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

Re: items across multiple sources

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 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.
                        >
                        >

                        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 11 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 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
                            >
                            >

                            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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.