Daplunk unless you are getting that on beta I don't see how it could be the priority. Web view without live updates could be done I suppose but I doubt folks will like web view without live updates any more than the current client. It is a massive undertaking though because they would have to duplicate all the u/I coding inherent in the client code base they are using. But maybe whatever database engine they are using has their own web interface?
-
Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.
If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.
- The Lone Wolf Development Team
Ideas on Individual Character Reveal
- Thread starter Zogg
- Start date
+1 Absolutely my take on it.
It's just assumptions based on my understanding of where they are trying to take the tool. It will be such a significant shift to put it on the web and how they do that will drive design decisions post web view. From a programming and planning perspective it would be more logical to focus on web view and then put features over the top than it would be to release features and try to get it to work with the web platform after the fact.
Given they are also working on a web platform with Hero Lab I think it's safe to assume they have given the move to web support quite a bit of thought.
An important part of this equation is revenue. If they fix the player version to a stage where the majority of us use it then the increase in potential user base would be quite significant.
Last edited:
Right. But, at least in my humble opinion, fixing the player version would include adding individual reveal, character journals and custom calendars. At least for my players the plattform (e.g. client based vs. web view) is not the reason for not using RW, it is the potential benefit for playing.
And in our group we are all at least a bit sceptical of completely web-dependend services. So, the web view has no spot on our wishlists.
Last edited:
Oh I agree completely. I just think that since we know they have plans to move in a web direction it would be logical for them to focus on that as the priority and then build the functionality on top of it.
I could be wrong, personally I would love more functionality. Read-only web-view would be awesome but I really have no want to use a browser to run my games.
I'm just putting my logical hat on and trying to think how they would be planning things.
I could be wrong, personally I would love more functionality. Read-only web-view would be awesome but I really have no want to use a browser to run my games.
I'm just putting my logical hat on and trying to think how they would be planning things.
I've done thick client to thin client migration several times. Depending on the code base it can range from writing an entirely new program to a fairly simple undertaking.
Since we know RW is written in C# and .NET migration should be a lot easier than LWD is making it. I'm guessing that something, one of the third party controls?, is desktop specific. Which would be a real problem. Although I guess one problem could be the local storage issue. Cloud based programs generally cannot access local storage so a web view would only be able to hit the cloud version of a realm and that might have issues for people who choose not to subscribe to the cloud service.
However I'll be honest, most people won't use the web view. Desktops and even laptops are still far more powerful than portable devices. Why would you deal with the limitations imposed by a web app when you could use the thick client? If LWD is prioritizing the web viewer over character journals, individual reveal and custom calendars they are making a serious mistake in what their user base's wants and needs.
LWD has spent quite a long time rolling out the CM. Which has meant that new "user facing" features have been few and far between for a while LWD would be well served to consider that their existing, and long suffering, user base cares relatively little for CM or web view but does want and need features like journals, individual reveal and calendars and has been waiting a very long time for some of them. Once CM is out is probably time to spent a while putting out at least some customer features.
Since we know RW is written in C# and .NET migration should be a lot easier than LWD is making it. I'm guessing that something, one of the third party controls?, is desktop specific. Which would be a real problem. Although I guess one problem could be the local storage issue. Cloud based programs generally cannot access local storage so a web view would only be able to hit the cloud version of a realm and that might have issues for people who choose not to subscribe to the cloud service.
However I'll be honest, most people won't use the web view. Desktops and even laptops are still far more powerful than portable devices. Why would you deal with the limitations imposed by a web app when you could use the thick client? If LWD is prioritizing the web viewer over character journals, individual reveal and custom calendars they are making a serious mistake in what their user base's wants and needs.
LWD has spent quite a long time rolling out the CM. Which has meant that new "user facing" features have been few and far between for a while LWD would be well served to consider that their existing, and long suffering, user base cares relatively little for CM or web view but does want and need features like journals, individual reveal and calendars and has been waiting a very long time for some of them. Once CM is out is probably time to spent a while putting out at least some customer features.
I absolutely agree. It would make RW unbelievable strong.
Personally, I have nothing to use a completely web-depended solution for. But then again, as Rob has strongly said at one time: LWD has not said that a web solution would mean that the PC-based program would disappear. So I am hoping (and believing so far) that the PC-based program will remain. If we do also get a web-based solution and thus cater to those folks that want that - all the better
Last edited:
Well, as I see it, the web view would come in very handy for the players as they could then leaf through information at the table. My players at least are not using laptops at the game table and wouldn't even if I bought them the player version. But they are happily browsing the SRD on their phones and would love the ability to check places and NPCs in a wiki-style web view.
For me as a GM, I wil stick to the standalone client, but for players a simple read-only web view would be a great start.
Oh, and individual reveal would be fine too. Not a top priority for me, though.
For me as a GM, I wil stick to the standalone client, but for players a simple read-only web view would be a great start.
Oh, and individual reveal would be fine too. Not a top priority for me, though.
You are correct, of course. But there is a huge difference between having to set up a website, export everything, upload it and repeat that process after avery change and having all that work automatically in the background.
Lexin
Well-known member
Particularly for those players (and I have one) who will persist in using Macs!
I could probably set up a scrip to do it if its that important. The pages would look terrible, think Javadoc if you've ever seen that.
Christ, I would rarely use character reveal if I had players who would use the RW player edition... A lot of work a lot of updating.
Of course its useful for groups, and in those rare circumstances, where I need to provide a topic information to a certain player.
All those different colours would proably be confusing though and I would mix them up anyway. Imagine 2 groups with 5 players each... I like the OPs version better.
Of course its useful for groups, and in those rare circumstances, where I need to provide a topic information to a certain player.
All those different colours would proably be confusing though and I would mix them up anyway. Imagine 2 groups with 5 players each...
I like the OPs version better.As a GM with players who like to be able to work independently or in smaller groups than the whole party, I have been forced to run with other options like Roll20 since it has individual player reveal functionality. But I wish this weren't the case.
I believe Realm Works is a far better tool over all, with so much more to give. RW beats the competitors in almost every other facet, other than tabletop management integration, which I know, RW doesn't set out to do.
However, my extended group of players have been given secret side notes and allowed sole access to the map that they themselves stole and countless other 'only them' pieces of information ever since we were playing pen and paper AD&D as kids. It has become a loved staple of all of our games.
I know I'm just one user and the community's plans should come first. This is why I have just been checking back every 6 months or so over the years since I first bought RW to see when this feature will finally be considered important enough to add.
Players are not always 'a party' and treating them to be always as such severely limits the way RPGs can be run in RW. Maybe some groups are always a party, good for them. But that experience doesn't suit everyone.
I believe Realm Works is a far better tool over all, with so much more to give. RW beats the competitors in almost every other facet, other than tabletop management integration, which I know, RW doesn't set out to do.
However, my extended group of players have been given secret side notes and allowed sole access to the map that they themselves stole and countless other 'only them' pieces of information ever since we were playing pen and paper AD&D as kids. It has become a loved staple of all of our games.
I know I'm just one user and the community's plans should come first. This is why I have just been checking back every 6 months or so over the years since I first bought RW to see when this feature will finally be considered important enough to add.
Players are not always 'a party' and treating them to be always as such severely limits the way RPGs can be run in RW. Maybe some groups are always a party, good for them. But that experience doesn't suit everyone.
I would like the individual reveal as well and I am sure it will come one day.
The individual reveal should be character based (including NPCs) and not player based.
In this way it can also be used when you write novels using RW to keep track of everything.
I imagine (and hope) when the content market is done and fully working a lot will suddenly happen as LWD can direct their energy towards other features.
The individual reveal should be character based (including NPCs) and not player based.
In this way it can also be used when you write novels using RW to keep track of everything.
I imagine (and hope) when the content market is done and fully working a lot will suddenly happen as LWD can direct their energy towards other features.
The plans discussed previously were per-CHARACTER and not per-PLAYER, but they presumed player Characters. I doubt NPCs will be controllable that way... as the goal is to control visibility to the data, not just noting which characters have it. All NPCs are "played" by the GM, and the GM has total visibility to the data.
Here I was thinking that character reveal (as opposed to player reveal) was being too demanding, but there's no doubt that it is much better. The game I am currently designing would benefit greatly from character reveal, but it just needs player reveal to be able to function at all in RW.
And Vargr, yes, I'm sure it will come 'one day™'... perhaps many years from now
And Vargr, yes, I'm sure it will come 'one day™'... perhaps many years from now
To RW a "reveal target" (==character) would just be a "reveal target", regardless of what it represents to the real-life people using that realm. If any eventual implementation doesn't allow the GM account for a realm to own "reveal targets" in that realm they can work around that implementation by buying a Player license for themselves. (There'd be some annoyances involved, but my guess is not that many.)
"Reveal targets" could represent all sorts of things that aren't a single individual: secret societies, political entities, what's available on the Internet-equivalent with some research, and tons of others.
Note the context of an author keeping track of which of their characters knows which things. It doesn't matter that the author knows everything.
Last edited:
Yes, I totally agree, it is better if its manageable on a character level irrespective of who that character is controlled by, including the GM. However, having reveal by player character only would be a limitation I could certainly live with.
I did a lot of editing so don't know where I was when you responded (sorry about that) but I'll emphasize that as long as a Realm Works user can name the object RW uses for a "reveal target" then those "reveal targets" can't be limited to what RPG players who don't use Realm Works think of as a player character. The LWD folks might call them PCs for simplicity, but you can use them however you want.