Web browser support

[odoubleto]

Hello all,

I’m curious if there is a way to have players join a Fantasy Grounds campaign via web browser (similar to Foundry VTT). I’ll be tinkering with Fantasy Grounds Unity before committing to a purchase.

Thanks in advance!

[Jiminimonka]

Hello all,

I’m curious if there is a way to have players join a Fantasy Grounds campaign via web browser (similar to Foundry VTT). I’ll be tinkering with Fantasy Grounds Unity before committing to a purchase.

Thanks in advance!

No, that is not how Fantasy Grounds works.

Players needs to install the software and connect to the GMs game.

[zarlor]

I know this is a bit of an older thread to revive but I remember during the FGU Kickstarter there was some mention that one of the benefits Unity might provide would be the potential for a web interface (presumably much like Foundry VTT does where it's a program the GM hosts but then players can connect via browser) or as a mobile application, such as on a tablet. I've been really wanting either of those for quite some time, as with my gaming group I've been unable to use FG (even though I really prefer it, especially for Savage Worlds!) because almost none of them have laptops, they all use just tablets. So please consider this a feature request for browser or at least tablet support for FG.

[damned]

The kickstarter page and kickstarter faqs specifically mention Windows, Linux and Mac only. I cant find any reference to browser support.

[LordEntrails]

Any speculation that I remember from the Kickstarter era regarding browser support was purely from the customer side, never the devs. But, recently the devs have talked about developing a tablet companion app aimed at GMs to allow them to read the reference manual pages of their products. That is still a long way from having a player facing app and even farther from a web browser client. See the Fantasy Grounds Friday video on You Tube from late November with Doug Davison as the guest.

[Nylanfs]

The discussion I remember was more like with the old engine this was completely impossible, rebuilding in Unity "may" make this a possibility in the future.

[zarlor]

Yeah, I couldn't find where it was mentioned, either, and maybe it was just on the customer side and I'm just completely misremembering what I saw... or it was just wishful thinking. In any case it kind of sucks not having that available because I really love Fantasy Grounds, especially for Savage Worlds (which my group tends to play the most often, but certainly not exclusively), but because I have so few players that even have laptops anymore I'm stuck running games through FoundryVTT or Roll20 and neither of them, for my money, work as well as Fantasy Grounds does. So for now FG just gathers dust on my computer until something like that is available. I did just notice this is also requested on the IdeaInformer site for FG but it doesn't have a lot of votes yet, so if others are interested you might want to bump it up some at https://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/fgapp?ia=137472

[Marquis_de_Taigeis]

would it be possible to remote into a virtual machine running fantasy grounds from a browser

[Morenu]

would it be possible to remote into a virtual machine running fantasy grounds from a browser

well, I have logged into my home PC using Splashtop personal (https://www.splashtop.com/) from my Ipad while discording in via my phone. It definitely worked but obviously the real estate on the tablet was limited. using a stylus rather than a finger was better. so a virtual machine situation might work?

[zarlor]

Interesting concept... I'd have to set-up multiple VMs for that but I may be able to do that for them... hmm... now I may have to do some playing around

[Morenu]

Let us know how it goes

[zarlor]

Forgot to report back on this, but essentially, at least for me, it was just a little too futzy to be truly useable. Probably a little too much bandwidth or something, but any network connection issues and you're spending all that time trying to get a connection back to the hosting server again and when you multiply that by 5 tablets and the like it's just not workable, unfortunately.

[jaharmi]

I would also love to see support for players on phones, iPads, and ChromeBooks — even if it is a limited interface and/or requires more “screens” that players can switch between to see maps, combat tracker, chat, do rolls, etc. Since I got into FG in 2019, I’ve found that both my youth and adult player groups are unlikely to have a laptop or desktop that meets the system requirements for FGU. More of them have phones, and some have iPads or ChromeBooks.

Another option would be to have an integration of a live player-focused display in Discord. I’ve run a second instance of FGU as a player on my system and then shared that screen with the players via Discord. This is how I have to run a youth game when we’ve played remotely, as none of them have computers that meet the specs for FGU. Any way to make sharing/projected FGU easier and more integrated into the GM’s experience in FGU would be welcome.

I could imagine that having that kind of sharing/projecting capability might also be accomplished in some way that could make it easier for GMs of in-person games who would like to, for example, have a map on a second screen.

[zarlor]

Sharing a "player" screen to a second monitor is easy. Just set up the screen as an extended monitor, run a second instance of FG logged in as a player and drag that instance onto the extended monitor. Or run it that way on a separate computer that you do something like Steam Link or some other remote login/desktop sharing software to accomplish it that way. The hard part on the 2nd screen, even with a shared desktop, on things like phones and tablets is FGU isn't really set up with an interface that plays nice with touch screens. It's doable (I'd done it with a monitor I'd laid flat on our table that had a touchscreen overlay on it more than a few years ago now) if you know all of the right finger controls that count as right-clicks and such, but "hovering" over those menus to see what they do isn't really possible so you'd have to know what the icons all represent which isn't really workable for folks not experienced with FGU on a desktop.

That being said I've started up a Savage Worlds game where I got some cheap mini-computers and second-hand 1080p monitors and just going to try to run with that at the tabletop to see how it goes. Some of my group are a bit grumpy when it comes to doing things on the computer (they like it old school, with rolling dice and forgetting the actual rules... sometimes "conveniently" forgetting them, I think ;) ) so we'll see how it goes. FGU just handles a lot of stuff pretty well and is more mature overall than the competition, for my book. That being said that competition looks to be closing relatively fast and giving that they support mobile interfaces I hope Fantasy Grounds can keep up.

[Blakey]

Is there a place to vote for a Browser Based version of FG to be developed?

For me this is the one thing I find frustrating about FG - not being able to access it in a Browser.

[Zacchaeus]

Is there a place to vote for a Browser Based version of FG to be developed?

For me this is the one thing I find frustrating about FG - not being able to access it in a Browser.

The wishlist link is in my signature.

It is very unlikely that FG will even be browser based; that would require completely rewriting it from the ground up. So it would be a different product. What might happen is that you may be able to browse modules you own via a browser. However that will require renegotiation of all the licenses that Smiteworks have and that will either never happen or it will require additional costs to the user or some other legal roadblock.

[LordEntrails]

IMO, what's more likely is a cloud hosted service (for a fee, like can be done with Foundry) and then a web browser based remote session tool. Neither would require re-architecture, but would require integration of additional tools and partnerships.

[Blakey]

IMO, what's more likely is a cloud hosted service (for a fee, like can be done with Foundry) and then a web browser based remote session tool. Neither would require re-architecture, but would require integration of additional tools and partnerships.

See that's what I'm talking about. Host FG in the cloud and then provide a front end which is Browser based - so effectively the user experience can move to a Browser.

[zarlor]

Exactly. Something like Foundry at least gets you closer to what some of us really need. The biggest problem I see there is the interface, but enough folks comment on that that maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to reconsider it anyway. It's built so heavily on the use of the right-mouse click and ability to hover to see what icons mean that it just doesn't work well with web browsing or touch-screen interfaces. If there's anything that has to be re-engineered for this I would think that is probably the thing that's holding FG back. Personally I'm trying pretty hard to get back to using FG for my group, but it's taking a lot of investment from me in (at least cheap) mini-PCs and cheap monitors to do it and I expect it will be like pulling teeth to get them used to everything at first so we'll see how that goes, but that being said my use of FG overall (and, of course, purchases for it!) for the past several years was greatly curtailed because of that lack of some kind of ability to at least have a player-side web interface to work with. Foundry ALMOST pulled me over, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around some their stuff and, for me, it just isn't where FG is.. that being said they, and others, do keep getting better. It may get harder to keep using FG in the future at the current rate and I can't help but wonder how many of that pretty big Roll20 audience would be using FGU instead if that were available.

[father0fnine]

I don't know if the FG folks are monitoring this thread, but I thought I'd add my experiences. I've had FGU since it came out and FGC before that. While I've had games, I haven't been able to get my core group to switch. The biggest reason is they don't want to give up face-to-face (and bringing everybody's computer over isn't realistic). Without a portable option (tablet or a web interface that's tablet friendly), I don't see them making the switch. Recently (as soon as I installed the TV into a table), they started on me to switch over to roll20, since it'll work on the various tablets. I've been resisting because I don't want to have to purchase all the rule books/adventures/etc again, again. (Once for the physical, and some again for FG). Just a thought for the powers-that-be. As much as I like FG, my party might be out-voting me into leaving the platform.

[Morenu]

...I've been resisting because I don't want to have to purchase all the rule books/adventures/etc again, again. (Once for the physical, and some again for FG). Just a thought for the powers-that-be. As much as I like FG, my party might be out-voting me into leaving the platform.

And this is NOT a good thing to depend on. I honestly would pay a small monthly or yearly fee to have this option

[BaneTBC]

Just hand them the bill for all of it on a new platform and then for your time learning it and see how their vote goes.

I use FG in combination with both remote players and players at the table with me. One player brings their laptop (although I have another laptop sitting here that could be used) and connects it to the table battlemap TV and can bring up the in-person players character sheets and launch their actions, the in-person players have printed character sheets, dice, towers, et al. It works well, only part that gets a little hung up is mini's on the TV when the map starts jumping around depending on where players and NPC's are, but we manage that portion. Personally, I'd prefer to ban all other electronic devices at the table since nothing is more irritating than someone playing a game on their phone.....

[Jiminimonka]

Just hand them the bill for all of it on a new platform and then for your time learning it and see how their vote goes.

I use FG in combination with both remote players and players at the table with me. One player brings their laptop (although I have another laptop sitting here that could be used) and connects it to the table battlemap TV and can bring up the in-person players character sheets and launch their actions, the in-person players have printed character sheets, dice, towers, et al. It works well, only part that gets a little hung up is mini's on the TV when the map starts jumping around depending on where players and NPC's are, but we manage that portion. Personally, I'd prefer to ban all other electronic devices at the table since nothing is more irritating than someone playing a game on their phone.....

Good idea(s) :)

[JohnD]

I don't know if the FG folks are monitoring this thread, but I thought I'd add my experiences. I've had FGU since it came out and FGC before that. While I've had games, I haven't been able to get my core group to switch. The biggest reason is they don't want to give up face-to-face (and bringing everybody's computer over isn't realistic). Without a portable option (tablet or a web interface that's tablet friendly), I don't see them making the switch. Recently (as soon as I installed the TV into a table), they started on me to switch over to roll20, since it'll work on the various tablets. I've been resisting because I don't want to have to purchase all the rule books/adventures/etc again, again. (Once for the physical, and some again for FG). Just a thought for the powers-that-be. As much as I like FG, my party might be out-voting me into leaving the platform.

Figure out what books you'll need on the new platform. Then figure out how much time you'll need to learn to use the new platform with a level of aptitude that you currently use FG with and charge $50/hour for your efforts. Then figure out what level of license you need for the new platform to duplicate what you have currently with FG and extrapolate this to a yearly amount.

Take all of the above and present your players with a bill for your time and inconvenience. Maybe they will still want you to switch. Maybe not.

Or you could try to gather a new group of players that are fine using FG. It won't be hard unless you're playing one of the lesser known systems.

You're the DM. They show up and play after you've already put in all the work getting ready and probably having spent your own money for whatever you need to run your game (or, worse, 100s of hours on data entry...). Your players sound a little bit selfish and unappreciative of your time and effort as their GM.

Just my opinion, not trying to start a flame war, but a lot of the time people don't realize how much extra "work" goes into running a game until they themselves try it and tap out sometime around hour 3.

I hope you can get your players to expand their horizons a little, but if not, you will easily find more players happy to use FG... players do outnumber DMs probably 30:1 after all (and good DMs 60:1).

[zarlor]

That does bring another thought into this. We're being asked to use Idea Informer to help vote on feature requests to help the developers provide a roadmap for future developmental priorities. However I fear that in a situation like that it's going to get lost in mix because there will be so many who simply take one look at FGU see there is no web or other portable interface and walk away, no voting needed, ditto for those who find themselves getting pulled to another platform because of the needs of their players.

And suggesting that a GM charge their players to move to another platform is completely unrealistic. Some GMs are the GM for a group in part because they were the ones that could afford to be the person with all the books (or FGU license). Suggesting the only answer is to charge the very people who may not be able to afford that, let alone afford an entire computer just so they can play on Fantasy Grounds when they don't use a full desktop/laptop computer for anything else is just wishful thinking to get others to just do what you want. That's fine if you can do that, and that's fine if you feel FGU can survive in the future VTT landscape just the way it is. As a professional Systems Engineer, and one paid to watch for and try to keep up with future technologies I just expect that FGU may not be able to survive in its current format and I think that's a real shame and a huge loss for the gaming community, even if most of that same community would never realize it and how much FGU has influenced all of those other VTT platforms.

[Jiminimonka]

Zarlor. The comment about charging was made in reply to someone saying his players are trying to get him to switch platforms.

As for browser support being the future. Nah. The PC market has thousands and thousands of games, multi-player and otherwise that don't work in browsers. Steam in a browser? No. What about the console market?

To me browser only software is a lazy design.

[zarlor]

Zarlor. The comment about charging was made in reply to someone saying his players are trying to get him to switch platforms.

As for browser support being the future. Nah. The PC market has thousands and thousands of games, multi-player and otherwise that don't work in browsers. Steam in a browser? No. What about the console market?

To me browser only software is a lazy design.

Those are different use cases, potentially different markets, and even those are pushing for their own tablet (remember I said portable, not necessarily web), such as Steam Deck or Steam Link, even (which, I admit, I have actually be using as a kind of workaround for a portable FGU platform, but the interface design of FGU still causes some painful limitations that way as it really wasn't designed for a touch interface, really it's all about using mouse, right-click, and hover to work through a lot of it... great on PC, not so much on other platforms). I may be an avid gamer with computers all over the place (although computers are also how I make a living, so...) but most of my tabletop gamer friends just game on things like tablets anymore. Several don't even have a PC at home. It's just the way things are going, is all I'm saying, and limiting ourselves to PCs (and possible workarounds) isn't very forward-looking.

[LordEntrails]

It's just the way things are going, is all I'm saying, and limiting ourselves to PCs (and possible workarounds) isn't very forward-looking.
I agree with this. Despite not imagining doing so myself, ~10 years ago my niece wrote a term paper on her phone (poor thumbs).

The world is changing. But FG too has been changing. It's almost 20 years old now. And the move to Unity was forward looking, and not the type of architectural change taken lightly. I see SmiteWork constantly looking toward the future, while taking care of their current customers. Changing the UI away from keyboard/mouse paradigm is huge. It will come, in time. FG won't/isn't the first to adopt a new paradigm/technology, but it's one of the oldest for a reason. (And will only stay relevant if it keeps changing and caring for its customer base.)

[BaneTBC]

Well, the response to a group dictating what environment the DM\GM has to use and has spent a considerable sum of personal money on was partially tongue-in-cheek and partially a wakeup call for the players in that group that they are not being very fair and reasonable to the DM. Ultimately each group will need to come up with what works for them and work out how that works for them. I explore multiple solutions to my problems and determine what works best for us, but having a considerable investment into a platform that I feel works for MY needs is going to dictate more than a few complaints since my money and time are valuable to me as well.

And please don't take anyone's comments as being completely dismissive of SmiteWorks(SW) expanding the platform we use to be usable to a larger group of people and potentially expand our players options. Web browser support would be "nice" but for a lot of people, this isn't the first time it has been brought up nor the response that SW has a limited staff and has to determine where their priorities have to be set based on feasibility of options and difficulty of the work required. Animated maps had been a "nice ask" for people for quite a while now and was a "hope it happens someday" thing, well that's in Test right now and is expected to be released this month. So, those "nice to haves" or "wants" are always good to post and occasionally a refresh of the asks helps to keep the developers aware of people's desire to see a feature(s).

But I would also keep in mind that people should be evaluating what a platform does today to suite their needs as those are going to differ from person to person and table to table. Once you've determined your needs and find a suitable platform that meets the majority (or all if you're really lucky) of those needs, then that's where to invest. Most of the people who are using Fantasy Grounds Unity understand how it functions and where their uses will be dictated. Roll20 and Foundry have web browser functionality, but do not have the overall functionality that FG has for my needs, so they aren't very good options for me. And I'm very happy with how responsive SW is regarding this product and that they are constantly working on new features and functions that their user base wants. So, we never know when they may be able to spring a huge new surprise on us. But all of it still comes down to them having to prioritize their time and support for what they think will give them the biggest return on that investment, like most businesses.

[HywelPhillips]

Several don't even have a PC at home. It's just the way things are going, is all I'm saying, and limiting ourselves to PCs (and possible workarounds) isn't very forward-looking.

I think this is a key point. In my techie middle-aged college group of friends we all have home PCs right now but even here people have stopped upgrading and are basically living on borrowed time. Several people are already running on underpowered laptops with very limited screen real-estate and running Discord on a phone or tablet in parallel.

In my work environment dealing with people more in their 20's and 30's, many are making a living as creators online using just their phones and a tablet - they don't even necessarily see the need for a powerful PC as a video editing machine or a photoshop workhorse the way I do. Setting up online games with these has already involved people just not having access to a PC.

It doesn't matter how much I prefer FGU if groups of players can't actually run it.

I also see evidence of an increasing split between those who have a dedicated PC/Mac/Linux desktop and those whose computing needs are served by a combination of phone, tablet, maybe a laptop, and cloud services.

In the short term, I certainly think it is worth looking at some sort of official web-portal way of accessing FGU as a player, even if the GM still needs a powerful machine to run as host... possibly have the GM running a second machine as a player instance for the web portal to connect to. Even a spectator mode so the tablet-based players can at least see the combat tracker, chat window, maps and tokens would be a step forward, without needing to implement the full control-of-character actions tab etc. interface. (Parenthetically useful for streaming and recording sessions, too!)

Right now the best solution I have is to share screen on Discord, which isn't idea but delivers something like spectator mode.

In the medium term, something like running FGU on a cloud server and all connecting via a web interface - ForgeVTT style - does not seem impossible.

In the short term, as others have said, I think looking at implementing UI changes to be touch-interface friendly and providing alternatives to the ancient right-click menu mechanisms seem like a thing to consider as FGU's design evolves.

If Roll20 and Foundry are accessible in a meaningful way via tablet but FGU isn't, I can see that making more and more groups' decision on which VTT to use for them. Last time I checked Roll20 wasn't there yet but it was in development, and Foundry's main issue was its continuing dislike of Safari/webkit and also a somewhat non-optimised for touch interface.

That's not to say that the whole thing has to be removed from the ecosystem of a powerful host PC for the GM. Just that a implementing a meaningful subset of the functionality that can be accessed on a tablet would make a considerable difference.

Cheers, Hywel

[zarlor]

But I would also keep in mind that people should be evaluating what a platform does today to suite their needs as those are going to differ from person to person and table to table. Once you've determined your needs and find a suitable platform that meets the majority (or all if you're really lucky) of those needs, then that's where to invest. Most of the people who are using Fantasy Grounds Unity understand how it functions and where their uses will be dictated. Roll20 and Foundry have web browser functionality, but do not have the overall functionality that FG has for my needs, so they aren't very good options for me. And I'm very happy with how responsive SW is regarding this product and that they are constantly working on new features and functions that their user base wants. So, we never know when they may be able to spring a huge new surprise on us. But all of it still comes down to them having to prioritize their time and support for what they think will give them the biggest return on that investment, like most businesses.

I don't disagree with this, and in fact it is because I enjoy using FG so much that I've had this interest in moving this particular topic forward, and largely not for me (I've got the PCs to handle it and don't see a time when I wouldn't, honestly... gotta have a good gaming rig of nothing else!) I very sincerely hope that something like this is exactly one of those surprises that SmiteWorks throws our way (the Forge, an idea very similar to one in FoundryVTT is another "surprise" I think is fantastic!). The main point is hoping that if something like IdeaInformer isn't really going to capture the true level of interest for this, however, then it really is up to the power of persuasion on a thread like that very one to bring it, at least a little, more to the forefront as maybe something to give a little more consideration to. Cloud computing is certainly changing the industry making what had been server farms for corporate entities not only more affordable for the average person, but even easier to set-up and maintain than they ever have been, and more and more people are using SaaS (Software as a Service, essentially using an application hosted in the Cloud on some server they never even have to know about or understand) to get stuff done, and that method just doesn't require the local power my gaming rig even remotely requires.

Heck, I've got a few micro-PCs hooked up to some used monitors just to get FGU up for players (at my table, mind you, not even remote!) for a game I'm running soon. Maybe $300 a seat for a couple of them (and another that I just use a SteamDeck I have anyway with a monitor to run it on!) So there are solutions even now, just not the kind that will draw new players. Honestly it'd been almost 7 years since I'd bought anything for Fantasy Grounds just because we were trying those other platforms for various games over the years, but none of them handle, particularly Savage Worlds, anywhere near as well as FGU does. It's great stuff!

So please do understand if nothing else I don't bring up the topic in any way disrespectful of FGU, quite the opposite. It's because I love the product that I hope to persuade some more consideration into accessibility through mobile platforms (web browser, tablet, even phone... whatever works) and that doing so should (just my opinion, mind you, but not an uninformed one) provide a decent return on the investment. I could be completely wrong about that, but I think some of the responses here (by FGU users, mind you, so it's not taking into account those that have passed over the platform as not meeting their needs at this time) are at least some indication that the interest is there and something to consider pretty strongly.

And, yes, I do get the charging-players-to-change-platforms was at least partially tongue-in-cheek, but I did just want to point out that while it may be the right answer for some, I think it's not going to be reasonable for many others. I can definitely sympathize with buying those platforms' versions of the same books over and over again, though! Been there done that almost more times than I'd like to admit! :/

[LordEntrails]

Keep in mind, in the past Doug has stated something along the lines of; The Idea Informer is just one of the input tools they use to gage what to work on and plan for the future. The also use the forums as well as do their own research and analysis.

The Wish List on the II is important, but so is the forums here. Together they are a good way for us, the community, to discuss and show our support for future ideas.

[Lo Zeno]

Keep in mind, in the past Doug has stated something along the lines of; The Idea Informer is just one of the input tools they use to gage what to work on and plan for the future. The also use the forums as well as do their own research and analysis.

The Wish List on the II is important, but so is the forums here. Together they are a good way for us, the community, to discuss and show our support for future ideas.

I wish more "veterans" of this forums understood this better: I've seen a fair amount of discussions of potential new features/changes/improvements being quickly muted (involuntarily, maybe) by the words "the wishlist is that way, go and add it there."
The wishlist has a big side effect, which is it obfuscates ideas in a long, hard to navigate list, and does not promote discussion for said proposals. Discussions are key, because it's through conversation that we can find out if an idea that sounds great in theory is actually not that good, or if an idea that sounds pointless would actually turn out to be a highly desired functionality.

[LordEntrails]

I wish more "veterans" of this forums understood this better: I've seen a fair amount of discussions of potential new features/changes/improvements being quickly muted (involuntarily, maybe) by the words "the wishlist is that way, go and add it there."
The wishlist has a big side effect, which is it obfuscates ideas in a long, hard to navigate list, and does not promote discussion for said proposals. Discussions are key, because it's through conversation that we can find out if an idea that sounds great in theory is actually not that good, or if an idea that sounds pointless would actually turn out to be a highly desired functionality.
IMO, just discussing a feature enhancement on the forums is inadequate by itself (once read, threads "fall off" the front page if discussion is not active). And, depending on the idea, just having it on the wish list might not be sufficient. I try to always suggest that the idea get added to the Wish List (for voting and tracking) and that links be placed on both the wish list item and the forum so people can see the discussion and go vote for the idea, and then from the idea, come back to the forum to discuss it.

[Zacchaeus]

I wish more "veterans" of this forums understood this better: I've seen a fair amount of discussions of potential new features/changes/improvements being quickly muted (involuntarily, maybe) by the words "the wishlist is that way, go and add it there."
The wishlist has a big side effect, which is it obfuscates ideas in a long, hard to navigate list, and does not promote discussion for said proposals. Discussions are key, because it's through conversation that we can find out if an idea that sounds great in theory is actually not that good, or if an idea that sounds pointless would actually turn out to be a highly desired functionality.

If it is on the wish-list the devs are aware of it; if it isn't on the wish-list they may not catch the forum post or Discord post that mentions it. Hence directing people to the wish-list is good practice. That doesn't mean that the forum post or the Discord post is being killed off; or that it's being suggested that it shouldn't be discussed. The wish-list isn't a road map; but it is absolutely used by the devs. It's also not the case that the more votes a suggestion gets the more likely that it is to be implemented (or even added to the actual road map).

This web based idea surfaces every now and again and whilst it may well be a way forward it's certainly not an easy one. It isn't just a case of slapping the client on a server and everybody can join it with whatever device they have lying around. It would require a substantial re-write of much of the underlying code; possibly even having to re-write everything in a different programming language altogether. You would somehow have to manage to squash down something (which I require two 32" screens to use) into some tiny space, and still somehow be readable and useable. THe curent uI just wouldn't be suitable for that and since most UI elements are handled by the ruleset you'd also need to re-write all of those. Then you'd need to look at how anyone could install the software on their phone or tablet. That probably means getting it onto the Apple store or whatever other store you download software for phones and tablet from. That would, I think, mean the end of the free demo.

Then there is the licensing issue. Since SW have licenses which allow them to use the IP of various companies in the current iteration; changing that to a different way of doing things would require re-negotiating all of those licenses.

And finally of course it would all have to be compatible with the thousands of DLC currently available.

So, whilst I am not saying that any of this is impossible, I am saying that it would be very very difficult and very very time consuming and very very costly.

There are at least two items currently on the wish-list for this; and so the devs are aware. And I'm sure they've discussed it and at some point there will be a decision made as to whether such a way of doing things is viable.

But, by all means continue the discussion. There's no one stopping any kind of discussion.

[superteddy57]

As Zacchaeus mentions in his response, directing to the Idea Informer is great practice. It's a major component in my development routine seeing what is out there and filling my project list with what the community wants. Placing a link to a forum thread would be very helpful to read through the discussion. I can relay that I scour the forums everyday and look at the wishlist as well. So both are great.

[Lo Zeno]

As Zacchaeus mentions in his response, directing to the Idea Informer is great practice. It's a major component in my development routine seeing what is out there and filling my project list with what the community wants. Placing a link to a forum thread would be very helpful to read through the discussion. I can relay that I scour the forums everyday and look at the wishlist as well. So both are great.

Respectfully, but I have to disagree hard on this: Idea Informer is a stupidly poor tool to gauge what the community wants when there's a load of ideas inside.
There's currently 647 ideas inside it if I counted right, and the default view when you open it is sorted by popularity; this means 22 pages of ideas, which a new user who has just discovered it has to somehow navigate to figure out which of these ideas are of interest to him. The Rule Of Google states that internet users rarely go beyond page 2, and never beyond page 3: this happens in Idea Informer as well, with the result that the ideas that, by number of vote, already are in the first three pages keep getting votes on votes, only by merit of being already at the head. Add to that the fact that lots of people do not go back to the Idea Informer page regularly to see if there are new ideas in it that they can vote, which means that once a person has given an opinion on a few items, that opinion becomes stale as soon as there are more ideas, yet there's no update to that opinion. That's not a measure of the interest that the community has in those ideas, it's a self-feeding cycle of whatever has already been voted on, keeps being voted on. I'm sure you have access to the history of votes and you can easily verify my words, if you don't believe the fact that I've used very similar tools myself and I have seen this effect first hand with three different large scale projects.
Idea Informer is good only as a bucket to collect different ideas - but once the bucket grows over a certain size, a new idea gets lost in it and you can't judge how much interest it generates.


Hence directing people to the wish-list is good practice. That doesn't mean that the forum post or the Discord post is being killed off; or that it's being suggested that it shouldn't be discussed
With all due respect to you as well, Zaccheus, but just because that isn't the intention behind the words it doesn't mean that it's not happening: go back to every thread in which someone has said "You can add it to the wishlist, here is the link" and you'll see the discussion dies within 2 posts, one of which is a "thank you". It might not be de desired effect, but it's what actually happens - hence why I said that the discussions are muted "involuntarily, maybe" - and the reason is simple: those who don't know about Idea Informer are new joiners to the forum, and when a new joiner reads "oh, for suggesting things there's the wishlist, here, go to that link" they naturally think "Sweet, so that's the place to do it!" and fall in all the issues I highlighted above.

The forums aren't perfect either, but at least they generate discussions. Conversations. Readjusting of ideas, refinement of expectations, clarifications from the developers on what is or is not achievable - of the two tools, they're the lesser evil; pairing the two might work decently, but for as long as people keep suggesting only to send ideas to the wishlist, what the wishlist reflects is and will keep being a pale list of uncurated ideas with engagement that is too outdated to judge wants and interests. So let's not wear blinders and pretend that it's working as intended, please.

[Jiminimonka]

Respectfully, but I have to disagree hard on this: Idea Informer is a stupidly poor tool to gauge what the community wants when there's a load of ideas inside.
There's currently 647 ideas inside it if I counted right, and the default view when you open it is sorted by popularity; this means 22 pages of ideas, which a new user who has just discovered it has to somehow navigate to figure out which of these ideas are of interest to him. The Rule Of Google states that internet users rarely go beyond page 2, and never beyond page 3: this happens in Idea Informer as well, with the result that the ideas that, by number of vote, already are in the first three pages keep getting votes on votes, only by merit of being already at the head. Add to that the fact that lots of people do not go back to the Idea Informer page regularly to see if there are new ideas in it that they can vote, which means that once a person has given an opinion on a few items, that opinion becomes stale as soon as there are more ideas, yet there's no update to that opinion. That's not a measure of the interest that the community has in those ideas, it's a self-feeding cycle of whatever has already been voted on, keeps being voted on. I'm sure you have access to the history of votes and you can easily verify my words, if you don't believe the fact that it's a tool I've used myself and I have seen this effect first hand with three different large scale projects.
Idea Informer is good only as a bucket to collect different ideas - but once the bucket grows over a certain size, a new idea gets lost in it and you can't judge how much interest it generates.


With all due respect to you as well, Zaccheus, but just because that isn't the intention behind the words it doesn't mean that it's not happening: go back to every thread in which someone has said "You can add it to the wishlist, here is the link" and you'll see the discussion dies within 2 posts, one of which is a "thank you". It might not be de desired effect, but it's what actually happens - hence why I said that the discussions are muted "involuntarily, maybe" - and the reason is simple: those who don't know about Idea Informer are new joiners to the forum, and when a new joiner reads "oh, for suggesting things there's the wishlist, here, go to that link" they naturally think "Sweet, so that's the place to do it!" and fall in all the issues I highlighted above.

The forums aren't perfect either, but at least they generate discussions. Conversations. Readjusting of ideas, refinement of expectations, clarifications from the developers on what is or is not achievable - of the two tools, they're the lesser evil; pairing the two might work decently, but for as long as people keep suggesting only to send ideas to the wishlist, what the wishlist reflects is and will keep being a pale list of uncurated ideas with engagement that is too outdated to judge wants and interests. So let's not wear blinders and pretend that it's working as intended, please.

How can you disagree hard with SuperTeddy saying he uses Idea Informer as a MAJOR COMPONENT in his development routine - he knows how he does his development routine, he is the one that does it.

[Lo Zeno]

How can you disagree hard with SuperTeddy saying he uses Idea Informer as a MAJOR COMPONENT in his development routine - he knows how he does his development routine, he is the one that does it.

I can certainly disagree with the sentence "directing to the Idea Informer is great practice."
Or just because a developer said that it's impossible that they are wrong? Just because they are using it as a major component to their development routine doesn't mean that it's a great tool, not that their development routine cannot be improved.

[Jiminimonka]

I can certainly disagree with the sentence "directing to the Idea Informer is great practice."
Or just because a developer said that it's impossible that they are wrong? Just because they are using it as a major component to their development routine doesn't mean that it's a great tool, not that their development routine cannot be improved.

Maybe some of the old outdated stuff on Idea Informer needs to be deleted for the benefit of new users - or ticked off as "Complete/Added/Implemented" etc.

[Zacchaeus]

Respectfully, etc

If you can suggest a better tool for collecting suggestions please add it to the wish list ;)

[zarlor]

So, whilst I am not saying that any of this is impossible, I am saying that it would be very very difficult and very very time consuming and very very costly.


I don't think anyone is saying it wouldn't be difficult to do, or time consuming. I think what we are saying is that despite what the cost might be in getting a portable design implemented that it has a solid chance of being recouped. Indeed my opinion is that if it's not made then there's a chance that the ultimate cost could well be the death of Fantasy Grounds as that constant new customer base isn't replenished and even current customers (which has been the case before for me in the past, mind you, I'm just trying some workarounds to make things work despite this limitation with my group because I like how mature of a product FGU is overall) get pushed to other platforms because that's simply where things are heading. Maybe it's not visible to the SmiteWorks bottom line right now, but I think without having something like this solidly in the development plan it likely will soon enough.

That's not to say SmiteWorks isn't working on something like this, only that we have no indication of it publicly and thus no idea if it's really being considered or not, is all. If my current workarounds don't convince my players of the usefulness of this do I stick with FGU knowing a portable alternative is in the works, or if there is no announcement on it do I stick around hoping it will happen (and for the past several years that hasn't seemed to have been on the radar,) or do I just say to heck with it and just fully invest elsewhere instead? I think that's the big question I've been considering and hoping to hear something more official from SmiteWorks on, and I can't help but think I'm not the only one.

[zarlor]

Also just to counter some of these:


It isn't just a case of slapping the client on a server and everybody can join it with whatever device they have lying around. It would require a substantial re-write of much of the underlying code; possibly even having to re-write everything in a different programming language altogether. You would somehow have to manage to squash down something (which I require two 32" screens to use) into some tiny space, and still somehow be readable and useable.

Not necessarily true. While the current presentation method is such that, particularly for a GM, you'd want multiple screens, it's obviously not true that that level of real estate is absolutely needed. Other VTT formats that are portable still make due and FoundryVTT is probably the closest to what could potentially be done for FGU with a server and browsed client configuration. The tough parts there are mainly two-fold, revising the user interface (which, TBH, is a separate wish-list item I've seen brought up with some regularity for at least a decade, honestly) and coding the presentation layer for web... the latter part potentially usable with existing software by creating the API to let FGU be a middle-tier application layer to an existing web server platform. Not necessarily easy, mind you, but not necessarily as complex as your suggesting, either, nor requiring a full rebuild with a completely different programming language.


THe curent uI just wouldn't be suitable for that and since most UI elements are handled by the ruleset you'd also need to re-write all of those.

Probably true, but those already iterate quite a lot. Just look at the forums for how often changes to FGU affect Forge extensions which show how much the underlying FGU changes are already taking place in those rulesets. Sure, they would need work, but not necessarily a complete re-write.


Then you'd need to look at how anyone could install the software on their phone or tablet. That probably means getting it onto the Apple store or whatever other store you download software for phones and tablet from. That would, I think, mean the end of the free demo. .

Also I'd have to disagree with this. With a server/web-host model you just use a web browser. No biggie and your free demo is, as is often the case now, dependent on the GM licensing. It also doesn't prevent the GM from getting the free demo version to playing around with the "server side" of FGU to try things out. If a client seemed preferable over something browser-based that also doesn't prevent any kind of free demo usage in the least. Plenty of programs on the Apple and Google Play stores have free and paid versions, that's just not a problem at all.

I'm not saying all of those things aren't potentially tough or time-consuming or costly, but those things are true for almost anything a company does and they are not necessarily as tough as the kind of "worst case scenario" you seem to be offering. It's good to understand the potential worst cases, of course, so all credit, but honestly most of the negative posts here go straight to that, it's kind of a fallacy of extremes. I don't think anyone here is saying it would be easy, but I also don't think it is as completely hard as some have made it out to be. I could be completely wrong about that, of course! But I do think the truth, as it often does, lies somewhere between those extremes.

[HywelPhillips]

I agree with Zarlor.

I'd like to echo that what is being proposed does NOT necessarily mean a complete move away from the current architecture.

There have been threads where people have got FG running on AWS in the past I believe eg
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?58731-Hosting-Fantasy-Grounds-from-an-AWS-Server&highlight=aws+cloud

That was for Classic, but I don't believe it should be horrendously difficult to do for FGU either- after all, AWS boxes are just computers sitting in a data centre rather than in your game room.

You could already get a group of players connecting to their individual player instances if they all ran those on AWS too, using Remote Desktop or some similar connection. So without a huge amount of effort a techie group could probably get a six player plus GM game running without FG installed on any one of their computers- just all connecting to their own individual instance via Remote Desktop.

For sure making this possible for a non-techie group who don't have any idea how AWS works would not be practical this way today!

It's only a two steps from getting FGU running in the cloud to being able to access it via mobile devices- presenting the running FG software via web interface so people can connect to it via browser instead of Remote Desktop. That's probably even be possible today using Remote Desktop Mobile or similar.

That's not to say this would be a user-friendly customer-ready experience. But the foundation of running instances of FGU in the cloud is already there, with LUA, Unity, all the current everything unchanged.

If there were to become a compelling reason why we all had to do it this way, setting up some sort of brokered service to spin up a GM instance and the right number of player instances would take work, probably a ton of work, but I don't think it would be unfeasible.

I'm not underestimating the work to change that from a tech-head homebrew AWS solution to a robust consumer product.

But as far as I can see none of that requires any change to the underlying FGU implementation.

As Zarlor says, it's much more likely to require implementing a presentation layer for the web so the remote FGU instance can display itself gracefully via HTTPS rather than Remote Desktop.

If you don't want to deal with cloud hosting, you could implement it by allowing the GM's machine to spin up extra player instances for players to connect to given their own individual URL brokered connection; that would require FGU to be able to gracefully run multiple player instances on the GM's machine rather than one plus the GM instance as now - more work, but maybe not deal-breaking. (I don't know how integral to FGU's model it is that it's one instance per machine - I don't think desperately so because IIRC the problem is multiple instances trying to write to logfiles etc at the same time, not any fundamental code limitations. That sounds like a lot of fiddly work to revise, but doesn't require a change from LUA or Unity or anything on that scale AFAIK).


The deal-breaking thing will be the interface once you've connected, given that the whole point is to try to give access to players who are using devices without mouse or physical keyboard. It's that touch-friendly interface that is conceptually the one that requires the most change to FGU. Because right now even if you set everything up on AWS and connected using an iPad via Remote Desktop mobile, I strongly suspect the user experience would suck. FGU uses right click a lot, and key-modifier clicks for some fundamental operations.

That's the thing where FGU will require fundamental change to be usable. Even a simple translation of long press gesture to right click would go a lot of the way towards addressing this, and providing some non-keyboard alternatives for very frequent operations like targeting another token on the map.



In short: the proposal is not to rewrite FGU in Javascript or anything like that.

It's to allow players (specifically, not the GM) to connect to the GM's hosted game via a tablet by passing through the information from a remotely-running FGU instance of the player client via a web presentation layer, and revising the UI so that they can do most of the fundamental operations of FGU when they do so.

That could be done by having the remote-running player instance on the GM's machine, or on another machine eg spinning up something in the cloud when a player wants to connect to game that way.

Sure, one could deliver a superior experience for these users via a dedicated app. For phones, that might be the way to go: you'd very likely need to tab or paginate somehow to quickly swap between map, character sheets and their tabs, notes, other stuff popped up by the GM. For Tablets with a decent sized screen however it might very well be as useable as FGU currently is on modest laptops so long as the touch-friendly UI was provided.

Even if one was considering writing a dedicated app for iOs/Android you'd probably at least consider going down the HTML5/web presentation layer route rather than a dedicated Unity app with install and all the development overhead it would entail.



Now maybe a half-way house implementation like this - the current FGU running in a browser window with touch modified UI - would not be enough to make the game playable for those without computers. Maybe it just would be too much work. But I've already got prospective players who I'm probably going to be hosting via Roll20, Foundry or Discord screen sharing because they don't have a PC of high enough spec and don't see the need for one. So I really think it's worth giving serious consideration.

Cheers, Hywel

[Morenu]

I am not sure what everybody else is looking for, web, browser, wise, but me personally, I would like to see something that would let an established player access a game when they’re not in front of their computer. In other words to be able to do some basic sayings from their character sheet so they could join the session but the DM or maybe another player would have to do certain things for them.

Perhaps aimed at TT use as well, more of an aid.

I can see that attempting to create a fully functioning FGU experience vie a browser would be basically a whole new program, most likely more than the move from fgc to fgu. But something in between should be doable.

[Zacchaeus]

Indeed. I made the post in a sense to generate discussion, because I'm not a programmer and therefore I have no idea how any of this would work; or indeed what you'd need to do at a minimum to add browser support.

I don't play games on tablets or phones but my grandchildren do so I do know that this is a generational thing (heck my children all use Xboxes and stuff - something I never got into either). So I can't really imagine FG on a phone or a tablet. But if other VTTs have done it (albeit they actually started as web based and so have an advantage in that sense), then FG might well one day have to do it as well.

Personally I think maybe the licensing thing will be the hardest stumbling block. But who knows, we'll have to wait and see. For now, the devs are aware and they'll probably have a much better idea of what the future might hold than I do.

[HywelPhillips]

P.S. I would like to know how Syrinscape have found the move from requiring players to be running an instance of an installed player app vs. Syrinscape running in the browser. I had to implement a Discord bot to make using Syrinscape low enough overhead for the majority of my players to use it. The bot broke at some point, so I swapped to sending them the URL and getting them to run Syrinscape in the browser - and everyone's happy enough to do it.

So anecdotally for my two regular groups plus some one-shots, reducing the overhead from "install the software at this link" to "click here and run it in the browser" has made all the difference to player uptake.

Which is another point to consider even for those players who ARE running FGU on computers- getting newbies on board will be so much easier via one-click URL if there's a decent web interface. Even if they ARE using keyboard, mouse and large monitor. Even if you can later encourage them to install FG themselves (eg on the promise of improved performance).

[Lo Zeno]

If you can suggest a better tool for collecting suggestions please add it to the wish list ;)

If I had an idea of what's the budget that SW can allocate to such a tool, I'd do it :P because most of them cost money, and because despite my opinion of the wish list, I do use it since it's at the moment the only tool to use.
But in a general sense, proactive requests for feedback are better than a passive static link to a wishlist that no new user knows exists until they come to the forums with a problem and another regular user reveals to them that the wishlist exists. A regular survey implemented with Google Forms, say for example a link that once a month is advertised on the home screen of the FGU launcher, would already give a much more reliable result. If the wishlist sent email notifications to the users who already voted each time there was a new proposal, it would already be a slightly more reliable tool. A system like Wizards of the Coast's feedback surveys for OneDND is more reliable that the wishlist. Anything that proactively "pings" users to remind them to update their feedback, really, would give more reliable results.

[merkvah]

I'm not interested in playing FG sessions over tablets... I agree, that would be unwieldy and cumbersome. But I would love to be able to read the materials I've bought through FG while sitting somewhere other than my computer chair. I've got a pile of PF2 stuff I bought on FG that I haven't read through, simply because staring at the FG UI for extended reading sessions is similarly cumbersome.

With the new "Books" feature added to FGU, I was hoping there might be a "FGU Books" capability added, if not to a browser based application, maybe even a native app for tablets or phones. I'd love to be able to sit on my couch and read through the stuff I've purchased.

because that's been so difficult, I've started buying my books on Demiplane instead. This isn't a threat or anything... far from it, I love FG and have been using it for literally 19 years at this point... but just the reality that it's easier to sit in the recliner in my living room with my Kindle Fire scrolling through Demiplane pages than sit in my computer chair fighting the FGU interface.

Anyway... just another thought in the discussion. Thanks for the amazing work you all do at keeping FGU the best VTT on the market.

[humby]

I've got a pile of PF2 stuff I bought on FG that I haven't read through, simply because staring at the FG UI for extended reading sessions is similarly cumbersome.

Generally, when you buy Pathfinder 2e content on the FG Store you can also claim the PDF from the Paizo website - all you need to do is:

Create an account on the Paizo website (http://paizo.com)
Link your FG account to your Paizo account (IIRC using the Paizo Account Sync option under the Store dropdown at the top of these forums)
Click the button on that Sync page to send your purchases to paizo.com
Download the PDFs from the Paizo website
Enjoy!


You can also do it the other way round and retrieve your purchases from paizo.com, which gives you a discount on the content in the FG store.

I think there may be some items that don't give you the PDF or don't give you the discount, but the description on the FG Store should let you know when that's the case.

[anstett]

I am hopeful that this is part of the way down that path to the "reader" app/browser/whatever.

I would pay again for a small app that I could use to read through all my FG content outside of the desktop.

[zarlor]

Added this to the new Feature Request (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/featurerequests/featurerequests.php)site as "Web Client for Players" in case anyone wants to add some votes to it.

I also noticed LordEntrails submitted one for "Tablet/Mobile Reader" for those only interested in the reader function from a client like that. (Although this is also listed a "3-In Development" so it sounds like that one might already be in the works)