# My review of ETools........long post



## Taliseian (Aug 9, 2002)

Long post warning....

I've had ETools now for a bit....worked with it....slept...and thought again.

There are alot of good 3e Computer Aids out there.  PCGen and Jamis Buck's Generators have helped me many times when I was stuck for ideas or needed a quick (or detailed) NPC in my campaign world.  

When WotC first spoke about "Master Tools", my first thought was that we would finally have some software that would use all the rules, be customizable, and extendable.  When I got my hands on "ETools" and started working with it, I felt a sense of complete disappointment.

Once of the first areas that hit me as wrong was in the "shell".  If you move your mouse over the icons at the top, most Windows based programs would pop up a small Tool Tip and tell you that the guy with the Horned Helmet was the "Character Creator"...but Etools doesn't do that.  Now, I'll be the first to say that this is a small point, but having that ability helps those who are starting out using the program to find their way alot easier than having to load up help or browse thru the online manual to find out which icon does what. It's a small area in the program and most programs these days allow you to turn off tool tips once you get use to the interface.  It stands out as a lack of planning in the user interface.

A major problem to me was the lack of Templates.  I wanted to create a special character for my party to face, but without the templates from the Monster Manual present I can't do that.  That leaves out alot of variations from Dire Animals to Were-Creatures to Half Fiends to Vampires.  I later found out that I would have to create this as a "race" for now by hand, til either they were added in by Fluid or someone else sat down and did this manually.  Even the Dragons get hit on this, as the program only includes one Age catagory for each Dragon.....all the others you have to do yourself.  Luckly, Eric Noah has done some of this, and I only found this out by browsing the Fluid Message Boards.  What about those who don't have that much Internet Access or miss that one all together.....

Another issue that I've seen basically makes just about every Caster based Prestige Class useless....you can't do "+1 Spellcasting Level" to your Caster Class.  The program just doesn't do it.  You could add a level of your old class, but then you'd be one level higher.  Most of the Caster based Prestige Classes use this to grant additional spellcasting ability without anything extra from the class.  As far as I'm concerned, this is a major blunder and I can only hope that Fluid will spend the time necessary to fix this.  Otherwise it makes a good portion of the splatbooks and other addons useless.

On the positive side, the databases can be modified directly using Access 2000 or a third party program that is being created on the Fluid Messageboards.  Also, there is some room to add your own homebrewed material inside Etools.  If this can be expanded upon and made easier to do this will help keep the program from disappearing off of hard drives.  In time, it would be good if Fluid was given permission to add the splatbooks as well as material from Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Oriental Adventures.  

Also, in the time I've used it Etools has not crashed to the desktop once.  There are some reports of people having crashes, but they seem to be few and far between.  The base program is very stable and the bugs that are listed seem to be minor database ones.  I honestly expected to see bugs like that and know that in time they will be stamped out.  When dealing with this much information it only makes sense to know that small errors will accidentally creep into the database.

It has taken a long time to create this program.  In that time I have seen and used PCGen and it has much more functionality and costs alot less.  Even taking away all the extra rule book sets that have been added to PCGen since it's release and you still have alot more that you can do with it than you can for a product that costs more.

To be honest, if I was an exectutive at Wizards or at Hasbro and someone showed me PCGen and Jamis Buck's Generators I would be embarrassed that this product went out the door.  

There is a good community both here and at the Fluid Messageboards, and I feel that in time Etools will at least have  some of the functionallity that I am used to in PCGen.  I don't expect that this will be overnight, but eventually I may have to make a choice as to using Etools or PCGen.  

For now however, Etools will be going back into its box and waiting for a few patches and some expansions before it will be back on my hard drive.  It is my hope that this will be alot sooner than later.


T




=====
The World of Lyrlusa
A Dungeons and Dragons Campaign World
--no web site, yet--
=====


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 9, 2002)

*Back in the Box??*

Dude - you've voiced everything I felt.
And I took it back to my FLGS and got back my hard earned cash.
In 30+ years of tabletop gaming history, I have yet to see a Good Commercial RPG Character Generator. Master Tools was to be that tool. 

I'd accept freeware that ran like E-Tools, maybe even from some start-up that had a nod from WotC. But we're talking aboout Fluid and WotC. Somebody there said "Alright - Now this is it, lets go Gold" and released ETools. 

I bought a new HDTV got it home, wouldn't turn on. Now like most guys I didn't read the manual, figured it was easy, plug it in hit the on button. Hour later after getting thru the manual, trying different outlets I called the store said come this P.o.S.
I did not Open it up, I did not ask for service on it, nor did I wait for a recall on it. I said "COME GET THIS P.O.S!"
And they did, and they brought me one that worked, They apologized and slipped me $100. Store Cred.
You know why?
Of course you do. 
And thats Why you oughta get your cash back, IF you're unhappy with the product, don't settle man, don't wait, no hoping.
It's why we ain't got a good one now, somebody at Fluid/WotC thought it was okay to push this drek out on us...
on me.
Somebody there thought we'd be okay with it, we'll buy and settle, and if enough of us settle then maybe we'll get an expansion for it.

I didn't settle.
And neither should you. Any of you. 

Now if you liked ETools - please disregard my sober rant, It's nearly quittin time and I'll be intoxicated shortly  

For the record - There is nothing buggy about Etools, it didn't crash on me, it made most of the CRB characters.
But there ain't a DAMN thing right about it either. 
no amount of 3rd party fixing - not tweaking, customising, or modifing, fixin' is gonna make it right.
'sides then you talking about a MSAccess license...or Breakin' the law


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 10, 2002)

Perhaps you should air your disgust on their message board:

http://www.fluidnet.com/cgi/datacgi/database.cgi?&file=Forum&report=TopicIndex


----------



## Tuerny (Aug 10, 2002)

I have also noted a few things that are rather...."annoying"

It does not let you generate NPC class characters in the Character Generator Function thus limiting its usefulness in making high level NPCs. 

I also may be missing something but it also does not allow you to edit generated NPCs very much. Adding and subtracting from skills is pretty much impossible. 

From my first look through it also appears to lack the ability to purchase a generic +1 sword.


And it doesn't let you designate whether a character is a PC or NPC, thus giving that character appropriate funds for purchasing equipment. I think that it might be faster to just do the characters by hand (like I do now) than to go through the effort of generating the characters in here and that altering them to my specs.


bleah.

Does anyone know how I would add a feat to the database similar to Versatile (i.e. it allows you to designate two non-class skills as class skils)?


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 10, 2002)

*Yeah...uh-huh*



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *Perhaps you should air your disgust on their message board:
> 
> http://www.fluidnet.com/cgi/datacgi/database.cgi?&file=Forum&report=TopicIndex *




My first thought was "this dude dosen't get it" - I got my cash back, no more problems.
but then it occurred to me, nah he's right - I need to tell them about my disdain for the stunt they are pulling...
Yeah I'm going over there right now.

And I managed to cool off while I was waiting to get into their "general discussion" forum.
I also grabbed a coke from the fridge, and started THIS letter.

At this rate - I prolly got time to watch LotR again, get a little action from my honey-bunny,
a little snooze then...

LOL!
I really am still waiting for it to come back, I refreshed my browser already.
Heh!!

Hey PCGen Men - you guys need an extra developer?

clowning aside - I am showing-out because I did get my money back, where I know 2  folks want to but can not since it was opened, and THAT is not really funny...
it's a travesty.

YMMV


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Yeah...uh-huh*



			
				HexGunna said:
			
		

> *At this rate - I prolly got time to watch LotR again, get a little action from my honey-bunny,
> a little snooze then...
> *




Cry more?




> *
> Hey PCGen Men - you guys need an extra developer?
> *




Oh yeah, go for it. Since you certainly relish bitching about other people's efforts, maybe you'll gain some wisdom by being on the other side of the table.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 10, 2002)

So it's wrong to bitch about E-Tools?  Or about programs in general?

Please.  The man stated an opinion, no more or less valid than yours, mine, or anyone else's.  Instead of counter-bitching, why don't you constructively critique his arguments, or outright challenge them instead of this crap.

To Taliesan:
The shell problem is nothing, that's a little thing that really has no impact on the usability of the program.  I do have a question about how prestige classes are done - specifically the Loremaster, since that is straight out of the DMG and does use that +1 spellcasting progression.  Is the Loremaster even in the program, and couldn't you extrapolate from that how to work it with custom prestige classes?


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 10, 2002)

*Wisdom???*

Thank you LightPhoenix for the assisst - 
the Sm!rk-monger is prolly still a little sore from that Azz-Pipe Fragging thing I told him about earlier - aintcha Sm!rky??

I said it earlier - the software is technically solid. it does char generation, you get monster classes, no PrClasses. And you have access to MSAccess (legal or no). There's an ODBC/c++ wrapper on the DLL - that ambitious programmers can get hold of it's exported functions and at the least make a better GUI.
mine is a gripe about useability, the GUI and an expected level of quality. I wanted to like this tool.
I want my Master tools.

Sm!rk:   You're right on the wisdom bit - it comes from experience, and understanding. But I am the other side of the table. I write stuff much more complex than this EVERYDAY.  And when my stuff stinks - somebody lets me know about it, when it's not what my employer wanted - I hear about it. I roll out enough crap ...
well - no more guiness, big tvs, or fast cars...
I get bankrolled to deliver, to expectation, on time.
No excuses.
If it weren't for the electronic game clause in the D20 license - YOU know we'd already be using a better product, and had it a year ago.


And bud, never forget, here in the US of A, we all got the same right to bitch. But I dig passive, "please don't hurt 'em Hamma" guys like you.  
Always entertaining - Don't ever change Sm!rk-baby!!


----------



## Zot_Wyzo (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Wisdom???*



			
				HexGunna said:
			
		

> *If it weren't for the electronic game clause in the D20 license - YOU know we'd already be using a better product, and had it a year ago. *




AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH!!!

I read that clause in the d20 license about 6 months into the debacle that was the Master Tools project. My thinking was that if WotC wouldn't do it right, the fan base could, and an assembled group of fans who were in the software industry could make it worth their while AND produce what the user base truly wanted.

IMHO, that clause is a fatal mistake in the d20 license. I kills any chance of having an electronic toolset for game play.

I am thouroughly convinced that eTools will be confined to the dust bin of gaming history, and looked at in a worse light than the first Core Rules CD.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Yeah...uh-huh*



			
				HexGunna said:
			
		

> *
> My first thought was "this dude dosen't get it" - I got my cash back, no more problems.
> but then it occurred to me, nah he's right - I need to tell them about my disdain for the stunt they are pulling...
> Yeah I'm going over there right now.*



Hehehe. You should have seen what I initially wrote but I decided to exercise restraint and deleted a very negative statement (nearly directed toward the Fluid's software designers) below that link.

There has to be a way I can test-drive the program before I can make that final buying decision. But for now, I'm avoiding it.

Sorry, Eric Noah.


----------



## vic20 (Aug 10, 2002)

*eTools is great software!*



			
				HexGunna said:
			
		

> In 30+ years of tabletop gaming history, I have yet to see a Good Commercial RPG Character Generator. Master Tools was to be that tool.




I have been writing software for 19 years, have programmed professionally in six languages, and have analyzed/designed/built dozens of technologies in diverse customer domains. I don't reference my experience in a vain attempt to elevate myself or my opinion. Its just that there are patterns of a sort hidden in the chaos of software development that I don't think would be apparent to somebody who hasn't been inside the storm.  

When I read a comment like the above, I am reminded of the difficulty of managing one's expectations in proportion to the clarity of one's "vision".  30+ years is a long time to roll a fantasy technology around in your head. Try communicating these needs into a software requirements specification sometime, and (if you are doing the task correctly), you will immediately begin to find holes in your fantasy. 

I don't know what was behind the shift from MasterTools to eTools, but I'm sure its all been written in the boards here and elsewhere.  Reading posts to the board of late, I had imagined that the "drek" that has been "pushed on us" was going to be a poorly-thought-out mish mash of ugly interface elements that often results from shifting project requirements. Imagine my surprise to discover this morning that eTools is actually great software!

I don't understand the complaints about it being unusable. I have designed and programmed interfaces for the Mac, for Newton, for Windows, for Java, for Palm, for HTML, for the Vic20, and the Com64. I have used software on all of these platforms, and I have been assaulted by my fair share of bad interfaces. 

The GUI for eTools is fine. Sure, it's not going to cause a revolution in the way that humans interact with computers, and it certainly isn't going to be the fantasy "Silver Bullet" software that will make paper obsolete. It is a tool for generating monsters and characters for 3ed D&D. 

In short, I am pleased with the efforts of the good people that have shed blood and sweat on my behalf. I *like* the fact that the product ships in a simple cardboard sleeve. I *like* the data storage mechanism. I *like*  the export capabilities. I *like* the extensibility potential. I *like* supporting software artists that build tools that make me smile.





			
				HexGunna said:
			
		

> And thats Why you oughta get your cash back, IF you're unhappy with the product, don't settle man, don't wait, no hoping.
> It's why we ain't got a good one now, somebody at Fluid/WotC thought it was okay to push this drek out on us...
> on me.




Its a Durn (good evening, Grandmother Noah) shame that a vocal few seem to feel that the developers at fluid have insulted them personally.  




			
				HexGunna said:
			
		

> Somebody there thought we'd be okay with it, we'll buy and settle, and if enough of us settle then maybe we'll get an expansion for it.
> 
> I didn't settle.
> And neither should you. Any of you.
> ...




I'd really be interested to read more about this MSAccess license violation that you allude to. That's a pretty heavy implication. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: Yeah...uh-huh*



			
				Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Cry more?
> 
> ...




Yeah and if he does it long enough, he'll eventually get to the point where he can't understand why anyone would expect any product to work as advertised.


----------



## Hatchling Dragon (Aug 11, 2002)

*Thank Goodness!*

Here I stopped in at the WotC shop in the Mall of America with the intent of buying eTools (among other things), yet they were fresh out.  I'd been dissappointed but figured that perhaps it was for the best, since I hadn't had a chance to check-up on any reviews for said product yet anyhow.  I'm certainly glad I did get that chance, as I'm fairly certain that the WotC shop wouldn't have taken back my copy if I'd installed it and been dissappointed (which is a fairly certain thing from what I've read).

I very seriously doubt I'm going to bother with it now, it looks like I can get as much use out of 3rd party software with less expense, as well as the 'bonus' of supporting fans that devoted thier blood and sweat to a hobby they love.  If you're going to produce a product with the intent to make money it'd be nice, for once, if it were *done* before you dropped it into the market.  Granted, I know something about programming and databases, but I'm _not_ in the majority of gamers here.  Not only do most players not have the know-how to 'fiddle' the software into full useability, many (that I know) simply don't have the _time_ to spend on 'finishing up' a product they bought to save time in the first place.

I'm with the poster above who said that the 'no games' part of the d20 license was a definate shot in WotC's own foot.  Heck, they could have narrowed that limitation down to 'anything but tools' or some-such.  I can certainly understand them not wanting just anyone make up an acutal DnD game without WotC getting thier fair share.

Hatchling Dragon


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 11, 2002)

IMHO, the "no Interactive Game" clause in the Trademark License does NOT extend to electronic tool aids. It is when you allow said aid to tell you that you hit or miss (aka success or failure), is when it is classified an Interactive Game. Only the DM can make the determination.

Of course, the heart of all software debate has been the Open Game License itself. So far, no one has been able to come up with a solution to offer a game or tool that would allow one to clearly designate OGC within the program's code.


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 11, 2002)

*Re: eTools is great software!*

Vic20 -  I dig that you liked the software. I didn't and we can agree to disagree. I liked your whole post. Nicely put together, rational. I can respect that. Thank you.

My whole take is I had something I didn' like, got my money back.
I didn't want to wait for or depend on community support and I had a higher standard for Etools that I felt Fluid/Wotc could have - and should have met. I was Stoked when I saw master-tools demo.

I, too, write software systems, not turning this into a pissing contest, but lets just say - if you watch any financial news, you've seen my work. And you've seen it roll across your TV realtime, fast, accurate and global - cause if it ain't...people get mad.
I got my gig - 'cause I know a little something about software.
I roll in an Audi TT, and own a Ducati because my boss likes what I do. They Dig my Mojo. In all this IT busting and downsizing, I still have my gig, as a contractor w/ a company thats been swinging a BIG axe. I'm the Merc, hence HexGunna.
- a D&D character generator that manages the character creation process and ALL the options in the Core Rules. could have been built and Done Well 5 years ago. This software isn't an engineering  marvel. I don't believe it's that complex.
WHY isn't PrClasses or templates in there - it should be and could have been. And it could have handled most future classes/PrClasses by expansion or User Input.
And I can't feel sympathy for any kind of internal changes, dealing or drama with the company. I'm the consumer. I vote with my wallet and will not tolerate or settle for items that don't meet my needs. And will shop for a good deal, a balance of price and functionality(of what I'll use). Here is where OGL protects Fluid/WotC.

Want some proof-of-Concept....take a look at ArmyBuilder - over at www.wolflair.com. I won't even taint it by talking about the program.
No complaints from me. I own a commercial copy, use it for more than a few of my war games. Any gripes I had were about the data files...which I had broken myself.

Man, This is doable - We got CAD programs that let Joe Homeowner take deck plans down to the nearset Homestore with a materials list. plans he made on his home PC. And Joe's a car mechanic!
We got DJ's in clubs that mix up stuff on their home PC - play it in the clubs - and packs the House!!
We're playing WarcraftIII, NWN, MorrowWind.
Heh - How is it NWN I can build a Half-Dragon Sorcerer (NPC) - I can build a Fey/Undead/Ranger (NPC).
all Easily.
It can be done. It's not complex. That said I know whats next.
 [OGL transition] - The OGL prevents it because of the Vagueness of it. I directly asked R.Dancey, point-blank about software tools, not games - the OGL doesn't make a distinction on purpose - figure out how to solve the Open-content question, you could STILL be in violation for the software clause.
Got an attorney involved - I was serious. Bottom line was  unless I was willing to go to court to "try" the license - we'd never know.
I talked to the PCGen folks recently - they're using java and have the limitations they do for the same OGL legal reasons.
and I appreciate them telling me so.

On the MSAccess issue - Didn't mean to mislead anyone. Let me try again - simply to use the ETools data you need a way to get to it. I don't have MSAccess at home, so thats +100-200(??) more dollars for me to alter content.

So let me retract - I take back anything I said that amounts to  "ETools sucks" - and I don't think I said that [iirc]
I was disappointed, I expected better from Fluid/WotC.
at the minimum - I expected better than the current freeware.
Etools is not to me. It's "more of the same" but for $30 bucks.

as in all things YMMV

I thank you for the Dialog Vic20.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 12, 2002)

NWN doesn't support *all* of D&D 3rd ed. That how they are able to "do it", they cut out a considerable portion, and did so to simplify the system, pcgen and etools don't have that luxury.
Can I make my own templates, how about classes in NWN? I don't have it so don't know.

I can name a lot of good software, but none of them are 2 years in the making, many of them have 10+ years of development behind them and millions of man hours, especially development tools like CADs, Art programs, 3d Modelling.

Sure it can be done, but can it be done in a couple years with a small budget? PCgen has a small budget, and they have been working on it for a couple years, and it *ain't it*. Also note the programs I mentioned above are very expensive. Sounds like you want a Ferrari but only willing to pay for a Yugo.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 12, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *NWN doesn't support *all* of D&D 3rd ed. That how they are able to "do it", they cut out a considerable portion, and did so to simplify the system, pcgen and etools don't have that luxury.
> Can I make my own templates, how about classes in NWN? I don't have it so don't know.
> *




NWN can do it because they have a license from WotC.



> *
> I can name a lot of good software, but none of them are 2 years in the making, many of them have 10+ years of development behind them and millions of man hours <snip>
> 
> Sure it can be done, but can it be done in a couple years with a small budget? PCgen has a small budget, and they have been working on it for a couple years, and it *ain't it*.*




PCGen has no budget, hence the whole volunteering aspect of it.

PCGen also does a lot more character-wise than E-Tools does, from all reports.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 12, 2002)

FWIW, if PCGEn is on the consumer market with a sticker price of $40, the programmers would have a more-than-healthy retirement account. They still have to fix the slow speed problem.


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 12, 2002)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> *
> NWN can do it because they have a license from WotC.
> PCGen has no budget, hence the whole volunteering aspect of it.
> PCGen also does a lot more character-wise than E-Tools does, from all reports. *




I concur -
And I'd like to add - (and you can verify by talking to the PCGen Folks) - they would & could do MUCH more  IF they weren't limited by the OGL license.

Sm!Rk: Son, I'm losing ya. I sent my $30 donation to PCGen, I own NWN (2 copies), All the Campaign Cartographer stuff which I use religiously, Numerous D&D3E books, I bought a Dell to run linux off of to host my games Websites. I own a registered version of PaintShop Pro.  For The orignal feature set of Master Tools I'd shell out $70. No flinching. And knowing I'd never use the graphics or the mapper in it. Show me one - and I'll buy the Ferrari EVERYTIME!! - But let me spell it out for you - I referenced NWN because it is Proof-of-concept. Somebody figured out one way and implemented it. I can in NWN build a Half-Dragon Undead Sorcerer(If I so chose) or (DIG THIS) an Undead, Fey, fighter with monsterous levels. The my orignal statement isn't about how much NWN supports of D&D3E, but what characters it can build,  thus it demonstrates that "it is doable" and folks are "doing it". Why they(NWN) took the road they did is an argument about target market audience. And the can do it because they have WotC on board. 
(Which ETools did too................)

I missed your point about CAD software and such  having millions of hours and such behind them ? Are you saying a D&D3E char/monster generator that supports the CRB is on par with these other pieces of (CAD-like) software?
If you are - then I'm prolly done with you and this specific topic where we disagree. 
Because I will vehemently cling to the notion that this tool can be done, under a year supporting the CRB because it is NOT complex. It is not CAD software. It's a big Windows Wizard driven by game rules (the engine) the likes of which already exist today.
And perhaps did yesterday...
But it's all moot man, purely academic until OGL is no longer an obstacle...Nothing I can do or say. 
It just all so much talk.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 12, 2002)

HexGunna said:
			
		

> *I can in NWN build a Half-Dragon Undead Sorcerer(If I so chose) or (DIG THIS) an Undead, Fey, fighter with monsterous levels. The my orignal statement isn't about how much NWN supports of D&D3E, but what characters it can build,  thus it demonstrates that "it is doable" and folks are "doing it". Why they(NWN) took the road they did is an argument about target market audience. And the can do it because they have WotC on board.
> (Which ETools did too................)
> *




Bioware didn't have WoTC on board. Wotc had *no* say or oversight at all on any Bioware product. They only recently decided to be interested in having more control over their IP. Bioware might have gotten their original license from TSR. And this will be unchanged in the future since Hasbro sold the rights for computer D&D games. 


My point which still stands is that its one thing to allow someone to make a half-dragon sorcerer, its another thing to allow the half-dragon part to be freely interchanged with any possible user creation. Does NWN do this? Does PCGen? Does eTools?


But *still* it took them 5 years to get half-dragon sorcerers in NWN, Pcgen and etools, 2, albeit the later two had to have customization.



> *But it's all moot man, purely academic until OGL is no longer an obstacle...Nothing I can do or say.
> It just all so much talk. *




Oh, is that this weeks excuse? The OGL is keeping me down man. Git yer boot off me neck OGL.

So the OGL is preventing people from doing things, while Copyright laws seem to be no deterent to the PCGen crew. You think it would be the opposite, since the latter is a much more well known entity and has a stronger legal presense.



If you wouldn't mind backing up some of your earlier statements on your own experience and background, what do you program in? My guess is VB, is that correct?


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 12, 2002)

Well gee, since Bioware had the 3E rules (technically, the playtest docs) before most people likely knew 3E existed, I think that qualifies as acceptance by WotC.  But then, since you don't even have the game you're commenting on, you wouldn't know this, would you?

[EDIT]
Oh, by the way...

p. 215 of the NWN instruction manual, under the section "Copyright"...

"..._Neverwinter Nights_, _Forgotten Realms_, the Forgotten Realms logo, Dungeons & Dragons logo, Dungeon Master, D&D, and the Wizards of the Coast logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidary of Hasbro, Inc. and are used by Infrogrames Entertainment, S. A. *under license*."

Emphasis mine.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 12, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Bioware didn't have WoTC on board. Wotc had *no* say or oversight at all on any Bioware product. They only recently decided to be interested in having more control over their IP. Bioware might have gotten their original license from TSR. And this will be unchanged in the future since Hasbro sold the rights for computer D&D games.
> 
> *




WotC couldn't force Bio to do things this way or that, no.  But Bio went to WotC to seek their input.  They didn't have to, they wanted to.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 12, 2002)

Keep the personal insults off the boards, please. This isn't the place for them.


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 12, 2002)

*It's not his fault...Really*

It's My fault  - you see a few posts back, and another thread, Sm!rk-i-son asked me for some url links and that unless I had these links I was "talking out your azz" - Sm!rk-man, I had't realized that was a cry for help.
My bad dude - I was all caught up and wasn't listening, I know some of the folks out here can be intimidating-like with all that knowledge and stuff flying around, but they mean well man. They do.

But I'm not gonna let you go out like THAT, Dawg. You & me - we go back a few posts -  I got those links for ya 
Now mind ya - you might need to layout some cash for some of these - but I know you - and I didn't steer ya to no yugos.
Nothing but Ferrari's for you and me!! (or as close as I can get)
So bone up dawg, I gotcha back baby - I'll help ya get that boot out.  Here ya go:

http://nwn.bioware.com/about/description.html - you'll spend ALOTTA time here, then you'll dig what I was saying earlier and we can resume that dialog. 

http://us.infogrames.com/store/?game=NVWN&platform=PCXX
it's not a Ferrari - but miles better than a Yugo, AND you'll get to try out 1st hand what I'm talking about.

http://www.wolflair.com - cause I know you didn't go, but really, check it out - it's a valid proof-of-concept.

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html - this'll get you up on the OGL stuff, you were stumbling there.

http://pcgen.sourceforge.net/ - cause I'm detecting a pattern, no money here - this one's free and this'll be a good point of reference.

I don't wanna overwhelm you, so absorb those - sorry I let you down like that in front of ALL these strangers. Imagine my surprise when I read your post and saw all that frustration!
I dang neared snorted out my Wheaties!!  

Thank you once again, Sm!rk - I was serious when I said I dug you earlier, Always entertaining. 
My Man Sm!rk. 

(like what I program in has a bearing on any RPG tool's Architecture - but those are links for another time/thread!  )


----------



## smetzger (Aug 12, 2002)

1) You can make d20 software legally.  In fact its already being done.  TwinRose is even selling theirs.

2) I also have yet to see a commercial D&D software package that I thought was done well.

3) TSR and WOTC have always chosen video game development companies for making a D&D software package.  Take a look at previous stuff done by Fluid.  Would you hire a video game programmer to write a database application for you?

4) Are you sure Fluid is using ODBC?  I would have thought they would have used ADO.


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 12, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *1) You can make d20 software legally.  In fact its already being done.  TwinRose is even selling theirs.
> 
> 2) I also have yet to see a commercial D&D software package that I thought was done well.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the TwinRose Tip - I was not aware and will take a peep.
Fluid struck me as an odd choice, but when they rolled out the demo - I was okay with it. but you're right - it is essentially a DB app.

#4  - I'll have to take a look again, but I'm sure I saw a 3rd party DLL that wrapped ODBC. One could grab all the exported funcs and possibly re-write the front-end (my 1st pass theory).
[IIRC] there is an odbc++.dll (the 3rd party one I believe the only one I pulled into the MSDev tools)
a qt300.dll - so now you know what they're using for the GUI
a core, etools and custom dlls. My best guess is that one could access a great deal of functional from the DLLs to use in another app. but since IANAL i don't know what the ramifications are.

[hey Sm!rk - any clue as to what I program in?? there are some hints above, we'll call this extra cred!]


----------



## Draconis Imperium (Aug 12, 2002)

So what I basically got for $30 was worst than the character gen that came with the PHB. I can use the stat block monster but it usefullness is very limited because of zero templates. I found it doesn't save time but adds time. My gripe is I was hoping for a great product and got something I could throw together on a rainy weekend.

Just my .02 coppers


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 12, 2002)

*Good Scoop!*



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> *1) You can make d20 software legally.  In fact its already being done.  TwinRose is even selling theirs.
> 2. *




Excellent Idea - I figured by decoupling the data and the App, you could start to avoid the snares of the OGL, and have some options about making the content "open" by using text vs binary files.
But is this enough? - I think better still to have NO D20 specific code in the App. My thought is then to further decouple the App by making it TOTALLY ignorant of the data files, meaning I could as a user use this same App to make Noblis or Godlike characters or  T&T characters, by changing the data files.

I bring this up because of the rumours floating about WotC's alleged C&D orders. And I remember Napsters woes...IF only that little File filter box was changed to "*.*" and allowed user input.
I wonder if that would have changed the outcome??

very interesting....


----------



## Christian (Aug 12, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *4) Are you sure Fluid is using ODBC?  I would have thought they would have used ADO. *




ADO was Davin's theory-he designed & is beta-testing the import/export app. There's a bug report on the Fluid boards about a slow-run problem, though, that someone fixed by updating their ODBC drivers ...

My copy should arrive today, & I'll be trying to connect to the database via ODBC within an hour of getting home from work.  We shall see ...


----------



## Christian (Aug 12, 2002)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> *The shell problem is nothing, that's a little thing that really has no impact on the usability of the program.  I do have a question about how prestige classes are done - specifically the Loremaster, since that is straight out of the DMG and does use that +1 spellcasting progression.  Is the Loremaster even in the program, and couldn't you extrapolate from that how to work it with custom prestige classes? *




I understand that the '+1 caster level' of the Loremaster is coded in the binaries, not stored in the class tables. AFAIK, nobody has found a way to work around this, and I really can't imagine how it could be done. (Not that that has stopped people from trying, of course.  )


----------



## Davin (Aug 12, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *ADO was Davin's theory-he designed & is beta-testing the import/export app.*



Actually, I believe we've been told several times that they're using ODBC.  I prefer to use ADO in my app 'cause it's easier and "more modern" (at least from MS's point of view).  However, it doesn't matter which access method you use as long as you've got drivers that talk to it.  And judging from the size of the DB, there shouldn't be any noticable speed differences between the interfaces, either.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 12, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *
> I understand that the '+1 caster level' of the Loremaster is coded in the binaries, not stored in the class tables. AFAIK, nobody has found a way to work around this, and I really can't imagine how it could be done. (Not that that has stopped people from trying, of course.  ) *




Ok, i figured out that the +1 was in the binaries (somewhere) because it wasn't anywhere else ;-)

But somehow the program addresses that +1, now we only have to find out how. I'll tell you straight off the bat, it isn't gonna be me, i haven't a clue on how to do something like that...

Anyhow, has anyone made a list of what's where (and how to manipulate it)?


----------



## DMFTodd (Aug 12, 2002)

> 1) You can make d20 software legally. In fact its already being done. TwinRose is even selling theirs.




I may be splitting hairs here but...

TwinRose selling their software, or me selling mine, doesn't mean it's legal. I know Chris at TR feels his program is legal, I feel my program is legal, but until WOTC comes out and says "Yep, XXX is legal and has our blessing" then I don't think we can say a program is definitely legal. I don't know that they've said that, nor do I think they will.  

The OGL and d20 is a very murky thing when it comes to software. 

[Disclaimer: This is not meant to be a disparagement to TwinRose. I think Chris is legal, I think I'm legal. I just don't think we can say "hey, XXX is selling software therefore it must be legal". ]


----------



## Davin (Aug 12, 2002)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> *But somehow the program addresses that +1, now we only have to find out how.*



Usually, such things have references hard-coded, too, such as it only works for specific class ID # XXXXXXXXXXX and ignores everything else.  In that case, there's not much you can do short of a program patch.


> *
> Anyhow, has anyone made a list of what's where (and how to manipulate it)? *



Not that I've seen, but I've been slowly figuring it out and converting it to code (instead of text) so that most things (hopefully including classes) will be more easily editable than using raw Access.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 12, 2002)

Davin said:
			
		

> *
> Actually, I believe we've been told several times that they're using ODBC.  I prefer to use ADO in my app 'cause it's easier and "more modern" (at least from MS's point of view).  However, it doesn't matter which access method you use as long as you've got drivers that talk to it.  And judging from the size of the DB, there shouldn't be any noticable speed differences between the interfaces, either. *




I think these days the 'preferred' approach for database access on Windows (and the one that I find the simplest myself) is to use ADO.NET, but you might use the OleDb libraries directly if you were using unmanaged C++ and really worried about performance.


----------



## Ysgarran (Aug 12, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> So the OGL is preventing people from doing things, while Copyright laws seem to be no deterent to the PCGen crew. You think it would be the opposite, since the latter is a much more well known entity and has a stronger legal presense.
> 
> *




The PCGen crew spent ALOT of time at GenCon running around  
talking to all of the people at the various companies.  If you have noticed the first production release of PCGen (3.0) has dropped all of the WotC supplements (DotF, MotW, etc.).  The only WotC products currently in the release are the ones found in SRD.

I don't know whether the supplements will be there in the future or not.  I do know that the reason they are not currently part of the download is because they are talking to WotC about what it would take to put them back in, or if it would even be possible.

Ysgarran.

p.s.
The PCGen crew is also asking everyone to be patient until they finish talking to WotC:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/42488
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/42502


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 13, 2002)

Funny, the hip-slang gansta talk is only more humorous cause I know you are 99.99% a suburan white boy, prolly skinny and very close the typical description of punk. All in good fun, made me laugh out loud.



			
				HexGunna said:
			
		

> *
> #4  - I'll have to take a look again, but I'm sure I saw a 3rd party DLL that wrapped ODBC. One could grab all the exported funcs and possibly re-write the front-end (my 1st pass theory).
> [IIRC] there is an odbc++.dll (the 3rd party one I believe the only one I pulled into the MSDev tools)
> a qt300.dll - so now you know what they're using for the GUI
> ...




The odbc++ is "lib odbc++" a LGPL odbc wrapper, only link I found was this http://www.orcane.net/freeodbc++/ .

AS for using those dlls, good luck. You'll have to deeply analyze each of them to know what parameters they need and even what they do. The ultimate blackbox, only slightly easier than reverse engineering the entire thing.

*



			[hey Sm!rk - any clue as to what I program in?? there are some hints above, we'll call this extra cred!]
		
Click to expand...


*
My guess was and still is VB.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Aug 13, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *Funny, the hip-slang gansta talk is only more humorous cause I know you are 99.99% a suburan white boy, prolly skinny and very close the typical description of punk. All in good fun, made me laugh out loud.
> *




Just a hint, this sort of stuff is what PC was talking about above.


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 13, 2002)

*ooops - thats Twice!*

Day late, short a buck - good shot though...
Now do another pass - I'll give ya another day, it's not the "Ultimate Black box" - but you've missed a step son.

And Sm!rk-Daddy - lets keep it clean, does it matter, out here if I'm a "skinny white boy" that writes VB code and resides in surburbia or a HexSlinging Mo'Fo from Kerry Woods two-fistin small-talk style. 
Perhaps I just like language and the nuances it can evoke. Or maybe I'm a hot babe with a psch degree just pushing your button.
The kicker is you'll never know anything I don't want you to - and THAT ole boy is 100%. 
So let's stick to what we can all check out and verify. 
aight!

And I'm afraid, this is my last post for you - It's been real.
But you "blinked" twice now - its not fun no more joe.
So as a parting gift, I'll indulge ya - I use the right tool for the job at hand. 
Everything isn't a nail. So you can stop measuring your penis.
Thank you for playing.
One/Peace/C-ya/gg/Ciao/Best Regards 


To EveryOne else: My apologies - I'll stop messing with him.


----------



## reiella (Aug 13, 2002)

Also of note, Bioware (and also Black Isle with IWD2) did have to go through WotC, for rule content (IWD2 specifically a feat that allowed spellcasters to ignore some Arcane Spell Failure in armor got canned because of WotC say) and for continuity (FR plotlines-canonization).


----------



## elrichwizard (Aug 13, 2002)

Whats wrong with VB?

VB/VBscript, HTML/XML and SQL put the bread on my table (and RPG books on my shelf ).  I don't see anyway around the HTML/XML or SQL.  I supose C++/Java is an alternative to the VB.

I hear people say your not a real programmer unless you know C++, but I don't get it.  Other than a few }'s and some weird syntax I cant see anything you can do in C++ that you cant do in VB.  Ive thought about learning C++ before but just cant justify it to myself.  If you have some valid reasons, I'm all ears.

Why would I want to learn two languages (C++ and Java) when I can get by with one (VB/VBscript)?


----------



## smetzger (Aug 13, 2002)

elrichwizard said:
			
		

> *Whats wrong with VB?
> *




1) Not truely object oriented.
2) Its interpreted.
3) Can't do cross-platform
4) Can't do CORBA.
5) Can't do J2EE.
6) If you need to do something low level, say a device driver, not so good.
7) MS Online Help sucks (at least from VB6).  It has Java, VB, and C++ all mixed together and its very common to do a search for something and be reading it and then to find out it refers to a different language.
8) MS takes a long time to get new versions out.  How long was it between VB6 and VB.Net ?
9) MS is hardly the pillar of solid bug-free programs.

So whats it good for?
1) Its easy to learn.
2) Its RAD development.
3) Its from MS so your boss who doesn't know squat about programming will approve.

Borland C++ Builder and Delphi address all of the above except for #3 in What its good for.


----------



## HexGunna (Aug 13, 2002)

*Don't do it man - it's a TRAP!*

It's all Ice Cream ElrichWizard,  as far as I am concerned - 
There is no right answer here - everyone is going to have a preference, and stats to back their preference (the 3rd kind of lie!)
Now - I'm not ashamed - I've got a merc approach to my work, and I'll use whatever the client makes a request of.
And VB, while not my best suit, is V E R Y lucrative. 
It's croissants for me baby!

so, I'm glad some folks turn their noses up at VB!
But it's all [IMHO] about having a complete toolbox, and understanding how & when to use each of your tools.

But I will say  this, [IMO] I would not want to "get by" [no offense -man] I'd much rather choose from a set I know, I want to have options. There isn't a one language to rule them all!  
And the world *I* work in - I'm not always the one writing new stuff - I have the oft Glamourous role of M&E on exisitng or worse lethargic code. Which can be written in anything - I've seen VB, Cobol, Pascal (Yeah! Pascal!!) accesing Foxpro or B-Trieve even. as well as the usually suspects. I don't know about other folks, but I gotta keep a robust skill set - 'cause I never know what the next gig could look like. [and really - I just don't like rejection  ]

but lets steer this thang for we get to far on a non-rpg topic - I've seen this VB vs the World re-run!
[No offense ElrichWizard]


----------



## elrichwizard (Aug 13, 2002)

No offence taken, I asked for an oppinion and that is what I got.

I work for one company and don't produce commercial stuff (all for internal use), so cross-platform makes no diff to me.

I only do new application development so don't have to mess with legacy code.  I am ususally just given the business logic and the legacy data source and development is all up to me.

Any time I spend learning new languages is time I'm not developing apps.  On the other hand I want as robust a toolbox as I need.  If I can produce a better app, my employer is happy, and that makes me happy when I go to the bank.

I just finished learning Essbase, but that is more of a data/reporting tool than a programing language.  C++ and any other cool stuff is still on my todo list.  I was just looking for any rational to move it up the list.

Sorry to have hijacked the topic, you seem to know what you are talking about and were on the topic so thought I would ask.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Aug 15, 2002)

Back to the original topic.  I have to agree.  I'm on the development team for PCGen (even though I have yet to do any meaningful work on the project...I worked on early LST files which eventually became obsolete).  I don't own E-Tools, but I got a chance to use it.  It doesn't even half half of the functionality that PCGen does, and it is much more expensive.

PCGen CAN add multiple templates, to any race/class combination.  It allows you to make your own templates that do whatever you want, in fairly easy, text format without any 3rd party tools at all.  If you download all of the LST files from previous versions of PCGen, you can still have almost all of the prestige classes, feats, spells, etc from all of the WOTC books, and some 3rd party books as well.

It is true that the first "release" version of PCGen did get almost all of the books other than the core books removed, partially due to small bugs in some of them, and mostly due to the fact that we only included LST files for books that we had received explicit permission from the copyright holders to include.  We are in the process of seeking that permission for the rest of the books we have LST files for.

However, even with the limited feature set that the "release" version of PCGen had, it still has more features than E-tools.  I was expecting great things, and I would have loved to be able to stop reading the PCGen mailing list every week to see if a specific bug was fixed or a specific feature added.  However, it seems that those things are more likely to be added to PCGen than E-Tools.

I'm glad I haven't bought E-Tools, because it's not worth the money.

I'd also like to say that the proceeding was purely my opinion, and does not represent the opinion of the PCGen development team or Merton Monk.

Majoru Oakheart


----------

