Realm Works Special News Update

[wurzel]

So let's PLEASE get this discussion back to its proper purpose. Thanks!

Whatever purpose that may be, if not just pouring out the accumulated frustration...
Does somebody really think that the responsible management of those companies in question is reading this forum?
Take a deep breath, go out into the fresh air, hug a tree and kill some zombies (if you don't find any, hit stones instead). Then come back in and continue with that purpose

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Got a small question about the Paizo content. Sense you have a good working relationship with Paizo and will have Pathfinder adventures. Can we safely assume that Starfinder adventures will be coming to RW "soon" (soon of course meaning sometime in the future)?

My group will be switching to try out Starfinder when it comes out. Would be really nice if I could purchase the first Starfinder AP all done in RW. The time saving would be sweet!

 

[kbs666]

On a similar subject, has a decision on if or how PFS scenarios will be handled?

I'm an active PFS player and GM besides running my own campaign and if the new scenarios became available in RW that would make my life so much easier.

 

[jkthomsen9]

I apologize for my earlier comments. My intent was not to bash but to show the contrast between the two company's. Rereading my posts I see your point Rob. I removed them. I will endeavor to keep any future post vanilla.

 

[rob]

Got a small question about the Paizo content. Sense you have a good working relationship with Paizo and will have Pathfinder adventures. Can we safely assume that Starfinder adventures will be coming to RW "soon" (soon of course meaning sometime in the future)?

Nothing is yet in writing, but I can pretty safely say "yes". Starfinder was announced long after our existing license was put in place, so it still needs to be added to our license. However, Paizo has sought assurances from us that we'll be supporting it, and we have a verbal agreement on it, so it should theoretically be just a matter of putting ink on paper at this point.

 

[rob]

On a similar subject, has a decision on if or how PFS scenarios will be handled?

I'm an active PFS player and GM besides running my own campaign and if the new scenarios became available in RW that would make my life so much easier.

PFS scenarios are on our radar, but there are some other things currently looming higher on our priority list. We're actively weighing the amount of time/effort involved in entering PFS scenarios vs. the number of copies we can reasonably expect to sell through the Content Market. Since they are primarily targeted at GMs running PFS, that's a smaller subset of the overall GMs running Pathfinder. There's also the consideration that we probably need to commit to doing all scenarios for a season, so we likely can't realistically "test the waters" by doing just a few of them on a trial basis.

At this point, the Magic 8-Ball is saying "Reply hazy. Ask again later."

 

[rob]

I apologize for my earlier comments. My intent was not to bash but to show the contrast between the two company's. Rereading my posts I see your point Rob. I removed them. I will endeavor to keep any future post vanilla.

There's no need to stay "vanilla". This is a hobby where we're all passionately invested, so it's normal to feel strongly about things. We all just need to be mindful of that and take the edge off some of those sentiments here on the forums. I'd bet that, if you had stopped to take a breath and re-read your post before pressing "Submit", you probably would have reasonably edited it a bit to remove that edge, at which point the post would have been fine. That's what I'm asking for here.

Thanks!

 

[MaxSupernova]

Mocha sucks. I want French Vanilla.

(Just trying to drum up some new more product appropriate drama...)

 

[kbs666]

PFS scenarios are on our radar, but there are some other things currently looming higher on our priority list. We're actively weighing the amount of time/effort involved in entering PFS scenarios vs. the number of copies we can reasonably expect to sell through the Content Market. Since they are primarily targeted at GMs running PFS, that's a smaller subset of the overall GMs running Pathfinder. There's also the consideration that we probably need to commit to doing all scenarios for a season, so we likely can't realistically "test the waters" by doing just a few of them on a trial basis.

At this point, the Magic 8-Ball is saying "Reply hazy. Ask again later."

While past seasons would be useful new scenarios are what I, and I'd guess most PFS GM's, would be most interested in.

I also think PFS scenarios show off part of what makes RW so powerful. Reducing session prep. PFS GM's do not usually have the sort of time to devote, or the foreknowledge of what they will be running, to spend more than a week prepping for a scenario. PFS actually has a website where GM's share resources to improve prep, pfsprep.com. There is definitely value in being able to buy the scenario where more of the prep has been done. RW can do that easily enough and with the ability to add each scenario into a Golarion realm with the setting info also present to give the players more immersion I think you might find that PFS would sell a lot of product, I bet it drives a lot of HL sales right now for similar reasons.

 

[rlbeaver]

Okay, I searched around and see it mentioned, but can't find the official information...I know there was the player's view via the web, and I've heard there might be/will be a GM version for the web...is the intent of that to replace the desktop version eventually or to supplement?

Sorry if it's been asked and answered...if so, just pm me and I'll delete this post.

 

[Joe]

Okay, I searched around and see it mentioned, but can't find the official information...I know there was the player's view via the web, and I've heard there might be/will be a GM version for the web...is the intent of that to replace the desktop version eventually or to supplement?

Sorry if it's been asked and answered...if so, just pm me and I'll delete this post.

We did show a very early preview of the planned web offering as a "work in progress." However, it is not currently available. At the moment, the Realm Works team is focusing hard on delivering the Content Market.

 

[Vargr]

Okay, I searched around and see it mentioned, but can't find the official information...I know there was the player's view via the web, and I've heard there might be/will be a GM version for the web...is the intent of that to replace the desktop version eventually or to supplement?

Just to help keeping this thread going all over the place...

I do not hope that the present desktop version of RW will be stopped in favour of a web based version.

Being dependent on the interwebz is not such a great thing as it is cracked up to be - au contraire.

 

[DaFranker]

Just to help keeping this thread going all over the place...

I do not hope that the present desktop version of RW will be stopped in favour of a web based version.

Being dependent on the interwebz is not such a great thing as it is cracked up to be - au contraire.

I see it more as a "Well, some users have their data cloud-based, so why not offer them cloud-style access too if we can?" thing.

LW's always seemed very conscious of offline GMs (and players) who just dump their stuff on a laptop to bring to the gaming table, and don't want to deal with network stuff or can't get Internet access during the session.

It would take a pretty big series of (what I would consider) bad decisions for them to veer that far off track from their previous values.

 

[Vargr]

I am all for having both options.

I just wanted to voice my misgivings of have only one option and that one being the cloud

I, too, would be surprised if they dropped the option for using RW without a connection to the cloud.

 

[Silveras]

Past discussion (long past.. no updates in some time) put the web version is a trailing the desktop version for features. New features would appear first in the desktop version, and would migrate to the web sometime later. That was said in the context of the players' web view, and the GM's version has had no details mentioned at all.. even the mention of a GM's web version was in passing.

My expectation is that, as the Content Market pieces begin to appear, the next survey will also take shape, with questions that might help to LoneWolf to solidify their plans for the web-based access models.

 

[kbs666]

Cloud access has always been optional AIUI so I think they are committed to a desktop model as the primary version.

As someone who has developed applications for the web of this sort of complexity there are real good reasons to prefer the desktop, thick client, environment to the browser, thin client, one. I doubt they will abandon the desktop any time soon.

 

[rob]

Okay, I searched around and see it mentioned, but can't find the official information...I know there was the player's view via the web, and I've heard there might be/will be a GM version for the web...is the intent of that to replace the desktop version eventually or to supplement?

Sorry if it's been asked and answered...if so, just pm me and I'll delete this post.

The web version is intended to augment the desktop version, at least for quite a while, providing support for all the other platforms that users want to leverage. We first need to get the web version launched for players. Then we'll be putting out a version for GMs that is targeted at running game sessions, allowing GMs to use whatever device they want for that purpose. Then we'll need to get all the world building stuff into the web version, which is a LOT of functionality.

So it's going to take quite some time to ultimately get the web version to the same level as the desktop. By that point, internet access may be so ubiquitous that it makes sense to phase out the desktop version, or the desktop may still be necessary. I have no idea, and anyone who asserts otherwise is making rash assumptions about the future. So we'll just have to figure that out down the road.

EDIT: The bottom line is that the desktop version is going to be around for quite some time still.

 

[EightBitz]

The web version is intended to augment the desktop version, at least for quite a while, providing support for all the other platforms that users want to leverage. We first need to get the web version launched for players. Then we'll be putting out a version for GMs that is targeted at running game sessions, allowing GMs to use whatever device they want for that purpose. Then we'll need to get all the world building stuff into the web version, which is a LOT of functionality.

So it's going to take quite some time to ultimately get the web version to the same level as the desktop. By that point, internet access may be so ubiquitous that it makes sense to phase out the desktop version, or the desktop may still be necessary. I have no idea, and anyone who asserts otherwise is making rash assumptions about the future. So we'll just have to figure that out down the road.

EDIT: The bottom line is that the desktop version is going to be around for quite some time still.

You can have my desktop version when you pry it out of my cold, dead tentacles.

 

[Jujutsuka]

Personally, I would greatly prefer to have access to a fully functional web browser application. I love the idea of logging in on the website to work on any facet of my homebrew campaign setting. I don't have a personal laptop to install on, and don't want to be tied to my home desktop for working on campaign/adventure prep. Especially when I could just log in on my work laptop any time I have some downtime between my work appointments. When you eventually do get around to it, you'll have one more happy user!!!

 

[Vargr]

I concur - A web-only RW is of little to no interest.

Actually it worries me deeply this talk of phasing out the desktop version.

I know; that is not what Rob is saying - far from it. Yet all the same...

I spend a lot of time at places with bad to no internet. Nothing better than to start up your RW Desk Client (TM), lean back and be creative.