Special Announcement - Kickstarter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patou

Question about walls on FGU. I noticed that Foundry VTT was also either drawing upon your wall setup or already had this in their project but what they do with walls is interesting. Mixed in with LoS and FoG settings is pretty sweet. Any info on that in what the goals are for what FGU is planning on for LoS options for tokens? Can't wait for Beta!!:D

---

LoS for tokens? Nothing for Beta or initial release. But it's near the top of the list for implementation following initial release. You can find a post or two around here from Moon Wizard to that effect if needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

LoS for tokens? Nothing for Beta or initial release. But it's near the top of the list for implementation following initial release. You can find a post or two around here from Moon Wizard to that effect if needed.

---

Awesome Thanks:)

What do you mean by LoS for tokens? You can define Line of Sight definitions for tiles and each token manages it's own LoS/FoW. Tiles can't have transparent parts, so you could plop down a statue, a barricade, etc. and it would affect the line of sight for tokens on that map.

I assumed Patou was talking about each token having it's own 'vision' such as normal, darkvision 60', etc and light sources such as torches, etc. But, I may have been wrong :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

I assumed Patou was talking about each token having it's own 'vision' such as normal, darkvision 60', etc and light sources such as torches, etc. But, I may have been wrong :)

---

Viewing the Friday's video was awesome. I noticed though that the vision on the token used "Dorf I believe" was unlimited. In other-words the castle interior was a lighted environment allowing the token to see as far as they could. What I am referring to is having that same castle not lighted. The token has for example a torch and no dark vision, thus only seeing 30 feet normally and another 30 feet of dim light, and that last 30 feet within the dim light would shade out to black using dynamic shading effects (as seen on Roll20 and Archenforge, FoundryVtt).

What is fun about this is when dealing in really dark environments the DM could keep everything completely black thus kinda of resetting the FoW also for those really dark places. Alot can happen in the dark. Plus, if thoses players are not cautiously mapping out there environment they are screwed. THe FoW reveal is re-concealing itself. hehehe.. yessss. Lot's of fun the deeper you go.

I hope that helped explaining what I meant. Sorry for any confusion.

Okay, yes. Vision and lighting distance is something we don't plan to implement prior to release in December. It is something that is on our list to implement in 2020.

edit => should be in other group

Edited because someone else edited and requested an edit because I cited his non-edited post such that my post would basically un-edit his edited post. Now my post is edited and makes sense in sense of edits, not Edith, edit

PS: Kelrugem drank coffee and tries to be funny

:D

edit => should be in other group

Asmo I don’t believe you are allowed to discuss alpha features without developer sanction. You should edit your post to remove the discussion unless you have developer sanction. In this case they might grant it.

It's okay; I'm keeping an eye on posts to make sure things are good. The main reason for the playtest agreement is just to protect us from people judging the software before release. We know we have a lot to fix up and improve already; and we just want the chance to do that before everyone starts comparing/contrasting.

Cheers,
JPG

Edit mine. It should be in the other forum, ofc. My bad. For other readers, the release is great and promising, so is the support. You'll always have nitpickers like me. That's what alpha testing is for ;-)
@Kelrugem, can you edit my part in your post

I miss all the interesting stuff....

I am not in the alpha, but I feel I should probably edit what I am thinking ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnD

I miss all the interesting stuff....

---

Don't worry, it's not just you. We Canadians are always the last to know. Sorry.

When will be beta acess open for us pledgers?
I'm so excited! September already!

Hugs from Brazil!

No date as yet for Beta.

From what I’ve read I can’t see if that has been answered already.

Will there be a way to shear your books with other players? so if everyone connects to me, I then give someone else GM rights and I then become a player, but they can use all my books and other stuff?

I know with digital stuff like this can be tricky but I imagine it as the same as if you go to your DMS house with all the physical book; they won’t let you take them home but while your their playing at their house you could use their books to DM.

Thank you.

No, you won't be able to give someone else GM rights; nor will you be able to share material which is copyright in the manner you describe.

Sharing to players is fine and will work the same way it does now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacchaeus

No, you won't be able to give someone else GM rights; nor will you be able to share material which is copyright in the manner you describe.

Sharing to players is fine and will work the same way it does now.

---

Hopefully that is something that will be added after launch. It doesn't violate any copyrights anymore than a GM sharing with players does now. Being able to Co-GM or host for a GM would be a significant feature improvement, as right now, FG penalizes people for not having the money for the multitude of materials from being able to effectively GM...whereas in an in-person group doesn't have that same restriction....I buy the materials and they use them when they are playing with me...

In this case, I buy the materials, but I want to play instead of GM:

• I host the game, but transfer GM rights to FG Licensee XYZ who has connected to my campaign, my materials are shared with the GM and the players as if the GM was on my account. GM and Player view rights end when they disconnect. Or,
• FG Licensee XYZ hosts the game as GM, and prompts my client to provide access to materials related to the ruleset. GM obtains access as if he was on my account and it acts the same way. GM and Player view rights end when they disconnect.

Note, that neither of these options provide access to the materials that they could not gain by my sharing options as GM, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues.

I would say that the GM would have to have at least a standard license (since if they can afford Ultimate, it would seem that they should be able to afford materials too).

Anyhow, just my 2 cents...feel free to agree or disagree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deer_buster

... It doesn't violate any copyrights anymore than a GM sharing with players does now. ...

---

In the case of FG, copyright is irrelevant. SmiteWorks has a contract with Wizards. The details of that contract are private and we (the community) have no idea what it does and does not allow. SmiteWorks must abide by the terms of that contract or risk losing their license to convert and distribute D&D specific content.

About all we (the community) can do is let SmiteWorks know what we would like and to support them. The way SW has asked us to let them know what is important to us is to use and vote on the FG Wishlist. The two ideas pertaining to this you might wish to review and vote on are;
- https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40882
- https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40890

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deer_buster

Hopefully that is something that will be added after launch. It doesn't violate any copyrights anymore than a GM sharing with players does now. Being able to Co-GM or host for a GM would be a significant feature improvement, as right now, FG penalizes people for not having the money for the multitude of materials from being able to effectively GM...whereas in an in-person group doesn't have that same restriction....I buy the materials and they use them when they are playing with me...

In this case, I buy the materials, but I want to play instead of GM:

• I host the game, but transfer GM rights to FG Licensee XYZ who has connected to my campaign, my materials are shared with the GM and the players as if the GM was on my account. GM and Player view rights end when they disconnect. Or,
• FG Licensee XYZ hosts the game as GM, and prompts my client to provide access to materials related to the ruleset. GM obtains access as if he was on my account and it acts the same way. GM and Player view rights end when they disconnect.

Note, that neither of these options provide access to the materials that they could not gain by my sharing options as GM, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues.

I would say that the GM would have to have at least a standard license (since if they can afford Ultimate, it would seem that they should be able to afford materials too).

Anyhow, just my 2 cents...feel free to agree or disagree

---

The issue with this is How easily it will allow for piracy or piracy like account sharing options, where you could just log into a game, share all your stuff to that GM/group and not be a part of that group.

Could even automate the process.

An option might be one where you could "loan" your account capabilities to another FG user via the main website which would be usable for one game before having to be "loaned" again and would revert your own account to demo status during that period.

That would guarantee that only one person was ever taking advantage of your account capabilities at any one time and make it fiddly enough that people wouldn't be able to transfer capabilities to many others without it being obvious that something was up.

Although, as said before it all comes down to licensing rights and whether smiteworks wants to chew into their sales potential. Tabletop RPGs aren't that profitable a market in the grand scale of things and the whole "only one person per table buys anything" mentality certainly stifles a lot of growth in the industry.

Deer_buster, you have been around long enough to know this is never going to make the priority list anytime soon. It is not like in-person gaming. In-person, no one is going to take the trouble to photocopy the books you are sharing. The opportunities to steal digitally are magnified enormously, and although I am sure you wouldn't do it, others would. The licensing scheme to make this work is horrendous. As it is, it is much easier - only the DM can share materials, and it is clear he owns the license. This transfer you are talking about is simple in concept but a mother to actually implement.

Surely you can see that there will be a site spring up where people can go find volunteers to share their owned materials with others who want to GM, and there is no way to enforce it. So these folks who would share their materials log in to the game and never even play. In fact, you could easily envision a site that would even charge you a $1 or 2 to borrow their legally-owned materials, and it would be an enforcement nightmare to find these sites and shut them down.

No one expects Microsoft to allow someone to share their Word license with someone else (after all, if it was a typewriter, they could lend it to them and that would arguably be perfectly legal).

There is just no enforceable mechanism to do what you want, and I know Roll20 does this, but they charge rent for the advanced licenses that most people find necessary just to run their games with anything but the most primitive support (or so I have heard - never used it myself).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bidmaron

There is just no enforceable mechanism to do what you want, and I know Roll20 does this, but they charge rent for the advanced licenses that most people find necessary just to run their games with anything but the most primitive support (or so I have heard - never used it myself).

---

The other thing Roll20 does that no one talks about is they restrict the number of games (campaigns) you can open/use a module in. For instance, if you have the PHB and free license, you can only open that in 1 game, 3 if you have the first paid license and 5 if you have the pro license. This works to limit the transferability of content. Even though they let you share GM duties, you can only share your content 1, 3 or 5 times. And, since they are SaaS architecture, it's something they can enforce. (Note, they also have other restrictions on content as well, such as not being able to add new content purchase to an existing game etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bidmaron

Deer_buster, you have been around long enough to know this is never going to make the priority list anytime soon. It is not like in-person gaming. In-person, no one is going to take the trouble to photocopy the books you are sharing. The opportunities to steal digitally are magnified enormously, and although I am sure you wouldn't do it, others would. The licensing scheme to make this work is horrendous. As it is, it is much easier - only the DM can share materials, and it is clear he owns the license. This transfer you are talking about is simple in concept but a mother to actually implement.

Surely you can see that there will be a site spring up where people can go find volunteers to share their owned materials with others who want to GM, and there is no way to enforce it. So these folks who would share their materials log in to the game and never even play. In fact, you could easily envision a site that would even charge you a $1 or 2 to borrow their legally-owned materials, and it would be an enforcement nightmare to find these sites and shut them down.

No one expects Microsoft to allow someone to share their Word license with someone else (after all, if it was a typewriter, they could lend it to them and that would arguably be perfectly legal).

There is just no enforceable mechanism to do what you want, and I know Roll20 does this, but they charge rent for the advanced licenses that most people find necessary just to run their games with anything but the most primitive support (or so I have heard - never used it myself).

---

Hmm.

The thing is, it is already not only possible, but downright easy to share assets and campaigns if you are pirating. I think it would be a good idea for the official tools and content licenses to make it possible to purchase the ability to do legally what is already possible illegally. I doubt we'll see WotC budge until it feels like the bottom line is being affected, but maybe Paizo would be open to a multi-GM license situation.

In the meantime, alternating DM campaigns are certainly possible within the law and licenses. You want each DM to have at least a standard license, as well as any resource modules the campaign uses (monsters, rulebooks, etc.) After each session, you can pretty easily make an archive of your campaign module(s) and send those to the other DM. He can then load them into his own campaigns folder and pick up where you left off. Like any shared project, you'll want to be careful regarding versions, and avoid overwriting the newer campaign with an older version. Good habits and archive names that include a date stamp... the usual precautions.

If you're just running a campaign where the characters remain the same across adventures run by different DMs, then at the end of each adventure you can download your character and upload it at the start of each new adventure. I assume this is how things are done for the Adventurer's League events on FG, though I don't actually know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bidmaron

No one expects Microsoft to allow someone to share their Word license with someone else (after all, if it was a typewriter, they could lend it to them and that would arguably be perfectly legal).

---

When in fact you can actually legally do this now via shared Skype sessions (a Microsoft product by the way), or Remote Desktop, et.al. In fact, Microsoft touts the ability to share your desktop as a feature for collaboration.

It is really quite amusing how the internet just loves to try to shoot down every possible angle that someone else offers an opinion on and some even try to denigrate the poster. Honestly I don't care what people say about my ideas. You envisage scenarios to make out a trumped up worst case scenario, when the actual worst case scenario that already happens is that people pirate the actual materials. (or people could setup a virtual machine and give remote access to a GM now)

I would much rather there be ways for legal temporary sharing of content so that those with the means to obtain the content could let others who would otherwise like to GM use those materials to GM. I would love for my Ultimate License to be actually more of an "Ultimate" license that I can actually not have to be the GM to enjoy the full features of the license.

Just my 2 cents (again). YMMV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epithet

In the meantime, alternating DM campaigns are certainly possible within the law and licenses. You want each DM to have at least a standard license, as well as any resource modules the campaign uses (monsters, rulebooks, etc.) After each session, you can pretty easily make an archive of your campaign module(s) and send those to the other DM. He can then load them into his own campaigns folder and pick up where you left off. Like any shared project, you'll want to be careful regarding versions, and avoid overwriting the newer campaign with an older version. Good habits and archive names that include a date stamp... the usual precautions.

If you're just running a campaign where the characters remain the same across adventures run by different DMs, then at the end of each adventure you can download your character and upload it at the start of each new adventure. I assume this is how things are done for the Adventurer's League events on FG, though I don't actually know.

---

That doesn't work if you're using maps from within published modules. The module is more than likely encrypted and you can't copy images. If you want to do this, then both GMs need to have purchased a copy of the published module.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

In the case of FG, copyright is irrelevant. SmiteWorks has a contract with Wizards. The details of that contract are private and we (the community) have no idea what it does and does not allow. SmiteWorks must abide by the terms of that contract or risk losing their license to convert and distribute D&D specific content.

About all we (the community) can do is let SmiteWorks know what we would like and to support them. The way SW has asked us to let them know what is important to us is to use and vote on the FG Wishlist. The two ideas pertaining to this you might wish to review and vote on are;
- https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40882
- https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/?ia=40890

---

I believe I have already voted for those..
;)

We're not gonna go through this whole "I could pirate it if I wanted to ..." business again are we?

Sounds so shady, reminiscent of shakedown scams by the mob. "That's a nice store ya got there. It'd be a shame if it were to burn down ..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seycyrus

We're not gonna go through this whole "I could pirate it if I wanted to ..." business again are we?

Sounds so shady, reminiscent of shakedown scams by the mob. "That's a nice store ya got there. It'd be a shame if it were to burn down ..."

---

So, way to prove his point?

I mean, we're all free to disagree on so many levels (from the degree of the potential harm to the proposed solutions) that there is really no need for false equivalencies such as this one. A cautionary tale (such as "if you go in the woods, a wolf will eat you") isn't necessarily a threat. Even though I don't agree with his take, I don't need to misrepresent it so blatantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrawlingChaox

So, way to prove his point?

I mean, we're all free to disagree on so many levels (from the degree of the potential harm to the proposed solutions) that there is really no need for false equivalencies such as this one.

---

First off, how do you know who I am replying to? I'm replying to the argument.

It's not a false equivalency. At least my argument isn't. The entire "In real life the DM can bring his books to another person's house and let them borrow them. SO, we should be able to do the same with FG!" argument is a ridiculous argument.

You're free to take your computer with your FG license on it, and lug it to your buddies house a continent away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrawlingChaox

A cautionary tale (such as "if you go in the woods, a wolf will eat you") isn't necessarily a threat. Even though I don't agree with his take, I don't need to misrepresent it so blatantly.

---

Oh please, give me a break. Cautionary tale. Oh yeah, The internet is dark and full of Terrors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seycyrus

First off, how do you know who I am replying to? I'm replying to the argument.

It's not a false equivalency. At least my argument isn't. The entire "In real life the DM can bring his books to another person's house and let them borrow them. SO, we should be able to do the same with FG!" argument is a ridiculous argument.

You're free to take your computer with your FG license on it, and lug it to your buddies house a continent away.



Oh please, give me a break. Cautionary tale. Oh yeah, The internet is dark and full of Terrors.

---

Someone who’s so keen to dismiss other people’s claims should make more of an effort to understand them. Otherwise, you’ll be grasping at straws. Let me help with that.

Your false equivalency isn’t in the argument (or in the counter-argument) that we should be able to do digitally what we can do with physical products—as I said, that’s not a given, but it’s not an unreasonable thing to discuss either. It’s in you equating someone who’s describing an hypothetical event (“people could resort to piracy if...”) to a threat, which makes absolutely no sense. You’re looking for witches to burn where there’s none, in much the same way that you’re (willingly?) mistaking the genre I mentioned for the content.

We can all discuss this stuff and disagree, we can try to be heard or we can support the current state of things, but we should be better than this. Lowering the level of the discussion doesn’t help the FG community and doesn’t help SmiteWorks.

The simple fact of the matter is that other companies own the copyright to the various materials, and SmiteWorks has contracts with these other companies that specify what can and cannot be done with the intellectual property of the copyright holders. No amount of discussion will change this fact.

As I said before, the capabilities of sharing IP belonging to WotC or Paizo et al has nothing to do with copyright. It has everything to do with a license Contract(s) between SW and the publisher. Those contracts could say anything. They could have very specific technical descriptions or they could be totally devoid of enforceable details.

And, as I also said before, the community can voice their opinion and desires to SmiteWorks, And SW has asked us to do that via the Wishlist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEntrails

As I said before, the capabilities of sharing IP belonging to WotC or Paizo et al has nothing to do with copyright. It has everything to do with a license Contract(s) between SW and the publisher. Those contracts could say anything. They could have very specific technical descriptions or they could be totally devoid of enforceable details.

And, as I also said before, the community can voice their opinion and desires to SmiteWorks, And SW has asked us to do that via the Wishlist.

---

Yep its all about the agreements they have. Im sure Smiteworks wouldnt mind the idea of allowing a system where a person can share the DM rights to another person; but in the end WOTC and PAZIO probably said "No" and they own the IP, so if they wont let Smiteworks do it; then they cant do it. Its deal they made. As LordEntrails said its all about the contract

I would assume if you bought the PDF of a adventure path for a live table game and emailed the PDF to another person for them to run this would too be contrary to the user agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willot

Yep its all about the agreements they have. Im sure Smiteworks wouldnt mind the idea of allowing a system where a person can share the DM rights to another person; but in the end WOTC and PAZIO probably said "No" and they own the IP, so if they wont let Smiteworks do it; then they cant do it. Its deal they made. As LordEntrails said its all about the contract

I would assume if you bought the PDF of a adventure path for a live table game and emailed the PDF to another person for them to run this would too be contrary to the user agreement.

---

I don't think we've seen a response from Smiteworks on this, so isn't this just speculation, as their contractual agreements aren't public knowledge?

And I do believe that PDF could be viewed on a shared screen just fine. I haven't transferred ownership of it or distributed it to anyone . I haven't sold it to anyone. They are able to view it for the duration that I allow it to be viewed. I can't stop them from taking a screenshot or taking a picture with a camera, but that is on them.

The whole FG system architecture and permissions is built around the Host Computer and the GM and the Content being at the same table.
SW have stated that they like the idea but they have many, many higher priorities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damned

The whole FG system architecture and permissions is built around the Host Computer and the GM and the Content being at the same table.
SW have stated that they like the idea but they have many, many higher priorities.

---

Thanks for the damned reply ;)

Sharing DM responsibilities is something that has merit as a request but is not an easy item to address given our current architecture. That is the major stumbling block even before we get to any concerns over licensing. We'd prefer not to have a back and forth discussion about what is or is not "fair use" with regard to copyright. Those discussions always seem to turn into mini-flame wars.

[QUOTE=ddavison;452935...Those discussions always seem to turn into mini-flame wars.[/QUOTE]

Darn and I was about to dig out my Elon Musk Not-A-Flamethrower:(