Fantasy Grounds Unity engine

[Valyar]

Roll20.net has this nailed. When you link a token to character sheet and map token's stats, they follow you on all maps simultaneously, as the Char Journal is the single source of truth and all tokens are copies and linked to it.

[Trenloe]

It's a different way of thinking. FG is not token orientated. It is CT orientated. Just shift your thinking.

[Zacchaeus]

Surely the current CT handles the party spread across multiple maps just fine. Or am I missing something here?

[shadzar]

Surely the current CT handles the party spread across multiple maps just fine. Or am I missing something here?

Yes and no.

If you need to for some reason split time, and do things with one group until it is done in a split party, then "meanwhile in another part of the dungeon..." with the other group. it doesnt' account for that

the CT only allows for real time as the initiative is tracked, and even rerolled every round if that part is used (unless you can turn that off) so even the things not in the same map would be on it. you would have 1 CT open, 2 maps, and EVERYTHING from both maps in the one CT being tracking at the same time, meaning it would break up map A battle, to now go over to map B, and the payers would probably get more bored waiting for their turn during combat because when it comes back to their map as they flip back and forth in real time, they would have forgot what they were doing, the DM is effectively running two combats at the same time...

logistical nightmare as opposed to "Ok lets finish with Group A, then they will take a break while we move to Group B over on this other map" which would keep things more cohesive for everyone during play. currently that would mean removing payers form MAp A from the CT when on map B, if you wanted to do the normal way most people split parties and have comabts. I have never seen anyone remove a PC from the CT unless they were removed form the game via player no longer playing, or PC is dead and replcaed with a new one... so not sure how that works.



@ "FG is CT oriented"...

Nobody plays FG, people play RPGs and they are map oriented...

[Trenloe]

@ "FG is CT oriented"...

Nobody plays FG, people play RPGs and they are map oriented...

Are they? Really? I've played RPGs many, many, many times without a map. But when encounters kick off I need a way of tracking the order of participants.

Anyway - I'm not going to argue with you, as you seem to like arguing just for the hell of it (or so it appears from your posts).

The statement I made about FG being CT orientated was fact - pure and simple. And it's a very important fact to remember when using FG. Take that on board. Or don't. It's up to you.

[damned]

Shadzar have you looked at encounters yet?
Encounters work very, very well and they do not leave the CT cluttered.

Your games might be map oriented.
What has that got to do with the way anyone else plays RPGs?
RPGs are story oriented and they are combat oriented and the split between the two of those varies greatly from group to group and system to system.

[ddavison]

I've never had a problem running split parties. I prefer to have it operate in real time instead of abstracting two timelines separately. Set the option to center on the token as their turn comes up and you'll be fine. If you prefer, leave that off and just double-click the token as it comes up so you can switch to the active map and token as the GM while players leave up the map that is active to them. Use map tokens for targeting of attacks. If you need to do finish one completely before doing the other group, then just run the one map plus encounter 1 with group A, then swap the PCs and kick off encounter 2 for group B. Two encounters, two maps, two groups, one CT -- works fine.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Yes and no.

If you need to for some reason split time, and do things with one group until it is done in a split party, then "meanwhile in another part of the dungeon..." with the other group. it doesnt' account for that

the CT only allows for real time as the initiative is tracked, and even rerolled every round if that part is used (unless you can turn that off) so even the things not in the same map would be on it. you would have 1 CT open, 2 maps, and EVERYTHING from both maps in the one CT being tracking at the same time, meaning it would break up map A battle, to now go over to map B, and the payers would probably get more bored waiting for their turn during combat because when it comes back to their map as they flip back and forth in real time, they would have forgot what they were doing, the DM is effectively running two combats at the same time...

logistical nightmare as opposed to "Ok lets finish with Group A, then they will take a break while we move to Group B over on this other map" which would keep things more cohesive for everyone during play. currently that would mean removing payers form MAp A from the CT when on map B, if you wanted to do the normal way most people split parties and have comabts. I have never seen anyone remove a PC from the CT unless they were removed form the game via player no longer playing, or PC is dead and replcaed with a new one... so not sure how that works.



@ "FG is CT oriented"...

Nobody plays FG, people play RPGs and they are map oriented...

Actually for me CT does its job better than if it was map oriented.
Lets say the group is split, and they are in two different maps, of one is solving a puzzle and the other one is in a combat.

you could just use initiative so everyone has their turn on doing something. While one player in a different map is trying to guess an answer to a puzzle on his turn, the other one might make an attack on other map against a creature.

in that way the DM doesnt have to focus on one single map at a time or DMing separately, making one group wait for the conclusion of the other one.
i makes you easily track what things are being done at the same time without needing to rapidly changing maps. (or even making all of this without one.)

[seycyrus]

I've never had a problem running split parties. I prefer to have it operate in real time instead of abstracting two timelines separately. ...

Well, perhaps it is just that you are a much better GM, than I am, but for me it is a real headache. Subgroup A, subgroup B (and sometimes subgroup C!) run into groups of monsters, at the same moment in realtime (because of the pace of exploration - going down a 100 yd. corridor does not generally take 10x the amount of realtime to roleplay as going down a 10 yd. corridor), but are separated from each other by 5 minutes of gametime. Maybe it is the timescale of GURPS (simultaneous 1 second rounds), that complicates things.

[ddavison]

@seycyrus, what are the steps where you seem to be taking the most time? Perhaps there are some tips we can give you to speed those up.