Virtual Table Top (VTT) support

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by Gigermann

FWIW, I prefer Fantasy Grounds for a lot of reasons. But I am not exactly un-biased, as I am part of the team working on the FG ruleset, and have invested a lot of time into working with the software.

They should do both Roll20 and Fantasy Ground not one or the other.

What "support" means for a VTT is three things.

First and most important is a automated character sheet. You click a button next to skill/power/talent/etc and the software rolls and tells you the result with everything from the sheet correctly applied.

Second are miscellaneous utilities like rolling on a crit chart or a reaction roll result.

Third are rules references to be built into the game. For example a Dungeon Fantasy VTT module can have the stats for a Gargoyle popup.

For Fantasy Grounds this means mastering the custom XML setup they have for setting up ruleset.
For Roll20 this means mastering the HTML5/scripting setup they have.

FG is more complete because of the excellent work done on unofficial ruleset.
However Roll20 relies more on HTML5 industry standards compared to Fantasy Grounds. So more likely to find somebody who know HTML5, CSS, javascript, compared to FG XML coding. There even a github site for Roll20 character sheets including two unofficial GURPS sheets.

Overall Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds are in a dead heat. I prefer Roll20 because as a subscriber I find it more easily hackable for my campaigns. Plus its dynamic lighting, sound effects, and fog of war features are outstanding.

But I am not going to be upset if I had to use Fantasy Grounds.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

They should do both Roll20 and Fantasy Ground not one or the other.

I suspect the basic answer there is "when someone brings to us a compelling Roll20 demo, we'll give it a go. Brian and Daniel brought us a compelling FG demo, so we allowed for a next step."

Much like with most things, it's fan-driven or not done at all.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I suspect the basic answer there is "when someone brings to us a compelling Roll20 demo, we'll give it a go. Brian and Daniel brought us a compelling FG demo, so we allowed for a next step."

Much like with most things, it's fan-driven or not done at all.

Yeah, that is my feeling as well. Also its a lot easier to focus on fewer things than more things and this is a good test of the concept and value to the line.

[Ronnke]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I suspect the basic answer there is "when someone brings to us a compelling Roll20 demo, we'll give it a go. Brian and Daniel brought us a compelling FG demo, so we allowed for a next step."

Doug, you will also recall from the demo, Kromm did mention one of the strong points to FG was it was peer to peer. You didn't have to rely on another companies platform/server to play, which is something SJG had reservations about.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Ronnke

Doug, you will also recall from the demo, Kromm did mention one of the strong points to FG was it was peer to peer. You didn't have to rely on another companies platform/server to play, which is something SJG had reservations about.

That's one of the great strengths of RPTools. It's Peer-to-Peer with an optional directory service, but also because it's FOSS if they disappear in a puff of smoke one day, I can still send copies to new players, and rebuild against new JAVA versions.

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by Ronnke

Doug, you will also recall from the demo, Kromm did mention one of the strong points to FG was it was peer to peer. You didn't have to rely on another companies platform/server to play, which is something SJG had reservations about.

FG requires you to know how to do port forwarding on your router if you are going to referee a campaign. The peer to peer sounds great and all until it hits the reality of a myriad range of devices and technical skills.

But again I will stress that this one quirk out of many that both Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds have. Overall they are running neck to neck in the market.

And the issues of server based versus peer to paper are irrelevant as far as the business side goes. Both Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds function as digital stores for VTT addons like the OBS site does for PDF. The core VTT is just the center of an array of products both offer. If the VTT company goes under so does their store.

Granted Fantasy Grounds as a peer to peer tool can live on but the prime source of revenue and distribution will be gone if Smiteworks goes under. For FG it use as a VTT tool only lives on if you only purchased it outright and not as a subscription.

This a very different situation than it was five years ago when it was just the core VTTs and what fans made. These stores and the ability of third parties to make money are what driving Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds to pull far ahead of their other rivals. And unlike other segments of the industry both publish hard numbers of their user base.

Ultimately SJ Games will have to decide whether it worth getting GURPS into these stores.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I suspect the basic answer there is "when someone brings to us a compelling Roll20 demo, we'll give it a go. Brian and Daniel brought us a compelling FG demo, so we allowed for a next step."

Much like with most things, it's fan-driven or not done at all.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

[Gigermann]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

What "support" means for a VTT is three things.

First and most important is a automated character sheet. You click a button next to skill/power/talent/etc and the software rolls and tells you the result with everything from the sheet correctly applied.

Second are miscellaneous utilities like rolling on a crit chart or a reaction roll result.

Third are rules references to be built into the game. For example a Dungeon Fantasy VTT module can have the stats for a Gargoyle popup.

Well, FG+GURPS ruleset has the first two, and "official support" can result in the third, which is easy enough.

Originally Posted by robertsconley

So more likely to find somebody who know HTML5, CSS, javascript, compared to FG XML coding.

CSS-XML-Javascript are so often intertwined that you'll have a hard time finding someone who knows one but not all three. XML isn't the real issue. The real issue is Lua scripting (which the average user doesn't need to know anyway)—and someone who knows Javascript has a head-start already.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by robertsconley

For example a Dungeon Fantasy VTT module can have the stats for a Gargoyle popup.

Originally Posted by Gigermann

... and "official support" can result in the third, which is easy enough.

And even without the official support, the example of the Gargoyle isn't particularly hard to input by hand, which is where we're currently at. The biggest part for official support would be convenience vs time and will to do yourself.

Edit: And it's the convenience thing that's the #1 seller for official support.

[Calvin]

GCS can export to HTML, and I'm pretty sure it saves as XML. I'm currently working on a GCS import tool for Mote, since it can already handle HTML5. Basically you create your character in GCS, export to HTML, import that to Mote, and the JS makes that HTML sheet clickable. Or at least that's the theory. I might go right to the XML if I can manage it.

For those unfamiliar Mote is essentially Maptool but better, and they actually have proper JS support, unlike Maptool's pretend version of JS support. You also get HTML5 and CASE, instead of HTML3 with no CASH support.