I for one really want the calendar functionality with all the bells and whistles.
But I also want a financial sound product, that will keep LWD in business for years, continuously developing RW. If this means, that the calendars are taking a backseat, I suppose that's how it has to be.
Still hoping for functionality to be implemented soon, though
Agreed
..................... At the moment it takes so long that I never use it - I simply make a new text snippet ............).
Yep, to add to this unless your calendar with in your campaign closely resembles a Gregorian it is essentially worthless
Yes, very much agree with this. I don't want calendars nearly so bad that they go out of business or have to drop support of the project.
I agree, certainly one feature should not be at the cost of the "life of the program"(whether that be calendars, printing, exporting, etc).
Further, let it be said I don't begrudge LWD in making profit, all companies are in the business to make $ it's how they stay in business. I would even revist this post (
http://forums.wolflair.com/showpost.php?p=202872&postcount=57) as a reminder to all. (thanks MNBlockhead)
Originally Posted by MNBlockHead said:
The way I look at this is RW needs to focus on what will best help it grow its user base and increase profit so it can grow and afford to continue developing the product. That is why the marketplace and the more collaborative features have be given preference, even though I could care little about them. They just are not going to do as well focusing on GMs like me who are using the tool as a way to organize and build their world, but not to share with players. They need to sell player licences. They also need to bring in busy GMs that prefer to work with pre-created content. The marketplace is critical for this.
Rob Response said:
This is exactly the situation we’re in. Thank you for summarizing it so well.
Originally Posted by MNBlockHead said:
As for calendars versus journal—I don't know—I would think lack of custom calendars would be a bigger turn off for potential buyers than lack of journaling. But this may just be a blind spot I have, as lack of journal features is not something I've missed in months of heavy use for how I use the tool.
Robs Response said:
The key thing with journals is that journals are a critical piece for engaging the players more fully. Based on the huge demand for journals within the survey, it appears that allowing players to keep their own journals is a big attraction for GMs. They can be leveraged by GMs as well, but I believe the biggest draw will be with players. The notion of calendars and dates is important to many GMs, but it’s rarely of concern to players – the GM typically tracks that stuff so that players can remain blissfully ignorant of it. Journals are just the opposite, which I’m assuming is why they ranked so highly in the survey results.
I would however counter (just for the sake of devil's advocacy), that the calendars are a feature that already exists just not in a
release eye satisfying, polished manner yet. LWD has said as much.
(see here>
http://forums.wolflair.com/showpost.php?p=202642&postcount=27)
It is, simply (and that word alone is subjective), the user-interfacing is not what they hope to deliver, as also reported many times in the past. BUT what elements have not ALREADY gone through evolutions? even the "Header Tab", the now titled " Story Almanac" and MANY other elements have all grown and have been re-invented and honed as items that were released, then didn't go as planed or could be improved.
But to hide behind a poll (that was at best skewed) and say it was the preference of our market that has led us to not do this currently is akin to polling cab drivers and farmers on what type of vehicle they would prefer to haul things around with.. Obviously those two "demographics" would have differing "McGuffins" they would be hauling and would be motivated differently as to their choice of tool to haul with.
DM's & Players (the demographics in this case) would most certainly weight calendars differently, but as the average table has anywhere between 2 to 3 times the ratio of players to DMs this "voting alone" skews the result. Even LW conceded they were surprised that calendars were lower than Journals. I'm not sure why they were surprised, I wasn't. Just looking at the demographic it was predictable as to what Mcguffins where being hauled around. The confusing part is even Rob's statement above comes to the same determination..
Regrettably, it would seem, I have only myself to blame as I have encouraged my players to participate and vote when the poll was available. And since my ratio is at
10 to 1 it certainly diluted an important tool choice, leaving us only to wait, ...............patiently................
Lastly, as noted in Rob's second response above, the fundamental flaw is the interpretation that "the [journals] big attraction to GMs". The problem is LWD didn't poll DMs (GMs) they polled customers. While DMs may be a subset of this, they never had an "equal voice" in a tool that, ironically, is
entirely dependent on the DMs to use.
@ the community, I am sorry for my shortsightedness in encouraging my players participations, as it skewed the intent of my interpretations of the program (and presumably LWD) to provide a campaign management tool
As to the economics, I wholly agree. For RW to be viable it must be self supporting and the market place has always had my support both from a forum perspective but also from a in future monetary one.
IT was just my expectation that the calendar system would be in tandum with those efforts just as the other "improvements" ALREADY here.
