Quick Survey

[Bidmaron]

I'd part with $5-$20 per month for this kind of feature!

[dr_venture]

I use OP quite extensively. FWIW, if you simply make the data you want to put into OP exportable in simple HTML format (potentially as HTML segments without the HEAD and such), then it can be directly posted into OP pages. You can even get more fancy-schmancy and include CSS rules, which Ascendant (i.e. paid) users can edit on OP... but that might get a bit too involved for some folks. Suffice to say, if you just had HTML export for some of the data structures in FG (i.e., characters, first off), you'd achieve this for OP and any other service that allows users to post simple HTML. It doesn't need to be complicated or terribly feature rich to provide a lot of usefulness to a lot of users across the gamut of campaign management services.

[GMTroll]

I started using OP for the Kingamker AP (PFRPG) that I am running for my group. That started well but as I was not an Ascendant I didn't have access to the calendar and so used Facebook to arrange game sessions. The rest of the group just resorted to posting to the Facebook group and eventually OP was been left behind. I would certainly consider using it again, even picking it back up for this campaign if I thought the group would use it over Facebook.

I guess character sheets, npcs (if these are OGL or similar), player notes, calendar journal entries would be the things I'd be most concerned with exporting to a site such as OP.

Story and Image assets I think may need some careful consideration due to the potential to contain copyright material. What would be the implications to SW of users using FG to export protected material to public websites?

I'm not looking for an answer to this but thought it worth mentioning for consideration.

I think that it goes without saying that FG should continue to protect the commercially available modules by managing export rights to OP (or elsewhere) based on the consent of those that hold the rights to such works.

[ddavison]

Good point GMTroll. I was originally thinking that stories could be parsed out to save portions, such as boxed text, NPCs and treasure with options on which of those items per story (or globally) that the user wanted to export. We would probably need a feature at the front about copyright that would have to be answered first if we allowed that sort of export.

[Blacky]

That's probably why having private areas is a good idea. There's a good chance that if copyrighted material can be computer shared with a group of friends through FG, they can be shared with a group of friends through the web.

A default setup for a campaign could be something like this:

• Public area: summary of the campaign, maybe some (original not copyrighted) texts and images to present the world, the game, the campaign, to allow for future recruitment.
• Private gaming area: anything shared by and for the gaming group. Could be campaign maps, NPC portraits and descriptions, whatever.
  
  • Private area for player A: with the sheet of PC A, and whatever player A and the GM wants to put here. Only accessible to GM and player A
  • Same for B, C, D, etc.
  • FG content, could be easily exported here with the same access right that exists within FG. So a Note in FG shared with A and C but not B and D would be here accessible to player A & C only (and GM of course). And just a few exceptions, like PC sheets. Doing something like this in Dokuwiki (I'm not promoting, just taking an example I know) is quite easy to script. Incorporating this FG content into other part (like that same note appear in the Player A Private Area, Player B Private Area, and GM Private Area) is more complex.
  
  
• GM private area; for GM only.

Then of course, everyone is free to do whatever it likes. So I'm guessing there would be some legal work to do to insulate SmiteWorks from liability (don't know enough about US and International law here to go further, in France that would mean SmiteWorks is not a publisher of said campaign website but a hosting service, the people paying for the hosting are legally responsible not SmiteWorks, and a contract says so).

Having the ACL (access management, meaning public or private for all or just some) also helps on top of this because it means that if SmiteWorks get some kind of complaint about a resource (“hey that's my image used illegally, take it down!”) they can avoid litigation from the complainer and from the gaming group (“hey you took down something that was mine with no cause!”) by making it private instead or just deleting it.

But a good liability shield is probably needed anyway. Just put any and all burden on the people responsible for the campaign site. It's best for SmiteWorks, but it's also the more reasonable and logical course of action here.

As for HTML export (again not promoting, just giving an example I know of) Dokuwiki has an integrated API for any and all parsers, so regular pages can be created with the regular wiki text, but the FG parser code could probably be reused in part and plugged in Doku to parse content from (and maybe to?) FG.

[Leonal]

Voted for the latter two options. I don't currently run a game, but when I do I'll be using Lone Wolf's Realm Works software to organize it.

[Nylanfs]

I've voted, and have been thinking on the grander implications of the question. I think I would REALLY advise against doing it in house. I felt there are multiple reasons for this some of which I'll list

1) Using an existing service/site leverages both communities (more if the exported file suports mutiple sites)
2) Resource allocation, if you use an existing service then you don't have to spend precious resources of Smiteworks to try and duplicate something that somebody else has already been working on for many years.

[Blacky]

1) Using an existing service/site leverages both communities (more if the exported file suports mutiple sites)

True, but is there a real and large Obsidian Portal community? I'm not talking about users, I'm sure most of Obisidian users are just that and won't bother with forums, news, trying out new product, and such.

2) Resource allocation, if you use an existing service then you don't have to spend precious resources of Smiteworks to try and duplicate something that somebody else has already been working on for many years.

But you don't get to charge them for it.

As for resources, it can (and probably should) be done externally. Get someone new to do it on the server side, and give him a piece of the action for example.

[Blackfoot]

I use Epic Words for my games, it has some better tools (loot and XP tracking specifically.. the XP tracking worked GREAT for Champions/HERO as well as Pathfinder) than OP and being a paid user is quite inexpensive ($12 a year). I have used OP in the past as a player and tried it out a bit from the GM side but found I preferred the EW interface and tools. I 'might' use it if it linked up with FG somehow.. but that depends a bit.
Would I use a FG based board? Actually I think I would be more likely to use one even if it didn't have all the bells and whistles I want, just because it would be more accessible to the community here... without creating yet another account somewhere. That is often a bogdown for players when this sort of issue rolls around.

[Phystus]

I checked "other", my group uses a wiki (mediawiki, I think) to store shareable data for our campaign.

But Blacky and damned's idea is very interesting. Could work out nice for SW.

~P