18 months on : FG vs. Roll20 vs Foundry

I think both Lua and JS are relatively comparable to learn. They are both widely used and there are lots of resources available for each.

Building a ruleset can be complex and time consuming. If the system you want to support is similar to another system, you can often unpack that ruleset and modify it. This would be much simpler and you could reference all the existing code. In some cases, you can do a pretty decent job using the MoreCore ruleset and modifying it in a more visual capacity. That might be a good first step. You can find it on the FG Forge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZaylUlValen

Out of curiosity, out of Foundry & FG which would be the better choice in building a new rule set? I'm well aware it will be a very long process to learn & build.

I've been doing most of the testing inside of Roll20 with sheets built inside Google Sheets, but I'd prefer to switch to a different VTT that's set up a fair bit better. Especially to be able to switch to one with much better combat automation, would greatly help and make the process much smoother.

From what I gather, it's easier to learn Lua than it is to learn JS. But with references, they should both be fairly straightforward.

Thanks for any help or suggestions.

---

Welcome to the FG forums!

I'll second what @ddavison mentions. As an example, the community MoreCore ruleset is specifically designed to be extensible and support different RPG functionality - the main being all the different roll systems. Refer to this thread for some examples of PC sheets community members have put together in MoreCore: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...aracter-Sheets

More info on MoreCore here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...-MoreCore-Info

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZaylUlValen

Out of curiosity, out of Foundry & FG which would be the better choice in building a new rule set? I'm well aware it will be a very long process to learn & build.

I've been doing most of the testing inside of Roll20 with sheets built inside Google Sheets, but I'd prefer to switch to a different VTT that's set up a fair bit better. Especially to be able to switch to one with much better combat automation, would greatly help and make the process much smoother.

From what I gather, it's easier to learn Lua than it is to learn JS. But with references, they should both be fairly straightforward.

Thanks for any help or suggestions.

---

As someone that's built in both I've a little feedback to offer. For me JS and HTML templating is easier to use/learn. There are far more resources out there for learning JS and HTML than compared to Lua.

That said, FG is much more "stable" (which can be good/bad depending on what you need). I've built a system in Foundry for a friend of mine and with their latest release I'm having to re-code a lot of it due to data/scheme changes. FG, hasn't done something as dramatic as that and when they do something similar it's much less dramatic and done in smaller pieces.

I really do like the ease of CSS/HTML templating for UI but I think their system could use more time baking to stabilize.

Both platforms offer good solutions and the choice is up to you. Compare what both offer and what you need. For example, if you need a "marketplace" there is only one choice right now.

Fantastic read. Thank you for undertaking the effort, the reviews are well detailed and balanced. I have zero interest in Roll20 , like seriously I wouldn’t care if they closed down. For reasons beyond the software alone btw.

Foundry I bought almost 6 or 7 months ago because it’s , as you said, “very pretty” and as the newer VTT getting a lot of talk I wanted to see what the fuss is about. I play with it to learn how to use and understand it from time to time but that’s it. I find it more time consuming to learn than I expected it to be if I’m being honest. I don’t like the “just add this script or install this to do that” nature. But anyway I have playing with it as a side thing I do.

FGU my preferred VTT for almost 4 years now(obviously FGC before ) . Steep learning curve as they say but for me it makes more sense than foundry.

I know the software well now and play only 5e currently, as a DM.

I do like many folks think some of the worst negatives to FGU are…

Performance. Particularly like in my group I probably have the weakest system and that’s a 3 year old intel 8700 32 gig with a 1080 gtx , over a 1 gb connection. Players will sometimes have significant lag . Not always but sometimes and this is with only 10 npcs on the map or in the CT and I already know about don’t share or open maps or modules you don’t need.

I think performance optimization should be a higher priority than adding new features.


After all if the software runs like mud does anyone care what features it has?

Beyond that a massive UI overhaul is needed and finally support for fancier graphics (at least animated maps) are needed to compete with newer VTTs.

And for the love of god support DUAL MONITORS! FGU is a screen real estate hog how this system doesn’t support multiple displays is both frustrating and disappointing.


No stretching your display over multiple screens is not the solution.

It’s still my favorite VTT despite all that .

Make sure you add your votes to the wish list for features you'd like - like in my signature.

AFAIK dual monitor support isn't viable since Unity doesn't support it across all platforms. Animated maps would significantly increase performance issues. Also what kind of UI overhaul? There are some changes to the UI in the next update due out next week but updating the UI impacts a ton of rulesets and so is very resource intensive to change. And I don't think anyone can agree anyway on what sort of overhaul is needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacchaeus

And I don't think anyone can agree anyway on what sort of overhaul is needed.

---

While this is true there are certainly modern standards that can be applied to make the UI more user friendly over all. There are many sites and companies and even libraries for developers to help design UI interfaces these days. I've a friend with a job title specific to this topic ;) I guess what I am trying to say is there are a lot of resources (free and otherwise) that can be used for improving UI be it from a visual or usability stance.

From the ruleset side I'd absolutely love to see more API functionality to directly manage (Unity side) UI pieces so we could have standard UI functionality (combobox, nested trees, windows). There are similar "versions" of some of those but they are emulated with windows/etc and have very limited functionality when compared using them directly. Without a major update tho I realize it's wishful thinking but it certainly would go a LONG way to making it easier to update the UI interface.

My thing is why does FGU not have this pretty effects and such? Its unity!!!!! I think Smite Works dropped the ball big time in not writing FGU from scatch and using FGC as its base. It really disheartens me we paid $100 to upgrade from classic to unity for lighting and map tools. Unity is such a powerful engine and they could of sank the competition for the next 10 years if they had only built it from scratch with 2021 tech and future tech in mind! There is no reason FGU should even have competition for the price they charge and the size of the community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toastsniffer187

My thing is why does FGU not have this pretty effects and such? Its unity!!!!! I think Smite Works dropped the ball big time in not writing FGU from scatch and using FGC as its base. It really disheartens me we paid $100 to upgrade from classic to unity for lighting and map tools. Unity is such a powerful engine and they could of sank the competition for the next 10 years if they had only built it from scratch with 2021 tech and future tech in mind! There is no reason FGU should even have competition for the price they charge and the size of the community.

---

Unity is software created from scratch. it has nothing to do with the Classic. The decision to make Unity backward compatible with all rulesets and content is business decision and it makes sense - there are hundreds of products out there that can't be rendered obsolete. This is move that only Apple does. :)

It does not mean that in future there might not be new architecture of the rulesets and etc. With Unity there no limits.

It would have been a shame if they'd taken the opportunity FGU afforded them to modernize or even slightly update the user interface. Nested radial choices are the best.

Top

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valyar

Unity is software created from scratch. it has nothing to do with the Classic. The decision to make Unity backward compatible with all rulesets and content is business decision and it makes sense - there are hundreds of products out there that can't be rendered obsolete. This is move that only Apple does. :)

It does not mean that in future there might not be new architecture of the rulesets and etc. With Unity there no limits.

---

All im saying is they missed an opportunity leave 2004 in the past and build something completely new and since it is using Unity engine as you said the possibilities are endless! But they are not becuase they took classic called it unity and added lighting and mapping tools. Now VTT's of the future such as The Foundry are going to murder them on sales and community at a 1/3 of the price. To be clear im saying this because I love FG and it pains me to know that Unity could of been so much more.