MB: Since your interview at iCon what changes have been made to Battlegrounds?
H: Battlegrounds v1.0.6b was released just before iCon (March 24th, 2007). Since then, there have been 4 updates to
the software (v1.0.7, v1.0.7a, v1.0.8, and v1.0.8a). The latest non-beta version is v1.0.8a.
MB: What changes (if any) are imminent, and what is on the "to do" list?
H: Battlegrounds v1.0.9 is due out later this month. It includes the following new features:
v1.1, coming later this year, will focus on adding drawing tools, so that GMs can create new maps without needing a
separate mapping program, or even improvise maps on-the-fly, right during a game session. There may also be a layer
that players can draw on collaboratively.
Other plans for future versions include card deck support, adding distance-measuring and line-of-sight tools, the ability
to swap token images (e.g., idle, in combat, sitting, prone), and an improved table-based Turn Sequencer that will also
serve as a combat manager. The User Manual will also be updated to cover all the features that have been added since
v1.0 was released. And I plan to produce a series of tutorial videos to help new users learn the software, and allow
prospective buyers to see what Battlegrounds is capable of prior to purchase.
Interactive character sheets will probably have to wait until Battlegrounds v2, or might even be added via a separate
companion program that integrates seamlessly with Battlegrounds.
MB: Do you still stand by your initial comments with respect to Wizards of the Coast's announcement of a virtual Game
Table?
H: Absolutely. I do not think it is coincidence that the very month that WotC announced their Game Table is the month
where the most copies of Battlegrounds were sold. WotC is making a lot of people aware that virtual tabletops exist, and
that VTs provide a great means of playing RPGs online. I guess a number of people were either underwhelmed by Game
Table's featureset, or overwhelmed by its pricing scheme, and went looking for alternatives. And perhaps some people
simply don't feel like waiting until Game Table is available sometime next year. Whatever the reason, Battlegrounds is
already benefiting from WotC's entry into the VT market. I suspect the other VT apps have, too.
And let's face it: Battlegrounds' one-time purchase price of $15 or $30 per person sounds even more attractive when
you know that WotC will be charging $10/person/month for access to their Game Table software (i.e., $600/year/5-
person group).
MB: Do you think there is a future in making maps and tokens 3D, or do you think the 2D approach is best?
H: I firmly believe that the 2D approach is better. For starters, adding 3D capabilities to a VT means increasing the
complexity of the program. It results in a program that is harder to use, and harder to learn. Furthermore, it is much
easier to create 2D content than it is to create 3D content, and since more people can do it, there will always be vastly
more 2D content available than 3D content.
However, since WotC is making its Game Table in 3D, it seems to me that they are missing out on a tremendous
opportunity by not taking the 3D aspect all the way. They should have 3D walls, not just a flat floorplan. Have 3D
furniture, don't just paint it onto a 2D map. Allow for multiple levels of a dungeon or tower to be shown at once, and for
combat to occur between the different levels. Allow for flying creatures and underwater adventures. 3D holds a lot of
potential, but WotC does not seem to want to tap that potential, at least with their initial release of Game Table.
MB: The number of VTs are on the up. Do you believe there is room for so many?
H: Yes, there are now 35 or so different VT programs, and at least one new VT seems to come on the scene every few
months. I think there is only room for 5 or 6 VTs to be relatively successful and have a decent-sized user base. The other
VTs will probably die off, if they haven't already, or will maintain a small but devout following for a few more years.
What always surprises me is when a new VT app comes out and it's developers apparently had no idea of the plethora of
VT options that were already available.
MB: Do you think voice should be an integral part of a VT, or should it be left to the likes of Skype and Ventrilo and run
in parallel?
H: This could be argued either way, really. But I favor using a third-party VOIP solution, external to the VT. If the VT
should crash, your VOIP program can help you quickly coordinate a relaunch, whereas if you were using built-in VOIP, it
could be rather chaotic getting everyone back into the game in a timely fashion. Also, built-in VOIP is likely to be of lesser
quality than that provided by dedicated VOIP clients such as Skype, Ventrilo, Teamspeak, etc. Those companies have
teams of engineers whose sole job is to continually improve the voice quality and compression codecs, and to reduce
lag. No VTT developer can afford to spend that kind of resources on voice chat. Not even Wizards of the Coast.
MB: Do you think that there are categories of VTs, and if so, which categories does Battlegrounds fit into?
H: Sure, there are categories. The most obvious is free or commercial. Battlegrounds is commercial. Why? Well, because
it has taken years of full-time work to develop it, and it's only fair that I should receive some compensation for all that
work (I have to make a living, after all). I also work hard at providing timely technical support for my customers, either by
email, through the forums, or occasionally even joining their games to diagnose the problem they are having. I help my
customers (and even non-customers who browse my forums) by posting links to useful third-party apps, game tokens,
maps, tilesets, and anything that could potentially enhance their roleplaying games. I constantly scour the internet to
come up with this information, which could add value to their game sessions.
Another category of VTs would be system-specific or system-agnostic. Battlegrounds is system-agnostic, meaning you
can use it to run games using any RPG rules system, because it does not enforce any game rules. It's like a chess board
in that sense. It'll let you move the pieces around on the board however you want. Enforcing the game's rules is up to the
GM and the players. A nice benefit of the system-agnostic approach is that it is conducive to using house rules, which
would be difficult, if not impossible, to do in a VT with pre-programmed rules. Very few people play their games exactly as
they are written.
MB: Do you have plans to sell your product as a physical package, do you think there is a market for this?
H: Generally speaking, no, I don't plan on selling Battlegrounds as a physical product (i.e., a CD-ROM or DVD). Selling it
as a download only helps keep costs low. And because I live in South America, shipping costs to the rest of the world
would be considerable. Another reason that I don't sell a physical product is that because updates and improvements to
the program are so frequent that a CD-ROM would very quickly become obsolete.
The exception to this "no physical product" rule would be game conventions. I would love to start attending the larger
game conventions like Origins and GenCon, where I could give away the Battlegrounds Demo on CD-ROM.
Unfortunately, attending these conventions is expensive. I would need to sell around a hundred copies of Battlegrounds
at each convention just to recoup the cost of travel, hotel, and equipment rentals.
MB: You have a presence on many forums (including the competition!) and have made an impressive list of all the VTs
out there, how much of your time is spent browsing the net?
H: VTs are my hobby. I hang out on most of the VT forums because I love seeing how other developers deal with the
same issues I've faced while programming Battlegrounds. I like watching each program grow over time, and try to learn
from others' mistakes and successes.
I also promote my program on various RPG-related forums whenever I can. There's always someone asking how they
can continue playing their games online after they or their friends have moved away, and I think it's a shame not to let
them know how many options they have to do this. Developing a great program is useless if people don't know about it,
so I do a lot of grass-roots-style promotion, since I can't currently afford to run print ads in the major RPG magazines.
As a result, I spend a LOT of time hanging out on quite a number of forums. I should probably cut back on that, so that I
can get more development done, but the fact is that I need a steady influx of new customers in order to keep
development going. Aside from the occasional freelance multimedia project, I work on Battlegrounds full-time, so the only
way for me to pay the bills is to continually keep improving the program in order to grow the userbase. Due to the
availability of other commercial VTs and several free VTs, some of which aren't standing still, I have to try to offer much
more in order to avoid losing potential customers to the competition. Existing Battlegrounds users are constantly
benefiting from this "VT arms race", since they're constantly getting more than they originally paid for.
MB: Is Battlegrounds always going to remain rules agnostic, or have you plans for creating rulesets?
H: Battlegrounds will remain agnostic, but now that it supports Flash assets, users will soon be able to insert mini-
programs that specifically support their RPG system of choice. Also, the addition of custom Dice Macros in v1.0.9 will
effectively automate certain game mechanics, such as open-ended dice rolls, counting successes, and so on. This will
result in significantly faster game play.
I should point out that I am open to the possibility of licensing the Battlegrounds game engine to a game company, if they
want me to produce a VT that is custom-tailored to their specific game system/s. (A guy can dream, right?) Of course, the
resulting program wouldn't be system agnostic, and it wouldn't be Battlegrounds, it would be something entirely new.
Thanks to heruca for taking time out to answer some questions.
H: Battlegrounds v1.0.6b was released just before iCon (March 24th, 2007). Since then, there have been 4 updates to
the software (v1.0.7, v1.0.7a, v1.0.8, and v1.0.8a). The latest non-beta version is v1.0.8a.
- Here is a short recap of what has been added to Battlegrounds since iCon:
- Added a Text Macros feature
- Added the ability to Export and Import media asset bundles, which are useful for transferring game content to the
players before each session - A modified version of the Turn Sequencer is now available to players
- Text labels for figures may now be nested (i.e., grouped together in a submenu), to allow for better organization
and access to more labels with less clutter - Added new Fog of War tools for manual reveals and conceals, including rectangles, circles, polygons and
freehand tools (these replace the prior grid-based tools) - The GM can now choose to view the Fog of War as the players see it
- Added the ability to select units on the map with a marquee (via left-click-and-drag)
- The GM may now choose which Fog of War layers to use (Manual Only, Dynamic Only, or both Manual and
Dynamic) - Optimized the rendering speed for the Fog of War feature
- A GM-selected image may now be used as the Fog of War mask, in lieu of a flat color
- Added an option for Persistent Fog of War
- Added a means of completing incomplete peer-to-peer map transfers.
- User-created Flash content may now be used in BRPG. These may be static, animated, and/or interactive in nature
- The Deploy Figure panel, Deploy Object panel, Change Map panel, Send Audio panel, Send Visual Aid panel, and
the Library panel now remember the last category viewed, and will automatically access that category whenever
the panel is opened - Lots and lots of bug fixes
MB: What changes (if any) are imminent, and what is on the "to do" list?
H: Battlegrounds v1.0.9 is due out later this month. It includes the following new features:
- Dice Macros have been added, as well as support for many new dice mechanics, such as open-ended rolls, mixing
die types and die colors, counting successes, looking up results on tables, etc. - Dice now come in sets, and use a "plug-in" format, so you can disable dice that you don't need
- 11 new dice colors
- FUDGE dice added
- Snap-to-Grid now works on hex grids
- Mac users now have mousewheel support, too (used for zooming in and out quickly)
- A screenshot feature was added (useful for play-by-post games and session recaps)
- New figure bases are available, including bases without a facing indicator, for both square grids and hex grids
v1.1, coming later this year, will focus on adding drawing tools, so that GMs can create new maps without needing a
separate mapping program, or even improvise maps on-the-fly, right during a game session. There may also be a layer
that players can draw on collaboratively.
Other plans for future versions include card deck support, adding distance-measuring and line-of-sight tools, the ability
to swap token images (e.g., idle, in combat, sitting, prone), and an improved table-based Turn Sequencer that will also
serve as a combat manager. The User Manual will also be updated to cover all the features that have been added since
v1.0 was released. And I plan to produce a series of tutorial videos to help new users learn the software, and allow
prospective buyers to see what Battlegrounds is capable of prior to purchase.
Interactive character sheets will probably have to wait until Battlegrounds v2, or might even be added via a separate
companion program that integrates seamlessly with Battlegrounds.
MB: Do you still stand by your initial comments with respect to Wizards of the Coast's announcement of a virtual Game
Table?
H: Absolutely. I do not think it is coincidence that the very month that WotC announced their Game Table is the month
where the most copies of Battlegrounds were sold. WotC is making a lot of people aware that virtual tabletops exist, and
that VTs provide a great means of playing RPGs online. I guess a number of people were either underwhelmed by Game
Table's featureset, or overwhelmed by its pricing scheme, and went looking for alternatives. And perhaps some people
simply don't feel like waiting until Game Table is available sometime next year. Whatever the reason, Battlegrounds is
already benefiting from WotC's entry into the VT market. I suspect the other VT apps have, too.
And let's face it: Battlegrounds' one-time purchase price of $15 or $30 per person sounds even more attractive when
you know that WotC will be charging $10/person/month for access to their Game Table software (i.e., $600/year/5-
person group).
MB: Do you think there is a future in making maps and tokens 3D, or do you think the 2D approach is best?
H: I firmly believe that the 2D approach is better. For starters, adding 3D capabilities to a VT means increasing the
complexity of the program. It results in a program that is harder to use, and harder to learn. Furthermore, it is much
easier to create 2D content than it is to create 3D content, and since more people can do it, there will always be vastly
more 2D content available than 3D content.
However, since WotC is making its Game Table in 3D, it seems to me that they are missing out on a tremendous
opportunity by not taking the 3D aspect all the way. They should have 3D walls, not just a flat floorplan. Have 3D
furniture, don't just paint it onto a 2D map. Allow for multiple levels of a dungeon or tower to be shown at once, and for
combat to occur between the different levels. Allow for flying creatures and underwater adventures. 3D holds a lot of
potential, but WotC does not seem to want to tap that potential, at least with their initial release of Game Table.
MB: The number of VTs are on the up. Do you believe there is room for so many?
H: Yes, there are now 35 or so different VT programs, and at least one new VT seems to come on the scene every few
months. I think there is only room for 5 or 6 VTs to be relatively successful and have a decent-sized user base. The other
VTs will probably die off, if they haven't already, or will maintain a small but devout following for a few more years.
What always surprises me is when a new VT app comes out and it's developers apparently had no idea of the plethora of
VT options that were already available.
MB: Do you think voice should be an integral part of a VT, or should it be left to the likes of Skype and Ventrilo and run
in parallel?
H: This could be argued either way, really. But I favor using a third-party VOIP solution, external to the VT. If the VT
should crash, your VOIP program can help you quickly coordinate a relaunch, whereas if you were using built-in VOIP, it
could be rather chaotic getting everyone back into the game in a timely fashion. Also, built-in VOIP is likely to be of lesser
quality than that provided by dedicated VOIP clients such as Skype, Ventrilo, Teamspeak, etc. Those companies have
teams of engineers whose sole job is to continually improve the voice quality and compression codecs, and to reduce
lag. No VTT developer can afford to spend that kind of resources on voice chat. Not even Wizards of the Coast.
MB: Do you think that there are categories of VTs, and if so, which categories does Battlegrounds fit into?
H: Sure, there are categories. The most obvious is free or commercial. Battlegrounds is commercial. Why? Well, because
it has taken years of full-time work to develop it, and it's only fair that I should receive some compensation for all that
work (I have to make a living, after all). I also work hard at providing timely technical support for my customers, either by
email, through the forums, or occasionally even joining their games to diagnose the problem they are having. I help my
customers (and even non-customers who browse my forums) by posting links to useful third-party apps, game tokens,
maps, tilesets, and anything that could potentially enhance their roleplaying games. I constantly scour the internet to
come up with this information, which could add value to their game sessions.
Another category of VTs would be system-specific or system-agnostic. Battlegrounds is system-agnostic, meaning you
can use it to run games using any RPG rules system, because it does not enforce any game rules. It's like a chess board
in that sense. It'll let you move the pieces around on the board however you want. Enforcing the game's rules is up to the
GM and the players. A nice benefit of the system-agnostic approach is that it is conducive to using house rules, which
would be difficult, if not impossible, to do in a VT with pre-programmed rules. Very few people play their games exactly as
they are written.
MB: Do you have plans to sell your product as a physical package, do you think there is a market for this?
H: Generally speaking, no, I don't plan on selling Battlegrounds as a physical product (i.e., a CD-ROM or DVD). Selling it
as a download only helps keep costs low. And because I live in South America, shipping costs to the rest of the world
would be considerable. Another reason that I don't sell a physical product is that because updates and improvements to
the program are so frequent that a CD-ROM would very quickly become obsolete.
The exception to this "no physical product" rule would be game conventions. I would love to start attending the larger
game conventions like Origins and GenCon, where I could give away the Battlegrounds Demo on CD-ROM.
Unfortunately, attending these conventions is expensive. I would need to sell around a hundred copies of Battlegrounds
at each convention just to recoup the cost of travel, hotel, and equipment rentals.
MB: You have a presence on many forums (including the competition!) and have made an impressive list of all the VTs
out there, how much of your time is spent browsing the net?
H: VTs are my hobby. I hang out on most of the VT forums because I love seeing how other developers deal with the
same issues I've faced while programming Battlegrounds. I like watching each program grow over time, and try to learn
from others' mistakes and successes.
I also promote my program on various RPG-related forums whenever I can. There's always someone asking how they
can continue playing their games online after they or their friends have moved away, and I think it's a shame not to let
them know how many options they have to do this. Developing a great program is useless if people don't know about it,
so I do a lot of grass-roots-style promotion, since I can't currently afford to run print ads in the major RPG magazines.
As a result, I spend a LOT of time hanging out on quite a number of forums. I should probably cut back on that, so that I
can get more development done, but the fact is that I need a steady influx of new customers in order to keep
development going. Aside from the occasional freelance multimedia project, I work on Battlegrounds full-time, so the only
way for me to pay the bills is to continually keep improving the program in order to grow the userbase. Due to the
availability of other commercial VTs and several free VTs, some of which aren't standing still, I have to try to offer much
more in order to avoid losing potential customers to the competition. Existing Battlegrounds users are constantly
benefiting from this "VT arms race", since they're constantly getting more than they originally paid for.
MB: Is Battlegrounds always going to remain rules agnostic, or have you plans for creating rulesets?
H: Battlegrounds will remain agnostic, but now that it supports Flash assets, users will soon be able to insert mini-
programs that specifically support their RPG system of choice. Also, the addition of custom Dice Macros in v1.0.9 will
effectively automate certain game mechanics, such as open-ended dice rolls, counting successes, and so on. This will
result in significantly faster game play.
I should point out that I am open to the possibility of licensing the Battlegrounds game engine to a game company, if they
want me to produce a VT that is custom-tailored to their specific game system/s. (A guy can dream, right?) Of course, the
resulting program wouldn't be system agnostic, and it wouldn't be Battlegrounds, it would be something entirely new.
Thanks to heruca for taking time out to answer some questions.
Murgh Bpurn 22/09/07
RPG Virtual Tabletop
|
Interview with heruca, developer of Battlegrounds: RPG Edition