Joshua Stream Pre
Page 5 of 5 First ... 345
  1. #41
    Doswelk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    2,214
    Quote Originally Posted by mac40k View Post
    This guy would have hated older versions of SWD. Remember when we had to manually add the +1d6 to damage when getting a hit with a raise? LOL!
    Indeed
    My players just defeated an army, had a dogfight with aliens, machine-gunned the zombies, stormed the tower, became Legendary and died heroically

    Yours are still on combat round 6

    Get Savage
    Ultimate License Holder.
    First GM to post a game for the original FG Con!

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by mac40k
    This guy would have hated older versions of SWD. Remember when we had to manually add the +1d6 to damage when getting a hit with a raise? LOL!
    I did not buy FG (neither SWD of course) at that time simply because what you have reminded: they were too much awkward and pretty unuseful. I preferred playing RPGs on a real table (as I do from 1989) or occasionally by Skype (with distant friends).
    In my humble opinion, tools like FG (and SWD as well) should in effect ease/speed-up the play; they should make you exclaim: "how much time I wasted with math and book-keeping at the gaming table! Not anymore: let's (role)play now and nothing else matter, because FG (SWD) do it for us!"
    For such reasons, automation are crucial in my perspective: without automation I would play on a real table (or by any videochat programme)..

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikael View Post
    This feature request is categorized as "nice to have" for SWD
    Why this feature has been included in SWADE, whereas it has been categorized only as "nice to have" for SWD? They are two very different priorities for two very similar game systems..

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikael View Post
    I have understood your request and my work is to analyze how ruleset changes would and should affect the whole product line. Although you personally would need it only for SWD, the fact is that consistency is important throughout the product line.
    About the importance of consistency: a part of "Effects embedded in Items" feature has been included in the SWD ruleset and a part not. In fact, the 'Armor Piercing' effect has been embedded in weapons (and it works, I checked!), while all the other effects were not embedded in weapons..
    Last edited by Galdor; June 4th, 2020 at 23:04.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Galdor View Post
    Why this feature has been included in SWADE, whereas it has been categorized only as "nice to have" for SWD? They are two very different priorities for two very similar game systems..
    Simple, as Ikael already explained. SWD is a deprecated ruleset, it's like asking Pinnacle to open back up the SWD FAQ section of their forum. They won't because it's not directly supported anymore, instead they support SWADE. In this case it also means there are very few settings that are SWADE-specific yet, so any new features in SWADE can be implemented in those settings and as the default method in any NEW settings. The problem with SWD is there are a TON of old setting out there, and the vast majority of those settings in FG are from independent authors. As Ikael noted it would require coordinating with ALL of those authors as well as modifying all of the parts of the, now deprecated, sections of the SWD ruleset to implement what you are asking for. The sheer level of work and coordination involved makes that a "nice to have" feature, but continuing improvements for SWADE simply must take priority. Anything SWD that isn't relatively easy to implement (that will not negatively impact all of the existing modules out there for it) or already being implemented in shared code for SWADE simply must have lower consideration over SWADE word, understandably.

    Additionally you must consider customer demand. The automation already available for SWD and SWADE in Fantasy Grounds compared to any other VTT out there is simply phenomenal. Nothing out there even comes remotely close to it. Even so the vast majority of customers using Savage Worlds in Fantasy Ground are going to be using it for SWADE, and new customers are going to be looking to get it for SWADE, not SWD. The demand is not going to be high enough to justify spending the money to implement features in SWD that could be better spent improving SWADE. In other words it just cannot be financially justified implementing that in SWD unless some way could be found to implement it much more easily, and not just in the core rules, but remember again that it also has to be rolled out to all of those modules, too. So in that sense, yes, I cannot see how they could not declare that feature as just "nice to have". Does make any sense?
    Lenny Zimmermann
    Metairie, LA

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by zarlor View Post
    Simple, as Ikael already explained. SWD is a deprecated ruleset, it's like asking Pinnacle to open back up the SWD FAQ section of their forum. They won't because it's not directly supported anymore, instead they support SWADE. In this case it also means there are very few settings that are SWADE-specific yet, so any new features in SWADE can be implemented in those settings and as the default method in any NEW settings. The problem with SWD is there are a TON of old setting out there, and the vast majority of those settings in FG are from independent authors. As Ikael noted it would require coordinating with ALL of those authors as well as modifying all of the parts of the, now deprecated, sections of the SWD ruleset to implement what you are asking for. The sheer level of work and coordination involved makes that a "nice to have" feature, but continuing improvements for SWADE simply must take priority. Anything SWD that isn't relatively easy to implement (that will not negatively impact all of the existing modules out there for it) or already being implemented in shared code for SWADE simply must have lower consideration over SWADE word, understandably.

    Additionally you must consider customer demand. The automation already available for SWD and SWADE in Fantasy Grounds compared to any other VTT out there is simply phenomenal. Nothing out there even comes remotely close to it. Even so the vast majority of customers using Savage Worlds in Fantasy Ground are going to be using it for SWADE, and new customers are going to be looking to get it for SWADE, not SWD. The demand is not going to be high enough to justify spending the money to implement features in SWD that could be better spent improving SWADE. In other words it just cannot be financially justified implementing that in SWD unless some way could be found to implement it much more easily, and not just in the core rules, but remember again that it also has to be rolled out to all of those modules, too. So in that sense, yes, I cannot see how they could not declare that feature as just "nice to have". Does make any sense?
    Yes, thank you zarlor, makes sense.
    So they are unfortunately true some considerations I made earlier in this thread (especially the later one):
    Quote Originally Posted by Galdor
    Me and my friends bought SWD a couple of months ago (because I use it in my gaming groups), when SWADE was already available in the shop: apparently it has been an error, because we should have bought SWADE! However, if you don't develop SWD anymore, you should have removed it from the shop, or underlining such lack of development in the product page (at least)!
    Quote Originally Posted by Galdor
    As I previously recalled in this thread, underlining in the Product Shop Page what you wrote here above should be a duty towards customers. If I have known it, I never purchased SWD (and I would have bought SWADE instead).
    Last edited by Galdor; June 5th, 2020 at 08:58.

  5. #45
    I couldn't speak to the company's thoughts on this, and maybe they could have made it clearer that the support for SWD would be waning as they build more functionality with their focus into the current SWADE ruleset. It looked to me like that was their intent, but I couldn't speak to how a new customer might have read their information on this so I'd certainly just have to take your word for it. I suppose it could be argued caveat emptor and all, and it seems most folks coming in new would gravitate towards the newer ruleset. Still, if I may suggest, why not reach out directly to FG support with your concerns? You might be able to get SWADE or get a discount towards adding SWADE to your license if they agree your concerns are legitimate, or at least if they wish to try to provide some satisfaction to you as a potentially unhappy customer. No guarantees but it could be worth trying if having that functionality is such a major concern for you.
    Lenny Zimmermann
    Metairie, LA

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
FGU Twitter Sweepstakes

Log in

Log in