Custom campaign linked trait

[Togainu]

I am currently trying to implement a custom trait for a campaign I will be running. I ran into a slight issue that I can't seem to work out currently myself.

I am trying to show my custom trait inside the "Campaign" section with the campaigns name. So I copied a trait from another campaign and altered it to do what it has to do.

The issue I have now is that it shows the name of the campaign. But it isn't in the Campaign header section of the trait selection menu. Does anyone know how I can get it to show up there? (currently it is showing above - custom trait- )

 

[ShadowChemosh]

The "sort sequence" value to get it to sort correctly we have no access to the editor. So yea it appears at the top as its listed with a default sort sequence of zero. Its the bad side-effect of these "header/sections" that was added.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

P.S. - If you just link to the Trait Category of Campaign it will sort down below correctly. But as soon as you add a "specific" campaign you will sort back to the top.

 

[Togainu]

Cheers for the information Shadow. It is a bit of a shame we can't currently organize our own traits currently. In that case the question will alter slightly to one more directed at the crew of Hero Lab: if we will get the ability to do this at a later time or if we will be stuck with being unable to sort our custom stuff?

 

[Aaron]

Sorting's a bit hard of a nut to crack well. The sortsets used are something we have to maintain internally, which means they aren't open to manipulation by users.

One method we've tried previously (with deities) is to provide a tag (explicit.#) which just equates to a number and base the ordering of categories (other than those we create ourselves) on that number. This puts the burden on the user more, because they have to assign everything that goes in that category of thing not only the category tag, but also its associated explicit tag, but it allows them to create as many new categories as they want and order them in any arrangement they desire while maintaining the category tag's name as descriptive of what the category includes.

Another method we've done was just last month with the organization of Other adjustments. There we created several pre-defined and ordered category tags that come before and after our categories. This allows users to tag their new groups of things with a predefined tag (just one choice, rather than remembering 2 things with an association) and lets them choose if the group appears before or after ours. But the tag names can't be specific to the category they describe and it could be problematic if a user tries to merge in adjustments from someone else who decided to use the same generic tag for a different purpose. Plus if you use up the tags we have defined in either position your only recourse would be to ask us to define more.

They've both got strengths and weaknesses, so some on the team prefer the former and others the latter. What do you guys think?

 

[Togainu]

Thank you for the response Aaron.

Looking at the methods you are mentioning. I think my preference would be going to the first one. Mainly cause people can think up entire new categories or campaign specific categories that they need. Speaking for myself I don't mind the extra work that has to be done to make it work. I can however understand that people with larger or more projects might dislike this route.

I hope to see others reply to this as well what they think would be the best route to take on this matter.