A couple questions about Player View and Containers

[rob]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bender

I see that a future expansion there will be a feature for specific player content reveal. But my question is there a way to make a player database in other words everything the player should know names and NPC's of people from his background, knowledge he should know about the geography of where he grew up kind of like his memory banks.

so that the player could search "remember" for information that he and he alone would have

There is no way to create a separate database of information that a given player knows. There is only one database. Once we implement support for reveal content to individual players, each player will only have access to what HE knows. So at that point, everything that you've revealed to that player is something he theoretically "remembers".

If you want to specifically call out backstory information to players, one technique you can leverage is tags. You could create your own tag domain for the players/PCs in your game. Then you could define separate tags for each player/PC. Once that's done, you could assign a player tag to each background topic a given player knows. Now the player can filter on his tag and immediately see just the topics he knows about as part of his background.

Hope this helps!

[rob]

Originally Posted by Venger

So, I am now wondering if custom tags can be created, for instance, I needed a Tunnel but couldn't find anything specific about one.

Sure! You can add whatever tags you want. Go to the Manage ribbon bar at the top, then click the Tags button. You can now customize or extend the set of tags in all the built-in tag domains. You can also create new tag domains with your own tags.

Originally Posted by Venger

Also wondering about creating custom profiles for "People" and other things, there are quite a number of unused sections in the offered topics and I find myself deleting them to reduce visual clutter, and possible database size.

MaxSupernova opted to make all his own categories and hide all the built-in ones. Another (in many ways better) approach is to modify the existing categories. You can select a category on the left, then select a section type in the list for the category. Once you do that, you can then check the Not Shown box next to those sections. This will pare down the list of sections that appears for each new topic, but all the hidden sections are STILL THERE. If you ever decide to turn them back on, you can. In addition, when you have a really important topic, you can easily add the hidden sections JUST FOR THAT TOPIC.

Hope this helps!

[MaxSupernova]

Originally Posted by rob

MaxSupernova opted to make all his own categories and hide all the built-in ones. Another (in many ways better) approach is to modify the existing categories. You can select a category on the left, then select a section type in the list for the category. Once you do that, you can then check the Not Shown box next to those sections. This will pare down the list of sections that appears for each new topic, but all the hidden sections are STILL THERE. If you ever decide to turn them back on, you can. In addition, when you have a really important topic, you can easily add the hidden sections JUST FOR THAT TOPIC.

Well fine, Mister Smartypants Staff Member.

Go right ahead and show me far better more efficient easier ways to do things.

Pfft. Know-it-all.





(thanks)

[rob]

A LOT of thought went into all this. And usually a lot of debate, as well. So there's typically a really good reason why did something. We really strove to make the default approach highly useful and highly flexible. However, we also made sure users could start from scratch if they preferred.

More often than not, it's best to at least TRY what we've come up with and look to tailor it to your preferences before opting to start over. And we'll do our best to help explain things and/or navigate you around problems when they arise.

[MaxSupernova]

Originally Posted by rob

A LOT of thought went into all this. And usually a lot of debate, as well. So there's typically a really good reason why did something. We really strove to make the default approach highly useful and highly flexible. However, we also made sure users could start from scratch if they preferred.

More often than not, it's best to at least TRY what we've come up with and look to tailor it to your preferences before opting to start over. And we'll do our best to help explain things and/or navigate you around problems when they arise.

I'm sorry if my sarcasm tags weren't obvious enough. I was laughing when I typed it, does that count? I totally trust you folks' design strategy. I should have known that this was the hard way because I was fighting the program rather than really working with it.

I am VERY happy for what you showed me. It's FAR better than what I was doing. You saved me a LOT of effort...

[rob]

I definitely noted the sarcasm, so no worries there. My post was really intended as a caution to everybody else reading this thread that there's usually a good reason behind all our choices, so it's usually in everyone's best interest to at least give what we've put together a try before throwing it out and starting over. You'd already recognized this, but I wanted to be sure others didn't inadvertently make the same mistake and potentially get frustrated down the line as a result.