My point was you don't need different managers for this. One simple method of establsihing hierarchies is all that's needed. If the campaign in question is sci-fi, and works on a galactic scale, then that's the top level of your hierarchy, call that top-level node anything you want. If it's a Fantasy setting that only involves a small continent on one planet, then that's the top-level for that campaign.huhlig wrote:This was part of the reason I was looking into it.
Truthfully the manager Hirearchy I was looking at was a Universe Manager which would handle Sci-Fi Style campaigns where you have a universe, sectors, systems, planets, then Cities/dungeons/maps.
Extra maps could be included for ships and things. In this style of manager, the Universe is the big map. Each Object in the universe can be linked to, so you can view where you expect the campaign to go, you can Define Plots for certain places, etc.
World manager is the same thing but on a simpler level. It takes a world map. Truthfully its just the Planet level listed above. You can put objects on the map and link them to events, NPCs and other things.
Most of what I have been working on is hashing out what I and other people would like out of the tool.
Ive also been working on some other things like file format and how to handle undefined data deffinitions.
To me the the title of "manager" infers a lot of intricate functionality that I feel just doesn't need to be hardcoded in. Freeform nodes allow the greatest flexibility. What you're describing sounds like it could take months, if not years, to iron out the details. Whereas I think something simple, flexible and functional would be embraced by all.
Perhaps eventually the CampaignTool could evolve into more complex "managers", but I really don't think it's necessary, else you end up with a very complex application like DMGenie, and that's only devoted to one game system.
Generic and flexible are the key attributes, in my opinion.