-
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
How are you guys using the Mechanics section?
- Thread starter DeckOfManyThings
- Start date
I think that's what I'm not getting, either. Categories exist in both places (and you can hide any ones that don't have any topics in them with the "Empty Category Handling" options off the tools icon). You also have the ability to filter the view down if you need to for making things more manageable, but if you maintain a manageable size in Story to begin with then you'd probably only really need that on your World view anyway. So that's why I'm not quite seeing what the problem is. 
Re-reading Kendall-DM's post, I think I see the disconnect.
He wants:
World Almanac - Nations, Cities, Geographical Regions, Locations, Language
Story Almanac - Story, plot, characters, motives, modules
RW is currently setup to provide:
World Almanac - Story, plot, characters, motives, modules, Nations, Cities, Geographical Regions, Locations, Language
Story Almanac - Story, plot, characters, motives, modules, Nations, Cities, Geographical Regions, Locations, Language
I can definitely see the advantages of K-DM's thinking but as the number of adventures and other campaign-based content grows I think it would become very unwieldy. The advantage to the current RW structure is you can pull the relevant items out into STORY for the adventures at hand and then move them back to WORLD when they are no longer the focus so your STORY remains streamlined and easy to navigate.
K-DM sparked another thought though. I'd love to be able to create multiple STORY views so I can create subgroups of information by continent or by module or adventure path or party. But I would like WORLD view to reflect everything from all subgroups. Maybe color code the WORLD view to quickly show which STORY views specific elements are mirrored within. In a sense, the STORY views could be subsets of the WORLD view. And the same topics and elements could exist in multiple STORY views.
He wants:
World Almanac - Nations, Cities, Geographical Regions, Locations, Language
Story Almanac - Story, plot, characters, motives, modules
RW is currently setup to provide:
World Almanac - Story, plot, characters, motives, modules, Nations, Cities, Geographical Regions, Locations, Language
Story Almanac - Story, plot, characters, motives, modules, Nations, Cities, Geographical Regions, Locations, Language
I can definitely see the advantages of K-DM's thinking but as the number of adventures and other campaign-based content grows I think it would become very unwieldy. The advantage to the current RW structure is you can pull the relevant items out into STORY for the adventures at hand and then move them back to WORLD when they are no longer the focus so your STORY remains streamlined and easy to navigate.
K-DM sparked another thought though. I'd love to be able to create multiple STORY views so I can create subgroups of information by continent or by module or adventure path or party. But I would like WORLD view to reflect everything from all subgroups. Maybe color code the WORLD view to quickly show which STORY views specific elements are mirrored within. In a sense, the STORY views could be subsets of the WORLD view. And the same topics and elements could exist in multiple STORY views.
Kendall-DM
Spy
You've got it! That's exactly what I mean. The hide works globally (in both Almanacs), which is not what I want. I would like a hide that works for each Almanac independently.
Ah, I didn't realize you couldn't set the hide filter separately. Is everything else linked like that too? I mean if I set one to Nested view is the other one set that way as well? Or if I filter a view does the filter apply to the other as well? Either way I can definitely see a preference to having any of those things applying separately to the two rather than having a change to one affect both of them. Put me on the +1 column for that! (Especially since I thought it worked that way but hadn't actually tried it!)
My understanding of the intent of this is to allow the GM to put in the Story Almanac only the things that are currently in use. Perhaps thinking of it as the "Current Adventure Almanac". The World Almanac is to contain things when they are not in 'active' use. This allows the opening of the Story Almanac and only the information that is needed to run the game.
It's just a matter of scope and scale. The World Almanac will presumably get loaded with hundreds or thousands of items, especially the Individual category, it would be a pain to quickly, visually, scan those items, you would have to search to limit the results. With the Story Almanac I can move, in advance, a subset of only those individuals, places, events, etc... that I am going to use in game, which should make running the game smoother.
It's just a matter of scope and scale. The World Almanac will presumably get loaded with hundreds or thousands of items, especially the Individual category, it would be a pain to quickly, visually, scan those items, you would have to search to limit the results. With the Story Almanac I can move, in advance, a subset of only those individuals, places, events, etc... that I am going to use in game, which should make running the game smoother.
The more I think about it, the more I really think ALL content needs to appear in the World almanac with the content that is mirrored in Story highlighted somehow so we can quickly see what we are using from the whole. The current Story/World split removes all context for the material so it's very difficult to see what else you might want to include in the Story, where there are holes in the material and where the adventures could naturally flow. On my wish list for 2.0....
With multiple story almanacs, we could start prepping the next adventure(s) which would be very helpful. Especially if the locales they are going are very different -- Magnimar to Korvosa, Alpha Centaurii to Sol, dungeon to town.
With multiple story almanacs, we could start prepping the next adventure(s) which would be very helpful. Especially if the locales they are going are very different -- Magnimar to Korvosa, Alpha Centaurii to Sol, dungeon to town.
So it appears that the issue with the Almanacs is that their appearance in the current build is not intuitive.
1. The explanation is buried in the "What's New" topics in the Mechanics Reference (6. World Library).
2. If the intent is that the content of both the Story and World Almanacs are parts of the same "pool", the names could make that clearer. Naming them the "Story Almanac" and "World Almanac" seems more fitting for two separate things, not two parts of the same. Paired names that give a better sense that they belong together would make that more obvious/clear; "Primary" and "Secondary", "In-Focus" and "Out-of-Focus", or "Active" and "Inactive", for example, instead of "Story" and "World".
3. Likewise, the placement on the Ribbon (with "Storyboard" between them) implies they are separate things and not "two parts of one whole".
4. The images used on the ribbon could make this relationship clearer. The "Globe" image for the World Almanac is fine, I think, but would be better with a small piece carved out. The image for the Story Almanac could then *be* that small piece, and being adjacent to the World Almanac, would make the relationship visually clearer.
1. The explanation is buried in the "What's New" topics in the Mechanics Reference (6. World Library).
2. If the intent is that the content of both the Story and World Almanacs are parts of the same "pool", the names could make that clearer. Naming them the "Story Almanac" and "World Almanac" seems more fitting for two separate things, not two parts of the same. Paired names that give a better sense that they belong together would make that more obvious/clear; "Primary" and "Secondary", "In-Focus" and "Out-of-Focus", or "Active" and "Inactive", for example, instead of "Story" and "World".
3. Likewise, the placement on the Ribbon (with "Storyboard" between them) implies they are separate things and not "two parts of one whole".
4. The images used on the ribbon could make this relationship clearer. The "Globe" image for the World Almanac is fine, I think, but would be better with a small piece carved out. The image for the Story Almanac could then *be* that small piece, and being adjacent to the World Almanac, would make the relationship visually clearer.
Zaphod Beebledoc
Well-known member
I'm worried about moving things between Story and World. I mean, say you've got all your content for where the players are going to be next week in World, and that you want to move it to Story, but if your content is a large amount of Topics, it could take a while.
What about a marker or something for in the left hand list of topics and categories. It could look something like the reveal topic marker, and when you've marked your content you could move all in one go.
What about a marker or something for in the left hand list of topics and categories. It could look something like the reveal topic marker, and when you've marked your content you could move all in one go.
Last edited:
Kendall-DM
Spy
I don't get the "moving" something from World to Story. Frankly, just by revealing the topic to players (or filtering it even) you will only see what is used for the story in the world almanac. The disconnect is a problem obviously, as well as the linkage (sounds sort of like a quantum particle eh?) between the two not being 1) intuitive and 2) exclusive. All I'm advocating is the ability to hide topics not in use in exclusively for each almanac (or filtering or basically anything that links to both should be exclusive). I'm never going to "move" a topic from one to the other; that is, I'm going to have all my story content in the Story Almanac and all my world building in the World Almanac. It's just that a Nations topic is really for World and I'll never use it (except to reference it) in Story. I don't want to see it in my Story Almanac as a topic at all.
Maybe in Categories, and Category can be set up as Show in... where the choices are Story or World (or both). Then each would only display that which is set up and not those that are not (rather than just doing a Hide, this sort of approaches it in a similar way without a major overhaul).
Maybe in Categories, and Category can be set up as Show in... where the choices are Story or World (or both). Then each would only display that which is set up and not those that are not (rather than just doing a Hide, this sort of approaches it in a similar way without a major overhaul).
They only way I can think to explain the idea behind "moving" is that you have two three-ring binders, in both you have tabs for everything you track. Your "world" binder is full of all your material, your "story" binder is empty.
You start moving, just the information you need for the next session, into the "story" folder - this is for your own convenience, it makes it easier to look-up the items you need during play.
Then when 'Joe' asks a question about the town they're in and gets some new information you click on it in the Story Almanac, where you moved it and reveal the info. In your scheme you would have to click over to the World Almanac find the info and reveal it, then click back into the Story Almanac to continue on with the encounter.
If it was in the Story Almanac you would cut down on the number of clicks and possible searches that would be required depending on how much data was in your World Almanac. Perhaps it feels intuitive to me because in my day-to-day work I often write views against large, complex databases, and this seems very similar to that.
I guess I will see how it works when I put it into practice in a live game.
I do agree that having the ability to hide those items separately is not a bad option, however, I was just playing around and unchecked the Shown checkbox in the Community category, I only have actual Community things in my Story Almanac, they are still there, while in the World Almanac it is hidden, does it not work that way for you?
You start moving, just the information you need for the next session, into the "story" folder - this is for your own convenience, it makes it easier to look-up the items you need during play.
Then when 'Joe' asks a question about the town they're in and gets some new information you click on it in the Story Almanac, where you moved it and reveal the info. In your scheme you would have to click over to the World Almanac find the info and reveal it, then click back into the Story Almanac to continue on with the encounter.
If it was in the Story Almanac you would cut down on the number of clicks and possible searches that would be required depending on how much data was in your World Almanac. Perhaps it feels intuitive to me because in my day-to-day work I often write views against large, complex databases, and this seems very similar to that.
I guess I will see how it works when I put it into practice in a live game.
I do agree that having the ability to hide those items separately is not a bad option, however, I was just playing around and unchecked the Shown checkbox in the Community category, I only have actual Community things in my Story Almanac, they are still there, while in the World Almanac it is hidden, does it not work that way for you?
Here's how I view it working, in case this helps:
Our story is set in the country of ABC. It has a City named "Capitol" and some Towns named T1, T2, and T3. Activity in the adventures takes place in "Capitol", "T1", and "T2".
There are neighboring countries of "DEF", "GHI", and "JKL". They are not directly relevant to the story, but people in "ABC" know a little about them (name, general population, etc.) Some PCs could be from one of them, and have family there.
Topic entries for "ABC", and "T2" are in the Story Almanac initially, as that's where play begins.
Topic entries for "DEF", "GHI", "JKL", "Capitol"m "T1", "T3", and any settlements in the other countries are in the "World Almanac". They're available -- with maybe only the name and Overview sections revealed -- and linked from appropriate entries for NPCs in the Story Almanac. This is the "common knowledge" of the world that most citizens of "ABC" would have.
Play starts with the PCs in "T2". Clues lead them to a location in "T1". At that point, "T1" is moved from the World Almanac to the Story Almanac. Additional clues lead to "Capitol", and it is then moved to the Story Almanac.
If it was all in the Story Almanac, then a) it would become cluttered over time and b) it might tip off the players that places named in the Story Almanac are more important than they might seem.
So I think the existing setup works, at least for me.
Our story is set in the country of ABC. It has a City named "Capitol" and some Towns named T1, T2, and T3. Activity in the adventures takes place in "Capitol", "T1", and "T2".
There are neighboring countries of "DEF", "GHI", and "JKL". They are not directly relevant to the story, but people in "ABC" know a little about them (name, general population, etc.) Some PCs could be from one of them, and have family there.
Topic entries for "ABC", and "T2" are in the Story Almanac initially, as that's where play begins.
Topic entries for "DEF", "GHI", "JKL", "Capitol"m "T1", "T3", and any settlements in the other countries are in the "World Almanac". They're available -- with maybe only the name and Overview sections revealed -- and linked from appropriate entries for NPCs in the Story Almanac. This is the "common knowledge" of the world that most citizens of "ABC" would have.
Play starts with the PCs in "T2". Clues lead them to a location in "T1". At that point, "T1" is moved from the World Almanac to the Story Almanac. Additional clues lead to "Capitol", and it is then moved to the Story Almanac.
If it was all in the Story Almanac, then a) it would become cluttered over time and b) it might tip off the players that places named in the Story Almanac are more important than they might seem.
So I think the existing setup works, at least for me.