18 months on : FG vs. Roll20 vs Foundry

[Valyar]

I am not sure why you think FGU could have been... It is huge improvement over the classic and the last major updates that introduced effects, LOS, dynamic lights and other ruleset specific features show that the product is far from "over". The fact that you now have map-making capabilities is amazing - everything in one place.

Yes, we want much faster pace from Smite Works, but even today FGU has much more to offer than its competitors.

[similarly]

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.

To be clear (I don't want to make assumptions): which "pretty effects" did you want? I came back to D&D about a year ago after not playing for 25 years. 25 years ago, my gaming group did 99% theater of the mind, and 100% homebrew. "Back in the day", I played over a dozen different systems, and even made a few systems on my own. Part of the beauty of roleplaying back then, for us, was imagination. Now, I feel there's a LOT of expectation on making D&D more of a video game experience. People want animated maps, weather effects, sound effects and background music. I feel this takes away just a bit from the imagination that used to be such a big part of roleplaying for me. I used to have 3 giant laminated green hex boards that I'd draw on with water-color markers if combat got confusing. Otherwise, we just winged it. I'd much rather Fantasy Grounds focused on things like finding ways to get things to load faster, or maybe integrating some of the automation we find in extensions.

Foundry is a great system, but honestly: until they have legitimate licensing for roleplaying systems directly with roleplaying publishers, they'll still be far behind Smiteworks. That said: different people roleplay in different ways. If foundry or roll20 work better for those people, then great. I bought Fantasy Grounds because I homebrew so much content that I would have very quickly reached the limits of roll20.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I believe that audiovisual resources are something linked to technology and the reality of VTT's nowadays.
I played a lot with Teatro da Mente as well, but I confess that I'm attracted to hear and see a special effect when I launch my magic missiles and that emotion arises when we have a good trail accompanying our journey.
I know that most of the features that are mentioned on other platforms will arrive at Fantasy Grounds and I am patient to wait.
And I agree that before any "extra" features it is necessary to work on the speed and stability of Fantasy Grounds.

[Weissrolf]

You need to realize that only one person is speaking at any time in voice chat. And usually only two people actively play on each PCs turn while the rest of the group is busy staring at their screen while staying quite. The "video game experience" is what keeps their eyes on the map at least, else they would just browse the web or watch some video while waiting for their turn.

This is a different experience from sitting at a table where multiple people can talk, especially with each other while the GM and one player are handling a PCs turn. The whole group is (hopefully) more invested and in the moment and everything is more "tangible".

Torch flickering is nice, that pulsating light is more of a hazard. Some map effects work, others not so much (and why are the defaults for "fog" so unusable fast?).

[celestian]

Now, I feel there's a LOT of expectation on making D&D more of a video game experience. People want animated maps, weather effects, sound effects and background music. I feel this takes away just a bit from the imagination that used to be such a big part of roleplaying for me.

What you call "video game experience" many call immersion. Not something that reduces imagination but improves it and most certainly improves ones ability to roleplay as the character in that specific situation.

The upside to having modern audio, video and graphical features for your games, you don't have to use them and the those that prefer them can.

[similarly]

I dunno. I find the focus on graphics and music breaks my immersion ... but then I have a pretty vivid imagination. From a practical side though, I find most of the tech simply bothersome. I had a map all set up with animations and lighting and had to turn it off because of lag for one or two players on slow connections. Just easier to run TotM.

[celestian]

I dunno. I find the focus on graphics and music breaks my immersion ... but then I have a pretty vivid imagination. From a practical side though, I find most of the tech simply bothersome. I had a map all set up with animations and lighting and had to turn it off because of lag for one or two players on slow connections. Just easier to run TotM.

Your problem mentioned is with the platform, not the technology. As I said earlier and as you did in this case, not using it is a option. Whether it works properly tho is in the developers.

What I find destressing is some the people on the forums (and not just in this thread) suggesting "advanced" features shouldn't be added because they don't need/want them. What's worse is when others start using that as justification for their own desire to "not see" said features. Whether it's UI, audio, graphics or improved performance.... these are features we should expect. Whether we use them or not is entirely up to the table. I don't need to know Bob the DM doesn't use audio when requesting audio features be on the table for FG. There is certainly a triage list of things that can and should be worked on depending on severity (performance is a hot topic these days) but new features should be on the table as cycles permit.

I don't expect things to spin around and get done instantly, things are slow and steady, more slow than steady but, things get done. Just remember when you respond to someone asking for something you don't see a need for that everyone is not the same.

[similarly]

What I find destressing is some the people on the forums (and not just in this thread) suggesting "advanced" features shouldn't be added because they don't need/want them.

I think you'll find, if you read my posts, that I've only talked about what I, as an individual do, or value, or think. Nowhere have I suggested that smiteworks shouldn't add the features, have I? And I don't believe I've seen in THIS thread anyone suggesting that either, unless I've missed it. I've suggested other things I'd RATHER see. I'm allowed to do that. Perhaps just relax and don't read too much into it, eh? What does it matter what I think anyway?

[Valyar]

One of the reasons Foundry VTT seems to be blossoming is the open nature of the platform and the programming languages it employs (which is also curse, not just blessing). Remove all the add-ons and the base platform is bland. Also more than half of the functionalities come from external developers, which is bad.

I can't accept a product that makes a GM to run 20-100 (yes) extensions to play and manage campaign at adequate levels when in Fantasy Grounds I don't need any, just 3-4 for convenience. And not to mention - MAP EDITOR!!!

[HywelPhillips]

I've always tried to use audio-visual resources when running games - 30 years ago I had a slide projector rigged up to show photos to set the scene, did handouts and made mix-tapes as the soundtrack to various campaigns.

I've never been all that big on map and mini or tokens, apart from a few campaigns where the focus was on tactical combat where the system really demanded it. I usually prefer theatre of the the mind for that. My preferences as a player were similar.

However, I've found online gaming changes the equation for me considerably.

As Weissrolf says, the biggest change in the experience is the stilted, one-at-a-time nature of voice/video interactions during online games. This means that players can't be having whispered conversations with each other while the GM is dealing with the active player in the same way. It wrecks round-table PC discussions to such an extent that "planning sessions" are no longer viable the way we used to run and enjoy them. Someone (and in my experience that overwhelmingly becomes the GM) has to "run the Zoom meeting" making sure everyone gets invited to speak in turn, gets a decent share of the spotlight, etc..

In some ways tactical combat is a whole lot easier to run via VTT than a talky theatre of mind round-table talking session. The technology can support you, rather than putting strict limits on you.

It takes advantage of the fact that players are staring at a screen to put relevant stuff on that screen for them to look at. They can plan out their moves, make deductions, look at the map decoration and invent cool things to do with that crate there, and so on. I think this plays to the strengths of VTTs, so it is no wonder that people are pushing the software in that direction. From there is a natural progression to show meaningful information like health bars and effects icons, put down map markers for stuff that's on fire, and then a small step to animating that. After all, the common shared space is no longer the physical tabletop and the room you're in with your buddies. It's not your character sheet - only you are looking at that. It's the map that's the portal onto the shared world.

So I make much much heavier use of maps on VTTs that I ever did offline. A really good map can spare you hundreds of words of exposition, which is economical when the most precious resource is "voice time" on the voice chat channel. It helps stops people's attention wandering to the other tab with twitter open in it. I customise maps much more, for which I love FGUs new toolkit. I use handouts less, because the map is doing a lot of the shared world-building that I'd previously have relied on an evocative photo or drawing to do.

A good token can remove the need to display the artwork for a newly encountered person, and use of subtle visual hints can let players "do" things like perception rolls and discovery by themselves without taking up too much "voice time" by simply allowing the player to notice things on the map. Scouting missions become more involving for the group rather than less if party vision is turned on. I don't need to tell them to stop because their familiar has flown into a room with a giant ogre in it - they can see it.

For sure there is a danger of tying down the imagination too much and becoming more like a static-coded computer game. There's a balance to be struck, which is one of the reasons I emphasised how automatically the extra AV pretties can be done in my platform reviews above. If the GM has to stop the action, leading to dead "voice time" while they trigger a cool visual, that's bad for me. But if as part of the narration of a lightning bolt going off you hear crackling lightning sound effects automatically triggered over the background music by Syrinscape chat trigger, with no chat dead time, that's good for me.

So I'm in favour of things like the FGU map effects because of the way they let players interact with the setting information for free, without taking up precious chat time. For example one of my campaigns has the PC's chasing down rifts in space and time to close them. I use a subtle bit of the water effect to indicate this. Near big rifts, the effect is unmistakable. If I want to subtly hint at it, I apply a very mild version of the effect over the relevant part of the map, and maybe add some low alpha sparkly pulsing lights. The players pick up almost subconsciously that there's something weird going on in that one particular bedroom of the house just by moving their tokens around and exploring. For sure it's all backed up with descriptions and the usual GM communications, but as a way of dropping hints and rewarding player engagement with their FGU window rather than their twitter window, I find it really useful.

I'm skeptical about 3D not because of the technology or the computer-game-ness or even the performance but because I've just a little experience of how much more work it is to populate 3D realms with resources and build a scene. There's a reason why computer game companies have to have entire teams to build levels or make the 3D characters. I can see the appeal of a 3D simulation of being around a tabletop with miniature figures and an infinite supply of virtual Dwarf Forge scenery I guess. But personally I am trying to get drawn in to the game environment, not the emulation-of-sitting-around-a-table environment.

I'd like to see how VTTs can push in this direction of drawing us in to the game environment in a different way from the way computer games do it. One of the things I really want to get my groups experimenting with is the real-time use of typed chat to try to replace the table-whispers. It's worked really well in a couple of one-shots I played, where it was player-led. I wonder if there is a way to encourage more use of it as the GM?

Cheers, Hywel