FG Idea - Separating the Player and Host themes

[neoaez]

Please take a look and, if you like it, vote for the idea I've added to the wish list here: Player and Host theme separation

I'll repeat the info I put on the wish list here:

I understand from reading this forum post, why it would be difficult to let players load a different "theme" extension. I'd like to propose a solution that keeps the existing structure for theme extensions and all the flexibility they provide, while still providing a way for players to have more options divorced from the specific "look" of GM's extension of choice. This should allow for players with certain challenges like color blindness, or sight impairment to choose a "theme" that enables rather than hinders their ability to play. It would be difficult for a single theme to cover every possible potential need.

My proposed solution is to add a new "theme" folder and category. These are simple graphics and/or font substitutions that are loaded last and override those items defined in any rulesets or extensions. These themes would still need to conform to the dimensions of the graphics they are replacing and would only load XML tags used for defining a font or graphic.

I'm sure there are some pitfalls and complications I am not immediately seeing, but I'd really like to see a push in this direction to include and assist those in the community who have challenges that are not met with the current UI setup like in this forum post.

[LordEntrails]

Theme elements are not interchangeable. This means that two themes that are designed to be compatible would work, but if they were not designed that way then they would not work. For instance, if the GM theme defines a window or box for the header of some element as 15x300 pixels based upon a 10 point font the theme has chosen, A larger size font may not fit in that element. And if the player theme resized that element, then the window that that element is designed for will overlap or cut off other elements in the window. So, high contrast options might work for compatible themes, but something like changing font size won't (unless the GM theme is designed for flexibility from the start, which is exceptionally difficult and limiting).

Second , if player extensions were allowed by FG, then that means that a player could load an extension (i.e. themes are only extensions) that let's them over ride things that the GM has set up and the rules they chose to enforce. This could be simple things like movement, but could also be things like attack, damages, save effects, etc. In other words, a player extension could be setup to allow that player to cheat and such might not be apparent to the GM or other players.

Personally, I would love for GMs and players to be able to have independent interfaces, (more than just what the /scaleui function gives) but I don't know how that can be achieved without serious compromises. But, that said, I did vote for you idea

[neoaez]

The font issue is definitely a challenge if the size or kerning is significantly different from the original. Maybe the "scaleui" feature is the ideal solution in that regard.

It would require some engine changes, but my proposal would only allow themes to define the graphics and fonts. No rule changes or other definition types or scripting would be allowed. This would prevent someone sneaking in stuff to override the way the actual ruleset or other extensions behaved.

Maybe a compromise is to allow theme extension creators to include options that can be selected independently by each player and GM. That way the theme creator could include a high-contrast or maybe several color-blind friendly options, or other optional layouts, etc.... within their extension. Again it might require some engine work to allow a reload of the UI once those options are changed or just to make those options that are selected at launch time by each player.