18 months on : FG vs. Roll20 vs Foundry

[Kelrugem]

i saw another thread that begins with the user saying they tried it and:



so i wanted to address it. let's break it down:


- If there were internet connection issues, but there are none in a regular multiplayer videogame or similar activity, you just didn't configure Foundry properly. it's very easy, but some users are clueless about portforwarding and other factors and might make mistakes or not do any configuration, which should be like 2 steps, then expect things to work.
badly configured antivirus software, and a myriad of things related to user error can, indeed, cause connection issues. shouldn't be a problem for any user that's able to handle computer basics. see, the thousands of users who are really not tech savvy and use foundry. some of which ask for help with setting up and then comment on how effortless it was.

- What Combat Tracker issues? how come nobody else in the entire community has these issues? again, it's a very simple feature to work with, but people trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver often find it an issue.

- What token visibility issues? i would put my hands in fire this was due to very unnecessary user error. as the feature is extremely robust, proven and simple. now this leads me to really question the integrity and capacity of this user. if not the intentions of the post altogether, but let's not go into that.

- targeting is literally brainless. how someone can have issues with that is beyond me, and a challenge worthy of a genius person. really hammering home the previous point's questioning.

- "i knew there was limited automation" as was said in the thread, depends on the game system. some have far better and more advanced automation than FG, see pf2e or dnd 5e when using the automation modules for the latter.
yeah. foundry is a software that has a very strong API, modular structure and community support surrounding these mods. and while the benefits of the features the modules add cannot be credited to the core app, the fundamental user experience is what matters. and for example for dnd 5e, the automation modules are there since day one. if people don't use them, and then complain no automation, they can solve their issue in 10 seconds flat by just inquiring about it in the community discord or googling.

furthermore, foundry has a free web demo anyone can try.
if that's not enough, there's also an endless amount of youtube videos, reddit posts, github and gitlab pages, several adjecent communities showing and teaching you what foundry does and does not do at a given point in time. the development is so active, last month's video might be so out of date it is now not applicable. mods get updates everyday, and new ones come out every day too.

if the above seems like a platitude or like i am unwilling to put my stuff where my mouth is, feel free to contact me, i'll prove it to you by showing it in my own foundry. we can even jump on a call and compare screens between FG and FVTT. then we can let facts speak for themselves.
you know, like it's a fact thousands of people don't have the mentioned issues for some reason. nor does one find opinions like those common place in neutral places on the web. but i digress.

post your doubts, issues opinions folks, let's have a discussion about the state of Foundry compared to FG as of time of posting.. keep it amicable, we are all here to have fun and discussion our passion for TTRPG played with the aid of a computer.
(some people turn tables into TVs and use foundry 100% offline, in person, controlling the tokens with minis and rolling physical dice that report the result inside foundry chat, so it didn't feel right to say "TTRPG played online".)

First of all, you should have posted your answer in the thread where this is discussed, and not in a new thread in the support channel

Second: "Defending" your favourite VTT by insulting others via statements like "targeting is literally brainless. how someone can have issues with that is beyond me, and a challenge worthy of a genius person" (quote from your post) gives a bad taste; if someone struggles with the UI of a VTT, then one could also choose to help instead.

Sorry, but I do not have the feeling that your actual intention is really discussing both VTTs (and something tells me that you probably do not know FG at all while you blame others not knowing Foundry; so, following your arguments, why should you be the "right" person who is able to compare these VTTs?). Your post feels more like just insulting someone, plus a generic excuse at the end of your post ("I just have a good intention!"), and an attempt to generate visibility by posting it into another thread/channel which is read by more people

EDIT: @mods: This post should probably belong to https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...l20-vs-Foundry

[ColinBuckler]

I decided many years ago (2014) to invest in FG and have been very happy with the decision. Since then a number of additional products have entered the market offering various functionality. I own/used FGC/FGU/Foundry/Roll20/Tabletop Simulator.

Every GM/Player will have their own views of what they want/need from a VTT - I would suggest they draw that list up and then go and compare/demo the products vs their requirements.

If a better product came to the market, would I jump from FGU - if it better met my needs vs price & effort to change - absolutely.

For me, some of the choices are:

I didnt want a cloud service as thats restrictive upon the amount of data I can host.
Looking at Foundry I found to get something usable I needed to an excessive number of addins and then maintaining these seems to be a full time job.
A relatively high level of automation is an absolute must.
Not fussed about 3d maps as that is currently more work for me as a GM to create a map - after all time is money so to speak.

Others will have a different set of requirements.

There are a few things I wish FGU did that would (hopefully) be quick turn arounds - animated maps (mp4/webm/..etc) and the ability to skin dice. These alone would make the product look way more modern/advanced and graphically appealing to players.

For me - more products on the market means more choice and ultimately means more innovation.

[strei]

the thread was closed, hence why not posted there.

Second: "Defending" your favourite VTT by insulting others via statements like "targeting is literally brainless. how someone can have issues with that is beyond me, and a challenge worthy of a genius person" (quote from your post) gives a bad taste; if someone struggles with the UI of a VTT, then one could also choose to help instead.

it's hard to help someone in a closed thread that stated they don't want to try to figure out how to make it work or solve any issue. bit hard. this person also didn't choose to word it in good taste by the way.

and the struggle was made to look like it's the software's fault, when it isn't. it's offensive to the entire human race, including me and you, when people word things in some ways and try to make it look like an error or limitation of them is the fault of external things or others are the same. the "brainless" remark is not meant to be an insult. it's literally describing the feature. there's nothing to using it. select targeting tool, left click token. there's 2 ways to selected that tool. there's modules to make it easier or with more features.

Sorry, but I do not have the feeling that your actual intention is really discussing both VTTs

you are free to believe what you want, that's your problem. i'll let actions and facts speak regarding my intentions.

and something tells me that you probably do not know FG at all while you blame others not knowing Foundry; so, following your arguments, why should you be the "right" person who is able to compare these VTTs?)

you fail to understand, you can share your screen with FG, ill share screen with FVTT, and we can compare the same set of actions or aspects each on the respective VTT. i think this is the best way to show a FG user who never used FVTT how the matching thing works on the other side. so my experience with FG does not matter. and it would surprise you, but i need not prove myself to you. nice attempt to twist the argument though.

Your post feels more like just insulting someone, plus a generic excuse at the end of your post ("I just have a good intention!"), and an attempt to generate visibility by posting it into another thread/channel which is read by more people

i am new to the forum, if i posted in the wrong place that is my mistake. i tried to reply to the other thread and realized it was locked, to opened a new thread instead. maybe i should have done more homework before posting, but that should be an issue easy to solve. also, i would ask you stop questioning my intentions and attacking my person, and instead actually discuss the topic. i didn't have anything i could use to address the issues claimed. so i only stated my experience and facts about universal experience or the software. if you give me actual ontopic arguments, maybe we can have a civil constructive discussion like i wished we were having.

also, i feel like this needs to be addressed. i didn't come here to defend my favourite VTT. i decided to make an account and post to clear what is FUD or misleading remarks. and to help ANYONE who wants to learn about the topic, how the 2 vtts compare.

[strei]

I decided many years ago (2014) to invest in FG and have been very happy with the decision. Since then a number of additional products have entered the market offering various functionality. I own/used FGC/FGU/Foundry/Roll20/Tabletop Simulator.

Every GM/Player will have their own views of what they want/need from a VTT - I would suggest they draw that list up and then go and compare/demo the products vs their requirements.

If a better product came to the market, would I jump from FGU - if it better met my needs vs price & effort to change - absolutely.

For me, some of the choices are:

I didnt want a cloud service as thats restrictive upon the amount of data I can host.
Looking at Foundry I found to get something usable I needed to an excessive number of addins and then maintaining these seems to be a full time job.
A relatively high level of automation is an absolute must.
Not fussed about 3d maps as that is currently more work for me as a GM to create a map - after all time is money so to speak.

Others will have a different set of requirements.

There are a few things I wish FGU did that would (hopefully) be quick turn arounds - animated maps (mp4/webm/..etc) and the ability to skin dice. These alone would make the product look way more modern/advanced and graphically appealing to players.

For me - more products on the market means more choice and ultimately means more innovation.

thank you for making such a constructive post in the thread!

and i would like to eco and underline how different needs demand different solutions. and every GM and table has their own personal preferences.

- you don't need a cloud service to use foundry. self hosting is easy and works quite well.
also you can host for free with 200gb on oracle or 120gb on azure. and there are other solutions. this does involve some effort to setup, especially for non techies.

- using over 160 feature modules plus another such number of content modules, i don't agree with the "excessive" term. but, i get what you mean with maintaining module compatibility. however, i can help you curate a list that will not give you such issues. unfortunately this is something that is an issue and requires effort (curating a list). maintaining can be effortless after a good list and some right discrimination is applied.so it takes time and knowledge which i wish wasn't necessary. but it is becoming less and less as time goes on.

i hope the above 2 points can be of aid to you, even if you end up never touching foundry again, just for you to know.

[Jiminimonka]

thank you for making such a constructive post in the thread!

and i would like to eco and underline how different needs demand different solutions. and every GM and table has their own personal preferences.

- you don't need a cloud service to use foundry. self hosting is easy and works quite well.
also you can host for free with 200gb on oracle or 120gb on azure. and there are other solutions. this does involve some effort to setup, especially for non techies.

- using over 160 feature modules plus another such number of content modules, i don't agree with the "excessive" term. but, i get what you mean with maintaining module compatibility. however, i can help you curate a list that will not give you such issues. unfortunately this is something that is an issue and requires effort (curating a list). maintaining can be effortless after a good list and some right discrimination is applied.so it takes time and knowledge which i wish wasn't necessary. but it is becoming less and less as time goes on.

i hope the above 2 points can be of aid to you, even if you end up never touching foundry again, just for you to know.

People who need tech support for Foundry should be posting on Foundry forums, no?

[strei]

People who need tech support for Foundry should be posting on Foundry forums, no?

discussing how the VTTs compare as of present day, clearing things ppl might have missed (i don't think nobody is born knowing everything. what's just obvious as water is wet to me, might not be to others) and demystifying remarks of people who didn't have the best experience for countless possible reasons that could easily have avoided negatives and instead have had a much better experience i think is a good thing anywhere.

also, funny question considering FVTT has not official forums. support is done in real time.

[ColinBuckler]

Last night I ran a D&D 5E game in FGU with around 50 combatants in the Combat Tracker (including the 7 players) with multiple factions varying spells and abilities.

There is a 5E SRD ruleset I believe for Foundry available - outside of this there are no legal means of using the full 5E ruleset with items outside of the SRD with spells with automation. The encounters were pre-built along with maps and line of sight.

The game flowed smoothly - I even had a background fog effect and LOS switched with bonfire flickering effects.

Fireballs were cast, effects for Blur, Mage Armor, Invisibility were applied even, wildshape automation worked smoothly. Concentration checks made as appropriate when damage was received.

I would never as attempted this in a face-to-face game - FGU delivered as expected with very little prep work.

I dont know about other applications being able to deliver such a large intensive fight - they might.

Does FGU have its own problems - absolutely - very, very large maps with complex line of sights (dimensions of 100+ x 100+ squares with a complex tunnel system for instance) seem to cause me performance issues as it recalculates the LOS data on every move. Occasionally the database needs a clear down (about every 12 months, playing every week) where you have to export the characters and re-import them into a new campaign.

Am I happy with FGU - currently yes. Could it be better absolutely....

[Jiminimonka]

I wouldn't know. I don't use it.

This discussion thread is made by someone who actually uses there forums and Fantasy Grounds. Have you got Fantasy Grounds Unity strei?

[strei]

There is a 5E SRD ruleset I believe for Foundry available - outside of this there are no legal means of using the full 5E ruleset with items outside of the SRD with spells with automation. The encounters were pre-built along with maps and line of sight.

there are legal means yes. just doesn't come with foundry, u need to buy the content elsewhere.
you can buy a pack of spell effects for 5e and they will just work when you cast the things it affects.

the foundry experience is far from perfect too. but it gets better daily.

[YAKO SOMEDAKY]

I'm going to say it again and i'm going to say it again I like animated maps, I want more possibilities of Occlusors, Light and Vision, I want the ability of Animations and even audio and sound effects directly in the FGU, but more than that I want that in addition to 64 bits (which is what allows us to use more than 3 GB of memory) we have multi-threads so that we have more speed and agility, because it takes 30 seconds in a campaign with no new and no extensions and take 30 seconds to load as Host is a long time!
Not to mention that each player, it takes 1 minute to get effectively into the table and this 1 minute of waiting for the player is 1 minute waiting from the Host, and this is something that I consider urgent, speed and agility and that I believe would be something that could be solved by being multi-threaded and by being Unity and it be a platform for game development so I believe that we would have this possibility and with it more agility.
I believe that the advantage of Multi-Thread is the fact that after we make the link with the server (something I know that is part of the load time! Thanks for that Smite, goodbye door release!) by multiplying the multi-threaded things could be divided into smaller parts and loaded faster, in addition to the fact that you can continue the activities while others are entering your desk. At least that's my belief.