Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [PCGenListFileHelp] items across multiple sources

Expand Messages
  • Barak
    I think, if it s described in enough detail in whatever the source is, it needs to go into the data set so it is a true representation of the source, even if
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
      I think, if it's described in enough detail in whatever the source is,
      it needs to go into the data set so it is a true representation of the
      source, even if it's a duplicate of another source.

      There is no guarantee that I want to use source M just so I can use
      source N, and using INCLUDES & EXCLUDES (as discussed on the dev forum)
      causes a major slowdown in loading.

      Barak
      ~PCGen BoD
      ~OS Silverback


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Paul W. King [mailto:paulking.rhochi@...]
      >
      >
      > What is the generally accepted practice in coding items that are
      > found in multiple sources?
      >
      > For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N. Both have
      > spell X in them. I have M already coded and am beginning to work on
      > N. When coding X, do I do an INCLUDE in the *.pcc? I seem to recall
      > that INCLUDE and EXCLUDE are memory style hogs...or some other such
      > thing.
      >
      > Paul W. King
      > OGL SB and BoD
    • Paul W. King
      Just to see if I am understanding you. I have source A and B. Both have the *exact* same spell, X, in them. So, say A is completely done, and work on B is
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
        Just to see if I am understanding you. I have source A and B. Both have
        the *exact* same spell, X, in them. So, say A is completely done, and work
        on B is beginning. B's *.pcc would have

        SPELL:Bspells.lst|Aspells.lst(INCLUDE:X)

        Is that correct?

        Paul W. King
        OGL SB and BoD
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Eric Beaudoin [mailto:beaudoer@...]
        Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:46 PM
        To: PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: pcgen_experimental@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [pcgen_experimental] RE: [PCGenListFileHelp] items across
        multiple sources


        I do not hold the Grail for this one but here is what I think:

        If the two objects are the exact same

        If both source are normally distributed together or one of the source
        if SRD, MSRD or RSRD

        Have one source include the other in the .PCC with the proper
        EXCLUDE thingy


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Paul W. King
        ... And how is data duplication handled in PCGen? ... Not being a Code Monkey, this may be a dumb question, but: Is there a way to speed it up? Paul W. King
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
          > I think, if it's described in enough detail in whatever the source
          > is, it needs to go into the data set so it is a true
          > representation of the source, even if it's a duplicate of another
          > source.

          And how is data duplication handled in PCGen?

          > There is no guarantee that I want to use source M just so I can use
          > source N, and using INCLUDES & EXCLUDES (as discussed on the dev
          > forum) causes a major slowdown in loading.

          Not being a Code Monkey, this may be a dumb question, but: Is there
          a way to speed it up?

          Paul W. King
          OGL SB and BoD
        • dlm1065
          ... source ... use ... there ... Nope that isn t what you want. Do not use includes and excludes to prevent spell duplication. Keep the material as close to
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 1, 2003
            --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
            <paulking.rhochi@v...> wrote:
            > > I think, if it's described in enough detail in whatever the
            source
            > > is, it needs to go into the data set so it is a true
            > > representation of the source, even if it's a duplicate of another
            > > source.
            >
            > And how is data duplication handled in PCGen?
            >
            > > There is no guarantee that I want to use source M just so I can
            use
            > > source N, and using INCLUDES & EXCLUDES (as discussed on the dev
            > > forum) causes a major slowdown in loading.
            >
            > Not being a Code Monkey, this may be a dumb question, but: Is
            there
            > a way to speed it up?
            >
            > Paul W. King
            > OGL SB and BoD

            Nope that isn't what you want.
            Do not use includes and excludes to prevent spell duplication.

            Keep the material as close to the book as possible.

            SCENARIO
            What if the user hates 1 book that has it and loves another. He says
            I'll never use this its a waste of hard drive space - delete. Your
            dataset just got broke.

            Spells has a way of tracking the source it comes from. The source of
            the spell distiguishes it from the same spell under a different
            source. Say you have two books (alpha and beta) that have spell
            SDRAWKCABSSA. In pcgen's spell list you would see two SDRAWKCABSSA
            spells each with their respective source.
          • Paul Grosse
            ... Or lets say classes, it s a perfect duplicate of the OGL class from X source made Company B used by company A in sourcebook Q. (ie Ultimate classes book by
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
              >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: Paul W. King [mailto:paulking.rhochi@...]
              > >
              > >
              > > What is the generally accepted practice in coding items
              > that are found
              > > in multiple sources?
              > >
              > > For example, I have Publisher A that has sources M and N.
              > Both have
              > > spell X in them. I have M already coded and am beginning
              > to work on
              > > N. When coding X, do I do an INCLUDE in the *.pcc? I seem
              > to recall
              > > that INCLUDE and EXCLUDE are memory style hogs...or some other such
              > > thing.
              > >
              > > Paul W. King
              > > OGL SB and BoD
              >
              > I think, if it's described in enough detail in whatever the
              > source is, it needs to go into the data set so it is a true
              > representation of the source, even if it's a duplicate of
              > another source.
              >
              > There is no guarantee that I want to use source M just so I
              > can use source N, and using INCLUDES & EXCLUDES (as discussed
              > on the dev forum) causes a major slowdown in loading.
              >
              > Barak
              > ~PCGen BoD
              > ~OS Silverback
              >

              Or lets say classes, it's a perfect duplicate of the OGL class from X
              source made Company B used by company A in sourcebook Q. (ie Ultimate
              classes book by Mongoose) I know for a fact that if you have the same
              class in two sources that are both loaded they double all the bonus
              (found that out the hard way when I cad a copy of the Druid in a custom
              file for reference and didn't comment it out).

              Should we just NOT include items listed from other sources even though
              it's listed in the sourcebook?
            • Paul W. King
              ... But I, personally, don t want duplicate spells, even if they are distinguished on the source. Is there a way then to do a: If Source A !loaded Then load
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                > SCENARIO
                > What if the user hates 1 book that has it and loves another. He
                > says I'll never use this its a waste of hard drive space - delete.
                > Your dataset just got broke.
                >
                > Spells has a way of tracking the source it comes from. The source
                > of the spell distiguishes it from the same spell under a different
                > source. Say you have two books (alpha and beta) that have spell
                > SDRAWKCABSSA. In pcgen's spell list you would see two SDRAWKCABSSA
                > spells each with their respective source.

                But I, personally, don't want duplicate spells, even if they are
                distinguished on the source. Is there a way then to do a:

                If Source A !loaded
                Then load file B

                So, if you do load Source A, then the spells are there. If you
                don't, then you need to load file B, which will have the *known*
                duplicate spells.

                Paul W. King
                OGL SB and BoD
              • taluroniscandar
                ... There are two underlying and dangerous assumptions here: 1. That the person writing a particular lst file knows EVERY source that has a entry with a
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                  --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                  <paulking.rhochi@v...> wrote:
                  > > SCENARIO
                  > > What if the user hates 1 book that has it and loves another. He
                  > > says I'll never use this its a waste of hard drive space - delete.
                  > > Your dataset just got broke.
                  > >
                  > > Spells has a way of tracking the source it comes from. The source
                  > > of the spell distiguishes it from the same spell under a different
                  > > source. Say you have two books (alpha and beta) that have spell
                  > > SDRAWKCABSSA. In pcgen's spell list you would see two SDRAWKCABSSA
                  > > spells each with their respective source.
                  >
                  > But I, personally, don't want duplicate spells, even if they are
                  > distinguished on the source. Is there a way then to do a:
                  >
                  > If Source A !loaded
                  > Then load file B
                  >
                  > So, if you do load Source A, then the spells are there. If you
                  > don't, then you need to load file B, which will have the *known*
                  > duplicate spells.
                  >
                  There are two underlying and dangerous assumptions here:
                  1. That the person writing a particular lst file knows EVERY source
                  that has a entry with a particular name.
                  2. That every time a name is used the spells are exactly the same.

                  What if five different publishers create a spell, call it say
                  "Freebird", in five different sources. NONE of the spells work the
                  same, all five have completely different casting time, targets,
                  effects, range, etc. Lst coder alpha has one source and knows of a
                  second because a friend owns it. Lst coder beta owns product three but
                  none of the others.

                  If the spell tab overlays same name spells then only one of the
                  sources will ever work right. Which one gets precedence? How do you
                  tell PCGen to show the statistics for the spell from source three (the
                  long range, area effect Freebird) rather than the Freebird from source
                  two (touch range, one creature only version)?
                • David
                  This may not go over well, but at some point the user *has* to know what he is loading and what is contained in the sources. There is a fundamental problem
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                    This may not go over well, but at some point the user *has* to know
                    what he is loading and what is contained in the sources. There is a
                    fundamental problem that things can be named the same but with
                    different details.

                    -- david

                    --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "taluroniscandar"
                    > If the spell tab overlays same name spells then only one of the
                    sources will ever work right. Which one gets precedence? How do you
                    tell PCGen to show the statistics for the spell from source three
                    (the long range, area effect Freebird) rather than the Freebird from
                    source two (touch range, one creature only version)?
                  • Paul W. King
                    ... Ah, but my scenario (which is what started this thread) was that it was the same publisher, different books. I don t see the point in recoding the *exact*
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                      > > But I, personally, don't want duplicate spells, even if they are
                      > > distinguished on the source. Is there a way then to do a:
                      > >
                      > > If Source A !loaded
                      > > Then load file B
                      > >
                      > > So, if you do load Source A, then the spells are there. If you
                      > > don't, then you need to load file B, which will have the *known*
                      > > duplicate spells.
                      > >
                      > There are two underlying and dangerous assumptions here:
                      > 1. That the person writing a particular lst file knows EVERY source
                      > that has a entry with a particular name.
                      > 2. That every time a name is used the spells are exactly the same.
                      >
                      > What if five different publishers create a spell, call it say
                      > "Freebird", in five different sources.

                      Ah, but my scenario (which is what started this thread) was that it
                      was the same publisher, different books. I don't see the point in
                      recoding the *exact* same spells if I don't have to.

                      Paul W. King
                      OGL SB and BoD
                    • Brass Tilde
                      ... I tend to agree with the folks who say duplicate it . Even though it may the same now, it may not always be the same. In addition, someone may not have
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                        > Ah, but my scenario (which is what started this thread) was that it
                        > was the same publisher, different books. I don't see the point in
                        > recoding the *exact* same spells if I don't have to.

                        I tend to agree with the folks who say "duplicate it". Even though it may
                        the same now, it may not always be the same. In addition, someone may not
                        have the source that includes the definition on their machine. I regularly
                        remove sources I'm not using so my players don't accidently choose something
                        they don't need, or I don't want them to have, and I can't say that I'd want
                        to have to include a source because *one* spell is shared between it and the
                        one I *do* want.

                        After all, it's not like you're actually coding it again, you can simply cut
                        and paste, right? Unless I've misunderstood something.

                        It would be a different story if the sources were conceptually linked, such
                        as a Rokugan file linking back to an OA source, but I didn't notice any
                        mention of that. If that's the case, I apologize.
                      • Paul W. King
                        ... No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that s all the sharing I can see atm). I just don t like duplication of items that are *exactly* the same.
                        Message 11 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                          > It would be a different story if the sources were conceptually
                          > linked, such as a Rokugan file linking back to an OA source, but I
                          > didn't notice any mention of that. If that's the case, I apologize.

                          No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that's all the sharing
                          I can see atm). I just don't like duplication of items that are
                          *exactly* the same.

                          Paul W. King
                          OGL SB and BoD
                        • ovka
                          ... So how about creating publisher_shared_spells.lst, publisher_shared_domains.lst, and having the two .pcc files point to them? Cheers, Sir George Anonymous
                          Message 12 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                            --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                            >No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that's all the
                            >sharing
                            >I can see atm). I just don't like duplication of items that are
                            >*exactly* the same.

                            So how about creating publisher_shared_spells.lst,
                            publisher_shared_domains.lst, and having the two .pcc files point to
                            them?

                            Cheers,

                            Sir George Anonymous
                          • Chris
                            ... A data set is supposed to represent the source. The duplicate spell is part of that source. Therefor it should be included in the .lst, not as a
                            Message 13 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                              > Ah, but my scenario (which is what started this thread) was that it
                              > was the same publisher, different books. I don't see the point in
                              > recoding the *exact* same spells if I don't have to.

                              A data set is supposed to represent the source.

                              The "duplicate" spell is part of that source.

                              Therefor it should be included in the .lst, not as a reference to
                              another data set, even if it is from the same publisher.

                              Not everyone is going to see things as the lst coder does, so every
                              effort needs to be made to let the user get the most use out of the
                              data set, even if they want to just delete half of them because they
                              don't like them and want to clean up their drives. Linking to other
                              data sets is just a bad idea IMO.
                            • Paul W. King
                              ... I agree ... No arguments ... That s where my questions began. I knew you could do INCLUDEs, but I wasn t sure how it effected the program during load. It
                              Message 14 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                > A data set is supposed to represent the source.

                                I agree

                                > The "duplicate" spell is part of that source.

                                No arguments

                                > Therefore it should be included in the .lst, not as a reference to
                                > another data set, even if it is from the same publisher.

                                That's where my questions began. I knew you could do INCLUDEs, but I
                                wasn't sure how it effected the program during load. It seems that
                                it slows it down quite a bit. *sigh* Oh well.

                                > Not everyone is going to see things as the lst coder does, so every
                                > effort needs to be made to let the user get the most use out of the
                                > data set, even if they want to just delete half of them because
                                > they don't like them and want to clean up their drives. Linking to
                                > other data sets is just a bad idea IMO.

                                I like the idea of linking though, only because it reduces possible
                                redundancies. I liked the idea of creating smaller files (objects)
                                that are used across multiple sources and just loading those. It
                                didn't even occur to me that folks would wipe out the actual files
                                instead of not loading them.

                                Paul W. King
                                OGL SB and BoD
                              • Jayme
                                ... This is an excellent idea and I think should be the standard way to do this type of thing. You can have multiple SPELL: and DOMAIN: lines in each .pcc
                                Message 15 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                  --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "ovka" <lpacdavis@e...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                                  > >No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that's all the
                                  > >sharing I can see atm).
                                  > >I just don't like duplication of items that are
                                  > >*exactly* the same.
                                  >
                                  > So how about creating publisher_shared_spells.lst,
                                  > publisher_shared_domains.lst, and having the two .pcc
                                  > files point to them?

                                  This is an excellent idea and I think should be the standard way to do
                                  this type of thing. You can have multiple SPELL: and DOMAIN: lines in
                                  each .pcc file, so you could have duplicate spells in the
                                  publisher_shared_spells.lst file and if there are non-shared spells,
                                  just add them also.
                                • Paul Grosse
                                  ... The problem is that unless you are working on a source that you KNOW is duplicated else where you wouldn t know to stick these in a certain file.
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                    > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "ovka" <lpacdavis@e...>
                                    > wrote:
                                    > > --- In PCGenListFileHelp@yahoogroups.com, "Paul W. King"
                                    > > >No, just a bunch of shared domains and spells (that's all
                                    > the sharing
                                    > > >I can see atm).
                                    > > >I just don't like duplication of items that are
                                    > > >*exactly* the same.
                                    > >
                                    > > So how about creating publisher_shared_spells.lst,
                                    > > publisher_shared_domains.lst, and having the two .pcc files
                                    > point to
                                    > > them?
                                    >
                                    > This is an excellent idea and I think should be the standard
                                    > way to do this type of thing. You can have multiple SPELL:
                                    > and DOMAIN: lines in each .pcc file, so you could have
                                    > duplicate spells in the publisher_shared_spells.lst file and
                                    > if there are non-shared spells, just add them also.
                                    >
                                    >

                                    The problem is that unless you are working on a source that you KNOW is
                                    duplicated else where you wouldn't know to stick these in a certain
                                    file.
                                  • Michael Tucker
                                    ... That s true, Paul, but that s not the case being discussed. They re talking about situations where they *specifically* know that two sources are
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                      On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:37 PM, Paul Grosse wrote:
                                      > The problem is that unless you are working on a source that you KNOW is
                                      > duplicated else where you wouldn't know to stick these in a certain
                                      > file.
                                      >

                                      That's true, Paul, but that's not the case being discussed. They're
                                      talking about situations where they *specifically* know that two
                                      sources are duplicated, and how to handle that case (e.g. INCLUDE,
                                      link, copy, whatever).

                                      Regardless, if you find out later that a source is duplicated you can
                                      always move the duplicated entries to the shared file(s).

                                      Java Kensai
                                    • Paul Grosse
                                      ... But I like to plan ahead :), and I don t like doing things in a different way than has been established or utilized beforehand. Standardization rules!
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                        > On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:37 PM, Paul Grosse wrote:
                                        > > The problem is that unless you are working on a source that
                                        > you KNOW
                                        > > is duplicated else where you wouldn't know to stick these
                                        > in a certain
                                        > > file.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > That's true, Paul, but that's not the case being discussed.
                                        > They're talking about situations where they *specifically*
                                        > know that two sources are duplicated, and how to handle that
                                        > case (e.g. INCLUDE, link, copy, whatever).
                                        >
                                        > Regardless, if you find out later that a source is duplicated
                                        > you can always move the duplicated entries to the shared file(s).
                                        >
                                        > Java Kensai
                                        >
                                        >

                                        But I like to plan ahead :), and I don't like doing things in a
                                        different way than has been established or utilized beforehand.
                                        Standardization rules!
                                      • Michael Tucker
                                        ... Ok, so establish a standard as follows: (a) If you know that two sources are partially duplicated, put the duplicated entries in a shared file, and include
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                          On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:53 PM, Paul Grosse wrote:
                                          >> Regardless, if you find out later that a source is duplicated
                                          >> you can always move the duplicated entries to the shared file(s).
                                          >>
                                          >> Java Kensai
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >
                                          > But I like to plan ahead :), and I don't like doing things in a
                                          > different way than has been established or utilized beforehand.
                                          > Standardization rules!
                                          >

                                          Ok, so establish a standard as follows:

                                          (a) If you know that two sources are partially duplicated, put the
                                          duplicated entries in a shared file, and include that shared file in
                                          both sources' .pcc files.

                                          (b) If you don't know, or aren't sure, then code up everything as
                                          normal. If you find out later that there's some duplication or overlap,
                                          fix it as in (a).

                                          There ya go; a standard.

                                          Flexibility rules! :-P

                                          Java Kensai
                                        • Paul W. King
                                          ... Standards are good, yes. However, rework should be avoided. Hence why I d like to get some OOP stuff into Lst creation...if that s at all possible. :)
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                            > Standardization rules!

                                            Standards are good, yes. However, rework should be avoided. Hence
                                            why I'd like to get some OOP stuff into Lst creation...if that's at
                                            all possible. :)

                                            Paul W. King
                                            OGL SB and BoD
                                          • Michael Tucker
                                            ... As opposed to oops! stuff? *grin* Java Kensai
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                              On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 01:59 PM, Paul W. King wrote:

                                              >> Standardization rules!
                                              >
                                              > Standards are good, yes. However, rework should be avoided. Hence
                                              > why I'd like to get some OOP stuff into Lst creation...if that's at
                                              > all possible. :)
                                              >
                                              > Paul W. King
                                              > OGL SB and BoD
                                              >

                                              As opposed to "oops!" stuff?

                                              *grin*

                                              Java Kensai
                                            • Chris
                                              ... Hehe... I ve had a few more months than you to realize the carziness people will indulge in. :p
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                > that are used across multiple sources and just loading those. It
                                                > didn't even occur to me that folks would wipe out the actual files
                                                > instead of not loading them.

                                                Hehe... I've had a few more months than you to realize the carziness
                                                people will indulge in. :p
                                              • Mark Perneta
                                                ... Well, I realize that this example is not OGC and therefore not TECHNICALLY the concern of PCGen (as opposed to CMP) but: The Feat Clever Wrestling is in
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                  At 11:06 AM 12/2/2003 -0500, Brass Tilde wrote:
                                                  >It would be a different story if the sources were conceptually linked, such
                                                  >as a Rokugan file linking back to an OA source, but I didn't notice any
                                                  >mention of that. If that's the case, I apologize.

                                                  Well, I realize that this example is not OGC and therefore not
                                                  TECHNICALLY the concern of PCGen (as opposed to CMP) but:

                                                  The Feat "Clever Wrestling" is in both Complete Warrior and
                                                  Draconomicon. The word order is a little different between the two sources
                                                  (one lists the Size pre-reqs before the Feats, the other lists the Feat
                                                  pre-req first; the table of size-based effects is in ascending order in one
                                                  book, descending in the other) but the Feat does EXACTLY the same thing.
                                                  Is it likely that a user might have both of those books loaded at
                                                  once? Sure. When you do, you may get duplication (in this case it's just
                                                  SA: text on the character sheet, but that may not always be the case) in
                                                  the character. Just thought I'd add a specific example to the mix...

                                                  Mark.

                                                  --
                                                  The twentieth century was one in which limits on state power were
                                                  removed in order to let the intellectuals run with the ball, and they
                                                  screwed everything up and turned the century into an abattoir...
                                                  We Americans are the only ones who didn't get creamed at some point
                                                  during all of this. We are free and prosperous because we have
                                                  inherited political and value systems fabricated by a particular set
                                                  of eighteenth-century intellectuals who happened to get it right. But
                                                  we have lost touch with those intellectuals.
                                                  - Neal Stephenson
                                                • dlm1065
                                                  Move this topic over to pcgen experimental please leave this site for helping people with lst writing
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                                    Move this topic over to pcgen experimental please leave this site
                                                    for helping people with lst writing
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.