DnD Games Online - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

DnD Games Online

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
tassadar85
Mar 29, 2009 15:58:47 Ive been looking for the best way to play online with people from various locations of the US/world. Ive been messing around with IRC and some IRC bots to roll die and all but is there a better way? A way i can show my players maps and such on the fly?
#2
catarrhus
Mar 29, 2009 20:13:01 We use one of our players office and the conferencing system there. But webcams work wonders even if the others dont have one if you do you could show them the maps, we use aim for voice because one player cant connect to the conference.
#3
tassadar85
Mar 29, 2009 20:43:18 I came across Fantasy Grounds and it looks BEAUTIFUL. I downloaded the demo and hosted a game and connected to it from another terminal, and it works smooth and looks very visually appealing. The only downside is for the full license its $40...
#4
ronamo
Mar 29, 2009 22:02:44 It seems like MapTool from the RPTools suite is gaining more and more popularity daily, it is 100% free, and it is certainly easy to use.

http://www.rptools.net
#5
barinax
Mar 30, 2009 11:18:16
It seems like MapTool from the RPTools suite is gaining more and more popularity daily, it is 100% free, and it is certainly easy to use.

http://www.rptools.net

I 2nd Ronamo. I use Maptool and it works great. Extremely cusomizable, but it does have a learning curve. The good thing is that there are tutorial videos to show you have to get around in the program. Add to that the fact that the community is VERY helpful when you post a problem in the forums.
#6
heruca
Mar 30, 2009 14:39:05 What you're looking for is commonly called a virtual tabletop program. Fortunately, you've got lots of choices. Some are free, some aren't.

As for which one is "best", that depends on your particular needs. For example, not all VTs offer multi-platform support, or support things like audio/music or animation. Some require a fair amount of knowledge to customize to your particular choice of game system (scripting and/or XML editing may be required).
#7
tassadar85
Mar 30, 2009 14:53:31 I just picked up FG it seems pretty easy
#8
dberg_usa
Mar 30, 2009 19:50:36 FG has nice graphics, but is a bear to setup if you want to play with others on the net. It has some real configuration issues for running through a home network. Our group had so many complications the DM finally dumped it and went with a different virtual tabletop. The map sharing can also be a drag because it can take a real long time to load shared maps. My final FG complaint is that shared maps can't be left up for others to see unless the hosting person stays online with the application. Not much good for PBP stuff.

On the plus side is the dice rolling. That has to be one of it's coolest features.
#9
pfunked
Mar 31, 2009 9:38:40 My players and I really enjoy MapTool.

I created a set of dungeon tiles that make it real easy to throw together a dungeon crawl in MapTool (http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7171). For those of you who aren't creative with coming up with maps, there are lots of places where people post nice maps free to use (example, the Dundjinni forums).
#10
andugus
Apr 01, 2009 23:56:18 I use Fantasy Grounds because of the immersion. After a few minutes you forget what tool you are using and it's like old times again at the table.

I also acknowledge that some patience can be useful in setting it up. However, it really is as easy as opening up a port on your router if you GM. For players this is not a concern as I understand it. Either way the community helps its own.

If you'd like to dip into the pool check out FUMcon. It is an online gaming convention coming up in under two weeks. No charge to play.
#11
Mock
Apr 03, 2009 15:29:08
I 2nd Ronamo. I use Maptool and it works great. Extremely cusomizable, but it does have a learning curve. The good thing is that there are tutorial videos to show you have to get around in the program. Add to that the fact that the community is VERY helpful when you post a problem in the forums.

There are also some tutorials up now to walk new users through the basics:

http://lmwcs.com/maptool/index.php?title=Main_Page

I settled on MapTool too, but there are a bunch to try, and all have advantages. I suggest playing around with a few and seeing where their strengths and weaknesses are.
#12
jfrazierjr
Apr 03, 2009 20:27:48
There are also some tutorials up now to walk new users through the basics:

http://lmwcs.com/maptool/index.php?title=Main_Page

I settled on MapTool too, but there are a bunch to try, and all have advantages. I suggest playing around with a few and seeing where their strengths and weaknesses are.

Hmmm.. I wonder if anyone has a fairly up to date feature comparison chart. When I was looking 2 years ago or so, I came upon one somewhere....
#13
heruca
Apr 03, 2009 21:30:11 There's one here, and it was recently updated.
#14
guivre
Apr 03, 2009 23:30:23
There's one here, and it was recently updated.

Wow.. that chart is biased, misleading, and in some cases completely inaccurate.
#15
heruca
Apr 04, 2009 0:12:13 Care to expound on that statement? AFAIK, the info for each VT was submitted by each VT developer/team (with Grip being a probable exception; since the developers are no longer around, I believe that column's info was submitted by a user). However, the chart is partially based on another chart that was originally posted on the openrpg site, so perhaps the new chart inherited some incorrect data.
#16
trevorscroft
Apr 04, 2009 7:48:11 It's a bit dated, that's for sure, but it's the closest thing to a comparison that's available.
#17
Mock
Apr 04, 2009 11:38:54
Care to expound on that statement? AFAIK, the info for each VT was submitted by each VT developer/team (with Grip being a probable exception; since the developers are no longer around, I believe that column's info was submitted by a user). However, the chart is partially based on another chart that was originally posted on the openrpg site, so perhaps the new chart inherited some incorrect data.

Well, since they're submitted by the dev teams, the real thing the chart tells us is how much each dev team was willing to write about the features - BRPG, for example, has huge paragraphs, whereas others have "Yes." It's a bit dated, with a couple inaccuracies, but it's not necessarily wildly biased.

For a feature comparison (the typical kind you'd see for software, at least), I would have designed it as a Yes/No for everything, and if there were elaborations, put it at the end. It would also make it a lot easier to read the chart.
#18
heruca
Apr 04, 2009 15:31:33 I'm not so sure that "Yes/No" answers would be all that useful in most cases.

Look at the "Maps" row, for example. I personally think it's more useful to mention the various ways a map can be sent to the players and what the maximum map size is than just to say "Yes, you can show maps".

Or the "Chat" row. Just saying "Yes" doesn't really tell you very much. As a potential user, I'd be more interested in specific chat-related capabilities, like chat aliases, emotes, saving the chat log, etc.
#19
Mock
Apr 04, 2009 21:08:41
I'm not so sure that "Yes/No" answers would be all that useful in most cases.

Look at the "Maps" row, for example. I personally think it's more useful to mention the various ways a map can be sent to the players and what the maximum map size is than just to say "Yes, you can show maps".

Or the "Chat" row. Just saying "Yes" doesn't really tell you very much. As a potential user, I'd be more interested in specific chat-related capabilities, like chat aliases, emotes, saving the chat log, etc.

My point was simply that yes/no or checkmarks are pretty commonly used in this type of comparison, and that having a large paragraph for one or two VTTs and a "Yes" for the same category for another VTT leads to some lopsided perception. If you're going to do an elaborate set in one category, balance would suggest doing the same for each VTT (of course, if these came from the developers, as I said, it also tells you how much the developers were willing to write).

I mean, hell, VTTs aren't a religion, so I don't really care which one gets picked, and changing the chart isn't a hill worth dying on. I've settled on my VTT of choice, but others are certainly cool too. I was commenting more on the readability and "convention" for software comparison charts.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tassadar85 Mar 29, 2009 15:58:47	Ive been looking for the best way to play online with people from various locations of the US/world. Ive been messing around with IRC and some IRC bots to roll die and all but is there a better way? A way i can show my players maps and such on the fly?
#2 catarrhus Mar 29, 2009 20:13:01	We use one of our players office and the conferencing system there. But webcams work wonders even if the others dont have one if you do you could show them the maps, we use aim for voice because one player cant connect to the conference.
#3 tassadar85 Mar 29, 2009 20:43:18	I came across Fantasy Grounds and it looks BEAUTIFUL. I downloaded the demo and hosted a game and connected to it from another terminal, and it works smooth and looks very visually appealing. The only downside is for the full license its $40...
#4 ronamo Mar 29, 2009 22:02:44	It seems like MapTool from the RPTools suite is gaining more and more popularity daily, it is 100% free, and it is certainly easy to use. http://www.rptools.net
#5 barinax Mar 30, 2009 11:18:16	It seems like MapTool from the RPTools suite is gaining more and more popularity daily, it is 100% free, and it is certainly easy to use. http://www.rptools.net I 2nd Ronamo. I use Maptool and it works great. Extremely cusomizable, but it does have a learning curve. The good thing is that there are tutorial videos to show you have to get around in the program. Add to that the fact that the community is VERY helpful when you post a problem in the forums.
#6 heruca Mar 30, 2009 14:39:05	What you're looking for is commonly called a virtual tabletop program. Fortunately, you've got lots of choices. Some are free, some aren't. As for which one is "best", that depends on your particular needs. For example, not all VTs offer multi-platform support, or support things like audio/music or animation. Some require a fair amount of knowledge to customize to your particular choice of game system (scripting and/or XML editing may be required).
#7 tassadar85 Mar 30, 2009 14:53:31	I just picked up FG it seems pretty easy
#8 dberg_usa Mar 30, 2009 19:50:36	FG has nice graphics, but is a bear to setup if you want to play with others on the net. It has some real configuration issues for running through a home network. Our group had so many complications the DM finally dumped it and went with a different virtual tabletop. The map sharing can also be a drag because it can take a real long time to load shared maps. My final FG complaint is that shared maps can't be left up for others to see unless the hosting person stays online with the application. Not much good for PBP stuff. On the plus side is the dice rolling. That has to be one of it's coolest features.
#9 pfunked Mar 31, 2009 9:38:40	My players and I really enjoy MapTool. I created a set of dungeon tiles that make it real easy to throw together a dungeon crawl in MapTool (http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7171). For those of you who aren't creative with coming up with maps, there are lots of places where people post nice maps free to use (example, the Dundjinni forums).
#10 andugus Apr 01, 2009 23:56:18	I use Fantasy Grounds because of the immersion. After a few minutes you forget what tool you are using and it's like old times again at the table. I also acknowledge that some patience can be useful in setting it up. However, it really is as easy as opening up a port on your router if you GM. For players this is not a concern as I understand it. Either way the community helps its own. If you'd like to dip into the pool check out FUMcon. It is an online gaming convention coming up in under two weeks. No charge to play.
#11 Mock Apr 03, 2009 15:29:08	I 2nd Ronamo. I use Maptool and it works great. Extremely cusomizable, but it does have a learning curve. The good thing is that there are tutorial videos to show you have to get around in the program. Add to that the fact that the community is VERY helpful when you post a problem in the forums. There are also some tutorials up now to walk new users through the basics: http://lmwcs.com/maptool/index.php?title=Main_Page I settled on MapTool too, but there are a bunch to try, and all have advantages. I suggest playing around with a few and seeing where their strengths and weaknesses are.
#12 jfrazierjr Apr 03, 2009 20:27:48	There are also some tutorials up now to walk new users through the basics: http://lmwcs.com/maptool/index.php?title=Main_Page I settled on MapTool too, but there are a bunch to try, and all have advantages. I suggest playing around with a few and seeing where their strengths and weaknesses are. Hmmm.. I wonder if anyone has a fairly up to date feature comparison chart. When I was looking 2 years ago or so, I came upon one somewhere....
#13 heruca Apr 03, 2009 21:30:11	There's one here, and it was recently updated.
#14 guivre Apr 03, 2009 23:30:23	There's one here, and it was recently updated. Wow.. that chart is biased, misleading, and in some cases completely inaccurate.
#15 heruca Apr 04, 2009 0:12:13	Care to expound on that statement? AFAIK, the info for each VT was submitted by each VT developer/team (with Grip being a probable exception; since the developers are no longer around, I believe that column's info was submitted by a user). However, the chart is partially based on another chart that was originally posted on the openrpg site, so perhaps the new chart inherited some incorrect data.
#16 trevorscroft Apr 04, 2009 7:48:11	It's a bit dated, that's for sure, but it's the closest thing to a comparison that's available.
#17 Mock Apr 04, 2009 11:38:54	Care to expound on that statement? AFAIK, the info for each VT was submitted by each VT developer/team (with Grip being a probable exception; since the developers are no longer around, I believe that column's info was submitted by a user). However, the chart is partially based on another chart that was originally posted on the openrpg site, so perhaps the new chart inherited some incorrect data. Well, since they're submitted by the dev teams, the real thing the chart tells us is how much each dev team was willing to write about the features - BRPG, for example, has huge paragraphs, whereas others have "Yes." It's a bit dated, with a couple inaccuracies, but it's not necessarily wildly biased. For a feature comparison (the typical kind you'd see for software, at least), I would have designed it as a Yes/No for everything, and if there were elaborations, put it at the end. It would also make it a lot easier to read the chart.
#18 heruca Apr 04, 2009 15:31:33	I'm not so sure that "Yes/No" answers would be all that useful in most cases. Look at the "Maps" row, for example. I personally think it's more useful to mention the various ways a map can be sent to the players and what the maximum map size is than just to say "Yes, you can show maps". Or the "Chat" row. Just saying "Yes" doesn't really tell you very much. As a potential user, I'd be more interested in specific chat-related capabilities, like chat aliases, emotes, saving the chat log, etc.
#19 Mock Apr 04, 2009 21:08:41	I'm not so sure that "Yes/No" answers would be all that useful in most cases. Look at the "Maps" row, for example. I personally think it's more useful to mention the various ways a map can be sent to the players and what the maximum map size is than just to say "Yes, you can show maps". Or the "Chat" row. Just saying "Yes" doesn't really tell you very much. As a potential user, I'd be more interested in specific chat-related capabilities, like chat aliases, emotes, saving the chat log, etc. My point was simply that yes/no or checkmarks are pretty commonly used in this type of comparison, and that having a large paragraph for one or two VTTs and a "Yes" for the same category for another VTT leads to some lopsided perception. If you're going to do an elaborate set in one category, balance would suggest doing the same for each VTT (of course, if these came from the developers, as I said, it also tells you how much the developers were willing to write). I mean, hell, VTTs aren't a religion, so I don't really care which one gets picked, and changing the chart isn't a hill worth dying on. I've settled on my VTT of choice, but others are certainly cool too. I was commenting more on the readability and "convention" for software comparison charts.