# Is E-Tools worth it?



## sfgiants (Aug 31, 2005)

I still dm a 3.0 game and was wondering what people have experienced with e-tools? s it worth 30 bucks?


----------



## caudor (Sep 1, 2005)

To me it is worth 30 bucks.

Some of the benefits are obvious...saves time, does the grunt work as far as rules crunching, creates nice printouts, easy to level-up, etc.

The aspect of eTools I _really_ like is the data set expansions.  When I buy books such as Expanded Psionics, the class books (i.e. Complete Arcane), etc., I can simply purchase the data set for eTools and wala---it's all there at my fingertips.  I'd never find time to manually enter all this data myself, so the cost of worth it to me.


----------



## silvermane (Sep 1, 2005)

Just a quick warning - eTools is starting up quite slowly when you have lots of datasets installed. But perhaps this doesn't concern 3.0 (there is a single bundle after all).



> When I buy books such as Expanded Psionics, the class books (i.e. Complete Arcane), etc., I can simply purchase the data set for eTools and wala




This guy asked about 3.0, and XPH, CA etc. is not 3.0.


----------



## Zulithe (Sep 1, 2005)

What I don't like about eTools is that, from what I can tell by the way their store is setup, you MUST buy the 3.0 dataset (as it is part of the eTools "core" product) and the 3.5e dataset is a seperate product which costs extra.

I would prefer to just buy eTools bundled with the 3.5 dataset and not have to pay for the 3.0 dataset as I will never use it.

Another thing I noticed when I was using eTools at a friend's house, is that it takes a while to "import" datasets. Depending on the size of the dataset, anywhere from a couple minutes to nearly 15mins or more (probably a LOT more on slower PCs; we used a AMD 2200+ based machine) Also, each dataset must be imported seperately (from what I could find), and if you are working with multiple settings (say, 3.5 and a seperate one for Eberron) then you'll need to import it to BOTH which doubles the time it takes.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 1, 2005)

I like etools...now. I hated it before, but with the latest patch things seem to be working OK. A couple things it still doesn't do right are changing the CR for advanced HD monsters, changing the DC for some effects in the description for feats that would increase it...litting irritating things like that. But otherwise it's been a huge help for me lately, I would recommend it.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 1, 2005)

Zulithe said:
			
		

> What I don't like about eTools is that, from what I can tell by the way their store is setup, you MUST buy the 3.0 dataset (as it is part of the eTools "core" product) and the 3.5e dataset is a seperate product which costs extra.



That's a WotC decision, since they own eTools. This very complaint was raised when 3.5 came out, and the above reason was the one provided.


			
				Zulithe said:
			
		

> Another thing I noticed when I was using eTools at a friend's house, is that it takes a while to "import" datasets. Depending on the size of the dataset, anywhere from a couple minutes to nearly 15mins or more (probably a LOT more on slower PCs; we used a AMD 2200+ based machine) Also, each dataset must be imported seperately (from what I could find), and if you are working with multiple settings (say, 3.5 and a seperate one for Eberron) then you'll need to import it to BOTH which doubles the time it takes.



This is also a common complaint. Its a function of how eTools was initially designed. CMP has been trying to revamp the code base as much as possible, but there was only so much they could do.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 1, 2005)

I own etools and a couple expansions and I have several other programs.  The problem with etools is the price which sucks and the fact you have to by all the expansions.  If you buy a lot of wotc stuff, that's great, but if you don't you're stuck programming it in. 

I prefer dmgenie better, has all the same stuff and its easier to put things in.  Plus it has such a rich community that just about every book by wotc can be found in the forum.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 1, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Plus it has such a rich community that just about every book by wotc can be found in the forum.



And that is illegal. The WotC books are IP of WotC, and to distribute WotC's IP, you need a license. CMP is the only company of electronic character generators to do so.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 1, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> And that is illegal. The WotC books are IP of WotC, and to distribute WotC's IP, you need a license. CMP is the only company of electronic character generators to do so.



i"m sorry, not the actual book but scripts for content from the books such as classes, feats and skills.  There is usually a password on the file relating to the book the material came from which means you have to have acopy of the book to install the data into dmgenie.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 1, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> i"m sorry, not the actual book but scripts for content from the books such as classes, feats and skills.  There is usually a password on the file relating to the book the material came from which means you have to have acopy of the book to install the data into dmgenie.



But that's still distributing WotC IP. Do the people doing so have a license from WotC allowing them to do so?


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 1, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> But that's still distributing WotC IP. Do the people doing so have a license from WotC allowing them to do so?



Not sure about the legality considering you own the properity already and are simply typing "notes" and sharing those notes with other people who own the properity.  Couldn't see the difference between that and readinga  textbook and sharing notes with your buddy.


----------



## Mynex (Sep 1, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Not sure about the legality considering you own the properity already and are simply typing "notes" and sharing those notes with other people who own the properity.  Couldn't see the difference between that and readinga  textbook and sharing notes with your buddy.




The problem here is not that you and someone else own the same book, the problem is in the distribution of the files, that is the illegal aspect of this.

Someone once made a really good example to me (can't rem who or I'd attribute their name to it)... 

Just because you own the book, "I, Robot", doesn't mean that you are entitled to a free copy of the movie, or a free copy of the 'audio book'.  Those are 3 seperate media.  Yes, it's all the same _content_ but the format is different.

You're not paying for the book, the movie, and the audio book, you're paying for the time/effort/work involved to create those different formats of the same content.

So while it IS all the same content, it is NOT the same 'product' and you are NOT entitled to have all 3 versions just because you bought 1 version.

And 'password protecting' the zips is a joke... I'm sorry, I could download every zip, make a list of what words I needed and go into FLGS and simply look up the info I needed.  Get real here, that is not 'protection', it's a lazy attempt of it so people can say "well we were protecting the info for people who own the product" so they can make themselves feel like they're not stealing.

By sharing the scripts with everyone, it's stealing, pure and simple, from WotC who owns the content.  And in the end, if WotC decides they've had enough, they can make life very unpleasant for any person/program that they feel is violating their ideas, trademarks, and copyrights, etc... the content.

Doesn't matter whether you or anyone else agree's, doesn't matter what arguments you or anyone else may have, in the end, the decision about what violates things with WotC's, is WotC's, period.  And unless you're willing to shell out the $$ to fight WotC in court, your opinion doesn't matter.

Sorry to be so blunt about it, but people need to understand the differences here, and so many people don't.

As for CMP's data being too expensive... I won't bother to get into it over the pricing other than to say this; "You have 3 choices in the end; 1. Buy the data, 2. Don't buy the data, 3. Enter the information yourself". 

If it's too expensive for you, don't buy it.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 1, 2005)

Mynex said:
			
		

> The problem here is not that you and someone else own the same book, the problem is in the distribution of the files, that is the illegal aspect of this.
> 
> Someone once made a really good example to me (can't rem who or I'd attribute their name to it)...
> 
> ...




I'm sorry, we're not talking about e-tools, we're talking about dmgenie.  The scripts are no more WOTC's IP than my note's from my program.  WOTC did not produce the scripts.  Us programers program in things we need into the system and give them to others so that they do not have to do the programming.  WE do not gouge or double gogue the user.  All I"m saying is that dmgenie is easier to program with and easier to share the notes that you've programed.  30 bucks for 10 prcs and some feats is something that may fly with e-tools (ahh i remember the days when e-tools and pc-gen were for the community) but if i could easily program them in or do my share to program a script with another program that does the same functionality for free I'd rather go that route.  

I'm not saying wotc's not rich and can win any courtcase it wants.  Thus the demise of pc-gen.  I'm saying that DMgenie is simple, virtual basic and the classes and feats of any book can be programmed in very easily by a novice.  There are many forums that you can contact users who will share their programmed scripts with and you don't have to worry about 30 dollar editions for a 40 dollar book you already bought.


----------



## Elephant (Sep 1, 2005)

Mynex said:
			
		

> The problem here is not that you and someone else own the same book, the problem is in the distribution of the files, that is the illegal aspect of this.
> 
> Someone once made a really good example to me (can't rem who or I'd attribute their name to it)...
> 
> ...




It's not stealing.  At worst, it's copyright infringement.

And the argument quoted above seems specious at best, being an excuse for publishers to attempt to gouge more money out of customers.  Regardless of which program you use, you can manually enter data from new purchases.  If you have a friend who has already entered the data from that purchase, why not share?  It saves a lot of time on duplication of effort.

As to password-protecting the files on the server...you're right, it's a joke of an effort to put a barrier up against further copyright infringement.  If they were serious, they would install a monitoring program on the computers of the website visitors that prevented them from infringing any copyrights, ever by taking control of their computers.

Oh, wait, that's how viruses and spyware work.  Maybe we should leave people's computers under their direct control.



> And unless you're willing to shell out the $$ to fight WotC in court, your opinion doesn't matter.




I'm appalled by this sentiment.  Bad business practices should NEVER trump the rights of individuals.

Regardless of the idiotic legalities of the situation, it's a stupid argument - customers are crying out for better products (i.e. datasets included with books without exhorbitant fees attached), and the corporation is ignoring the needs of its market.  Thus, the customers find ways to attain these things.  The whole thing is a customer service failure on a massive scale on WOTC's part.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 1, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, we're not talking about e-tools, we're talking about dmgenie.



Right, and Mynex was addressing the scripts and password protection of DMGenie files.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> The scripts are no more WOTC's IP than my note's from my program.  WOTC did not produce the scripts.



But the material that the scripts you earlier mentioned are based on WotC's IP. If you want to do this for your own use, that's fine. Its the distribution of WotC's IP is what's being discussed.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Us programers program in things we need into the system and give them to others so that they do not have to do the programming.



And making a versatile tool so others can enter in their own data is not the issue


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> WE do not gouge or double gogue the user.  All I"m saying is that dmgenie is easier to program with and easier to share the notes that you've programed.  30 bucks for 10 prcs and some feats is something that may fly with e-tools (ahh i remember the days when e-tools and pc-gen were for the community) but if i could easily program them in or do my share to program a script with another program that does the same functionality for free I'd rather go that route.



But once again, if a script is created based upon a book by WotC, and is available online, that is distributing WotC's IP. And for CMP charging for their datasets, they pay people to create said datasets *and* licensing fees to WotC *and* want to make a profit on their work. As Mynex said, you can a) buy the set, b) not buy the set or c) create the set yourself for yourself.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'm not saying wotc's not rich and can win any courtcase it wants.  Thus the demise of pc-gen.



PCGen has undergone a demise? When did that happen? We just won an ENnie, so I don't think we're down and out.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I'm saying that DMgenie is simple, virtual basic and the classes and feats of any book can be programmed in very easily by a novice.  There are many forums that you can contact users who will share their programmed scripts with and you don't have to worry about 30 dollar editions for a 40 dollar book you already bought.



And that's great that its easy for people to use. However, the distribution of WotC IP is still the distribution of WotC IP. And what dataset costs $30?


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 1, 2005)

Elephant said:
			
		

> It's not stealing.  At worst, it's copyright infringement.



Still illegal


			
				Elephant said:
			
		

> And the argument quoted above seems specious at best, being an excuse for publishers to attempt to gouge more money out of customers.



How is gouging if the content is rendered into a different medium? Book, audio book, movie.


			
				Elephant said:
			
		

> Regardless of which program you use, you can manually enter data from new purchases.



I don't believe anyone here has said that's a problem.


			
				Elephant said:
			
		

> If you have a friend who has already entered the data from that purchase, why not share?  It saves a lot of time on duplication of effort.



Because that's distributing the IP that you don't own.


			
				Elephant said:
			
		

> Regardless of the idiotic legalities of the situation, it's a stupid argument - customers are crying out for better products (i.e. datasets included with books without exhorbitant fees attached), and the corporation is ignoring the needs of its market.  Thus, the customers find ways to attain these things.  The whole thing is a customer service failure on a massive scale on WOTC's part.



So infringing on someone's IP is alright because you think it shouldn't be that way?


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 1, 2005)

Can a paint company sue you for selling or freely giving your works?  I would hopefully not confuse this with file sharing which is another subject.

This is me, basing my script off of a class for a book.  So what if I change two feats?  What if i change the name?  I mean obviously this could easily be done but why?  

I guess this conversation is moot though and we've turned this iin to intelictual rights vs. free distrubution. 

To get back to the subject I use dmgenie because there are many scripts avaialbe and lots of content and theres no gouging by the .  The product is company.  I prefer to stick with companies outside of wotc. The updates are always free and its a rich community.  Call the scripters thieves, demons devils whatever.  But the product works and people help you.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 1, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I would hopefully not confuse this with file sharing which is another subject.



I'm talking about IP infringement, not file sharing.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> This is me, basing my script off of a class for a book.  So what if I change two feats?  What if i change the name?  I mean obviously this could easily be done but why?



And if you do this for your own use, that's fine. Its the distribution that is what's being discussed.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I guess this conversation is moot though and we've turned this iin to intelictual rights vs. free distrubution.



And its the distribution of another group's IP that I'm talking about


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> To get back to the subject I use dmgenie because there are many scripts avaialbe and lots of content and theres no gouging by the .  The product is company.  I prefer to stick with companies outside of wotc. The updates are always free and its a rich community.  Call the scripters thieves, demons devils whatever.  But the product works and people help you.



And getting back to that, those scripts, if based upon WotC's IP, are infringing upon WotC's IP; unless a license from WotC is obtained. If the datasets/scripts are based upon OGC, and follow the OGL, then there is no problem.

And if you go to CMP's forums or PCGen's forums for questions on their products, they will help you as well.


----------



## sfgiants (Sep 1, 2005)

Interesting debate I stumbled onto I guess...but anyways...I don't have a problem paying 30 bucks for a program if it speeds up NPC creation for me. Is E-tools user friendly? Is it mostly bug free? I only need 3.0 version, because that is what my group prefers.

PS: As an aside to the downloading issue, any one here could get e-tools for free off of file sharing, I just prefer to pay so that CMP gets money for its product...


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 1, 2005)

sfgiants said:
			
		

> Is E-tools user friendly?



I find it to be so, but I use PCGen primarily.


			
				sfgiants said:
			
		

> Is it mostly bug free?



I believe the core set is, yes. From watching CMP's boards, there are bug reports that are brought up on various sets. These are then fixed for their bimonthly dataset updates.


			
				sfgiants said:
			
		

> I only need 3.0 version, because that is what my group prefers.



eTools comes with the 3.0 PHB, DMG and MM. If you want any other 3.0 books, you'll have to buy them. There is a discount if you buy bundles.


----------



## Mynex (Sep 1, 2005)

Elephant said:
			
		

> I'm appalled by this sentiment.  Bad business practices should NEVER trump the rights of individuals.
> 
> Regardless of the idiotic legalities of the situation, it's a stupid argument - customers are crying out for better products (i.e. datasets included with books without exhorbitant fees attached), and the corporation is ignoring the needs of its market.  Thus, the customers find ways to attain these things.  The whole thing is a customer service failure on a massive scale on WOTC's part.




I'm not saying I agree, I'm not saying I disagree... I'm not discussing the moral aspects, I'm not discussing my opinion on things... I was stating facts in regards to, and ONLY in regards to the distribution of material not owned by you (not meaning 'you' as in you specifically, but a generic 'you' here)...

The fact is simple, it doesn't matter what _YOU PERSONALLY_ believe, it matters what is and isn't legal.  Hence, your opinion doesn't matter here, only legal opinion.

And unless you are a lawyer, have the time, energy and resources to take the entire thing to court to get the courts to back your opinion and make it the law, then yes, as harsh as it may sound, your opinion doesn't matter.

Could I have phrased that better?  Sure, would it have the same impact and get the point across?  Probably not.  Whille you may or may not agree with how I phrased it, it DID get your attention to the subject of the distribution, and that was my goal.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 1, 2005)

Mynex said:
			
		

> I'm not saying I agree, I'm not saying I disagree... I'm not discussing the moral aspects, I'm not discussing my opinion on things... I was stating facts in regards to, and ONLY in regards to the distribution of material not owned by you (not meaning 'you' as in you specifically, but a generic 'you' here)...
> 
> The fact is simple, it doesn't matter what _YOU PERSONALLY_ believe, it matters what is and isn't legal.  Hence, your opinion doesn't matter here, only legal opinion.
> 
> ...



Buit i guess what's the point in coming on the high horse and reiterating what's legal and wahts not.  Can you stop someone from writing up a script and sharing with his friend.  Probably not when wotc has whole books floating on bittorents.  It kind of brought this thread somewhere it wasn't suppose to go.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 1, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Probably not when wotc has whole books floating on bittorents.



It still doesn't make it any more legal just because others are doing it.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> It kind of brought this thread somewhere it wasn't suppose to go.



How so? The main quesiton has been answered, and the secondary question of dataset/script distribution that came forth has also been discussed.


----------



## Henry (Sep 1, 2005)

As a note to DonTadow and Elephant: Mynex does speak with some experience on the issue, because as part of Codemonkey Publishing and the organization staff of the PCGen project for a time, he went through this exact same thing with WotC three years ago over PCGen, before CMP became the official supporter of E-Tools. The history is too long to recount here, but WotC's position about individual users sharing their created dataset IS that it's infringement.

For that matter, I'm surprised no one from WotC has said anything about the issue, if it's going on in the DMGenie forums... unless the forums are more of a facilitator, and the actual sharing is going on elsewhere.


----------



## Ravenknight (Sep 1, 2005)

To answer the topic´s main question. Yes.! E-Tools is worth every dime. I use the program for every campaign and it is a real timesaver. The ability to fool around with NPC stats and templates without having to use pen and paper. I love it. 
Using a laptop it also gives me the ability to create NPCs and monsters on the fly with is a great bonus when I have to improvise something.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 2, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> As a note to DonTadow and Elephant: Mynex does speak with some experience on the issue, because as part of Codemonkey Publishing and the organization staff of the PCGen project for a time, he went through this exact same thing with WotC three years ago over PCGen, before CMP became the official supporter of E-Tools. The history is too long to recount here, but WotC's position about individual users sharing their created dataset IS that it's infringement.
> 
> For that matter, I'm surprised no one from WotC has said anything about the issue, if it's going on in the DMGenie forums... unless the forums are more of a facilitator, and the actual sharing is going on elsewhere.



I know.  I used to love pc-gen back then and then wotc quenched them.  My big beef is that codemonkey backed down and joined them (e-tools).  It just wasn't the same after that.  High priced datapacks and a e-tools that never did what it was suppose to do.  

In the mean time independent companies like dmgenie and roleplaying master let theri communities come up with any side data while they stuck to their original concept.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 2, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I know.  I used to love pc-gen back then and then wotc quenched them.



Quenched us? I'm not sure what you mean. PCGen did, several years ago, include Star Wars and WotC's closed content material, yes. Then the Board at the time sat down with WotC at GenCon ('02 I believe) and WotC said that creating datasets of their closed content books was a breach of their IP. PCGen therefore removed said content. That was 2.7.x. We are now on 5.9.2; I don't see how we've been quenched. The code has improved since then (I've been around since the 1.4 days), and more OGC datasets have been included.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> My big beef is that codemonkey backed down and joined them (e-tools).  It just wasn't the same after that.  High priced datapacks and a e-tools that never did what it was suppose to do.



CMP was offered the contract to maintain eTools after Fluid. CMP has fixed countless bugs more than they were cotracted to do so. So, under CMP's custodianship, eTools has flourished. Does eTools do everything that MasterTools was touted as being able to do? No, but they're different products.

As for 'high-priced datapacks', how much is your time worth? Can you create datasets in the amount of time that would comparable or cheaper to the cost of the dataset?


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> In the mean time independent companies like dmgenie and roleplaying master let theri communities come up with any side data while they stuck to their original concept.



And once again, creating datasets for your own use is fine. Its the distribution of WotC's IP withou permission that is not.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 2, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Quenched us? I'm not sure what you mean. PCGen did, several years ago, include Star Wars and WotC's closed content material, yes. Then the Board at the time sat down with WotC at GenCon ('02 I believe) and WotC said that creating datasets of their closed content books was a breach of their IP. PCGen therefore removed said content. That was 2.7.x. We are now on 5.9.2; I don't see how we've been quenched. The code has improved since then (I've been around since the 1.4 days), and more OGC datasets have been included.
> 
> CMP was offered the contract to maintain eTools after Fluid. CMP has fixed countless bugs more than they were cotracted to do so. So, under CMP's custodianship, eTools has flourished. Does eTools do everything that MasterTools was touted as being able to do? No, but they're different products.
> 
> ...




If I'm correct , as far as etools, there was an e-tools helper that was pretty effiecient at cranking out datapacks.  But the code kept changing and I am no longer sure how effective that tool was.  It efffectively shut down community support. 

I am glad that wotc has securely 100 per cent "convinced" you that their intelliectual propertiy is in jeapordy. (I remember when you guys had a bit more fight as pioneers).  And I agree, companies should stay out of the distrubution.  But I draw the line at threatening user communities and going after the everyday joe smoe whom either doesnt have time to do the datawork nor doesnt want to.  

For the record, theres no real "legal standing" either way.  Hasbro just has a heck of a lot more money to pay lawyers to keep drilling things in.


----------



## Mynex (Sep 2, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> If I'm correct , as far as etools, there was an e-tools helper that was pretty effiecient at cranking out datapacks.  But the code kept changing and I am no longer sure how effective that tool was.  It efffectively shut down community support.
> 
> I am glad that wotc has securely 100 per cent "convinced" you that their intelliectual propertiy is in jeapordy. (I remember when you guys had a bit more fight as pioneers).  And I agree, companies should stay out of the distrubution.  But I draw the line at threatening user communities and going after the everyday joe smoe whom either doesnt have time to do the datawork nor doesnt want to.
> 
> For the record, theres no real "legal standing" either way.  Hasbro just has a heck of a lot more money to pay lawyers to keep drilling things in.




Opinions are fine... but you are bordering on insulting here... I didn't insult or insinuate an insult about your 'cajones factor' as you're doing here... 

Unless you were a part of PCGen in the early days (as I was), unless you were a primary figure in those 'early days' (as I was), and unless you were involved in the talks with WotC in 2002 (as I was), you don't have a damned clue everything that went on.

What you have is suppositions, borderline rude opinions, and a lot of smoke coming out of your exhaust port at a great velocity.

In short, _I_, as _ME_ and _ME alone, have no desire to read any further of your 'opinions' on what is and is not legal, because it is now exceptionally obvious to me that you don't have clue one and will be more than happy to steal from companies that are doing their best to make the materials available in the first place.

Overpriced?  Yea, as Paul said, how much is your time worth eh?  Not _one_ data set is over $7.50... and very few are that much...

Whatever... My apologies to everyone for 'derailing' the thread... I won't bother anyone further.


----------



## Mynex (Sep 2, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> If I'm correct , as far as etools, there was an e-tools helper that was pretty effiecient at cranking out datapacks.  But the code kept changing and I am no longer sure how effective that tool was.  It efffectively shut down community support.




I thought I was done, but I forgot to address this section, and I feel the need to address these statement with facts, since DonTadow is in very short supply of them it seems.

e-Tools helper was not a tool designed to make 'datapacks'.  It was a tool designed by Davin to help people get around the limitations of the e-Tools interface.

Davin is very much a part of our community at CMP, even has his own forums area, and it's fairly active... the program is still around, still used, but more as a support role than the dominant one it used to have when we first took over e-Tools.

Community support was shut down because of file sharing, you know, stealing.

And once we took over, made code improvements, fixed bugs, and started putting out data sets of the books, there wasn't a whole lot of need for stealing, er, 'community support', we had it covered... because for those that were around, please pipe up.. what was the #1issue with the community user files?  Oh right, they didn't play well with each other... because everyone made their data sets their own way and without a standard or any guidance in their construction....

Once there were standards and guidance on how to make data, there was very little call for people to be out and about making their own sets of books... which usually consisted of 1-4 people working on the same data set and then trying to mangle the different sets together... which usually resulted in a non-working e-Tools.

As for e-Tool help and Davin, Davin was kept in the loop about the code changes from the second we took over e-Tools....

Well enough already... in short, from your own words, you haven't used e-Tools or e-Tool Helper in a long while... So until you do use a recent version of both (oh and don't forget how we're so badly 'gouging people' with the free code patches on our website to the main e-Tools program), well.. that suggestion wouldn't be polite, and I wouldn't want to upset Eric's Grandmother... I'll just say you need to see a doctor about having that Cranial-Rectal fission surgery sometime soon.

Now I'm done.  Night all!


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Sep 2, 2005)

Ok.  To answer the original question:  Yes, Etools is well worth the price tag.  I absolutely could not DM my current 3.0 game without it.  I haven't purchased any of the data sets, as I don't use much outside of the core rules, so I can't speak to their quality.  But the basic program, with all of the patches applied, literally saves me hours every week.  The program makes the game managable for me as the DM, and more fun for my players since I am better prepared.  I can't recommend it enough.


----------



## Zulithe (Sep 2, 2005)

After reading the discussion here, I'm going to give DM Genie a try. I love PCGen and I think eTools is a flawed yet feature-full product (can't wait for CMP's next tool! looks great) but for now, after seeing the screenshots, DM Genie looks right up my alley.

I can't for the life of me see the sharing of datasets as a crime. If I buy a WotC book, I technically have the right to produce my own dataset for PCGen, DM Genie, eTools or whatever else I like, do I not? So, what if I met someone on the internet who happened to also own the book, and already had done the data entering for themselves? What is so wrong about sharing it?

I disagree with the book/movie analogy. If I owned the book, and downloaded the movie off of the internet then that would be stealing. But, if I owned the book, and I made my _own_ movie based on the book, and showed it only to people who also owned the book, and I was not looking to make a single penny off of this, then I see no theft.

Did any of you download and watch that fan-made Batman movie "Dead End"? Pretty good, wasn't it? I liken it to that.

The only thing "wrong" is that companies are seeing opportunity to make extra money and are upset when people find clever ways around it instead. And in my eyes, these people are doing nothing immoral.


----------



## rlphay (Sep 2, 2005)

Ok, I can see that there is a few people here that never even bother to go to the CMP web site and see just what it is that they have been doing for the last couple of years since they got the code for etools. It is not even the same product as what was originally released. It is much better, has a ton more features and way less bugs.

The databugs are and have been addressed at first on a monthly basis when there was only a few books, but now it s on a bi-monthly basis because there is just to many books to get out monthly. And have the bugs been getting addressed that are posted on the CMP message boards, Just go there and take a look and see for yourself. When the bugs get fixed for the next update, the bug thread is updated and then locked so that it is easy to see which ones have been addressed.

ET Helper also has been getting updated with each patch that was released. SOmetimes there might be a delay of a week or 2 before the new version is available after a patch comes out, but it has always gotten done and been released. Heck even in the special ET Helper section on the CMP board that Mynex talked about, if users are having issues or need help with it, there is always someone that jumps in and give a hand.

So basically unless you actually want to do some research on a product that you want to talk bad about, you really have nothing valuable to say. It would be like my 4 year old daughter telling me all the bad about a computer program that I just installed onto her computer before she even ran it.



> I can't for the life of me see the sharing of datasets as a crime. If I buy a WotC book, I technically have the right to produce my own dataset for PCGen, DM Genie, eTools or whatever else I like, do I not? So, what if I met someone on the internet who happened to also own the book, and already had done the data entering for themselves? What is so wrong about sharing it?



So basically here if you do out and buy a book, you feel that you own the rights to do with this book all that you want to. Based on this logic it would be ok for you to buy a copy of a WotC book, scan the entire contents into a pdf file, and then share it with anyone else that ownes a copy of the book. Hey, if you own it then it is ok to share it with anyone else that owns it right? Sure this is not data that is going into a program for use but it is the same information and IP of WotC that you would be sharing, just in a different format. And if you really believe that this is legal, then you are misunderstood.

I am also sure that you and I own a couple of music CD's that are the same as well. How about I rip them into MP3 format and then share them with you. Same principle here. Just because you own the product, does not give you the right to share it with anyone else requardless of the format. Just ask Napster.

So I am going to go back to fixing bugs with the etools datasets now as that is what I do, reguardless of those that think that etools never gets updated.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 2, 2005)

Zulithe said:
			
		

> I can't for the life of me see the sharing of datasets as a crime. If I buy a WotC book, I technically have the right to produce my own dataset for PCGen, DM Genie, eTools or whatever else I like, do I not?



Yes, *you* have the right to create a dataset for *your* self.


			
				Zulithe said:
			
		

> So, what if I met someone on the internet who happened to also own the book, and already had done the data entering for themselves? What is so wrong about sharing it?



Because you are then distributing someone else's IP. CMP, as a licensee of WotC, has permission to distribute said IP.


			
				Zulithe said:
			
		

> I disagree with the book/movie analogy. If I owned the book, and downloaded the movie off of the internet then that would be stealing.



So, you recognize that the movie, being a different medium than the book, is not the same as the book. Why then is a dataset, which is a different medium than the book, the same as the book?


			
				Zulithe said:
			
		

> But, if I owned the book, and I made my _own_ movie based on the book, and showed it only to people who also owned the book, and I was not looking to make a single penny off of this, then I see no theft.



Depends upon the book. Some books are out in public domain. Others are still IP of the author/estate.


			
				Zulithe said:
			
		

> Did any of you download and watch that fan-made Batman movie "Dead End"? Pretty good, wasn't it? I liken it to that.



I've actually never heard of it until just now.


			
				Zulithe said:
			
		

> The only thing "wrong" is that companies are seeing opportunity to make extra money and are upset when people find clever ways around it instead. And in my eyes, these people are doing nothing immoral.



Once again, we are talking about the distribution of IP. If you have permission from the IP owner to distribute the IP, then bully for you. However, CMP does charge for their datasets because a) they have a licensing fee for their license, b) they pay people to create the dataset and need to recoup that cost and c) as a company, wish to make a profit.


----------



## herald (Sep 2, 2005)

I swore I'd never come back to these forums again. Some things never change but you should never let someone who distorts the facts get away with it. 

Flat out fact copywrite infringment is illegal, and used in the manner of sharing Data Sets consitutes a form of theft. This is not an opinion it's a fact.  I could care less for anyone who says anthing differant. I have consulted with criminal lawyers as well as corporate lawyers who specialize in intellectual property law. It doesn't matter if you give it away or charge .01$.

The folks over at CMP have done a fine job, they are very professional about reponding to requests and bug reports. The have added quite abit of functionality to the program. Most of all, they are friendly and supportive. Etools is worth it.

If you don't want to buy eTools, try PC-Gen.


----------



## Rapier (Sep 2, 2005)

I too use ETools and have nothing but praise for the work that CMP has done to it. It's not their fault that Fluid made such a mess of it to start with. I can't wait to see CMP's new product when it comes out 

As far as datasets being outrageously priced, as stated before, no single dataset is over $7.50. Can you buy the book for that??? And, considering that the bundles are usually discounted, they work out to a pretty good deal. Noone ever said that you have to buy the book to buy the dataset (altho it would be easier to look up details).

And as far as the 'sharing' of user-input data, no matter how you look at it, youare sharing copyrighted material (the original data from the book) so it's illegal any way you look at it.

That seems to be the case with the younger generations anymore... 1) everyone's doing it so it must be alright, and 2) it's only illegal if you get caught (I've heard this from high-school students in the past couple of years.

Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it right... it's still illegal.


----------



## sfgiants (Sep 2, 2005)

Thanks for all the good advice. I bought e-tools today and while I am getting used to it, I can see that it will speed me up quite a bit


----------



## msd (Sep 2, 2005)

Maybe a little less sarcasm is in order...I'm not disagreeing with your points, but the delivery seems a little over the top.

Maybe you need to let the PR department answer some of these question and step to the side.

Just my opinion.



			
				Mynex said:
			
		

> ...and I feel the need to address these statement with facts, since DonTadow is in very short supply of them it seems.






			
				Mynex said:
			
		

> well.. that suggestion wouldn't be polite, and I wouldn't want to upset Eric's Grandmother... I'll just say you need to see a doctor about having that Cranial-Rectal fission surgery sometime soon.




I know now why I don't buy your products...


----------



## rlphay (Sep 2, 2005)

sfgiants said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the good advice. I bought e-tools today and while I am getting used to it, I can see that it will speed me up quite a bit



And if you have any problems with it just post those on the CMP forum and we will be more then happy to help you out.

Welcome to the etools family.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 3, 2005)

herald said:
			
		

> I swore I'd never come back to these forums again. Some things never change but you should never let someone who distorts the facts get away with it.
> 
> Flat out fact copywrite infringment is illegal, and used in the manner of sharing Data Sets consitutes a form of theft. This is not an opinion it's a fact.  I could care less for anyone who says anthing differant. I have consulted with criminal lawyers as well as corporate lawyers who specialize in intellectual property law. It doesn't matter if you give it away or charge .01$.
> 
> ...



And for every one criminal lawyer who tells you one thing, theres another (and I A. work with lawyers, B have to deal with them on a daily basis for 8 yearss) who can prove the opposite.  IN this world its all about who has more money.  Either way I could care less.  I'm not porting the pdf's of products through the net.  I support programs whom have rich communities whom don't overcharge on the product.  I support programs where I can go to joe blow and ask what he's doing on his script and share what i'm doing on mine.   Thats what my advice was.  DMgenie, and for that matter roleplaying master, are just better programs, cheaper and supported heavily by their communities.  They just don't have big brother wotc backing them which is why I scoffed at pc-gen's recent win at the ennies.  If you think its right for anyone to tell you what you can or can't do with properity you've bought knock yourself's out I don't get into the file sharing debate.  But when I transfer the equivelent of cliffnotes of a book two people own for a program we both have and you advocate breaking down the door there's something morrally worng with that.  

The law is very mirky and the Supreme court isn't even touching it yet.  (a solid law would make intelectual properity do things that doesnt sound right with physical properity IE: i can let my brother borrow my shirt, can't let my brother borrow a cd.  ) 

By the way, I do own e-tools, I said that from the beginning and I do have mosto f the datapacks from last year.  A friend has actually offered a billion times to send me this year's databpack but, taking away how i personally feel about the company, its just not as good as the competition right now.  I'm not a big wotc fan, but they have come out with some good material that I am happy to purchase.  If I like something and its worth it, i'll buy it.  

MY personal feelings were decided a few years ago, and it was not something that just came.  It was me, following and thinking codemonkey was pretty gutsy and risky with pcgen and then seeing it shut down. Ok . But to see you guys turn complete turncoats into this fabricated argument wotc has pushed for years because of their high priced lawyers was really upseting.  I stopped using pcgen (got tired of downloading the latest java packages anyway) and looked elsewhere.  And I believe thats when I found dmgenie and roleplaying master and a couple others.  Big communities on other web services which rocked and the company didn't seem to be effected by the big brother mentality.  

Someone keeps saying, what is time worth.  If i say my time is worth free, if i'm in this soley so that others won't have to code then I'll do it.  That's a community.  Is it worth making a program and then complicating it so much that only you can come up with the good stuff and sell it for 33% of what the material iti s based off of costs?  

Its a personal decision.  For me no.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

msd said:
			
		

> Maybe a little less sarcasm is in order...I'm not disagreeing with your points, but the delivery seems a little over the top.



Both PCGen and CMP have been the focus of these kinds of arguments for over three years now. It gets tiring to have to rehash the arguments repeatedly.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I support programs whom have rich communities whom don't overcharge on the product. I support programs where I can go to joe blow and ask what he's doing on his script and share what i'm doing on mine.



Both CMP and PCGen have communites that support the users. Over the past several years, both PCGen and eTools have progressed and improved. If there are issues, they can be brought to their forums for solutions.

As for sharing, if you have permission from the IP owner to do so, then go for it. If you don't, then you can't.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> DMgenie, and for that matter roleplaying master, are just better programs, cheaper and supported heavily by their communities.



I thought both DMGenie and Roleplaying Master were commercial products? PCGen is free. I could be wrong.

And as I said just above, both CMP and PCGen support their products through their forums/Y! groups respectively.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> They just don't have big brother wotc backing them which is why I scoffed at pc-gen's recent win at the ennies.



Ummm...PCGen is a free product that has no ties to WotC.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> If you think its right for anyone to tell you what you can or can't do with properity you've bought knock yourself's out I don't get into the file sharing debate.



Once again, if *you* want to create a dataset for a product that *you* own for *your* self, there's *nothing* wrong with that.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> But when I transfer the equivelent of cliffnotes of a book two people own for a program we both have and you advocate breaking down the door there's something morrally worng with that.



You are still distributing someone else's IP in doing so.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> IE: i can let my brother borrow my shirt, can't let my brother borrow a cd.  )



But by distributing the dataset, you aren't 'lending' or 'borrowing' because the item still exists on your computer...unless you delete said file from your computer, then only 1 instance of it still exists.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> MY personal feelings were decided a few years ago, and it was not something that just came.  It was me, following and thinking codemonkey was pretty gutsy and risky with pcgen and then seeing it shut down. Ok.



Once again, CMP != PCGen. PCGen was in existence before CMP ever was. PCGen has not been shut down, we are still around.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> But to see you guys turn complete turncoats into this fabricated argument wotc has pushed for years because of their high priced lawyers was really upseting.



When were lawyers brought in? The then board of PCGen met with Anthony Valterra, then D&D Brand Manager.

_edit_ Put Ryan Dancey in by accident, it was Anthony Valterra instead.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I stopped using pcgen (got tired of downloading the latest java packages anyway) and looked elsewhere.  And I believe thats when I found dmgenie and roleplaying master and a couple others.  Big communities on other web services which rocked and the company didn't seem to be effected by the big brother mentality.



Once again, both CMP and PCGen have communities. We also don't advocate the dissemination of someone else's IP.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> Someone keeps saying, what is time worth.  If i say my time is worth free, if i'm in this soley so that others won't have to code then I'll do it.  That's a community.  Is it worth making a program and then complicating it so much that only you can come up with the good stuff and sell it for 33% of what the material iti s based off of costs?



Once again, for *your* self, you can create the datasets. If you are not the IP owner or do not have the IP owner's permission, then you can not dissemintate the IP. It has nothing to do with being a community and everything with folllowing the law.

And, for PCGen, I know we've been trying to simplify things so that users can easily do their own datasets if they wish, instead of having to wait for the PCGen datamonkeys to create the OGC ones or the CMP datamonkeys to do the WotC ones.


----------



## msd (Sep 3, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Both PCGen and CMP have been the focus of these kinds of arguments for over three years now. It gets tiring to have to rehash the arguments repeatedly.




Thinking that everyone on these boards has been privy to those discussions and has witnessed and/or grown tired of them is a pretty poor assumption in my mind.

For someone who is not aware, it just looks like rudeness tinged with a superiority complex.  It is my personal opinion (and I readily grant that yours and other may vary) that people like that are not the best spokespeople for their products.

Best of luck to you,
Matt


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 3, 2005)

msd said:
			
		

> Thinking that everyone on these boards has been privy to those discussions and has witnessed and/or grown tired of them is a pretty poor assumption in my mind.
> 
> For someone who is not aware, it just looks like rudeness tinged with a superiority complex.  It is my personal opinion (and I readily grant that yours and other may vary) that people like that are not the best spokespeople for their products.
> 
> ...



Whereas I havnt yet to complete my first year on the boards, I'd never heard it before.  And several times in my own responses I really said i dont really intend on debating the intellectual properity debate.  Theres not enough space.  All I wanted to do was give the guy some advice about software and whats what.  Then someone got off their high horse and decided to preach to me about the morals of other software communities. 

I've heard it elsewhere and I really don't see hte point in discussing it anymore.  I hope that the original poster enjoys his purchase.


----------



## Zulithe (Sep 3, 2005)

rlphay said:
			
		

> So basically here if you do out and buy a book, you feel that you own the rights to do with this book all that you want to. Based on this logic it would be ok for you to buy a copy of a WotC book, scan the entire contents into a pdf file, and then share it with anyone else that ownes a copy of the book. Hey, if you own it then it is ok to share it with anyone else that owns it right? Sure this is not data that is going into a program for use but it is the same information and IP of WotC that you would be sharing, just in a different format. And if you really believe that this is legal, then you are misunderstood.



Hi. Actually, in the exact order and execution that you described it, I think it would be perfectly fine. I am not saying it is legal, just that it is not immoral and is not abusing my rights of ownership. Just my opinion. Now, if I scanned it and gave it away to people who did not purchase the book, then that would be wrong.



> I am also sure that you and I own a couple of music CD's that are the same as well. How about I rip them into MP3 format and then share them with you. Same principle here. Just because you own the product, does not give you the right to share it with anyone else requardless of the format. Just ask Napster.



Again I would say that this is perfectly fine. I'm not arguing that it is legal, I'm sure that it isn't, but it is not an abuse of rights of ownership no matter how much the corporate hounds have brainwashed you into thinking that it is. If you would put some real thought into it, you would agree, me thinks.

So, what if we both owned the same CD and both ripped it into MP3 format for our own personal use, I'm sure you'd agree that it is fine. It is only the sharing with one another of something that we both already legally own that is the problem. But I see no problem. It is a problem that has been created as the result of greed.



> So I am going to go back to fixing bugs with the etools datasets now as that is what I do, reguardless of those that think that etools never gets updated.



I hope I don't come off as seeming that I don't appreciate the work you or others do on the "pay" datasets. I think it is wonderful. Just, what can I say, I'm a poor college kid.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

msd said:
			
		

> Thinking that everyone on these boards has been privy to those discussions and has witnessed and/or grown tired of them is a pretty poor assumption in my mind.



This discussion has been brought up for the past 3 years on this board, CMP's boards, PCGen's Y! group and WotC's group. Every time it comes up, we address it, again and again.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

Zulithe said:
			
		

> Hi. Actually, in the exact order and execution that you described it, I think it would be perfectly fine. I am not saying it is legal, just that it is not immoral and is not abusing my rights of ownership. Just my opinion. Now, if I scanned it and gave it away to people who did not purchase the book, then that would be wrong.



Unless you have permission from the IP owner of said book, distributing the scan is illegal, regardless of whether the end recipient (sp) has the book or not.


			
				Zulithe said:
			
		

> So, what if we both owned the same CD and both ripped it into MP3 format for our own personal use, I'm sure you'd agree that it is fine. It is only the sharing with one another of something that we both already legally own that is the problem. But I see no problem. It is a problem that has been created as the result of greed.



Once again, it is the distribution of IP.


			
				Zulithe said:
			
		

> Just, what can I say, I'm a poor college kid.



Does that then make it right to distribute IP that you don't have permission from the IP owner to do so?


----------



## Samuel Leming (Sep 3, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> This discussion has been brought up for the past 3 years on this board, CMP's boards, PCGen's Y! group and WotC's group. Every time it comes up, we address it, again and again.




Yeah, I can see why you guys would be tired of this subject, but things got a little more rude here then they really needed to be.

If I were in your shoes, I'd carefully construct a FAQ that addresses all these issues and point people towards it whenever these subjects come up.  Just a suggestion.

Sam


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Whereas I havnt yet to complete my first year on the boards, I'd never heard it before.



Pardon me for having a dificult time believing that. You've stated in your previous posts that you used PCGen but don't because of WotC pushing its 'demise'. If you knew about that from back then, you knew about it back then.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> If I were in your shoes, I'd carefully construct a FAQ that addresses all these issues and point people towards it whenever these subjects come up.  Just a suggestion.



You think we should create a FAQ on why distributing another person's IP without their permission is illegal?


----------



## msd (Sep 3, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> You think we should create a FAQ on why distributing another person's IP without their permission is illegal?




Again...a little snide for this discussion.  That really seems to be an oversimplication of what the poster was asking for.

Everyone, at a general level, understands the contours of the law of intellectual property and copyright in particular.  In my experience (as a law student focusing on intellectual property), the number of people who understand the details of what specifically is acceptable and what is not is a far smaller number.

He wasn't asking for you to restate the obvious in a FAQ.  He was asking for a FAQ that clears up legitimate points of concern or confusion to people who have no intention of violating the law but might nonetheless be inadvertently doing so, i.e. "I think it's ok for me to use the dataset I found on the internet because I paid for a legitimate copy of the book."

If anything, a FAQ like that serves to protect further your own property rights and pre-emptively establishes the fact that your customers have been put on notice as to what does and does not violate your rights.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Sep 3, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> You think we should create a FAQ on why distributing another person's IP without their permission is illegal?




Sure.  A big part of this issue is what is IP and what isn't IP.  Putting your views on that in a FAQ would make it easier to get your point across without all the sturm und drang getting in the way.

If you're tired of repeating yourself, a FAQ just may be the answer to the problem.  

Sam


----------



## Samuel Leming (Sep 3, 2005)

msd said:
			
		

> Again...a little snide for this discussion.  That really seems to be an oversimplication of what the poster was asking for.




Yeah, I think he's pretty much circled his wagons at this point.



			
				msd said:
			
		

> He wasn't asking for you to restate the obvious in a FAQ.  He was asking for a FAQ that clears up legitimate points of concern or confusion to people who have no intention of violating the law but might nonetheless be inadvertently doing so, i.e. "I think it's ok for me to use the dataset I found on the internet because I paid for a legitimate copy of the book."




Yep, that's part of it.

I'm also making a suggestion that would help them to get through these discussions without further damage to their rep.

Sam


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 3, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Pardon me for having a dificult time believing that. You've stated in your previous posts that you used PCGen but don't because of WotC pushing its 'demise'. If you knew about that from back then, you knew about it back then.



To clarify ( i think you have the wrong quote)

I have a friend Bill.  He his views are just aobut with mine but he still downloads pcgen for the sake of dl'n it.  He's always asking me to look at it or the new update.  I"m always curious as to if they'll put as much effort to it as their commercial e-tools.

I re installed and updated etools last year because I needed statblocks for yuan-ti which didn't have a dmgenie script yet.  Counting thedifferent armsl, legs, and such ther are 10.  Got the statblocks, installed them in dmgenie's statblock copy paste method.  

Now, go ahead, repeat your argument about ip and such.  My ip my ip.  The clone wars have begun. 

I said it a while ago.  

::applaud::

We enjoy your opinion but this subject is getting drilled into ground.  I have never come across it before, but I can see how it can get annoying to see.  

He bought your product.  Be happy.  Do your dance of joy.  This thread should be closed because its purpose has been completed. A asked question. B. everyone gave advice. C. someone on high horse gives lecture on IP D. person makes decision. .


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

msd said:
			
		

> Again...a little snide for this discussion.  That really seems to be an oversimplication of what the poster was asking for.



I was not being snide, I was asking an honest question. He requested a FAQ and I wanted to determine what he wanted the FAQ to be about.


			
				msd said:
			
		

> He wasn't asking for you to restate the obvious in a FAQ.  He was asking for a FAQ that clears up legitimate points of concern or confusion to people who have no intention of violating the law but might nonetheless be inadvertently doing so, i.e. "I think it's ok for me to use the dataset I found on the internet because I paid for a legitimate copy of the book."



Fine, but that wasn't made explicit in his statement. I was seeking clarification.


			
				msd said:
			
		

> If anything, a FAQ like that serves to protect further your own property rights and pre-emptively establishes the fact that your customers have been put on notice as to what does and does not violate your rights.



Which has been stated, repeated, on numerous forums. This is the first time, to my recollection, a request has been made for PCGen, CMP and WotC to create a jointly maintained FAQ.


----------



## IronWolf (Sep 3, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> You think we should create a FAQ on why distributing another person's IP without their permission is illegal?




If you are tired of answering the same questions again and again over a period of three years then a FAQ sounds like a mighty fine idea.  The suggestions made by msd and Samuel Leming in subsequent posts are quite good and would certainly address the need to rehash these issues again and again.

Then in the future when this comes up - and it will, not everyone has been around these topics for 3 years - you drop a single link in a reply in an informative manner and avoid discussion deteriorates into one that is more likely to alienate folks.  Sounds like everyone wins to me.

EDIT: And of course your reply shows up just before mine, so ignore what is now irrelevant.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> To clarify ( i think you have the wrong quote)



My apologies then. You did mention PCGen's demise, which is what I was referring to.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I have a friend Bill.  He his views are just aobut with mine but he still downloads pcgen for the sake of dl'n it.  He's always asking me to look at it or the new update.  I"m always curious as to if they'll put as much effort to it as their commercial e-tools.



Once again, CMP != PCGen. They are two separate entities.

CMP is a for-profit organization that is licensed by WotC to create datasets based upon their IP. These datasets are for PCGen and eTools. The work on eTools and the datasets for PCGen and eTools are paid-for by CMP to their various contractors.

PCGen is an open-source project that is  done by volunteers.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I re installed and updated etools last year because I needed statblocks for yuan-ti which didn't have a dmgenie script yet.  Counting thedifferent armsl, legs, and such ther are 10.  Got the statblocks, installed them in dmgenie's statblock copy paste method.
> 
> Now, go ahead, repeat your argument about ip and such.  My ip my ip.  The clone wars have begun.
> 
> ...



Where have I said that you aren't allowed to make *personal* use of the material? I was talking about distributing said material.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> He bought your product.  Be happy.  Do your dance of joy.



Not my product, I'm not an agent of CMP.


			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> C. someone on high horse gives lecture on IP.



The IP distribution was brought up in this thread because it was mentioned, by you specifically, about being able to find data for DMGenie based upon WotC's IP.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Sep 3, 2005)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Not my product, I'm not an agent of CMP.




Ah, that I didn’t know.  I take it you’re a PCGen volunteer?



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> I was not being snide, I was asking an honest question. He requested a FAQ and I wanted to determine what he wanted the FAQ to be about.




Really it was more of a suggest than a request.



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> Fine, but that wasn't made explicit in his statement. I was seeking clarification.




Actually I’m not fully aware of which issues keep popping up.  Put in whatever you’re tired of repeating.



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> Which has been stated, repeated, on numerous forums. This is the first time, to my recollection, a request has been made for PCGen, CMP and WotC to create a jointly maintained FAQ.




Heh.  It was still just a suggestion.  Would it have to be a joint effort?

Sam


----------



## Mynex (Sep 3, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> Ah, that I didn’t know.  I take it you’re a PCGen volunteer?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Okahy, addressing a few posts in this one... and to make it clear, I'm not picking on any one person here... 

First off, my initial posts were not "high horse" responses, they were factual.  a few people wanted to argue the 'moral aspects' which I did not feel so inclined to do.  And then someone got rude with me, so I responded in kind.  Sorry if that sits ill with people, but tough, I ain't taking abuse from anyone for stating facts.

This is a text medium, intent and infelction are not easily expressed here, please keep that in mind before telling someone they're on a high horse...

I'm still not interested in debating the moral aspects, it's pointless, because everyone has their own view points on the matter.  The facts, as they stand now, is that distribution of Intellectual Property is illegal, flat out, no other argument for it, plenty against (and with court cases... Can you say Napster?), and if something is illegal, and you participate, then you are a criminal, dot, period, end of story.

THAT is a fact, not an opinion.

Next bit - this is short and sweet... An company is going to take 'heat' for someone saying something at some time or another... just a fact of business... but in this case, when illegal activity is not just going on, but touted about, taking the advice of "Maybe you shouldn't be your companies spokesperson"... well, just doesn't carry any weight with us.

That out of the way... the FAQ bit...

There is a bit of this covered in the PCGen help files... outlining without nitty-gritty details what transpired back in 2002 at GenCon...

I'll discuss with WotC and the Open Source crew about putting together a full blown FAQ, that is an excellent idea.  And incidentally, is totally seperate from the discussion over what is and isn't legal.

The what is and isn't legal FAQ, well, that won't happen... There's a lot of reasons why, but boil it down to: "That's legal advice, and CMP, WotC, and the Open Source Project are not law firms to dispense such advice"


And the last thing... 
PCGen the code and the OGL data sets - That's the Open Source Project - CMP has nothing to do with their goals, agenda's release cycle, coding practices, etc... We work with them certainly, we request changes here and there, certainly, and we have overlap from us of volunteers and volunteers that we've paid for work, certainly... but we are 2 seperate entities.

CMP is a company that evolved from the Open Source Project to have a 'company' that WotC could deal with to distribute their material.  A Q&A Control system, reporting, financials, and all that other fun stuff that larger companies like to know about... makes em feel all 'warm & fuzzy' inside.

We were contracted, because of our PCGen experience, to fix e-Tools (and if you weren't around for the initial release fiasco of that, just ask, plenty of people perfectly willing to extoll that one!) of 41 items.  To date, with the code enhancement stopped finally, 6 patches later, we've fixed over 1000 bugs from the original code, added support for a lot of functionality, and we produce data sets _for sale_ for e-Tools & PCGen.

That's the long & short of it folks.


----------



## kingpaul (Sep 3, 2005)

Samuel Leming said:
			
		

> Ah, that I didn’t know.  I take it you’re a PCGen volunteer?



Yep, its in my signature. Granted, because of how the forum software is set up here, you only get your sig once/page. If you go to my first post on this page, you'll see my titles with PCGen.


----------



## herald (Sep 3, 2005)

msd said:
			
		

> Again...a little snide for this discussion.  That really seems to be an oversimplication of what the poster was asking for.
> 
> <snip>





Ok, your coming across just as judgemental. Lets stop with that and stay with the topic at hand.


----------



## caudor (Sep 4, 2005)

sfgiants said:
			
		

> Thanks for all the good advice. I bought e-tools today and while I am getting used to it, I can see that it will speed me up quite a bit




That's great   I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

On Code Monkey's site are some freebees in the eTools 'other' stuff category such as: Character sheet art, Init Cards, and Monster Manual sheets.


----------



## sfgiants (Sep 4, 2005)

hey, thanks fro the hints about the initiative cards. One question though, where do you put them? I am not very tech savvy and can't figure out where the XML file is...


----------



## Ravenknight (Sep 4, 2005)

Yup. Try the alternative Statblocks. They are quite useful.


----------



## DumMetlHed (Sep 13, 2005)

sfgiants said:
			
		

> hey, thanks fro the hints about the initiative cards. One question though, where do you put them? I am not very tech savvy and can't figure out where the XML file is...




I have not downloaded the init cards yet, but going off of previous user created sheets I would put them in the XML folder (not sure what folder is the default install folder since I use an old patched version of eTools, but it should be easy enough to figure out which folder eTools is in by looking at your C drive. You should be able to find the XML folder in there to place the init cards) in either the character and/or monster folders. I may be a little off since I have been away from eTools for a few months since I don't have the time to game lately, so if I am then jump on the CMP site and post the question in either the How do I... section or Output sheet... section of the eTools forum. Everyone there is more then willing to help out someone new. This goes for pretty much any question you might have. You are bound to run across someone that has encountered whatever problem you post about and can point you in the right direction, and if it is a new issue the monkeys over there are real good about doing a little research and getting back to you.

Hope this helps...


----------

