WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Thoughts, Help, Feature Requests, Bug Reports, Developing code for...

Moderators: Azhrei, dorpond, trevor

Forum rules
PLEASE don't post images of your entire desktop, attach entire campaign files when only a single file is needed, or generally act in some other anti-social behavior. :)
User avatar
Natha
Dragon
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:37 am
Location: Limoges/Guéret, France
Contact:

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Natha »

Should'nt this post be moved to the General DIscussion or Maptool forums to get maximum attention from MapToolers (and thus from WotC) ?
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Azhrei
Site Admin
Posts: 12050
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Azhrei »

(Hmm. I suppose. I'm moving it but leaving a "shadow topic" in the original location.)

Dormouse
Kobold
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:39 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Dormouse »

Seems to me that the Qs are aimed at seeing where the best product opportunities are. If they seem to be in VTT or mapping software, they will be more inclined to put their investment there. So the more people say they use VTTs, the more they are likely to produce (or get behind) their own product.

User avatar
Mrugnak
Dragon
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Mrugnak »

If they put more support behind their own VTT, this doesn't make MapTools somehow magically vanish into the Ether. To the contrary, we can have a look at their own solutions to various problems (or their own problems) and then figure out how to do them better :D

I went and took the survey. I didn't exactly LIE, but I didn't mention that my D&D group that I DM for is all pen and paper, and that the various games I was thinking about for online play aren't D&D...

On the other hand, I erratically use MapTools with the Pen and Paper group too, so I didn't even creatively redefine the truth very much.

User avatar
Full Bleed
Demigod
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:53 am
Location: MD
Contact:

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Full Bleed »

Dormouse wrote:Seems to me that the Qs are aimed at seeing where the best product opportunities are. If they seem to be in VTT or mapping software, they will be more inclined to put their investment there. So the more people say they use VTTs, the more they are likely to produce (or get behind) their own product.


And the more WotC talks about VTT's the better it is for the industry as a whole. Just look at the explosion of interest since they started talking about it. More power to them.

Of course, they could also seriously consider doing the easy thing and license/commission a custom version of something that already exists. Big companies often find it easier to acquire than produce.
Maptool is the Millennium Falcon of VTT's -- "She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts."

nortonweb
Cave Troll
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by nortonweb »

4E lighting and vision for MapTool anyone :D

dorpond
RPTools Team
Posts: 5530
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:05 pm
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by dorpond »

nortonweb wrote:4E lighting and vision for MapTool anyone :D

This statement confuses me, Nortonweb.
You do know that Maptool already supports 4th edition, right? It just isn't built in, for legal reasons. You can easily define 4th edition vision/lighting in Campaign Properties. If you need help, let the community know - we can set you up. :)
How to use my bundled artwork (MT1.3B60+): http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11759

User avatar
Rumble
Deity
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Rumble »

dorpond wrote:
nortonweb wrote:4E lighting and vision for MapTool anyone :D

This statement confuses me, Nortonweb.
You do know that Maptool already supports 4th edition, right? It just isn't built in, for legal reasons. You can easily define 4th edition vision/lighting in Campaign Properties. If you need help, let the community know - we can set you up. :)



Not...exactly. The lighting, yes; the vision, no (or specifically, Line of Sight rules). 4E has a couple things that don't quite work in MapTool. Two I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Low-light: in 4E, this doesn't expand visual range; it just makes Dim light into Bright light for the character with lowlight vision. To mimic this I guess you'd have to make it possible for a single light source to be perceived in two different ways. Random musing, but something like:

torch: 5.5#d0d0d0 /Lowlight 5.5#00000 (where the second portion indicates what the source looks like to a character with Lowlight vision).


2. Line of Sight: LoS is measured from the corners of the squares in 4E, so if an item is visible from any corner of the square, it's visible (as opposed to center-of-square Line of Sight). This means you can see along a wall (read: VBL) that you are directly abreast of, which is not possible in MapTool at the moment.

User avatar
hyperactiveChipmunk
Cave Troll
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by hyperactiveChipmunk »

Rumble wrote:1. Low-light: in 4E, this doesn't expand visual range; it just makes Dim light into Bright light for the character with lowlight vision. To mimic this I guess you'd have to make it possible for a single light source to be perceived in two different ways. Random musing, but something like:

torch: 5.5#d0d0d0 /Lowlight 5.5#00000 (where the second portion indicates what the source looks like to a character with Lowlight vision).


More appropriate would be setting it in the vision, much like it is now. Instead of, say, "Lowlight: 2x", have something like "Lowlight: +#808080" where the value is added to the color hex.

-hC

User avatar
Rumble
Deity
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Rumble »

hyperactiveChipmunk wrote:
Rumble wrote:1. Low-light: in 4E, this doesn't expand visual range; it just makes Dim light into Bright light for the character with lowlight vision. To mimic this I guess you'd have to make it possible for a single light source to be perceived in two different ways. Random musing, but something like:

torch: 5.5#d0d0d0 /Lowlight 5.5#00000 (where the second portion indicates what the source looks like to a character with Lowlight vision).


More appropriate would be setting it in the vision, much like it is now. Instead of, say, "Lowlight: 2x", have something like "Lowlight: +#808080" where the value is added to the color hex.

-hC


Ah, yeah, that's the right place for it, though I don't want to do hex math. :)

User avatar
Mrugnak
Dragon
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Mrugnak »

Rumble wrote:1. Low-light: in 4E, this doesn't expand visual range; it just makes Dim light into Bright light for the character with lowlight vision. To mimic this I guess you'd have to make it possible for a single light source to be perceived in two different ways. Random musing, but something like:

torch: 5.5#d0d0d0 /Lowlight 5.5#00000 (where the second portion indicates what the source looks like to a character with Lowlight vision).


I'm confused - wouldn't you just tell the character with Lowlight vision that he doesn't have penalties in the dim light? He can see that the light is Dim there, he just doesn't have any problems, right? Or are characters with Low Light Vision unable to perceive light levels at all?

User avatar
Rumble
Deity
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Rumble »

Mrugnak wrote:
Rumble wrote:1. Low-light: in 4E, this doesn't expand visual range; it just makes Dim light into Bright light for the character with lowlight vision. To mimic this I guess you'd have to make it possible for a single light source to be perceived in two different ways. Random musing, but something like:

torch: 5.5#d0d0d0 /Lowlight 5.5#00000 (where the second portion indicates what the source looks like to a character with Lowlight vision).


I'm confused - wouldn't you just tell the character with Lowlight vision that he doesn't have penalties in the dim light? He can see that the light is Dim there, he just doesn't have any problems, right? Or are characters with Low Light Vision unable to perceive light levels at all?



Sure, I could do that. Depends on what low-light looks like to the character, I guess - if it's ambient light intensification, then it will (IMO) appear brighter to the character (and thus, to emulate that, I'd want it to appear brighter to the player) than it would to others. It has nothing to do with penalties, really - I can already handle penalties automatically. It's more visuals - or options (I can't think of a reason offhand - besides this one - why two tokens should see the same light source in different colors, but I'm sure there are users who can).

So, I concede low-light - it's not impossible, or even too difficult.

However, setting that aside, there's still the Corner-based vision that has had a couple recent posts. Workarounds exist, but for actual support of that type of vision (similar to how MT can do one-one-one diagonals), corner based sight is needed (again - needed if we want true D&D 4th Edition Line of Sight compatibility).

nortonweb
Cave Troll
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by nortonweb »

Yeap what Rumble said. Better put then I could ever do..

So Dorpond less confused now ;D

User avatar
hyperactiveChipmunk
Cave Troll
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by hyperactiveChipmunk »

Rumble wrote:However, setting that aside, there's still the Corner-based vision that has had a couple recent posts. Workarounds exist, but for actual support of that type of vision (similar to how MT can do one-one-one diagonals), corner based sight is needed (again - needed if we want true D&D 4th Edition Line of Sight compatibility).


Yeah, that ought to be a non-default option, at the very least, since it is pretty necessary if we are looking to put out a system-agnostic tool. If there's a significant performance hit, a warning pop-up with the "Never show again" option would be sufficient.

In 1.4, of course.

-hC

User avatar
Rumble
Deity
Posts: 6235
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:48 pm

Re: WoTC DM Survey Asks about Maptools or Fantasy Grounds

Post by Rumble »

hyperactiveChipmunk wrote:
Rumble wrote:However, setting that aside, there's still the Corner-based vision that has had a couple recent posts. Workarounds exist, but for actual support of that type of vision (similar to how MT can do one-one-one diagonals), corner based sight is needed (again - needed if we want true D&D 4th Edition Line of Sight compatibility).


Yeah, that ought to be a non-default option, at the very least, since it is pretty necessary if we are looking to put out a system-agnostic tool. If there's a significant performance hit, a warning pop-up with the "Never show again" option would be sufficient.

In 1.4, of course.

-hC


Yeah, definitely non-default. I would treat it exactly as the ONE_ONE_ONE, ONE_TWO_ONE, and related movement metrics. Yes, they are compatible with D&D, but they're not "d&d movement." I'd have the default vision measuring be from the Center of Square, and as an option, Corner of Square could be enabled.

I play D&D 4th, and I don't actually pay much attention to the vagaries of Line of Sight in the game (center versus corner don't befront me none, so long as I get my rent next Friday). But for people who want it to be "proper," I think it's reasonable to do it if it's possible to do.

After all - MapTool does not explicitly support any given game system, but I don't see a reason to refuse to add a feature that supports one unless it's a) not worth implementing or devastating to performance, b) actually prevents MapTool from being as system-neutral as it should be, or c) legally suspect.

Post Reply

Return to “MapTool”