Is Roll20 for RPGs?

I have always had the impression that Roll20 is intended as a communication tool with virtual tabletop for RPGs specifically, and that if its capabilities turn out to be useful for card games and board games that is a mere incidental benefit. But I have lately realized that some other members of this beta test community consider that it is intended for gaming more generally, and that supporting Bridge, poker, Magic the Gathering, chess, snakes & ladders, and Settlers of Catan alongside RPGs is a design objective. Which is it?

Why so combative Age? The Roll20 team has been very upfront about their intention to draw lines when requests go outside the bounds of the programs design philosophy. This, and frankly many of your other posts, have been very aggressive about putting others suggestions or views down while at the same time being very adamant about your own preferences. I suggest letting the Roll20 team comment when things are deviating from their intent.

It's just an enquiry. I'm quite happy with either answer.

Well, I think the name Roll20 implies a focus on RPGs. BUT, we very much talk about a desire to make this a good system for as many table-focused activities as possible. Chess, checkers, poker, and Settlers of Catan are all things we've talked about wanting to be sure are eventually easily achieved via the system (and, honestly, if you put effort into it, all of those could be played right now, with Settlers being tough but not impossible on the cards end). The barrier currently is keeping up with the community's appetite. The more time we spend on fog of war mechanics, for example, the less time we're spending on those other elements. Right now we're okay with that, because we're working with all of you fine beta testers and can learn about ways to support game systems that we're less familiar with during this process. Rest assured, though-- we fully intend to eventually ignore you all utterly and do whatever the hell we please. :)

Okay then. That's an eye-opener, and I will adjust my position accordingly. I reckon that this makes the turn-tracker more convincing than I had previously thought. But it makes me even more skeptical about vision-blocking, dynamic light effects, and individual fog-of-war.

Agemegos, nothing that is posted here makes me sceptical. It is not my job as a Betatester to decide which request fits in the philosophy and which dies not. As a betatester I test the software and make sugestions what might be usefull. as a betatester I don't judge on other Betatesters Ideas. That's the job of the team.

I didn't say that it made you skeptical, nor that it ought to make your skeptical, I said that it made me skeptical. A statement of my belief and judgement is not an anathema against all others. Now, I'm not saying that you suffer the same limitation that I do, but in order for me to tell whether a feature is useful or not I have to know what the purpose of the whole is. It seems to me that a feature that is useful in one context might be useless in another, and so I can't suggest what might be useful until I know "useful for what?". Now that I am aware that the developers have it in view to use Roll20 for poker and Settlers of Catan it seems to me that card handling and poker chips are even more useful than I realised when I suggested them. On the other hand, in a facility dedicated to supporting only D&D-like games, they would have been less useful than I thought they were in Roll20. As we are beta testers it behooves us to suggest all kinds of solutions to problems, including simple ones, not just new features. And indeed it is our part to give feedback of all kinds. Except, perhaps, to put down other beta testers for asking what the product is for.

The way we do things in a community environment is equally as important, if not more so, then ones intent. Being combative, patronizing and dismissive of others suggestions and perspectives dilutes what, if presented in a different manner, is most likely a good discussion. I believe your post was aggressive and condescending towards others in this community, including the devs. If you did not intend to illicit a reaction of this type, I would consider how you express yourself and reflect on how it may be interpreted. Also, I apologize if you felt my comment 'put you down.' My post reflected my thoughts on what you posted, it certainly didn't reflect upon you as a person. I also felt I expressed my opinion in a civil way. Sorry if you felt otherwise.

I think that there's always going to be features that I need and use, and features that I don't use. However, just because I don't use a feature, doesn't mean it shoudn't exist. I think the biggest problem, is that if you look at the extremely varied RPG systems, you need to encompass a lot of different mechanics (I mean, look at the dice thread) and that not scratching the surface of role playing games that use cards, counters, Vulcan mind melds, bits of string and pocket lint or index cards. In the process of embracing these systems you've automatically enabled me to play monopoly (all I need is dice, a board, tokens and two customizable card decks -- already completely possible) well, except maybe the two card decks, I'm not positive you can have multiple decks out right now anyway, back on track. By embracing a wide number of systems, which seems to be at the heart of the dev's goals, you're also attracting a wider audience, which will eventually translate into more paying customers, and this IS a business. Even if revenue isn't the primary motivation, it still is A motivation. Servers, bandwith and hard drives don't pay for themselves. (Not to imply that the Roll20 team is a bunch of money grubbing cash whores -- far from it!) Anyway. That's my take on things, and honestly, from everything I've seen during this beta, I would say that the intent does seem to support RPG's first, and the ability to support board/card games is merely an auxiliary bonus.

The way we do things in a community environment is equally as important, if not more so, then ones intent. Being combative, patronizing and dismissive of others suggestions and perspectives dilutes what, if presented in a different manner, is most likely a good discussion Indeed, but though I resent the way that I have been patronised in this and other discussions I try not to let that affect the substance of discussion. believe your post was aggressive and condescending towards others in this community, including the devs. If you did not intend to illicit a reaction of this type, I would consider how you express yourself and reflect on how it may be interpreted. I have so reflected, but I still don't see it. I think you must be putting an unreasonably hostile interpretation on what I wrote, perhaps assuming insincerity. My initial question in this discussion was an earnest one (and received an unexpected and therefore especially informative answer), not a rhetorical artifice, and I don't see what about it struck you as combative. Also, I apologize if you felt my comment 'put you down.' My post reflected my thoughts on what you posted, it certainly didn't reflect upon you as a person. I also felt I expressed my opinion in a civil way. Sorry if you felt otherwise. That's gracious of you, but do not feel too concerned. In writing of put-downs I was thinking more about the people who saw fit to give negative votes to the post in which I ask whether I was mistaken about the intended scope of this project. PS. I see that the negative votes I mentioned above have now been withdrawn, or perhaps obscured by positive votes.

Well, I think the name Roll20 implies a focus on RPGs. I took it that way (too narrowly, as we have seen). But given miniatures wargames that use d20s and RPGs that don't, the implication isn't open-and-shut. A person might have taken the name "Roll20" as suggesting a focus on the D20 family of games. This not being clear to me, I thought it best to ask. Perhaps I ought to have done so in a private conversation, since admitting uncertainty in public is read as combative and patronising.

I took it that way (too narrowly, as we have seen). But given miniatures wargames that use d20s and RPGs that don't, the implication isn't open-and-shut. A person might have taken the name "Roll20" as suggesting a focus on the D20 family of games. This not being clear to me, I thought it best to ask. Perhaps I ought to have done so in a private conversation, since admitting uncertainty in public is read as combative and patronising. It's fine to have these discussions out loud and in the open. I don't think the discussion in and of itself is combative or patronising. Tone leaves something to be desired, but as I'm the snarkiest snark around these parts, I don't get to give tips on that sort of thing. heh

That's weird. I didn't see anything wrong with Agemegos' initial message, but the rest of the people seemed to take it quite negatively. In any case, IMO it's better if we not make an issue out of people's opinions (pun intended ;))

Let's let it drop.