[storeyl]

I think a lot of us saw it as a fundamental bug stopping us using RW as we wanted, and probably expected. There was no way of having 1 place with everything, and then just a way of showing the bits you wanted. It has driven me mad at times having to flip between 2 views to get a fuller view of what I have put in so far. Putting everything in world is overload at times, splitting it out means I start to lose track of what is in due to lack of a single view.

Neither can I see how it could have been used as you wanted. You only had 2 views, at best you could have had 1 world and 1 'module', but not multiple modules. However, all the LWD hints on how to use the 1 almanacs seemed fairly clearly (to me anyway) to be indicating the story almanac was intended to be where the 'current' stuff was placed, and when it wasn't current it was in the 'world', certainly a different intent to what you wanted. 'Story' wasn't a specific module, but just what was relevant at that moment in time.

From day 1 in RPGs; rule sets (articles), Campaign settings (world almanac) are seperated from the adventures (story almanac(s)) as far as I am aware, even back when I bought basic edition D&D it came with one little adventure, the rest I had to buy seperately. I also am pretty sure a lot of NPCs in the adventures were dead after the adventure. Take my beloved Pathfinder, I first bought the CRB, then the Inner Sea Guide, Then and adventure, all different books, different purchases.

You are conflating the medium by which I buy and the actual playing of the game. Sure I might buy all those things separately, but when running a campaign they are all just 1 world. There is no separation game wise from what is in each module. As a GM I want them to all be seamless and appear as 1 world, as a player I want them to feel seamless and that I'm playing in a coherent world. Adventures and modules are extensions to the world, not some isolated thing.

Same with RW, if I get round to using fully (when other features arrive) then I want players and myself to see a seamless view of the whole world in one place. I don't want a visible and artificial split between 'campaign setting'/'world npcs' (as you put it) and adventures and the 'lesser npcs'. That cheapens the whole experience IMHO. We can set views for our purposes (and I'm hoping players can create their own views as well), but in what ever way suits each player or GM.

Same goes for the RW market place, I am 100% sure that buying Pathfinder, The Campaign settings AND any adventures will all be separate purchases. same as every other RPG medium.

They may or may not. But that is not relevant as far as I can see. If I bought all 3 under the old RW scheme then where would the stuff go in my realm? If I buy 5 adventures/Modules for a pathfinder campaign then they can't all be the story almanac without some unholy mess! Equally I would only be able to put the 'world NPC' or location etc in one of the stories! The only logical method I can see would be exactly what has just been introduced. Everything goes in world, and each also supplies a custom view (or multiple, say 1 view per chapter) by default.


In the campaign I'm running at the moment (not in RW) I have a published setting, and several published adventures/modules plus stuff I am adding myself. But the whole lot is intertwined. Even though the modules are bought standalone they are all from the same world and region, and the players are flipping between them, probably with no idea that is happening. Pulling them altogether forms a richer 'world'.


That to me one of the selling points of RW, every one who appears (even as a bit part) is now logged in the world not to be forgotten.

All I was doing was using the default view that was provided from release. What annoyed me, wasn't that I thought my way was the best, or better, or even the way anyone else did it, it was simply that the DEFAULT WAY from day 1 was changed with out warning, with out choice, it was forced. Same way as if you woke up and suddenyl found your car had to be driven on the oppsoite side like a british car, with out warning, with out choice, you were just forced. It is not like you cannot adjust or deal, its just the idea that Toyota would come and change the car you bought and paid for, with out any prior knowledge or warning.

You are right that a bit of a hint as to what is coming would be useful. Though I thought we knew this was coming - it wasn't a surprise to me as such, at least the functionality has been noted before as coming I'm sure, if not the timing.

PS. I'm British. I fully agree with you waking up and having to drive properly like us.