MapTool: Refined

[Dracones]

Tabletopforge also asked for 5k and pulled in about 45k. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see that amount for Maptools. Though the team would really want to tout the features they want to develop and explain why it's better than the alternatives(can self host, repository support, better mapping, great macro support).

I think the old macro lang support is going to be a non-issue in practice if the new lang is a real proper language. Give us modern language features and if you can do things like:

Code: Select all

import from RPTroll.SavageWorlds carddeck
import from lmarkus001.Pathfinder token_hp_change

and have real data structures, and have proper storage engines, etc and you'll see people developing and sharing code for building new frameworks pretty fast.

[Rumble]

Tabletopforge also asked for 5k and pulled in about 45k.

Ironically, Tabletop Forge was absorbed by Roll20 in January. But yes, both of those had modest goals that they subsequently smashed in their funding drives; it's always a possibility. I certainly think MapTool can do it, and I wouldn't have a problem with funding a drive that aims to achieve what I think is the right goal.*

The biggest hurdle I see is that both of these options lack broad appeal outside the MapTool community. One of the things with Roll20, for instance, was that plenty of users mentioned that they backed it and pay for it because all the other solutions (MapTool being one of the most frequently mentioned culprits**) were simply too hard to use. So Roll20 comes along and it's something demo-able, and new (even if it wasn't that sophisticated at the start!), and people (like me) said "That's new and interesting, and I'd like to see it succeed" (or, for some, "That may be exactly what I've been looking for").

The proposals here promise either a) incremental improvements on the existing software (but no fundamental shifts), or b) a new but un-demoable software product to be delivered at an unknown date, and whether they address the needs of the public when it comes to VTT software will be hard to prove up front, when the drive is happening.

Of course, the MapTool community is large enough to fund something (even big; Roll20 had fewer than 2000 backers); but having people just hurling money at it might be a tougher bar to reach. Or rather, it would be easier to find money hurlers if the outcome were clearly something that brought new stuff to the game.

* As should anyone.

** This is both good and bad -- bad, because it means MapTool was frustrating users and driving them away; good because it means a lot of people were trying and/or using it until something they felt was better came along.

[Bone White]

I'm surprised I missed this thread before. I'm not going to sit here and judge the able people on what path they take MapTool, rather I'd just like to expand an idea from the last few poists.

Whilst I'm a firm believer in what MapTool is and tries to achieve currently, I don't want to see it being "dumbed down" just for the matter of present-ability to the wider audience.* Instead I believe a few of our illustrious coders could volunteer some time to implement a basic, generic rpg in a polished and finished framework into the MapTool package. The more famous the rpg the better, though licenses of course are always the liability, there are quite a few license-free rpgs out there that people have developed for free-to-use. This would give us:

• A presentable "what you can do with MapTool".
• The ability for prospective users to pick up the software and go.
• An increased user-base dependant on the rpg format used for the "Sample MapTool Game".

Some of us (me excluded) have worked with other programmers on here well already, and I believe a simple yet polished implementation of an rpg, complete with a semi-automated scenario (which could be expanded upon in time) would be not only achievable, but realistic considering the cost (assumedly nil), time (not taken from the MapTool program's writers) and results. I have no idea what rpg system could be used for such an end, most of you know more than I do.

Please pick bones in / dismiss my idea.


* I chose MapTool because of the sheer power of the engine, and lack of restraint with what you can achieve.

[flynnkd]

A good working framework would be a great way to sell the product.

But failing that then you need to demo the things Maptool does, AND that the others dont do, OR dont do very well. But Roll20 is not sitting around, their dynamic light system works well and they have card decks built in (one feature Maptools could improve on).

Macro tool kits are something Maptool can do well, some of these tool kits already exist, which is an advantage that should be used. Use them to display what can be done - but also try to make them easier if possible as some of them are quite complex. Find the good visual ones (like the rooftops layer reveal, nice and visual), and get those people involved, or at least supporting the venture.

[Rumble]

That's more or less what I was trying to say -- the current "proposals" (for lack of a better word) preach to the choir. Now, in this case the choir may be enough people to fund something, but without saying "Here's what MT does better than the rest," I think few people will care.

[JML]

… but without saying "Here's what MT does better than the rest," I think few people will care.

Mostly true except I think people would be interested in what it can do others can't, if they're not very interested in what it can do better. As reactions to changes in 2.0 pointed it out, people are reluctant to get rid of a tool they're used to, especially if they invested a lot in it, only to get a few advances in what they've already got. On the other hand if it's to get a new useful functionality…

From the top of my mind I'm especially thinking of off line face to face gaming, but there's others.

[Rumble]

… but without saying "Here's what MT does better than the rest," I think few people will care.

Mostly true except I think people would be interested in what it can do others can't, if they're not very interested in what it can do better. As reactions to changes in 2.0 pointed it out, people are reluctant to get rid of a tool they're used to, especially if they invested a lot in it, only to get a few advances in what they've already got. On the other hand if it's to get a new useful functionality…

From the top of my mind I'm especially thinking of off line face to face gaming, but there's others.

You're correct; I was actually thinking "what it does that others can't" but was imprecise. That's really the key -- emphasizing what makes it different. Unfortunately, I'd almost hesitate to point at the scripting capability as that "killer app," since there's so much investment in really taking advantage of it, and the other features that MapTool used to have over other VTTs are rapidly being matched (e.g. dynamic lighting, built-in tables, etc.). I'm not sure what to point at as the big different thing.

[JML]

Unfortunately, I'd almost hesitate to point at the scripting capability as that "killer app," since there's so much investment in really taking advantage of it,

I think that's where existing frameworks and utilities come into play. Just saying "Hey! You could make great things if you're willing to spend hours dedicating to code.", which is a killjoy, wont bring much people except for the very few ones that already did this kind of stuff. But if we can show a few great feats and then say "Here's examples of the extent it can come to…" we'll get more people interested, especially seeing some significant things have already been done and thus others can be.

and the other features that MapTool used to have over other VTTs are rapidly being matched (e.g. dynamic lighting, built-in tables, etc.). I'm not sure what to point at as the big different thing.

Then again I don't think much other VTTs are allowing to play face to face without an internet connection. You just need a computer and a TV set. Some videos of it could make a point on this one.
Speaking of tables I really long for something as powerful as Inspiration Pad Pro can be. Could be a great addition for GMs, but that's another matter.

[Jagged]

I'm not sure what to point at as the big different thing.

Subscription free?

[Full Bleed]

You're correct; I was actually thinking "what it does that others can't" but was imprecise. That's really the key -- emphasizing what makes it different. Unfortunately, I'd almost hesitate to point at the scripting capability as that "killer app," since there's so much investment in really taking advantage of it, and the other features that MapTool used to have over other VTTs are rapidly being matched (e.g. dynamic lighting, built-in tables, etc.). I'm not sure what to point at as the big different thing.

Nothing has Vision/Vision Blocking/Custom & Shaped Lighting/Auras/ or LoS like MT. Roll20, for example, has a poorly performing "Dynamic Lighting" that you only get with a paid account. No thanks. MT is still light years ahead in this regard. Not to mention optional individual views and individual FoW. These are not small add-ons. There is a reason no one else has them anywhere near MT's level of useability and sophistication.

And just because MacroscripT requires a learning curve doesn't diminish the fact that there is no other VTT out there with scripting that can hold a candle to it. The user community here has done amazing things with it. Some videos showcasing some of those things would go a long way to illustrating what people are missing in the alternatives. (Idea: Someone should start a "Framework Screenshot" thread and get some of the wizards around here to share some of their cooler stuff!)

Now how you "sell" and explain these things does matter. It's like trying to sell the free-wheel on a mouse to someone how has never used it. They think their click-wheels do all they need. But once you've had a free-wheel mouse for awhile and get used to using it, click wheel mice seem primitive in comparison. MT is truly an "Advanced" VTT that, granted, has overlooked some key usability issues in favor of features and power. But most other VTTs are still significantly behind in many categories.

[Jagged]

It may be better to come at it from the other direction, what do the others have that Maptool doesn't?

I've looked at others and struggle to see why you'd use them beyond ease of connectivity and access on a mobile device? Sort that out and there is no competition imo.

[Dracones]

It may be better to come at it from the other direction, what do the others have that Maptool doesn't?

Fantasy Grounds 2: A single focused per rpg framework that's usually really good. Very character sheet based. For Savage Worlds it has a really awesome framework. For Pathfinder Hero Lab will export into FG2 format which has made it really popular for PFS play. FG2 has a pretty easy to use interface for users, but the modding on the back end is probably harder than for Maptools. FG2 suffers from the same issues as MT in that it's a self hosted server, so there's firewall issues, etc. A big neg for FG2 is that it has zero repository support and no multi-GM support. The mapping support for FG2 is pretty weak, but the character sheet level of focus is really solid.

Roll20: It's an always on web app. Zero firewall issues, totally cross platform, built in chat. It's easy peasy to setup/use and makes it very easy to search and drop in maps/tokens and run a game. I think this is a great "starter" VTT for people who want to play rpgs online. Macro support sucks and the built in voice chat can be buggy. The app as a whole can also suffer slowdowns.

Roll20 doesn't have to be bad for MT. I think it's a great intro into the VTT scene and is likely growing the VTT user base more than anything. FG2 is really good. I think more than anything it's the competitor to MT. The frameworks are pretty solid, they're pro-developed, and the tool is pretty easy to use. They get around the lack of voice chat by offering a public TS server the community uses. But there isn't much of the way in community dev, the frameworks aren't easy to develop, and FG2 costs a bit of $$.

Sozin did a Hero Lab to MT converter and I'm testing my own version of that. So Hero Lab owners can output to MT tokens too. I'm also talking with the Wild Card Creator dev and will probably make a converter for that too. Once Realm Works hits the streets I'd like to look into the possibility of making a Realm Works to MT campaign file converter. I think it'd be neat if you could design your adventure in Realm Works, add maps, NPCs, monsters, etc, and then just convert that into MT format and run it.

For me the difficulty with MT is the PITA to work with macro language. I'm learning Python as I go and writing my converter in that has been a breeze. XML libs, Tk GUI, interface, etc etc are all really intuitive to play with. But it can take me an entire day to try to figure out why simple macro things in MT don't work(macrolink not working, JSONs breaking, forms not submitting, etc). I've found it frustrating to work with. I think if the MT devs focused on the back end people like me will create the front ends. There's so many rpg systems out there and so many tools that interact with them I think only a large vibrant community of people sharing macros, frameworks, drop-ins, etc is going to be able to support it all. So make doing that really easy and the rest should fall into place.

[Rumble]

Some other stuff that VTTs have that MapTool doesn't:

Roll20 has: a marketplace of free (and paid) professional art, subscription levels if you so desire (which brings extra features -- I do consider it a weakness however that dynamic lighting is only available to paying subscribers); tablet and mobile device support; built-in asset searching as well as your own library; card deck support; built-in music and sound effect support; an API coming down the pike; and like Fantasy Grounds visible dice rolling (as well as -- finally -- an obvious "here's where you roll dice" feature, which is something MapTool still lacks). It also has Google Hangouts integration, if you're into that sort of thing.

I don't think I'd call Roll20 a "beginner" or "starter" VTT; it's a complete solution and what I intend to use when I crank up my next campaig, and I'm certainly not a novice. In fact, I think the "starter" moniker reflects a certain pervasive elitism regarding MapTool ("cute software, kid, but when you grow up, use a real VTT") that isn't really justified anymore.

Fantasy Grounds approaches the entire concept a bit differently; the shared map is just one element of the "stuff" on the table in FGII, while in MT, Roll20, and most other VTTs the map is the table. They're harder to compare. But again, as a gaming tool, they do make dice rolling very obvious and from what I hear frameworks are very good. Plus, sharing of handouts, books of data, etc.

Infrno is more of a shared whiteboard that supports gaming conventions, but for certain games (namely, games where a map doesn't matter) that can be better than anything else out there. Of course if you don't need a map, I don't guess you'd head toward "MapTool" anyway.

There are a number of up-and-coming tablet-based VTTs too, which are completely outside of MapTool's capabilities, but I'm not really sure how many groups are going tablet-only or anything like that.

Also, while feature-by-feature comparisons are useful, it's also important to consider the overall impact of the tool. With regard to a "complete package" viewpoint - ease of use, resources, development, features, look and feel, user experience, and so forth, I think MapTool lags way behind.

[jfrazierjr]

It may be better to come at it from the other direction, what do the others have that Maptool doesn't?

Fantasy Grounds 2: A single focused per rpg framework that's usually really good. Very character sheet based. For Savage Worlds it has a really awesome framework. For Pathfinder Hero Lab will export into FG2 format which has made it really popular for PFS play. FG2 has a pretty easy to use interface for users, but the modding on the back end is probably harder than for Maptools. FG2 suffers from the same issues as MT in that it's a self hosted server, so there's firewall issues, etc. A big neg for FG2 is that it has zero repository support and no multi-GM support. The mapping support for FG2 is pretty weak, but the character sheet level of focus is really solid.

....

Roll20 doesn't have to be bad for MT. I think it's a great intro into the VTT scene and is likely growing the VTT user base more than anything. FG2 is really good. I think more than anything it's the competitor to MT. The frameworks are pretty solid, they're pro-developed, and the tool is pretty easy to use. They get around the lack of voice chat by offering a public TS server the community uses. But there isn't much of the way in community dev, the frameworks aren't easy to develop, and FG2 costs a bit of $$.

And those are the two strikes against FG/Hero Lab for me at least. So.. just using some "made up" numbers, let's say:

• Fantasy Grounds Base: $39 GM + $25 per player(or GM + Unlimited players for $149) for D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, D&D 4E support. Additional game support is additional $ (or do it yourself????)
• HeroLab: $29 for one game system. Each additional game system $20.

if you play one game system, it's not too bad. But some people change RPG's like more than they change shirts and that can add up to a heck of a lot of cash(which some people are ok paying... it's just that I am not one of those people). I don't know enough about Fantasy Grounds, but for Hero Lab at least... if they don't support it, you can't use it for game system X. And that's the power of MapTool in my opinion. The main point is that it IS FREE and you can play (just about) any RPG system that you want. The downside is that you have to do it all yourself(unless someone has already built a framework as there are for a few of the more popular RPG systems out there.)

[Jagged]

Also, while feature-by-feature comparisons are useful, it's also important to consider the overall impact of the tool. With regard to a "complete package" viewpoint - ease of use, resources, development, features, look and feel, user experience, and so forth, I think MapTool lags way behind.

Agreed. I would consider "Ease of Use" to be one of the killer features. Maptool has a significant hurdle for the first time user that makes quickly jumping in, difficult and daunting. As long as that is true, Maptool will lose potential users to the competition.

Its funny you mentioned an obvious place to roll dice. I never considered that an issue, but I can see how a new could think differently.