RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Heru's Tinkertoy

11:40, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

Posted by Chief TinkerFor group 0
Dabbler
Participant 2, 18 posts
Tue 30 Oct 2018
at 12:58
  • msg #8

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

I can read the Private Line I sent to Kowalski, but I dunno if I'm reading it as Dabbler or as Kowalski...
This message was last edited by the player at 13:00, Tue 30 Oct 2018.
Chief Tinker
GM, 58 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Tue 30 Oct 2018
at 17:02
  • msg #9

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

Hypothesis:  Private lines messages should work as they always have, namely, that if you check a box to send something to any clone SPC, only the owning player will be able to read their private messages.

Um... yeah.  Private lines do seem to go to all similarly named characters, or is it, because all players have access to the private groups assigned to these characters?



For sure enough private messages, it would seem that it is needful to check all "clones" of such a character (in this case, any of the characters Joe, Skipper, Kowalski, and Rico) to ensure all players who can play that character can see the message.

That would have the unpleasant effect of making such a private message effectively public to the entire group of controlling players.

We may wish to use a digraph after the character name (instead of or in addition to the ones in the bio lines) to identify them for PM purposes.

Wanna go back to the micro-game for a bit more testing?
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:19, Tue 30 Oct 2018.
Dabbler
Participant 2, 19 posts
Wed 31 Oct 2018
at 09:57
  • msg #10

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

Yeah, we can test it out for completeness, but to be honest I can't see why you would need to send PMs or lines to one clone but not another. The whole purpose of the clone is that it's a character all relevant players are operating, so they should all know what is said to him.
It's a bit academic, really.

Unless someone comes up with a different application of the feature.
Dabbler
Participant 2, 23 posts
Thu 1 Nov 2018
at 18:06
  • msg #11

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

yeah, it's all messy when it comes to private speech, but as I said, for my application I'll never need to do that.
Chief Tinker
GM, 63 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Fri 2 Nov 2018
at 07:13
  • msg #12

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

I'm copying selected messages from the micro-game here for reference, then removing them from the micro-game.  First such message is inbound:  Micro-Game message no. 22

(Chief Tinker) In reply to Dabbler (msg # 21):

{OOC:  Rico's reply was a private line to Chief Tinker.  Just game play.

It looks as though any private line addressed to one of the SPC clones goes to all of them.  That's interesting, and would have implications that the character name does need to be exactly the same for all clones for this to work well.  That could be useful in the right set of circumstances.

I just realized I've not used the secret line feature before, so below is a secret line from Chief Tinker to Skipper.}

This message was last edited by the GM at 07:17, Fri 02 Nov 2018.
Chief Tinker
GM, 64 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Fri 2 Nov 2018
at 07:16
  • msg #13

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

Note:  Dabbler is speaking...  Micro-Game message no. 23

OOC: I can read that. So, a private or secret line addressed to one clone by anyone, goes to all of them, but if a clone assigned to another player makes a private or secret line to a non-clone, the other clones can't read it. Interesting.

I think you're right, that Private Messages would go to one individual clone, but as you say, it might be difficult to determine from the menu which clone you were addressing.

Chief Tinker
GM, 65 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Fri 2 Nov 2018
at 07:19
  • msg #14

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

Message #24 from the Micro-Game:

(Chief Tinker) In reply to Dabbler (msg # 23):

D'accord! I gotta run to work, so I'll pick up with you later.  Yeah, I expected messages from one SPC private to a player character might not be seen by all clones.

Am I correct in thinking that players can only access the clones assigned to them?  As GM, I see and can post from three Skippers, three Kowalskis, and three Ricos, oh, and four Joes (I created an extra one for a player who could not join due to time constraints).

Chief Tinker
GM, 66 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Fri 2 Nov 2018
at 07:20
  • msg #15

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

Micro-Game Message No. 25:

(Dabbler is speaking)

Yes, I believe so. I can see all the clones on the cast list, but when I make a reply, I'm only offered one of each in the 'select a character' box.

If you can see several of each in your reply options, how do you know which one to choose?

Chief Tinker
GM, 67 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Fri 2 Nov 2018
at 07:21
  • msg #16

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

Micro-Game Message No. 26:

(Chief Tinker)In reply to Dabbler (msg # 25):

Because the list is sorted by player or GM.  All my clones appear under my primary character, Chief Tinker.  Beneath that, I see a list of Other Characters

The only way I can see to tell what I'm doing there is to preview a post by the character.  If I've got the one I wanted, keep going; if not, cancel and choose the other one.  Rinse, repeat.


We should probably move this stuff to the OOC thread, no?
Skald
Mod, 2 posts
Sat 3 Nov 2018
at 05:10
  • msg #17

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

My thoughts/observations:

quote:
3.)  For small numbers of this character type, unique private groups can be assigned to the topics for these common character sheets.  All players who can post as such a character should be assigned access to that character's private group so they can view the character's data sheet.

I don't think you need to use private groups (which might be a problem in games where there are not many left available) - it'd be just as easy to tag the character sheet as a private line in a group 0 thread, so all Joe's could see it - eg:


quote:
5.) A common character sheet could also be posted to a locked topic if the GM wanted only the GM to be able to edit it.  (Is that true?  Seems like it should be...)

I think the GM would always have to edit the sheet - I don't think the players would be able to ?  If the post was by a Joe then that Joe's unique character ID would be applied to it and only the owner of that particular Joe would be able to edit it.

quote:
For sure enough private messages, it would seem that it is needful to check all "clones" of such a character (in this case, any of the characters Joe, Skipper, Kowalski, and Rico) to ensure all players who can play that character can see the message.

That would have the unpleasant effect of making such a private message effectively public to the entire group of controlling players.

We may wish to use a digraph after the character name (instead of or in addition to the ones in the bio lines) to identify them for PM purposes.

H'mmm ... if you modify the character name then the private lines won't work - Joe_1 won't be able to read a private line addressed to Joe_2 or Joe.

But as a workaround you could just send the PM to the primary character, not the secondary Joe.  As Dabbler said, any private info would generally go to all Joes, though I can see the need for a GM to target a particular Joe, either for a "great post, dude !" or "don't do that again !".

quote:
As GM, I see and can post from three Skippers, three Kowalskis, and three Ricos, oh, and four Joes

...

The only way I can see to tell what I'm doing there is to preview a post by the character.  If I've got the one I wanted, keep going; if not, cancel and choose the other one.  Rinse, repeat.

If you really wanted to pick a particular Joe, then I can't see any other way of doing it ... but to be honest, it probably doesn't really matter which Joe you pick - personally I'd pick the first one, but I'd always add a private line  to let the player(s) know it was a GM post.
Chief Tinker
GM, 69 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Sun 4 Nov 2018
at 00:50
  • msg #18

2691 - In Summary

Before getting started, I'd like to thank Dabbler and Skald for participating in this experiment.  Three heads are usually better than one (just ask Cerberus!)

Well, we've thrashed things around well enough to draw at least some conclusions:

1.)  Creating "clones" of Secondary Player Characters (SPCs) can permit more than one person in a player group to post as that character.  This was the entire rationale behind this experiment -- to see if it was possible for all players to share the playing of a single NPC as opposed to having the GM do it alone.

Note: 

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
SPCs being cloned must all have the same name, spelled, spaced, punctuated, and cased exactly in the same way.  If this is not done, private or secret lines addressed to one clone may not be viewable by all the players playing the other clones.

For instance, one would not wish to name a group of clones named Skipper as Skipper-1, Skipper-2, and Skipper-3, etc., for the reasons already discussed.



2.)  Labeling these characters in their tag fields to permit telling them apart from each other may prove useful in telling who is posting what for a given cloned SPC.

Example: 

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Say a cloned SPC by the name of Kowalski exists as three clones, one assigned to the GM, another assigned to Player_1 and another assigned to Player_2.  Tagging these three clones as SPC-GM, SPC-P1 and SPC-P2 allows all viewing to tell with a glance to the left sidebar of a post who actually posted for Kowalski.


3.)  There are a number of ways character sheets for such clones could be managed in common - that is, as one character sheet shared among all clones for a given SPC:

3.1)  Each clone can be assigned a common private group, and then be posted to a topic in that private group.  For games with only a few characters this will work, but as games scale up to many characters, private groups available for other purposes tend to run short.

3.2)  Each character sheet can be assigned to a unique topic, or all clone character sheets can be assigned to a common topic, with each character sheet being set off by private line tags addressed to the characters  Such topics can be locked if the GM wishes to be the only one editing the character sheets, or left unlocked if player editing is desired.

Note:

Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
(In our research so far, group zero topics were used for this purpose.  In an Adult or Mature Content game, there is no reason these character sheets could not be stored in a Group One or higher topic, although at this point I'm not sure whether that would be necessary.  Necessary or not, however, it is an option.)


GM Note:  I'm going to take a break, come back in a day or so, and see if things look differently after "cooling off". In the meanwhile, read over this summary so far, if you will, and tell me where I messed up.  Thanks again!
Skald
Mod, 3 posts
Sun 4 Nov 2018
at 14:03
  • msg #19

2691 - In Summary

Just one more addition (something I just discovered) ...

As I discussed, very briefly, with our illustrious Chief Tinker, as a site moderator I have a unique perspective as I can be both player and (defacto) GM, depending on what mode I'm in ... and while in moderator mode I noticed that all the Joes, Ricos etc are being grouped under a particular player in the Edit Player option on the GM menu.  The actual characters do show correctly in the Edit Character option (and obviously we can all see our own Joe etc as an option in the drop down when we post), so it's just an oddity - I'm guessing the Edit Player code is matching on character name rather than character ID, and so stops at the first match it finds (perhaps whoever was first to have the character assigned to them - ie earliest character ID trumps).

I don't know that it will have any side-effects, other than perhaps to potentially confuse a GM who might think something's gone horribly wrong if it seems all variations are assigned to one player.  :>
Chief Tinker
GM, 70 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Sun 4 Nov 2018
at 17:44
  • msg #20

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Skald:
Just one more addition (something I just discovered) ...

As I discussed, very briefly, with our illustrious Chief Tinker, as a site moderator I have a unique perspective as I can be both player and (defacto) GM, depending on what mode I'm in ... and while in moderator mode I noticed that all the Joes, Ricos etc are being grouped under a particular player in the Edit Player option on the GM menu.  The actual characters do show correctly in the Edit Character option (and obviously we can all see our own Joe etc as an option in the drop down when we post), so it's just an oddity - I'm guessing the Edit Player code is matching on character name rather than character ID, and so stops at the first match it finds (perhaps whoever was first to have the character assigned to them - ie earliest character ID trumps).

I don't know that it will have any side-effects, other than perhaps to potentially confuse a GM who might think something's gone horribly wrong if it seems all variations are assigned to one player.  :>


I see what you mean - it is especially apparent in the Edit(One Stop) option of the Player Management menu.  Looks like I created the characters in different orders (though I can't conceive why I would have done that... maybe I was fuzzy in the head when I did it?).

I'm curious:  what do we mean when we speak of "the same order"?  During creation, I typically assigned the characters Skipper, Kowalski, and Rico in that order to each player in turn if I am remembering correctly.  The Joes were created earlier during the first round of testing, and were, admittedly, all over the map (so to speak).  Of course, it was much later when I assigned the tags to differentiate all the clones, but it appears I got them assigned to the correct clones.

Should I create another micro-game for another round of testing with different clones, perhaps doping out in advance how I will create said clones?

Hmm... after thinking about it, I could just remove all SPCs created to this point and re-create them in a specified order, tagging as I went.

I will wait a while, still letting things cool off a bit.

This message was last edited by the GM at 02:01, Mon 05 Nov 2018.
Skald
Mod, 4 posts
Mon 5 Nov 2018
at 13:09
  • msg #21

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Definitely don't think you did anything wrong (we all seem to have our Joes and penguins as secondary characters which argues it worked bea-u-tifully) ... it's just something funny with the way the system is reading the names back to the characters.

Before we make you recreate 'em all, could we get a listing of the character id's and who they're assigned to (primary character rather than player is fine to protect the innocent), so we can see if there's any pattern we can discern ?

Here's mine (taken from the Character Details screen, just switching between 'em and reading ci=###### from the address bar string)...

Skald:
Joe = 319092
Kowalski = 319180
Rico = 319181
Skipper = 319179

Of course this only impacts on GMs as they're the only ones who can see that Player's Menu on the GM screen !  ;>
Dabbler
Participant 2, 24 posts
Mon 5 Nov 2018
at 13:35
  • msg #22

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Here's mine:
Joe = 319071
Kowalski = 319177
Rico = 319178
Skipper = 319176
Chief Tinker
GM, 71 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Mon 5 Nov 2018
at 17:30
  • msg #23

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Seeing this on my way to work... will revise this post when I get home around 0130.  The recording of character IDs is worth doing - good catch, Skald.

My Crew:

Kowalski-CT:  319183
Rico-CT:      319184
Skipper-CT:   319182
Joe-CT:       319072


Hmm... looks like Joe was created first for my batch of NPCs, then Skipper, Kowalski, and finally Rico.  Let's see now...

Dabbler's Crew:

Joe-Dab:      319071
Kowalski-Dab: 319177
Rico-Dab:     319178
Skipper-Dab:  319176


Skald's Crew:

Joe-Sk:       319092
Kowalski-Sk:  319180
Rico-Sk:      319181
Skipper-Sk:   319179

In numerical order, the entire Krewe of Klones:

Joe-Dab:      319071
Joe-CT:       319072
Joe-Bax:      319073

{What happened to 074 to 091, inclusive?}

Joe-Sk:       319092

{Hmm... wonder what happened to 093 to 175, inclusive?  Big gap...}

Skipper-Dab:  319176
Kowalski-Dab: 319177
Rico-Dab:     319178
Skipper-Sk:   319179
Kowalski-Sk:  319180
Rico-Sk:      319181
Skipper-CT:   319182
Kowalski-CT:  319183
Rico-CT:      319184

From this, I'd say I created Dabbler's clones, then Skald's, then Chief Tinker's, with the exception of the four Joes, which were created much earlier.
This message was last edited by the GM at 07:46, Tue 06 Nov 2018.
Skald
Mod, 5 posts
Tue 6 Nov 2018
at 13:32
  • msg #24

Re: 2691 - In Summary

And from the Edit Player's screen dropdown list:

  • baxtheslayer has all the Joes
  • Chief Tinker has at least two of the Ricos
  • Dabbler has all the Kowalskis
  • Skald just has Skald !

Everybody but me has the etceteras on the dropdown list as they have too many characters to fit, so we don't know for sure that the third Rico sits with Chief Tinker but a betting penguin would put money on it, OR which of the three has (assumedly) nominally got all the Skippers ...

Looking at the character ids ... Dabbler has the first created Joe, Skald has the last ... and Dabbler has the first created Skipper, Kowalski and Rico, Chief Tinker has the last

Which doesn't fit the pattern ... maybe if we look at "last in sequence" ?

With 319073 baxtheslayer has the last of the initial run of Joes (ie latest of the first three Joes which were created one after the other, ignoring the jump in sequence to Skald's Joe at 319092 which was created later on.  So far so good ...

But based on that rule, then Dabbler would have all the penguins as the character id jumps after each ... or if we accept that the character id run is not based on character but on game, then Chief Tinker would have them all.

Ah, maybe if we now throw in alphabetical

Sooo ... no, can't see what rule is being applied to the dropdown list.  Maybe it's something to do with alphabetical order too, but I can't pick it.

Again, if you actually proceed to edit the player, it does list the correct characters on the next screen.  Code must be setting up the dropdown list differently to the way it actually determines character ownership ... and since the only place I can see the problem is on the player list dropdown (at least thus far) it seems that it's handling it properly when it matters.

So I think we could safely say that it's an oddity but not a showstopper.  The in-character posts certainly all seemed to work correctly.

Those missing number ranges - interesting question and I hadn't thought of it before, but character ids must be used across the whole of RPoL, not just allocated per game.  So those missing ones belong to some other game/player somewhere out there.
Dabbler
Participant 2, 25 posts
Tue 6 Nov 2018
at 13:58
  • msg #25

Re: 2691 - In Summary

I can't really comment on this, cos I can't see it, but yeah, when you showed those gaps, I immediately thought 'Rpol-wide numbering'.
Chief Tinker
GM, 72 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Tue 6 Nov 2018
at 17:29
  • msg #26

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Skald, were you unable to post as any of your SPCs, or am I reading that incorrectly?

quote:
Skald just has Skald !


Wait... that's from Edit Players.  I guess I should ask what you see in the drop-down of the post editor?
Chief Tinker
GM, 73 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Tue 6 Nov 2018
at 17:31
  • msg #27

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Dabbler:
I can't really comment on this, cos I can't see it, but yeah, when you showed those gaps, I immediately thought 'Rpol-wide numbering'.


Very likely true - that way each character is globally unique in the database.  I'm not sure I would have done it that way, but there's probably a reason for it I don't know from here.
Skald
Mod, 6 posts
Wed 7 Nov 2018
at 13:21
  • msg #28

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Sorry, I can see all the characters in my player dropdown list, but hadn't actually posted ... will confirm that now over in link to a message in this game ...

... and yes, all good was able to post as 'em all (tagged -Sk in text). :>
Chief Tinker
GM, 74 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Wed 7 Nov 2018
at 17:22
  • msg #29

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Thanks, Skald.  That's reassuring.
Participant 006
player, 1 post
Tue 22 Sep 2020
at 05:43
  • msg #30

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Chief Tinker
msg #6  Announcements
0112 - Moving On:
Is anyone here willing to maintain this lab-game?

I'll be happy to keep the lights on, post once a month or so to keep it active, etc.  Basic maintenance so the experiments and results are here for all to see.  And if we ever need to fire the lab up again...
Chief Tinker
GM, 136 posts
Just knocking around
to see how things work.
Tue 10 Aug 2021
at 06:28
  • msg #31

Re: 2691 - In Summary

Let me post here for a bit...

I'm pleased no end that my work is still finding use here.  If there is one who would volunteer to take ownership, I will gladly transfer the game to keep this resource alive.

I will be checking in for the next few days (until about Saturday) just to see if a candidate arises.

I wish I had time, I really, really do, but not yet.

Chat amongst yourselves and jot back here, please.
Participant 006
player, 2 posts
I'm not just a number!
Tue 10 Aug 2021
at 08:39
  • msg #32

2690 - OOC Traffic:  Notes, Chit-chat, etc. for 2600.

Chief Tinker:
If there is one who would volunteer to take ownership, I will gladly transfer the game to keep this resource alive.

As I mentioned last September, I'll happily take over and keep the lights on until you can return to do testing or expand the knowledge base.
Sign In