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

Re: items across multiple sources

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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 2 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > > 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 5 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              > 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 6 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                > 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 7 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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 8 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > 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 9 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > 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 10 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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 11 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > --- 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 12 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > 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 14 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > 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 16 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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 17 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > 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 18 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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 19 of 28 , Dec 2, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          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.