Improved NPC Placement in Combat Tracker (CT) — Keep CT Clean Until Combat Starts

[SumalyFly]

In the current version of Fantasy Grounds VTT, NPCs added to the map automatically appear in the Combat Tracker (CT). This can lead to CT clutter in large locations, such as cities or populated areas, where NPCs are mostly for immersion and non-combat interactions.

Suggestion: Add an option to control NPC visibility in the CT until combat interaction begins.

How it would work:

NPCs added to the map are not immediately displayed in CT. This allows you to place NPCs freely for interaction or role-playing purposes without clogging up the CT.
When needed, drag NPCs from the map to CT to activate them for combat. This enables a smoother transition into combat, only showing essential participants.



Benefits:

Keeps CT clean and organized, especially in high-density areas where NPCs may not all be combat participants.
Streamlines gameplay by maintaining focus on relevant combatants when a fight does break out.


This feature will add DM's flexibility and improve gameplay in complex environments, as well as, thanks to this feature will be able to drag and drop on the map is not a picture with a portrait, but a full-fledged NPC with a saved inventory, which is very convenient.

If you are interested, vote for the idea at https://www.fantasygrounds.com/featurerequests/featurerequests.php
Title: Improved NPC placement in CT

[damned]

This already exists.
Add encounter pins to the map rather than npcs.
When you reach/require that encounter you then click the button to add to the CT and map simultaneously.

[SumalyFly]

This already exists.
Add encounter pins to the map rather than npcs.
When you reach/require that encounter you then click the button to add to the CT and map simultaneously.


I'm not talking about encounters where NPCs are immediately placed both on the map and in CT. I'm talking about them not being added to the CT immediately after being moved to the map.
For exaple
True (Yes, it's just a portrait, not an NPC, but the point is clear):
62509

False:
62510

[SumalyFly]

The idea itself revolves around putting NPCs on the map, so that they don't show up in CT until you move the NPC to CT. It has nothing to do with encounters, which are essentially used for battles

[devilspork]

Check out SlientRuin's Combat Groups extension on the Forge for 5E. It's fantastic for high volume NPC Dungeons.

[SumalyFly]

Check out SlientRuin's Combat Groups extension on the Forge for 5E. It's fantastic for high volume NPC Dungeons.

Hi, thanks for the reply, but I couldn't find “SlientRuin's Combat Groups”, only “5E Combat Groups by Grimlore for 5E Compatible”
If you mean it, it is paid(10$), and in the 2nd it is a simplification of encounterter because it adds immediately to CT. The same encounter that is fixed with a pin on the map. That's not what I meant in my post.
There used to be an extension that displays the meaning of this query, but it is unfortunately no longer updated:
https://forge.fantasygrounds.com/shop/items/337/view
More specifically, the project has become unviable due to the fact that NPCs, although hidden, are still in CT, causing FGU slowdowns

[Zacchaeus]

Add your suggestion to the feature request list. Link in my signature.

For non combatants you could just drag a token directly from assets onto the map since they don't need to have an actual NPC behind them.

[devilspork]

That is the extension I was referencing. I'm currently using it to run a group through Dead in Thay, which is a monster heavy dungeon crawl. You are correct, in that I have to add the NPC's from the Encounter to the Map/CT, but being able to group and hide the NPC's from being visible in the combat tracker has been great for me.
I usually add the NPC's a room or two ahead of where I think the party is tracking, naming the group the same as the room they are in. That way when Traps that have been created as NPC's haven't been solved/disabled, the are still in the CT ready to trigger again when the party backtracks & forgets about the trap. Same thing with monsters that are wilt enough to run away & reappear later.
I haven't seen any significant performance slow down with probably 50 NPC's on the CT, so that issue may have been due to the AD&D 2nd Ed ruleset?
The challenge I see with your proposal is moving NPC's on/off the CT means you'd have to re-roll initiative as the come back on. With Combat Groups all NPC's roll, so I can always throw the "surprise, they were hiding" NPC back in the round by just making the token visible.

[SumalyFly]

Add your suggestion to the feature request list. Link in my signature.

For non combatants you could just drag a token directly from assets onto the map since they don't need to have an actual NPC behind them.

hi Zacchaeus. Yeah, I've already added it to the feature sheet (Improved NPC placement in CT). This post is just promoting this request to be seen.
about your

For non combatants you could just drag a token directly from assets onto the map
This is just a simplification. I would like to see a functional NPC for this, which has inventory, characteristics.
As I wrote above, it is very convenient, unlike drag a token directly from assets. After all, if you start a fight with him, you will have to spend time searching for him. And also deprives this NPC of the name

[SumalyFly]

That is the extension I was referencing. I'm currently using it to run a group through Dead in Thay, which is a monster heavy dungeon crawl. You are correct, in that I have to add the NPC's from the Encounter to the Map/CT, but being able to group and hide the NPC's from being visible in the combat tracker has been great for me.
I usually add the NPC's a room or two ahead of where I think the party is tracking, naming the group the same as the room they are in. That way when Traps that have been created as NPC's haven't been solved/disabled, the are still in the CT ready to trigger again when the party backtracks & forgets about the trap. Same thing with monsters that are wilt enough to run away & reappear later.
I haven't seen any significant performance slow down with probably 50 NPC's on the CT, so that issue may have been due to the AD&D 2nd Ed ruleset?
The challenge I see with your proposal is moving NPC's on/off the CT means you'd have to re-roll initiative as the come back on. With Combat Groups all NPC's roll, so I can always throw the "surprise, they were hiding" NPC back in the round by just making the token visible.

Unfortunately this extension doesn't help me as much as it helps you. The point of my idea is not to hide NPCs in CT, but just not to exist in CT, but to exist as a full-fledged NPC on the map. As you say, let's say there are 50 of them and I'll hide them during combat, but I'll only reveal 2-3 of them, which is wildly inconvenient if you use randomization of numbers for them. It's also pretty weird to the player's eye when they disappear. I'm not even talking about the fact that, in fact, if you don't use this expansion - they rise from their graves and stand where you put them at the start.


I haven't seen any significant performance slow down with probably 50 NPC's on the CT, so that issue may have been due to the AD&D 2nd Ed ruleset?
I'm using the basic 5e rules

[LordEntrails]

You should probably put the name of the feature request in the OP and make it clear that people can vote for your ide via the Feature Request list.

The point of my idea is not to hide NPCs in CT, but just not to exist in CT, but to exist as a full-fledged NPC on the map.
A few things;
- How would you know which NPC token on a map has been added to the CT?
- From a game management point of view, are you going to be moving each and every token every turn? Even when they are not on the CT?
- Managing dozens of NPCs/Tokens on the map is tough. I've done up to about 50 and had to really focus on moving them in groups etc so that I did not slow down the rounds to an unbearably slow level.

[SumalyFly]

You should probably put the name of the feature request in the OP and make it clear that people can vote for your ide via the Feature Request list.

A few things;
- How would you know which NPC token on a map has been added to the CT?
- From a game management point of view, are you going to be moving each and every token every turn? Even when they are not on the CT?
- Managing dozens of NPCs/Tokens on the map is tough. I've done up to about 50 and had to really focus on moving them in groups etc so that I did not slow down the rounds to an unbearably slow level.

hi LordEntrails,
It's my business to propose an idea, it's not up to me to think about its realization. But if I did:

- How would you know which NPC token on a map has been added to the CT? - Adding a unique ID inside the character(uint) to NPCs when placing npc on the map. Or name as id when placing npc on the map

- From a game management point of view, are you going to be moving each and every token every turn? Even when they are not on the CT? - I'm a little confused as to what you mean. If you mean the beginning of the battle, then he will be moved from the map to CT by dragging with the mouse and there you decide to take it into account.
If you mean when he's not in battle, then no, I'm not going to move him (almost never, unless it's an escort, etc). The main advantage of such a thing is the full functionality of throws and NPC inventory, because it is not a picture and you can go into it

Managing dozens of NPCs/Tokens on the map is tough. I've done up to about 50 and had to really focus on moving them in groups etc so that I did not slow down the rounds to an unbearably slow level. - I never wrote anywhere about their management in terms of moving around and all the time. But as a trivial example. All NPCs in the city are standing and you can interact with them in terms of communication, etc. Deception roll, and on the part of the NPC a charisma roll. Just as an example.


You should probably put the name of the feature request in the OP and make it clear that people can vote for your ide via the Feature Request list.
Thanks for your reminder, I'll update the starting post

[Zacchaeus]

The irony here is that it was only a couple of months ago that adding an NPC directly to a map automatically also added them to the combat tracker; which was a fairly often requested feature.

[SumalyFly]

The irony here is that it was only a couple of months ago that adding an NPC directly to a map automatically also added them to the combat tracker; which was a fairly often requested feature.

hahahahaha. I think you have to make a toggle switch in the settings for that :o
taste and color, there are different felt-tip pens

[SilentRuin]

I'm always for FGU to do things to keep from having extensions do them. However, its unlikely they can do what you want as the code base MUST have the NPCs in the CT in order to play logically in the map. The only games you can really play is with what is visible in the CT - and if you really want to do it right - you usually have to have control over what is visible in the HOST and the CLIENT separately.

Just some advice from someone who has had to solve this issue outside of FGU for themselves :)

[SumalyFly]

I'm always for FGU to do things to keep from having extensions do them. However, its unlikely they can do what you want as the code base MUST have the NPCs in the CT in order to play logically in the map. The only games you can really play is with what is visible in the CT - and if you really want to do it right - you usually have to have control over what is visible in the HOST and the CLIENT separately.

Just some advice from someone who has had to solve this issue outside of FGU for themselves :)
hi SilentRuin
In that case would be to make a hidden CT. One for fights, and the second always invisible. A crutch, but still

[SilentRuin]

hi SilentRuin
In that case would be to make a hidden CT. One for fights, and the second always invisible. A crutch, but still

The more you would dig into this the more you will find that is not enough. For me, I only let players see things that are the same faction and/or same combat group and/or owned. Anything less will let them see things in CT that are not present on map. There is no way - ever - as in never ever - would I let my players target (see) things outside of the map that are not fitting into the filters I mentioned above. A DM who is willing to constantly set visible/invisible status on tokens in map every time some LOS blocks their view so the CT does not show them - well they are way crazier than I am.

It would be like saying I did not randomize initiative order every round letting players have some sort of claivoyent magical powers to predict who goes next and when so they can cheat and plan accordingly. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN in my games. Nor will I let them see things that are out of vision or invisible, where I have to manage it.

Anyway - that is what I found when i tried to solve this - you just have to keep solving and solving and... well you get the picture. Not a simple thing as your presenting.

[SumalyFly]

The more you would dig into this the more you will find that is not enough. For me, I only let players see things that are the same faction and/or same combat group and/or owned. Anything less will let them see things in CT that are not present on map. There is no way - ever - as in never ever - would I let my players target (see) things outside of the map that are not fitting into the filters I mentioned above. A DM who is willing to constantly set visible/invisible status on tokens in map every time some LOS blocks their view so the CT does not show them - well they are way crazier than I am.

It would be like saying I did not randomize initiative order every round letting players have some sort of claivoyent magical powers to predict who goes next and when so they can cheat and plan accordingly. NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN in my games. Nor will I let them see things that are out of vision or invisible, where I have to manage it.

Anyway - that is what I found when i tried to solve this - you just have to keep solving and solving and... well you get the picture. Not a simple thing as your presenting.

Thanks for your detailed response and the experience presented. But still, I am not the person who decides and does. My business is to propose an idea, because in my opinion it is very useful for master control. In itself it seems simple, yes, but it's so clear that there are pitfalls here

[LordEntrails]

Proposing ideas is good.
Discussing the pro's and cons and feasibility of such is one of the uses of the forums. It helps all of us understand why something that sounds simple or may seem to be a good idea may not be simple or beneficial to other users. When we have a better understanding of these things, it's helps each of us manage our own expectations.

What I mean by my points really comes down to this. Every turn am I going to move Sam the Food Server from table to table? This is certainly realistic, but is going to cause playability problems when I might be talking about dozens or hundreds of NPCs. We, RPG gamers, have to keep in mind playability. Just like in D&D we don't have hit points and armor class for each arm, leg, or other vital location because though some RPGs do this, the general consensus is the added booking involved in doing so does not add (for most of "us") enough enjoyment to account for the negatives.

Really it comes down to this; Does adding a large number of NPCs to a map really outweigh the negatives? How often are the players going to interact with the fruit vendor on the street and detailing before the interaction how many apples and copper coins they have on them is worth it? Or, when do we just say that the street is packed with vendors and movement is at half speed. And then when they actually stop and try to steal from the fishmonger do we worry about how many coins they have?

The answer to my first question is going to be different for each of us. Hence why the idea of the community voting on ideas is so valuable. It let's "us" all communicate to SmiteWorks the relative importance of the improvement ideas we have.

[SumalyFly]

Proposing ideas is good.
Discussing the pro's and cons and feasibility of such is one of the uses of the forums. It helps all of us understand why something that sounds simple or may seem to be a good idea may not be simple or beneficial to other users. When we have a better understanding of these things, it's helps each of us manage our own expectations.

What I mean by my points really comes down to this. Every turn am I going to move Sam the Food Server from table to table? This is certainly realistic, but is going to cause playability problems when I might be talking about dozens or hundreds of NPCs. We, RPG gamers, have to keep in mind playability. Just like in D&D we don't have hit points and armor class for each arm, leg, or other vital location because though some RPGs do this, the general consensus is the added booking involved in doing so does not add (for most of "us") enough enjoyment to account for the negatives.

Really it comes down to this; Does adding a large number of NPCs to a map really outweigh the negatives? How often are the players going to interact with the fruit vendor on the street and detailing before the interaction how many apples and copper coins they have on them is worth it? Or, when do we just say that the street is packed with vendors and movement is at half speed. And then when they actually stop and try to steal from the fishmonger do we worry about how many coins they have?

The answer to my first question is going to be different for each of us. Hence why the idea of the community voting on ideas is so valuable. It let's "us" all communicate to SmiteWorks the relative importance of the improvement ideas we have.

Well, let's go in order.

Discussing the pro's and cons and feasibility of such is one of the uses of the forums. It helps all of us understand why something that sounds simple or may seem to be a good idea may not be simple or beneficial to other users. When we have a better understanding of these things, it's helps each of us manage our own expectations.
The list of people who voted can speak for that. A suggestion sheet with the option to “support” wouldn't just exist for nothing. Everyone can find the advantages of such a feature for themselves. My main arguments aren't just about inventory, though I give it as an example, it would also give the possibility of surprise without spamming tokens through encounter for interesting situations. In other words, convenience.

What I mean by my points really comes down to this. Every turn am I going to move Sam the Food Server from table to table? This is certainly realistic, but is going to cause playability problems when I might be talking about dozens or hundreds of NPCs. We, RPG gamers, have to keep in mind playability. Just like in D&D we don't have hit points and armor class for each arm, leg, or other vital location because though some RPGs do this, the general consensus is the added booking involved in doing so does not add (for most of "us") enough enjoyment to account for the negatives.
Is this really how you need to move every token in town, for a filler atmosphere? I understand that you, like me, like others, can play out this situation using visualization in your head, but this approach is getting old, because if it's possible to show it visually, why shouldn't I do it? Likewise with the characteristics of each individual NPC in the city. Yes, I can say that that NPC is hard to fool and sharp-tongued, but it's much easier to show it with his characteristics. Being able to use NPCs without CT gives a lot of advantages. Starting from meticulous filling of NPCs with different characteristics, to their wagering. I may have worded that a bit wrong. Back to the beginning, this is primarily aimed at GM convenience, since the word Combat itself implies combat, non-combat NPCs shouldn't be there

Really it comes down to this; Does adding a large number of NPCs to a map really outweigh the negatives? How often are the players going to interact with the fruit vendor on the street and detailing before the interaction how many apples and copper coins they have on them is worth it? Or, when do we just say that the street is packed with vendors and movement is at half speed. And then when they actually stop and try to steal from the fishmonger do we worry about how many coins they have?
I can't answer that philosophical question. But to some of them I can give an answer: it does not matter how much it carries, the important thing is that it can be specified. And if we say “the street is full of merchants and the traffic is moving at half speed”, then here already, it will be easier to imagine than to put NPCs on the map. The very idea of this phrase can not become a disadvantage, because it is, in fact, wagering unprepared situations. If it is a prepared situation, it can be shown

[SumalyFly]

Small correction, the template 1 NPC with different characterization filling

[damned]

Are you interested in reasons why it wont work?

[SumalyFly]

Are you interested in reasons why it wont work?

Sure, but it depends on what exactly won't work.

[LordEntrails]

Happy gaming. Good luck with your feature suggestion.

[SumalyFly]

Happy gaming. Good luck with your feature suggestion.

hahaha, thanks for the kind words, but it sounds more like irony :o

[damned]

For better or for worse FG is largely architected around the Combat Tracker.
Entities dont actually exist in your campaign until they are in the Combat Tracker.
They can have their stats in the NPC list, they can be in Encounters in Encounters list, they can be in Encounters that are pinned to the map but they still are not able to be interacted with until they are in the CT.
When you want an NPC on the map it first has to go in the CT.
The map just contains a pointer to the CT entry.
The CT entry contains all the data on the NPC - if you went back into the reference source and edited the NPC after its added to the CT those edits do nothing to the NPC in the CT. The CT has all of that NPCs records.

There are two ways in which having 50 or 500 entries in the CT will slow you down - the first is the human side - juggling and managing all of those NPCs and who is and who isnt acting.
The second is the performance hit to the game engine when much larger sets of data are being loaded and checked and things like LoS and lighting.

Maybe Im wrong but I dont see any easy way around this.

[SumalyFly]

For better or for worse FG is largely architected around the Combat Tracker.
Entities dont actually exist in your campaign until they are in the Combat Tracker.
They can have their stats in the NPC list, they can be in Encounters in Encounters list, they can be in Encounters that are pinned to the map but they still are not able to be interacted with until they are in the CT.
When you want an NPC on the map it first has to go in the CT.
The map just contains a pointer to the CT entry.
The CT entry contains all the data on the NPC - if you went back into the reference source and edited the NPC after its added to the CT those edits do nothing to the NPC in the CT. The CT has all of that NPCs records.

There are two ways in which having 50 or 500 entries in the CT will slow you down - the first is the human side - juggling and managing all of those NPCs and who is and who isnt acting.
The second is the performance hit to the game engine when much larger sets of data are being loaded and checked and things like LoS and lighting.

Maybe Im wrong but I dont see any easy way around this.

Thank you for your response, I understand that. But I can immediately see one solution.
2 trackers.
1 is a hidden tracker, you can't interact with it
2 - Battle Tracker. Fully functional, and which by moving with the mouse adds NPCs to CT.
Yes, a crutch that will require performance tests

[SumalyFly]

If we talk about the full implementation from my point of view, it looks like this:
1 tracker - hidden, with it will not be able to interact, but there go all NPCs.
The 2nd tracker is a combat tracker, displays players and NPCs that have been dragged from the map to it. Fully functional. Actions in the 2nd tracker are fully reflected in the 1st tracker. Except for moves. NPCs from the 1st tracker, in the absence of them in the 2nd tracker are skipped in the battle.
In the settings there is a bar with a tentative name “Add NPCs to CT at once”: “Yes”, “No”
If “yes”, the 2nd tracker is not used, if “no”, the 2 trackers are used.
When the 2nd tracker is enabled, there will be a checkbox at the top that says “Show All”

I can't vouch for this, but as an implementation through such a crutch - quite acceptable

[claedawg]

This may not be fully what you want but it will hide NPCs from the players being able to see them on the CT until they have line of sight

https://forge.fantasygrounds.com/shop/items/364/view

[SumalyFly]

This may not be fully what you want but it will hide NPCs from the players being able to see them on the CT until they have line of sight

https://forge.fantasygrounds.com/shop/items/364/view

Hi, thanks for writing. But that's not it at all :D. But now I know there is such an extension

[Trenloe]

Thanks for your detailed response and the experience presented. But still, I am not the person who decides and does. My business is to propose an idea, because in my opinion it is very useful for master control. In itself it seems simple, yes, but it's so clear that there are pitfalls here
If you don't engage in the ins-and-outs of your request, then there is a danger that if this gets implemented it isn't what you're looking for. I'm glad you are engaging with the discussion, so this doesn't really apply - I'm just replying to let you know that just dropping a high level request and not discussing further has the danger of resulting in you not getting what you asked for.