Re-working the Combat Tracker

[Ken L]

So there I was thinking, after setting up my Coriolis game what it would be like to simply drop tokens on the map, then group select them to add them to the tracker. Currently we all do the juggle to add from the NPC window to the CT then from the CT to the map. A triple action that quite frankly, should not be needed. For prepared encounters, we simply just add them via the encounter but there's always the burning knowledge that we don't remember where the tokens were for the prepared encounter, and upon adding them , we re-position any baddies to where they should be.

For my campaign, I run fluid games where improvisation is paramount and I've so far made due with a 'canvas' map to draw on in addition to several prepared generic maps. The new Unity drawing tools and tiles will make that easier, but the CT dance will remain the same. Hence forth, I'm debating about re-working the CoreRPG CT to allow adding of any graphic to the tracker. There are a few hurdles such as the poor group select mechanic involving shift clicking as opposed to box draw, but if Unity adds group select, that should be resolved.

I can't be the only one who wished there was a simple drag (npc)->drop->add to tracker mechanic.

[Andraax]

Why is it more difficult to "add to tracker, then drop on map" then "add to map, then drop on tracker"?

After all, once you've dropped them all onto the tracker, you can add them to map all at once by dragging the little "red face" from the CT onto the map - it will drop all the "enemy" NPCs onto the map at once.

[Ken L]

It's to keep the map persistent. I can place all my baddies on the map and move them from invisible->visible as my group encounters them. Coriolis/ShadowRun tend to be more encounter oriented, but when I'm running off the cuff It's mostly just a white canvas and some quick low detail sketched environs. This is more relevant to larger map based games where encounters aren't clear cut, and NPCs can wander. Perhaps the security patrol on the second floor might go down to investigate the engine room, but with only the mystic and Adreic-technician; that would require me to open up the encounters and cookie cut them if I prepared them as opposed to simply dragging it from A to B then group selecting the tokens to add them to the tracker.

Either way it's quite doable, I'll probably block it out when Unity rolls out if not for my own uses.

To precisely answer your question, on maptool/r20/d20pro, I commonly dragged out creatures I won't use but are nearby and place them in their respective rooms. They are combats that 'might' happen but aren't guaranteed. That way I usually only need to select them and add them as opposed to the full 3 step process. Throwing back to the encounter, it stipulates that the enemies will always be in those set formations, if they don't, the setup encounters become cumbersome; not to mention as I did earlier that you might have forgotten where their default placement is. More uses are passive checks where I can roll by double clicking the token to get their statistics as opposed to having that sheet ready or constantly looking them up on the NPC list, or opening encounters to figure out "who's in that room again?". Group select everything in that room and perform a multi-listen test; done.

[LordEntrails]

Yea, it's a different flow.

For your rooms example, I just put pins on the maps for each room, and that pin links to either an encounter, story (preferred if it's pre-set) or even just the generic NPC record. Then I can add to the CT and map when I want to from the link.

I see the value in the way you are used to doing it, we just can't do it that way in FG.

[Andraax]

When I'm doing an "impromptu" combat, I pick the NPCs off the NPC list, drag them directly to the CT. Once I've put all of them in the CT, I drag the little "red face" to somewhere near the party and it puts all the bad guys on the map near where I dropped the face. At this time, I arrange the tokens on the map. I click the "visibility" icon, and they all show up. I don't see how it's any more work than doing a similar activity with the way you described.

If you're adding 5 bad guys, the way it currently works is drag 5 NPCs to the CT, then drag the red face to the map, then arrange the tokens and make visible.

Your way is drag 5 NPCs to the map, arrange the tokens, select and drag them to the CT, make visible.

Actually, depending on the encounter, your way could be more work - if the NPCs are in more than one group, selecting them all at once might not be possible and you might have to do the "drag to CT" more than once. When you drag and drop the "red face", it automatically selects *all* enemy NPCs in the CT and drops them at once.

[celestian]

I think I have similar issues with the CT. I came from Maptools. In maptools I would have the map and place all the NPC tokens on it. As the players encountered them I'd make them visible. It makes it MUCH easier to remember if the party has already encountered the group if they are not there and/or marked dead.

Unfortunately without using some extension you can't have layers and move the corpses so they don't interfere with other token movement/selection. There is also no way that I know of to drop tokens on the map and then add them to the CT. I could just add them ALL to the CT and have them invisible but... that's a bit cumbersome to say the least.

If there was a way to add tokens on a map to a CT that would probably get me what I wanted.

Right now I do as others have mentioned, pin to a room description then link to an encounter.

[Bidmaron]

Out of all this discussion (even celestial's most recent - I still don't see what is cumbersome about the alternative he mentions - even if it were, simply drop a 'Room defeated' token in the room - easier than marking a bunch of tokens dead anyway), what I hear is basically FG doesn't do it like Maptools or Roll20. So what?

While I agree having the drag-to-map alternative would make the transition easier for folks coming here, there are a lot of much better features the limited development talent needs to be working on. After all, it is the things FG does that the other programs don't that get them here in the first place.

Doing what you guys want is a huge change (and celestian, with all the work you've done, you should appreciate that) in several files to handle the drag differences, to change the map data architecture to store the information that is now placed in the CT. And it would bloat data files, since redundant information would now be in three separate places (wherever it was originally, the CT, and the map), or you'd have to put in logic to eliminate the data on the map once the user dragged it to the CT. And what if the user forgot? We'd be answering a host of 'Hey, I can see my monsters on the map, but they are not in the combat tracker' questions.

This is not MapTools. This is not Roll20.

[Ken L]

While I agree having the drag-to-map alternative would make the transition easier for folks coming here, there are a lot of much better features the limited development talent needs to be working on.

I kinda mentioned that I'd do this myself as an extension or ruleset overhaul after Unity. It came about during development of another extension related to the tracker.

This is not MapTools. This is not Roll20.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that there are good ideas out there. Removing the 'like platform X' you can say that we're looking for map persistence.

I can look at a map I prepared a week ago and see I have 4 goblins with a few ogre mages next to a room full of kobolds around a cooking fire as opposed to two rooms with pins, one of them a cook fire. This would require me to look in the pinned encounter to remember 'ah ha, that's what's in there', and if I wished to mix the rooms during the session due to player events i'd have to open the pins and change the encounters rather than just drag hidden tokens between the two rooms. Also it makes accessing non-combat skill checks easier, such as perception for the exampled system if say a rogue is trying to stealth.

[celestian]

Yes, but it doesn't mean that there are good ideas out there. Removing the 'like platform X' you can say that we're looking for map persistence.

I can look at a map I prepared a week ago and see I have 4 goblins with a few ogre mages next to a room full of kobolds around a cooking fire as opposed to two rooms with pins, one of them a cook fire. This would require me to look in the pinned encounter to remember 'ah ha, that's what's in there', and if I wished to mix the rooms during the session due to player events i'd have to open the pins and change the encounters rather than just drag hidden tokens between the two rooms. Also it makes accessing non-combat skill checks easier, such as perception for the exampled system if say a rogue is trying to stealth.

It also makes it easier (for me) to see that if room A has a loud combat that I know the room B nearby with the other group of orcs will probably come running. Otherwise I'd have to look at every pin (assuming I don't remember what is where).

This has nothing to do with "This is not Maptools or roll20" it has everything to do with a user friendly interface.

[LordEntrails]

I like the idea of knowing if a group of foes have been defeated or not. For me this would be simple to track by having a "Defeated" toggle or check mark on the encounter itself. See; https://fg2app.idea.informer.com/proj/fg2app?ia=112140