A better way to organize pages.

So the Roll20 staff have announced a major redesign of the Roll20 UI which should include folders for pages. This new design should manifest by the end of May and all users, free or paid, will have access to it and will get the choice of sticking with the classic UI or using the new one. I suspect, given the number of votes this eight year old thread has, that most of us will hop into the new UI.

That sounds great!!

A new UI sounds wonderful, the current one has barely changed over the years and it hasn't aged well. If nothing else, it'll be possible to tell at a glance if whatever game or video you're watching that uses Roll20 is old or new when the new UI comes.

This type of survey concerns me. Yes, I appreciate that Roll20 wants our input, but the implications of needing this specific information are ones I don't like. Why does it matter how we'd group our maps? If you give us plain old folders, we can group them however we'd like, using any of the mentioned systems or some other arbitrary system that no one has mentioned yet. There'd be no reason for Roll20 to need to know in advance how we planned to organize our maps. This ask makes me nervous that they're going to get overly ambitious and give us something other than folders, which forces us into a particular method of organization (or even one of a few different ones) that might not suit everyone. Please keep it simple and just give us folders.

Ditto: Bold, Italicize and underline what Joe B. said, then permalink it. Joe B. said: This type of survey concerns me. Yes, I appreciate that Roll20 wants our input, but the implications of needing this specific information are ones I don't like. Why does it matter how we'd group our maps? If you give us plain old folders, we can group them however we'd like, using any of the mentioned systems or some other arbitrary system that no one has mentioned yet. There'd be no reason for Roll20 to need to know in advance how we planned to organize our maps. This ask makes me nervous that they're going to get overly ambitious and give us something other than folders, which forces us into a particular method of organization (or even one of a few different ones) that might not suit everyone. Please keep it simple and just give us folders.

Keep it simple and make pages part of the journal folder tree. Add some type filters to the searchbar and we are good to go. I really would like to transmogrify a folder in one go. With all characters, handouts and maps included.

Has there been scheduled chats yet, I'm wondering what extra topics could even be on the table concerning this to require a scheduled chat? I imagine that most are relying on the Forum. Personally I just want the Pages/Maps area to have folder and sub-folder support. That way as others have said we can organize the maps by location/district, Adventure Name, Timeline, what have you; at our leisure and personal mental preferences. In any case I appreciate that this topic is finally seeing progress, thank you Dev team and, being serious and professional here, I recommend to start off with the K.I.S.S. method then expand in options and complexity.

+1

I just posted my list of desired pages changes over on the Annoucements Roll20 ReRoll May Q&A thread (and linked to this thread) since they asked specifically about pages changes.  Here's my list: My personal favorites would be: - Some way to organize the pages (folders and a favorites list that always shows, for example); folders seem to be the most-requested option - Hierarchical folders, rather than just one level (for region, city, district, dungeon-level kinds of structuring) - User-created tags (so I could tag maps for the city they're in, etc) - Ability to sort the contents of a folder quickly rather than by dragging pages (by name, tag, description, recently used, recently modified, etc) - Ability to search (by string, tags, who's on that map, etc) - Ability to move an individual player onto a separate page from the party when they aren't in-game (so next time they join they're on a different map); as far as I know you can't move a character from "the ribbon" to a specific map unless they're in-game, as it requires dragging their avatar, but once they're in you can move them between maps by dragging the thumbnail avatar between pages - While I'm on the topic, how about allowing the "party" (ribbon) to be split into two (or more) ribbons?  No matter how annoying it is for the DM, sometimes groups split up. - Ability for the DM to view two maps (maybe by breaking one out and then opening another) - goes with above split-the-party, but also useful when the party moves to a new map and I have to cut/paste tokens between them.

Andrew Searles said: Hey Folks, I've been reading through all of these posts and I have some questions and thoughts that I'd love to run by you all. First, I'm trying to get a list of ways in which you would use this system to organize your pages. These are all the ways I've found so far. Grouped By Location or Region - for example all the places in Waterdeep or the cities in Faerun. Grouped by Relation or Parts - for example level 1, level 2, and level 3 of a Dungeon By Adventure/Arch/Storyline - for example pulling in a module like Forge of Fury, or a specific job that they players ran Grouped by Session - for example all the maps I need for the next 3 session. Grouped by Type - for example, tactical maps, regional maps, drawings, or scene boards Grouped by Encounter Type - for example city maps, Road encounters, forest, swamp, etc.&nbsp; I'm trying to learn (1) how popular each method is, and (2) if I'm missing any other methods. I've created a simple form to help track. Please take a moment to indicate which methods you use and which others I have missed. <a href="https://survey.refiner.io/e8qjre-e6kgkw" rel="nofollow">https://survey.refiner.io/e8qjre-e6kgkw</a> Next, I'd love to bounce some thoughts and ideas off those that would be willing to spare some time. You might even get a glimpse into what we're thinking into the future for the redesign project. If you're interested and can spare the time, here's a link to my calendar where you can schedule a time to chat. <a href="https://calendly.com/acsearles/page-organization" rel="nofollow">https://calendly.com/acsearles/page-organization</a> Thanks for your feedback! I don't see why the system has to group them, let us make a folder and put Pages in it. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

I'm somewhat in agreement with @Siz: don't limit the structure. &nbsp;Nested folders (and tags or similar) and sort options would allow people to define their own structures. &nbsp;That said, anything on top of that that helps us create some common structures (like a hierarchy of region/city/district/dungeon maps) isn't a bad thing. Back to @Andrew Searles' suggestion of scheduling calendar time; I'm really busy and can't do that, but I'm very happy to conduct a discussion with the roll20 staff via email or Roll20 message, since I can reply to questions when I have time (it may take a few days), so feel free to ask.

As this thread's originator, I loudly and vehemently agree with Rick and Joe. I'm worried over the specificity Mr. Searles has outlined above. The whole point of a folder/directory structure to organize map pages is to allow us to organize our map content by whatever mnemonic/mental model we want . I just want to create folder, labeled "Orc maps {Or whatever]" and then just throw the maps I think should be in there, in there. Ideally, I want to create subfolders within folders too. There is a reason why the directory tree structure has persisted in file management in computers since Dennis Richie's day. It just works, there is no need to reinvent any wheels here. Rick A. said: Ditto: Bold, Italicize and underline what Joe B. said, then permalink it. Joe B. said: This type of survey concerns me. Yes, I appreciate that Roll20 wants our input, but the implications of needing this specific information are ones I don't like. Why does it matter how we'd group our maps? If you give us plain old folders, we can group them however we'd like, using any of the mentioned systems or some other arbitrary system that no one has mentioned yet. There'd be no reason for Roll20 to need to know in advance how we planned to organize our maps. This ask makes me nervous that they're going to get overly ambitious and give us something other than folders, which forces us into a particular method of organization (or even one of a few different ones) that might not suit everyone. Please keep it simple and just give us folders.

I completely agree with Mr. Farlops.&nbsp; I have zero confidence in Roll20 to get this right. They will F this up.&nbsp; My guess is they are trying to find a way to allow only&nbsp; purchased maps to be stored. A simple directory structure for storing maps.&nbsp; No limit to the depth of the folders.&nbsp; This is a first year CS assignment.&nbsp;

So...&nbsp;I'm looking at the updated UI right now and the Page Toolbar is unchanged. The #1 thing that slows my game down is scrolling through all of my pages.&nbsp; &nbsp;My homebrew campaign has been going for more than a year and I've got over a hundred pages that need to be organized (the option of archived vs. non-archived is honestly not that useful in any of my games). I just want basic folders like the ones I use for storing documents.&nbsp; There's no need to make them any more complicated than that.&nbsp; Auto-grouping based on regions or quest lines is unnecessary (in a 100% homebrew campaign like mine I'd hesitate to let a program do my organizing).&nbsp; The most complicated thing I would dare suggest would be folders within folders for further ease of access, but I would want to organize them myself in every case. I was really hoping the updated UI would have this feature (it's the first thing I looked for), so I hope it comes out eventually.&nbsp; It's literally the only thing I want in a Roll20 update.

When they announced this update, they did state that it would only be limited to the new screen menu and not any of the other requested updates. They're trying out incremental updates instead of one massive overhaul that would likely crash the whole package. MortalBard said: So...&nbsp;I'm looking at the updated UI right now and the Page Toolbar is unchanged.

Andrew Searles said: By better understanding how you organize your maps, I was hoping to ensure that whatever we build in the future will accommodate everyone. It is our desire to make it easy to tell your story. Scrolling around a small window to find the one map you're looking for does not help with that. We want to make it easier to find and organize your maps. There are a number of options we have available to us as we start to redesign how we use Pages on Roll20 and nothing is off the table. As we do that, I want to make sure we're being thoughtful and informed as much as possible. That starts with understanding how everyone might use it. Makes sense.&nbsp; I organize maps in three ways: -The stories I have planned continues along in a number of sequential chapters.&nbsp; Within a chapter, I know players will visit place A, then discover they must continue to place B, then again they go to place C.&nbsp; After they have visited all the important locations, it is unlikely that any of these places will be visited again as they travel to a whole new area to continue.&nbsp; I would appreciate the ability to have all maps of a particular chapter like this organized together.&nbsp; Rarely, players backtrack or re-use these old maps for various reasons so I keep them available. -There are some maps which represent a holding area or a particular hub location. This could be a house, a town, a ship, a traveling road with a covered wagon, a campsite.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I need these maps to always be ready so that players can return to them. -I have unplanned maps which represent random encounters or an unexpected pivot in player direction when they start chasing a blue hat.&nbsp; This way I have at least something available to represent that encounter without spoiling important locations.&nbsp; These are grouped up by area, maybe it's just a generic swamp, lake, field, or stretch of desert.&nbsp; It would be nice to have a bucket full of these places I could go through and pull what I need from when the situation demands. Thanks, I look forward to seeing this feature!

I have to disagree with Jacob S. "Makes sense".&nbsp; It does not make sense.&nbsp; You do not need to understand how computer files will be used when designing a file storage system.&nbsp;&nbsp; The three descriptions of map use given by Jacob S. can easily be implemented with simple user folders.&nbsp; Give us folders that we can name and organize ourselves.&nbsp; Allow folders within folders and don't limit the depth.

+1 We really need this. Just a simple folder structure to sort the different scenes I want my players to see. This really shouldn't be too much to ask.

I'm a GM whose group doesn't meet with enough consistency to run a campaign, so I run entirely oneshots/2-shots. Makes someone missing a session less of a problem, and lets us meet more often. As such I use a lot of premade modules, such as CandleKeep Mysteries. However this means that I have a ton of maps from one-shots that I don't actually use, and have to look through them to find the one I want. This results in a map folder clogged with a bunch of maps. I mostly want folders so that I can shove all of the maps I need for a given session into that a single folder so I always know where to look, and can only have that folder open, rather than look through the entire list. Beyond that it would also be helpful to be able to import an entire folder of maps (or tokens/handouts) at once with the transmorgrifier, as when I make custom content I do it in a different game until it is ready. Being able to import all of the maps I will need in one click and drag (or two if maps and tokens have to remain separate) would be much ore convenient than having to drag each one over individually.

"Create new page" "Create new folder" Does not need to go beyond that. Feels like a lot of talk for something that should be very simple to implement.

I imagine there would also be :Back-porting" to allow map add-ons to auto generate folders and store the appropriate maps. That being said I do wonder what the discussion in the Roll20 meeting are on this. It'd be interesting to hear the stream of consciousness on this from their perspective.

So funny, i've been getting newsletter emails from the service even though i hardly use it and certainly no longer pay for it. Decided to check in on&nbsp; my favorite topic and lo, 8 years and still not finished. and it's been in the development queue for 3 maybe 4 years? what a complete joke. people, roll20 will continue to ignore you as long as you pay them. stop paying them, and maybe they will improve their platform -- provide *gasp* folder technology for pages. It's funny, I really don't know how anyone can defend this or think it's ok or involves some tradeoff or any other flimsy excuse. I'll reiterate, I'm a developer, with access to the code base I could implement folders for pages within 24 hours. Anyway, enough from me. good luck on getting this request finished! Even the CEO said it over a year ago, apparently the CEO isn't much a doer either, or perhaps roll20 culture comes from the top -- say you'll do something then don't do anything afterall. hahahaha. Roll20 doesn't even respect you all enough to apologize, instead they just double down on their lies. But 2023 -- this will be the year of folders for pages! I'm feeling it guys! you'll get it this year, don't stop believing! Be sure to add that +1 to let the development team you really, really care! hahahahahahahahhaa.

Could you, @Duncan, then perhaps make a number of code templates or actual code if you have ability to effectively see their code and then submit it to them? Your implication is that it would take little effort on your part to complete, then I suggest proving the implication and helping the devs. If they ignore you then by all means post here, in this thread what the interaction was like.

@DG read through all 16 pages, I've posted a number of replies, gotten ignored more than once. I would need access to the code base to make the changes. The underlying point is providing 'folders' for pages is not some complicated project, it's something that can be done in a day and it hasn't been done, not after 8 years. The reason isn't because it's 'hard' or takes too much time, i don't really know the true reason, all i know it isn't done because the people who run this platform don't care enough and it doesn't matter enough to them. The CEO can talk about doing it, over a year goes by, and it still isn't done. Why is that? Is the CEO utterly incompetent or the CEO just doesn't care and knows there is no personal consequence to him for lying. I'm sure that CEO is getting paid plenty of bucks, from 'pro' subscribers like yourself, indeed, i once was one as well, but after years and years of being ignored for a *simple* feature I gave up and now spend my money on a platform that undergoes active development -- and guess what, it also has folders for pages! wow. amazing. so future.

"read through all 16 pages, I've posted a number of replies, gotten ignored more than once." Duncan Thank you for the response, and very fair. I have not read all 16 pages, or if I had its been so long ago I do not recall. My knowledge of programming is basic compared to many, many here. I do agree that conceptually it should be simple. I have no idea how there coding is, either. Things may be interconnected in odd ways and lacking comments from earlier or original devs. I wonder if some of this Site overhaul is about figuring out all the code and commenting for future projects. That being said It certainly feels like with this latest shift in behind the scenes people, that things have a rolling ball.

@Duncan&nbsp; Which platform do you now spend your money on?&nbsp;

I really want folders for my game. This is such a major pain point I am thinking of switching to Foundry despite its complexity and lack of a d&amp;d charactermancer.

G DM said: I really want folders for my game. This is such a major pain point I am thinking of switching to Foundry despite its complexity and lack of a d&amp;d charactermancer. If you have the amount of pages in Roll20 that require folders to organize, you are way above the number of scenes that is advised to be part of a world in foundry.&nbsp; If you comment on this in their forums the answer will be: Stop Abusing the Product, use compendiums to remove scenes from the game that are not actually used in the session today. Someone wrote on the forum to have 500 pages in their game, 500 scenes in a foundry world will result in eternal loadtimes or the browser crashing. The same goes for Characters (actors). In roll20 you can drop the full Creature Codex and Monster Manual into a game Curse of Strahd. Roll20 will still work, without any complaints (unless you try to open all these characters in the same browser). If you want to load 700-1000 actors in a Foundry world, that's way beyond any chance of performant play.&nbsp; Roll20 is 10 years old. Only Roll20 users have accumulated so many pages and monsters, that active organization of those items has become an issue.&nbsp; The approach you can take with long running campaigns is to create a copy of the play game every six months and then cleaning old stuff from the play game. Believe me when i write that you probably hardly ever open the backup games again. The approach you can take with one shot groups is to use a small play game with the players in it and to prepare one shots in separate small games.&nbsp; Understandably this moves complexity from a single way too large game to organizing many small games, but games have tags and can be smartly named.

+1

As a DM who has like 50+ pages... This would be nice! +1

+1

+1

+100

Martijn S. said: Roll20 is 10 years old. Only Roll20 users have accumulated so many pages and monsters, that active organization of those items has become an issue.&nbsp; The approach you can take with long running campaigns is to create a copy of the play game every six months and then cleaning old stuff from the play game. Believe me when i write that you probably hardly ever open the backup games again. The approach you can take with one shot groups is to use a small play game with the players in it and to prepare one shots in separate small games.&nbsp; Understandably this moves complexity from a single way too large game to organizing many small games, but games have tags and can be smartly named. I suppose this will work but I find it unsatisfying. In the dead trees of meatspace, I have all my older, and currently rarely visited, material in a filing cabinet or a dedicated bookshelf. It's generally alphabetized by subject or dated by year. If my players have a whim to left turn into seemingly unrelated locations--And I think it's important to emphasize that GMs and players should be free to decide what's unrelated or not!--I can just go to that filing cabinet, pull the material out and use that to answer player questions, extemporize descriptions and inspire new content. Roll20 has a single archival 'bin' for older rarely used maps. It can't be sorted alphabetically, it has no search function, I can't subdivide it into folders and subfolders. It's not very subtle. Sure, it clears away the working area of the main page toolbar but it's difficult to use, thus this entire eight year old discussion. And periodically transmogrifying my campaign into new games--arbitrarily, mistakenly, winnowing away material that's unworthy to remain--leads to a lot wasted labor on my part and takes away freedom for the plot to return to old stomping grounds in mere seconds. Most of my campaign's material I've created myself from images and maps I've drawn or scanned from other sources. My Roll20 account informs that my server storage space is surprisingly small in comparison to the number of map pages (and their associated images, drawings and tokens.) I have. I don't understand what "way too large" means.&nbsp; The server and the application are not sweating because of me so, I find Martijn's performance assertion without merit. The CPU cycles to call up one or two old map pages--populating them with old tokens and images--from archive is trivial in comparison to the constant use of VoIP, dynamic lighting and related functions. I still don't think I'm asking for much here. The archive function needs to be vastly improved.

@mr farlops Let me paraphrase your reply: in real life, you are willing to buy a cabinet, file all old material to not make your GM bag too heavy.&nbsp; btw i am not propossing to transmogrify to organize, but to 1) make a copy of your whole play game&nbsp; 2) &nbsp;clean up the play game. &nbsp; 3) transmogrify back items - if needed ( do this myself during sessions&nbsp; all the time) this is the digital equivalent of taking the bottom half of the stack of papers, filing these in the cabinet and then consulting the old stuff just like you described. btw creating a copy is also making a backup, which is something any user should do anyways regularly.

With regards to the archive functionality. Roll20 operation firebolt introduced&nbsp; Lazy loading. Before lazyloading roll20 loaded all maps with all items on maps and all characters with all attributes. Depending on your PCs memory and network, this would bog down any campaign eventually.&nbsp; Lazy loading is a life saving improvement. The archive flag has the semantics to not load the page items/character items and was implemented years ago to achieve the same as lazy loading does now. From a memory perspective the archive flag is about the same as moving items into a folder called ‘archive’, making it &nbsp;effectively not useful anymore as folders allow organization, whereas archive does not. And yes, i want a better way to organize pages too.&nbsp; I hope we get compendium options for user created encounters, a compendium for homebrew monsters, wiki like possibilities like in WorldAnvil or Obsidian. I just do not want to restrict roll20 to a solution with the requirement: everything and anything needs to be organized in one big single game. Note: at this moment roll20 allows a multifold more maps and monsters in a game than any competitors. Take a look at these&nbsp; Best practices ,&nbsp; the advise is t hat the&nbsp; things you are not actively using should not be loaded into the world.&nbsp;

Martijn S. said: btw i am not propossing to transmogrify to organize, but to 1) make a copy of your whole play game&nbsp; 2) &nbsp;clean up the play game. &nbsp; 3) transmogrify back items - if needed ( do this myself during sessions&nbsp; all the time) this is the digital equivalent of taking the bottom half of the stack of papers, filing these in the cabinet and then consulting the old stuff just like you described. btw creating a copy is also making a backup, which is something any user should do anyways regularly. Well, you kinda are proposing to use the transmogrifier to organize but never mind. Let's assume I do it that way, I copy my existing game to a fresh game with the transmogrify function and then, in the new game, delete material I think I won't need in future sessions. Point three still seems to be the sticking point.&nbsp; I wasn't aware the transmogrifer allowed me to move single pages, for example, between existing games I've created. Is this true? Or is there some other function that lets me move specific material from a backup game to a current one?

Mr. Farlops said: Let's assume I do it that way, I copy my existing game to a fresh game with the transmogrify function ... You make a copy of your game using the "copy game" function. Mr. Farlops said: I wasn't aware the transmogrifer allowed me to move single pages, for example, between existing games I've created. Is this true? Or is there some other function that lets me move specific material from a backup game to a current one? That's exactly what the transmogrifier is for. I'm wondering if there is some confusion regarding what the transmogrifier is: it's the in-game tool used to move individual items, like maps, handouts, characters and macros from one game to another.

I'm going to take an unpopular position and state that I'd believe that a simple folder system would not be so simple, and may be part of the reason that we're talking about how people use the system. Take the player ribbon, the primary way to move player groups between maps. That's a draggable element. Right now, I can pull it from one map to another, as a way to move the party between maps.&nbsp; I introduce one layer of folder structure. Now I want to drag the party from down one layer in one folder to another folder. Or drag a map into another folder. Now I have two draggable operations to track overlap with different purposes, and have to consider the scenario of dragging the player ribbon over another unopened folder - do I open the folder? Do I drop the player ribbon on the first map inside the folder? Do I drop the player ribbon on the folder itself? What if I want to use one top-level map AS the folder for the regional maps? What if I now have multiple layers of folders, a hierarchy? What if I want to drag a folder inside another folder?&nbsp; The operations and permutations of operations and how you tag those with parent-child relationships and then attempt to make an interface like that accessible... say keyboard-operable to allow someone with hand tremor not to have to target an ever-descending order of folder tree elements...&nbsp; Part of asking these questions is establishing what is "normal" in expectations. Asking usability questions cuts through common assumptions to ask directly "What do you expect to happen?" and you can uncover some surprising notions from querying user expectations.&nbsp; I'm one of the ones who desperately needs map organization, over 120 for a three-year campaign, and at the same time, I try and build usability into systems I've developed and will argue that asking seemingly obvious questions can be essential to getting to what people may not have stated or clarified, and what assumptions mean.&nbsp;

Rick A. said: I'm wondering if there is some confusion regarding what the transmogrifier is: it's the in-game tool used to move individual items, like maps, handouts, characters and macros from one game to another. Well, apparently there is for me since, had I known these things, I'd have not wasted everyone's time on this thread for the last 8 years. When I started the thread a lot of this functionality either didn't exist or hadn't been tuned to work in the way that is now being suggested to me. It would have been nice if someone explained this to me earlier.

Mr. Farlops said: Rick A. said: I'm wondering if there is some confusion regarding what the transmogrifier is: it's the in-game tool used to move individual items, like maps, handouts, characters and macros from one game to another. Well, apparently there is for me since, had I known these things, I'd have not wasted everyone's time on this thread for the last 8 years. When I started the thread a lot of this functionality either didn't exist or hadn't been tuned to work in the way that is now being suggested to me. It would have been nice if someone explained this to me earlier. I don't think this is a waste of everyone's time. Even with transmogrifier having folders for maps would be helpful. For example being able to put all the maps for a town or a dungeon in a single folder would make finding the map you want easier. I also think needing to have mule games to hold your content is not ideal. Even if Roll20 allows the most active content per game, there is nothing wrong with wanting better solutions. Pairing this request with being able to transmogrify folders would be huge for moving content between games. Even if you are using mule games, you could move a locations worth of maps at a time.

Mr. Farlops said: Well, apparently there is for me since, had I known these things, I'd have not wasted everyone's time on this thread for the last 8 years. When I started the thread a lot of this functionality either didn't exist or hadn't been tuned to work in the way that is now being suggested to me. It would have been nice if someone explained this to me earlier. I haven't gone back to read this complete thread, so didn't know that you were the OP. I joined Roll20 on 7/2020, and at that time the transmogrifier was already here and capable of copying individual items between games; the ability to also copy macros and PDFs has been added as of 3/2023. Access to the transmogrifier was my main reason for upgrading to a Pro account. Since I want to get every penny's worth of value from that Pro subscription price, I check this forum often in order to keep up with the frequency at which tweaks and features are added to this site, and I'm thankful to all the people that have pointed out to me all the features that are available here (sometimes with pictures and arrows with a paragraph explaining them ;) ).

Just adding another voice to the thread. I am kind of appalled to see that this is a SIXTEEN YEAR Old thread and there's seemingly been 0 action on this issue. Map folders seems like such a necessity I can't believe they redid the lighting system before adding folders...

Pat said: I'm going to take an unpopular position and state that I'd believe that a simple folder system would not be so simple, and may be part of the reason that we're talking about how people use the system. Take the player ribbon, the primary way to move player groups between maps. That's a draggable element. Right now, I can pull it from one map to another, as a way to move the party between maps.&nbsp; I introduce one layer of folder structure. Now I want to drag the party from down one layer in one folder to another folder. Or drag a map into another folder. Now I have two draggable operations to track overlap with different purposes, and have to consider the scenario of dragging the player ribbon over another unopened folder - do I open the folder? Do I drop the player ribbon on the first map inside the folder? Do I drop the player ribbon on the folder itself? What if I want to use one top-level map AS the folder for the regional maps? What if I now have multiple layers of folders, a hierarchy? What if I want to drag a folder inside another folder?&nbsp; &lt;snip&gt; If someone asked me to implement Roll20 folder management for pages in a quick and low-risk manner I would probably add a new Pages section to the Collections tab (i.e. the GM-only tab with Macros, Decks, etc.). I'd reuse the folder creation/dragging/organization code as used in the Journal for handouts. &nbsp;The existing Page Toolbar would stay the same (i.e. no folders in the Page Toolbar), so there would be no issues with the player ribbon and splitting the party. &nbsp;Each page would have a check-box "Show in Page Toolbar" — so the Page Toolbar is now functionally a set of "favorite" pages that are added from the Pages section of the Collections tab and &nbsp;arranged in the&nbsp; Page Toolbar in a manner&nbsp; independent of their arrangement in the&nbsp; Collections tab. Y ou could right-click on a Page folder in the Collections tab to delete groups of pages, remove all the pages in the folder from the Page&nbsp; Toolbar, or add all of the pages in the folder to the&nbsp; Page&nbsp; Toolbar, etc.

Richard said: If someone asked me to implement Roll20 folder management for pages in a quick and low-risk manner I would probably add a new Pages section to the Collections tab (i.e. the GM-only tab with Macros, Decks, etc.). I'd reuse the folder creation/dragging/organization code as used in the Journal for handouts. &nbsp;The existing Page Toolbar would stay the same (i.e. no folders in the Page Toolbar), so there would be no issues with the player ribbon and splitting the party. &nbsp;Each page would have a check-box "Show in Page Toolbar" — so the Page Toolbar is now functionally a set of "favorite" pages that are added from the Pages section of the Collections tab and &nbsp;arranged in the&nbsp; Page Toolbar in a manner&nbsp; independent of their arrangement in the&nbsp; Collections tab. Y ou could right-click on a Page folder in the Collections tab to delete groups of pages, remove all the pages in the folder from the Page&nbsp; Toolbar, or add all of the pages in the folder to the&nbsp; Page&nbsp; Toolbar, etc. Yes, this seems like a good start. Can we do that, Orr Group?