Plot subgroup

[Fox Lee]

I can't believe I haven't mentioned this yet, but apparently I haven't. It's been bugging me for ages though! Not a dealbreaker, of course, but it would be extremely useful for me.

I would love to be able to create plot groups as sub-groups of one another.

I have a huge adventure that spans ~30 character levels, over the course of 10 modules, each with 3-5 chapters in 2-5 sections. If this was the only thing I was doing in RW, I'd make each book its own plot group, so I could collapse what I don't need in the list right now and speed up my ability to navigate.

However, RW is a setting-wide tool! There will be lots of other adventures I want to run in this setting. Therefore, I instead had to opt for the entire adventure as a plot group, and resort to using numbering in the plot titles (so "The Thing That Happened" in book 1 chapter 3 section 2, becomes "1.3.2 The Thing That Happened") to keep them listed in something like a useful order.

If I was able to create plot groups within plot groups, I would have a much more usable model, with groups on the level of adventure, book AND chapter. I have used tag filtering to achieve something similar, but it would be SO much better to use if I could just collapse/expand books and chapters, rather than engage filters every time.

[Zaphod Beebledoc]

Plus 1!

[ryntak4536]

This can be done on the storyboard. In edit mode, right click the plot in question, and one option is "create new subplot from the selected plots"

[Mystic Lemur]

Linking plots in edit mode works well enough, especially if you plan on using the plot for navigation. I especially like the ability to link the end of the sub-plot back to the main plot, or even to a completely different plot based on outcome.

However, the list of plots/plot groups is still kind of a mess. Can we get a way to sort them into containers, or some other hierarchical way so it isn't just a list of plot names?

[Vargr]

Plus 1 to the initial feature request.

[rob]

What if you were instead able to show the nesting of plots, just like is done with topics?

Any sub-plot would be nested beneath its containing plot. We would use a tree view approach, just like with topics, that allows expanding and collapsing.

The exception to the rule would be if a sub-plot belongs to a different group from its parent. In this case, the sub-plot would be shown separately in its designated group. The reason for this exception is that many GMs will have "umbrella" plots that weave together assorted sub-plots, and a fully integrated story could easily end up with a large number of plots nested under one top-level parent. That's not so useful either. So we would break up plots into their groupings, giving users a way to weave together all their plots but still keep them broken up cleanly into meaningful groupings.

The reason we don't currently do this is that a sub-plot can theoretically be reference by multiple containing plots. This is very rare, though. So we could simply treat sub-plots with multiple "parents" specially by just putting them alone in their group and have a better solution for 99% of plots.

What do you think? Would this be a better solution? It seems like it to me.

[Vargr]

What do you think? Would this be a better solution? It seems like it to me.

This sounds interesting. And not unlike the initial request.

A bit difficult to grasp the way you envision the subplots that does belong to several mainplots floating on their own (probably my lack of imagination).

Before spending a lot of time on programming etc. mayhaps a mock-up screenshot or two showing how you see it implemented would be useful.

Nothing fancy or anything.

[Maidhc O Casain]

What do you think? Would this be a better solution? It seems like it to me.

I like this.

[Gord]

What if you were instead able to show the nesting of plots, just like is done with topics?


The reason we don't currently do this is that a sub-plot can theoretically be reference by multiple containing plots. This is very rare, though. So we could simply treat sub-plots with multiple "parents" specially by just putting them alone in their group and have a better solution for 99% of plots.

What do you think? Would this be a better solution? It seems like it to me.

That sounds like it would work well. If referenced by multiple plots, some notes and links would still allow you to realize what the connections are.

[Viking2054]

Using the tree model, couldn't you put these special sub-plots as a kind of falling leaf from the tree? I mean it could show up either as a sub-plot not attached to the tree at all, but floating off to the right so that you know it is special. Then when you expand that special leaf, it can either have a list of links at the top showing what sub-plots it attaches to, or have arrows that point to the sub-plots or plots they attach to (maybe even a parent plot if that section of the tree is collapsed).

You could also just have a master sub-plot with pointers to it under each sub-plot that could or should have that same information. I'd probably still separate the master note/sub-plot from the tree so you know there is something special about it. I'd also have any attempt to edit the pointer based copy give you the option to edit the master note/sub-plot or force a copy of the master note/sub-plot to be made in the editing location for changes that would become specific to that particular sub-plot.

I hope that made sense.