Dc20 rpg

[superteddy57]

Rulesets in the store that are in maintenance mode are being maintained by SmiteWorks staff. They are updated and work with the current version of CoreRPG and if supplements are released that need additional features added then expansion is made. Expanding the ruleset past where it was left is slower than if a dedicated developer is on the case, but it is done.

[deer_buster]

Rulesets in the store that are in maintenance mode are being maintained by SmiteWorks staff. They are updated and work with the current version of CoreRPG and if supplements are released that need additional features added then expansion is made. Expanding the ruleset past where it was left is slower than if a dedicated developer is on the case, but it is done.

My post was merely trying to point out to BadEye what the reference to "long term viability" was about. However, this is precisely the kind of thing we are referring to. Examples (that I was able to quickly find from Starfinder ruleset). Note that new features/enhancements/upgrades we are being told "tough luck" (paraphrasing).

As the ruleset is currently in maintenance mode and not receiving any new upgrades

To answer your question, the ruleset is currently in maintenance mode as there is no longer a dedicated developer in charge of the project. This does not mean it is not being monitored or worked on. It means that new enhancements or features will not be added.

The Starfinder ruleset is currently in maintenance mode; which means that we will continue to fix bugs and make sure it works with the core engine. Other than that, we are not actively developing new features for the ruleset.

A community member can certainly attempt to make an extension by building an effects engine for ship combat. As of right now the ruleset is under maintenance till another developer is available to take charge of expanding it's features.

The ruleset is currently in maintenance mode due to not having a dedicated developer. The only work being performed on it would be bug fixing and ensuring it is working with the latest Core update.

[deer_buster]

And that isn't so that we can debate the merits of "maintenance mode" and what it means. It was simply to point out the "facts" as they have been presented to us, and our fears/observations.

[BadEye]

I am fairly confident that the "long term viability" comment was meant to imply that community developed rulesets have suffered from several factors that have resulted in a loss of support, either temporarily or permanently, for the ruleset that has been in use. This is the ever-present risk that we, as the community, fear for rulesets that are not developed/maintained by a member of Smiteworks. For rulesets that are developed/maintained by Smiteworks, we feel confident that as changes/fixes are needed in the future, we don't have to worry about "sorry, that ruleset is in maintenance mode only since there isn't a community developer for it"

Sure, that is one perspective. Another one is if we took on every game system that we support on Fantasy Grounds with our internal team (of only a handful of ruleset developers), then the scope of rulesets we would cover would be significantly reduced, and working with passionate and talented community developers like we do allows for games that would never see coverage get it.

On the risk / reward spectrum, we have seen compelling evidence that the approach works. The risk you mention also exists for every digital platform out there, given the supply / demand element of how people engage with games, even for things we develop internally. If a game finds an audience, the ongoing maintenance becomes less of an issue.

[deer_buster]

Sure, that is one perspective. Another one is if we took on every game system that we support on Fantasy Grounds with our internal team (of only a handful of ruleset developers), then the scope of rulesets we would cover would be significantly reduced, and working with passionate and talented community developers like we do allows for games that would never see coverage get it.


On the risk / reward spectrum, we have seen compelling evidence that the approach works. The risk you mention also exists for every digital platform out there, given the supply / demand element of how people engage with games, even for things we develop internally. If a game finds an audience, the ongoing maintenance becomes less of an issue.

It's not a "perspective", it's just a simple fact that has been proven out. Community rulesets can be, and have been, abandoned by the community developer, whether that is because life happens, or their passion has moved on to another game, or they don't feel the reward is worth the effort anymore.


Commercial rulesets, on the otherhand, should be developed and maintained by Smiteworks. We should be able to depend on Smiteworks to keep them updated, and additional features added when it makes sense to do so (such as the Character Wizards, for example). Can we agree on that as not being a "perspective"?

[BadEye]

It's not a "perspective", it's just a simple fact that has been proven out. Community rulesets can be, and have been, abandoned by the community developer, whether that is because life happens, or their passion has moved on to another game, or they don't feel the reward is worth the effort anymore.


Commercial rulesets, on the otherhand, should be developed and maintained by Smiteworks. We should be able to depend on Smiteworks to keep them updated, and additional features added when it makes sense to do so (such as the Character Wizards, for example). Can we agree on that as not being a "perspective"?

No, we don't agree on that, but that's okay - I imagine there are several things that would fall into that category since not everyone will agree on everything.

As Dominic mentioned, we do take on maintenance for any "commercial" rulesets if a community developer has stopped developing for whatever reason. My reply was intended to illustrate that community engagement (shorthand - how many people are playing a game), factors into prioritization decisions for not only maintenance, but for onboarding new systems, and our reach with Fantasy Grounds is much wider because of the work we do with community developers. I also highlighted that this is not unique in the space, as all the other major VTTs employ a similar strategy.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, as we'll always take anything shared into consideration as we make the aforementioned decisions. Thanks!

[Jiminimonka]

It's not a "perspective", it's just a simple fact that has been proven out. Community rulesets can be, and have been, abandoned by the community developer, whether that is because life happens, or their passion has moved on to another game, or they don't feel the reward is worth the effort anymore.


Commercial rulesets, on the otherhand, should be developed and maintained by Smiteworks. We should be able to depend on Smiteworks to keep them updated, and additional features added when it makes sense to do so (such as the Character Wizards, for example). Can we agree on that as not being a "perspective"?

What's a commercial ruleset, from your "perspective"?

[deer_buster]

What's a commercial ruleset, from your "perspective"?

According to the Fantasy Grounds wiki (click on the "Commercial Rulesets" link on the following page Available Rulesets - Fantasy Grounds Customer Portal - Fantasy Grounds (atlassian.net), anything that is sold in the store. So, it's not a "perspective", it's Smitework's definition....

[Jiminimonka]

So pretty much all the rulesets.

Even very old rulesets are maintained though they don't get new features added, most likely because they have a small user base and its not cost efficient.

Meanwhile Moon Wizard and the rest of the team are improving CoreRPG and those improvements get added to the maintenance mode rulesets as well as the rest.

Anyway the point is if its on FG it doesn't "fall by the wayside".

[LordEntrails]

This is a good and interesting discussion. I think I see both sides, and have a view of my own. As well, as deer_buster has pointed out, there are some definitions that seem to be .. misused?

I get how users don't want active support and development for a ruleset to "go away" when they have financially and emotionally investment. And the StarFinder example is a fairly significant ruleset, at least in name recognition if not in number of users/purchases.

I also get how SmiteWorks (SW) would not want to make the decision to keep every ruleset in active development. It just doesn't make business sense. And its also fair to point out that all the other major VTTs (except maybe Roll20?, I don't know) use this same type of business model where most or even all game systems/rulesets are created by independent community members and as such they have the same issue with community developers stopping development and/or support.

Asking for DC20 to be a SW developed and maintained ruleset is a reasonable desire. But I don't think it would be a reasonable business decision for SW to actually make that commitment.

We users have to realize a reality of software development, the more code that is developed and supported, the slower new development becomes. This means that every actively developed ruleset that SW takes charge of is features and bug fixes on the core program that don't get implemented or resolved as quickly. Remember, community developers can develop and maintain rulesets. Only SW can improve the core program or make core program fixes. Making a decision to support a ruleset like DC20 that might only be used by 1% of the community at a cost of slower core development for 100% of the users is probably a poor business decision.