Going back to basics (my brainstorming)

[Rumble]

Minimum features to know in order to host a game:

* How to create or import a map
* how to start a server
* how to chat

Other features (you are not required to know or use these features, but they may enhance your game play experience.):
* Light
* Vision Blocking
* Simple dice rolling
* Simple macros
* Templates

Complex features (things you should attempt only once you are comfortable with all of the above):
* Intermediate macros
* Complex macros and automation

Well, save for "how to chat," the first two are done on the wiki. Overall, I think this is a good approach. It's really kind of how I went about it when I learned to use MapTool - start with a shared map and some tokens, then mess around with light and dice rolling. I never use templates, but I know how to use them (I tried 'em, said, "ah, okay, cool" but we dont' use them).

Then it was on to macros and I never looked back.

[jfrazierjr]

I know for myself.. I'd like to know how to do everything in the first section, and vision blocking and light control. Possibly also everything else in the middle section.

Vision Blocking and Light control is something I actually find difficult on a real battlemat. That might sound odd, but I usually plot out the whole map (because I work in construction estimating and have access to a plotter, and I have a friend who works nights in advertising for a large city newspaper).

I can't speak for everyone of course, but since I have been playing RPG's for around 25 years, I expect most people start off looking for a map that can be shared, and that's the primary intent of Maptool. Just looking back at my past experience, I only started playing with mini's and a battle mat in the past 3 years( did not play from 1999 - 2005). Those who are new to RPGing or have not played games that "require" mini's will really not have a concept of light and it won't be critical for them. Back in the day, the DM described a room and the players mapped it on grid paper or on a scrap piece of paper and range was "DM, am I close enough to hit so and so with my long sword". The effects of light and such was based on the DM's verbal cues and there was no visual representation, which is rather hard today on a battlemap. That's why I suggested leaving light and VBL out, not to mention that while they are not super complex topics, they are really not required to play a game, nice yes, but required ... no. Especially when the idea is to keep Maptool from seeming like you need a PHd to use, the less learning to get a game actually started, the better IMO

[Azhrei]

There actually is a link on the main web site to the FAQ. It's on this page.

That page is the Documentation page for MapTool. (Although I noticed that the breadcrumbs on the left look terrible; I'll have to look into that.)

[Paradox]

I'm not going to argue with you, Azhrei. There are links on the main page.

I found another one on this page

Call me crazy, but I think in both instances those links are hard to find. I knew there was a Wiki, but I had to hunt. Sorry. That's my opinion, which may or may not have any value (I won't be offended if it doesn't).

Likewise in both instances, the Wiki is described as a Macro Creation Wiki. I assume/believe that was the original intent. However, thanks to the new stuff being added (thanks to Rumble and zEal) , that isn't it's sole purpose any longer.

I think it's worthwhile to consider expanding the Wiki beyond the original intent. There appears to be some talented folks who are keeping it organized, which should steer people to the level of instruction that they require.

[Rumble]

There actually is a link on the main web site to the FAQ. It's on this page.

That page is the Documentation page for MapTool. (Although I noticed that the breadcrumbs on the left look terrible; I'll have to look into that.)

I would recommend that, since the wiki is becoming more than just macro coding, the wording in the paragraph be changed to reflect that it's not just a macro coding wiki anymore. You don't have to treat it like it's "official documentation" (though I suppose it may end up that way some day) but it does have some basic "Here's what you do to get MapTool going" guides.

[Paradox]

I can't speak for everyone of course, but since I have been playing RPG's for around 25 years, I expect most people start off looking for a map that can be shared, and that's the primary intent of Maptool. Just looking back at my past experience, I only started playing with mini's and a battle mat in the past 3 years( did not play from 1999 - 2005). Those who are new to RPGing or have not played games that "require" mini's will really not have a concept of light and it won't be critical for them. Back in the day, the DM described a room and the players mapped it on grid paper or on a scrap piece of paper and range was "DM, am I close enough to hit so and so with my long sword". The effects of light and such was based on the DM's verbal cues and there was no visual representation, which is rather hard today on a battlemap. That's why I suggested leaving light and VBL out, not to mention that while they are not super complex topics, they are really not required to play a game, nice yes, but required ... no. Especially when the idea is to keep Maptool from seeming like you need a PHd to use, the less learning to get a game actually started, the better IMO

I am an old guy myself. I started around 1979 to '80 till anout 1992 and stopped playing diced systems until September 2007 (I worked with freeform and Amber Diceless for many years however). Just in time to see 3.5 start to become obsoleted, though my costs have been fairly modest compared to some.

Your post was interesting, because I remember those days. 3.5 came as a bit of a shock, but I enjoyed how some things that were subject to interpretation in the old days, now at least had some structure if you wanted.

When I returned to the hobby, everybody had battlemats and miniatures for me to use... and like Buck Rodgers being unfrozen in the 25th Century, I have adapted to the times.

I guess I just reckon if we're going to have a fancy battlemat and an iconic representation of the PC, we out to actually measure out the light. Perhaps that is a step backwards from descriptive narrative..

But when in Rome...

[jfrazierjr]

Your post was interesting, because I remember those days. 3.5 came as a bit of a shock, but I enjoyed how some things that were subject to interpretation in the old days, now at least had some structure if you wanted.

When I returned to the hobby, everybody had battlemats and miniatures for me to use... and like Buck Rodgers being unfrozen in the 25th Century, I have adapted to the times.

I guess I just reckon if we're going to have a fancy battlemat and an iconic representation of the PC, we out to actually measure out the light. Perhaps that is a step backwards from descriptive narrative..

Oh... I don't disagree, I use lights and VBL and macros up the wazoo... but based on your previous posts in the other thread(which I may have misunderstood!) as well as some reviews, and comments on other boards which seem to indicate that Maptool is for techies only, I would say our goal should be to get down to the simplest elements and introduce new people to concepts slowly so they don't feel overwhelmed, and while light and vision are critical for my game, they are not required to run "a" game just like they would not be on a real table top(which you can fake some of these features, but not 100%).

I look at Maptool, and it just kind of makes sense, but some people who may not be very computer literate may get overwhelmed with all the features and think its to complex and I want us as a community to try to mitigate that. I originally looked at GIMP (since it was free!) and thought "this is to complex" and ended up buying another software package that is symbol based to do my mapping(which is a fine program). After a while, I found that I had some needs it was not meeting and gave GIMP a try again and slowly but surely, I learned GIMP and rarely ever touch that other application any more. And this is from a techie who programs for a living.

I think it boils down to many people skim feature lists and don't really "read" all of them and the long the feature list is, the less people read the whole thing. To me, I think the less we give someone to learn to be able to start up a game the better as there are many people who seem to see 50 features and feel that they would have to understand every single feature to be able to use Maptool and that's sad. BTW, I believe Maptool is the only VTT that does Vision blocking, so it's not like an industry standard thing...

[Azhrei]

Likewise in both instances, the Wiki is described as a Macro Creation Wiki. I assume/believe that was the original intent. However, thanks to the new stuff being added (thanks to Rumble and zEal) , that isn't it's sole purpose any longer.

Yes, I agree with you; I'll use Google to locate other links to the wiki and make sure that they each become general pointers to the wiki rather than macro-specific pointers.

Thanks.

[Paradox]

I look at Maptool, and it just kind of makes sense, but some people who may not be very computer literate may get overwhelmed with all the features and think its to complex and I want us as a community to try to mitigate that.

And I just wanted to insert here just how commendable that goal is. This is a great community. With all the active threads going on this board, there has only one been that has any hint of contention.. and ironically that thread had nothing to do with VTTs.

If 1.4 really makes MapTool as accessible as Trevor would like it to be, and perception of complexity can be mitigated.. this community has the opportunity to do something absolutely amazing.

That is, if one of the most superior VTTs on the market is also a free one, RpTools will be defining this niche. WOTC and other companies will have to exceed the benchmark that MapTools will set. I realize that is not the goal here, but rather to make the best VTT possible, but gosh what a wonderful side-effect.

And part and parcel to that is making what you have done accessible. But you know that..

I originally looked at GIMP (since it was free!) and thought "this is to complex" and ended up buying another software package that is symbol based to do my mapping(which is a fine program). After a while, I found that I had some needs it was not meeting and gave GIMP a try again and slowly but surely, I learned GIMP and rarely ever touch that other application any more. And this is from a techie who programs for a living.

That is where I'm at. I'll admit it, Fantasy Grounds looks tempting sometimes. But it's not cheap, and I have not in good conscience seriously tried to use MapTools. So I read your words and take them as a good reminder not to give in, just because the alternative might be 'easier'.

I think it boils down to many people skim feature lists and don't really "read" all of them and the longer the feature list is, the less people read the whole thing. To me, I think the less we give someone to learn to be able to start up a game the better as there are many people who seem to see 50 features and feel that they would have to understand every single feature to be able to use Maptool and that's sad.

There is some solid wisdom there.

That is how I feel sometimes. That if I can't use someone's campaign framework right out of the box, then MapTools is too much. Part of the dialogue we're having is not me arguing with the community about how hard it is, but getting you guys to tell me that I'm going about this the wrong way.

And I'm listening.

I've decided that I'll just try the to use the mapping functions. I'd like to incorporate Vision Blocking and Lighting if I can. I'll use another piece of software to manage the encounters, initiative, and "macroey stuff." Given time, I'll eliminate that other piece of software and do it all with MapTools. That's my tenative plan anyway.

BTW, I believe Maptool is the only VTT that does Vision blocking, so it's not like an industry standard thing...

Pygon of Paizo has one.. TTopRPG

Find it here.

I believe Trevor knows about it. I have seen him post a question to Pygon about it over at the Paizo community. I am investing my time in MapTools for the first go around because it is so strongly supported. However Pygon appears to be quite active with his project.

[Paradox]

Yes, I agree with you; I'll use Google to locate other links to the wiki and make sure that they each become general pointers to the wiki rather than macro-specific pointers.

Thanks.

You're welcome, I didn't mean to sound contentious.

[Azhrei]

I think it boils down to many people skim feature lists and don't really "read" all of them and the long the feature list is, the less people read the whole thing.

Wow. This hit me like a ton of bricks for some reason. I mean, I certainly understand the sentiment and agree with it in many cases, but somehow you have to tell the (potential) users what's available!

Perhaps the wiki gurus can tell me if this next idea is possible. Basically, what I would like to see is a tree structure on the front page of the wiki. It would work the way directories and folders work in many file managers, in which a directory has a little plus sign next to it and the nodes beneath are files or yet more directories.

Can the wiki be organized that way? If so, a list of top-level features could be specified, with sub-features under each one. Some sub-features might appear in multiple places. But now the visitor to the wiki could quickly hone in on a particular topic. One of my problems with wikis in general is how easily and quickly one can become lost!

Sample tree structure:

* MapTool as an electronic battlemat
** Using a pre-drawn map
*** Choosing a grid size prior to creating the map
*** Importing the map to the Background layer
*** Correcting any discrepancies between grid size and map scale
** Drawing your encounter map directly within MapTool
*** Choosing a background texture for the map
*** Using tilesets to create a map
*** Drawing on a map using solid colors and/or textures
** Building a map on the fly
* Letting MapTool determine lighting and visibility
** Placing lights on your map
** How vision interacts with lighting
*** Defining vision characteristics
*** Assigning vision types to tokens
** How vision affects the fog-of-war
*** Differences between NPC and PC vision
* Automating your MapTool encounter
(yada, yada, yada)

Notice how a new user would see three collapsed top-level folders? They wouldn't be overwhelmed by that! So they expand the first one and lo and behold! they find out all about how to create maps within MapTool.

What do you guys think? Doable?

[jfrazierjr]

BTW, I believe Maptool is the only VTT that does Vision blocking, so it's not like an industry standard thing...

Pygon of Paizo has one.. TTopRPG

Find it here.

I believe Trevor knows about it. I have seen him post a question to Pygon about it over at the Paizo community. I am investing my time in MapTools for the first go around because it is so strongly supported. However Pygon appears to be quite active with his project.

Neat. Did not know that. However, it is Windows only, which, while I have Windows, not everyone who might want to play does, so that program is DOA for lot's of GM's (as is WotC's Gametable IF it ever gets around). Granted, Mac can do emulators and Linux can set up WINE, but if someone has that much trouble just learning Maptool basics, setting up emulators will be a nightmare for them!

[jfrazierjr]

I think it boils down to many people skim feature lists and don't really "read" all of them and the long the feature list is, the less people read the whole thing.

Wow. This hit me like a ton of bricks for some reason. I mean, I certainly understand the sentiment and agree with it in many cases, but somehow you have to tell the (potential) users what's available!

Thats why I posted a suggested format earlier. At it's most simple, maptool is an application to share maps over networks so that people can play together even if they live all over the world. breaking it down into muliple levels (with the proper wording) will help people know what they have to do vs everything they can do as I get the impression that some people see a huge forest and look at the individual tress.

[zEal]

Can the wiki be organized that way? If so, a list of top-level features could be specified, with sub-features under each one. Some sub-features might appear in multiple places. But now the visitor to the wiki could quickly hone in on a particular topic. One of my problems with wikis in general is how easily and quickly one can become lost!

Yep, we've been slowly working towards that, with more diligent use of categories, and now with Craig's addition of the CategoryTree extension. http://lmwcs.com/rptools/wiki/Category:MapTool might give you a rough idea of how it works, but I might not be understanding what you're envisioning. Once it becomes filled out enough, it's also possible to embed the CategoryTree in the sidebar.

[Rumble]

Thats why I posted a suggested format earlier. At it's most simple, maptool is an application to share maps over networks so that people can play together even if they live all over the world. breaking it down into muliple levels (with the proper wording) will help people know what they have to do vs everything they can do as I get the impression that some people see a huge forest and look at the individual tress.

The forest over the trees issue is key. Over on the Wizards of the Coast forums, there's a thread dedicated to MapTool. The first question was "What is MapTool?" I answered it with a raft of features, technogabble, and specific details that I thought were just cool as all hell.

Dorpond then came on and said, "MapTool is software for sharing gaming maps over the Internet and playing tabletop RPGs with your friends using a virtual map. Think of it as an electronic version of your D&D battlemat."

Forest <---> Trees.