• 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

Content Market and the Staging Ground

K

kbs666

Well-known member
I assume we've all had a chance to look at and work with the free content released through LWD.

Originally, back before imports were going to be by way of XML, imports were to be segregated into a special area of each realm called, IIRC, the Staging Area so that you could examine the content and decide what to keep and where to put it.

As anyone who has imported the Isle of Kandril into an existing realm can probably attest such is certainly desirable.

Rather than coding such a feature, why should Rob have to do all the work?, I suggest the content guidelines be changed. All the content should be contained by the Source topics. The purchasers could then clear the containing topic or assign appropriate containers inside their existing realms as they saw fit once they got a look at the material. All the material they chose not to use would remain segregated under the source(s) for easy reference/access/disposal later.
 
Personally I wouldn't want this. You want the content to go into the tool is the most user friendly way in the majority of cases. There's some stuff that people havn't seen yet that should make this a null issue in the future.
 
Last edited:
I personally think it's a very good idea. If I ever include external stuff at all I want to have full control over what is going into my realm, and what is thrown away.
 
Agreed. We need to be able to select what transfers somehow before it gets imported. Especially if the content is for a different system. I don't need to import PF creatures or classes into 5e. I may only want the maps or the NPCs which I can use or quickly convert. I'm betting that pretty frequently I won't even want the adventure or whatever content the import is purportedly giving me - just some of the bits and pieces.
 
daplunk said:
Personally I wouldn't want this. You want the content to go into the tool is the most user friendly way in the majority of cases. There's some stuff that people havn't seen yet that should make this a null issue in the future.
Click to expand...
Maybe Rob and the beta testers have come up with a better way, we should be told pretty quick if so, but I cannot think of a more user friendly method than using the topic containment system we all use already rather than having stuff all over the place after an import.

Can you imagine the mess a casual users realm would be in if he imported Isle of Kandril into his main realm? How much worse is it going to be when Razor Coast finally comes out? People are certainly going to buy that with the intention of only taking pieces of it. But if it isn't contained? I know I can find all the pieces by searching for the tag but less experienced users won't.
 
kbs666 said:
Maybe Rob and the beta testers have come up with a better way, we should be told pretty quick if so, but I cannot think of a more user friendly method than using the topic containment system we all use already rather than having stuff all over the place after an import.
Click to expand...

Something I just tested -
a) I imported both "We Be goblins!" and Kandril into the same realm
b) Created one view "Not Goblins" in which the search tag was well - Not Goblins tag.
c) created a second view with only "goblins" stuff
d) showed the Goblins view right clicked on what I wanted to "add" and added it to the "Not goblins" view.

@LWD - maybe add to the GUI of the view creation a quick way to add Global import tags? (both as include and as exclude)
 
Avi said:
Something I just tested -
a) I imported both "We Be goblins!" and Kandril into the same realm
b) Created one view "Not Goblins" in which the search tag was well - Not Goblins tag.
c) created a second view with only "goblins" stuff
d) showed the Goblins view right clicked on what I wanted to "add" and added it to the "Not goblins" view.

@LWD - maybe add to the GUI of the view creation a quick way to add Global import tags? (both as include and as exclude)
Click to expand...
It is really easy to do if you understand tags. You can filter content by the export tag.

For instance the We Be Goblins module is all tagged with the export tag "We Be Goblins" So filtering it out is easy in a search is easy enough.

My concern is that most users won't know that and that filtering isn't the same as actually controlling where the material goes.
 
I was thinking about a long post regarding "Organizing for Re-Use and Re-Organizing for Use" ... because there are three user "constituencies" involved here.

First is the person inputting data and preparing the export. The organization scheme that works best for that person is one which facilitates input and export.

kbs666's suggestion makes a lot of sense from this perspective.



Second is the person importing the data. That person, the GM, needs to be able to easily see what content is there so as to decide what to use and what to ignore/delete.

kbs666's suggestion also makes sense from this point of view. Ideally, you would want the content to integrate smoothly with the realm, as daplunk asserts.. but before that, you might want to have it self-contained while reviewing it.



The third constituency is the Players in the importing GM's campaign. They will interact with the data in an entirely different way from the exporter/preparer and the importer/GM.

As an example, it may have made perfect sense to both the preparer and the importer/GM that a rumor about NPC1 doing things at Location1 should be a snippet on Base Area 1's Rumors list... but the PLAYERS may relate to it more as a snippet they'd expect to find on NPC1 or Location1.. and even among players they may view it differently. So, in the end, the GM could decide that it needs to be on all 3 and copies the snippet from the one it is on to the other two.

If the Player version is ever to have a viable future, the GM needs to be able to make sure the information is where the players can find it.. not just where it suits his/her own preferences.

Similarly, the location of NPC1 may make sense to be "under" the spot where he is encountered, but that may be too meta for some groups.. and the GM may decide to move him to his "Residence".

The importing GM needs to be aware that the content is not carved in stone and is available to modify. This is the main strength of Realm Works vs PDFs.. a PDF is fixed content.. Realm Works can be modified ... both to suit the standards of the game it is used in, and to reflect changes in that game as it goes on.
 
So, in the end, the GM could decide that it needs to be on all 3 and copies the snippet from the one it is on to the other two.
Click to expand...

I have to agree - there should be a way to link a snippet to more than one container - not by creating copies but having a link to each container. I'd like to see the player 'view' also get the ability for the players to have a small section of their own where they can drag and drop links to stuff - it would really let them customize a spot where they can organize their own notes.

No two people take notes the same way, or organize their thoughts the same way.

If the above could happen it would be *huge*.
 
Ckorik said:
I have to agree - there should be a way to link a snippet to more than one container - not by creating copies but having a link to each container. I'd like to see the player 'view' also get the ability for the players to have a small section of their own where they can drag and drop links to stuff - it would really let them customize a spot where they can organize their own notes.

No two people take notes the same way, or organize their thoughts the same way.

If the above could happen it would be *huge*.
Click to expand...

But some of that already exists, or is planned to.

The snippets will link to each Topic automatically. What you're proposing is not "linking" in the sense that Realm Works uses the word but making Snippets independent of Topics and only loosely connected to them so as to allow more than one "home" or "site" per Snippet.

Player View is a GM-version tool that allows the GM to show something to the Players "live at the table". The Player version of Realm Works is the same software as the GM version; it is the Players' accounts that limit their functionality. The Player version of the software allows for the creation of User Notes... which should link to revealed Topics just as the GM's does.

I wish I could speak with more certainty on that point, but my players refused to use it, so I don't know for sure what state that's in.
 
Meh. If I am unsure if I want something to be imported into my Realm, I import it into its own realm first. After looking it over, I can always re-import into my realm. As kbs666 points out, once in your realm, you can easily filter by tags.

I just don't see much value in putting the import in a container.
 
As someone has hinted, there is apparently something in beta that is supposed to help import concerns. Until we know what that is, it probably isn't worth getting too worked up over. Voicing thoughts might affect the development though....
 
The snippets will link to each Topic automatically. What you're proposing is not "linking" in the sense that Realm Works uses the word but making Snippets independent of Topics and only loosely connected to them so as to allow more than one "home" or "site" per Snippet.

Player View is a GM-version tool that allows the GM to show something to the Players "live at the table". The Player version of Realm Works is the same software as the GM version; it is the Players' accounts that limit their functionality. The Player version of the software allows for the creation of User Notes... which should link to revealed Topics just as the GM's does.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm talking about at all.

I am talking about having a *topic* in one location that can have a shadow in more than one location.

It's not quite the same - instead of typing a new snippet - I'm asking if there is a way to create a link to a topic - it can even look different - so the topic can show up in more than one place - note again I'm not asking for a copy - just a way to have a topic under more than one container so to speak.

I can envision a player group creating an area for them - and let them manage their own notes - so that they can drag and drop topics they find interesting and create their own 'view' - which I think would be more visceral and intuitive than linking via text name.
 
Ckorik said:
That's not what I'm talking about at all.

I am talking about having a *topic* in one location that can have a shadow in more than one location.

It's not quite the same - instead of typing a new snippet - I'm asking if there is a way to create a link to a topic - it can even look different - so the topic can show up in more than one place - note again I'm not asking for a copy - just a way to have a topic under more than one container so to speak.

I can envision a player group creating an area for them - and let them manage their own notes - so that they can drag and drop topics they find interesting and create their own 'view' - which I think would be more visceral and intuitive than linking via text name.
Click to expand...
This would seem like an extension of the alias system, which presently only shows the same topic with different names in the same location.
 
kbs666 said:
This would seem like an extension of the alias system, which presently only shows the same topic with different names in the same location.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's accurate, as he wants the same names, potentially, to appear in multiple places.... like shortcut links appear in file folders in the Windows OS.
 
like shortcut links appear in file folders in the Windows OS.
Click to expand...

That's a good analogy, thank you.

A very simple way this is useful is to enable your 'cult leader' to be located in town and in the dungeon. For the sake of programmer sanity - these would be non searchable links that just are references back to the object - they don't need to show up in a 'link' or callback like the auto references do now - just a handy way to have more than one way to make a topic list.

Another use would be to have a list of every Inn in a region - even though the Inn topics are located under the locations they inhabit. I really could come up with endless reasons why it would be useful.
 
This was recommended long ago and I still support it. +1

If I recall, my example then was file systems for scanning and archiving documents in the office allow for multiple tags. A meeting can thus be tagged by date, participants, topics, location, projects, etc. And then people looking in any of those locations would find it.

In RW, being able to identify multiple mirror containers would provide the same result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top