Initiative: GM only or GM and Players?

[dorpond]

Would you like to be able to network InitTool and be able to share the initiative order with the players?

Of course we would have the option to use or not use this feature.

[dorpond]

Also, let us use this thread to discuss the possibilities and pitfalls of a networked InitTool.

[Dracorat]

It should be networkable.

In reality, it should be a part of MapTool

[Full Bleed]

Absolutely.

Of course, it would be good if NPC's could be "hidden" in the shared view of the initiative order if a GM so pleased.

Regardless, it would be of benefit to PC's if they knew when their turn was coming up without having to rely on the GM to tell them.

This would be of particular use to someone like myself who rolls initiative every round and has to constantly update people on their initiative position.

[Full Bleed]

Hmmm... Dracorat and I both agreed on this issue... but the vote reflects a 1/1 split. Did you not vote Draco? Or is the voting busted?

[RPMiller]

It should be networkable.

In reality, it should be a part of MapTool

I agree, but didn't see this option.

[Hawke]

The way to hide initiative orders or data from players is key. If I want some hidden rogue to be ready to jump in, I should be able to.

Honestly, as much as I love using IT it really isn't that beneficial to me until it's networkable/integrated.

[Amaril]

Ideas on InitiativeTool:

• Players should be able to roll or enter their own initiative (some of my players don't trust anything other than physical dice; others have created their own dice roller scripts) with the result reflecting on the GM's view and sorting the initiative order accordingly.
• Players shouldn't see any initiative order at all.
• Player's view should have some sort of alert when it is their turn (e.g. - flashing name, dialog box, sound, or some combination).
• Players should be able to track HP and conditions, set delay or readied action status, etc.
• If the option to see the initiative order is enabled, any information about a PC should be limited on another player's view. For example, no player should be able to see another player's status such as unconcious or dying. Setting the status should simply grey out the PC in the list so as not to disclose whether the PC is dead or simply unconscious.
• GM's view should be able to see everything including readied action, delayed, unconcious, dead, stabilized, inert, etc.

MapTool integration:

• The status in the initiative list should reflect on the token. Players should not be able to distinguish dead from dying. Disclosing such information can be done via communication with the GM.
• Sometimes a GM wants to drop a new random token onto the map in the middle of battle. At those moments, new tokens should trigger InitiativeTool to add the token into the appropriate place in the initiative order and set its initiative value at that point.

As an aside, InitiativeTool should allow players to save a token or a single combatant file to send to a GM for importing into the GM's groups or encounters. Networking will help with this, but sometimes it's helpful to have these things prepped ahead of time. Additionally, it allows the players to update those files after leveling and send them to the GM so that he can prep future encounters.

[Dracorat]

Hmmm... Dracorat and I both agreed on this issue... but the vote reflects a 1/1 split. Did you not vote Draco? Or is the voting busted?

Forgot to vote - fixed.

[jay]

Ideas on InitiativeTool:

• Players should be able to roll or enter their own initiative (some of my players don't trust anything other than physical dice; others have created their own dice roller scripts) with the result reflecting on the GM's view and sorting the initiative order accordingly.

This can be done in Init Tool now, but the GM has to do the data entry. When MT and IT are integrated we can look at ways to have the players enter their own initiative.

• Players shouldn't see any initiative order at all.

This will definitely be an option within IT.

• Player's view should have some sort of alert when it is their turn (e.g. - flashing name, dialog box, sound, or some combination).

This will be an option as well.

• Players should be able to track HP and conditions, set delay or readied action status, etc.

I was thinking that this kind of support would go into character tool. It would then integrate with the data in MT and IT to show the state everywhere.

• If the option to see the initiative order is enabled, any information about a PC should be limited on another player's view. For example, no player should be able to see another player's status such as unconcious or dying. Setting the status should simply grey out the PC in the list so as not to disclose whether the PC is dead or simply unconscious.

I'm thinking that the initiative data shown to the player will only show that the combatant is not acting in initiative order. Any other data shown to the player will be from the token states in MT.

• GM's view should be able to see everything including readied action, delayed, unconcious, dead, stabilized, inert, etc.

Absolutely. The current version of IT will always show everything.

MapTool integration:

• The status in the initiative list should reflect on the token. Players should not be able to distinguish dead from dying. Disclosing such information can be done via communication with the GM.

I don't think there should be any type of status shown in the initiative list viewed by the players. Let MT handle the graphical display on the tokens themselves.

• Sometimes a GM wants to drop a new random token onto the map in the middle of battle. At those moments, new tokens should trigger InitiativeTool to add the token into the appropriate place in the initiative order and set its initiative value at that point.

This is a good idea. Should IT add the combatant to MT when the GM creates a new combatant there?

As an aside, InitiativeTool should allow players to save a token or a single combatant file to send to a GM for importing into the GM's groups or encounters. Networking will help with this, but sometimes it's helpful to have these things prepped ahead of time. Additionally, it allows the players to update those files after leveling and send them to the GM so that he can prep future encounters.

There will definitely be a way to import/export characters from MT, IT & character tool.

I'm going to add this conversation to the integration tracker.

[Amaril]

Ideas on InitiativeTool:

• Players should be able to roll or enter their own initiative (some of my players don't trust anything other than physical dice; others have created their own dice roller scripts) with the result reflecting on the GM's view and sorting the initiative order accordingly.

This can be done in Init Tool now, but the GM has to do the data entry. When MT and IT are integrated we can look at ways to have the players enter their own initiative.

Very cool, but I was referring to networked Init Tool only. A GM could create a blank combatant for the player and assign it to the player who could then fill it in. I imagine that it would be easier to accomplish with MapTool acting as a server for both MT and IT. Then the player could edit the token, which would then reflect in IT.

• Players should be able to track HP and conditions, set delay or readied action status, etc.

I was thinking that this kind of support would go into character tool. It would then integrate with the data in MT and IT to show the state everywhere.

While having it in CharacterTool would be neat, adding a field in InitiativeTool, which I've done with my own custom settings, handles it already. The player could simply double-click and alter the value as combat continues. Additionally, the idea of the character status is so that when the GM says, "You were hit for x points," the player can set himself as the appropriate condition, which would then reflect in the initiative list (as well as in MapTool when integrated).

Additionally, rather than a player saying, "I delay" and the GM changing the status, the player can change the status himself, offloading that task from the GM's already busy role.

• If the option to see the initiative order is enabled, any information about a PC should be limited on another player's view. For example, no player should be able to see another player's status such as unconcious or dying. Setting the status should simply grey out the PC in the list so as not to disclose whether the PC is dead or simply unconscious.

I'm thinking that the initiative data shown to the player will only show that the combatant is not acting in initiative order.

Out of curiosity, how would that be reflected?

• Sometimes a GM wants to drop a new random token onto the map in the middle of battle. At those moments, new tokens should trigger InitiativeTool to add the token into the appropriate place in the initiative order and set its initiative value at that point.

This is a good idea. Should IT add the combatant to MT when the GM creates a new combatant there?

It would be hard for IT to determine where in MT to place the token. I think the DM can just as easily drag and drop the token from IT to MT.

As an aside, InitiativeTool should allow players to save a token or a single combatant file to send to a GM for importing into the GM's groups or encounters. Networking will help with this, but sometimes it's helpful to have these things prepped ahead of time. Additionally, it allows the players to update those files after leveling and send them to the GM so that he can prep future encounters.

There will definitely be a way to import/export characters from MT, IT & character tool.

Sweet! This is actually the reason why I'm holding off on using IT for right not. I currently use initiative cards and it's easy to pass them out and let the player fill them out and return them to me. Doing this electronically between game sessions would save a lot of time during game sessions. Fumbling around with multiple groups in IT is a bit cumbersome to say the least.

[jay]

• Players should be able to track HP and conditions, set delay or readied action status, etc.

I was thinking that this kind of support would go into character tool. It would then integrate with the data in MT and IT to show the state everywhere.

While having it in CharacterTool would be neat, adding a field in InitiativeTool, which I've done with my own custom settings, handles it already. The player could simply double-click and alter the value as combat continues. Additionally, the idea of the character status is so that when the GM says, "You were hit for x points," the player can set himself as the appropriate condition, which would then reflect in the initiative list (as well as in MapTool when integrated).

Additionally, rather than a player saying, "I delay" and the GM changing the status, the player can change the status himself, offloading that task from the GM's already busy role.

I'm actually talking about a fully integrated character tool. When all of the tools are integrated making a change in one will be automatically reflected in the others. So when a player takes 'x' hit points of damage and enters it in character tool IT will be updated to reflect the new hit points in the index card and MT will update its stat sheets. This is where we want to go with fully integrated tools.

• If the option to see the initiative order is enabled, any information about a PC should be limited on another player's view. For example, no player should be able to see another player's status such as unconcious or dying. Setting the status should simply grey out the PC in the list so as not to disclose whether the PC is dead or simply unconscious.

I'm thinking that the initiative data shown to the player will only show that the combatant is not acting in initiative order.

Out of curiosity, how would that be reflected?

I'm thinking that the player's view of the initiative is just the list of combatant names. When a player isn't acting on their turn such as when they are readied or delayed they will be lined up on the right side of the list and when they are acting normally they will be lined up on the left. This is how it is done in IT now.

Fumbling around with multiple groups in IT is a bit cumbersome to say the least.

Do you have some ideas on how this can be improved? What would make the groups worth the GM's time to set them up?

[Amaril]

Fumbling around with multiple groups in IT is a bit cumbersome to say the least.

Do you have some ideas on how this can be improved? What would make the groups worth the GM's time to set them up?

It's not that groups are a problem. It's the idea (suggested in another thread) of using group files to exchange PC combatant data to bring into another group of all of the PCs. You can create encounters and save them as files. You can create collections of groups and save them as files. You can't create combatants and save them individually as files. It seems like such a simple thing that's sorely lacking.

Edit: It could also lead to creating token files that are more than just PNG files. The idea is that I can't help but everything should be modularized. I should be able to create a single combatant that I can save as a file for later use or for sending to a player for editing or a GM for inclusion in a group.