I've seen requests for a way to control information access so only one player and the GM can see it. I think this can be done if each player in the party creates a private campaign and invites only the GM to join it. It's not a seamless solution, but it should work and doesn't require OP to change anything. The player has to create the campaign otherwise the GM could end up with too many campaigns.
A way to flag Private Messages as important would be a good feature as well.
The downside is that this page would also appear in the "Latest Updates" list at the same time, and possibly the wiki list page as well. So I'll admit, mine is not a perfect solution.
[Private message to Cleric; Fighter: You can hear that there's an invisible creature lurking about somewhere ahead of the party.]
Only the persons playing Fighter, Cleric, and the GM's would be able to see that line, which is colored orange. Everyone else won't even see the text. I'd be nice to be able to do something similar here, as I could see having a page outlining information on a faction that has blocks of information that only players who are part of that faction would have access to, while everyone else would have access to the publicly available information.
Soylent Green is a delicious food[Private message to Aliens: that is made out of PEOPLE]!
Great site and idea by the way. I'm seriously considering getting Ascendant membership.
*What does it do?*
It's a section of the Character page which enables information sharing between the GM and the PC regarding that character.
*What does it look like*
It's basically a "Player-GM information" field within the character sheet that only the owning player and the GM can read and edit. It's Textile-enabled.
Alternately, it could be a "GM and you only" checkbox on the "Description" and/or "Bio" fields that makes them show for the GM and player only.
It just is such an obvious feature, and one very good reason to actually use OP, and even more a very good reason for the players to feel the need to use OP
That being said, there are a few cases where this would seem pertinent.
- "Character Suprises": one of my character is going to start a "underworld secret alter ego" within the game.
- Character stats: there is some fun to be had in keeping a level of mystery on the actual capacities of the characters.
- Character background: some parts of a character background (dark secrets, etc.) should stay hidden from other players to prevent even unintentional metagaming.
So all in all, I think this could be an interesting feature, although I can understand why someone would think otherwise (aren't players mature enough to separate out-of-game information from in-game?
I think the issue Micah has with it is that he is focused on making the Obsidian Portal a place to store game data and share it with everyone involved. He put in place a way to limit the permissions for whole campaigns to just those playing the campaigns, but going beyond that kind of stretches the original purpose of this site. This debate is kind of like the one that recently reared its ugly head again: whether or not to set specific permissions for editing wiki pages, or to encourage open editing for all wiki pages by anyone within a given campaign, GM or player. Currently, GM's can keep certain pages GM-Only, but they can't prevent players from editing anything on a non-GM-Only page. For example, any one of my players can change Wyrmshadow's home page whenever they choose to do so. Some people believe this is problematic, and Micah (and I) do not. I think that the original purpose of Obsidian Portal is served best by leaving permissions as they are.
However, as all great things, Obsidian Portal is bound to evolve into something even greater than it already is. I think that the API project is an example of their attempts to do just that. In the mean time, use the private message feature to send secret data back and forth if you need to, or e-mail, or facebook, or any of the other hundred options the Internet makes freely available.
Imagine something that runs on e-ink, if you will. Now combine it with wireless connectivity, writing input capability, and Obsidian Portal. Now, you have your group, sitting around a table. Each person has a little tablet, and they all are communicating with each other. They allow linking to Obsidian Portal, to look up various bits and bobs during play, keeping notes straight, a log of events, etc. But the true joy of the idea comes into play when you write a little "sticky note", then you can flick it to one person, and it shows up on their tablet, in real time. And then they could choose to keep it secret, or share it with the group. Or maybe pass the note along, so everyone can read it. Except for the poor illiterate barbarian. Nobody ever tells him what is going on.
The idea is techy, completely superfluous, and only has the real added advantage of being able to browse the Portal on a little tablet. And potentially being "greener" than wasting stickynotes. (I'm one to talk - I take meeting notes on them sometimes. I have probably 50 useless stickynotes plastered about my desk...)
I like it, though, and you're right. I find it both amusing and enlightening. Also a bit arousing, but admittedly, I am quite a strange man.
I don't think that anyone would argue (against?) that GM notes are for the GM only.
We don't tell players everything thats going to happen in a module before we get started! Not because we are afraid they will not be able to tell the difference between what they know and their characters know... it's just that most won't find it fun!
We tell the story to ourselves, not our characters.
Secrets are only fun, if they are revealed... but in due time, as a surprise to everyone else - Why does the Gunslinger call his gun Vinona, why does he insist he absolutely wrecked his former ship? Why doesn't Wentworth-evans want to go back to Beylix? (okay this was public, but could 'ave been secret for effect), What did Scruffy do on his home planet, that he can't tell the others, that made him venture into space? It is often the players own story for their character, that they get to inject in the campaign and let unfold to the wonder of others!!
And I'd like to keep notes about on OP - already missed one good plot twist cause I didn't write it down in the right place.
It's not quite the same thing as Wiki pages edition: for me, if you can see a wiki page you should be able to edit it. This is a collaborative process, and you should trust yourselves enough for the edition.
The "GM-player information", on the other hand, is much more like the "GM only" information: it's not that you can't see this information, but much more that you really shouldn't to preserve your fun.
As Obsidian progresses in it's development, I still think that the GM-1-Player shared field is THE most blatant omission
I'd have that before API and Textile editors, any day! But maybe I'm just an old cranky man...
I've started to use it for my campaign preparation, and as long as it fits my gaming needs I'll probably stay an Ascendant member. I have to say though that the "GM/1-player thing" would certainly go a long way to fit my gaming needs, as it's for the moment the single biggest lack in my situation!
[I know I said I'd hold my peace forever... I lied. I'm done now, for real. :) ]
"Wyrmshadow Campaign Setting":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/wyrmshadow
"Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic":http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/star-wars-knights-of-the-old-republic