good luck if you choose to continue your commentary though - I have a soft spot for Don Quixote types that charge the windmills of their choice - as I occasionally do that also :)

[LordEntrails]

based on this i would assume that you do not have a whole lot of xp in the "early access" market in general. Like you've maybe not considered funding up to say 10 different early access agmes yet? You've maybe not sunk a fe hundred dollars into a hand full of EA projects to discover the EA market bell curve.
Basically the main POV i have here is explicitly due the hanging of the EA label over the FGU product.
Correct, this is the only early access / beta / Kickstarted software I have ever supported. I would only support such a product if I had a very high confidence level in the company and the product. Which I do. ( I used to be a sales application engineer, so I know how to sell vaporware.)


I can't care when, just what is the question. And as far as i can tell FG has given no actual reply.
Not even to put in print to say
FGU is intended to be all the core features that FGC already has, that unity can support.

If they had said even this one simple thing, then i could not have imagined that they just so spectacularly failed to understand the IRL RPG table, that they just didn't even plan to allow the all see dice rolls to go on in the first place.
Here's where I can help you. Because they have put all that in writing. Either you failed to see/find it, or perhaps you find it in adequate. But it's all detailed on the Kickstareter project page; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/smiteworks/fantasy-grounds-unity/description

Here are the relevant parts for you;


Original Features Supported:


Multiplayer support for playing tabletop games of Dungeons & Dragons (2E, 3.5E, 4E and 5E), Pathfinder RPG 1, Pathfinder RPG 2, Starfinder.
Built-in content for D&D 3.5E, 5E and Pathfinder 1
Officially licensed add-on content available for D&D, D&D Classics (2E), Pathfinder, Starfinder, Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, Basic Roleplaying, Castles & Crusades, Mutants & Masterminds, 13th Age, W.O.I.N., Traveller, and Rolemaster Classic
Generic system support through our CoreRPG ruleset
Brilliant Campaign Management
Integrated character sheets with lots of automation built in for playing and leveling (depending on ruleset and content owned)
Combat Tracking
3D dice


Fantasy Grounds Unity Enhanced Features Include:


64-bit support to allow for more content (quality and quantity)
Native support for Mac, Linux and Windows PC
Network lobby for easy hosting and joining of games (no port forwarding required)
Tile based map building
Enhanced Drawing Tools
Additional Dice Macros support
A new FGU only skin
Dynamic Line of Sight with enhanced toggle blockers
Paint with images, such as walls
Animated image effects
Backward compatibility with all existing campaigns and DLC from FGC

In addition to these features, we are now poised to add even greater functionality going forward. We have lots of ideas for new features and this rebuilt engine will make it easier for us reach those goals and deliver consistent updates for free.


As a point of reference, 8,520 people felt confident enough in the company and details of what was detailed in the KS to pledge $509,343 to it. Doesn't mean you should have that same level of confidence, we all have different thresholds. But I would hope it would go some way towards building some confidence in the company and the product that is now in early access.


And seeing as paying for it is to run game more than be in one...kinda misses a bit of the point of a demo then in my POV.
I would love to hear what you think the free demo should include, and how such would not turn into a free demo that would be abused by a large number of people.


But does fit a proper feature for the function of pay for GMs not being as inciting if you gotta pay $50 first to find out if paying them is worth while or not.
I do not believe you could as well sell the product to those GMs if they knew the players could not join them without a $50 fee first to someone else.
I can see your view point, but it does not seem to be commonly shared. As evidenced by the number of KS backers and the huge growth of new community members and number of games being run on FGC/FGU.


not asking for free, asking for a normal features description of a product for sale.
And FG just had the unique situation of an established FGC base they didn't need to explain that to i see.
IMO the homepage of this website, with it's tables and FAQs, and example videos and lists of supported systems and so much more is that "normal description of a product for sale."

When I bought FGC, I did extensive research on all the viable VTTs at the time. I made up a spreadsheet with info from all of them. I demo'd the ones I could, browsed their various communities and got to know them enough. Given one of the things I do/did professionally is recommend software solutions (often for hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars), I think I did a pretty thorough job of it. But one thing I learned about is sometimes referred to as "Analysis Paralysis". One must know that one can never know all the unknowns, you will never have an answer to every question. At some point you have to make a decision, because further research is a waste of time. And every day that you don't make a decision because you want more information is a day of lost opportunity. And as the sun sets, this is a hobby program that you are thinking about spending $50 on, not an enterprise solution costing $1million that you are implementing to try and stop a $30k per day waste or loss of efficiency.

The time you are investing in finding the right solution (questioning FG) is valuable time. Don't waste it.