A Thought About The Agnostic Nature of Roll20

Let me start off by saying that I love  what Roll20 is doing for the online tabletop community.  It provides a platform so that semi-traditional roleplay gamers can get together and experience the wonders of their preferred RPG system in what has become an increasingly hectic world.   That being said, I have recently started wondering about the sustainability of the agnostic nature that Roll20 is dedicated to.  While they provide the backbone to "port" your tabletop game to their online system, most of the game-specific backbone is provided by the community.  This means that either the community must develop standards and adhere to those standards, or the community adheres to no standards and scripts are developed for specific-case scenarios. In either case, the community is subject to changes within the Roll20 server and code base.  A simple change on Roll20's end could "break" a majority of scripts out there and it is up to the community to repair those scripts.  The problem is that, once a community member who has worked diligently to code and provide scripts becomes disenchanted with Roll20 and decides to leave, who maintains or repairs those scripts from that point forward? I see Roll20's commitment to game-agnosticism as a double-edged sword.  I think that the effort by the user to continually "swim against the current" to make things work will eventually only lead to a user base of technology-minded enthusiasts and it will disenfranchise a much broader community that could be captured only if Roll20 would commit to standardizing and somewhat controlling content for the most popular RPGs on the server.  I am not sure what RPG games those are, but I can personally attest to how astonished I was that the open content for the D20 (D&D 3.5) material was not included in the code base.  If monster stats and spell descriptions are open source, then why isn't there a Roll20 toolset in place that allows you to import from those resources into your game as macros (at the very least)? I am certain this question has come up before, but I would love to see this platform flourish and I think the current implementation is holding it back.  The need to stitch together campaign resources from community-provided scripts, some of which don't work with each other, when that content could have been part  of Roll20 (rather than apart ) is the system's Achilles' Heel.  Granted, the coding community here is wonderful and hard-working; however, the basics for the most popular systems (e.g., turn tracking) should be part of Roll20 and the specialty scripts should be community-driven. I can actually give a concrete example of the road that I think Roll20 is in danger of heading down.  I work in education, and every-so-often a company comes along with a textbook-agnostic homework system.  The idea is awesome !  You get all the tools that the normal online homework systems provide, but in a much more free-form structure.  The possibilities are vast.  The basic questions that most students would answer in a course are coded in, and any additional content can be coded in by the instructor.  Unfortunately, each of these systems have died slow deaths by their own ideals.  Rather than catering to the most popular textbooks, they stuck to their guns and told instructors, "If you want that content in here, we have a guide to show you how to include it."  Their out-spoken  intent is to provide the framework and let the community do the specifics.  It looks like a wonderful business model because it is actually less work for the company.  However, after a couple years, these companies go under because instructors just want to show up and have the vast majority of the content available.  Stuff that was coded by the community years prior is now broken because of server updates or not being maintained. I am not trying to bash Roll20, but instead I want to know if the folks in "the office" have thought of this.  Is this on your radar?

In short, this is a pretty marginal issue. To put it in perspective with in-person gaming... there's a large amount of gamers out there who "don't need the textbook." They make their own adventures and customize their rules. There's absolutely a large section of people that want standardized rules and adventures, and as such there's a market where these things continue to be created. But just because a 5th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons comes along and makes the 4th "irrelevant" to some, it doesn't end it for others. Our agnostic approach allows for the maximum number of users. A regular mantra of mine is, "I don't know two households that play MONOPOLY the same way, let alone D&D." That said, we have every intent to pursue standardization via licensing-- publishers that want to release modules with accompanying character sheets, etc. will have our help in putting forth an optimum way to enjoy their game. In terms of danger, we currently have no flags indicating an issue. Growth is solid, churn is reasonable. Unlike many roleplaying companies, Roll20 is not a hobby job for us... we are full-time, and quite driven. We do a lot to monitor our sustainability, and will continue to do so.

The "agnostic" nature of Roll20 is the likely reason that it will survive. There is another VTT company that seems to have thrown all of their eggs into D&D5E, and next year or next month when some new system comes down the pike they will be searching for customers. The fact that I can run my SF game and my D&D2E game on the same platform is why I have stuck with Roll20. There are still people playing checkers, and they could easily port that into Roll20. Roll20 does require some creativity and/or some technical skill, but that is their audience. People looking for an "out of the box" experience are not their audience, they will be drawn to video games. The key for Roll20 is to have more players upgrade from the free version. I tried the free version and quickly upgraded for the more advanced features.

Don't get me wrong, I totally enjoy the fact that this builds a community for gamers from all areas of interest.  It was a thought I considered when the author of a popular script decided to leave the community.  I thought, "I wonder how many system updates will go by before his script breaks?"  Now I, and many other, are likely in the position of having to hunt for a different option mid-campaign.  It just spoke to me of the intrinsic, delicate nature of the agnostic system which relies heavily on its community for design.

I certainly understand your concerns but I don't think your example is a complete parallel. In the generic homework case, there is nothing you can use it for without the configuration step.  In Roll20 the API is an ancillary feature (a very awesome one that I always want to use), but not required to use the product. In some regards, it is the nature of community created content that it cannot be supported forever.  However, there are many people in the community that are capable of supporting the scripts that have been contributed, and many of us attempt to do just that.  Good scripts will get maintained by someone, poorer ones will get replaced by new ones if they are needed. The Roll20 API gets more stable with each release and we get better scripts written all the time.  The scripts that are being written right now are much better than they were 2 years ago, the same will be true in 2 years.  Supporting newer scripts will likely get easier as well.  I'm certainly in favor of getting better and better scripts written with more community standardization (I've got some script ideas for that).  It wouldn't hurt to start a discussion about that in the API forum.

Yeah completely agree with The Aaron on this one.  Most users probably don't even use dynamic lighting let alone the API.  Many GMs do sure, but a lot dont.  The agnostic system allows me to run cortex, warhammer, d&d, burning wheel, and fate without much trouble.  None require API, but it makes quality of life higher.  I think if character sheets somehow reverted back to what we had in the old days (read: none) then there could be issues.  But for the api, it isn't as used.

I love the responses and viewpoints.  Thank you.  It somewhat allays my concerns.  I am likely going to be starting a very  long-running campaign and would hate to have to scrap a ton of stuff partway through because of scripts becoming depricated.

One thing to consider is that no one forces you to upgrade sheets or scripts as a Pro member.  I personally do a lot of preparation and pre-testing prior to launching any long running campaigns, once things are setup the way I want, I actually keep them like that for the length of the campaign. So barring major changes in the platform, I am set for the length of my campaign.  Only very rarely have there been any "breaking changes" and even in such cases, solutions are often fast and actually improve the experience.  One of my previous campaigns ran for nearly 11 months, with only one change of sheets/scripts during that timeframe. So long story short, if you take the time to setup things the way you want, play with it in that way until the next time you setup another campaign (or keep the same general snapshot if you truly don't need any of the improvements that the community has made/driven).

I'd love to know, if possible, the percentage of games who use scrips. My point of view as a free user is kind of strange, because in one hand I feel blown away by the quality of the product I'm consuming for free and in a strictly financial stand point I just don't feel like upgrading, maybe because the advantages of going pro/plus don't sound that interesting to my particular way of using the website, specially when a not that tech savvy guy hears names like Scrips and API and has no clue what they mean. But, in the other hand, the guilt is strong. I feel guilty for enjoying more than 400 hours of great fun time with the product and leave you penniless. That is the only reason I volunteered for the translation, and now that Paypal was finally added I'll be able to amend that part of the story. The agnostic nature of roll20 allowed me to play Vampire: Kindred of the East and a Chicago,1920 Vampire campaing that I'm playing which is also heavily customized. That agnoistic nature was probably responsible for many of the advancements we've seen so far and my guess is, It'll be responsable for more. I think you are underestimating the power of a blank slate and the creative drive.

I am not sure if this is part of the posters topic, but I can find one example. The D&D 5 character sheet, now two sheets exist, the original has had no update/ new script since the shaped D&D 5e sheet was created and some of the old scripts are broken. I personally prefer the original layout, all my campaigns were created with that sheet before the shaped sheet exicted. It could be more an issue by having two "official" sheets for a game. But that is just a tiny blip on the whole roll20 community.

Yeah, that is a part of my concern.  Without an "oversight committee" to steer the content, there is a possibility for duplicate and competing content to be created.  For something that is core to the system (e.g., a character sheet), having two versions will likely lead to the eventual demise and/or neglect of one of the versions.

Roy S. said:  two versions will likely lead to the eventual demise and/or neglect of one of the versions. That's often what happens with any community content... and it's not a bad thing.  The end result is the the player community as a whole organically selecting the highest quality content and letting the lesser versions "die".  The end result is a better quality of material for everyone.

As a fairly new user to roll 20 i disagree with the blank slate approach. I think a lot of the people that use this system play D&D and there should be a community wide standard for each ruleset so when a new user comes in and wants to play 5e Bam! Here you go. Use these scripts and this character sheet till you learn the ropes and then move on to the more advanced stuff like the API if you need to do more in your games. It took me and my players a long time to get used to all the features and figure out how to use the system properly to get our 2nd edition game going!  Me even more time searching for art assets and learning how to make scripts to make my DM life easier!

The wiki is designed to allow community input and you can find useful macros for many systems in there, it's not always up to date, but it requires community input, anyone can contribute. The forums are the other place where we see the fastest response to core changes in the Roll20 system. Within hours of the added drop down feature there were new use discussions and macro sharing. I understand the blank slate is terrifyingly daunting and the learning curve can be steep, but once you get there you can do almost anything with Roll20. You get what you put into it and that makes it feel so very rewarding when you figure something out and create something truly unique.

Roy S. said: Yeah, that is a part of my concern.  Without an "oversight committee" to steer the content, there is a possibility for duplicate and competing content to be created.  For something that is core to the system (e.g., a character sheet), having two versions will likely lead to the eventual demise and/or neglect of one of the versions. Again, this is counter-intuitive as to what in-person gaming has happening. There's no steering committee dropping by my living room table to make certain we're doing opposed checks properly.  As I previously stated, we'll continue to work with publishers that wish to introduce more standardized elements for their games here, but this won't happen at the expense of the freedom to homebrew.  I can say-- with absolute and complete certainty based on three and a half years of thankful emails, forum posts, tweets, convention conversations, reddit threads, (etc. onwards to the sun)-- that our being system agnostic is among the best decisions we've made as a business. 

Mark G. said: Roy S. said:  two versions will likely lead to the eventual demise and/or neglect of one of the versions. That's often what happens with any community content... and it's not a bad thing.  The end result is the the player community as a whole organically selecting the highest quality content and letting the lesser versions "die".  The end result is a better quality of material for everyone. I may be wrong, but currently just the authors of the character sheet make the decision for the sheet layout/function. Not everyone agrees that the shaped sheet is the best. Currently the sheet "dies" when the author does not update it. If everyone could submit changes or new sheet, and the most popular one will be on the top, then I will agree that the highest quality character sheet will "win". In Brian case, there would also probably be a character sheet for beginners if the whole community could contribute.

I was thinking more that if an author stops updating, invariably someone will pick it up if it's quality content, since the code is available.  If enough people don't like the direction an author is going with their content, a variation generally springs up and people start using that one instead.  It's a long process over time but eventually you generally (and I do emphasize generally) you start seeing the highest quality content being used by the largest number of users.  Now, to be fair, Roll20 is a bit of a specialized environment... we're not talking skyrim mods or something here :)

I just want to mention that anyone can create a character sheet. &nbsp;A Pro subscription is required to really do it right, as you need to be able to load it as a custom sheet in a campaign, but you can still do the creation in other ways. &nbsp;Here's documentation on the creation process:&nbsp; <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/Character_Sheets#Building_" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/Character_Sheets#Building_</a>... Additionally, I'll mention that the Shaped 5e sheet is a modification of the other character sheet, an example of precisely the process Mark suggested. &nbsp;The original 5e sheet is itself a modification (and later full rewrite) of the sheet that existed before it.&nbsp;

Just to point out that before the sheets that exist now, we used to make sheets the old way where there was only the bios tab (used to function like a paper sheet) and the attribute & ability tab (you crafted your macros for the token or bar use). Those types of sheet are accessible by anyone that plays on roll20 which showcases how great the agnostic nature of roll20 is. You have the ability even with a free account to create a sheet that functions like a character sheet that lays on your table with some automated dice.

Pat S. said: Just to point out that before the sheets that exist now, we used to make sheets the old way where there was only the bios tab (used to function like a paper sheet) and the attribute & ability tab (you crafted your macros for the token or bar use). Those types of sheet are accessible by anyone that plays on roll20 which showcases how great the agnostic nature of roll20 is. You have the ability even with a free account to create a sheet that functions like a character sheet that lays on your table with some automated dice. Yeah, although I have a Pro account, this is how we do it in the games I run. "Character sheets" in my games are nothing more than a simple table created in the PC's Journal entry. I created the character sheet template when we first started, but my players have subsequently modified the tables to suit their particular tastes. It works great and everyone is happy. Just wanted to chime in that I too think the agnostic aspect of Roll20 is a strength, not a weakness.

Sun said: If everyone could submit changes or new sheet, and the most popular one will be on the top, then I will agree that the highest quality character&nbsp;sheet will "win". Anyone can &nbsp;submit changes or entirely new sheets. Hell, you don't even actually need a Roll20 account to submit changes to a sheet. (You do need a GitHub account, though.)

Communities are really just marketplaces for ideas. They are flexible and dynamic. I really wouldn't be worried about a 'crappy quality' becoming the standard. If a sheet has enough problems, people who are motivated will make a new one and share it. Once shared and endorsed by roll20, all that technical trickery goes away and it becomes part of the core product.&nbsp; In a strictly buisness sense, it's a really smart model. No way the current roll20 team could pay for all the content an agnostic platform needs to stay relevent, and still keep the price so low. 10 bucks a month is more than worth it, especially when only your GM needs it, and the players can just donate to you. Split with my normal gaming group, we pay 20 bucks a year, for 500+ hours of entertainment or more. And since the core product is actually fairly easy to use without being super technical, I imagine that rather than having a community of only technical people, i just see technical people being the core of the community more than they were before since they are essential to building the content (like character sheets). I don't think it leaves the non-technical out. Plus RPG's have always had a large fairly technical userbase anyways. You can divide gamers roughly into Computer Nerds, Gaming Nerds and Drama Nerds, with overlap between the 3. It's a sterotype, but for most people, quite true.

I think the original&nbsp;posters point was that if you as DM/script author use x hours to make your campaign/script and roll20/community change the standard several times. Scripts become broken/sheets out of date, it is not a good incentive&nbsp;for DM/script author to make new campaign/script&nbsp;again. Especially when a campaign can last for years and you put a lot of effort into it. Also currently many of the sheets are made only for experienced/power users, I am sure roll20 want to get more people into roleplaying than just the typical RPs.&nbsp;

I would rather stab myself in the foot with a rust lead pipe than see Roll20 lashed to a single (or limited selection) of games. &nbsp;The inconvenience of broken API and lost sheet authors is annoying but not crippling. &nbsp;Trying to play some of my games with a system built for D&D, or GURPS, or what have you...well, I wouldn't. &nbsp;I'd be home, nursing my lead pipe stabbed foot.

There existed dedicated tools to play specific rpg systems in the past. Particularly they flourished around the time when d20 games were big, and nearly all of them only supported d20, cause it was what was "most popular" at the time. Where are they now? Anywhere but not in active use. Being game agnostic is the best thing Roll20 has done, especially nowadays, when the gamer community doesn't flock to a single game system any more.

Cyber Killer said: There existed dedicated tools to play specific rpg systems in the past. Particularly they flourished around the time when d20 games were big, and nearly all of them only supported d20, cause it was what was "most popular" at the time. Where are they now? Anywhere but not in active use. Well, d20 systems (D&D in particular) are still &nbsp;the most popular. Roll20's quarterly reports support that. =P I have previously been very involved with what I suspect is Roll20's primary competitor. They do &nbsp;support any system, in theory, but doing so requires power users (the equivalent of Roll20's character sheet authors and API script writers) creating and distributing packages to support those systems, or officially supported systems being sold on their marketplace; for reference, I am the author of the Exalted Second Edition ruleset that was used by version 2 of their platform (they're currently on version 3, so my ruleset is no longer linked from their wiki). There is no mechanism that I can recall (at least at the time I was using their platform) for someone to come in with their pet system and create a game of it to play with their friends. In Roll20, you can just throw relevant numbers in your Attributes & Abilities tab and you're good to go. Also, their platform isn't free. ~_^