Add a "seen by" drop down to Tokens.

Index of some Suggestions regarding Layers and Invisibility

Lots of necros and no solution yet in sight, so I don't feel terrible about adding something here.
 
The feature as envisioned in this thread would have substantially broader applications than some other suggestions or jury-rigs. Most of the other solutions, such as auras/invisible tokens or Bump, are focused on allowing one player to position, if not see, a token they control. A "seen by" list would allow me to approach my current problem, which is to allow all but one player to see a card or token (not its position, but its contents), while leaving the last blind to the contents. I could rig something up with dynamic lighting or advanced fog of war, but that would leave the "blind" player with an ugly black or grayed-out square on the board, which is undesirable.

I'd like to bump this as also a cheap way to add another "layer" to the game without adding another layer... for treetops, roofs, etc... players that are not "inside" the building can't see the interior, or players going inside no longer see the "roof" - I do this some already with tokens, but being able to do this with elements on the map layer would also be insanely useful. 

Actually, this would be great for things like "breaking an illusion". Toggle the "real" item to be seen only by the person who has truesight or beat the Investigation check to see the truth.

Why is this still not a thing!

I totally need this for my campaign, it would be great! Any sign from the devs?

I want this for my campaign! There's always someone who can see the traps, so you have to make it visible for them, but no matter how honest the rest of your players say they're going to be when you let them see the traps in squares on the ground, they always just *happen* to find a path of travel that avoids them.

FYI, Roll20 posted a "not this time!" response to my thread here:

https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/5974245/making-tokens-visible-only-to-a-select-list-of-players-without-api-scripts-or-granting-token-control/?pageforid=7208734#post-7208734

Why they replied to my thread, which is a ghost town, instead of this thread, which is mentioned in the one reply to that thread and which I endorsed in my own reply, I'm not entirely sure.

I'd really LOVE this to be implemented. It seems system-agnostic and just a great addition overal! 

Hi, Nick.

The other thread was automatically closed because it didn't get enough votes to stay open. We updated the Suggestions Forum voting mechanics in February to close suggestions that don't get enough traction and let people get their votes back. You can read more about those changes and the new policies here.

This thread, which is more active, has enough votes to remain open for consideration.

Nick R. said:

Why they replied to my thread, which is a ghost town, instead of this thread, which is mentioned in the one reply to that thread and which I endorsed in my own reply, I'm not entirely sure.

If this could be added to the API, it would be a great way to script automatic investigation checks or intelligence saves versus illusion, perception checks, objects that can't be seen until close up, hiding leaf layers as characters approach a tree, or remove a roof layer for a player inside a bounded area (a house or shelter or cave) creating insides and outsides... 

Seems related to this one too: https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/7559879/provide-an-option-to-reveal-a-token-only-to-certain-players

Please make this happen! Would add so many possibilities to the game!

Yeah I posted a thread similar to this one before I saw this one existed. This needs to be an option. There are so many situations where this would be useful. Traps discovered by a player... traps placed by a player in a potential arena/pvp situation... switches or levers discovered while in combat... and even someone who was trying to hide with a stealth check. 

I want to hear if roll20 thinks this can be done

I'd love this feature! +1

+1  A seen by feature on tokens would be great!

OP, take a look at this suggestion for an entire layer that controls who sees things on it: Here

Maybe, if it does the same or better job, the votes on this thread could be combined with that Layer-based one? Just a thought.

I really need this to be a thing.  Like for years now...

Pretty Please!!

This would be great.  I use Roll20 for simulating table top wargames, hidden movement by one side or the other is part of the deal.  Right now my work around is to give the hidden side GM access and put their stuff on the GM layer.  But it opens the door to chaos, with players moving the wrong things. 

Buy giving seen by X (or Xs) this would allow true double blind play.  Also as a role player GM, the classic splitting the party trick, where you only know what the players around you know. 

Please implement (I had originally thought more layers, but this is a much more elegant and controllable method.

Stephanie B. said:

This thread, which is more active, has enough votes to remain open for consideration.

Until it doesn't. Then it gets auto-closed with a "not this time". So 2 questions:

How long do things need to be "considered" - considering this thread is 5+ years old?

What happens when an item like this one, which has had traction and replies for years, gets closed because no one commented or voted?

• Are the previous years of requests and comments ignored and the idea just marked as "not this time"?
• Or is there a different criteria used if a post is over a certain age/# of comments?

It's very well documented what happens when a thread/idea doesn't get enough traction and auto-closes. We get a definite "we won't be doing that." This process is clear and has a detailed timeframe by which users get an answer.

What about a timeframe for ideas that HAVE gained traction? Ideas like this thread for example, that have generated enough interest that people are commenting often enough to keep the topic open for 5+ years.

What I'm getting at here, is that there is a defined timeline and process for Roll20 giving users a "NO", but for anything that has traction we never know anything. These threads and ideas just sit in limbo for years.

I've seen it asked for time and time again - Is it really too much for Roll20 to post a consistently updated "development status" thread where all ideas with traction are listed and a status can be displayed of something like "in development", "considering for future" or "can't/won't implement"?

Because personally I don't want to keep following and commenting on threads for years if nothing is going to come of it. An idea won't work, you don't want to do it, whatever... fine - just let us know so we're not wasting our time for no reason.

Many of your questions are answered in this post in the Suggestions Forum: https://app.roll20.net/forum/permalink/1280734/

Once a Suggestion reaches 10 votes (within 30 days) it does not close automatically. Note that the first page of a suggestion that is still open may show the "this thread is closed due to inactivity," but that is a bug. If you move to the last page of the suggestion, you will be able to post to it. And of course you can still vote for it.

If you go to the main Suggestions Forum page (https://app.roll20.net/forum/category/385189) you can filter and sort the suggestions in many ways, including the status that Roll20 has assigned them. Yes, unfortunately, "Not Now" is a status that Roll20 has assigned to some suggestions, but they are still open for votes and comments.

Hope this helps!

I would love to use this in games with sanity mechanics, an insane character hallucinating an extra enemy or two.

+1 Please do this! I'm trying to set tokens to only be seen by the Druid in my campaign who has used Druidic to leave a trail the party can follow safely out of this fortress.

+1 I really need this as well please!

+1 please. With out this facility, it only takes one party member to spot something for everyone to know about it.

+1, this would be great

+1, this would have helped so often with characters who cast see invisibility

I really like this idea and I think it could be incorporated to the multi-leveled maps that is currently in development. 

In my initial thoughts, this is possible on a "Seen by Player" basis much easier than a "Seen by Token" basis. The vision of many Tokens is combined and shown to individual Players. Thoughts?

Would "Seen By Player" necessarily preclude future "Seen By Token" development? Could "Seen By Player" be a stepping stone to "Seen By Token"? I would happily use an incremental change on the way to the ideal, but if the dev paths are mutually exclusive, I would want to hold out for the "Seen By Token" implementation.

I guess as long as it would allow a player with "see the invisible" up on their character to see the token of an invisible enemy/ally/object, while keeping the player without a similar ability from seeing it, that would be good enough for me.

Not sure exactly what it means and what's the difference between the two? From what you're saying, does that mean that if GM has 5 tokens, and player X sees 2, but player Y sees 3, the GM would need to create two copies of the same tokens to make sur the players see everything? Or am I completely wrong? I agree with the above posters, as long as it behaves as requested - player X can see a token that player Y is barred from seeing.

The big reason (IMO) for "Seen By Token" (SBT) instead of "Seen By Player" (SBP) is for multiple tokens controlled by a single player. The player would be able to tell which token can see what (probably through a similar function to CTRL-L or something to distinguish between each token's view).

I would love the idea of being able to make halucinations, visions or even imaginary friends that only a certain player or players could see! gets my upvote!

I would suggest a "seen by character", so all tokens linked to that character can see the token with this setting. Mostly because what Rabulias said and it's easier to setup that way, especially if it's an ad hoc encounter. Then again not everybiody links tokens to characters and sometimes it's easiest to do "seen by player". So... every option has it's pros and cons.

I'm in the SBT camp, as tokens will have different LOS.   If a player controls more than one token, you need to know which token has LOS.