FGU: The interface

[Metlore]

Yeah. I don’t pretend to know the inner workings as I’ve never dove into it so I trust you, but I don’t feel that makes my new user perspective inaccurate. It might be as simple as making a story entry that states “for this module, please use the reference manual” and vice versa. There are other ways to tackle these issues.

[Kazuto217]

Not sure if this is the right spot, but my players have been complaining about the change for quick opening the map their character is on. Used to be they could double click their character sheet token and it would open the map they were on. Now it opens a new window where they have to click another button.

This is in PF2e if that matters.

I did tell them they could do it through the combat tracker instead but they liked the old way more haha.

[LordEntrails]

Yeah. I don’t pretend to know the inner workings as I’ve never dove into it so I trust you, but I don’t feel that makes my new user perspective inaccurate. It might be as simple as making a story entry that states “for this module, please use the reference manual” and vice versa. There are other ways to tackle these issues.

I agree with you in that the new (and even old) user experience would be better if all modules for a ruleset behaved the same, and that when FG evolves for better functionality, those old (but supported) modules get updated. Unfortunately, some of the big differences are core to the architecture of FG and the modules. So to update the old modules to the new means that those modules would "break" in any campaigns that are currently running or other modules (homebrew) that use them. (note, many updates don't meaningfully affect old stuff, like the change in NPC spellcasting or the addition of damage thresholds, etc.)

The other side of this is resources, SmiteWorks has limited resources not only for developers, but module conversion as well. So it's a trade-off, a business decision. Do we update old stuff that does work as is, but would be nice to update, or do we convert totally new stuff and have that available instead?

I don't like the inconsistencies either, but I live with them because I understand the trade-offs. Would be nice though if we didn't have to though

[Metlore]

I agree with you in that the new (and even old) user experience would be better if all modules for a ruleset behaved the same, and that when FG evolves for better functionality, those old (but supported) modules get updated. Unfortunately, some of the big differences are core to the architecture of FG and the modules. So to update the old modules to the new means that those modules would "break" in any campaigns that are currently running or other modules (homebrew) that use them. (note, many updates don't meaningfully affect old stuff, like the change in NPC spellcasting or the addition of damage thresholds, etc.)

The other side of this is resources, SmiteWorks has limited resources not only for developers, but module conversion as well. So it's a trade-off, a business decision. Do we update old stuff that does work as is, but would be nice to update, or do we convert totally new stuff and have that available instead?

I don't like the inconsistencies either, but I live with them because I understand the trade-offs. Would be nice though if we didn't have to though

Yeah. It really depends on the user metrics and I'm sure Fantasy Grounds pays attention to those. I will admit though, the announcement of official D&D support for Foundry has me concerned. They were growing market share quickly even before the official partnership announcement. I think Fantasy Grounds is going to have to make some of these tough choices to stay competitive on a surface level. Consumers shop with their eyes first.

[LordEntrails]

Good discussion
Glad for Foumdry getting the license, but they have a ton of content to convert to catch up.
Doug, John and crew have been pretty good keeping FG on track as a business, I have faith they will keep doing so

[Metlore]

Good discussion
Glad for Foumdry getting the license, but they have a ton of content to convert to catch up.
Doug, John and crew have been pretty good keeping FG on track as a business, I have faith they will keep doing so

I agree. Everyone has good points and they're all because we care. I also appreciate the technical side of things being openly shared. I do think it's fairly normal in the programming industry where changes have to be rolled out that result in users having to redo their own content. I also appreciate trying to avoid that.

[Myrdin Potter]

As a community developer that has been at it for a while, there is not enough interest (which means sales) for me to go back and spend hours updating all the work I did on older variations of the system that work fine. When I started and reference manuals firstr showed up, you needed a special tool or the ability to write in XML. I had neither. As soon as the Author tool showed up, I created reference manuals but story entries were created first and all the map links and such used them (as was the norm now).

I could spend hours redoing all that work or I can convert new material. I choose to add new material, not redo old material.

[HywelPhillips]

...

I could spend hours redoing all that work or I can convert new material. I choose to add new material, not redo old material.

Speaking as a non-developer, the one time I tried to convert a module myself to FGU by hand left me with a great deal of respect for those who do it to a high enough standard for the rest of us to use! Thank you and all the community devs, your work was instrumental in getting me onto FGU and keeping me here.

I think it's great that Smiteworks and the community jointly maintain old material in a playable state, and I don't think it is reasonable to ask for support beyond the original material remaining usable, given that a lot of these products are done by community developers in their spare time.

Personally I'm fine with eg the shift from stories to reference manual. Sure, it's a bit less than ideal. But I'd really much rather community devs do spend all their time adding new material.

The only exception I'd suggest is for introductory material, or material with "heavy newbie footfall". It's worth keeping Dragon of Icespire Peak, Mines of Phandelver (and its recent expansion) up to the latest standards to aid with on-boarding new GM's because I'm willing to bet a large fraction of new FGU 5E GM's started with one of those to learn the platform, even if they'd previous run it offline. (I know I did).

Similarly starter scenarios and introductory boxed sets for other systems- if we know new Cthulhu GM's tend to start with (say) The Lightless Beacon, it might be worth revisiting that every so often to be kind to the newcomers.

And obviously if something stops working, it should be fixed.

Apart from that I think it's much better to have a constant exciting stream of new releases each week than to go back and prettify or reorganise old material. Makes FGU an exciting and active place to be.

Cheers, Hywel

[Zacchaeus]

Starter modules are usually the first to get updated when new stuff comes out. All the ones you mention are as modern as you can get; and in fact the LMoP successor module was one of the first to be built entirely with all the bells and whistles from scratch. And the update process continues with almost all of the modules being updated now to support forthcoming features.

So older modules, at least the ones that I’m in some way responsible for, are continually updated and improved.

[HywelPhillips]

Ah didn't mean to imply that this level of support WASN'T being done for starter sets, Zaccheus! I applaud and appreciate that they are kept very up to date, and I think that it is worth devoting the time and resources to continuing. Whereas I think older modules for minority systems can be left as-is unless stuff breaks, to prioritise making new material available.