Rulesets, adventures, supplements, oh my!

[Ludd_G]

Hi,

With the big new changes to FG’s buisness model (free licences and digital book shelf) I was just wondering if there have been any internal discussions about the way development and ongoing support of existing and new rulesets, supplements and adventures will be handled going forward in FG?

I’d love to be buying more content for FG, contributing my small bit for your revenue stream, especially as the digital book shelf now means I’ll no longer have to also buy pdfs for reading away from my gaming PC (two-thumbs-up, this is a brilliant feature!), but I’ve come to realise that pretty much all the things I’d like to buy are still not presently available on FG, whilst many if not most of them are available on the rival VTTs.

Personally I’d really like to avoid moving to a different VTT to play the rulesets/supplements/adventures that aren’t available on FG. So I was wondering if there is any chance of more systems being fully supported by SmiteWorks directly rather than through the goodwill and hard work of the community? The idea that neither Call of Cthulhu or the entirety of Free League’s catalogue are not fully available on FG, and kept up to date as a default, seems like a big miss to me.

And to put my theoretical money where my potential library could be, these are the titles I have been wanting to buy over the last 12 months or would be looking to buy over the next year:

Dragonbane:
Ruleset; Core Rules; Bestiary; Path of Glory; The Sinking Tower; Riddermound (Quick Start)
{upcoming – Arkand; Book of Magic; Dragonbane: Trudvang)

Vaesen:
The Lost Mountain Saga; City of My Nightmares; Mythic Carpathia; Starter Set

Call of Cthulhu (7e)
Cthulhu By Gaslight (Keeper and Investigator); Carcosa Manifest; Twin Sun Rising; No Time To Scream; Order of the Stone; Nameless Horrors

Paranoia:
Ruleset; Core Rules; Accomplice Book; Brave New Missions; Mandatory Fun; Citizen in Name Only; 404 Compendium; Powers That Be

Alien:
Evolved Edition Core Rules; Rapture Protocol; Building Better Worlds; Starter Set

Delta Green:
Ruleset; Need To Know (Quick Start); Agent Handbook; Handler Guide; Control Group; Impossible Landscapes; Future Perfect; A Night At The Opera; Black Sites; Lover in Ice.


All this is said with the greatest respect for everyone working at Smiteworks, and with a real desire for the ongoing and increasing success of Fantasy Grounds.

Cheers,

Simon

[Egheal]

I'm not interested in Paranoia, but I would buy almost all the other titles you mentioned — and some RuneQuest as well. Unfortunately, it seems that Free League is no longer interested in our favorite platform, just like Chaosium...

[LordEntrails]

One can always step up and become a community developer and make a little cash on the side, as well as having your favorite content available :)

[ddavison]

Typically, modules for an existing system can be build directly within the application and then exported as long as you have the base ruleset. Most of the content available in our store is done by community developers doing that, and not by the publisher directly. For systems with strong content support, those happen when community developers request permission to do the conversion to [email protected]. James then makes sure they are set up properly, requests the raw files from the publisher, and then works with the community dev to get it reviewed and into the store, commission percentage set, etc. Community devs tend to focus on modules they think will provide them with a decent return on investment for their time to convert them. Expressing interest in specific modules aids this process.

To further help quantify and list demand, I just added a new option to the feature request list called "Module Request". Here you can enter any modules you would be interested in buying and you can vote for any others that people have requested. If something has strong demand, it is much more likely to be converted.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/featurerequests/featurerequests.php?category=9&status=All&titlesearch=&btnSearch=Search

[Ludd_G]

Typically, modules for an existing system can be build directly within the application and then exported as long as you have the base ruleset. Most of the content available in our store is done by community developers doing that, and not by the publisher directly. For systems with strong content support, those happen when community developers request permission to do the conversion to [email protected]. James then makes sure they are set up properly, requests the raw files from the publisher, and then works with the community dev to get it reviewed and into the store, commission percentage set, etc. Community devs tend to focus on modules they think will provide them with a decent return on investment for their time to convert them. Expressing interest in specific modules aids this process.

To further help quantify and list demand, I just added a new option to the feature request list called "Module Request". Here you can enter any modules you would be interested in buying and you can vote for any others that people have requested. If something has strong demand, it is much more likely to be converted.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/featurerequests/featurerequests.php?category=9&status=All&titlesearch=&btnSearch=Search

Hi Doug, and with all due respect, I feel like you're not seeing the point that I'm making. The system for ruleset and module conversion, as it is presently, isn't, in my opinion, working. There are significant holes appearing in your ruleset and modules library, and if nothing is being considered to change the way rules sets and game content is developed/converted for FG, I really fear that this situation is only going to get worse over time.

The list of content i'm unable to buy here, to use in FG, i wouldn't characterise as old, obscure or niche, and many ARE available to purchase and play on your rival VTTs. I'm very invested in FG so will likely continue to use it for my 5e (legacy) games, but if i were new and looking for a VTT to invest my time and money in, the availability of the latest and greatest content in many of the the top RPGs would probably, at this time, dissuade me from picking FG. Content is king.

I would be happy if it seemed like this was a conversation the team at SmiteWorks was interested in having, even if you came to the conclusion that you were happy with the status quo, but I'm just not sure you are. I'm worried that relying on this present laissez-faire approach will be detrimental to FG going forward, as i think it's actually detrimental now. I want to give you money for content, but i can't, and that worries me.

Cheers,

Simon

[ddavison]

Most of those systems are not financially viable to tackle as a direct conversion by SmiteWorks, so they would need to be a labor of love. It's great that you want to support those products with money, and I understand what you are saying about an inability to give a company money. It needs to reach a certain scale to be worth it. Of those systems, Alien and Call of Cthulhu are the best performers, and we do release products for each of those. CoC has slowed down dramatically over the last few years, and the champions for that system on FG have become less available.

I also speak with many partners whose content we sell here. Even those companies complain that creating content for many VTTs is not financially viable, and they actually lose money doing it. For Fantasy Grounds, our community normally covers this. This means that without an interested community developer, it won't happen.

The shift to free licenses means we are adding many more potential customers every day, versus when we had paid licenses. Our hope is that it will tip over and there will be such a sizeable community of potential buyers that making content for the community will become much more appealing. In the meantime, the best we can offer is for people to list their content requests in the feature requests list and vote on items you are interested in buying. This will signal interest. If there are only a few dozen people requesting something, it isn't likely to get made. If we start seeing higher numbers, it makes it much easier to justify spending resources on it.

[LordEntrails]

Might we, SmiteWorks and the community, develop a more robust and friendly process to onboard community developers? If we can remove the barriers to becoming a community developer and getting DLC published, we all win right?

[Ludd_G]

Most of those systems are not financially viable to tackle as a direct conversion by SmiteWorks, so they would need to be a labor of love. It's great that you want to support those products with money, and I understand what you are saying about an inability to give a company money. It needs to reach a certain scale to be worth it. Of those systems, Alien and Call of Cthulhu are the best performers, and we do release products for each of those. CoC has slowed down dramatically over the last few years, and the champions for that system on FG have become less available.

I also speak with many partners whose content we sell here. Even those companies complain that creating content for many VTTs is not financially viable, and they actually lose money doing it. For Fantasy Grounds, our community normally covers this. This means that without an interested community developer, it won't happen.

The shift to free licenses means we are adding many more potential customers every day, versus when we had paid licenses. Our hope is that it will tip over and there will be such a sizeable community of potential buyers that making content for the community will become much more appealing. In the meantime, the best we can offer is for people to list their content requests in the feature requests list and vote on items you are interested in buying. This will signal interest. If there are only a few dozen people requesting something, it isn't likely to get made. If we start seeing higher numbers, it makes it much easier to justify spending resources on it.

Hi Doug, thanks for getting back to me, and thanks for taking this in the spirit of discussion as intended, it's appreciated.

I suppose one of the things i've been mulling over is whether there's something to be said for considering some products loss-leaders? For example, say I'm new to VVTs, i've heard good things about FG, Foundry and Roll20, but, as my group really wants to try the new e.g. Vaesen books FG is, unfortunately, discounted, leading them to invest in Foundry (for example). Now this group in 6, 12, 18 months time decides to switch to 5e, PF2e or DCC etc. etc., all of which are available and well maintained on FG, but they will now stick with Foundry, because that's what they're used to operating. So all the future money from this group is lost. To me, looking at things over a longer period, and with an eye to usage of a specific VTT platform, rather than the specific content within that VTT, the idea of financial viability for a particular, more niche, product must, i feel, be heavily weighted with the idea of platform retention over the medium to long term, and once you have a group you're much more likely to keep a group with all it's attendant future purchases.

Of course this is just supposition from me, and I'm sure you've done your own internal financial breakdowns when coming to the conclusions you have. It just made me wonder.

Cheers,

Simon

[Ludd_G]

Might we, SmiteWorks and the community, develop a more robust and friendly process to onboard community developers? If we can remove the barriers to becoming a community developer and getting DLC published, we all win right?

I would love this, and i am hoping to put myself forward (put my money where my mouth is, to coin a phrase) to become a community developer.

Cheers,

Simon

[superteddy57]

I would love this, and i am hoping to put myself forward (put my money where my mouth is, to coin a phrase) to become a community developer.

Cheers,

Simon

I'm usually available with Paulette in our discord hanging out answering questions. You can reach out anytime if you have questions with the tech side of the process.

[HywelPhillips]

I echo Simon's concerns. There is a chicken-and-egg situation here.

I've bought every scrap of Vaesen content available on FG and I literally can't give you any more money to indicate that I'd buy all the new stuff. Actually I've probably brought pretty much every Free League release on here full stop, and would love to have Forbidden Lands and Dragonbane and all the latest releases for the supported systems.

I make a noise about it where I can, but at a certain tipping point I will be forced to change VTT to run certain systems because 90% of my games are online and if FG doesn't have the system and modules I want and another platform does, that kinda forces my hand. And thus VTT platforms that support the system get more support from players of that system. Chicken.

Conversely, I see the point that without a critical mass of purchasers on a given platform, it makes no sense to devote resources to publishing these systems. If Alien outsells Vaesen by a significant factor, Alien releases will appear and Vaesen ones won't, and no-one will play Vaesen on this platform. Unless someone puts in a big effort, you don't get to find out how well new stuff sells. Egg.

At some level I think this is inevitable. There are too many platforms and not enough paying customers for every platform to support every RPG system and every RPG release. What's likely to happen is specialisation. Clearly, Free League like Foundry for whatever reason. All their new releases appear on there, it is sold via their own store, their Kickstarters include Foundry modules, etc.

Conversely, the SWADE community on FG is outstanding. Not just the ruleset and implementation, but the number and enthusiasm of community devs releasing modules. I actually tried SWADE specifically because it was so lively on FG, and while the other VTTs have caught up a bit, FG still rules the roost.

With FG's move to a new business model where content is what's paying the bills, I think there does need to be a spotlight on how to make that work. How do you generate a critical mass of interest in playing a certain system on FG? Others mileage may vary but here are a few thoughts from my own perspective.

1) LordEntrails is absolutely right. There needs to be a much more robust and friendly process to get community devs onboard. I've converted a few modules for my own personal use, including the Vaesen starter set and Deadlands Showdown at Sundown before it appeared on the store. If there had been a step-by-step guide to making those suitable for publication rather than just for private use - in terms of how to set up modules, how to organise as books, stories, maps, etc. as best practices - I might have considered doing it. As it is I'm just assuming that what I've done is probably so sloppy it would be too much work to "do it right" and sign up as a community dev. How many others have done the same? If the overhead were reduced, more people might be persuaded to convert for the store rather than just for their home use. I'd even say it's worth making a distinction between the ruleset/coding/extension sort of community dev and the sort of "data entry" dev who converts PDFs into FG modules for pre-existing systems. Concentrate on making the process as friendly and streamlined as possible for the data entry devs first and get every release onto the store for those systems you already support. Then worry about adding more systems?

2) Indeed platform feature requests, rulesets, and content ("module") requests might better be separated. I don't think the feature request page is the right place to gauge interest in converting Mythic Carpathia to FG VTT - something more like a vote-off of which Vaesen module to be converted next would be a better way to judge. The overhead for a new Vaesen module vs. a whole new ruleset is radically different, and the skill level should be likewise radically different. Any muppet off the street should be able to convert a PDF to a publishable module with a bit of time and no technical expertise in LUA etc.

3) For me, the presence of a high-automation ruleset is icing on the cake, and the presence of a community ruleset without the rulebook content is just a cake stand with no cake on it. I don't have time to enter the whole of the Mutant Year Zero core rule content into the nice Damned ruleset. The functioning minimum for me is a low-automation ruleset but with at a bare minimum the core rulebook content implemented (and ideally at least one adventure module if the core rules don't include one). That's particularly true for relatively low-crunch rulesets like Free League games. Given FG's audience skews older I suspect I am not alone in this. I know this is slightly heretical given that FG's selling point traditionally has been the automation. But I think one of the reasons Roll20 has stood the test of time is that it's relatively easy to get a functional character sheet and get the basic rulebook PDF info up and running there.

4) There is currently no way for us to sponsor stuff for systems we like; make one. Superfans of a given system might be willing to contribute to the development costs rather than having to fund it all from commissions on the final sales. Some mix of Patreon supporters or project specific Kickstarters or some other supporters' scheme?

5) Identify rule systems which are popular and do not already have critical mass support on another platform. Sounds easy but hard to do in practice, especially as there are geographical and community variations. (eg in my neck of the woods Vaesen is vastly more popular than Alien, but clearly for FG VTT the sales tell a different story). Obviously D&D remains the big player, and there's going to be a law of diminishing returns. D&D is also the one with an in-house VTT solution as well as support from every other platform. A quick look at DriveThruRPG's menus is a good place to start and honestly FG is doing OK here.

6) Identify which rulesets are likely to appeal to the sort of people who like Fantasy Grounds, too. I get the frustration with the lack of Powered by the Apocalypse/Forged in the Dark games on here but for those loosey-goosey story-centric systems the full weight of the FG combat tracker is probably counterproductive. Pathfinder on the other hand basically mandates some heavy-duty book-keeping tool for players and GM's sanity.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Cheers, Hywel.

[HywelPhillips]

P.S.

7) Release more of the stuff that will appeal to the customers you want, not just the customers you have. If you put out work of a certain sort, you get booked for more of that work in my experience. Putting stuff out on spec is a necessary experiment to cracking new markets and requires proper resourcing. What new pool of gamers are you hoping to attract to FG by going free-to-play? In a broad sense, all of them. But in a business sense, you're after the ones who pay for content (whether that be dice packs, basic rules or $100 adventure modules).

How do you zero in on who they might be I wonder? I'm not sure. But I think the fact that there are people on the forum begging you to take their money for modules for rulesets that are already implemented is an interesting indication.

[Nylanfs]

1) LordEntrails is absolutely right. There needs to be a much more robust and friendly process to get community devs onboard. I've converted a few modules for my own personal use, including the Vaesen starter set and Deadlands Showdown at Sundown before it appeared on the store. If there had been a step-by-step guide to making those suitable for publication rather than just for private use - in terms of how to set up modules, how to organise as books, stories, maps, etc. as best practices - I might have considered doing it. As it is I'm just assuming that what I've done is probably so sloppy it would be too much work to "do it right" and sign up as a community dev. How many others have done the same? If the overhead were reduced, more people might be persuaded to convert for the store rather than just for their home use. I'd even say it's worth making a distinction between the ruleset/coding/extension sort of community dev and the sort of "data entry" dev who converts PDFs into FG modules for pre-existing systems. Concentrate on making the process as friendly and streamlined as possible for the data entry devs first and get every release onto the store for those systems you already support. Then worry about adding more systems?

Isn't that what the Developer's Guide (https://fantasygroundsunity.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FGCP/pages/996644285/Developer+Guide?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNGYxYmZkZGNiYTgw NGFkZTlkYTgzNWFkMzI2Yzg3M2MiLCJwIjoiYyJ9) is for?

[HywelPhillips]

Isn't that what the Developer's Guide (https://fantasygroundsunity.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FGCP/pages/996644285/Developer+Guide?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNGYxYmZkZGNiYTgw NGFkZTlkYTgzNWFkMzI2Yzg3M2MiLCJwIjoiYyJ9) is for?

Yes, but I would contend that it is inadequate at present.

It needs a highly detailed step-by-step tutorial that a newcomer can follow, with examples, to enter a bunch of data into FG using a current ruleset and end up with a publishable module that you can put on the store. As far as I can see there is nothing close to that in the Developer's Guide, which seems to be more of an explanation of how FG works under the hood and a bunch of recommendations (eg for image size and format) that only help if you already basically know what you are doing.

It needs that at minimum for 5E, plus a series of ruleset-specific pages explaining if and how the module development process differs from that of 5E. eg SWADE has its own toolsets, I believe.

It needs to provide detailed recipes to follow for current best practices to fit in with other commercial modules. There's often more than one way to do a certain job in FG - for example, the use of stories is now depreciated compared with using reference manuals. Locations are now a part of CoreRPG IIRC but no-one is using them for purchased modules I think. The best way to do this would be a complete worked example - a short adventure module that includes most of the common data types so also includes a new character class or subclass, new items, tokens, portraits, effects, the works. The more parts of the system the tutorial covers the more people can find the answers for themselves and just follow the recipe.

In my experience this is crucial to get non-software-developer folks doing stuff for themselves. Worked examples which refer to the general principles are much more useful for self-learning for a lot of people. For example I'm willing to bet most people skip over the "supported notations" at the head of this page https://fantasygroundsunity.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FGCP/pages/3136716814/Savage+Worlds+Challenge+Effects and skip straight to the examples, and only then go back to try to work out what the pseudocode means. (In passing this is a perfect example of documentation written by someone who thinks in code that a lot of users will bounce off. IMO a huge list of examples covering common situations should be appended, from the very simplest possibilities to very complex examples. The current page has all the information but not in a way "normies" will be able to parse it).

The critical point to me is that code devs are needed for rulesets and extensions, but there is a much bigger potential pool of data entry devs who mainly need a recipe to follow that takes them from a PDF to a publishable module with no coding required.

Cheers, Hywel

[Ludd_G]

Yes, but I would contend that it is inadequate at present.

It needs a highly detailed step-by-step tutorial that a newcomer can follow, with examples, to enter a bunch of data into FG using a current ruleset and end up with a publishable module that you can put on the store. As far as I can see there is nothing close to that in the Developer's Guide, which seems to be more of an explanation of how FG works under the hood and a bunch of recommendations (eg for image size and format) that only help if you already basically know what you are doing.

It needs that at minimum for 5E, plus a series of ruleset-specific pages explaining if and how the module development process differs from that of 5E. eg SWADE has its own toolsets, I believe.

It needs to provide detailed recipes to follow for current best practices to fit in with other commercial modules. There's often more than one way to do a certain job in FG - for example, the use of stories is now depreciated compared with using reference manuals. Locations are now a part of CoreRPG IIRC but no-one is using them for purchased modules I think. The best way to do this would be a complete worked example - a short adventure module that includes most of the common data types so also includes a new character class or subclass, new items, tokens, portraits, effects, the works. The more parts of the system the tutorial covers the more people can find the answers for themselves and just follow the recipe.

In my experience this is crucial to get non-software-developer folks doing stuff for themselves. Worked examples which refer to the general principles are much more useful for self-learning for a lot of people. For example I'm willing to bet most people skip over the "supported notations" at the head of this page https://fantasygroundsunity.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FGCP/pages/3136716814/Savage+Worlds+Challenge+Effects and skip straight to the examples, and only then go back to try to work out what the pseudocode means. (In passing this is a perfect example of documentation written by someone who thinks in code that a lot of users will bounce off. IMO a huge list of examples covering common situations should be appended, from the very simplest possibilities to very complex examples. The current page has all the information but not in a way "normies" will be able to parse it).

The critical point to me is that code devs are needed for rulesets and extensions, but there is a much bigger potential pool of data entry devs who mainly need a recipe to follow that takes them from a PDF to a publishable module with no coding required.

Cheers, Hywel


All of this! 100% all of this!!!

I'm not a coder, so see myself on the data module side of things, but I'm pretty adept at learning any kind of software for the end result required/desired, without being a master of it. I have PDFs for several of the products i mentioned in my first post, but obviously for something new like Dragonbane I would need to work alongside a coder developing the actual ruleset. Plus what are the legalities for systems not already licenced to FG? I'm thinking mainly of Dragonbane and Delta Green.

Cheers,

Simon

[Zacchaeus]

All of this! 100% all of this!!!

I'm not a coder, so see myself on the data module side of things, but I'm pretty adept at learning any kind of software for the end result required/desired, without being a master of it. I have PDFs for several of the products i mentioned in my first post, but obviously for something new like Dragonbane I would need to work alongside a coder developing the actual ruleset. Plus what are the legalities for systems not already licenced to FG? I'm thinking mainly of Dragonbane and Delta Green.

Cheers,

Simon

The ruleset itself isn't copyrightable but content such as core rule books, adventures etc are. So, before there can be content for a given ruleset Smiteworks needs to have a publishing agreement with the publisher. This is the reason why community produced rulesets exist without any content.

[ddavison]

Superteddy presented some thoughts that might help with some of this, and then Moon Wizard and I discussed it further. Combined with some of the suggestions here, and with some other ideas we have been bouncing around, maybe we can come up with a way to advance it.

[Mike Serfass]

The Developer's Guide is for ruleset and extension developers. It doesn't help if you're converting content, and you don't need it if you're just creating a module from a pdf.
You use the export feature built into FGU. It's cutting, pasting, and reformatting text into a book, adding items, NPCs, encounters, maps, etc, then exporting it.
It's time consuming, but as long as you know how to use FGU, you can do it. You don't need any fancy tools to get started on that, and don't have to write any code.
So you already have the tools and skills if you're just doing adventure modules, gear or monster compendiums, simple content like that.
I think Fantasy Grounds Academy has done classes on this.

[LordEntrails]

Superteddy presented some thoughts that might help with some of this, and then Moon Wizard and I discussed it further. Combined with some of the suggestions here, and with some other ideas we have been bouncing around, maybe we can come up with a way to advance it.
Let me know if I can help. I have a background in user facing technical work instructions.

[ddavison]

Some ideas we were bouncing around:

1. Create minimal rulesets that provide a character sheet and basic NPC and Combat Trackers for a wide variety of systems. Focus would be in what we could do in 1-2 weeks each.
2. If usage grows to a significant threshold, that makes giving it a full ruleset treatment and official modules more likely.
3. Create a Patreon or something similar where supporters get to vote on ideas, interact with devs and get early access to new rulesets, tools, extensions, etc.
4. As #3, but with a tier focused on module creation, and guidance for non-coders

It is hard to say whether or not there would be enough interested members to accomplish something like that and make it meaningful.

[JonStormbringer]

For me, personally, I would love to be able to do rule set conversions. However, I'm not a programmer and it seems very daunting to try and create a ruleset from the ground up. I've looked at trying to do a rule set, but I really just don't know where to start.

One thing I can do, is create content / convert content once the ruleset is in place. To me, that's pretty straight forward as doesn't involve programming.

Though I understand the reason why, it is frustrating not being able to play our favorite or current favorite games because they aren't developed within FG--again, I understand the why.

I will say I'm a huge fan of Draw Steel. I'd love to be able to play it on FG. I do have the community developed ruleset but it looks like the developer of that ruleset has loss interest in going any further with it or outright abandoned it. I'm not bashing that developer in any way, I can see that they put it a lot of work into what's there and I appreciate that. But when I compare that to what I see on Foundry or Codex, why would I not play that game on one of the other VTT's? I invested in the current Draw Steel ruleset on FG to the point that I did a full conversion of the Delian Tomb module within FG. It took between 30-40 hours. I still have a little more work on it but I'm at a point where I feel like I just wasted my time because, if I am understanding correctly, I couldn't even publish it anywhere, anyways.

So what does it really mean when it says something is supported on FG? Does that mean we can convert modules freely from source materials? Do we have to have some kind of deal with the original publisher to convert it to FG? If that's the case, do we contact the publisher on our own?

I love FG/SW. I think the community here is fantastic. I am 100% a virtual player/gm and this is where I want to play. I'd love to convert some stuff for my favorite games, but I'm not really sure where or how to start.

I apologize if I derailed this conversation from it's intent.

[Egheal]

Those are some really exciting ideas! Would love to participate in the Patreon.

[Zacchaeus]

For me, personally, I would love to be able to do rule set conversions. However, I'm not a programmer and it seems very daunting to try and create a ruleset from the ground up. I've looked at trying to do a rule set, but I really just don't know where to start.

One thing I can do, is create content / convert content once the ruleset is in place. To me, that's pretty straight forward as doesn't involve programming.

Though I understand the reason why, it is frustrating not being able to play our favorite or current favorite games because they aren't developed within FG--again, I understand the why.

I will say I'm a huge fan of Draw Steel. I'd love to be able to play it on FG. I do have the community developed ruleset but it looks like the developer of that ruleset has loss interest in going any further with it or outright abandoned it. I'm not bashing that developer in any way, I can see that they put it a lot of work into what's there and I appreciate that. But when I compare that to what I see on Foundry or Codex, why would I not play that game on one of the other VTT's? I invested in the current Draw Steel ruleset on FG to the point that I did a full conversion of the Delian Tomb module within FG. It took between 30-40 hours. I still have a little more work on it but I'm at a point where I feel like I just wasted my time because, if I am understanding correctly, I couldn't even publish it anywhere, anyways.

So what does it really mean when it says something is supported on FG? Does that mean we can convert modules freely from source materials? Do we have to have some kind of deal with the original publisher to convert it to FG? If that's the case, do we contact the publisher on our own?

I love FG/SW. I think the community here is fantastic. I am 100% a virtual player/gm and this is where I want to play. I'd love to convert some stuff for my favorite games, but I'm not really sure where or how to start.

I apologize if I derailed this conversation from it's intent.

I answered this question in post #16 above. Unless SW have a publishing agreement with the publisher you can't distribute content. Getting such an agreement is something that SW would do.

[HywelPhillips]

Some ideas we were bouncing around:

1. Create minimal rulesets that provide a character sheet and basic NPC and Combat Trackers for a wide variety of systems. Focus would be in what we could do in 1-2 weeks each.
2. If usage grows to a significant threshold, that makes giving it a full ruleset treatment and official modules more likely.
3. Create a Patreon or something similar where supporters get to vote on ideas, interact with devs and get early access to new rulesets, tools, extensions, etc.
4. As #3, but with a tier focused on module creation, and guidance for non-coders

It is hard to say whether or not there would be enough interested members to accomplish something like that and make it meaningful.

1&2 ) As I mentioned above, for me a bare-bones ruleset is fine for a lot of games IF the rulebook content is there as well. Otherwise there's not much difference between a SW-developed ruleset-lite and the community rulesets that already exist; the reason I don't use those is the lack of content, not the lack of automation.

3&4) This clearly works for Foundry and plenty of other creators in the RPG space generally, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't work for FG. It certainly seems worth a try. I think SOME sort of separation between platform development (FG VTT features, voting on ideas, rulesets, tools, extension) and content development (making modules for existing rulesets available to purchase) is a good idea.

Getting user buy-in ahead of time is a good way to build buzz. Having the sort of customer who is willing to pay extra to support the platform tell you what stuff they want to see developed is great.

Not just in terms of FG features but in terms of adventures and stuff they are excited to see. It is a much more direct way of gauging the business case for content development effort that the feature request system. As I said above, the new business model requires attracting the sort of customers who buy content.

Guidance for non-coders developing modules is worth devoting resources for sure. If the business is based on selling content, you need to get every scrap of content you can onto the platform, and recruit as many warm bodies to convert PDFs to modules as you can possibly encourage.

The financial returns for content entry devs are probably below that of a minimum-wage job. Instead they need support, streamlined procedures, good documentation, kudos for their efforts, and good ways to connect with the audience for modules.

Here I think targeting the sort of people who'd rather type in a module rather than buy it as a valuable resource. Make it so that it's just as easy to end up with a publishable module at the end rather than an unpublishable one. Including the process for getting approval and copyright issues - clearly something that's going to be an issue judging from this thread. Make it so that when someone considers converting an adventure to run for themselves it's a no-brainer to try to get it published. Give them brownie points and community acclamation rather than rely solely on cash reward.

As for whether or not there would be enough interested members? If Doug doesn't know then nobody knows. But the Patreon route clearly works for others in this space, so there are good grounds for thinking it MIGHT. Worth a punt. Using it as a way to launch the ruleset-lite project, decide between feature improvements that SW are debating the priorities for internally... and a list of possible module conversions to prioritise for existing systems?

Cheers, Hywel

[JonStormbringer]

I answered this question in post #16 above. Unless SW have a publishing agreement with the publisher you can't distribute content. Getting such an agreement is something that SW would do.

My apologies, I wrote this post at 3am and wasn't articulating myself well. I know there used to be a list floating around of products SW was looking for a converter for. Does that list still exist and is it possible to have a list of who SW has a publishing agreement with so we, those who may wish to do conversions, can identify who might need/want a converter. When I converted Delian Tomb I knew it wasn't going to be publishable, but it was the first time I tied to convert a product exactly as it appeared in print and I learned a lot about how to do that, by doing some things the wrong/hard way.


Guidance for non-coders developing modules is worth devoting resources for sure. If the business is based on selling content, you need to get every scrap of content you can onto the platform, and recruit as many warm bodies to convert PDFs to modules as you can possibly encourage.

The financial returns for content entry devs are probably below that of a minimum-wage job. Instead they need support, streamlined procedures, good documentation, kudos for their efforts, and good ways to connect with the audience for modules.

I'm in agreement with the above quote. For me personally, I wouldn't really ask for payment for converting anything other than maybe a PDF copy/FG copy of the finished product--anything beyond that would be gravy.

[Ludd_G]

Hi everyone,

I'm pretty sure there are already provisions in place to pay converters a pre-agreed, equitable percentage of any revenue from their conversion work, please let's not go down the path of brownie points and freebies for work done.

Cheers,

Simon

[Ludd_G]

Some ideas we were bouncing around:

1. Create minimal rulesets that provide a character sheet and basic NPC and Combat Trackers for a wide variety of systems. Focus would be in what we could do in 1-2 weeks each.
2. If usage grows to a significant threshold, that makes giving it a full ruleset treatment and official modules more likely.
3. Create a Patreon or something similar where supporters get to vote on ideas, interact with devs and get early access to new rulesets, tools, extensions, etc.
4. As #3, but with a tier focused on module creation, and guidance for non-coders

It is hard to say whether or not there would be enough interested members to accomplish something like that and make it meaningful.

Hi Doug,

I would caution against using minimal rulesets, as you described, as a bell-weather of interest in a system. Myself, for example, wouldn't run a system without at least some official adventure content. I run published adventures, always have done, and have no interest in homebrewing my own. I don't think I'm alone with this.

So, for me, and those like me, I would be happy with a 'minimal' ruleset as long as there was at least some adventure content to run in it for my group.

I like the idea of 3&4 on your list as well.

Thank you for engaging with this discussion, i think it bodes well for the future.

Cheers,

Simon

[Mike Serfass]

I, and a couple other Savage Worlds players, have contacted creators to ask them to work with Smite Works to put their products on FGU.
We run into two big things:
1) They don't know that putting content on FGU doesn't cost them anything, or how it works, or who to contact, and generally hadn't considered Fantasy Grounds.
2) They have agreements with DTRPG/R20 that penalizes them for putting content on competitor's VTTs.
We send numerous emails, give them contacts at Smite Works, offer to do the work, sometimes give screenshots of their products in FGU.
This rarely pans out.

[Ludd_G]

I, and a couple other Savage Worlds players, have contacted creators to ask them to work with Smite Works to put their products on FGU.
We run into two big things:
1) They don't know that putting content on FGU doesn't cost them anything, or how it works, or who to contact, and generally hadn't considered Fantasy Grounds.
2) They have agreements with DTRPG/R20 that penalizes them for putting content on competitor's VTTs.
We send numerous emails, give them contacts at Smite Works, offer to do the work, sometimes give screenshots of their products in FGU.
This rarely pans out.

This is quite depressing. And is probably really only something that can be overcome by SmiteWorks doing their own proactive outreach to all these companies?

Would it be possible to say who were the companies that had no interest, or would that be out of order? (no worries either way, just hoping to minimise duplicate approaches)

Cheers,

Simon

[HywelPhillips]

Hi everyone,

I'm pretty sure there are already provisions in place to pay converters a pre-agreed, equitable percentage of any revenue from their conversion work, please let's not go down the path of brownie points and freebies for work done.

Cheers,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I was being too flippant and didn't express myself clearly, sorry.

There are pre-agreed revenue percentages, and I do not propose to change those.

What I was getting at is that there are plenty of people who convert material without the expectation of making a meaningful amount of money from it. People will still do it because they want the material themselves, but people are also motivated by appreciation, positive reception and support of the work. That's what I was getting at with "brownie points and freebies". People should absolutely still get paid as now, but there are surely also ways to make them feel valued and part of an appreciative community. I cynically used the "brownie points and freebies" line as a shorthand for the much more meaningful task of fostering such an appreciative community.

From SmiteWorks' perspective, every scrap of content converted to FG is good. Every sale is extra revenue, even if the sales per product are small the cumulative effect of lots of sales of small amounts can build up to a good revenue for the company. Even a product which sells hardly at all helps in the sense that if you are a fan of system X, and all of system X's published modules are on FG, FG looks like a good place to play.

The trick for SW is to achieve that without putting in more resources (in terms of support and maintenance) than they get out in final sales taken overall.

Cheers, Hywel

[Zacchaeus]

My apologies, I wrote this post at 3am and wasn't articulating myself well. I know there used to be a list floating around of products SW was looking for a converter for. Does that list still exist and is it possible to have a list of who SW has a publishing agreement with so we, those who may wish to do conversions, can identify who might need/want a converter. When I converted Delian Tomb I knew it wasn't going to be publishable, but it was the first time I tied to convert a product exactly as it appeared in print and I learned a lot about how to do that, by doing some things the wrong/hard way.

I think you need to be a developer to access the list. Currently there are over 500 entries on it 98% of which are for 2e, 5e, PF1 and PF2.

[Ludd_G]

Hi Simon,

I was being too flippant and didn't express myself clearly, sorry.

There are pre-agreed revenue percentages, and I do not propose to change those.

What I was getting at is that there are plenty of people who convert material without the expectation of making a meaningful amount of money from it. People will still do it because they want the material themselves, but people are also motivated by appreciation, positive reception and support of the work. That's what I was getting at with "brownie points and freebies". People should absolutely still get paid as now, but there are surely also ways to make them feel valued and part of an appreciative community. I cynically used the "brownie points and freebies" line as a shorthand for the much more meaningful task of fostering such an appreciative community.

From SmiteWorks' perspective, every scrap of content converted to FG is good. Every sale is extra revenue, even if the sales per product are small the cumulative effect of lots of sales of small amounts can build up to a good revenue for the company. Even a product which sells hardly at all helps in the sense that if you are a fan of system X, and all of system X's published modules are on FG, FG looks like a good place to play.

The trick for SW is to achieve that without putting in more resources (in terms of support and maintenance) than they get out in final sales taken overall.

Cheers, Hywel

Hi Hywel,

i apologise for coming over a bit snippy, not my intent.

And i absolutely do agree with the gist of what your saying. But I think that even for people who are just converting for their own table, that then find that, as the new guidelines (fingers crossed) have helped their conversion hit the quality threshold required, discover that they're able to make it available for sale to the wider community, would still be rightly chuffed to be paid a share for their time and work.

I guess I'm hoping that the vibes of developing/converting for FG will start to feel more pro than hobby, as I think we're partially in this pickle because so much is viewed as hobby, which we all find easy to let drift as circumstances change. Just look at all the community projects that are now orphaned for FG.

Cheers,

Simon

[Nylanfs]

Some ideas we were bouncing around:

1. Create minimal rulesets that provide a character sheet and basic NPC and Combat Trackers for a wide variety of systems. Focus would be in what we could do in 1-2 weeks each.



This is what we do with PCGen, create a barebones system. then create a 'my_homebrew' dataset t (https://github.com/PCGen/pcgen/tree/master/data/pathfinder/homebrew/my_homebrew)hat has examples of content that can be used as a base.

[ddavison]

Okay, so it looks like the forum software supports a direct subscription option. I put together a sample offering we might go with. Please do not subscribe to any of them. I'm posting it here only for feedback purposes. The badges are also using the existing benefactor and patron badges as placeholders.

Sample Page:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/payments.php

Let me know what you think about:

Each tier's title and cost
Interest in offerings for each tier
Any suggested changes


There are a couple of things I would want to ensure.
1) no exclusive content to these tiers that should be available on the store or Steam. We don't want this to divide our customers
2) it should be able to drive actual improvements for the community
3) it should make people feel rewarded for their involvement
4) it should be a net positive for the company relative to the investment. We need to minimize costs.

We expect most customers to support us by buying products they enjoy and want. This would be for a public-facing budget for additional offerings or to push certain things forward.

Making this same thing on Patreon might also be an option, but it would give us a little more to manage compared to this since it is more built-in.

[The Decepticon]

Okay, so it looks like the forum software supports a direct subscription option. I put together a sample offering we might go with. Please do not subscribe to any of them. I'm posting it here only for feedback purposes. The badges are also using the existing benefactor and patron badges as placeholders.

Sample Page:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/payments.php

Let me know what you think about:

Each tier's title and cost
Interest in offerings for each tier
Any suggested changes


There are a couple of things I would want to ensure.
1) no exclusive content to these tiers that should be available on the store or Steam. We don't want this to divide our customers
2) it should be able to drive actual improvements for the community
3) it should make people feel rewarded for their involvement
4) it should be a net positive for the company relative to the investment. We need to minimize costs.

We expect most customers to support us by buying products they enjoy and want. This would be for a public-facing budget for additional offerings or to push certain things forward.

Making this same thing on Patreon might also be an option, but it would give us a little more to manage compared to this since it is more built-in.

At first, I was against giving more money, but looking over this thread and seeing the tiers, I actually like this way of thinking and helping the community outside of 5e, pathfinder, etc. I would definitely support this and if it gives me some behind the scenes access as well, then that's the icing on the cake.

[HywelPhillips]

Looks good, Doug.

As Decepticon says it can function as a way to help the community outside 5E and Pathfinder to get support, as well as giving the SW team a way to "focus-group" VTT features.

Very happy with keeping in on-platform rather than Patreon (who will take a significant cut I suspect).

Cheers, Hywel

[ddavison]

For the voting, much of this would likely depend on overall funding within this group.

Some examples:
$1,000/month → fund X hours/month of conversion work

$2,500/month → accelerate 1 additional ruleset per quarter

$5,000/month → dedicated pipeline/tooling improvements

[Mike Serfass]

How does this affect me as a ruleset developer?
Do I need to provide monthly reports, patch notes, and roadmaps to supporters on Savage Worlds development?
If the current improvement is to SWADE, am I responsible for that? If not, who is?

[ddavison]

Good question. I imagine we would coordinate with individual developers or converters based on what sort of features and functions were most requested. Funds would either be spent internally to work on projects, or used to get external resources.

[Jiminimonka]

Maybe people can subscribe to a favourite ruleset to support the developer(s) and promote it?

[Jiminimonka]

Another thing to consider and to make things easier is for Smiteworks to reach out to small time publishers (maybe at the behest of a ruleset developer) and explain the beneifts of getting their publications onto FGVTT - zero costs, % of sales etc. At the moment community devs for Savage Worlds (and no doubt other rulesets) are trying to get developer agreements themselves. If there was a way yo get Smiteworks to step in with some friendly introduction that would help a great deal.

Getting to become a developer, even of just modules (no coding required) could be made easier too.

[ddavison]

Another thing to consider and to make things easier is for Smiteworks to reach out to small time publishers (maybe at the behest of a ruleset developer) and explain the beneifts of getting their publications onto FGVTT - zero costs, % of sales etc. At the moment community devs for Savage Worlds (and no doubt other rulesets) are trying to get developer agreements themselves. If there was a way yo get Smiteworks to step in with some friendly introduction that would help a great deal.

Getting to become a developer, even of just modules (no coding required) could be made easier too.


Our preference is definitely for a community developer to reach out to us first via [email protected] and then offer to work with a publisher if we can get an agreement. Then, we can reach out to the publisher. Most publishers prefer to work directly company to company. It has just always been that way.

[Mike Serfass]

One of the barriers to entry is learning to write code.

You must learn lua and xml, how the UI is rendered, design patterns, and debugging, for starters.
You must also learn the CoreRPG code base, as well as the ruleset code base you're working with.
Simply throwing code out there is like releasing rabbits in Australia. If you don't understand the ecosystem, your code will cause problems.
Learning how to read dev whitepapers and technical documents is an important skill.
This requires many hours of study outside of FGU. I think newcomers don't get that.

A valuable offering would be a video series on how to write code, but is that outside of what SW can or should offer?

I think a fitting analogy is having an open plot that anyone in the community can set up a garden in. The plot owner can provide info on soil ph balance and composition, average rainfall, plot sizes, even some shared tools, but it's on the gardener to know how to till, when to plant and harvest, what will grow in that soil and climate, and what specific tools they need.

[Arsilon]

I don’t know where I fall on the spectrum of who SmiteWorks ultimately wants to target more formally in this area, but for the purposes of this discussion I’ll include myself among the community developers who would be directly impacted by whatever direction is chosen.

Strategy and Foundation

I think the core idea being discussed here has merit, but it feels incomplete without addressing some underlying systemic issues in the current content development model. Funding mechanisms can help accelerate progress, but only if the systems they depend on are capable of supporting the expectations that come with them.

Funding naturally raises expectations. If the supporting processes, tooling, and communication structures aren’t able to meet those expectations, the result isn’t growth -- it’s frustration for subscribers and burnout for developers.

My Experience as Context

Over the past few years, I went from being a complete Fantasy Grounds novice to having several published titles on the store. I was only able to do that because I started with SWADE, which has a passionate and dedicated support community. Without that informal network, I would have stalled at multiple points, including:


Navigating permissions and access requirements
Understanding what “publishable quality” actually means
Dealing with development tools and ruleset-specific nuances that aren’t documented or standardized
Finding answers the documentation doesn’t cover


These aren’t isolated challenges. Development tools behave differently across rulesets, and many critical ruleset-specific behaviors are learned only through trial, error, or long-standing institutional knowledge. Community support fills those gaps today, but relying on it as the primary onboarding and enablement path is fragile; especially for systems without strong champions, or when those champions inevitably burn out or move on.

The Economic Reality

Doug has been transparent that many systems aren’t financially viable for SmiteWorks to develop directly, even with patron funding. There’s a clear spectrum:


5e and Pathfinder work because market demand supports the economics
SWADE persists largely due to community passion compensating where the economics are marginal
Other Mid-tier and niche systems don’t clearly scale under either model


If the economics don’t support SmiteWorks bringing development in-house for these systems -- even with patron funding -- they also don’t support individual community developers operating on commission alone. This isn’t a question of motivation. The effort-to-reward ratio already works against developers, requiring them to absorb complexity, uncertainty, and ongoing maintenance within what is effectively a hobbyist framework. As expectations increase around delivery, quality, and ongoing support, that imbalance only grows, with no realistic path for monetization to offset it.

As an example: I've begun creating system documentation as a community developer because it's desperately needed; work for which there is no commission structure at all. The most foundational work that enables other developers often has no economic model whatsoever.

Completing the Model

One unresolved question is whether community development is intended to remain the primary model for expanding and maintaining non-core systems. If it is, then it needs to be intentionally designed and supported as such. If it isn’t, patron funding risks functioning as a partial solution without a clearly articulated long-term structure. Either way, clarity here matters, because it shapes expectations for both developers and potential subscribers.

Patron funding can be a valid endpoint, but it isn’t complete on its own. For it to succeed, it needs to be paired with deliberate investment in the systems that make community development viable at scale. That includes:


Onboarding materials and documentation that support content developers (not just ruleset coders)
Proactive publisher outreach to clear licensing/permission barriers
Documented and repeatable workflows
Clear quality standards with feedback loops
Standardization or documentation of ruleset-specific tooling differences


These aren’t detours from the goal; they’re what enable the model to function as intended.

The enthusiasm in this thread is real, and the direction being explored makes sense. My concern is that the operational foundation gets glossed over in favor of focusing on the monetization mechanism. Without that foundation, funding amplifies existing problems rather than solving them...raising expectations the system can't meet and burning out the developers it depends on. That would be far worse then the status quo, in my opinion.

I’m offering this hopefully as constructive feedback, with the intention that it helps move the conversation toward a model that works not just in theory, but in practice.

[Lonewolf]

Good question. I imagine we would coordinate with individual developers or converters based on what sort of features and functions were most requested. Funds would either be spent internally to work on projects, or used to get external resources.

Yeah, talking to actual community developers might be good idea before posting more on this topic. Why take the advice of a bunch of people that have said they are not community developers. Who did not even RFTM on how to become one?

The current development system is very simple, and it works. This is why we have more books than any other VTT. As someone that works full-time on FG now. I can say the current system does the job just fine. As for getting new publishers onboard. I have already done that as well and it is not hard if you take time to build those relationships.

Can the system be approved. Yes, but let’s start by talking to people that are already knocking their guts out every week producing store content. Although I suspect this will be yet another example where sweeping changes are brought in and community developers will have decode the mixed messages. I just hope we don’t get a paywall just get information we need to maintain existing products let alone create new ones.

[LordEntrails]

There are plenty of community devs in this thread. And as I one I agree with Arsilon that there are plenty of barriers to entry. Sure, the process "on paper" is simple, but in reality there are plenty of blockers that the people who do not have product or software development experience will and do experience.

I think the focus needs to be on the system and removing roadblocks to new building new developers.

As for the patron idea, the names, benefits and costs are good with me. I'd sign up for the Insider level today if this was ready to deploy.

But it's not going to solve the developer pipeline problem.

[vegaserik]

There are plenty of community devs in this thread. And as I one I agree with Arsilon that there are plenty of barriers to entry. Sure, the process "on paper" is simple, but in reality there are plenty of blockers that the people who do not have product or software development experience will and do experience.

I think the focus needs to be on the system and removing roadblocks to new building new developers.




Here's my roadblock ... I've gone through the process of becoming a dev through the developer relations mentioned above. I've done a few projects for people on the Forge. I've done a few products mentioned above for my own and have thought about doing them officially ... my problem probably sounds a little silly, but it's my roadblock. I have very little ability doing graphics and the wall of text talking about pictures and logos and stuff for the store and Steam store is like a different language to me. And if this has kept me from doing dev work, there's probably something equally silly that keeps other people from it. The graphics program I use and am comfortable with is from the 90's lol. I have downloaded GIMP and have been learning how to use it and can do some stuff with it.

Reading through this thread has been fascinating, and maybe can cut the intimidation of doing this officially for some of us.

[Arsilon]

This is part of why I asked the question I did on whether or not community development is even part of the plan in the first place?

Ultimately I would think they have ideas on backend tools that reduce the reliance on community development perhaps beyond the initial ruleset creation. But as with many things, especially for a small company like Smiteworks, those plans are not fully flushed out, and require a significant timespan to be executed against. So what happens until then?

[Nylanfs]

I thought Laerun made a YT on how to use a development campaign but couldn't find it in the Acadamy videos. :(

[Sulimo]

I do not know about a video, but Lord Entrails has created a guide for developing modules here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?33538-Adventure-Module-Creation-Best-Practices).

[Myrdin Potter]

I have met a reasonable number of publishers over the years that have been told that if they publish on Fantasy Grounds, then they lose their "exclusive" rate at DTRPG. They are not interested in the financial risk of losing any income from the largest and most reliable marketplace.

That said, it really is not that hard to enter rulebooks and adventures into Fantasy Grounds once there is a ruleset. I did it for WW2:Operation Whitebox for the forge because I run the system. Doing Operation B/X now. I also did the Mothership rulebook using the community ruleset. And did Hyperborea before they decided on Foundry. I have been trying AI reading directly from the PDF and writing a script to do it as well. PDF's are terrible. I also have been experimenting with opening PDF in Word and saving to text as well and then processing the text. That gets most text out.

My personal wishlist is Pendragon and Paranoia. Both of those I would enter the main rulebook for. And Runequest (been hoping for years) and Champions.

A recent indie game, Weird Heros of Public Access would be cool.

And Weird Frontiers which is DCC based and my favourite DCC based game but the rulebook is like 900 pages ...

[Myrdin Potter]

Here's my roadblock ... I've gone through the process of becoming a dev through the developer relations mentioned above. I've done a few projects for people on the Forge. I've done a few products mentioned above for my own and have thought about doing them officially ... my problem probably sounds a little silly, but it's my roadblock. I have very little ability doing graphics and the wall of text talking about pictures and logos and stuff for the store and Steam store is like a different language to me. And if this has kept me from doing dev work, there's probably something equally silly that keeps other people from it. The graphics program I use and am comfortable with is from the 90's lol. I have downloaded GIMP and have been learning how to use it and can do some stuff with it.

Reading through this thread has been fascinating, and maybe can cut the intimidation of doing this officially for some of us.

BTW - the constantly shifting and improving graphics requirements are a huge hurdle for me as well. I have a decent number of adventures converted for the store over the years and my biggest hurdle always is the images. I don't own photoshop and can barely use GIMP.