Random Generator Tables not working yet?

[Talyn]

We're freelancers on a contract.

[Doswelk]

Yeah, that's part of the issue I was seeing.
...
NOW, that being said, there is a way around it, but it's ugly.
...
So instead of 4 tables to get my result, it'd be more like 12 in the end.
...
If you're serious about getting Rippers set up, try that.

The problem with that is that table 12 of the science fiction companion (World Builder) would need to have nine versions!

From a automatic rolling tables perspective it would work BUT all nine tables will appear in tables list in FG, that would be really messy and look a bit crap in my opinion.

Not trying to pour scorn upon you work-around, just hoping that Moon Wizard will add functionality to FG instead

[damned]

I'm also a bit sad about ETU's support.

I'm coming into FG from Realm Works, where, after a huge blowout with their lead dev about business practices, I decided to put my money elsewhere (I was putting in data as a contractor, and Lone Wolf was being... unreasonable and... rude to my 3PP client, so I bailed on their product).

In my previous experience in Realm Works, I could put in Degrees of Horror in about 3 hours or so, maybe 4 if I wanted to get funky fresh. But using FG that same process would take.... longer... A lot longer...

I LOVED the price point for ETU, all those 1-sheets + rules + archetypes! Great deal. But I was hoping to see Degrees of Horror converted or Class Ring, or even the newer 1 sheets.

But nothing in the last few years, so I'm not holding my breath on support/updates for that.

Which makes me cry even harder if they don't convert Savage Rifts. My Degrees of Horror campaign will end in a Rift experience (spoiler, it makes sense with the end of that story), and I was planning on straight up continuing their game into Rifts Earth.

So, maybe it'll get converted?

When was the last SW ruleset released? I know v.4 came out last month for the Ruleset, but a whole PAK file type update.

This is one of the downfalls of an every improving platform.
Sometimes it breaks products outright - but SW will usually fix those if the Dev cant.
But going back and adding in all the new features can be a lot of work for little reward.

If you made a list of those features you really felt were sorely lacking it might get attention.

[Talyn]

From a automatic rolling tables perspective it would work BUT all nine tables will appear in tables list in FG, that would be really messy and look a bit crap in my opinion.

I have that exact same opinion, which is why I hide those tables from the campaign sidebar if it's going to be an issue. You can still link to them for auto-rolls but it sure cuts down on the mess.

[Topdecker]

But using FG that same process would take.... longer... A lot longer....

I also have and use Realm Works. Why does it take longer?

I ask because I haven't noticed a lot of difference. I mean, yeah, if I build a bunch of live encounters as to include entering NPC data, I will spend more time in FG. But if I am just placing background/setting info, I tend to spend more time in Realm Works because it can be organized to a greater degree.

[Doswelk]

I have that exact same opinion, which is why I hide those tables from the campaign sidebar if it's going to be an issue. You can still link to them for auto-rolls but it sure cuts down on the mess.

ooh!

How do i hide them from the sidebar?

[Talyn]

ooh!

How do i hide them from the sidebar?

Instead of putting the ones I don't want in the sidebar into <tables> I might do <hidden_tables> or something similar. Or I want to hide multiple data types, I might do something like:

<hidden>
     <tables> ... </tables>
     <images> ... </images>
     <encounter> ... </encounter>
</hidden>

Or for that matter, I may use a totally different node name like <autorolls> instead of <tables> or <artwork> instead of <images> since JPG has recently been telling FG to fill those sidebars with stuff people had previously tucked out of the way on purpose.

[JohnD]

Speaking purely as a customer, I expect advances in the software functionality to work their way into existing products. Perhaps not immediately, but eventually, especially when questions like this thread arise.

Otherwise you're looking at a very uneven experience as a user. If this isn't going to happen, there should be a disclaimer on the product page to indicate "not full featured" or something like that. If you're still paying the full price it's reasonable to expect the full package.

[Talyn]

And yet you're a C&C GM so you're already well-aware that stuff gets released which maybe or maybe not uses all the "new shinies" at the time then that developer moves on to other stuff (or leaves the FG community period) meanwhile features get added to the FG client. A huge chunk of the C&C stuff right now is from 2009, pre-SmiteWorks. As far as I've been told, I'm the only idiot who's come in and said "hey, this old stuff is old, mind if I remaster it?" Which I had to kinda sell that idea because while SmiteWorks absolutely wants all the DLC to be relevant, it's new DLC that gets new customers and keeps existing ones, not remastering old DLC for free. And even then... I'm making stuff for 3.2 (now 3.3 apparently) so when 4.0 comes out if it has all-new features, am I going to go back and add in new stuff? Probably not, but maybe, it just depends. But that's me: I'll at least leave that option on the table. Other community devs may not, as we've seen.

[JohnD]

Yeah, and I've voiced my disappointment in general with the state of some of what I paid for. If updating products isn't in the plan, the prices should go down after a while. I don't have to tell anyone what it's like to open a product and find your maps aren't optimised for VTT use, or NPCs are incomplete, or items aren't present or functional... you've seen the need yourself.

Anyways, I've already spent my $1000+ US on FG products so perhaps I'm contrasting and comparing with a wider frame of reference than the average user.