18 months on : FG vs. Roll20 vs Foundry

[ddavison]

I am not sure what you are trying to prove by repeatedly suggesting "illegal" activity from a community member sharing his very legal and self-exploiting work for free? That's rather rude.

Of course the wall data comes from the the installed module. I can also export wall and light data from what I created myself as JSON file, which then can be imported by others. As long as we are using the same PDF map file with same ratio and grid setting it will fit, even regardless of image resolution.

This is what a prepared Starfinder map looks like without the map image background. Anyone can import this, import the PDF map image as background and start playing. Last time I checked wall data was not subject to licensing and Paizo doesn't even provide their own VTT wall data. Instead that one guy prepares the walls and then includes them in the installed module. Nothing shady or even surprising about that.



I shared that data without the license protected background image and anyone can import it and just add the image from their own PDF themselves. It's no rocket science, just simple JSON text data.

It seems like you are purposefully trying to redirect the discussion to things that don't matter -- such as the legality of LOS data. The LOS data was injected into your campaign from an outside source and yet you think that only this data came from an outside source while 100% of the non-OGL text and images came only from your local PDF?

The tool author manually created the LOS data and I'm fairly certain the tool author also manually created the rest of the module. If someone wrote a generic PDF extraction routine that could intelligently and correctly export out a usable VTT module for any of the VTTs, that would be an amazing piece of code. It would also work on any PDF from Paizo and probably also for other game systems. It doesn't though. Whenever a new Paizo PDF is out, the author spends some X amount of time building support for that PDF into his tool. It doesn't just do a poor job of extracting the text and images and he has to tell it to reorganize a few things. It doesn't do anything at all for PDFs that he hasn't built yet. Importing prebuilt scenes would be trivial. Extracting these from a PDF cleanly, in the proper layout and format, and without using any non-OGL data is not.

[LordEntrails]

Since we have veered way off topic, I will add a few observations.

One, is the VTT communities. To me, this is a very important factor (organizational culture change is part of what I have done for work).
Roll20 community I think is improving, but it came from about the lowest place any community could be. If you don't know what I'm referring to, see the u/nolant incident. That was simple a symptom of the Roll20 community and its toxicity.
Then let's compare the Foundry and FG communities, since it was brought up in this thread by Weissroff himself, take him as an example of the tolerance the FG community has that the FVTT community obviously does not. I would rather be part of the tolerant community. (And, the FG community has a lot of other very positive attributes).

Second is about supporting the RPG creators. Yes this touches upon distribution. Some might consider the distribution discussion in terms of consumer friendliness. But I look at it in terms of treating creators fairly. We (gamers) are not entitled to much of anything. And we certainly are not entitled to "free" gaming content either. If someone can not or does not want to pay for RPG gaming content, their is more legally and intentionally free content than they could ever play in their life time already available. They are not also entitled to "free" or consumer friendly content that is/was not intended by its creator to be such.

You all do know that many of the biggest / most well known names in the RPG creator world are not rich. Most are barely getting by or have other jobs. As an example, how many times are their GoFundMe to help one of them with medical bills? Legal or not, many of these distribution approaches are taking money away from those creators. We also all (?) know that being a RPG creator is often considered a poor or bad career choice, because you can't make money at it (mostly, exceptions like Critical Role are exceptions!). All because gamers are so reluctant to pay for the content they want to use, regardless of how they wish to justify it.

[AlterZwerg]

Since we have veered way off topic, I will add a few observations.

One, is the VTT communities. To me, this is a very important factor (organizational culture change is part of what I have done for work).
Roll20 community I think is improving, but it came from about the lowest place any community could be. If you don't know what I'm referring to, see the u/nolant incident. That was simple a symptom of the Roll20 community and its toxicity.
Then let's compare the Foundry and FG communities, since it was brought up in this thread by Weissroff himself, take him as an example of the tolerance the FG community has that the FVTT community obviously does not. I would rather be part of the tolerant community. (And, the FG community has a lot of other very positive attributes).

Second is about supporting the RPG creators. Yes this touches upon distribution. Some might consider the distribution discussion in terms of consumer friendliness. But I look at it in terms of treating creators fairly. We (gamers) are not entitled to much of anything. And we certainly are not entitled to "free" gaming content either. If someone can not or does not want to pay for RPG gaming content, their is more legally and intentionally free content than they could ever play in their life time already available. They are not also entitled to "free" or consumer friendly content that is/was not intended by its creator to be such.

You all do know that many of the biggest / most well known names in the RPG creator world are not rich. Most are barely getting by or have other jobs. As an example, how many times are their GoFundMe to help one of them with medical bills? Legal or not, many of these distribution approaches are taking money away from those creators. We also all (?) know that being a RPG creator is often considered a poor or bad career choice, because you can't make money at it (mostly, exceptions like Critical Role are exceptions!). All because gamers are so reluctant to pay for the content they want to use, regardless of how they wish to justify it.

This!
I´m at a certain point in my life where i can afford my hobbies. I no longer need to trade tapes or floppy disks at school to get the newest games or music.
I even buy records twice now to get the vinyl in a different colour... (yes, vinyl!)
Especially when it comes to PF2 i really don´t get the argument about "being charged twice"
Right now "Mwangi Expanse" is on sale for 39.99 $. With the bundle i can get it for 33.99 $ while the pdf from Paizo comes for 34.99 $ - which i get for free when i buy the module on FG or i´ll get a discount for owning the pdf already.
No brainer from my point of view.

I own a Foundry license as well as FGU Ultimate and i very much prefer FGU for running my games.
As a player Foundry is certainly more accessible. No client, no registration - click on the link and you´re done.
For managing my campaigns as a GM i find Foundry lacking in many ways.
Is FGU as pretty and shiny as Foundry? No - but it´s reliable and get´s the job done without me having to fiddle through hundreds of modules to add basic stuff and praying that whoever wrote those is keeping them up to date with the newest build.
The community on FG is very helpful and not consistently praising the many merits of it´s favourite new toy like the community over at Foundry VTT which is doing this with an almost religious fervour i find annoying.

What i´d wish for is that SW would be a bit more open in what they´re working on or what´s next on the wishlist that get´s attention.
Take the "ping" for example. A simple, helpful feature that my players been nagging me about for years now...
I get that SW does not have enough staff to tackle everything that everyone wants at once - but a little glimpse at the roadmap here and there would be nice.

[similarly]

This!
I´m at a certain point in my life where i can afford my hobbies. I no longer need to trade tapes or floppy disks at school to get the newest games or music.
I even buy records twice now to get the vinyl in a different colour... (yes, vinyl!)
Especially when it comes to PF2 i really don´t get the argument about "being charged twice"
Right now "Mwangi Expanse" is on sale for 39.99 $. With the bundle i can get it for 33.99 $ while the pdf from Paizo comes for 34.99 $ - which i get for free when i buy the module on FG or i´ll get a discount for owning the pdf already.
No brainer from my point of view.

I own a Foundry license as well as FGU Ultimate and i very much prefer FGU for running my games.
As a player Foundry is certainly more accessible. No client, no registration - click on the link and you´re done.
For managing my campaigns as a GM i find Foundry lacking in many ways.
Is FGU as pretty and shiny as Foundry? No - but it´s reliable and get´s the job done without me having to fiddle through hundreds of modules to add basic stuff and praying that whoever wrote those is keeping them up to date with the newest build.
The community on FG is very helpful and not consistently praising the many merits of it´s favourite new toy like the community over at Foundry VTT which is doing this with an almost religious fervour i find annoying.

What i´d wish for is that SW would be a bit more open in what they´re working on or what´s next on the wishlist that get´s attention.
Take the "ping" for example. A simple, helpful feature that my players been nagging me about for years now...
I get that SW does not have enough staff to tackle everything that everyone wants at once - but a little glimpse at the roadmap here and there would be nice.

I'm the same. I'm fortunate to have money for my hobbies, and having designed games (on a completely amateur basis) I have a LOT of respect for people who design game systems. I realize that many people distribute rules for free on the idea that copyright doesn't cover the rules, but I hope that people will support the creators of those rules. It takes a LOT of time, energy and thought to create a balanced rule system, even before getting into the "content".

I also prefer FGU as a GM. I realize some of my players are sometimes intimidated, but I have to admit: the interface is steadily improving. I really, really like the recent direction it's going.

I also agree that I'd LOVE to know what's next in the pipeline, but I suspect SW simply doesn't want to get people's hopes up. It's so easy to say "Yeah! We'll do that! We're almost there!" and then hit some unforeseen snag or snafu that takes ages to unravel. They'd rather present something that's finished and working rather than announce something and then delay-delay-delay, or worse, shove things out the door that aren't ready.

I've recently preordered 4 video games in the last year, and three were delayed, two of them for over six months! One of them was offered for pre-order so early that it will literally be a year from the time I pre-ordered until it will be delivered.

So I understand SW wanting to play it conservatively. I respect that. Sometimes things take longer than expected.

[HywelPhillips]

I also agree that I'd LOVE to know what's next in the pipeline, but I suspect SW simply doesn't want to get people's hopes up. It's so easy to say "Yeah! We'll do that! We're almost there!" and then hit some unforeseen snag or snafu that takes ages to unravel. They'd rather present something that's finished and working rather than announce something and then delay-delay-delay, or worse, shove things out the door that aren't ready.

I've recently preordered 4 video games in the last year, and three were delayed, two of them for over six months! One of them was offered for pre-order so early that it will literally be a year from the time I pre-ordered until it will be delivered.

So I understand SW wanting to play it conservatively. I respect that. Sometimes things take longer than expected.

Absolutely. I also would LOVE to know what's coming next or what's being worked on. The IdeaInformer suggestions are soooo cool and I would love to see some of them implemented.

BUT... speaking as a photographer and videographer who has been making a living selling my own content now for 20+ years... I have a firm policy of never announcing things until the footage is in the can, back at home on my computer. And ideally not until it is 100% ready for release. I'm reluctant to even show hints of framegrabs or behind-the-scenes because I know some of the photosets or films may not emerge for years. All sorts of slip 'twixt editing and colour grading and fixing sound problems and needing to keep a reasonable variety in what I release.

So unless my performers are all over their social media saying what we did I don't say anything at all about what I am working on until the films are edited, graded, uploaded to all the sales platforms and scheduled to automatically release on a synchronised date and time.

I hate not delivering on what I promise or tempting people with something I know may not get released for 18 months or more.

So I respect SmiteWorks' stance, while sharing the frustration that it would be nice to know that cool stuff is coming.

Right now I get the impression that the team is refactoring, tidying up code, streamlining across rulesets, and hunting performance issues.

I hope we'll get some sexy new features soon too but I appreciate the need to solidify the platform after the huge push to get FGU, lighting and so forth out of the door.

Cheers, Hywel

[Jiminimonka]

Absolutely. I also would LOVE to know what's coming next or what's being worked on. The IdeaInformer suggestions are soooo cool and I would love to see some of them implemented.

BUT... speaking as a photographer and videographer who has been making a living selling my own content now for 20+ years... I have a firm policy of never announcing things until the footage is in the can, back at home on my computer. And ideally not until it is 100% ready for release. I'm reluctant to even show hints of framegrabs or behind-the-scenes because I know some of the photosets or films may not emerge for years. All sorts of slip 'twixt editing and colour grading and fixing sound problems and needing to keep a reasonable variety in what I release.

So unless my performers are all over their social media saying what we did I don't say anything at all about what I am working on until the films are edited, graded, uploaded to all the sales platforms and scheduled to automatically release on a synchronised date and time.

I hate not delivering on what I promise or tempting people with something I know may not get released for 18 months or more.

So I respect SmiteWorks' stance, while sharing the frustration that it would be nice to know that cool stuff is coming.

Right now I get the impression that the team is refactoring, tidying up code, streamlining across rulesets, and hunting performance issues.

I hope we'll get some sexy new features soon too but I appreciate the need to solidify the platform after the huge push to get FGU, lighting and so forth out of the door.

Cheers, Hywel

Dice skins are definitely being worked on.

[DM_BK]

I keep coming back to Foundry every few months to gauge if I can possibly run a game on it. This week I put more effort into it then I ever had before, 3 days and I can almost get to a point where I feel like the game will not be slowed down (play speed wise) by using Foundry. Of course, that took 20 modules to get to this place. But the combat tracker is still not where I need it at....I think a few more modules will get it really close though.

The WHY I keep looking at Foundry is most critical here. Aside from a number of graphical flourishes that I really truly do love...it's the FGU lack of any form of mobile/web support that continues to drive me in the Foundry direction after 10-15 years of FG use (it's been a long time, unsure how long). Seemingly no way to get to mobile support and no indication that there is any desire to get there. I don't feel like FG can survive lacking this feature when its commonplace in all of the competing solutions.

I still use and appreciate FGU but I do see a future day where that isn't going to be the case and that might not be that far off.

[EllivasKram]

I’m just not understanding the push for web based access to FGU interface. It just works for me. I DM on a reasonably priced gaming laptop. My player use low power old laptops and or desktops and even a Mac. With the use of /VSYNC and /imagequality they all work without issues.

The only thing I have a wish for is screen real estate. Using different sized second screen it’s impossible to stretch across screens. I would say if a second screen was supported in the FGU engine then these issues would be addressed.

The thing with FGU is that is just works.

[Weissrolf]

That is nice anectodal evidence, here is ours:

- One player could not create an account, the system wouldn't let him use what he tried. So in the end he created an account akin to something like "sdfisudsjvsdoifb", that worked. No need to create accounts with Foundry.

- One player could not install the client, the installer refused to download further data. Turns out that his carrier's use of DSlite (IPv4 over IPv6) caused the Windows default MTU size of 1500 to be too large. So as quick workaround he used his mobile phone connection for the download and as long term solution I showed him how to lower the MTU size used by Windows (via command shell). No need to install client software with Foundry.

- One of my players' computer cannot meet the minimum spec requirements of FGU, especially concerning memory. As a result he stopped using Chrome for Discord chat and now runs Discord on his phone to save memory on the PC. FGU's large memory requirements makes using potato computers harder. Foundry/Chrome seems to need (much) less memory compared to FGU.

- One of my players (second group using Foundry) was not able to use his desktop PC for the very first session. So he connected to Foundry via Firepad tablet instead, with me installing a module for easier finger-tap controls. This is not possible with FGU.

- At my summer vacation location we have an abysmally bad internet connection. Running the FGU server on my laptop over that connection does not work, because any connection loss leads to all players being thrown out. Instead I run the server on my home desktop PC and have everyone connect to that. But because FGU does not allow a GM to remotely connect to the server (as GM) I have to use a remote control software instead, which means that all graphic output of my desktop PC has to be transferred over the bad internet connection (on top of voice chat). With the web based solution I can just connect to the server as GM via browser (plus local cache) and thus decrease bandwidth demands to a minimum.

[Jiminimonka]

I’m just not understanding the push for web based access to FGU interface. It just works for me. I DM on a reasonably priced gaming laptop. My player use low power old laptops and or desktops and even a Mac. With the use of /VSYNC and /imagequality they all work without issues.

The only thing I have a wish for is screen real estate. Using different sized second screen it’s impossible to stretch across screens. I would say if a second screen was supported in the FGU engine then these issues would be addressed.

The thing with FGU is that is just works.

Yep. Unfortunately Carl Sagans fears about humanity have come true and this Installing software thing is hard for some people.