I'd prefer version 3. When I run a game I'd rather not get distracted by some screen antics. ;.)

I dunno -locking out tab movement seems a bit draconian.  I'd prefer (and I've submitted a suggestion) a way to say 'Look here' that chagnes the tab focus and centers the map.

EK - it's not any more draconian than any story or movie that changes scenes.

As GM, I'm directing the flow of the game and the focus of the scene. I find players enjoy the game more when the focus shifts are smooth and incorporated to the action at hand with as little interaction on their part as needed. This helps sustain the suspension of disbelief on the part of a player that contributes to a entertaining experience.

That said, this is why I recommended more than one form so that we all get what we want. Myself? I'd probably never leave option 2 for my own games, but I do crazy things like sync music and sound effects to where we are in the game which requires a bit tighter control. One of my players sometimes has to play remotely and will have his newborn son in his arms while interating - limiting the amount of mouse movement he has is a boon for everyone.

Works for me.   

I really like the idea of a way to flag a tab as 'active' so there's no 'where am I suppose to look' if the player is checking out some other tool that I'm sure you're going to add.   He can always hop back to the tab after doing whatever he needs to do. 

As far as stopping the ability to close a tab - to me, if the GM opened it, you can't close it.   When the GM goes to close it, maybe it's a drop down a) close everywhere b) close local only (which makes it closable on the players screen).   

@John: From what I'm reading, that doesn't address the "GM-Only" on the player side that was in the original request. Perhaps I'm not clear. Here's what I'm reading...

The GM has two options, which are good because of the reasons already stated. No matter which GM option is chosen, they still can send out "active tab/view" requests to all players. The Players have only two options - "Follow view" OFF or "follow view" ON.

When it's OFF, it doesn't allow the GM to indicate what map, just like now. When it's ON it only indicates the active tab but does not physically switch? Is that correct?

@EK - "As far as stopping the ability to close a tab - to me, if the GM opened it, you can't close it. When the GM goes to close it, maybe it's a drop down a) close everywhere b) close local only (which makes it closable on the players screen)." 

I agree with this, but would also add a GM Override option that wouldn't give the drop down choice if the GM preferred.  I would say default setting should be your option.

I mean those options only from the owner of the map/tab which would mostly be the GM - so we are basically in agreement on that one.   I know John is making it a bit less 'GM Centric' than some of the other ETs.   Pretty much everything I talk about is more from tab owner than GM. 

Also, from what I read, John meant there would still be an on-demand, basically like what I suggested with 'look here'.  But maybe I misread.

Your turn John!

First and foremost, this is the exact reason I had three distinct options in the original request. Personal preference of play style should not limit the setting options. I want to be clear: I'm looking for an all-inclusive solution. Being able to change between those options I listed originally on the fly would be preferred.

Primarily my need for the setting of GM Only tab control and focus is that this setting is to allow my gaming table player session to automatically switch focus without interaction needed. I would imagine that any solution that has a display screen (such as your TV setup) would also need things, pragmatically. Lacking this feature for this reason is a show-stopper for me for any VTT, to be quite honest. The goal of using software is to automate what I can of running a game; adding manual steps doesn't help that purpose.

My own personal game style incorporates cut-scenes, music & timing to build tension, fear, excitement, etc. and that cannot be effectively achieved if half the table is watching the same thing and the other half is futzing around on their own tabs. In fact, sometimes, just the suddenness of an unexpected change can dramatically effect the mood (primarily fear or apprehension). There are plenty of times John's scenario (Pally's take forever to take turns!) are appropriate and accurate.

There are also times when it's not, and I need to switch to a new map which incorporates a race against time and everyone needs to be focused GO GO GO!

That is much less effective when you can simply come to it when you're ready...

...for those times, you need to have the option to do that at all.

How about provide an option to not only designate the active tab but also force a jump to the tab.    You can then accomplish what you are saying without locking down the program.   You are at that instant saying focus here - the player would have to deliberately move off the tab.   If your players do that, the problem is the player.  

I see a lot of in general issues with locking up the UI on the client side simply from a programming stand point.   Can they exit?  Can they add characters? Can they add maps?  Where does the lock down stop?   From what you are describing, even the toolbars would have to be locked down.  There's a practical issue - the simply act of opening a modal dialog box for anything will mess with the focus.    You'd have to basically disable the other tabs or constantly pop it back if they click on aother tab.   What if they are adding a map or character when you turn it on lock down?  Do you close down the dialog?  Do you wait for them to finish what they are doing? Does it tell you they are busy? 

If this is something that can be added easily, then why not.   I would be suprised, however, if this is the case. I fear it's a nasty can of worms.  

EK

There are two threads here that I'm seeing here, concurrently:

1. "I think a key component of djc664's scenario is that his player session is "unattended".  It's the one on his display screen, not one that a player is interacting with" = This is true, and pragmatically most important to me for purposes of a VTT.

2. The continued feeling that my style of gaming, and the control requested for that style, is unpalatable to you personally (the royal you) and therefore invalid. While you might not agree with it, I'd ask you to respect the fact that others do, in fact, play in ways that you disagree with and that doesn't mean either of us are "doing it wrong". I don't think the points of whether or not someone may be a problem player or not, whether anything is draconian in style, or even whether there is even a "problem" in the first place is germaine to the request. The point of the original request was to provide settings for ALL of those styles.

I do realize that this is John's project and in the end he can do what he likes with it - but if that's how this is going I'd rather just bow out now and focus my scant free time on a product that doesn't make me feel like I have to justify my own GMing style as either good, bad, or worth the time to support.

I was under the impression that the goal of the project was to facilitate multiple styles of play... even those you might not enjoy yourself.

I assume #2 is directed at me.  I couldn't care less how you play.  At no time have I said 'I don't think it needs this.'.  In fact, quite the opposite actually. 

As a coder, I was simply voicing some practial issues and at the same time trying to figure out how to get you the spirit of what you were looking for without actually locking down the client. 

I'm sorry you took it as an attack - I re-typed it several times to try and avoid that.  It's difficult to suggest alternatives without it sounding like an attack if the only thing you see as acceptable is 100% lockdown of the client UI. 

How you interpret this as an attack on your playstyle is beyond me.  I wish I had the time to do things like you do.

"How about provide an option to not only designate the active tab but also force a jump to the tab.    You can then accomplish what you are saying without locking down the program.   You are at that instant saying focus here - the player would have to deliberately move off the tab.   If your players do that, the problem is the player."

I suppose I should have left off ' the problem is the player'.  My intent was that at some point your players need to co-operate.  I could have worded it better.

Again, I apologize for it coming off as an attack.  It was definitely not my intent.

I'll move on and let you guys hash it out.  

@EK - No ill will, friend. I think it's fair to say that this kind of thing is quite personal (how one plays their games), and easily gets colored by those opinions. But also everyone here understands that it's not wrong in the absolute... it's just wrong for them. :)  I did not take anything said above from anyone as a direct attack, but the topic coloring from your truths was starting to bleed into my lines and I wanted to voice that concern. No harm, no foul.

----------------

... I keep re-reading what I wrote in the original request and wonder where things like "100% lockdown of the client UI" is coming from, and I think it's a lack of clarity in my writing. Here's another shot at it:

Right now, everyone can close or open maps/table tops.

I'd really prefer the GM to have sole control of those tabs and the current view, so to provide granularity to different styles, perhaps three levels:

1. Free-for-all (current): Maps / Table-tops can be opened or closed by anyone, and active ones are client specific (moving tabs on one has no effect on the others.)
   
   
2. GM Lite: For games where the GM role might be appropriate, but not absolute.
   Any game pieces GM made can only be manipulated by the GM (ownership of anything can be changed to anyone's by GM), active view is indicated by a passive tab highlight, each player's active tab is shown in some way on the GM side (so at a glance the GM knows if they have everyone's focus or not), GM "owned" maps/TTs cannot be closed by players. Otherwise like FFA.
   
   
3. GM Heavy: For games where the GM wants stronger controls of the focus
   GM Lite specials + Active view is enforceable with an F-key press (snapping all clients to the active map/TT view of the GM), GM Authorization for any new tokens/pieces/etc. (when any player wants to put something on a map or TT, a message on the GM side prompts the user and what they are doing and you can allow / deny).

hah, disregard the repetitive last line in that post. Though true, it was a typo hiding from a re-write. :)

@djc:  Glad to hear it.  And I do want to say : I ENVY what you are doing.  I don't have nearly the time to GM like I use to and when I did, these sorts of tools weren't available.  Your game sounds like a blast.

Why thank you! It's a labor of love, to be sure. Before having the projector, I would draw or composite my maps digitally, print them out and mount each on foamcore, making room puzzles essentially... or paint maps on gridded presentation paper. Talk about time-consuming. The VTT step literally saves me days of work for every session, which is nice since the baby took all that and more. :)

Not to even speak of the 3d cardstock models... ;)

The only part I really kind of bemoan is that miniatures are not nearly as handy to use right now, so I have all these nicely painted figs I made that just act as table dressing. Eventually I'll have a system that uses tracking decals on the bottom of them and they will move the appropriate tokens just by being on the map.... but that will be a time coming. :(

Wow that's just..wow.   I don't remotely have that kind of time anymore.   Work and my daughter pretty much take care of that.    I toyed around with card stock stuff  a while back.   When we started back playing again, I was eyeing the plaster cast stuff..but the time required.  Just don't have it anymore.   Nifty - I'd love to see a video of what you do with ET at some point.

To boil this down to a simplified model, it looks like ownership is the issue.  If the GM can assign ownership of a map, character, token, etc, and only the owner can move the item (with the GM being an "always" owner of everything) then that would alleviate the issue of players moving things that aren't theirs. Similar to ownership of a mini on a table.  Most of the time, players will only move their own, and the GM can move any of them.

I think the map issue could be solved by using the same methodology that I see in a lot of IM programs.  When someone IMs me, and I don't have their tab active, it plays its sound, and that tab blinks.  If this same idea was used in ET, the player could be looking at their handouts, other maps, fiddling with dice cups, etc, be alerted when a gm makes a change, and here's the important part, that the GM publishes to the group.  Said player could then come back to the correct map, tab, what have you.  Publishing could be done with a simple f5 stroke, that would broadcast the change to the players.

I like to think of these things in terms of what if we were at a physical table.  Players' attention wander, they do other things; draw, look up rules, write in a character journal, and so on.  When the GM wants their attention again, they'll call the player's name, throw dice at them, or in some other way call them back to the action.  That's what the blinking tab with a chime would do.  That and most of us use some sort of voice system, so we could also call their name ;-)

I really like the freedom that the players have in the current incarnation of Epic Table. As a player, I want to be free to browse information on the tabletop, switch over to the map, pan, scroll,  etc... Limiting me to only the GMs view just seems wrong. Ownership does not matter all that much to me. I suppose I would prefer that players not be able to remove GM resources, but that is about the only restriction that I think is necessary.