Foundry loose integration

[Farling]

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Spirit

Yeah, I hadn't thought about the complication with links.

I can't think of a really good solution. I'd want all the material to come across--most of my topics are only partially revealed, and it would be a real pain to have to go through each one of them after import and copy+paste all the info in from RW.

Maybe the best way is to not worry about it at all, and just have a note that the conversion process doesn't preserve unrevealed states. I could just manually convert all my unrevealed snippets in RW to DM only text before bringing them across so they'll be secret in Foundry; and then after import manually hide the links.

Edit: I just noticed that there is no scene padding. Is there a way to add scene padding on import without it throwing off the map pins?

Version 1.4 does a first pass simple solution.
I might investigate creating the content twice within the same topic - once as per the "revealed" state; and the second as the full content, putting this second section inside a "secret" style.

[Farling]

1.5 is now available

The processing for REVEALED state has been improved, so that the journal entry only contains the revealed information (including normal text for links to unrevealed topics).

The full text of the imported topics is available by using the "GM Notes" module (available from the normal Foundry module import window, or manually by using https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sy...er/module.json)

[Farling]

1.6 is out

Configuration options are provided to set the default scene padding and grid size.

[Sword_of_Spirit]

Cool.

I was thinking the GM Notes way of doing unrevealed info might work well, but after playing around with it a bit, it isn't as useful as I hoped.

One issue with it is that the incoming links can contain spoilers. Like, for instance, maybe "Lord Evil" the party's nemesis is a (partially) revealed topic, but when they look at the "Gwendolyn the friendly innkeeper" entry they probably shouldn't see an incoming link from Lord Evil who they don't know has anything to do with her.

Maybe the incoming and outgoing links should always be secret? That would make navigating a little bit harder for players in some situations unless the GM manually reveals links where they thought it would help (which would make it harder for the GM, etc). I'm not sure what the best option for that is.

The GM Notes window is a bit awkward. I think I'd probably go for just having it in a big secret section at the end of the original topic like you were thinking about before. Of course, that has cons also, because then there isn't anyway to tell the difference between things that were marked in RW as GM secrets/false information other than staring at it in line by line comparison looking for differences.

[Farling]

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Spirit

Cool.

One issue with it is that the incoming links can contain spoilers. Like, for instance, maybe "Lord Evil" the party's nemesis is a (partially) revealed topic, but when they look at the "Gwendolyn the friendly innkeeper" entry they probably shouldn't see an incoming link from Lord Evil who they don't know has anything to do with her.

Maybe the incoming and outgoing links should always be secret?

The IN/OUT links in the main topic of revealed content should only show for revealed topics; but I hadn't considered checking for revealed NAMES when generating those links - it isn't a complex thing to do, once I determine the priority ordering of names to display if the main topic name isn't revealed.

Although, it seems that the main topic name will always be revealed if the topic is revealed (the "true name" doesn't need to be revealed though).

[Farling]

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Spirit

One issue with it is that the incoming links can contain spoilers. Like, for instance, maybe "Lord Evil" the party's nemesis is a (partially) revealed topic, but when they look at the "Gwendolyn the friendly innkeeper" entry they probably shouldn't see an incoming link from Lord Evil who they don't know has anything to do with her.

How is this link being portrayed differently to what can be seen in the player view of RW?

[Sword_of_Spirit]

Originally Posted by Farling

How is this link being portrayed differently to what can be seen in the player view of RW?

In RW, links only appear in player view if they are part of a revealed snippet. For some reason additional links (but not all of them) are showing up in Foundry even if no snippets have been revealed.

The "Faerunian Multiverse" topic gives examples, where RW has no content links showing for players, but Foundry has several. (The revealed relationship is working correctly).

[Farling]

Originally Posted by Sword_of_Spirit

The "Faerunian Multiverse" topic gives examples, where RW has no content links showing for players, but Foundry has several. (The revealed relationship is working correctly).

Could you PM me a link to the RWexport for your realm? The one you previously gave me was a RWoutput file. :-)

[Farling]

Originally Posted by Farling

Could you PM me a link to the RWexport for your realm? The one you previously gave me was a RWoutput file. :-)

I see the problem.

The OUT links are not honouring the revealed state of the snippets/map_pins in which they appear within the current topic.

The IN links are not honouring the revealed state of all occurrences in snippets/map_pins of the OTHER topic.

[Farling]

Version 1.7 is available

FIX: In revealed topics, the content links should only show links to the topics where the snippets/map_pins containing the link have been revealed.
FEATURE: Initial attempt at decoding some journal entries as Items instead of Journal Entries (currently only for PF1 and English RW category names).