Quick and Dirty Contextual Notes Access

Feature Idea: You mouse over (or L-click?) the nameplate and a 200-300px tooltip pops up and displays the notes on that token. GMs also see the GM notes. If it's too long, it can scroll. This solves the character sheet problem by letting people just paste statblocks in there and get at the info quickly. You can also use it for descriptions, or, if placed on objects, Box Text which would be a huge selling point for Module publishers.

I second this

I agree with this suggestion as well, as it sounds very attractive and useful: Token's Notes could be immediately accessible without passing through the multiple --and also potentially distracting-- options available in the Edit Token window (bars, auras, permissions, etc). I also love the idea of placing an object in the map, and to be able to display that "Box Text", a description or a note from it in a simple and straightforward manner. That would be in a way close to a Roll20 Handout, though, but still I'd like to see it. Owen O. said, This solves the character sheet problem by letting people just paste statblocks in there and get at the info quickly. Now, I think that subordinating character sheets to tokens isn't a good idea --after all, tokens only make sense on a map-- , because by doing that, the Roll20 app is heavily tilted, or even turned (by means of steps like this one), into a sort of Online Map application in the first place, instead of an Online Role Playing application: Keep in mind that in many situations during a game, there are no tokens/virtual minis, there are no maps, and the main visual --and informative-- thing for focusing your attention into is a full character portrait, a true character sheet and/or a background image related with the campaign setting. It goes without saying that nothing of this involves a map --even if full character portraits can be technically "tokens" (but not virtual minis) placed on one of the aforementioned background setting images. For instance, there are 4 "tokens" placed on this background:

There can be other uses, of course, but VTTs are by nature centered around maps. And I think that most of the time, for most users, there shall be one displayed. But, even in your exemple, using "graphic elements" as tokens on a background doesn't seem to be in opposition with linking a "character sheet" to a token. By using anything you like as a token (a portrait, a symbol, a weapon, a plate with a name on it,...) and any representation as a background, you could display the character sheet on any image, without being limited to virtual minis on a map. I could even see a benefit for your kind of display, because you could link different informations about the character (stats, weapons, background story,...) with different "tokens" and they would not hide the image when not popped up. I don't really see a contradiction.

Patrick C. said, There can be other uses, of course, but VTTs are by nature centered around maps. And I think that most of the time, for most users, there shall be one displayed. Patrick, Allow me to explain why I disagree: I don't see why Virtual Tabletops are "naturally" centered on maps . . . And actually, they aren't --excepting MapTool and others similar to it. Saying that VTTs must to be centered on maps "by nature" is, to my mind, like saying that role playing (online or face to face) is "naturally" about map exploration, or like saying that role playing is always about dungeon crawling, which obviously isn't true. There are virtual tabletops around that aren't centered on maps, having them as an useful but secondary feature, but I'm not going to mention them here. I often see that people used to MapTool seems to think that maps must to be the "foundation stone" of the entire application (which I consider a sort of design flaw), but beyond the MapTool sphere, things are different: without mentioning other Virtual Tabletops, Roll20 was presented as "Virtual tabletop gaming that tells a story" and its stated goal was "to redefine what virtual tabletop gaming can be" , which implies a rupture or meaningful distancing regarding earlier, "standard" assumptions, like having a map-centered approach --but hey, this is not saying that the app shouldn't be able to handle maps! It's only that it must be able to do more than just that. Patrick C. said, But, even in your exemple, using "graphic elements" as tokens on a background doesn't seem to be in opposition with linking a "character sheet" to a token. By using anything you like as a token (a portrait, a symbol, a weapon, a plate with a name on it,...) and any representation as a background, you could display the character sheet on any image, without being limited to virtual minis on a map. I could even see a benefit for your kind of display, because you could link different informations about the character (stats, weapons, background story,...) with different "tokens" and they would not hide the image when not popped up. I don't really see a contradiction. Right, albeit I'm not saying that there is a contradiction. And yes, this suggestion by Owen O. means benefits also for "my kind of representation" --or for not entirely map-based virtual tabletop arrangements--, which is one of the reasons why I'm supporting it: I'd love to see the capability of opening descriptive boxes of text from tokens, regardless they are portraits, virtual minis, or any other graphic element. In that way, by allowing descriptive text (without needing to open the entire Edit Token window), and even ways of triggering Jukebox items (by assigning sounds to particular images), tokens can be useful for the task of telling a story besides helping to address tactical combat in maps. Telling a story and tactical combat are two things that a Virtual Tabletop should address --and definitely, the Roll20 app, as it is, has the potential for doing it. So, after supporting this suggestion, which is a good idea, what I was saying is: please, stretch a bit the concept of "token" (since it can be any shared graphic element), and broaden the idea of what a Virtual Tabletop can be. There is no need of turning Roll20 into a "MapTool replica" with the addition of integrated WebCam communication and web-based technology . . .

by allowing descriptive text (without needing to open the entire Edit Token window), and even ways of trigger Jukebox items (by assigning sounds to particular images), tokens can be useful for the task of telling a story besides helping to address tactical combat in maps. Assigning sounds from the Jukebox to tokens, or being able to trigger sounds from tokens, maybe from their contextual menu, looks to me like a great idea. It also goes in the direction of widening the meaning and usefulness of the "token concept", increasing the versatility of the VTT.

Allow me to explain why I disagree: I don't see why Virtual Tabletops are "naturally" centered on maps . . . And actually, they aren't --excepting MapTool and others similar to it. ... There is no need of turning Roll20 into a "MapTool replica" with the addition of integrated WebCam communication and web-based technology . . . Just a quick follow-up on the MapTool comments, MapTool is /still/ more versatile than Roll20, even if you're discussing non-map game applications. It is unwieldy, but more feature rich. Cloning MapTool is not something I'm interested in seeing in Roll20, but do I want to eventually have a replacement for every feature I used to use in MapTool? Hell yes! The game feature experience there was first-rate! The software user experience was dreadful. MapTool is an excellent, system-agnostic piece of software for running almost any kind of table/board/card/mapless/mapped game you can think of. It is completely user-unfriendly. Roll20 should do all the same stuff and more, but do it in a better more intuitive way. We're quite far along that path already.

It seems, then, that the true reason for some people preferring Roll20 over MapTool is a matter of user-friendliness and little more. In the same way you want to see all these MapTool features that you are used to, then I could say the same from my point of view: "I want to see the features of other excellent, not-map-focused Virtual Tabletops oriented towards story telling that I have been using until knowing Roll20." ;-) But I don't see the need for stating this, since Roll20's announcement and mission statement already says something along these lines: it's about redefining online role playing (BTW, "map-based/focused" is the older assumption here) and focusing into telling a story. I think that this wish of turning Roll20 into another MapTool can, in some senses , derail the development of the application by changing in a noticeable way its original focuses and goals. For one, I didn't choose Roll20 over other VTTs just by a matter of user-friendliness (which, I agree, is an important factor), but because currently there is no other VTT focused into role playing and story telling that I can regard as "complete" or with real, active development --all them are, to my knowledge, seriously unfinished or are suffering great handicaps.

It seems, then, that the true reason for some people preferring Roll20 over MapTool is a matter of user-friendliness and little more.. Well, no, not exactly. My preference has an awful lot to do with my background in technology, and how I believe an HTML5-driven VTT is destined to dominate. But the user-friendliness don't hurt!

@ Axel Castilla: It seems that we have not had the same experience with VTTs. I have used Maptool, Gametable, RPGtable, Battlegrounds, now Roll20 and I have followed others on the internet, on different forums. And I have tried to have a look at all those I could visit. From that experience, it seemed that all the virtual tabletop were based around map use. That's why I said that they were map-centered by nature, because it was the way all those I have encountered were made (and from what I know, they are the majority of those in use). I would be very much interested by any other styles of VTTs you could have encountered, because I am interested in VTTs in general and in their evolution in particular. All those I know are listed on Heruca's site and all those I have been able to try are map centered. <a href="http://www.battlegroundsgames.com/links.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.battlegroundsgames.com/links.html</a> If you know others, particularly if they are in another style, let me know.

Yes, I am using Roll20 instead of Maptool mostly for its ease of use. I have been using Maptool for a few years for my face to face games, but I have never used it for internet play, because it was too complicated to setup and use for some of my players. Now, I still use Maptool for face to face games, because it still has features I want that are not present in Roll20. But I am now using Roll20 for internet play between game sessions. Roll20 capacity to manage asynchronous play and ease of use makes it perfect for my needs. So, Roll20 becoming a classical VTT is not a problem for me. On the contrary, it is what I want it to be.

Patrick C. said, I would be very much interested by any other styles of VTTs you could have encountered, because I am interested in VTTs in general and in their evolution in particular. (. . .) If you know others, particularly if they are in another style, let me know. Yes, I do. However, currently I'm unsure of talking about them specifically here because it can be seen as advertising other VTTs in the very Roll20 forums. Thus, for now, I'll send a brief PM to you.

PM sent. Patric C. said, It seems that we have not had the same experience with VTTs. Yes, that seems very likely! I've also used Maptool and Battlegrounds RPG between other map-based applications, though. Patrick C. said, So, Roll20 becoming a classical VTT is not a problem for me. On the contrary, it is what I want it to be. "Map focused" is a trite, old-fashioned trend that nowadays shouldn't be imitated by a modern and ambitious Virtual Tabletop, especially if it's hoping to add some degree of innovation. Now, I'm not in no way against maps as a part of the tabletop --not as the tabletop itself!--, and I think that with enough supporters, Roll20 could develop a great "map feature" and still remain true to its mission statement by developing itself also into other areas more related to role playing and story telling.

Saying that VTTs must to be centered on maps "by nature" is, to my mind, like saying that role playing (online or face to face) is "naturally" about map exploration, or like saying that role playing is always about dungeon crawling, which obviously isn't true. There are virtual tabletops around that aren't centered on maps, having them as an useful but secondary feature I completely second this. Having a map constantly in view definitely detracts me from the narrative aspect of role playing games, reducing the immersion factor and making me to see the whole thing as just a board game. This is why I avoid map focused virtual tabletops.

"Map focused" is a trite, old-fashioned trend that nowadays shouldn't be imitated by a modern and ambitious Virtual Tabletop, especially if it's hoping to add some degree of innovation. ... Roll20 could develop a great "map feature" and still remain true to its mission statement by developing itself also into other areas more related to role playing and story telling. I am certainly old-fashioned then. Though I don't think that playing one way or another is more modern. Roleplaying is not a technology where a jet replace a biplane. But it is also because I think that roleplaying and storytelling are two different games (in a way exclusive of one another). <a href="http://toybox-sw.blogspot.be/2011/10/retrogaming-and-retroclones.html" rel="nofollow">http://toybox-sw.blogspot.be/2011/10/retrogaming-and-retroclones.html</a> But that's another debate. What I would like to say here (and it is not very different from what you say) is that what is important is that Roll20 develops features. Maps are just a way to display a lot of information for the players, that would be difficult to convey in another way. Having an efficient map feature that lets you do it easily is a bonus however you play. Like having a character sheet feature or a handout display feature,... Maps are just information. You can use it or not depending on the information you want to display to your players. Calling Roll20 map centered or not afterward is just a label. Frankly, as every VTT has a map feature, I am not sure that some are more map centered than others. I am not sure that it depends on the program. It is mostly depending on how they are used. @Axel: thanks for the PM

Patrick C. said, Maps are just a way to display a lot of information for the players, that would be difficult to convey in another way. Having an efficient map feature that lets you do it easily is a bonus however you play. Like having a character sheet feature or a handout display feature,... Maps are just information. You can use it or not depending on the information you want to display to your players. I don't disagree with this. However, I'm pointing to the fact of not map-based Virtual Tabletops allow the option of hiding, disabling or minimizing the map display, for focusing better into other things when it's suitable. Like Apsara, I find most annoying to have a map in view all the time, and also, most face to face role playing games that I've played had no maps whatsoever, but at most, only vague descriptive sketches without any tactical use, easily discarded and lost during the very game session. To my mind, Maps, Character Sheets, Handouts . . . should be developed at equal depth, with the same richness of features and flexibility, in a balanced way, without bestowing primacy to Maps --for that, MapTool is already doing an excellent work! Thus, an option for removing the map should be easily available: currently in Roll20 we can place an image background different of a map, like a painting, for achieving something like this, but the current behavior of Roll20's canvas seems to have been mostly designed for handling maps. For instance, it's pretty difficult to just show a descriptive image to the players without them having to start moving and zooming it in the same way it happens with maps, in order to center the view according to their displays. Because this, there should be an "automatic fit-centering" (optional) behavior according to the display of each player. Another example of the Roll20's page canvas being mostly designed for maps is that if you place a grid in a background image, then you can't place any additional token-image there to be interpreted in a way different than a map-token, because the grid lines are always placed over it --this is easy to see, without any effort, with Roll20's Cards: once you drop one into the canvas, it's automatically turned into a map token and subjected to the grid. Patrick C. said, Calling Roll20 map centered or not afterward is just a label. Frankly, as every VTT has a map feature, I am not sure that some are more map centered than others. I am not sure that it depends on the program. It is mostly depending on how they are used. Even if every Virtual Tabletop has a map feature, I'm pointing to the existence of Virtual Tabletops that have the map as an element of the tabletop, not as the tabletop itself. So, I'm not really talking about how people can use this or that software application, but about the design, focus, stated goals and actual capabilities of these applications. As I said to you in my second PM, I'm also pointing to the idea of handling online role playing not just with maps, but also in ways more related with "graphic adventures" by means of arranging displays, images, backgrounds, with interactive elements having nothing to do with a map (this isn't asking for animated graphics, though): All these are interactive displays from a Graphic Adventure, not just still images. You can click on an object ("token") and it will display information, trigger a sound . . . whatever is useful for advancing the story: This said, Roll20 should have an effective, actual flexibility for handling interactive arrangements like these, and not just battle maps. Some Virtual Tabletops already achieve this by means of supporting non-map image backgrounds and interactive images --I mean, the stretched concept of "tokens" that I mentioned earlier, making possible to handle online role playing games with a sort of "graphic adventure" approach along with WebCam and Text Chat. Certainly, I don't want Roll20 to fall behind of the new trends (they are new for Virtual Tabletops). It goes without saying that despite these "new trends", maps will remain as useful as ever, as the "graphic adventure approach" isn't intended to override combat encounters nor the maps that, in many cases, are so helpful for representing and managing them.

Well, I have certainly no problems with trying to use illustrations or any other graphic presentation and I think that the difference that we see is probably more a question of focus than a real contradiction. I think that the maps and tokens in Roll20 (coupled with the use of the GM layer,...) should let you have the result you want. Whilst I generally use a map as a base for my presentation of a situation to the players, I have done frequently this kind of things in Maptool (though in face to face sessions), presenting graphic elements that could be changed by swapping "tokens" (that were not tokens) or replacing a part of the "map" (which was not a map), and having macros having a graphical effect (like changing the face of the peasant girl to the face of a witch in the image of the scene that was displayed on the screen). I don't think that there is a new trend in there (though I suppose VTTs designers would like to present it that way). GMs have been using the "map" on the VTTs for a lot of uses that were not maps at all. To give a visual exemple, when I was using Gametable, a few years ago, I used the map feature to display a kind of character sheet, where the "map" was the background of the sheet and the "tokens" were the portrait and the categories to which stats were displayed (not easy to explain, but luckily, there is still a visual explanation here: <a href="http://gametable.wikia.com/wiki/Tutorial:_Character_sheets" rel="nofollow">http://gametable.wikia.com/wiki/Tutorial:_Character_sheets</a> ). I have used the features in Gametable and Maptool for a lot of other things that were not map-related, and I suppose that most GMs have done the same. I don't think that there is a need to leave the map-centered paradigm to be able to have Roll20 work your way. It could be called graphic-centered, if you prefer, but I think that the features would still be the same. In a way, I don't think that you have to stretch at all the concept of tokens and maps, they can already be used the way you want. Except maybe for the direct interactive part (which would need Maptool style macros or direct linking), but I am not sure that there is a real need for really interactive images as long as there is a GM (after all, he has been the interactive part of roleplaying since the beginnings).

Patrick, I understand what you are saying, and the examples that you shared. Right now, lacking of time, I just want to say: when you minimize a map in a VTT, what does appear as a visual replacement for focusing the attention? (I'm aware that it is possible to enlarge other windows of the app for "burying" the Map window in MapTool, but it's not quite what I was saying). There must be some other thing for focusing the attention, possibly both informative and visual in nature -sound can help a bit as well. I find that just looking at the faces of the players via WebCam isn't enough immersive for a role playing game. If this isn't easily and immediately addressed by the very Virtual Tabletop, then it's a map-based application. As you say, it's true that a map is a descriptive element as well, but too often it predisposes minds to think in the direction of fighting, combat encounters, encouraging a sort of board game mentality - sometimes in detriment of a role playing approach-, which yes, can suit some heavily combat-focused RPGs, but not others (Roll20 has to be system agnostic). I'm trying to stress some of the non-map options of Virtual Tabletops (none of them require macros, BTW) because it worries me that a heavy focus in the development of Roll20's map features -which in themselves, are good, attractive, and useful- can tilt too much the development of the application in a direction that doesn't match with the mission statement -which I don't regard as mere advertising-, possibly hindering the potential for tackling other worthy approaches as well. What I want of Roll20 is a well rounded, open and flexible Virtual Tabletop. On the other hand, FWIW I remember more comments from other users stressing these same points -with more brevity- and "protesting" about a possible map-based approach for Roll20 (some of them are "Mentors", I remember Agemegos for instance), but I find that such users aren't participating in the forums these days. Be as it may, I think of course all we want to see is a fully developed Roll20 app, and this is the most important thing, and the reason why this is a conversation.

...when you minimize a map in a VTT, what does appear as a visual replacement for focusing the attention? (I'm aware that it is possible to enlarge other windows of the app for "burying" the Map window in MapTool, but it's not quite what I was saying). I am not aware that anything else replace the map when you minimize it. Anything you want, I would say. I don't think that you are limited. In Maptool, it could be any other windows (turn tracker, character sheets, character inventory, macros buttons to open anything you want,...). It is your choice, really. If what you means is that you would want something more visual, it is not minimizing the map that should be done, but opening an image in the map zone. Indeed, map window is a misleading name, because you can display any type of image into it and give it some twists if needed. A friend of mine mastered a game recently. The game itself was the exploration of a derelict starship. The story was Alien style (I finished cornered in the ventilation shaft), played on some beautiful maps. But that's not the point: before we boarded the ship, what he had on the "map" were exteriors views of the ship, with "blips" indicating heat and activity on board. The views were images of the ship setup as "map" in the map window and the blips were "tokens" placed upon it (moving, appearing disappearing, growing...). My point is that, present VTTs, even based on map use, can already let you display anything you want in any style you want when you don't want to show a map. I don't think that there is anything to improve here, it is already existing. I can't disagree when you ask for features that would suit your kind of play. Whatever feature appears in Roll20, I'll try to make use of it either for what it is intended, or either by trying to find new uses for it. I want a few features (ah... portraits), but I'll make use of any other I'll find, even in ways that were not intended by the developers. I don't think that the program dictates how you have to play. I also don't think that the use of a kind of feature (maps) dictates the style of your games. It is probably the consequence of my views on RPGs, because I don't even think that rules dictates the kind of games you have to play. It is probably because I began playing at a time when there were so few available rulesets that you had to adapt them for the games you wanted to run. That means that, for me, the only determining factor for setting the style of the game is the game master. Rules, game features, program features,... can be used to play any kind of games. You can have beautiful maps without dungeon crawling upon them. Or you can play a dungeon crawl without ever showing a map. You can play court intrigues and love affairs with Harnmaster (I did) and you can play tactical assault on a viking stronghold with Prince Valiant (I did). It all depends on the GM and the GM skill, much more than on anything else. Be as it may, I think of course all we want to see is a fully developed Roll20 app, and this is the most important thing, and the reason why this is a conversation. I certainly agree with you here.

I would like to add that if Roll20 has to have any future, it shall have to include sophisticated map features. Until now, we have talked about gaming philosophy, but if we go down to earth, the potential users for Roll20 are probably a majority of D&D users. I don't really see it as a problem, because any feature developed for this kind of game, I can certainly twist for my kind of game. But having a map-centered approach is not only a design choice, it is also a necessity if Roll20 wants to survive.

Hi again Patrick. You said, Until now, we have talked about gaming philosophy, but if we go down to earth Um. But I wasn't talking about gaming philosophy. This is a completely practical subject to me: if Roll20 is turned into another MapTool -and that is, in some senses, a matter of focus-, probably I will need to return to the Virtual Tabletops that I have been using so far. Patrick C. said, But having a map-centered approach is not only a design choice, it is also a necessity if Roll20 wants to survive. While there is people currently waiting Roll20 to develop some map features so far only found in MapTool -and then abandon it-, I don't think that it's necessary to steal MapTool's user base to turn it into the Roll20's user base. In addition, there are many people interested in online role playing that finds MapTool's approach completely unappealing mainly because its map-based design (and the look of its GUI), and when they look into other map-based apps they see more of the same, again not being interested. Maybe Roll20 can gather new kinds of game masters and players, in addition to -of course- welcome anybody also interested in maps. One of the first things I make clear to new people interested in role playing games is that it isn't about maps, that it is not another board game. IMHE, that relieves and encourages them to try it. Afterwards, I can add maps as well if it's suitable, but only if it's enough clear to them that maps are just game handouts and not the very center of the activity. On the other hand, I never had any problem with pictures for enhancing the atmosphere. Roll20 wasn't announced as another MapTool, but as something different to it -and yes, also different to Fantasy Grounds regarding that focus of it into specific rulesets. Roll20's design never stated anything about a map-centered approach (<a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rileydutton/roll20-virtual-tabletop-gaming-that-tells-a-story" rel="nofollow">http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rileydutton/roll20-virtual-tabletop-gaming-that-tells-a-story</a>). I wouldn't be here otherwise. There are so many things that a good, full-fledged Virtual Tabletop must cover -differently than a Virtual Shared Map-, that I can't see why tactical maps should be primordial. And there can be very strong, meaningful differences between using tools -like software, RPG systems . . .- in accordance with their intended uses, and to tweak them to match your necessities. Dedicated approaches are often the best (I don't use Microsoft Word for working in layouts, but QuarkXpress), while tweaking something to make it do what it isn't meant to do is often a timewasting, substandard approach for when we have no other choice. For one, I have been tweaking all sort of things all my life and honestly, while sometimes that is fun as well, I prefer to focus my creativity into areas having nothing to do with fixing flawed tools, role playing systems or software applications. For what is worth, I repeat that I'm not against maps in Virtual Tabletops, and definitely I want to see a number of map features implemented; but that isn't asking Roll20 to focus mainly into the map, or putting it in other words, to alter its mission statement. For putting a single instance here, I'd like to see facing for round portrait-style tokens, a very basic map-feature that I've been asking to Fantasy Grounds developers for many years, without any result. You also can see that I'm actively supporting here, in the forums, a number of map-related features for Roll20. Partly, it seems that the focus isn't important to you, you see it like a sort of subjective, meaningless abstraction, while I don't: I see that different focuses bring different results, objectively speaking. Our different perception of these things can have to do with our respective experiences and personalities as well. It's not needed, then, to reach a complete agreement, I think.

When I play without a map, I usually just put an evocative "scene setter" image where the map goes, so that there's something pretty to roll 3D dice on.

@ Owen: I have done it also. Internet can provide easily most of what I need. As I illustrate myself the characters in my game, I can also show the portrait of those that are involved in some activity that doesn't require a map. @ Axel: when I am speaking about the need to keep a map-centered approach to make Roll20 prosper, I simply mean that rpg gamers are not very numerous. And among them, I think that most are playing D&D with maps. I don't know if it is true. But, if it is, Roll20 has to give a priority (or put the focus, if you prefer) to the features that are going to attract the biggest number of players. I don't really see that as a choice, more as a commercial necessity. But I have no solid numbers about the proportion of gamers using D&D (with all its versions, Pathfinder included) versus those using mapless games. If someone has a statistic? Partly, it seems that the focus isn't important to you, you see it like a sort of subjective, meaningless abstraction, while I don't: I see that different focuses bring different results, objectively speaking. Our different perception of these things can have to do with our respective experiences and personalities as well. It's not needed, then, to reach a complete agreement, I think. That's probably a part of our differences. I think that, indeed, there is no real need to reach an agreement (though, in fact, I think that we agree on the features development, the difference seems to be more upon priorities than upon versatility of Roll20). I took much interest in the way you explained your position, even if I don't share it. I can certainly agree to disagree.

I use a mix of pictures, maps and blank textured backgrounds depending on what is appropriate. Currently running a Savage Worlds WW2 game and the players are a British Motor Gunboat crew. We go from large scale naval charts of the English Channel, to a hex based water background for combat. Then to picture background of the ship itself and ones of dockside etc as needed. I also want Roll20 to be more than just a map centered system and am very happy with the direction it is headed.

Eeerrhh. What you describe is what I did mean by map-centered (channel, water combat, boat), with pictures background used in between. It does not mean map-exclusive and it is also what I do. What Axel has in mind, I think, is more in the way of interactive illustrations. Imho, a program built around maps does not interfere with the use of illustrations, so, I don't see a problem. But Axel fears that, by giving too much priority on map features development, it steers Roll20 toward a map exploration game. But he'll explain that much better than me.

Thanks for bumping this, it reminds me to re-request contextual notes (i.e. tooltips) It would be a great feature for almost any style of play, even "mapless", so long as you're using some kind of pictures/objects on the tabletop.

Patrick, Interactive "graphic adventure" type illustrations and backgrounds would be an example of something that could be possible to do without involving maps at all --and OTOH, without excluding them--, but there are many other factors for saying if a Virtual Tabletop is map-focused or not. Even the Graphical User Interface is one of them: if the central descriptive and flavorful, visual element there is going to be just the map and there is anything else visually appealing for setting the mood in the graphical interface, there are possibilities of the app being a map-focused one, regardless how people is going to use it. Currently with Roll20 we have an elegant, very "clean" (and very "white") graphical interface that remains open to possibilities, and that is one of the reasons why I suggested "skins" for Roll20 ( GUI Skins/Themes for Roll20 : <a href="http://community.roll20.net/discussion/957/gui-skinsthemes-for-roll20/p1" rel="nofollow">http://community.roll20.net/discussion/957/gui-skinsthemes-for-roll20/p1</a> ). While you are right about my concern about Roll20 giving too much priority to maps in detriment of other features --and also defining itself in that way as a map-focused app--, what Robert Makowsky is talking about isn't what I exactly call a map-centered approach, even if he's using maps: this is because --from his account-- he seems to be using maps along with descriptive images in a balanced way , this is to say, without assigning "primacy" to maps. In his own words: depending on what is appropriate. Also, having more ways for the players focusing their attention in their own characters and perhaps in the "adventurying party" --like having character portraits always at view, independently from displayed maps or background images-- is one of the different things that contributes to making Virtual Tabletops something more than map-based apps. To my mind one of the most central things in role playing games are the characters, and when I say characters I'm not actually speaking about "their minis placed on maps", but about anything that helps to focus the mind's attention into these fictional characters for minimizing Out-of-Character and metagaming attitudes; an unbalanced use of maps often promotes and tilts things into these areas that I usually want to avoid at all costs in my games. Concerning the portraits, I know that you have a thread here with a cool suggestion for them and, if I remember well, these portraits would be displayed along with their corresponding tokens in maps; that's good, and I also suggested in a different thread the idea of displaying small thumbnails of character portraits in the Text Chat box for encouraging immersion, but here I'm talking of a different thing: an option for having the character portraits in view all the time in the same way people using WebCams have the video feeds displayed regardless the Roll20 page selected. Also, clicking in these character portraits could be a shortcut for immediately accessing to the corresponding character sheet --if there is any-- without needing to go to the Journal tab. I think that ideally, for clarity, these character portraits images should match the ones assigned to the character sheets at the Journal. Currently I can get a horizontal file of character portraits in Roll20 if my players switch their Roll20 user profile images or "avatars" to suitable portraits of their characters, but this is a substandard solution --changing the user profile picture is extra work and interferes with the forums activity-- and besides, it requires for them to disable WebCams because this use of profile pictures as character portraits isn't actually supported by the app (you have to chose WebCam or profile picture, you can't have both). The result is like what can be seen in this screenshot (it's modified for purposes of illustrating the idea): Actually, I find difficult to "explain" what makes a Virtual Tabletop to be more than just another map-focused app, because instead of analyzing a number of elements encouraging users to go beyond "board game approaches", it's rather the qualitative result reached by the conjoint participation of these elements in practice, which requires to be experienced.

Owen O. said, Thanks for bumping this, it reminds me to re-request contextual notes (i.e. tooltips) It would be a great feature for almost any style of play, even "mapless", so long as you're using some kind of pictures/objects on the tabletop. Agreed. I hope you can forgive the thread derailment . . . This discussion happened in a natural way.

I'm going to throw in my two cents, I guess. VTT: Virtual TableTop. Any number of things can be on top of a table. Not just maps. What I DON'T think we need is all sorts of interactive crazy stuff that basically makes it feel more like a video game. What we DO need is all the functionality that you would expect to find on a table top, and maybe a few extra things to make that easier to do using a mouse and keyboard, instead of hands. A "bin" of tokens, for example. I like the tooltip idea, too, because that seems like something I would do for my games on an actual table. Although less a "tooltip" and more an info card on the table somewhere else. Also, in the spirit of keeping the VTT looking like an actual tabletop, I demand the ability to put mountain dew cans (full, empty, half-empty) and pizza on the table. And I mean full, 3D graphics on those. To enhance realism. :D But yeah, the goal of a VTT is to simulate a table. If you use it for maps or printed images or whatever, that's your thing. But most tables don't let you tap a part of the picture and it automagically changes into something else. Tabletop games are usually meant for the DM and the players to work together to weave a story through their words and actions. So to me, interactive bits feel like cheating.

Hi Axel, I like your idea about the portraits. Though my preference would go to any possibility to display portraits with the tokens (which would mean also using them on maps and having also the NPCs portraits). You can not have too much portraits anyway. I won't enter into a discussion about what is a balanced way to use maps and non-maps graphics in a game, because, as you know, I don't make a difference between a map and the other kinds of graphics. But we won't agree on that one. I am more and more of a "anything that makes the job is fine" frame of mind. Which attitude is probably helped because I prefer using Roll20 for asynchronous games, where I have the time to sketch what I need on the spot (maps, portraits, paysage, characters, tokens,...). For face to face sessions, I still prefer Maptool for reasons that would take us far from the present topic. I think that Ian McKie has a point with interactive bits. I wouldn't say cheating, but you could easily make a VTT feel like a third rate video game if tastelessly done. And I also apologize for having taken the thread away from the tooltips tool it was about (which is something I would like, particularly if you can put portraits, or other graphics, in the tooltips; did I say that I love portraits?).

I'm going to throw in my two cents, I guess. VTT: Virtual TableTop. Any number of things can be on top of a table. Not just maps. Precisely my point. What I DON'T think we need is all sorts of interactive crazy stuff that basically makes it feel more like a video game. I'm not sure of what are these "lots of interactive crazy things" that you have in mind, but if you think that making possible to click a token for triggering a sound file in the already existent Roll20 Jukebox is "video gamish", or that one is betraying the role playing experience for being able to click into a token for switching the view to a new Roll20 page (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c4z8vc8" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/c4z8vc8</a>), then ready yourself for things like Dynamic Lighting . . . Actually, since I was having the strong feeling that some people wasn't getting the point of that a Virtual Tabletop isn't per definition a map-focused thing, I had to recur to things like those interactive images for speaking about a stretched concept of what a token is --one of my points: not just minis for maps, but any kind of image, even Cards deployed at the table (why the map grid appears over them? Perhaps because the canvas is a map and not a table?). And if you look at these "interactive images" closely, they don't involve very much actually. (. . .) I like the tooltip idea, too, because that seems like something I would do for my games on an actual table. Although less a "tooltip" and more an info card on the table somewhere else. Exactly my view here too. I mean, I also prefer the info card instead the tooltip; an info card that would be handled and placed . . . like a token in the virtual table, which amounts to an stretched concept of what a token is for Roll20. But yeah, the goal of a VTT is to simulate a table. If you use it for maps or printed images or whatever, that's your thing. In that sense, it would be good that the Page Settings wouldn't be automatically assuming that you are always going to place a map into the canvas, because when one creates a new page by default it appears with a square grid on it, and the canvas itself is measured by a number of X and Y grid cell units of 70 pixels each, which only makes sense for maps. This is an assumption that currently Roll20 is making, but that would be very easy to change without clashing with anything. But most tables don't let you tap a part of the picture and it automagically changes into something else. The devs are already working in what they call "multi-sided tokens" that will be doing exactly that, following the current example of Cards: they change its image just by clicking on them. Tabletop games are usually meant for the DM and the players to work together to weave a story through their words and actions. So to me, interactive bits feel like cheating. Only that I'm failing to see the connection between weaving a story by means of words and actions and "cheating" (?) by triggering sounds from the Jukebox in ways linked with the game handouts, which in turn are linked to the story, and are indeed part of it. Think that the emphasis I put in "interactive bits" was to compensate the active develoment in things like Dynamic Lighting --very cool feature, but stressing the maps a lot-- and the requests for turning Roll20 into a MapTool successor. What I seek is a Virtual Tabletop encouraging role playing and supporting narrative aspects that aren't easy to handle by means of Internet communication, like more chat modalities (<a href="http://community.roll20.net/discussion/1096/chat-modalities-for-roll20/p1" rel="nofollow">http://community.roll20.net/discussion/1096/chat-modalities-for-roll20/p1</a>) for those not using WebCams for a reason or another, and other things that I've already mentioned, like ways for focusing better into your character. Lucky, the Jukebox for instance is one of these things.

Patrick C. said, Hi Axel, I like your idea about the portraits. Thank you. I'd like to see something along these lines implemented in the app. Though my preference would go to any possibility to display portraits with the tokens (which would mean also using them on maps and having also the NPCs portraits). You can not have too much portraits anyway. Sure. Character portraits --PC and NPC-- are just important in role playing games, and there are diverse ways of having them. I won't enter into a discussion about what is a balanced way to use maps and non-maps graphics in a game, because, as you know, I don't make a difference between a map and the other kinds of graphics. But we won't agree on that one. We don't, because to my mind there is a qualitative difference between a narrative image/illustration/painting and a map. Even if with both approaches one is sharing information with others, it's not the same thing: the form of that information matters to the receiving mind. A proof of this is that these different approaches often encourage different mindsets --this said, both mindsets can be good to have in a game at different times! I think that Ian McKie has a point with interactive bits. I wouldn't say cheating, but you could easily make a VTT feel like a third rate video game if tastelessly done. But by echoing such comparison, it would be like saying that implementing things like Dynamic Lighting and/or Line of Sight/Dynamic Fog of War would make Roll20 to look like a terrible copy of the Diablo III computer game :) (. . .) did I say that I love portraits?) I think you did!

But by echoing such comparison, it would be like saying that implementing things like Dynamic Lighting and/or Line of Sight/Dynamic Fog of War would make Roll20 to look like a terrible copy of the Diablo III computer game :) It could be, really. That is why I added "tastelessly". It all depends on how it is used. If you rely so much on those kind of features that they become the most important thing in your game, then you have a third rate Diablo. And then peoples begin to ask next for using animated gifs for the tokens or the camp fire.... Just as you could also turn an interactive VTT session into an abysmal point and click game. In my opinion, it all depends if the use of those tools is needed in the context where it happens, if it adds anything to what happens to the characters (in terms of comprehension of the situation, immersion in the game or just feel of the moment...) or if it is just used because it is available to the GM, so he can be a little showy (just an easy wow factor).

Patrick C. said, It could be, really. That is why I added "tastelessly". (I was editing the paragraph you are answering to just in case, but then this machine rebooted.) Definitely it's important to be aware that it's up to the users to be able to use the features in effective ways, otherwise it can be a mess. But, doesn't that applies for everything at any rate, from map design, to adventure design, including game master and player skill? It all depends on how it is used. If you rely so much on those kind of features that they become the most important thing in your game, then you have a third rate Diablo. And then peoples begin to ask next for using animated gifs for the tokens or the camp fire.... Agreed. That is already happening in some VTTs. On the other hand, in my answer to Ian McKie above I said why I stressed a bit certain non-map related possible features.

Definitely it's important to be aware that it's up to the user to be able to use the features in an effective way, otherwise it can be a mess. But, isn't that happening for everything at any rate, from map design, to adventure design, including game master and player skill? Yes, but with great powers and features comes great responsibility to restrain yourself to use them all just because they are there. It can be counterintuitive, but it is easier to turn a session into a kitsch overpainted parody when having a full complement of tools than when only using the drawing tools on a white background. On the other hand, in my answer to Ian McKie above I said why I stressed a bit certain possible features. Yes, my comment was just general, it was not about any precise feature.

I'm not sure of what are these "lots of interactive crazy things" that you have in mind, but if you think that making possible to click a token for triggering a sound file in the already existent Roll20 Jukebox is "video gamish", or that one is betraying the role playing experience for being able to click into a token for switching the view to a new Roll20 page (<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c4z8vc8" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/c4z8vc8</a>), then ready yourself for things like Dynamic Lighting . . . For triggering sound files: It would be neat, but kind of unnecessary. Either the players don't bother to click tokens beyond their own, like we do now, or there will be players that click EVERYTHING hoping for a sound file. For changing pages: Definitely bad. That takes too much control away from the DM, I think. Especially since we still don't have the ability to have the party on separate pages from each other. This also gives the problem of players clicking on everything they see, or not bothering and it never getting used. That tinyurl link is broken, by the way. Dynamic Lighting: This is something I would see as LESS intrusive to the flow of the game. It mostly just means the DM can turn it on and bam, less work. Though I personally won't use it much. I'm kinda evil, so when I DM, my players get to do their own figuring out how far they can see MUAHAHAHAHAAH. *cough* My own idea, that other people probably share: In a similar way, the ability to click a token and have it link to the character's Journal entry, character sheet, or what-have-you would be fantastic. When I DM, that's information that I have on-hand (I have my players make some basic info cards for me), but it's a bit harder to do on Roll20. Putting the stat block in the Journal, then being able to click the token to see its info would be amazingly useful. Actually, since I was having the strong feeling that some people wasn't getting the point of that a Virtual Tabletop isn't per definition a map-focused thing, I had to recur to things like those interactive images for speaking about a stretched concept of what a token is --one of my points: not just minis for maps, but any kind of image, even Cards deployed at the table (why the map grid appears over them? Perhaps because the canvas is a map and not a table?). And if you look at these "interactive images" closely, they don't involve very much actually. In general, that area gets used for maps more than anything else, so that's what the screen defaults to. You can turn off the grid in page settings. Exactly my view here too. I mean, I also prefer the info card instead the tooltip; an info card that would be handled and placed . . . like a token in the virtual table, which amounts to an stretched concept of what a token is for Roll20. I propose a new layer, for stuff that everyone can see, that isn't the map or the token layer. Call it the "Misc Stuff" layer. This is where we'll place info cards and cans of Mountain Dew. Stuff that isn't directly related to the setting of whatever you're doing. In that sense, it would be good that the Page Settings wouldn't be automatically assuming that you are always going to place a map into the canvas, because when one creates a new page by default it appears with a square grid on it, and the canvas itself is measured by a number of X and Y grid cell units of 70 pixels each, which only makes sense for maps. This is an assumption that currently Roll20 is making, but that would be very easy to change without clashing with anything. Like I mentioned above, the most common use of that space is for maps, and most commonly, maps use the square, 70px x 70px grid, so it defaults to that. Yes, it'd be easy to default it to be gridless, but then you'd have people saying "Turn it back to default to having the grid!" so they just leave it as-is. You can turn the grid off in Page Settings. The devs are already working in what they call "multi-sided tokens" that will be doing exactly that, following the current example of Cards: they change its image just by clicking on them. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, there. Yeah, at the moment there is no way to "flip" a card or something. I traditionally think of tokens in the figurine sense, so thinking of a flat token is odd for me. Only that I'm failing to see the connection between weaving a story by means of words and actions and "cheating" (?) by triggering sounds from the Jukebox in ways linked with the game handouts, which in turn are linked to the story, and are indeed part of it. Poor choice of words on my part. When I said "cheating" I meant that it makes it seem like one of those cheap, point and click adventure games from Newgrounds or BigFish. Fun? Yeah. But not really a good "tabletop" experience. It starts to feel less like a tabletop game and more like a $2 video game. It takes the focus away from the story, and moves it to "Click everything to see what we find." Dynamic lighting DOESN'T do that, in my opinion, because it's not something you have to directly interact with. It's just a thing that happens automatically, and only serves so that you spend less time doing math, and more time engrossed in the story. It doesn't break your immersion, but searching for clickables DOES. EDIT: And I scroll up to see that Patrick C. mentioned the point and click thing. I should seriously start reading everything before I respond. What I seek is a Virtual Tabletop encouraging role playing and supporting narrative aspects that aren't easy to handle by means of Internet communication, like more chat modalities (<a href="http://community.roll20.net/discussion/1096/chat-modalities-for-roll20/p1" rel="nofollow">http://community.roll20.net/discussion/1096/chat-modalities-for-roll20/p1</a>) for those not using WebCams for a reason or another, and other things that I've already mentioned, like ways for focusing better into your character. Lucky, the Jukebox for instance is one of these things. I've never actually used the jukebox for more than jokey blurbs like the Final Fantasy Victory theme. I generally prefer to describe the music's theme and let the players decide exactly what it sounds like. For me, the music sets the mood, and the players should imagine the music that fits the mood for them. But that's a personal preference. And yes. We DEFINITELY need more chat versatility. And an option to load the chat archive from newest stuff to oldest stuff. Takes forever to load 2 month's worth of chat stuff when you need to get to the loot list from yesterday.

I generally prefer to describe the music's theme and let the players decide exactly what it sounds like. For me, the music sets the mood, and the players should imagine the music that fits the mood for them I get it: you don't use Roll20 features like the Jukebox at all, and all you seem to want is an app for handling maps online with Dynamic Lighting, even if that contradicts what you said before: What I DON'T think we need is all sorts of interactive crazy stuff that basically makes it feel more like a video game. What we DO need is all the functionality that you would expect to find on a table top By the way, saying "all sorts of interactive crazy stuff" is a complete exaggeration. And this: But most tables don't let you tap a part of the picture and it automagically changes into something else. No. All tables allow to do that. Some cardboard tokens can have two printed sides and you can flip them for showing a different image, I've seen it. If you only can think of 2D tokens in VTTs as physical 3D miniatures, that's your thing.

I generally prefer to describe the music's theme and let the players decide exactly what it sounds like. For me, the music sets the mood, and the players should imagine the music that fits the mood for them I get it: you don't use Roll20 features like the Jukebox at all, and all you seem to want is an app for handling maps online with Dynamic Lighting, even if that contradicts what you said before: What I DON'T think we need is all sorts of interactive crazy stuff that basically makes it feel more like a video game. What we DO need is all the functionality that you would expect to find on a table top By the way, saying "all sorts of interactive crazy stuff" is a complete exaggeration. And this: But most tables don't let you tap a part of the picture and it automagically changes into something else. No. All tables allow to do that. Some cardboard tokens can have two sides and you can flip them for showing a different image, I've seen it. If you think about 2D tokens in VTTs as physical 3D miniatures, that's your thing. WOAH. Why all the hostility? Also, quoting people out of context, and completely ignoring their clarifications is rude. I clarified what I meant by video game in the post that YOU quoted. Yes, "all sorts of interactive crazy stuff" is indeed an exaggeration. It was deliberate. Generally, exaggerations like that are. I also conceded the point on the multi-sided tokens. I admitted my mis-perception, even. I never said multi-sided tokens were bad. My case this entire time has been that the point-and-click style of story progression is best left away from the VTT stuff. I also never said that anything with the jukebox was bad, simply because I don't use it. I said I don't like the clickable token bit because it enforces the "search for clickables" attitude that you would get from a point-and-click flash game, and I don't think that's what a VTT should be used for. I explained why I think Dynamic Lighting is different, even. I even said that I probably won't use it on campaigns I DM, because I'm evil and I like to make my players do the math, sometimes. Seriously, dude, you have to learn to read everything before you respond to someone. quoting just the bits you don't like and commenting on those, regardless of if the person has clarified or rescinded that statement, will just make people hate you.

quoting people out of context, and completely ignoring their clarifications is rude. I wasn't quoting you out of context but simply not quoting all you wrote, which is very different. In your earlier answer, you have been ignoring the clarifications provided in yesterday's posts, like a need for stressing non map aspects in VTTs in the context of this discussion. And...Hostility? No way! I'm just using your own tone for answering to you ^^ I clarified what I meant by video game in the post that YOU quoted. You tried, but to me what you said doesn't make it more sensible nor less contradictory. Yes, "all sorts of interactive crazy stuff" is indeed an exaggeration. It was deliberate. Generally, exaggerations like that are. The use of exaggerations almost reaching the point of derisions doesn't exactly add to the objectivity of your point. I also conceded the point on the multi-sided tokens. I admitted my mis-perception, even. That is good, but the way you said it sounded a bit ironic to me.

I get it: you don't use Roll20 features like the Jukebox at all, and all you seem to want is an app for handling maps online with Dynamic Lighting, even if that contradicts what you said before: To me, this sounds like you're directly accusing me of ignoring what anyone else might need. ESPECIALLY since the Jukebox itself never really was a major part of the conversation. It was used as an example, and my blurb at the end of my response to Axel said nothing about what SHOULD be done with it. I just was making idle conversation, and showing my inexperience with the jukebox itself. In general, the phrase "I get it" either means "I'm tired of listening to you tell me things" or "I'm accusing you of implying something that I think is bad". So if that wasn't your intent, those words are best avoided. I wasn't quoting you out of context but simply not quoting all you wrote, which is very different. It is different. And you were definitely doing the former, though perhaps not on purpose. For example, with my exaggeration from my first post. I clarified that in my second post, when I pointed out that "interactive stuff" refers to Axel's suggestion of token's being clickable for sounds or page changes, and why I don't like that idea. And you completely ignored all the information there, and jumped straight to the accusation. Yes, I exaggerated, in a way that I thought was pretty hard to miss the exaggeration. And I then explained myself in a later post, when it turned out I was misunderstood. In your earlier answer, you have been ignoring the clarifications provided in yesterday's posts, like a need for stressing non map aspects in VTTs in the context of this discussion. ?? What? I'm not sure what you mean. I read the discussion, threw in my opinions, then it turned out I wasn't clear, and I had misunderstood some of Axel's points. That's how a discussion happens. People misunderstand, others clarify, and this goes back and forth for awhile. It's why my second post exists. To clarify my not-so-clear first post, and address the parts that I misunderstood. And...Hostility? No way! I'm just using your own tone for answering to you ^^ O.o What tone? I didn't have one, as far as I could tell. Trying to read tone in text is difficult, and if someone disagrees with you, you're likely to see it as hostile. Best to read the words instead of the tone. I used your "I get it" to determine that you were acting condescending toward me. What words got that sound from my post? I can't find them. Heck, I even went out of the way to throw jokes in there to try and LOWER the hostility. (Mountain Dew cans, evil DM MUAHAHAHAHAAH, etc) I clarified what I meant by video game in the post that YOU quoted. You tried, but to me what you said doesn't make it more sensible nor less contradictory. Not really sure how to be more specific than "Point and click games like on Newgrounds or BigFish". Can't clarify any more than an exact genre and style of game, and where exactly you can find an example. The use of exaggerations almost reaching the point of derisions doesn't exactly add to the objectivity of your point. I realize this. That's why it was clarified in the second post. To clear up the waters that I muddied with my own bout of "foot-in-mouth syndrome". I also conceded the point on the multi-sided tokens. I admitted my mis-perception, even. That is good, but the way you said it sounded a bit ironic to me. Can't do much to change that, either. That's not really the way I meant it, and I'm not sure how to make it look less ironic.

I wasn't quoting you out of context but simply not quoting all you wrote, which is very different. It is different. And you were definitely doing the former, though perhaps not on purpose. I didn't quote you out of context. I'm not going to apologize for not answering in detail to each one of your paragraphs and instead cutting to the chase.

For triggering sound files: It would be neat, but kind of unnecessary. Either the players don't bother to click tokens beyond their own, like we do now, or there will be players that click EVERYTHING hoping for a sound file. Many people thinks differently: since 2007 or so, there are Virtual Tabletops allowing to arrange a set of sounds to tokens that can be accessed and triggered by means of the contextual menu. By the way, I never saw people in these VTTs going crazy and clicking everything just in case they can trigger any hidden sound; it doesn't work in that way and it doesn't encourages such attitude. What you are portraying as my weird, eccentric, or unuseful suggestions are, in fact, features already in use for Virtual Tabletops from some years ago. For changing pages: Definitely bad. That takes too much control away from the DM, I think. Especially since we still don't have the ability to have the party on separate pages from each other. This also gives the problem of players clicking on everything they see, or not bothering and it never getting used. That tinyurl link is broken, by the way. Here is the correct link, maybe it helps to clear something: "Have parent maps for DM, Portals, Gates and others" </strong) http://community.roll20.net/discussion/2917/have-parent-maps-for-dm-portals-gates-and-others-/comment#9 Regarding if that is "bad" and "takes too much control away from the GM" (I'm saying Game Master, not "Dungeon Master"), it depends on the way it's implemented. "Permissions" that can be enabled and disabled are already there. Dynamic Lighting: This is something I would see as LESS intrusive to the flow of the game. It mostly just means the DM can turn it on and bam, less work. While I'm neutral to Dynamic Lighting, there is many people opposed to such feature, even Roll20 users. On the other hand, it's intrusive to the flow of the game because it requires additional GM prep work, and it doesn't work just by clicking a button; it's intrusive because many role playing games are run on the fly, improvising. And yes, I also see your defense of Dynamic Lighting as contradictory with what you said about not turning things into a video game. Even if you say that you likely will not be using such feature, definitely that makes clear that you want to support the idea of Virtual Tabletops as being map-based "by definition" --which isn't true, and I remember the very beginnings of VTTs. Otherwise you wouldn't be defending this feature --even if you aren't going to use it!-- while dismissing everything I said along the lines of non map related features; if you want to object that you didn't dismiss everything I said, the fact is that you highlighted a lot the "interactive images" thing and on the other hand omitted any mention of the other suggestions and explanations, which results in a sort of maneuver for trying to undermine my main point here in a not very objective way. Also, seemingly you didn't noticed what I said in an earlier post answering to your objections: I repeat to you that I was stressing certain possible non map related features in VTTs because a difficulty for conveying what I mean with "non map-based Virtual Tabletop", especially regarding MapTool users. So, a good part of the stress on such features depends on the context of this discussion, but it seems to me that you were overreacting to them, exaggerating them, and giving them additional weight for trying to portray my posture as a bit silly. For instance, I never thought that it was going to be necessary to say that I wasn't speaking of turning VTTs into "point and click games" . . . That is putting words in my mouth. Maybe you didn't do that on purpose, I don't know. Again, I come from different non map-based Virtual Tabletops and one of them is using small, discrete features related with "interactive images" for good effect. Seriously, it's not "a mess" as some of you are imagining it --players aren't clicking everything on the screen!--, and it doesn't detracts from the role playing experience; rather on the contrary if it's used with moderation and a sense of the suitability. The problem is that these Virtual Tabletops that I mentioned aren't free and they have a lot of problems for keeping an active development (also, Roll20 is cool in itself). So, while people mainly concerned with having an online map application already has things doing a superb work in that area, like MapTool --and not just MapTool but others as well--, this is not the case for people wanting non map-based Virtual Tabletops. My own idea, that other people probably share: In a similar way, the ability to click a token and have it link to the character's Journal entry, character sheet, or what-have-you would be fantastic. This is what started this discussion in the first place: your desire of subordinating character sheets to tokens placed in maps. That is contrary to most role playing approaches and instead shows a board game mindset. For role playing games, miniatures are secondary --if they are there at all-- and the primary object players have in their hands is a character sheet. Speaking of this, the devs are working in character sheets for Roll20; they are already "released" in alpha in the dev server for people with Mentor accounts. I can tell to you that it's possible to link tokens to these character sheets --for keeping better certain numeric values and macros, but the character sheet isn't dependent on tokens. Also, making character sheets depending on tokens would be an unwise idea: what happens when there is no map in a game session? It happens often . . . Suddenly you have denied your players access to their character sheets; they have to wait the GM to display again a Roll20 page with a map with the tokens respective to their characters placed on it. Please look at this screenshot: it shows what is the current relationship between character sheets and map tokens in Roll20. Tokens can be effectively linked or related to character sheets at the Journal (by means of the optional Represents Character field), but these character sheets aren't subortinated to them: When I DM, that's information that I have on-hand (I have my players make some basic info cards for me), but it's a bit harder to do on Roll20. Putting the stat block in the Journal, then being able to click the token to see its info would be amazingly useful. Regardless the practical consequences, the thing for me is that subordinating character sheets to map elements --like tokens viewed as "minis"-- has much to do with the board game mindset that I have been mentioning before: there are plenty differences between board games and role playing games. But even speaking of the practical aspect, I don't see the need for accessing the character sheet at the Journal from tokens in maps. Or at least, it wouldn't be different than accessing character sheets from the character portraits --independent of maps and Roll20 pages-- that I mentioned earlier: the advantage of this is that a focus in portraits is something that you can have in a real world gaming table --they are just pictures, often inside the very character sheets-- and don't encourage a board game mindset but a role playing attitude. (Continues)

(Cont'd) In general, that area gets used for maps more than anything else, so that's what the screen defaults to. You can turn off the grid in page settings. But it's rather uninspiring and even a bit annoying the app making such assumption. At least, Page Settings for subsequent new pages could be "saved" for customization purposes, so non map centered users wouldn't need to disable the automatic map settings each time they create a new Roll20 page. This is a bit annoying, uninspiring or off-putting specially for people playing games that aren't using battle maps at all. Roll20 could gather an ampler active user base by making less stress into the map aspect in the first place; there are people playing role playing games mainly focused into narration, and when they see another map-based Virtual Tabletop, they dismiss it as unuseful (to them) and return to their IRC clients for online role playing . . . This said, I already explained that I like maps and in no way I'm against them. Please I would prefer to not repeat what I already elaborated in earlier posts; it doesn't add to the conversation. I propose a new layer, for stuff that everyone can see, that isn't the map or the token layer. Call it the "Misc Stuff" layer. This is where we'll place info cards and cans of Mountain Dew. Stuff that isn't directly related to the setting of whatever you're doing. Not a bad idea. In the Mentor forums, there have been requests for adding more map-making related layers --all together reaching up to six (!), if I remember well--, so a "Misc" layer without any mapping purposes sounds like an interesting suggestion. A possible problem with it, however, could be having a too large number of layers in the app, cluttering the interface. Still, it's something to think about, and here is something related to your "Misc Stuff" layer: When we aren't using the Roll20 page canvas at full display size, there is that grey empty space starting from the borders. Currently we can't place anything on that tabletop area (is it tabletop area? I'm not really sure), nor even Cards, so it could be useful to have that puzzling space active and working for placing non map (or canvas) related stuff, like these info cards. To my mind that would feel more like a tabletop: there would be a canvas with background images or maps, and then, the rest of the tabletop --namely, the grey area starting at the canvas' borders-- for placing and handling other things on it. Like I mentioned above, the most common use of that space is for maps, and most commonly, maps use the square, 70px x 70px grid, so it defaults to that. Yes, it'd be easy to default it to be gridless, but then you'd have people saying "Turn it back to default to having the grid!" so they just leave it as-is. You can turn the grid off in Page Settings. Ideally, allowing users to customize default Page Settings would address that without people complaining at all. This wouldn't be hard to implement --the problem here: the Roll20 Team needs more active support for devoting more time to active development. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, there. Yeah, at the moment there is no way to "flip" a card or something. You can flip cards in Roll20 right now: just enable a standard Deck in one of your campaigns. Then, by clicking on "Click to Draw, Draw to Deal" the card flips, showing the frontal image instead of the card backing. I traditionally think of tokens in the figurine sense, so thinking of a flat token is odd for me. Well, these tokens are technically "sprites" ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(computer_graphics)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(computer_graphics)</a> , and people thinks about them in different but not necessarily exclusive ways. (. . .) Dynamic lighting DOESN'T do that, in my opinion, because it's not something you have to directly interact with. It's just a thing that happens automatically, and only serves so that you spend less time doing math, and more time engrossed in the story. Partly I already answered to this, but also, you seem to be unaware of the people that finds that Dynamic Lighting goes in detriment of the role playing experience. For these people, such feature is an annoying thing they definitely don't want to see in their games, and yes, it requires the GM to spend more prep time. (Now, keep in mind I'm not particularly opposed to Dynamic Lighting.) Still, I don't think these reasons are enough for just dismissing a suggestion such as Dynamic Lighting. In the same way, I don't see most of your objections as enough for just dismissing my own suggestions in this thread. EDIT: And I scroll up to see that Patrick C. mentioned the point and click thing. I should seriously start reading everything before I respond. It seems to me that your first post in this thread, exaggerating the "interactive images" thing, encouraged him to think along that angle. (. . .) We DEFINITELY need more chat versatility. Right . . . It's good that we agree in something!