PDA

View Full Version : Those other virtual table tools are horrible....



Firstborn76
January 28th, 2008, 23:36
I just wanted to let everyone know that Fantasy Grounds is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the other major virtual table tools out there: Battlegrounds, RP Tools, OPEN RPG, etc.

I may be preaching to the choir, but I installed and demoed all of them. There is hands down no comparison, especially in EASE OF USE. A lot of the other tools made me feel like I was in a computer science class trying to figure out how they work.

Just my .02

nezzir
January 29th, 2008, 00:58
I use FGII almost exclusively, but I like Battlegrounds too. It certainly has its place. I've used it to do tactical games and board games. We ran a game of Formula De across it one night. I hear you though. FGII is a most excellent tool. I have a lot of time invested in it and I've played some awesome games and met some great people through it.

joshuha
January 29th, 2008, 02:21
While Fantasy Grounds is my preferred program, in the interest of fairness some of the other ones like Maptool do have some advanced lighting things and other features that are above what Fantasy Grounds can do ... for now.

However, I do agree that most of the other applications feel like a program and often have things buried in menus within menus or have hard to remember keyboard combinations for everything. I like the Fantasy Grounds philosophy of keeping the interface smooth and simple but still able to have some flexibility and functionality.

Sigurd
January 29th, 2008, 02:25
I'm not going to try and be fair and impartial.

Fantasy Grounds is King! Thanks Smiteworks for a great program.



Sigurd

:)

Astinus
January 29th, 2008, 04:36
Yup, FGII is the best for role playing like D20, but I have a lot of respect for Battlegrounds. Like Nezzir said, it's great for tactical games, with the big maps. And the developer is incredibly responsive.

Xorn
January 29th, 2008, 13:35
That's where I lie--when choosing our VTT it was down to Fantasy Grounds II vs Battlegrounds RPG. FG2 felt so much more natural--like sitting at a table, and that's what led us here. But BRPG looked pretty cool--it was definitely my #2 pick.

Seriul
January 29th, 2008, 20:53
That's where I lie--when choosing our VTT it was down to Fantasy Grounds II vs Battlegrounds RPG. FG2 felt so much more natural--like sitting at a table, and that's what led us here. But BRPG looked pretty cool--it was definitely my #2 pick.

The actual conversation:

Xorn: With this one we get to roll dice!
Everyone else: Sweet, let's do that one.
Xorn: Blah blah blah (something about the DM tools)
Everyone else: *repeatedly rolling 30 d20s at once*

Moon Wizard
January 29th, 2008, 21:06
I really enjoy Fantasy Grounds, but I also like Klooge.Werks.

While Fantasy Grounds is more polished looking and straight-forward, Klooge has the capability for extensive automation and customization.

In our Klooge game; all the modifiers are all precalculated; to-hit rolls, crit confirmations and DR are all automated; flanking and point blank range mods are automatic; and more. In fact, I was able to rewrite the whole spell handling system to automatically handle 90% of the spell rules as well. (Ex: Target 5 targets and toss a fireball, saves are rolled automatically and damage applied) However, I have had more hiccups with networking than with Fantasy Grounds.

Of course, if I can get all my feature requests added (targeting, etc.), then I can create the same improvements in FG.

Cheers,
JPG

Elf
January 30th, 2008, 01:55
I am on the side of most here. My preferred VTT is FG2 for D20 and Savage Worlds. For tactical games though I prefer BattleGrounds. MapTool and Klooge do have better lighting effects but I found Klooge to be too steep a learning curve for the people that I played with and customization is possible but a pain. MapTool or Viewing Dale are the ones I would use in a face to face environment for projecting a battle map.

Toadwart
January 30th, 2008, 02:57
The actual conversation:

Xorn: With this one we get to roll dice!
Everyone else: Sweet, let's do that one.
Xorn: Blah blah blah (something about the DM tools)
Everyone else: *repeatedly rolling 30 d20s at once*

Exactly! FG is fun :)

<Toadwart CTRL-rolls his d20 and watches it spin . . .>

Oberoten
January 30th, 2008, 08:16
Considering that this is a FG board... :) I think we just MIGHT be preaching to the choir. :)

Admittedly, I too am stuck for FG. If nothing else for the amount of time I have invested in it and for the friendliness and responsiveness of the community.

So... now that we have smooched for you enough... How about those drawingtools SW? :)

Xorn
January 31st, 2008, 19:29
The actual conversation:

Xorn: With this one we get to roll dice!
Everyone else: Sweet, let's do that one.
Xorn: Blah blah blah (something about the DM tools)
Everyone else: *repeatedly rolling 30 d20s at once*

Son of a b....

Great, now my players are reading this forum? I thought I had found a sanctuary.

Astinus
February 1st, 2008, 04:00
Son of a b....

Great, now my players are reading this forum? I thought I had found a sanctuary.

Good luck with that. I'm soooo glad my players aren't here, learning how to do things with modules and so on that they shouldn't know about...

Xorn
February 1st, 2008, 19:18
Really? I was just giving Seriul some flak. What could he learn to do with a player client?

Griogre
February 2nd, 2008, 18:52
He's really kidding you, mostly. In FG1 players could really cheat if they wanted to - and it would crash the game if they were cheating and the DM updated the map. The only real issue is players can obviously unzip and look at any client module you send them. Most modules of these types are just spells or house rules, ect which you want them to see anyway.

However, for low bandwidth usage, there is a technique where you *can* put DM info in a client module the players can't see in the game – however, nothing prevents them from looking at the module ahead of time.

Obviously most players wouldn’t bother or know how. Also, in the world of internet play if you think you have a cheater, its pretty easy to get rid of that player and find a replacement. There are always more players than GMs.

Astinus
February 2nd, 2008, 19:23
Yep :) And I do have adventure sensitive info in modules. If my guys worked out how to unzip them I'd be in trouble (they probably will, one day). I've been playing with these guys since high school, so jettisoning them and getting other players isn't an option. I'd probably have to convert one player as a mole, and have him inform on the other players' cheating, and give him XP as a reward. Something nasty like that.

Seriul
February 2nd, 2008, 20:41
Most of us don't really play D&D to beat the game as much as just play the game and enjoy each other's company. Half the time we remind Xorn of rules that harm us more than help us, but it keeps it fair. If we're good enough or lucky enough we'll win anyway.

MrJamela
February 2nd, 2008, 21:15
I'm quite pleased with FG and agree that it is probably the best virtual tabletop tool out there right now.

But I really like Battlegrounds and how aggressively Heruca is working to constantly improve it. The BG map tools are far and away better than the way FG handles maps.

I hate to say it, but I am looking forward to what Wizards has to offer when their version goes on line later in the year.

Jaime

Astinus
February 2nd, 2008, 23:32
I'm quite pleased with FG and agree that it is probably the best virtual tabletop tool out there right now.

But I really like Battlegrounds and how aggressively Heruca is working to constantly improve it. The BG map tools are far and away better than the way FG handles maps.
Yeah, Heruca just keeps on coming with features.

I'm thinking of running Battlegrounds concurrently with FG2. Use FG2 for just about everything, but run really big maps in Battlegrounds (continent maps and so on) - and run sound from Battlegrounds. Maybe I can get the best of both worlds.

Xorn
February 4th, 2008, 11:08
I'm quite pleased with FG and agree that it is probably the best virtual tabletop tool out there right now.

But I really like Battlegrounds and how aggressively Heruca is working to constantly improve it. The BG map tools are far and away better than the way FG handles maps.

I hate to say it, but I am looking forward to what Wizards has to offer when their version goes on line later in the year.

Jaime

I'm eager to say it, I think the D&D Game Table is going to be trash. It's not standalone software--for starters. My list of problems with GameTable (assuming it's not vaporware--like Duke Nukem Forever) is very long, but I'll just leave it at the pay-per-month plan right now.

Sigurd
February 4th, 2008, 12:06
I love the idea do some of the open source projects out there eg.. RPTools but I have to say the first requirement is server indipendance.


FG allows you to run your own server and you don't need any company to play. Gleemax is going to be a whole world of company interferance & profit taking.

Thats simply not fun.

Xorn
February 4th, 2008, 12:46
I love the idea do some of the open source projects out there eg.. RPTools but I have to say the first requirement is server indipendance.


FG allows you to run your own server and you don't need any company to play. Gleemax is going to be a whole world of company interferance & profit taking.

Thats simply not fun.

After I ranted about renting a VTT for $10/month on the WotC forums, someone asked me if I'd pay $10/month if the players had to pay $1/month.

I said, "I have 6 players. That means a total of $192 a year for a VTT. We paid $90 one time for our current VTT, and it's standalone."

And there's no announcement of the player-only GameTable with reduced fees, only a possibility. If GameTable was going to be standalone software it might get more than a cursory glance from me. Right now the amount of functionality it will have to have in order to compete with FG2, BRPG, Klooge, GRiP, etc is off the chart, when you project the costs over a year or more.

I've been playing D&D with some of my players for twenty-three years. GameTable looks like a gimmick to me.

Actually GameTable reminds me of MtG:Online. I was a beta tester when it first came out, and Apprentice32 was huge at the time (and free). I would send in my review that said (in a nutshell):

Apprentice32 is free and does every single function needed for a virtual playmat better than MtG:O, except there's no card art. You are asking people to pay for card art, paired with a clumsy play area. It took 3-4x clicks to do something Apprentice would do automatically, or with a single click.

GameTable just smells a lot like the same scenario--a company completely out of touch with their competition. There are SO many VTTs out there, both free and commercial, and now they have the audacity to suggest THEIR VTT will be rented, cost $70 a month for my group (no lowered prices posted yet) and somehow think the cost will be worth it for 3D minis. I'll play WoW if I want to see 3D for that price. (Hell I *do* play WoW.)

Moon Wizard
February 4th, 2008, 21:57
I actually contacted Wizards, since I was interested in potentially working on their new tabletop. They outsourced the work to a company called SolutionsIQ. (https://www.solutionsiq.com/gamestudio.html)

I didn't get much information out of them, but I hope they do a better job then when they outsourced the work to Fluid for the v3.0 character generator.

Based on past history, I would guess that the official game table will be all glitz and no guts.

JPG

MrJamela
February 7th, 2008, 01:01
I'm eager to say it, I think the D&D Game Table is going to be trash. It's not standalone software--for starters. My list of problems with GameTable (assuming it's not vaporware--like Duke Nukem Forever) is very long, but I'll just leave it at the pay-per-month plan right now.

I don't actually mind paying per month assuming frequent updates, additions and improvements.

Other than that, its really a wait and see. This could be the coolers thing ever, or just crap. Without a demo, who is to say?

Jaime