GM requesting rolls from players (moving from an extension to core)

[BronzeDodger]

Seeing rob2e's post with extension recommendations made this Q bubble-up: Why is the feature that allows a DM to send die roll requests to players not baked-into the base FG?

There are two extensions I have run across that do this:

5E - Roll For Initiative (by st4lk3r87) (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?45234-5E-Request-Roll-Extension-WIP)

5E RFIA Addon (by Houndy) (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?56994-5E-RFIA-Addon-Manual-spell-concentration-death-saves-NPC-support-Contested-skill)

Use (in my mind) is more core to using a VTT than anything else - it's a capability simply not possible at in in-table game (where if you ask for a Stealth or Perception check, it's a lot of effort not to metagame if your PC is not involved). The handful of times I discovered that these extensions were conflicting with others, the others always lost. We preferred the real-estate and menus of one of the extensions that removed the sidebar but when it conflicted with being able to request rolls we zapped it.

I was going to add this as a suggestion on the support page but I wondered if it's remotely reasonable (and just has not been done yet) or if there are so many ruleset-specific tweaks that it's not something that could exist in CoreRPG but instead would need to be custom for each ruleset?

[Zacchaeus]

You could probably make the same point about any extension since what an extension does is change something in the base code which someone wants to see. And since the majority of users possibly don't want to have to mess with a pop up window whenever they want the players to make a roll then it is better as an extension which those users who do want to mess with a pop up window can use and leave the base code as it is for the majority. Most extensions are quite niche with only a small section of the user base using extensions at all (although those that do tend to be quite vocal about their favourite ones and wonder why it's not in the base code).

[BronzeDodger]

Can't disagree in general - but it's not quite right. Many/most extensions apply only to a given ruleset (I uses things that help with Advantage, Attunement, Spell Tokens, Wildshape) or 5e. So obviously those are next to impossible to make generic. But in general asking for die rolls is nearly universal - so rather than be a "feature for game X" it would apply across the board.

As I tried to figure out the various ways it would need to be made generic one of the fall-back methods would seem to be using /w in the chat box to simply ask for it to be roll into the dice tower. And so that prompts another thought: could the chat box be tweaked to make the one-on-one (or one-to-many-but-not-all) easier? Like the ability to pop-open a chat separate from the main window for a single player (or a subset of players, akin to a discord channel) - so that you never have to juggle coding different dice and difference settings (exploding dice, etc.) - but would make it dead easy to simply type "do X check on the dice tower".

So mostly just curiosity because I haven't the foggiest idea about coding (i.e. is it 5 hours of effort by SW but would to slot into the countless priority items, or is it 100 hours and even if requested, likely would never see the light of day?).

[Zacchaeus]

I don't know coding either but I'm guessing it wouldn't be easy. I suspect that it probably wouldn't be too difficult to add something that just asks a player to roll a dice. The difficult comes into what you do with that roll. If we take a simple example of an NPC casting a fireball on 6 PCs currently as DM I just need to target the PCs and one click to make the saves and one more to apply the damage. Because of the way that FG handles these saves it knows what happens on a failure and on a success. If I get the players to make the rolls then I lose that connection. I need to work out manually whether the save succeeds or not and I need to somehow apply the correct damage if the save is successful. Now it can be done but it's going to take me several minutes to figure all of this out and get the right damage applied. So we don't want a simple thing here because not only do we want the players to roll the dice but we also want to automate those results. We want to be able to click a damage roll and apply that to the results of all the players. And I think that's where the difficulty would come in in terms of getting code to match all that up.

I'm not sure that there could be any kind of generic thing since a saving throw would mean different things in different rulesets. The basic functionality of asking a player to roll a dice via some kind of interface could be a core mechanic; but applying the results would need to be ruleset specific.

[Ludd_G]

Without wanting to appear argumentative (not my intension) I'm just wondering if many DMs are actually rolling their players saves for them, when they're at the table? I don't, and can't imagine my players would ever accept me telling them whether they passed or failed a save without giving them the chance to actually make the roll themselves. If it is the case that the default when playing at the table is for the DM to request a saving roll, and I'm more than happy to be shown that the way I do it at the table is the exception rather than the norm, then I'd suggest these extensions are rectifying an lack in FG when it comes to replicating (as far as is practicable) the table-top experience. I know that many compromises are both inevitable and likely, but the presence of these extensions make it seem like this isn't necessarily so in this case.

I suppose what I'm saying is that players rolling their saves seems like a pretty fundamental game-flow when round the table, so it's surprising that FG doesn't replicate it, as these extensions have shown that it is eminently possible.

Basically I love the RFIA extension and I'm gutted that it's no longer maintained, and hope that someone, if not Smite Works (when they have a bit more time available of course) will look to bring it or it's functionality back to the game.

Cheers,

Simon

[BronzeDodger]

With this I totally agree - it's in no way meant to replace the in-combat automation that already exists. We don't even use the manual-saves I think Ludd is referencing that the more up-to-date version of the extension permits (we let the automation do it). This is more targeted to requests for out-of-combat things. Example in a 5e sense would be for a stealth check, an insight or history check during an interaction, that applies only to certain characters, and it adds a layer of reality (heh) for perhaps only the PC with a common language being asked for an insight check, or the PC from the area being discussed being asked for the History check. I also do things like feed back different levels of detail to different PC's (for example if on a perception check to eaves-drop, one get a 15 the other 25, the 25 might pick-up something subtle. I find a great deal of role-play goodness when you give info a player who then decides how the character will relay what they learned (or do they keep it to themselves and leave the rest of the party in the dark).

But then of course nothing quite wakes up the players like seeing the "ROLL FOR INITIATIVE" popup - the only die roll I can pretty much count on everyone responding to almost as quickly as I send the prompt :)

[Trenloe]

And to put the other side of the argument - if the GM clicking a "roll" button to roll my PC saves time and streamlines combat and other actions, I'm all for it. I don't need to click the save button, I'm fine with the GM doing that. I still see the dice rolling in my dice colour (so as far as I'm concerned, in VTT space, they're my dice) and I see the result - the only difference is that the GM clicked the button.

Now, yes, if I was round an actual table and the GM reached over to roll my own dice for me, I'd take exception. But we're not around an actual table, we're playing on a virtual table...

In my games, if any of the players want to pay attention to their dice rolling I'll say "about to roll the save - pay attention!" (or something similar) and the players see their dice roll, results displayed, automation (that's available) applied - game moves on, we're not stuck waiting for all of the players to make a roll.

I can see the other side, people wanting to make the roll. But I think comparing this to sitting around a table and the GM rolling people's dice is not a direct comparison. There's lots of people who are OK with the GM triggering the roll in FG - I play in a regular group where all players are fine with that, and complex combats move much more quickly.

And, as has been mentioned above, trying to integrate all of the various RPG system rolls into "Core" functionality can't be covered by a one-size-fits-all approach. So there's lots of coding to be done for this, both in CoreRPG (to provide a framework) and then in a specific ruleset to actually implement it.

Is it something I think is useful for sometime in the future? Sure, stuff like this is cool. Would I want SmiteWorks to spend a few months right now integrating this into FGU? Nope, not at all. I'd rather they work on more pressing things...

[Jiminimonka]

That's the beauty of FantasyGrounds - extension allow users to fill a gap where its needed - and eventually, if enough people want it, it gets added in to the core system.

[EllivasKram]

I use and love RFIA.

But I now use purely for requesting the odd manual opposed roll. Which is a shame as it can do much more and I would use if it wasn’t broken and incompatible with other extns. (I use with the ‘manual saving rolls’ feature switched off now)

I have a few players who think that the computer auto rolling their saves when a NPC hits them or a concentration check is required. Is just not how they want to experience gaming. I have pointed out that it’s the same computer/algorithm who ever rolls.

[EllivasKram]

What I would support and ask for is some extns be given official support status. Potentially acquired and maintained by fantasy grounds.

Obviously paid for in the same way modules and content is.

Then the grave yard of dead extns will cease to grow and grow and the almost full time process of maintaining my FGU experience in a working state would end. I can then just update as required and know someone else has done the work. Worth paying for.

I know there is some mention of a FG EXTN ‘Forge’ being put together.

[Trenloe]

Then the grave yard of dead extns will cease to grow and grow and the almost full time process of maintaining my FGU experience in a working state would end. I can then just update as required and know someone else has done the work.
The great thing about extensions is that people can develop new cool functionality - new stuff is coming out all the time! If you're using third party extensions now, you'll be using new third party extensions in the future - things don't stand still. Even if SmiteWorks took on a bunch of extensions for official support and maintenance, there'd be a bunch more out next week, next month, next... that some gaming groups would love and consider indispensable. Back to square one.

The upcoming extension forge will help a little to keep things updated and make them in more of a central place (assuming developers choose that route), but it'll never make for a centrally supported and maintained environment; unless you take away one of the best things that makes FG extensions great - the community can code what they wish!

[Imagix]

I can see both sides of the rolling question. There's one camp where they'd want the program to do all of that mechanical stuff for them. There's the other camp (which my group happens to be in) where rolling dice (even virtually) makes them feel a little more a part of the game. I'd like a "roll for initiative" pop-up. Heck, in my group we do initiative each round.