View Single Post
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232

Old February 3rd, 2015, 01:43 AM
Originally Posted by Indus101 View Post
Only question, from a technical perspective, is that aren't "Journals" really an offshoot of a robust Calendar system? Since the next big feature will hinge on the current dating system, I just hope you don't run into programming issues when you do get around to handling Calendars, as it seems they be getting built in the reverse order: aka, journals derive from a robust calendar system, not the other way around.
As @Chemlak concluded, journals and calendars are completely separate, and journals simply reference calendar dates. So journals will initially only support Gregorian dates, just like date-based snippets within topics. Once we get custom calendars fully into place, both date-based snippets and dates on journal entries will automatically support those calendars. We can test and verify all that internally with the incomplete calendar mechanism that already exists. And members of the Beta team who have access to the old journal mechanism can attest that calendar dates already work fine with those journals.

Originally Posted by MNBlockHead View Post
The way I look at this is RW needs to focus on what will best help it grow its user base and increase profit so it can grow and afford to continue developing the product. That is why the marketplace and the more collaborative features have be given preference, even though I could care little about them. They just are not going to do as well focusing on GMs like me who are using the tool as a way to organize and build their world, but not to share with players. They need to sell player licences. They also need to bring in busy GMs that prefer to work with pre-created content. The marketplace is critical for this.
This is exactly the situation we’re in. Thank you for summarizing it so well.

Originally Posted by MNBlockHead View Post
As for calendars versus journal—I don't know—I would think lack of custom calendars would be a bigger turn off for potential buyers than lack of journaling. But this may just be a blind spot I have, as lack of journal features is not something I've missed in months of heavy use for how I use the tool.
The key thing with journals is that journals are a critical piece for engaging the players more fully. Based on the huge demand for journals within the survey, it appears that allowing players to keep their own journals is a big attraction for GMs. They can be leveraged by GMs as well, but I believe the biggest draw will be with players. The notion of calendars and dates is important to many GMs, but it’s rarely of concern to players – the GM typically tracks that stuff so that players can remain blissfully ignorant of it. Journals are just the opposite, which I’m assuming is why they ranked so highly in the survey results.

Originally Posted by MNBlockHead View Post
I think it might be enlightening to the developers what answers they would get if a large random sample of DMs, who were not current customers, if they would buy a campaign management tool that did not allow them to export or print their work. As a current user, when i go through this thought experiment, I find myself saying no.
There’s no good way to obtain information from a random sampling of GMs who aren’t current customers. So the next best indicator is assessing the weight our current users put on all the features that aren’t yet available, including export and printing. As we mentioned in the news update, the desire for printing is split, and there is little demand for export. Is this an absolute indicator of prospective users? No. However, it’s unlikely that the overall views of GMs out there would deviate significantly from the survey results. That’s why we’re looking into how we might be able to provide an alternative, more lightweight solution for printing – if the actual numbers skew upwards a bit, it ends up in the top third of the survey and becomes a feature of concern to a significant portion of the user base. Unfortunately, with export near the bottom of the list, it seems that there are some who consider it a deal-breaker, but the overall user base feels it’s of negligible importance compared to all the other things we could add to the product.
rob is offline   #57 Reply With Quote