Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 9582524" data-attributes="member: 6796661">This may be a strange topic, but I like discussing VTTs and have participated in a number of threads asking for VTT recommendations or about what VTTs folks are currently using. I've used a lot of VTTs over the years and I realize that there are none that I can say I "hate" and even none that I dislike. There are some that I tried but they didn't meet my needs and others that I used for a while, but moved on to something else due to changing needs, but there are none I have strong negative feelings for.For those who really dislike a particular VTT, I'd be interested in what turned you off. Perhaps this is just rehashing discussions with a negative filter, but I think it can be helpful to read what hasn't worked for other when looking into selecting a VTT.  I'll start by listing the VTTs I've used or tested and what I don't like about each of them.Map Tool. Networking was a hassle and I mostly used it for a digital battlemap for in-person play. Also, as a free and open source tool, there is no support other than what you can find from the community.Roll20. Storage is too low, even at the highest tier. Integrated video and voice wasn't very reliable and everyone I know uses Discord, Zoom, or something else for video and voice. Performance suffered with very large maps with all the bells and whistles (e.g. dynamic lighting). That was a while ago, though, might be better now.Fantasy Grounds Classic and Unity. All players must install it. Also, even with Public Cloud Games, I had terrible connection and performance issues when you had players in multiple geographic areas internationally and when one or more players had subpar connections. This led me to cancelling my FGU month-to-month subscription after testing it out for several months.d20pro. I only tested it for a bit, while it was serviceable for d20 games, it felt like it was behind in its feature set. I remember it not having the map tools I was looking for and it seemed that it would be clunky to try to use it with non-d20 systems. Also requires that each player download and install software. I didn't test hosting a game with it.Foundry. No core support for manual fog of war. Have to use a community mod that has had iffy support and just didn't work for long periods of times after upgrades. Better now that the League of Extraordinary FoundryVTT Developers took it over. But always a risk having such a core feature (for me) not being part of the core product. EDIT: I'll add that I find that I really need to use a hosting service to provide a consistently good experience running games with Foundry. A lot of why I really like and continue to use Foundry is because I really like The Forge, a foundry hosting service.D&D Beyond Maps. Hard for me to complain about this as it is great for its intended purpose. But I like more feature rich battlemaps and run other games than D&D, and don't want to be switching among different VTTs.Role. More of a TTRPG focused videoconferencing platform than a VTT. Has very basic battlemap and token functionality. It may fill a specific niche, but most people would rather just use something like Discord for free and a simple low cost VTT like Owlbear Rodeo separately. I like the custom charactersheet builder, but I was never able to get create one for Mage: The Ascension that worked the way I wanted to.</blockquote>

Verification