Roll20 Virtual Table Top

TheCommandTent · July 09, 2013, 04:16:24 PM

I was watching an online RPG in a Google Hangout session that was using Roll20 and seem to be working nicely. It looks like it is free with options to pay for "premium" content. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this and if it was any good?

http://roll20.net/

DV8 · July 09, 2013, 08:08:13 PM

Looks pretty slick. It's almost like Skype meets RPG. I'm surprised the no one is using Vassal is a similar fashion.

spelk · July 10, 2013, 02:04:51 AM

Doesn't look as slick as well established Fantasy Grounds, where there are crafted modules for you to play in well known RPG's. A lot of the DM management looked manual from what I can tell of their video. FG has built in combat trackers and a lot more. There's no webcam video feeds in FG though, if thats important to you.

http://www.fantasygrounds.com/

DV8 · July 10, 2013, 05:50:15 AM

That is really slick. Does it support Mongoose Traveller?

spelk · July 10, 2013, 06:17:32 AM

I'm not sure if this is what you want, but its a user created ruleset for Classic Traveller, and I know the guy who developed it, he's really quite knowledgeable on coding up rulesets for Fantasy Grounds. Yonks ago, I did a little bit of fiddling with the early user driven attempt at Call of Cthulhu, but nowadays theres a proper professional ruleset available for it.

http://www.fantasygrounds.com/library/ClassicTraveller.xcp

TheCommandTent · July 10, 2013, 07:36:31 AM

Fantasy Grounds is very slick and looks amazing but if you are going to be the GM you have to pay for it where as Roll20 is free. Also the webcam feature is quite cool and it is to bad FG can't incorporate it somehow. Does FG have voice chat built in or do you need skype or some other program?

spelk · July 10, 2013, 02:49:51 PM

I think with Fantasy Grounds you're paying for the featureset built into the client. Some rulesets come with the client, but some are additional costs, but these aren't trivial to develop - so it's only fair, if an official ruleset is developed, there should be some recompense for it. The rulesets are also tailored explicitly for the game you are playing and rule logic, as well as reference materials etc are all available from within. The GM client is more expensive $39 but will act as a player client also, whereas a player only client is $24.

FG doesn't have a video or audio chat feed, but I think the textual chat client is very powerful especially for GM's adopting personalities, NPCs etc. Plus all die rolls and skill checks can be displayed in the scrolling chat for everyone to see. I think people get by with using the likes of existing audio chat technologies without burdening the FG client with extra networking and media streaming. IIRC you can play mood music across the clients.

They're probably pitched at different audiences I guess, free have-a-go folks who don't want to commit money to such pursuits, and who also want to visually see the other players - and people who want a full package, with commercial client and rulesets. It was a few years ago when I was delving into all this virtual table stuff, and at the time I looked at the whole range of clients available, and FG come out on top in terms of usability, presentation, custom modding, and ruleset coverage.

I'm sure Roll20 will find its audience, just wanted to present FG as a players/groups alternative. :)

Double Deuce · July 11, 2013, 10:51:38 AM

For voice most of the FG games I've been in use Skype but others use Ventrillo. Many prefer text only to deepen the roleplaying aspect but other want voice/video to replicate the face to face aspect. There is a Community TeamSpeak server that has been set up for those that want to go that route. The other thing with Fantasy Grounds is everything runs off local machines with the GM hosting and not routed through a 3rd party server so building in a voice feature would likely put a lot more drag on the GM's host PC and introduce a bunch of latency especially hosting a large # of players..

TheCommandTent · July 11, 2013, 07:06:45 PM

Quote from: Double Deuce on July 11, 2013, 10:51:38 AM
For voice most of the FG games I've been in use Skype but others use Ventrillo. Many prefer text only to deepen the roleplaying aspect but other want voice/video to replicate the face to face aspect. There is a Community TeamSpeak server that has been set up for those that want to go that route. The other thing with Fantasy Grounds is everything runs off local machines with the GM hosting and not routed through a 3rd party server so building in a voice feature would likely put a lot more drag on the GM's host PC and introduce a bunch of latency especially hosting a large # of players..

I guess it all depends on what the GM and players want. But it is good to know there are options out there.

For the record I remember fondly the game you ran using FG. Even though it got derailed it was my first RPG experience and it was alot of fun.

armia741 · January 18, 2014, 06:52:17 AM

I think people get by with using the likes of existing audio chat technologies without burdening the FG client with extra networking and media streaming. IIRC you can play mood music across the clients.

Nefaro · January 18, 2014, 04:50:18 PM

I'd love to try out the latest Shadowrun edition via a 'net game but it would be breaking new ground for me. It looks to be relatively beefy compared to some of the other new RPG editions coming out in the last few years. May have scared some GMs away.

DV8 · March 13, 2014, 06:49:07 AM

Our TOR group has used Roll20 as a backup to or face to face sessions. What's nice about Roll20 is the cost and no software needed since it's browser based.