Version 1.4 does a first pass simple solution.
I might investigate creating the content twice within the same topic - once as per the "revealed" state; and the second as the full content, putting this second section inside a "secret" style.

1.5 is now available

The processing for REVEALED state has been improved, so that the journal entry only contains the revealed information (including normal text for links to unrevealed topics).

The full text of the imported topics is available by using the "GM Notes" module (available from the normal Foundry module import window, or manually by using https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sy...er/module.json)

1.6 is out

Configuration options are provided to set the default scene padding and grid size.

Cool.

I was thinking the GM Notes way of doing unrevealed info might work well, but after playing around with it a bit, it isn't as useful as I hoped.

One issue with it is that the incoming links can contain spoilers. Like, for instance, maybe "Lord Evil" the party's nemesis is a (partially) revealed topic, but when they look at the "Gwendolyn the friendly innkeeper" entry they probably shouldn't see an incoming link from Lord Evil who they don't know has anything to do with her.

Maybe the incoming and outgoing links should always be secret? That would make navigating a little bit harder for players in some situations unless the GM manually reveals links where they thought it would help (which would make it harder for the GM, etc). I'm not sure what the best option for that is.

The GM Notes window is a bit awkward. I think I'd probably go for just having it in a big secret section at the end of the original topic like you were thinking about before. Of course, that has cons also, because then there isn't anyway to tell the difference between things that were marked in RW as GM secrets/false information other than staring at it in line by line comparison looking for differences.

The IN/OUT links in the main topic of revealed content should only show for revealed topics; but I hadn't considered checking for revealed NAMES when generating those links - it isn't a complex thing to do, once I determine the priority ordering of names to display if the main topic name isn't revealed.

Although, it seems that the main topic name will always be revealed if the topic is revealed (the "true name" doesn't need to be revealed though).

How is this link being portrayed differently to what can be seen in the player view of RW?

In RW, links only appear in player view if they are part of a revealed snippet. For some reason additional links (but not all of them) are showing up in Foundry even if no snippets have been revealed.

The "Faerunian Multiverse" topic gives examples, where RW has no content links showing for players, but Foundry has several. (The revealed relationship is working correctly).

Could you PM me a link to the RWexport for your realm? The one you previously gave me was a RWoutput file. :-)

I see the problem.

The OUT links are not honouring the revealed state of the snippets/map_pins in which they appear within the current topic.

The IN links are not honouring the revealed state of all occurrences in snippets/map_pins of the OTHER topic.

Version 1.7 is available

FIX: In revealed topics, the content links should only show links to the topics where the snippets/map_pins containing the link have been revealed.
FEATURE: Initial attempt at decoding some journal entries as Items instead of Journal Entries (currently only for PF1 and English RW category names).

I've been thinking about what might be a better user experience for the un/revealed snippet state. I don't know if this is doable, so I'm just going on what the setup would look like in Foundry if it is.

Unrevealed Snippet: Secret
(Secret) Normal snippet that hasn't been revealed

GM Snippet: Secret in square brackets. So it would be something like:
(Secret) [GM: GM's text]

GM Snippet attached to a normal snippet: Follow the initial [GM: GM's text] with the normal snippet, and then on a line afterwards have another closing bracket.
(Secret) [GM: GM's text]
(Normal) Normal snippet text (also secret if unrevealed)
(Secret) ]

Untrue / Partially True statements: Same format as attached GM Snippet, so
(Secret) [Partially True]
(Normal) Normal snippet (also secret if unrevealed)
(Secret) ]

GM Snippet attached to untrue / partially true statement: Same as above but listing both, so
(Secret) [Partially True; GM: GM's text related to the partially true snippet ]
(Normal) Partially true text (also secret if unrevealed)
(Secret) ]

There's probably a more elegant way to do it than with bolding and square brackets, but it gets the job done.

In the Content Links sections at the end, I think having all of the revealed ones in a category (IN/OUT) be first, and the secret ones be in a paragraph afterwords would work pretty well.

The potential benefit of this is that it eliminates the need for the GM Notes module, keeps everything on one page, and provides a closer approximation to the RW view. It also allows for easily revealing snippets to players in Foundry, by simply removing the secret formatting, and they stay in the correct place in the body of the text.

I've started experimenting with more CSS, so the snippets will follow the style more closely of what was seen in Realm Works. Although this is primarily for snippet styles, it could also apply to Foundry secret sections.

Version 1.8 is available

This version has seen some significant reworking of how snippets are converted into journal entries/actors/etc.

Features:
No longer requires "GM Notes" module for handling revealed topics.
Revealed snippets are identified to the GM in displayed documents by a green bar on the left side.
Revealed smart images can have their corresponding scene automatically made navigable (and their vision/fog disabled).
For GMs, Relationships, Content Links and Governed Content will show REVEALED parts separately from the full list.
Lots of CSS have been added to more closely match the Snippet Style in RW.
Created Scenes, Actors and Tables are only made OBSERVABLE to players if the topic AND the snippet are both revealed.
Snippets with both GM notes and non-GM notes will be grouped together in a box for GMs (in a similar presentation to RW).

Known Bugs
Revealed state of map pins is ignored - only pins connected to non-revealed topics will be hidden on each scene.
All links are displayed in revealed snippets of revealed topics - even if the linked document is not revealed.

Version 1.9 is available

Only revealed map pins will be visible to players in scenes. For GMs, not-revealed pins will be displayed with a "blind" icon.

When displaying document text in journal entries and actors, any links whose destination is NOT visible to a player will have the link replaced by just the normal text - so a player will NOT see any link there.

Version 1.10 is available

Don't include GM Directions in Notes that are displayed to players.
Ensure that links in snippet annotations are created properly.
Veracity (Truth) of snippets is displayed to GMs (dashed border for Partial Truth, solid border for Lie)

That's impressive.

I noticed that on the content links, revealed links are duplicated by being listed both in the revealed and in the unrevealed sections.

I haven't discovered any way to turn off the revealed snippet indicators, or reveal other snippets, other than disabled the module, which reverts the RW-style green snippets back to secret text. I had some thoughts on that part.

As exciting as it is seeing the familiar green indicators, it's probably more important to be able to edit the imported entries so that they are fully functional. The text editing in Foundry is currently painfully limited, but an option to stick to formatting that can be duplicated might be a good idea.

It is intentional to show the revealed and not-revealed sections as separate entries - helps clarify easily what the players will see.

The next step is that in the text editor, there will be additional options in the sub-menu where you can currently select "secret" text. More options here will expose the different section types which the module uses.

I am also considering removing the explicit "revealed" section type that I'm using and merely put the bar against any sections which aren't marked as "secret".

Version 1.11 is available

Removes a lot of the colourful styling that was added in 1.10.
Adds block styles to the text editor for RW Veracity (Lie/Partial Truth) and Style (Callout, Handout, Flavor, Read-Aloud) and GM Directions.

Really liking the 1.11

I definitely agree with them being separate like that.

What I was referring to is that the links from the player versions are also duplicated in the secret version in the GM view, so the GM sees those links twice--which can be confusing. For instance, in my Named Equipment "Illiksensqua'ar" entry, the 'Relationship: Eva' and 'Primordial Tongue' are listed twice. So to the GM it looks like there are 3 relationships and 3 outgoing content links at a glance, and you have to look them over to see that there are in fact only two each. Gets even messier with more links of course.

I'm not sure if it's within what you want to mess with, but I noticed that Partial Truth, Lie, and Block formatting aren't compatible with the popular Monk's Enhanced Journal (you can select them but they don't show up when viewed with that mod), which is kinda sad. The remaining RW formatting options seem to work normally.

I just had a look at Monk's Enhanced Journal - it requires a different method of specifying that the formatting should be visible to GMs.

With 1.11 showing the old shaded background for SECRET sections, maybe the contents, links, etc. are easier to see which are visible to the player and which aren't.

Version 1.11.1 is available

This adds some additional CSS so that the GM-only formatting (veracity, GM-directions) are visible when Monk's Enhanced Journal is used.

Version 1.12 is out

Remove occurrences of secret sections having double the darkness applied to its background.
Fix an issue where section headings were set/not set with 'secret' which did not match that state of its contents.
Put GM Directions & Contents above GM Directions in the text editor menu, and remove Block: from those entry names.
Further reduce the amount of HTML generated for each journal entry (faster world loading!)
Ensure new text block names are less likely to conflict with other modules (internal to the code).
Add a new configuration Use 'secret' in Unrevealed Topics, which when ticked will do the normal topic generation, but if unticked then topics which are NOT revealed in RW will NOT have any secret sections in their corresponding Journal Entries. This is so that the journal entry doesn't end up with large portions of it using the secret (darker) background.

Version 1.13 is available

The RW-specific styles are now immediately displayed in the text editor (TinyMCE).
You no longer have to save the changes before seeing the results.

I'm getting a graphical glitch. Images attached.

It's secret GM Directions followed by player readable text, all in a content box. For some reason the player view has a beige vertical line where the bottom of the GM directions segment would be.

It looks like the box around the GM Directions is being drawn without the actual text inside it. This seems unlikely unless something is awry with the HTML that is stored for the journal entry.

As GM, is it possible for you to open the editor and view the HTML of the page (using the "<>" button in the editor) and find the part of the entry which contains the GM and non-GM text inside the corresponding sections. It should look a little like:

It would help me understand where something is appearing out of order.

<section class="RWgmDirAndContents">
<section class="RWgmDirections">
<section class="secret">
<p>'GM Directions Secret about:</p>
</section>
</section>
<p>Player readeable content</p>
</section>

Is that the part you need? There's a lot of information in that editor, and I'm not sure which other parts to copy.

Yes, that is the section. I can see the problem - the "secret" section is inside the "RWgmDirections", rather than them being the same section (like in my example).

Did this occur after using the new "GM Directions" styles within the editor, or have you edited the topic since it was imported, rather than this being directly generated by the RW import process?

Ok, I can see that I can reproduce something similar by manually creating these entries.

Version 1.14 is available

This provides a new style called "GM Directions (secret)" which will set the style properly with the correct presentation and marking it as "secret" at the same time.

The Player and GM styles have also been separated out in the editor to help users understand which styles will/will not be visible to players.

That works. Is there any way to make the secret GM directions look different than the player-viewable GM directions on the GM's end?

From a RW point-of-view, players shouldn't ever see GM directions - that is why I've added into the README that the "GM Directions (secret)" should always be used. The style without "(secret)" is only made available in case you remove manually remove the Foundry secret from the GM directions.

Unfortunately, there isn't a way within Foundry for me to enforce the secret flag always remaining on the GM Directions style.

I will see if there is a way to indicate to a GM that he hasn't got secret selected for the GM directions.

Version 1.14.1 is available

The secret style is always added to GM Directions during import.

If the secret style is manually removed from a GM Directions paragraph then an inline warning will be displayed to the GM indicating that the GM directions might be visible to players.

To restore the situation, the user can manually deselect the "GM Directions (not secret)" on the paragraph(s) and then reselect "GM Directions (secret)" for them.

That works. I was more thinking of a visually distinct look to them, but this will do the job to make sure I don't accidentally leave my secrets un-secreted. Thanks!

I haven't followed the last few updates closely, so forgive if this was already adressed, but two things came to my mind:

a) Journal Entries do have a text and an image section. So far, everything in a RW topic goes in the text section. Any images are embedded in the text. This is totally fine! But I wish, if a topic has one or more images, the first image would also go to the image part of the Foundry Journal Entry. Because there I can click "Show Players".
For example, most of my NPCs do not have a statblock. Shop- and Innkeepers, Story-NPCs and such don't really need one. But they usually have an image that I want to show the players.

b) A minor issue: Initially everything imported went into a compendium. Now it just goes straight into the world. With my realm consisting of 2000+ topics, that makes Foundry load very slow. Especially for some of my players with low end hardware and sub-standard internet access.
Any chance of having a "put stuff in compendia" checkbox?

Apart from that I just want to reiterate: I can't thank you enough for your work!

Displaying the image inline is easy enough - replacing it or marking it as being the image for the journal entry is more complicated.

Is it possible to have Foundry only make the picture visible to players and not the journal entries?

The reason I moved from compendium to world was because of the additional linking support that was added for smart images. I don't remember the specific issue about what wouldn't work in compendiums, it may have been an issue with Foundry 0.7.x which isn't relevant to Foundry 0.8.x

I think current Foundry still doesn't preserve content links in compendiums. At least as far as map notes and such.

There is supposedly a separate module which allows you to move things from world to compendium and maintain links - but I've never used it, and I don't know if it has limitations such as you suggest.

Yeah, Scene Packer is supposed to allow you to do that. I haven't looked at it yet, but the impression I got was that it's a bit of an involved process, not just a matter of enabling a module and clicking some settings.

I saw some comment that Foundry v9 is going to allow templates to be created on a per-system basic for journal entries (like they are already doing for Actors and Items). This could cause issues for my nice generic import, we will have to wait and see.

Compendiums do not allow permissions to be set, so all the revealed information from the RW file would be lost.

While it would of course be superior if we could keep everything in compendiums and still have it functional, given that I doubt that will be an option any time soon, I'd much rather have the current ability to keep the reveal state, than be able to keep it in compendiums.

With my 3000+ journal entries, and dozens of scenes, the scenes and journal databases are still clocking in at less than 10 MB total (thanks for that revision that reduced size!) Persistent scenes are normally going to be world maps rather than battle maps (at least in my case, I'm not sure if others do it differently). If I need to keep a bunch of battlemaps after use, I can stuff them in compendiums, because they won't need the level of linking and integration with journal entries and other maps that the world maps do. But I'm also new to Foundry, so I'm not sure where performance issues set in, though I was told that the sort of text-based journal entries I have aren't really a problem.

So all that's to say that I definitely wouldn't want to lose any current functionality from the importer to add additional functionality.

I think it is an optimisation that Foundry really needs to make internally.

Their current architecture has all the world's contents downloaded to the browser when you first log onto the game - this obviously requires, in your case, downloading all 3000 journal entries to any GM. I'm not sure if players get only the revealed journal entries or also get all 3000 sent to them!

It's a shame that they can't work on a download-on-first-use basis.