Vassal versus Roll20

[Chuckmedic]

Hi All,

Here’s a topic that might generate some forum traffic … which do you like better, Vassal or Roll20, and why? One rule — you have to give the reason you like one or the other better. Better yet, tell us the pros and cons of each from your perspective.

Personally, I haven’t played either enough to have a firm opinion yet. So far …

Roll20 — I like the audio/video features on Roll20 a lot. Of course you need a headset or mic, but a headset can be <$20. If all off the players had a headset I think play might be as fast or faster than face to face play. Also, while certainly not perfect, it seems more stable than Vassal (fewer / no server disconnects, which plagued me yesterday on Vassal). Mechanics of moving on the board seem basically identical, along with recording altitude, etc.. Being able to write on the board is nice. I don't like how the avatars clog up the board (better when they're minimized, but still not perfect), and the turn order is obtrusive. Some things still aren't working great, like the initiative / turn order, but I'm thinking those can likely be improved over time. Cards are a bit of a hassle, but I also think that can be improved once everyone has decks ready to go. I get the sense that there is more we all need to learn about Roll20 to make it better, but the downside is that learning process could be painful. NOTE: I think I'm the reason Scott had counter problems on Sunday -- I uploaded a bunch of new counters and didn't set them up correctly. They worked for anyone with GM access, and Chuck was ok because he had one of Mark's counters ... just Scott was the victim. Vassal — current online players have a lot more experience here, which is a plus. I like that you can configure the chat windows nicely on your screen, so everything is open all at once (I have to flip back and forth to the team page in Roll20). I don’t like that when you get kicked off and come back you lose the chat history, nor do I like all of the airplane moves showing up in the chat window. It is much harder to get started on Vassal; Roll20 was easier to get going, which makes attracting new players easier. Getting the downloads and setup done isn’t easy or intuitive … it took me a while with the instructions, and Roll20 was running in a few minutes with a link from Mark. So, what does everyone else think? I’m happy to try Vassal a bit more (hopefully I’ll have a more stable connection next time), and I think we should keep testing / developing Roll20. Then we can make an informed call. I’m happy to get on Roll20 outside of game time to mess around, and figure out the ropes with others. Is anyone willing to run me through Vassal, at a time when we’re not slowing down a game? Finally, who developed Vassal (Kevan?) and is it possible to modify/update it? Graham

[Andrew Priest]

Yes Kevan did the last and latest module. I am not familiar with what goes into modifying a module, but I know it can be done. I agree with your stance Graham.
I like the sleek features of roll20, but it is setup more for roleplaying than tabletop board gaming. I think if we spend more time streamlining the system it could be great. Unfortunately with where it is at now, it lends to quite a bit of difficulties – cards etc. One other point that many have brought up – the random dice # generator really does not seem so random, particularly with the d6 function. multiple users have experience the same number coming up consecutively quite a bit, which is frustrating.

Other than the server issues on Vassal – which, I would recommend checking their website as to which version of Java works best with their system- works great. It does not have the video/chat feature built in, but since it seems like many players dont have this capability anyways makes it a moot point – that, and skype is easy to setup for those that do.
I like that the board in Vassal has numbers, and its easier to track counter movement – i think for new players this is very helpful.

[Chuckmedic]

Thanks for the post Andy. I agree it was clearly created for role playing games — but I would like to get specifics on the “difficulties” for FITS.
1) I agree regarding cards. I think this can be entirely fixed by setting people up correctly at the outset with their cards, and actually explaining how to use them. I figured it out in about 5 minutes, and even created a custom set of cards.
2) I don’t agree about the random number generator. I think that’s just conspiracy theory / paranoia at work. But … I’ll test it. I think it will be easy to do so. My sense is, though, that even if I test it, anyone who misses 3 times in a row won’t believe me. Hey, that happens!
3) What else don’t people like about Roll20?

I will check out the vassal site regarding the server issues. I thought vassal was pretty nifty absent getting booted off every 5 minutes. Could have just been bad luck or a bad connection, too, so I’m happy to try again. I also agree about the numbers on the squares. That would be an improvement on Roll20.

I think the chat function would be great if everyone used it. Would add to the social element of the game, and would speed up play. Headsets are cheap (<$20), so what's the barrier? I never thought of Skype + Vassal, but that would work if multiple people can Skype together.

Finally, would you be willing to try to get a small group together to keep play testing Roll20? If we can bring one new person on at a time I think it will work better. On Sunday night, without Mark, it was just hard to handle so many Roll20 beginners all at once, while trying to play an actual game.

Graham

[Chuckmedic]

Ok, I checked the d6 rolling function on Roll20, for the conspiracy theorists out there. I had the system generate 2,500 d6 rolls. They broke down as follows:

1 – 409
2 – 423
3 – 380
4 – 433
5 – 442
6 – 413

Of course the expected number of rolls per result is 416.67. To test the distribution I used a chi-square test. The p-value was 0.338948. That is well within the normal 95% confidence interval for the rolls being “fair”. So, this test does NOT support the conspiracy theory — that the rolls are somehow biased.

Also, just eyeballing the sample also does nothing to validate the theory that people should miss too much on Roll20, at least from close range.

Graham

[Chuckmedic]

Andy, do you know if there is a game tonight (Monday April 21), the 96th anniversary of the death of Manfred von Richthofen?

I think we should play a low level, Camels vs Dr.Is game today!

Graham

[Scott Kolar]

That sounds like a great idea Graham. The trouble for me today is I have to take my daughters to a concert in Minneapolis tonight so I won’t be available for anyone to shoot down . It was great to meet you at the mini con! I will keep an eye on the post for any updates.

[Andrew Priest]

A Richtofen Memorial game is a GREAT idea Graham!! I will be on at the usual time, hopefully we’ll get 4!

If so, game #1 will be April 1918, Low over Allied lines…Camels, DR.1s, and a few Australian MGs…

[Kevan]

On Graham’s original topic of Vassal vs Roll20, I’ve played a couple of games using Roll20 now and I have to say that, at best, I’m on the fence. I’m trying hard to keep my mind open when it comes to Roll20, as I don’t want to be one of those people who resists change and is dismissive of different ways of doing things.

The major benefit that I can see in Roll20 is stability of the platform. Conflicting commitments kept me from Vassal Dawn Patrol in recent years, but I’ve heard that stability became a real problem. I can’t recall disconnects being a significant problem back when I played regularly. The audio/video chat in Roll20 doesn’t work at all for me, but Skype fills in quite well. Of course, it also could serve the same function in Vassal, so that’s a wash. I do like the initiative window and I could see where Roll20 would be a much better option than Vassal for the email games we used to play, as players can log in at any time and complete their moves and there is no need to send files back and forth between players or to a GM. In fact, I would really like to try out a game done this way.

What I miss about Vassal is how easy it was to customize the module for boardgaming needs. I don’t think we ever did roll out our most advanced version of the module, which included separate versions for the main versus team windows, and fancy bells and whistles such as automatic hit location results. Some day I need to dig out the latest version that we had in development, as I think it was pretty much ready to roll out. The current module does have a variety of counter conditions that can be quickly toggled, such as flaming, smoking, gliding, etc, and I find I miss those when I’m playing in Roll20. I personally find that selecting counters from off board and stacking of counters on the board are also handled much more smoothly in Vassal than in Roll20.

[Chuckmedic]

Points all well taken, Kevin. I have little Vassal experience, and would give it a go if others were interested. I think it is more intimidating for new players, though — having to download software and set things up. Also, I do find the multiple windows, etc, confusing. Roll20 might be a little easier in that regard.

The modifications to Vassal did seem to make it more “customized”. Having the ability to do that is great. I doubt it exists in Roll20, but you can do some things, like macros for specific dice rolls. I bet we can do more than we’re doing today, but less than Vassal. Was Vassal easy for others to modify, in a collaborative way, or could only you do it?

Not sure how selecting counters worked in Vassal. I agree stacking counters is a pain in Roll20. Marking counters for things like smoke and flame should be easy in Roll20, but it isn’t. There are lots of icons you can easily add to the counters, but just not the right ones! Maybe we could get that added somehow.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Graham

[Author]

Posts