Second Edition?

[Felderburg]

Second Edition was announced recently. Are there plans to make an FG version of that ruleset?

[Voxpopuli]

A very good question and if yes, how will you integrate the current material and is this why we have a rather limited choice of ressources for the current edition in Fantasy Grounds?

[superteddy57]

Second Edition has not been discussed. In the mean time you can start a feature request for the ruleset. https://www.fantasygrounds.com/featurerequests/featurerequests.php

As for the limited choices, the community developers that convert the modules into FG are working on modules. They are not employees and get them done as fast as they can. If you are interested in producing modules and making some money as well, you can reach out to [email protected] for more information and to ask questions about the process.

[Voxpopuli]

Thanks for quick response! Agreed for the request for the ruleset in the community features.

However, for the second part, I have been told the exact same answer for the past six months at least so its very disappointing to see no new meaningful products for that long.

[Jiminimonka]

Thanks for quick response! Agreed for the request for the ruleset in the community features.

However, for the second part, I have been told the exact same answer for the past six months at least so its very disappointing to see no new meaningful products for that long.

I am working on a few Star Trek products, they are huge books to convert. When I win the lottery and don't have to go to work I will do this full time. What are the winning numbers? ;)

[superteddy57]

I am working on a few Star Trek products, they are huge books to convert. When I win the lottery and don't have to go to work I will do this full time. What are the winning numbers? ;)

4242

[Voxpopuli]

Yes thank you and I don’t want to diminish or criticize the great work your doing @Jiminimonka and others. In my opinion, I’m still questioning the business model adopted by Fantasy Grounds, as a paid customer, on a major IP like Star Trek having no permanent staff working on it and apparently relying somewhat on the community to do the work.

[Jiminimonka]

4242

I will combine that with 7 of 9...

and it should be 10 out of 10!

[Trenloe]

In my opinion, I’m still questioning the business model adopted by Fantasy Grounds, as a paid customer, on a major IP like Star Trek having no permanent staff working on it and apparently relying somewhat on the community to do the work.
The business model is the way it is because for the vast majority of FG DLC if you look at the "hourly rate" return for producing DLC it doesn't reach that of the salary of a permanent staff member. Star Trek is not one of the highest selling products on FG, so it makes sense to keep with the usual model of using community developers - who do the FG conversions more for love of the products and wanting to see them converted to Fantasy Grounds, with some recompense for that work. As @Jiminimonka eluded to - he'd have to win the lottery to be able to do these conversions full time.

[Voxpopuli]

The business model is the way it is because for the vast majority of FG DLC if you look at the "hourly rate" return for producing DLC it doesn't reach that of the salary of a permanent staff member. Star Trek is not one of the highest selling products on FG, so it makes sense to keep with the usual model of using community developers - who do the FG conversions more for love of the products and wanting to see them converted to Fantasy Grounds, with some recompense for that work. As @Jiminimonka eluded to - he'd have to win the lottery to be able to do these conversions full time.

I believe if there was more product this game would sell better so its the proverbial chicken & the egg situation.

[Trenloe]

I believe if there was more product this game would sell better so its the proverbial chicken & the egg situation.
Maybe, but that's also debatable, especially when you look across all products - more products might mean more sales overall, but those sales could be split over all the products and so the revenue per developer hour is still relatively low. Anyway, that's all hypothetical. The products would have to sell a lot better than they do now to make it cost effective for SmiteWorks to do the development in-house. They did the development for the first three releases (ruleset plus two DLC products) and probably decided that the sales weren't enough for them to continue development, and/or had other developer priorities, and moved to the community developer model. SmiteWorks is a small company and they can't do everything in-house (even if the work did get a relatively good revenue return) and need to lean on community developers so that they can work on other projects.

[Voxpopuli]

I see your point thanks for sharing.

[SylvanSnake]

While it is a bit disappointing to not have more content available for certain game systems, I can definitely see issues with "return on investment" as it is. The Star Trek RPG is kind of an oddball system in the sense that the bulk of the game doesn't focus on any kind of direct combat the way D&D does. Because of this, it likely won't gain a huge following in a VTT setting, where a lot of players are more interested in the quicker payoff of being able to hit stuff with swords and clubs.

Typically, TTRPG players are divided into maybe 4 groups.
1) The GMs who buy large collections of books for their players to enjoy.
2) The dedicated players, who buy all the core books and most of the player character supplements.
3) The semi-casual players, who buy the PHB and maybe one or two other books that interest them.
4) The super-casual players, who don't buy anything. They mostly join the came for the social experience with their friends.

So, the first 3 groups will usually buy the PHB or Core book. Group 1 and 2 will buy a lot of stuff, but the way Fantasy Grounds works, the number will be lower because Players can't technically use their own purchased content in a game; only modules the GM owns can be loaded.

One suggestion to increase sales of modules would be to add the ability in the client for players to load their own purchased content (subject to GM approval).

[Trenloe]

One suggestion to increase sales of modules would be to add the ability in the client for players to load their own purchased content (subject to GM approval).
This functionality has been in FG for quite a few years. The gotcha is that a player can't share content they own with other players, or the GM.

[kronovan]

I just want to pipe in and say I'm not so keen on some of the changes for STA 2e. In particular, I don't care for the fact that Challenge Dice are being removed. For me and my players, the CD are one of the features of the rules that enhances the Star Trek theme. And we've liked the expectation and sometimes anxiety of rolling them. While I realize locating a game store that stocks and sells them at a reasonable price can be problematic, Modiphius did implement the CD in such a way that you can easily use standard d6s. Of course we don't have to worry about that in the FGU ruleset, as they're automatically implemented.
As it stands, for IRL tabletop play, I don't plan on upgrading to 2e - 1e has worked just fine for my players and I and I've noted that some of 2e changes are features that were already added in the Klingon CRB, the Rules Digest and the Players Handbook.

If this ruleset ever drops the Challenge Dice, I'm going to insist on an extension that allows for a GM to add them back.

[SylvanSnake]

This functionality has been in FG for quite a few years. The gotcha is that a player can't share content they own with other players, or the GM.

I've never seen this and I own a lot of content. When I join a game as player, I only have access to the GM's content, not my own. What I meant is that the players should be able to load their own modules and the GM should have access to the content the player is using as well. This way, each player could, in effect, bring their own books to the table to use for their own characters.

[Trenloe]

I've never seen this and I own a lot of content. When I join a game as player, I only have access to the GM's content, not my own.
After you've joined the campaign, the GM has to approve your content from their Module Activation screen to allow you to access it, you won't automatically have access to all of your owned content.


What I meant is that the players should be able to load their own modules and the GM should have access to the content the player is using as well. This way, each player could, in effect, bring their own books to the table to use for their own characters.
The GM won't have access to your content that they don't own, as the architecture doesn't currently support that. The player can still use the content and, depending on how they've used it (e.g. adding spells, features, items, etc. to their PC) the GM may be able to see the content - but the GM won't have full access to the product you own if the GM doesn't own it too.

[Felderburg]

If this ruleset ever drops the Challenge Dice, I'm going to insist on an extension that allows for a GM to add them back.

I'm not sure how that would happen, since 2E would be a separate ruleset. 1E as an FG product is what it is.