D&D General First person 3D fantasy grounds

[Mageman]

Here is the new fantasy grounds update coming in 2024

 

[aco175]

I have not played online, so might not be the best to give an opinion, but it kind of confused me. It looks a bit like a drone flying low over a grid map with minis instead of something better that I mind pictured before I clicked on the video. I seem to prefer the overhead/standard view. Maybe it is more the grid terrain not having and height, like the tents are flat so you can still just see over them.

 

[LordEntrails]

It's what they are calling 2.5D as they work towards full 3D. Basically what it appears to be (given other changes that have recently been made in FG) is that tokens now have at least 2 versions; one is a top down view, and the second is a standing type view. This means that you can use the normal top down view with map and tokens, but if you want you can go into a perspective/first person view where the tokens are rendered in their upright view. So yes, tents and things like that which are just draw on the battlemap image have no height, but PCs and NPCs do have an upright image.

Though not shown in this demo, previous demos showed that LOS was calculated and observed in this first person view. So if a token stepped behind a wall or tree, you would no longer see their token in the FP view.

Even though I used to work in the 3D CAD realm, I'm not too eager for this. I get why they are doing it and agree from a business perspective. But the use case just isn't there for me. I'm more interested in playability and GM'ing improvements than graphical flash.

 

[LordEntrails]

SmiteWorks has a new post detailing the soon to be FPV;

First-Person View Mode for 2024

Happy New Year! The year 2023 for us was a down year for us, but a year of big investments. Our team has been working on several cool features and we are close to releasing one of these major features - First Person View. How does First-Person View work in a world of 2D flat RPGs? The...

www.fantasygrounds.com

 

[jgsugden]

The big problem with these approaches right now is that turn based combat and real time result in different perceptions of our environment. As we go more towards 3D, they begin to incorporate things like blocked sight as LordEntrails mentions .... and that can result in players not seeing something their PC should have seen. It is easier to adjust for a player to pretend they did not see what they did see than to make sure players see what their PC did and they didn't ... because you do not always realize the discrepancy.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I absolutely hate this idea. I get why they're doing it, but I don't like it. I stuck with FG specifically because it was more functional and simulated the tabletop experience without the extraneous bells and whistles that often detract from the game, create more demands on the hardware needed, and needlessly complicate the user interface.

 

[Zaukrie]

The big problem with these approaches right now is that turn based combat and real time result in different perceptions of our environment. As we go more towards 3D, they begin to incorporate things like blocked sight as LordEntrails mentions .... and that can result in players not seeing something their PC should have seen. It is easier to adjust for a player to pretend they did not see what they did see than to make sure players see what their PC did and they didn't ... because you do not always realize the discrepancy.

I've been playing with the 3d module in Foundry, and this is the biggest issue for me. How to see thru walls and stuff.....because in a 10 ft wide hall with walls, you can barely see what is happening most of the time.

I think, for play purposes. 2.5d is a good alternative. You can add a few doors or things, and feel more like a table top experience with minis and maps that way......

I wish 3d worked better, but none of the 3d VTTs are perfect yet (I've tested A LOT of them, and will test another this month).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I dunno. I was enamored with Roll20 and then even moreso with Foundry when we first started using them. Then, more recently, we had a break because the Foundry server was down and have been using Owlbear the last several sessions. I'm inclined not to go back. I'm really preferring the simpler experience, one that more closely represents how we'd play at a table (including, for better or worse, maths!). I'm now fully aware of just how much DM prep time I was sinking into maps and lighting and character sheets and dealing with mod tech issues and... explaining what button(s) to click during game play. I've finally come to the realization that the time and effort is ultimately not worth it, IMO. Adding another dimension for 3D visuals? Seems cool and will undoubtedly be enjoyed by many... but I'm going to take a pass.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Some times the lines between videogame and VTT will be erasured. With the same software you will can to play a VTT or a standar videogame created thanks the tools of that same software.

 

[Oofta]

Some times the lines between videogame and VTT will be erasured. With the same software you will can to play a VTT or a standar videogame created thanks the tools of that same software.

I agree those look awesome, but it takes a professional to make maps that look that awesome. Maybe someday AI will be able to do it but we aren't there and I suspect it will be a long time before we are. Then throw in NPCs and monsters which will have to look just as good. For a lot of people, this would be a worse experience than a tabletop. With the standard tabletop experience you let your imagination fill in the visuals like you do with a book.