"Cast List" vs. a "Groups" topic.

[EightBitz]

What is the intended distinction?

[Parody]

Going by their descriptions in the Categories list:

Cast Lists group characters in an out-of-game way, while Groups group characters in an in-game way.

For example, you might use a Cast List to contain all of the NPCs that appear in a published module. (An out-of-game arrangement.)

In this module, you might have a Group topic talking about the Evil Conspiracy going on in the adventure, and instead contain the members underneath the group. (An in-game arrangement.)

You could do both by containing the Group under the Cast List.

Another possibility is to use Relationships with Groups to show membership/interested parties instead of containment, using a Cast List or some other method of organizing your characters. It's up to you. :)

[EightBitz]

Thanks.

[AEIOU]

I use Cast List for the folks in a city or a dungeon or a region. The Cast List is a general bucket and I use it as a container. I don't care if my players know that someone is part of a group centered on a locale.

I use Group to describe a group. I attach people to the Group only through Relationships. I do not use Groups as containers because people can have multiple affiliations. I definitely care whether my players know if someone is a member of a secret society.

George Washington would contained in my East Coast cast group along with another 150 people of interest. I would have a South, Mid-West and West Coast cast as well.

George Washington would have relationships with the Free Masons, the Illuminati, the Sons of the Revolution and the Hell's Angels all of which he is a high ranking member but which are not public knowledge.

The Free Masons group would give information about the group and would likely also have a list of prominent members (for the GM's convenience of course). And it may have relationships with other organizations and base locations and resources.

[meek75]

I sometimes use both for similar things. For example, I might have a "Montaigne Family" group so I can give all members of the family a relationship to that family. However, I might also have a cast list for "Royal Family" just to help me visually organize the cast list a bit. I don't really need both, but each one helps me find things and organize material in a different way. Of course, if a person is a member of the family and I don't want the players to know, I don't put them in the cast list, but only give them an unrevealed relationship to the family group. I think what Parody said is the intent, but sometimes there are some unintentional uses too.

[rob]

Allow me to direct your attention to section 4.21 of the Tips & Tricks Guide, which is entitled "Organize NPCs with Cast List Topics". In addition, section 4.16 on "Topic Organization" goes into detail on why we believe that using groups to contain NPCs is a bad idea. That's what relationships are for.

Is it "wrong" to do things differently? Nope. However, you will likely run into some major difficulties the moment that an important NPC happens to be the head of the Thieves' Guild AND hold an important position within the Evil Cult. Or perhaps a prominent position in the government. Stuff like that NEVER happens in RPGs, right?

The suggestions we've outlined are specifically intended to smoothly handle a very diverse set of situations that come up across the whole spectrum of campaigns. We've thought through a zillion of these situations and worked out ways to model them well using Realm Works. There's a reason behind all the things we've done with the product. And the ultimate goal is to make your life easier. But every game is different and every GM has a different style, so it's entirely up to you whether our suggestions (and the thinking behind them) are actually the best way to handle things for your needs as a GM. That being said, I strongly urge everyone to first read our suggestions and then make an informed choice of how best to proceed for your game.

[Acenoid]

I have read this section before, but still it is tempting to put "static" characters into regions. But I can understand when numbers grow, it might become confusing.

To take the an example from your document:
Fred the dockworker, either drinks in the pub or is to be found at the docks working.

I understand that the recommendation is as follows:
- Put him within a cast list called "sleepy town" -> Fred and create a relationship to the docks and the pub for him.

What relationship would you use?
I suppose by adding some text to the description of the relationship, it would be possible to add Fred's schedule (till dusk at the docks, till dawn at the pub (poor Fred). How would you make this clear?

Interesting subject and merry xmas

[meek75]

Originally Posted by rob

Allow me to direct your attention to section 4.21 of the Tips & Tricks Guide, which is entitled "Organize NPCs with Cast List Topics". In addition, section 4.16 on "Topic Organization" goes into detail on why we believe that using groups to contain NPCs is a bad idea. That's what relationships are for.

I re-read that section of the manual. A good article, but let me say, a screen shot or two would go a loooooong way in making the articles easier to both browse and comprehend.

[AEIOU]

Mmmm...pictures.... I like pictures.

You know what would make this mo'bettah? We need a personality view. We have containers and they are nicely hierarchical. Do the same thing but sort by personalities instead. And yes, that may mean one person is listed in 15 different groups. That's ok.

A view for affiliation memberships and a public/private view.

[EightBitz]

Originally Posted by rob

Allow me to direct your attention to section 4.21 of the Tips & Tricks Guide, which is entitled "Organize NPCs with Cast List Topics". In addition, section 4.16 on "Topic Organization" goes into detail on why we believe that using groups to contain NPCs is a bad idea. That's what relationships are for.

Thanks, Rob, but that doesn't answer my question, so let me restate it in a more explicit manner:

Section 4.16 says "Group Membership: It is generally a bad idea to nest individuals within groups. Individuals often belong to multiple groups, at which point you’ll have to decide which group to assign as a container. If you do that, then you no longer have a consistent model across all your content."

Then section 4.21 recommends to do exactly that using "Cast List" as the top-level group.

If I recall correctly, "Cast List" didn't exist in the original release of Realm Works. I could have, at that point, created my own hierarchical cast list with a regular group.

As it stands, though, you added the "Cast List". Does it offer something a regular group doesn't offer?

Does a regular group offer something that "Cast List" does not?

Or is this a purely cosmetic change where there's no difference in functionality?

Or am I missing something obvious here?