FGU Standard - is it still useful?

[matjam]

I understand the motivations behind Standard; but I know very few people who have it. Most people are GMing on the regular, in which case they almost always just get Ultimate and those uninterested in GMing almost always just run the Demo.

Secondly, it's confusing to people coming to FGU. Every time I explain the different editions, I get "Whats the point of Standard then?" and I struggle to answer.

Might I humbly suggest SW restructure the products;

Player's Edition - what is called "demo" now. It's not a demo if someone is just always running it all the time to play.

GM's Edition - what is called "ultimate".

I realise this may be controversial? I can't imagine SW hasn't at least considered this ... but maybe not? I don't know.

Do people actually find the Standard edition of FGU useful? Are there any groups of people out there that all of them have standard, including the DM? Because I've never seen anyone operate that way but maybe there are and what I'm suggesting is ludicrous.

puts on flame retardant suit

[Zacchaeus]

One of the options on Steam is a package of buying 4 standard licences for the price of three. That’s how I got started by giving the other three licences to my children. I suspect that if the standard license wasn’t selling it would be withdrawn. Furthermore it does allow players more options than a demo version does as far as DLC is concerned.

[LordEntrails]

Plus for groups that have rotating GMs it is fairly critical to not require every GM to have an ultimate.

[kronovan]

As Lord Entrails said, the option to rotate the GM duties among a group of players is the main reason to buy Standard. It's also a good choice for prospective GMs who aren't sure about spending the $ for Ultimate, but want to check out FGU's tools for campaign building. There's a discounted path to upgrade to Ultimate, so if you to buy Standard in a sale and later upgrade, the difference in $ between having initially purchased Ultimate instead, won't be much.

Otherwise, I agree it'd be easier for SmiteWorks to market FGU if the choices was binary between a free client and a paid for server-host edition, but there is the need for a 3rd version that falls somewhere between.

[Trenloe]

$150 of an ultimate license is a lot of money for someone to pay if they want to GM some games. Not everyone has expendable income like that to throw around. GMs advertising for players will still get take up with a standard license as there are plenty of FG users who already have a license who want to play.

[Laerun]

There is a 20% off sale on the FGU licenses until the 23rd.

[Laerun]

Just to play is the Demo version; no purchase is required.
However, Standard gives you a couple more options and can host other standard users. And if a standard user has any means to purchase character creation the content, you can create characters without needing a host, unlike the demo.
IF the players do not intend to build characters or create content, the FREE demo is a good option. The three separate ways to interface and use Fantasy Grounds are intentional. All editions allow one to play but not necessarily to host. You do not intend to purchase content with just the demo version. I do not think the user understands how to use FG or knows the difference in the options because they are likely new, don't intend to buy anything, or don't care as long as they can play.
If there is difficulty explaining this to others, just show a newer user the front page lists all of the differences side-by-side. However, that still might not matter if the users are not aware of what FGU can do or how it works.

"Player's Edition - what is called "demo" now. It's not a demo if someone is just always running it all the time to play."
It would give a user or player the option to create their own characters and create content without requiring a host.
The difference is more options and fewer restrictions for hosting options.

Ultimate: Host the Ultimate game, and players join and play for free. Sub Options

Standard: Join any Game or Host a game as GM for other Standard and Ultimate players. Sub options
52806

[sirkerry]

Maybe instead of calling it the FGU Free Demo, call it FGU Basic?

[kronovan]

Maybe instead of calling it the FGU Free Demo, call it FGU Basic?

Well I for one definitely want the word "free" in the downloadable, free client. If only because I don't want any new players getting the impression they're going to have to pay for anything to just join a campaign. For some players, it's already a big enough sell convincing them to use something they're going to have to take the time to download & install. FGU Free Basic, or FGU Free client; I could live with those.

[Bonkon]

One of the options on Steam is a package of buying 4 standard licences for the price of three.

Good Day Zacchaeus :)
I am not a steam user, but how would I look for this if I wanted to gift standard licenses to my players in case they want to five DM'ing a shot? I tried searching on stem with no luck. :)

[Imagix]

Not sure.. but appears that the standard license is currently 25% off in Steam. (Direct from Steamworks too)

[Nick Frost]

It WAS useful for "closed" groups that wanted to have rotating GM-duties. Nowadays people in that situation get directed to a cheaper competitor.


Relevant wishlist item: https://fgapp.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=135351

[Minty23185Fresh]

I use the standard license. I use it for two reasons:
One, I don’t believe as the DM I should foot the entire cost of playing. Philosophically, I think everyone should have to ante up.
And two, it’s my opinion that players that have decided to buy into FG, have more commitment to playing. (True I’ve had no proof of this, since I’ve not had any demo players at my table. So this is unsubstantiated conjecture.)

[kronovan]

It WAS useful for "closed" groups that wanted to have rotating GM-duties. Nowadays people in that situation get directed to a cheaper competitor.

Fair enough, but it depends. When I bought FG I wanted to run TTRPGs like Savage Worlds and Traveller. The support and quality of those on other VTTs, was lower than their FG implementations - still is. So going with another VTT option because it's cheaper to rotate the GM, can end up loosing you some quality automation and features. If your intent is to only rotate GM/DM duties for D&D campaigns, using a competing product can be more attractive. As to cheaper...I haven't played in an IRL campaign with GM rotation that didn't run at least 2 years. The cost of using more rotating GM friendly VTTs, becomes very cost prohibitive (at least in my country's $) if they're only subscription based.

[Dudin]

If I could magically chose what I would like to see out of the standard license, it would enable someone to host/be GM and have access to a connected player's content who also has the ultimate license. I have the ultimate license and (probably too much) 5E content that I wanted. While I have friends who would be happy and willing to swap out every now and then for a one shot or just to take the DM mantle for a bit, they wouldn't do it at the cost of the ultimate license and purchasing all the DLC. It just doesn't make sense when you only plan to do it a handful of times at best. Even if the standard license were a bit more expensive, I think some players I have would consider it.

I also acknowledge SW is a business offering products to make money, so I don't expect to see this come true for any reason nor am I mad about it.

[Minty23185Fresh]

If I could magically chose what I would like to see out of the standard license, it would enable someone to host/be GM and have access to a connected player's content who also has the ultimate license. I have the ultimate license and (probably too much) 5E content that I wanted. While I have friends who would be happy and willing to swap out every now and then for a one shot or just to take the DM mantle for a bit, they wouldn't do it at the cost of the ultimate license and purchasing all the DLC. It just doesn't make sense when you only plan to do it a handful of times at best. Even if the standard license were a bit more expensive, I think some players I have would consider it.

I also acknowledge SW is a business offering products to make money, so I don't expect to see this come true for any reason nor am I mad about it.

A question Dudin have you actually tried to see if you can see others content or they can see yours? I don’t know the answer to this.

But in the past, with my Standard license, and I DM’ed, I could see a listing of my players’ content, that they had it shared. I was a bit busy at the time, with my DM hat on, to give it a try, see if I could actually view content, instead of just seeing titles of what they had.

[Moon Wizard]

GMs can grant players access to use content that the player owns, but they don't. However, neither the GM nor other players have access to that player's content.

In addition to licensing, there is no mechanism under the hood to "store" player content within a GM session other than portraits.

Regards,
JPG

[Minty23185Fresh]

GMs can grant players access to use content that the player owns, but they don't. However, neither the GM nor other players have access to that player's content.

In addition to licensing, there is no mechanism under the hood to "store" player content within a GM session other than portraits.

Regards,
JPG

Thank you Moon Wizard.

To my mind, a question arises then, from a DM standpoint. “Why?”

As a DM I’m going to grant an individual access to content that they have, that no one else, including myself, has access to? Wwhhaaat….? That makes no sense.

All it does is completely pollute the DM’s module selection dialog. A couple of my players had vast amounts of content, when I went in to open a module instead of my typical 10 screens of content to wade through I had 40. Again, why? If it can’t be shared with everyone?

[Moon Wizard]

Part of it is a legacy decision from before my time; but it also allows players to bring custom content to the GMs table with approval, and it is something that publishers have allowed in this current model.

Having a way to grant permission/access to data on a player machine is very different both license and data wise from providing access to the GM and other players to any book ever brought to your table. Some considerations: No technical system to share/retain that level of information that would have to be built/tested/tuned; licensing considerations with publishers and what they would allow; unknown allowed behavior for data shared (i.e. can books shared by a player that connected once over a year ago be fully used by GM and players within the campaign still? how would this be abused (i.e. just copy campaign and repeat)? How would publishers view this? etc.)

Given that GMs usually own more content than players, in practice, it's not usually that big of an issue to find modules. Plus, you only open modules once usually, plus you can search and filter the results if you're looking for something specific.

Regards,
JPG

[kronovan]

To my thinking, what Dudin and Minty are discussing is a client-server vs a peer-to-peer content sharing issue/concept. In the existing client-server model, only the content owned by the hosting FGU Standard or Ultimate licensee can be shared. Whereas in a peer-to-peer scenario, any campaign participant connected with a FGU Standard or Ultimate server license would have the ability to use content than any peer (Standard or Ultimate) has purchased. It reminds me of the less common, dual-mode database engines I used to admin, which could be run on a Server as dedicated client-server, or instead offloaded to an instance of the engine on a workstation for peer-to-peer.

While I think it would be a more ideal and equitable way for FGU to function, I can see some challenges with it. A big one being potentially much more Internet bandwidth used in both directions while ruleset, DLC and campaign content is exchanged. For players on slower connections, the initial acquisition of the file list can already be a very lengthy process. I can imagine it being that much worse if the hosting GM's instance of FGU is also busy uploading content. Then there's the impracticality that a key group member with required DLC content will always be available for every session. The biggest challenge would be the need to allow Ultimate and Standard FGU clients that are going to share content, to join a campaign in a mode that allows them to be both player-client and content sharer.

For dedicated groups of players with high speed connections though, it would be a very cool feature.

[Minty23185Fresh]

I belong to another gaming group that does not use Fantasy Grounds. They want a more “minis in a 3D world” view than FG provides. They use D&D Beyond as their game manager.

D&D Beyond allows collective sharing of content. Each of the other players owns some book or books and shares their individual content with all the other players. And it matters not whether they do or do not attend every session.

The point being, WotC is allowing a collective sharing of there content (managed by D&D Beyond). And this has been this way for some time (prior to DDB’s acquisition by WotC).

So there’s hope!

[Moon Wizard]

So, on DDB, you're saying that someone with all the content can join your group for one session, and then your group has all the books forever? That seems like a bit of a loophole...

Regards,
JPG

[kronovan]

So, on DDB, you're saying that someone with all the content can join your group for one session, and then your group has all the books forever? That seems like a bit of a loophole...

Not exactly, but as long as you're a member of a D&DB host's group, you have access to all their digital content. I still have access to all the books for 2 campaigns I haven't played in for well over a year -including homebrewed content. That's because the 2 DM's don't feel a need to terminate my membership due to the generous sharing terms. Last time I checked, it was about 60 books I can access. IMO it's worth SmiteWorks keeping in mind, that D&DB via the Beyond 20 browser extension (https://beyond20.here-for-more.info/), makes it the VTT client for 2 of the bestselling VTTs. After installing that extension every roll you need to make can be done from your D&DB character sheet. About a year ago I concluded playing in an Eberron campaign where the DM didn't own a single book for their VTT - only needed the VTT for hosting and some image sharing. Meanwhile, with us players exclusively playing and managing our PCs from D&DB, as members of his group we had ever book we could ever want. In my other D&DB campaign with lots of homebrew, the DM wanted to do much more with maps, so he bought a full featured VTT for $50 that had an impressive array of LOS and lighting features.

Otherwise, comparing FGU to D&DB is like comparing apples to oranges. I personally don't see where it satisfies the need for playing with 3d Minis, because other than Beyond20's ability to connect it to 3rd party VTTs, it doesn't have any VTT capabilities. Unless that reference was to using D&DB to support playing IRL around a table. Which gets a "you don't say, no kidding!" from me, considering that's what it was designed for in the 1st place. D&DB does also have a quality Discord integration BOT (https://avrae.io/)(called AVRAE), which is a terrific tool for DMs and players that want to run things TOTM. That said, if D&D 5e isn't your cup of tea, D&DB won't do anything to scratch your TTRPG itch.

[Minty23185Fresh]

Otherwise, comparing FGU to D&DB is like comparing apples to oranges.
Agreed.


I personally don't see where it satisfies the need for playing with 3d Minis, because other than Beyond20's ability to connect it to 3rd party VTTs, it doesn't have any VTT capabilities.
Sorry I wasn’t very concise. I wasn’t trying to imply that. “Talespire” is the software they’re using for minis on 3D maps. Personally I despise it, but I want to play with that group of individuals.

[kronovan]

Sorry I wasn’t very concise. I wasn’t trying to imply that. “Talespire” is the software they’re using for minis on 3D maps. Personally I despise it, but I want to play with that group of individuals.

OK cool, I now see what you were saying. I can see where 3D VTT tools like Talespire or Tabletop Simulator could be good fits for groups that are also heavily invested in D&DB and want 3D minis and terrain. Were my players and I more into map encounters and 3D, I'd probably use the AVRAE BOT to support making rolls from the D&DB PC sheet and keep all voicechat and dice roll results in Discord. That way if players wanted to take a break from 3D map encounters, they could always do some quality TOTM in Discord.