Posted by Kim on August 23, 2014, 9:44pm
Just a few quick updates I want to let you know about, that have been implemented in the last few weeks.
- Group moderators can now post on IC boards as their main accounts (if their main account is a group moderator)
- The gm-only BBCode tag has been implemented pretty much everywhere you can enter text in a group.
- Portraits on character profiles will no longer stretch if they are less than max-size. Instead, the template will make an attempt to center the portrait image horizontally in the available space.
- New guestbook widgets now default to allowing comments only from registered users rather than defaulting to everyone. If your preference is allowing anonymous comments, you can of course still change the setting.
A few words about the gm-only BBCode tag
This is a special tag that can be used only in groups. It is used like this:
[gm-only]Secret plot info goes here[/gm-only]
Anything between gm-only tags is hidden from everyone but the author of the post and group members with GM Privileges. For the author and GMs, what was written will appear sort of like a quoted message and be marked "GM INFO ONLY." For everyone else, there will be no hint that there was anything else in the post at all.
This gives players the ability to communicate stuff to whoever is in charge of the Group's plot (essentially, the master storyteller), or for multiple storytellers to be able to share plot hooks with one another -- but without letting anyone else in on it.
For example, if I arrive at a castle and hand a message to the NPC king, I might post handing over a scroll (and all the players would see that), but I might also add the text of the message in the GM only tag, so that the group GM/storytelling staff know what the NPC king got to read and can respond appropriately.
Of course, I might also choose to send the contents of the scroll to the group GM by private message, but in a group where there are multiple GMs, that can get confusing.
There are many ways to use the gm-only tag. Another example would be in a group text widget -- I could publish the information on rumored mythical creatures that the average person living in the setting would know, and then use the gm-only tags to post super-specific information only the monsters themselves know (but that a GM would need to know too to be able to run those monsters appropriately.)
At present the tag works pretty much anywhere that text can be entered into a group -- Text widgets, forum/chat posts, announcements, events, and comments.
One final thing to note -- Group founders do not always have permission to see what is written inside GM-only tags. This is because sometimes, a group founder might want to take a break and just play in the plot like a normal player, while some other group member takes a turn being the story teller.
Comments
I would say its great to do that for, GM its a great way for makers and GMs can chat. Does it work in the group forums as well? I am still trying on spelling and grammar but iam sorry if I mest it up. 
Dang, I thought as much. Alas!
@Heimdall - It's the latter, I fear!
Hrm... while you're typing, can the server process it, or does server only see it once it's posted? Because if it's the former (and again, this is a huge amount of work, so I'm just tossing ideas around) then maybe when you type @John you could do some AJAX style retrieval where below the typed @reply there's a drop-down list of players and characters whose names start with John and their icons, starting with your friends/people you've posted in the same threads with (if that info is tracked at all)? It could cap at 5 or something. Then you can keep typing to refine the search, then click the right one to put in their character ID. That's sorta how tumblr's @replies work. I see a ton of issues here too though... too many Johns, etc... but hey, I figured I'd toss it out there.
That could work out if it's players only. I still don't know how we'd cope with needing to say things to anonymous characters, though. =/
I had thought of name changes! This MIGHT be confusing, but... what if when you create the only tag and you type in "Kim" for a name, when the script processes the post, could it convert that username into the player ID? So if you go back to edit the post, it'll be the ID instead of the username. (Well, I guess it could convert back when you edit the post.) But this doesn't solve the character name issue, you're right. Wah! (Though maybe @replies could work like this for user names only?)
PMs do work well for secret knowledge, but this idea streamlines things beautifully. One character whispering to another, right in the post where you can't lose it! The DM adding one line to Legolas, describing what his elf eyes see!
I'm not really pushing for implementation--I just think it would be an exciting tool.
PMs do work well for secret knowledge, but this idea streamlines things beautifully. One character whispering to another, right in the post where you can't lose it! The DM adding one line to Legolas, describing what his elf eyes see!
I'm not really pushing for implementation--I just think it would be an exciting tool.
I like!!!
@Heimdall -- Great question! There's a few problems there. Sure, it might be used for abuse, although arguably no more than the current private message system could be.
However, the main issues I see here are...
Basically, identically the same issues for why @ reply notifications would be wonky at best if we implemented them here, regardless of how nice they'd be.
Aside from all that, if a message is really intended for a specific other player, rather than a role (which could change hands or be held by multiple people over time), I have trouble justifying why a new system should be implemented over PMs (which do exactly what was described, but not in-place). Does that make sense?
PMs avoid all of this trouble because they function off ID #s rather than names, but asking players to figure out how to look up ID #s seems kind of cruel.
However, the main issues I see here are...
- Many groups are populated by characters. It is possible for two or more characters to share identically the same name. This makes it difficult to impossible to make sure your message is going to the right character.
- Character names can be changed at will. So if I suspect two players are talking to each other, I can change my character name for a few minutes to match someone else's, and bam, I see their secret messages.
- Player names can be changed every six months via a name change token. If you do only=Kim but in a month I change my name to KimG, I have just lost access to everything you intended me to see. (and, if someone takes my old name, now they see it.)
- A player and a character could have the same name, but be different people. This could be overcome with a tag like only-characters= and only-users= but this is going to get messed up constantly.
Basically, identically the same issues for why @ reply notifications would be wonky at best if we implemented them here, regardless of how nice they'd be.
Aside from all that, if a message is really intended for a specific other player, rather than a role (which could change hands or be held by multiple people over time), I have trouble justifying why a new system should be implemented over PMs (which do exactly what was described, but not in-place). Does that make sense?
PMs avoid all of this trouble because they function off ID #s rather than names, but asking players to figure out how to look up ID #s seems kind of cruel.
The GM tag is iiiiiinteresting. Would it be possible to code something similar but for a player's name? [only=kim, heimdall] only Kim and Heimdall can read me! [/only] Or does this open up too much room for abuse?
@Nova --
1. Yes!
2. I guess a better phrasing would be "is not always". I think I set it to default to on, since most group founders are also their group's first GMs.
3. No.
4. There is now!
1. Yes!
2. I guess a better phrasing would be "is not always". I think I set it to default to on, since most group founders are also their group's first GMs.
3. No.
4. There is now!
- Spiffy~
- When I checked in my group, I already had GM privileges checked. Was that not supposed to be, or was the "not automatically" supposed to be how I can apparently uncheck it?
- Are there any plans to account for something like someone being a player in one thread and a GM in another, both in the same group? Presently it looks like a straight on/off thing.
- Is there a thing in place to prevent gm-only tags from appearing in replies as all other tags do?
As already mentioned though, this is pretty cool.
This is a really neat update! Thanks Kim!
Kim
August 27, 2014
4:21am