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

[5.8 Compatibility] OpenRPG XML format as a bridge between versions?

Expand Messages
  • andargor
    Seeing that a lot of people will be affected by the fact that the LSTs are rarely fully compatible between versions, may I reiterate my request to allow
    Message 1 of 8 , May 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Seeing that a lot of people will be affected by the fact that the LSTs
      are rarely fully compatible between versions, may I reiterate my
      request to allow OpenRPG XML format exports and imports of characters?

      This way, a neutral format can be used to avoid the drudge of
      rebuilding characters at significant milestones.

      Andargor
    • Devon Jones
      ... I don t see that working. If feat X was called Weapon focus - Axe and is now called Weapon Focus (Axe) it doesn t matter what the format is. The
      Message 2 of 8 , May 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        andargor wrote:

        >Seeing that a lot of people will be affected by the fact that the LSTs
        >are rarely fully compatible between versions, may I reiterate my
        >request to allow OpenRPG XML format exports and imports of characters?
        >
        >This way, a neutral format can be used to avoid the drudge of
        >rebuilding characters at significant milestones.
        >
        >Andargor
        >
        >
        >
        I don't see that working. If feat X was called "Weapon focus - Axe" and
        is now called "Weapon Focus (Axe)" it doesn't matter what the format is.

        The problem here is that the names of things change, and there is no
        reasonable way no matter *what* format we use to tie these things back.

        My hope is that in the future we will just be able to detect when
        something is not filled in, or was filled in with something that no
        longer exists - and then have it pop a dialog on character load asking
        the user to re-select anything that is missing.

        Devon
      • andargor
        ... and ... Excuse my frustration, but it is precisely this PCGen-centric this is how we name it attitude which makes PCGen so difficult to work with. A
        Message 3 of 8 , May 27, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Devon Jones <soulcatcher@e...> wrote:
          > I don't see that working. If feat X was called "Weapon focus - Axe"
          and
          > is now called "Weapon Focus (Axe)" it doesn't matter what the format is.
          >
          > The problem here is that the names of things change, and there is no
          > reasonable way no matter *what* format we use to tie these things back.
          >
          > My hope is that in the future we will just be able to detect when
          > something is not filled in, or was filled in with something that no
          > longer exists - and then have it pop a dialog on character load asking
          > the user to re-select anything that is missing.
          >
          > Devon

          Excuse my frustration, but it is precisely this PCGen-centric "this is
          how we name it" attitude which makes PCGen so difficult to work with.

          A neutral format is needed for interoperability with other programs.
          OpenRPG, DM Genie, even my NPC generator. PCGen is a PITA to support,
          because it always changes.

          There is only one way to name things consistently: canon, the way WoTC
          names it. So it's "Weapon Focus (axe)". For spells it's "Invisibility,
          Greater" or "greater invisibility". For equipment it's "+1 adamantine
          dwarven waraxe". The canon naming convention doesn't change, or
          rarely. Just look at what's in the books, that's it.

          Plus there's no need to name everything. Rogues get Evasion, Monks get
          Unarmed Strike, so there's no need to output that. Essentially, only
          user input (skill ranks, feats, spells, class names, etc.) should be
          output.

          I don't care if it's the OpenRPG XML format that you use. Just pick
          one format and stick with it for import/export. It dosn't matter what
          names you use internally. If you wish to name a spell "Invisibility
          (Greater)" because it makes parsing easier, more power to you. Just
          make a routine to output it in the canon way, or make a special
          "CANON:greater invisibility" tag. So if you decide to rename it
          internally to "Invisibility-Greater", you'll still be able to
          import/export.

          End of gripe.

          Andargor
        • acedashdog
          This is why databases use record IDs of course :) That said, when loading characters, PCG does pop up msgboxes saying can t load +2 backscratcher check loaded
          Message 4 of 8 , May 28, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            This is why databases use record IDs of course :)

            That said, when loading characters, PCG does pop up msgboxes saying
            "can't load +2 backscratcher check loaded sources". You can then
            scribble a note, go find the "Backscratcher, +2 enhancement to weapon
            or ammo" and add it back. It's a pain but not a disaster.

            That said, those immense new names for the autogenned +1 to +5 items
            are a real pain. They don't fit properly on any of the OS.

            --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, "andargor" <andargor@y...> wrote:
            > --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Devon Jones <soulcatcher@e...> wrote:
            > > I don't see that working. If feat X was called "Weapon focus - Axe"
            > and
            > > is now called "Weapon Focus (Axe)" it doesn't matter what the
            format is.
            > >
            > > The problem here is that the names of things change, and there is no
            > > reasonable way no matter *what* format we use to tie these things
            back.
            > >
            > > My hope is that in the future we will just be able to detect when
            > > something is not filled in, or was filled in with something that no
            > > longer exists - and then have it pop a dialog on character load
            asking
            > > the user to re-select anything that is missing.
            > >
            > > Devon
            >
            > Excuse my frustration, but it is precisely this PCGen-centric "this is
            > how we name it" attitude which makes PCGen so difficult to work with.
            >
            > A neutral format is needed for interoperability with other programs.
            > OpenRPG, DM Genie, even my NPC generator. PCGen is a PITA to support,
            > because it always changes.
            >
            > There is only one way to name things consistently: canon, the way WoTC
            > names it. So it's "Weapon Focus (axe)". For spells it's "Invisibility,
            > Greater" or "greater invisibility". For equipment it's "+1 adamantine
            > dwarven waraxe". The canon naming convention doesn't change, or
            > rarely. Just look at what's in the books, that's it.
            >
            > Plus there's no need to name everything. Rogues get Evasion, Monks get
            > Unarmed Strike, so there's no need to output that. Essentially, only
            > user input (skill ranks, feats, spells, class names, etc.) should be
            > output.
            >
            > I don't care if it's the OpenRPG XML format that you use. Just pick
            > one format and stick with it for import/export. It dosn't matter what
            > names you use internally. If you wish to name a spell "Invisibility
            > (Greater)" because it makes parsing easier, more power to you. Just
            > make a routine to output it in the canon way, or make a special
            > "CANON:greater invisibility" tag. So if you decide to rename it
            > internally to "Invisibility-Greater", you'll still be able to
            > import/export.
            >
            > End of gripe.
            >
            > Andargor
          • taluroniscandar
            make a special ... The OUTPUTNAME tag could be used in this fashion.
            Message 5 of 8 , May 28, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              make a special
              > "CANON:greater invisibility" tag. So if you decide to rename it
              > internally to "Invisibility-Greater", you'll still be able to
              > import/export.
              >

              The OUTPUTNAME tag could be used in this fashion.
            • Devon Jones
              ... I don t think this is fair. You asked if we could use that format: Seeing that a lot of people will be affected by the fact that the LSTs are rarely
              Message 6 of 8 , May 29, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                andargor wrote:

                >Excuse my frustration, but it is precisely this PCGen-centric "this is
                >how we name it" attitude which makes PCGen so difficult to work with.
                >
                >
                I don't think this is fair. You asked if we could use that format:

                "Seeing that a lot of people will be affected by the fact that the LSTs
                are rarely fully compatible between versions, may I reiterate my request
                to allow OpenRPG XML format exports and imports of characters?

                This way, a neutral format can be used to avoid the drudge of rebuilding
                characters at significant milestones."

                And I explained *why* it would not help *that* problem. You said
                nothing about wanting it for other purposes, so I did *not answer*
                related to other purposes. Exporting to OpenRPG will not help.
                Importing unless we maintain a file that maps all of the names won't
                work either, because if you want a usable pcgen character, we have to
                add the right feats and the right skills. If we *don't* add the right
                feats and skills, I fail to see the value of an import, as the character
                will be completly busted.

                I'm doing my best to try and find a solution, and it's not because of my
                "pcgen centric attitude", it's because this is a hard hard problem.

                Your statement is hurtful, I don't think I have done anythign since
                taking my poisiotn other then try to find solutions for problems people
                have no matter where/how they want to use PCGen. These problems are
                *not* easy. The *code base* is not easy to massage into doing new things.

                >A neutral format is needed for interoperability with other programs.
                >OpenRPG, DM Genie, even my NPC generator. PCGen is a PITA to support,
                >because it always changes.
                >
                >
                You are right, it *is* a pain in the ass. this is why I am puishing to
                get CDOM in, becasue then we can identify when an object is supposed to
                have children - yet because of a failure in the load/import it does
                not. This will mean that the program can ask when it sees a hole. This
                is *not even remotely possible* in the current code. The largest aspect
                of 5.9 is being undertaken to address this, and one of the major reasons
                for this is to make it easier to support pcgen, and easier to deal with
                older characters, and easier todeal with potential imports.

                I have taken months to try and get this plan right, and the code is
                turning out to be very very hard, because we are essentially having to
                re-architect the entire core data model of pcgen to support this.

                So please, before you accuse me, just ask instead what is being done to
                solve a particular problem at a higher level. We are working on it, and
                it's gonna take months.

                Devon
              • andargor
                ... of my ... things. ... I apologize Devon, it wasn t meant as a personal attack on you. My phrasing was poor, I know you are doing your best. I didn t talk
                Message 7 of 8 , May 29, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Devon Jones <soulcatcher@e...> wrote:
                  ...
                  > I'm doing my best to try and find a solution, and it's not because
                  of my
                  > "pcgen centric attitude", it's because this is a hard hard problem.
                  >
                  > Your statement is hurtful, I don't think I have done anythign since
                  > taking my poisiotn other then try to find solutions for problems people
                  > have no matter where/how they want to use PCGen. These problems are
                  > *not* easy. The *code base* is not easy to massage into doing new
                  things.
                  ...
                  > Devon

                  I apologize Devon, it wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. My
                  phrasing was poor, I know you are doing your best.

                  I didn't talk about the other uses of import/export in my original
                  post because to me, well, they're obvious. :)

                  Andargor
                • Devon Jones
                  ... It s cool, I was in a pissy mood at the time. No offense taken. Devon
                  Message 8 of 8 , May 31, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    andargor wrote:

                    >--- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Devon Jones <soulcatcher@e...> wrote:
                    >...
                    >
                    >
                    >>I'm doing my best to try and find a solution, and it's not because
                    >>
                    >>
                    >of my
                    >
                    >
                    >>"pcgen centric attitude", it's because this is a hard hard problem.
                    >>
                    >>Your statement is hurtful, I don't think I have done anythign since
                    >>taking my poisiotn other then try to find solutions for problems people
                    >>have no matter where/how they want to use PCGen. These problems are
                    >>*not* easy. The *code base* is not easy to massage into doing new
                    >>
                    >>
                    >things.
                    >...
                    >
                    >
                    >>Devon
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >I apologize Devon, it wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. My
                    >phrasing was poor, I know you are doing your best.
                    >
                    >I didn't talk about the other uses of import/export in my original
                    >post because to me, well, they're obvious. :)
                    >
                    >Andargor
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    It's cool, I was in a pissy mood at the time. No offense taken.

                    Devon
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.