# Looking for a simpler PC Gen...



## magnusmalkus (Dec 30, 2006)

I've tried PC Gen but I've found it too complex.  Does anyone know of any simple, gui based FREE character creators like what Master Tools tried to do?

I'd use Jamis Buck NPC generators but I want to generate NPC not RANDOM NPC's.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 30, 2006)

magnusmalkus said:
			
		

> I've tried PC Gen but I've found it too complex.



What did you find complex about it?


----------



## Vascant (Dec 30, 2006)

For NPC Generation you have three choices:

1.  Completely random results with little to no logic.  There are a few of these running around.

2.  Use your favorate Char Gen software and create the NPC by hand, this is not generation persay however all of the math is done for you.

3.  NPC Designer.

I wouldn't say PCGen is complexed, just has the same learning curve that comes with any software.  Same could be said for any application.


----------



## magnusmalkus (Dec 30, 2006)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> What did you find complex about it?




I was intimidated by the download homepage, there as ton of information and no clear direction on which file was the one I needed to download.  Based on the download page, I immediately got the impression that this was a serious program and not some 'fluffy bunny' program like I was looking for.  

You have to keep in mind that I find Excell spreadsheets complex.  I've downloaded some Character Sheet files for Excell and found my head swimming so keep in mind, my grasp of complex scripts is weak.

More complexity was added to my downfall  in the language used, it used more javascript jargon than actual d20 jargon.  A pop-up 'first time walkthru' for first time users would have helped out.  I had no idea how to start out the procress, there was no prompt on how to get started.  All I saw was a list of supplements to load and thru trial and error, I discovered I had to 'load sources' or something like that.  I didn't recognize any of the supplements.  I did recognize the 3.5 SRD so I moved that over to the right side and pressed the load button, and then a Y showed up under the Loaded column but ... then what?  I couldnt figure out what to do next.  All i could do was move 'sources' from the right to the left and load them.  There was no prompting on what to do next.  I never saw one stat roll or race/class/feat/skill selection... I rapidly lost interest.

If I can't pick something up and have it be intuitive, then it's going to be an exercise in frustration and probably not worth my time.  Programs should be built with the user in mind and if that rule was applied to PC Gen, then apparently the program was made with more script-savy (or generally more intelligent) users in mind.  

Regardless of what I found complex about it, the fact remains I find it too complex for my means and I'm looking for something more user-friendly with a simpler, intuitive GUI.

The Master Tools program that came with the PHB when 3.0 first came out had the right idea.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 30, 2006)

magnusmalkus said:
			
		

> I was intimidated by the download homepage, there as ton of information and no clear direction on which file was the one I needed to download.  Based on the download page, I immediately got the impression that this was a serious program and not some 'fluffy bunny' program like I was looking for.
> 
> You have to keep in mind that I find Excell spreadsheets complex.  I've downloaded some Character Sheet files for Excell and found my head swimming so keep in mind, my grasp of complex scripts is weak.
> 
> ...




You have to understand that, to a highly educated power-user, PCGen _is_ simple and intuitive and to someone in that position, it's inexplicable how someone else could not get it.

This is the essence of good design. Knowing how to create a product for the intended users, not you.

HeroForge is just about as complex as my group can handle and even then, I have some players who are intimidated by it and can't figure it out.


----------



## 2WS-Steve (Dec 30, 2006)

I believe Redblade 3.5 is free (here's a link to the download page):

http://downloads.redblade.org/

There's a newer version coming out sometime too that will be more customizable, and still free.


----------



## The Lost Muse (Dec 31, 2006)

Redblade is pretty simple to use, and if you don't use a lot of house rules it's a definate good one.


----------



## magnusmalkus (Dec 31, 2006)

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I believe Redblade 3.5 is free (here's a link to the download page):
> 
> http://downloads.redblade.org/
> 
> There's a newer version coming out sometime too that will be more customizable, and still free.




Yes, Redblade seems to be the kind of program I was looking for.  I didn't need too much customization, I'm running a pretty simple game.

Thank you for the suggestion.


----------



## Keldryn (Dec 31, 2006)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> You have to understand that, to a highly educated power-user, PCGen _is_ simple and intuitive and to someone in that position, it's inexplicable how someone else could not get it.
> 
> This is the essence of good design. Knowing how to create a product for the intended users, not you.
> 
> HeroForge is just about as complex as my group can handle and even then, I have some players who are intimidated by it and can't figure it out.




I think that's a pretty arrogant and elitist attitude to take.  Of course a good design takes into account the needs of its intended users.  However, the intended users of a D&D utility program are not necessarily computer experts who are familiar with the ins and outs of the open source community.

I can't stand using PC Gen.  It has a terribly non-intuitive user interface -- a flaw it shares with the vast majority of open source software -- and it is ridiculously slow because it's a cross-platform Java application.  It feels like I'm running a Web-based app it's so laggy.  Immediately upon installing PC Gen, you're presented with a massive list of products to install without much explanation as to what each one is (and it's an annoying fixed-width dialog box that you have to horizontally scroll to read the full text of any of the products).  

SourceForge is not a friendly place for non-programmers.  It presents long lists of filenames that most users don't care about.  5.10.1, 5.8.1, 5.11.5, release candidates, beta versions, etc.  It's a lot of stuff that anyone who isn't a programmer doesn't care about and shouldn't have to wade through.

There is no doubt that PCGen is powerful.  But it is not intuitive and it is more complex than a lot of gamers are going to want to deal with.

For the record, I've played D&D in most of its incarnations for over 20 years and I've been programming professionally for over 6 years in C++, C#, ASP, XSLT, Javascript, etc.  And I think PC Gen is unintuitive, clunky, and overly complex.


----------



## magnusmalkus (Dec 31, 2006)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> I think that's a pretty arrogant and elitist attitude to take.  Of course a good design takes into account the needs of its intended users.  However, the intended users of a D&D utility program are not necessarily computer experts who are familiar with the ins and outs of the open source community.
> 
> I can't stand using PC Gen.  It has a terribly non-intuitive user interface -- a flaw it shares with the vast majority of open source software -- and it is ridiculously slow because it's a cross-platform Java application.  It feels like I'm running a Web-based app it's so laggy.  Immediately upon installing PC Gen, you're presented with a massive list of products to install without much explanation as to what each one is (and it's an annoying fixed-width dialog box that you have to horizontally scroll to read the full text of any of the products).
> 
> ...




Well said.  I feel the same way.  I'm glad you were able to express it.  Espically the 'useless to me' information.  I'm glad the site PCGen dowload page wasn't croweded with "Click me! Click Me!" stuff but the endless jargon was equally as annoying.  

After using this other PC Generator for only five minuites, I'm immediately glad for the inclusion of the Next > button.  I already made my major NPC and the process was a breeze.


----------



## magnusmalkus (Dec 31, 2006)

If someone could show me how to use PC Gen, I'm sure I could use it to it's fullest capacity.  

I can see how much effort was put into the program.  I don't want to come off as not appreciating effort.  It was just too complex for my need.  But it is true you do need to consider your whole audience when putting out a product.  

Maybe script programers were the target audience.


----------



## Glyfair (Dec 31, 2006)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> I think that's a pretty arrogant and elitist attitude to take.  Of course a good design takes into account the needs of its intended users.  However, the intended users of a D&D utility program are not necessarily computer experts who are familiar with the ins and outs of the open source community.




You do realize that's actually what he was saying.  

_"Knowing how to create a product for the intended users, not you."_

Means that it would have been good if the intended users could use it easily, and not just the designers.

Honestly, the only 3E/d20 character generator program I've seen that was simple and intuitive was the original software with the PHB.  I'm not quite sure why Fluid moved away from the basic design concepts there to the hodgepodge that is ETools (even if it's my generator of choice).

Sure, I can understand that Char Gen programs are going to get complex when you start designing your own feats, classes, etc.  It should be simple when you don't want to do that. (Yes, I realize that since you have to design your own modules for non-open content right now, getting into this area is almost mandatory for most users).


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 31, 2006)

magnusmalkus said:
			
		

> If someone could show me how to use PC Gen, I'm sure I could use it to it's fullest capacity.



Have you read the documentation that comes with the program? The first 2 sub-trees in the docs are "Installation" and "Character Creation Walkthrough".


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 31, 2006)

Keldryn said:
			
		

> For the record, I've played D&D in most of its incarnations for over 20 years and I've been programming professionally for over 6 years in C++, C#, ASP, XSLT, Javascript, etc.  And I think PC Gen is unintuitive, clunky, and overly complex.



Would you then like to volunteer to help make PCGen less complex?


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 31, 2006)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> You have to understand that, to a highly educated power-user



What's your definition of power-user? I don't believe PCGen has ever tried to limit the scope of who the target audience is. If you only want the SRD, great, its there for use. If you want to use more datasets, they're there as well. If you want one that's not there...well, you either get to write it yourself or hope some data monkey decides to do it.


----------



## kingpaul (Dec 31, 2006)

magnusmalkus said:
			
		

> I was intimidated by the download homepage, there as ton of information and no clear direction on which file was the one I needed to download.  Based on the download page, I immediately got the impression that this was a serious program and not some 'fluffy bunny' program like I was looking for.



This page? If so, stables and alpha/beta releases are defined on that page.


			
				magnusmalkus said:
			
		

> More complexity was added to my downfall  in the language used, it used more javascript jargon than actual d20 jargon.



Not sure what you mean here.


			
				magnusmalkus said:
			
		

> A pop-up 'first time walkthru' for first time users would have helped out.  I had no idea how to start out the procress, there was no prompt on how to get started.  All I saw was a list of supplements to load and thru trial and error, I discovered I had to 'load sources' or something like that.  I didn't recognize any of the supplements.  I did recognize the 3.5 SRD so I moved that over to the right side and pressed the load button, and then a Y showed up under the Loaded column but ... then what?  I couldnt figure out what to do next.  All i could do was move 'sources' from the right to the left and load them.  There was no prompting on what to do next.  I never saw one stat roll or race/class/feat/skill selection... I rapidly lost interest.



Did you read the documentation that comes with the download? There's info on character creation in there.


			
				magnusmalkus said:
			
		

> If I can't pick something up and have it be intuitive, then it's going to be an exercise in frustration and probably not worth my time.  Programs should be built with the user in mind and if that rule was applied to PC Gen, then apparently the program was made with more script-savy (or generally more intelligent) users in mind.



That's why we've spent a lot of time recently beefing up the documentation. Where did the docs fail you so we can continue the improvement?


----------



## LrdApoc (Dec 31, 2006)

KP,

I think the usability portion of PCGen has often taken back seat to the features but honestly why not consider a basic and advanced mode for users - use something along the way of a Wizard for first run and to hide the mechanical interface of loading sources, offer simple wizards to create a Pc, Autogenerations of an NPC, Leveling a Monster, creating a spellbook for a _n_ level character, etc. 
Then you'll have overcome some of the obstacles to use by making it result focused for the basic user.

I've tried to get the gang here in my group hip to using PCGen for awhile but they find the interface a challenge as well. They don't want to play with it or spend too much time learning to navigate it, the flow of generation does not feel natural to them - these are the reasons they have abandoned it a few times and whenever a new version comes out and I download it I notice the one thing that seldom has changed is the UI. Having good documentation a user has to read to get the basics does not work on a first impression basis - no matter how expertly written the documentation might be.

There are various levels of users in the D&D arena - consider targeting them a little more in the interface design: hide the levers and gears and deliver more streamlined interface panels with cognizant explanation for simple users while allowing users to switch to a grognard mode once they get the feel of the interface.

That's my 2 cents. It also helps if, like Fluid, you adapt a more stylish and graphically attractive mode so the program doesn't come off as a calculator or spreadsheet like utility - this is a hard road but since the program is Java and supports skins it might be possible to have modular UI's - but I have not looked at the code and can't comment on it personally.

I would be happy to help with any design focus groups if you decide to go that route.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Dec 31, 2006)

While I am more than likely in the whole "power-user" category (I for one didn't find PCGen to overly difficult to use, but that was many moons ago), I can completely understand and relate to where people are coming from.

It's not a matter of being unable to read documentation, or even to find it.  It's a matter of being inundated with tech-speak from the get go, so users who are not tech-saavy feel overwhelmed, and move on. 

If I started a topic about biology/biochemistry (especially using it in a game), there would be a lot of people that likely wouldn't even bother reading it, because it requires learning a lot of material just to read about it.  That's leaving out talking about it or using it.  I know it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges argument, but I think a similar thing happens with PCGen.  The average chargen user, of whatever product, doesn't want to have to learn a new paradigm.  They just want to create a character easier than by hand.

PCGen is a very powerful chargen, but from the get-go it's surrounded by parlance that intimidates the average role-player.

To pre-empt you kingpaul, what would I suggest?  Well, I'm not a programmer, I'm a biochemist, so I'm in no way qualified to talk about GUI design, or programming.

Those aside, I would have a non-Sourceforge PCGen home page.  Links on that page could link to stuff on SF, but Sourceforge itself is not built for users, it's built for designers.  On that front page would need to be, at the very least, links to the documentation, to a FAQ, to the latest stable release, and to the latest beta (I would avoid alphas).

No, I'm not a web designer either, before you ask.    

With regards to a FAQ, I'm sure on the PCGen forums and here you could have a call for questions, if some of the community members don't already have a good idea what is asked frequently.  This is a good place to answer what may seem like simple things - just from this thread: "What is an alpha, and a beta?", "What is a release candidate?", "What do these numbers mean?"  These are intuitive to people who have even a little experience with releasing software, but not to people who just download and play.  I'd recommend breaking it up into a tree, one branch for each category of background info, installation, usage, customization (including coding data sets).

The other big thing I would do is link to tutorials on aforementioned page.  I don't know if these exist or not - I haven't used PCGen since before 3.5.  If not, I would recommend that the Code Monkeys _not_ write them.  They're too intimately involved with the project, so what seems natural to them may not be for the average user.

I know these probably seem like a burden, when you're overworked and getting over the remnants of the whole Master Tools thing.  However, you did say just a few posts up that you're not trying to limit users, and I think that these suggestions (and they're only that) might help with the less computer-saavy users.


----------



## Anurien (Dec 31, 2006)

Did I plug RPGXplorer already?


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 31, 2006)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> What's your definition of power-user? I don't believe PCGen has ever tried to limit the scope of who the target audience is. If you only want the SRD, great, its there for use. If you want to use more datasets, they're there as well. If you want one that's not there...well, you either get to write it yourself or hope some data monkey decides to do it.




I would say; if the acronym "JRE" is meaningful to you, you are a highly-educated power-user.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 31, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> You do realize that's actually what he was saying.
> 
> _"Knowing how to create a product for the intended users, not you."_
> 
> Means that it would have been good if the intended users could use it easily, and not just the designers.




Correct. PCGen is very impressive for what it is; a complex piece of software designed by many, many people not working in the same place at the same times or under any kind of production-oriented model. 

However, I find it highly suboptimal for its intended use. It is exactly what I would expect from an open-source endeavor.



			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> Honestly, the only 3E/d20 character generator program I've seen that was simple and intuitive was the original software with the PHB.  I'm not quite sure why Fluid moved away from the basic design concepts there to the hodgepodge that is ETools (even if it's my generator of choice).




From what they've said on various forums; they listened to people who hated the interface. It seemed to them that a lot of people hated the GUI and wanted something more like the Windows Interface. They listened to those people, and we got an Access database as a result.


----------



## Glyfair (Jan 1, 2007)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> From what they've said on various forums; they listened to people who hated the interface. It seemed to them that a lot of people hated the GUI and wanted something more like the Windows Interface. They listened to those people, and we got an Access database as a result.




Bah!  The interface could have used some tweaking and optimizing, but the basic concept was exactly what a program that's going to be accessible to a casual computer user should use.



			
				mattcolville said:
			
		

> I would say; if the acronym "JRE" is meaningful to you, you are a highly-educated power-user.




And a casual user isn't necessarily going to understand the "sub-tree" that kingpaul throws around earlier in this thread.


----------



## daan (Jan 1, 2007)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> From what they've said on various forums; they listened to people who hated the interface. It seemed to them that a lot of people hated the GUI and wanted something more like the Windows Interface. They listened to those people, and we got an Access database as a result.




You make it sound like you can only have a good UI with a bad backend


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 2, 2007)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> Tconsider targeting them a little more in the interface design: hide the levers and gears and deliver more streamlined interface panels with cognizant explanation for simple users while allowing users to switch to a grognard mode once they get the feel of the interface.



Believe it or not, we've tried to get coding sub-teams together to overhaul the interface. GUI and speed are consistent issues raised. I know the current code team has been streamlining the code to improve speed over the past several months.

However, there have been 2, that I know of, attempts in the past several years to get the GUI overhauled. Each time, the sub-team has just disappeared.


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 2, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of being unable to read documentation, or even to find it.  It's a matter of being inundated with tech-speak from the get go, so users who are not tech-saavy feel overwhelmed, and move on.



Where do the docs fail then? Outside perspectives are great, but we need to be told where, specifically, the weak points are.


			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> PCGen is a very powerful chargen, but from the get-go it's surrounded by parlance that intimidates the average role-player.



Specifically where?


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 2, 2007)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> However, I find it highly suboptimal for its intended use.



Where does it fail as a character generator?


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 2, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> And a casual user isn't necessarily going to understand the "sub-tree" that kingpaul throws around earlier in this thread.



Really? Windows Explorer is set up in a treeing schematic for folder hierarchies. I would have assumed, apparently wrongly, that users familiar with Windows (which is still the predmominant OS) would be familiar with that set-up.


----------



## Deadshot (Jan 2, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Really? Windows Explorer is set up in a treeing schematic for folder hierarchies. I would have assumed, apparently wrongly, that users familiar with Windows (which is still the predmominant OS) would be familiar with that set-up.




I think its the lingo that you are using.  I am familiar with how Windows works but I don't say things like 'sub-tree'.  Think of it this way, write the instructions to use the program like you are explaining it to a Mom or someone else who doesn't multi-task on their computer each day.  RPG's have enough lingo of their own without throwing in the computer lingo also.


As a possible solution to the generator issue, has anyone taken a look at DM/Player Genie for usability?


----------



## LrdApoc (Jan 2, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, we've tried to get coding sub-teams together to overhaul the interface. GUI and speed are consistent issues raised. I know the current code team has been streamlining the code to improve speed over the past several months.
> 
> However, there have been 2, that I know of, attempts in the past several years to get the GUI overhauled. Each time, the sub-team has just disappeared.




No I believe it. I was a member of the documentation team at one point in PCGen's long life (and boy that was early on) - but the problem is one that you have to find a way to address. Unfortunately I'm not an interface programmer myself so I can't be of much use but the concept of usability studies, a cobbled together idea and a base to work from might be the most logical first step - everyone has an opinion, the task might be to determine what skills you need, what resources the underlying architecture allows you to use and who can create the interfaces.. I see multiple interfaces unfortunately to serve the varied user bases and not alienate.

Let me step aside form the critical perspective and do some back patting here a second, King Paul you are gracious for speaking up in answer to these many comments, I hope you understand that I at the least appreciate someone taking the time to discuss this here. I realize of course you could easily send us all over to the PCGen forums looking for answers and you always step forth when PCGen makes its appearance in a thread.

As to the earlier question of the RPGExplorer plug - honestly I want to support the open sourced initiative, though I was impressed with RPGE.


----------



## karianna (Jan 3, 2007)

*We're listening *

Hi all,

This thread has kicked up a massive new discussion on our developers list.  All of our developers agree that the UI is too complicated .  What we're looking to do now is to complete several of the UI feature requests we've had out there for years (recommendations from UI experts in the past) which will at least make the UI consistent.

In the mean time we'll continue working on separating the core rules engine from the UI so that we can replace the Java/Swing UI with something new and flashy.

Oh, and just so people know, we've run coder profilers all over  PCGen and it's not the UI layer that actually has the performance bottlenecks, so we can and will start to tackle these performance issues for our next production release.

I'm not sure if people are going to the 'correct' sourceforge web page that we'd like users to go to.  If you visit http://pcgen.sourceforge.net/ then you'll end up on the home page that's designed for the end users, which is different from the home page that the development team use.

Thanks for all of the feedback!


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 3, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Where does it fail as a character generator?




Well, it only fails in that neither I, nor anyone I game with, can stand to use it. I didn't say it failed, I said I found it highly suboptimal.

Most of the guys in my group can manage HeroForge, but even that scares those who aren't used to using Excel.


----------



## XCorvis (Jan 3, 2007)

It's good to see that the PCGen folks are listening. Thanks for piping up!



			
				karianna said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if people are going to the 'correct' sourceforge web page that we'd like users to go to.  If you visit http://pcgen.sourceforge.net/ then you'll end up on the home page that's designed for the end users, which is different from the home page that the development team use.



Karianna, that home page is still pretty confusing. There are 26 links on the first page and most of them are cryptic to a novice user. It's still a developer's page, not at all for end users. You should consider a radically stripped down version:
"What is PCGen?" (with screenshots)
Download PCGen (only the latest stable version, no others, doesn't link the SF download page, it's direct to the mirrors page)
Documentation and Tutorial (prominently displayed)
Get Help (Yahoo group)
Developers Section (Bug reports, the wiki, anything that goes to SF. It MUST be off the main page, or on another site completely.)

Less is more in this case, because more is intimidating and confusing.


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 4, 2007)

Designing software is something people specialize in for a reason. A: Programmers have radically different values than end users. B: End users often don't know what they want, or want contradictory things.

Therefore it takes a specialist to step in and mediate.

We design our own software here at work. We have specialists who do nothing except make sure the tools are designed to specification, and useful and functional.

To this end, they write specs based on the end user's needs. But often they must step in when the end user wants things, and don't know the repercussions of their request. A good designer doesn't simply do everything the programmer's way, or do everything the end user's way. He exercises his judgment based on his experience and training in design and UIs.

One of our world-building tools here at work, designed in olden days by programmers who had no accountability with the end users, would simply quit, instantly, if you pressed the Escape key. Now, if you're familiar with the standard Window's Interface, "Escape" has a specific use. If you're typing in a text field, for instance, and you hit Escape, it will clear the text field.

Well, this program had text fields and if you hit Escape while you were in it, the program would instantly, suddenly, quit and you'd lose all your work without warning.

When we went to the programmers and complained, they all said the same thing; "Don't press Escape."

This is what we call a "programmer solution." Meaning "only a programmer would say that." It's not only absurdly literal, it ignores the way people actually use software.

Now we have a tools team, with tools programmers, and the experience is night and day. They listen to what we want, go away, present something that's very close to what we need and, as we use it, they optimize it...but they also tell us "No," sometimes, because sometimes we want things that directly contradict other things we've asked for.

Even this is not something we could release to the public. Here, the end user is a designer who's highly educated on all the issues.

Making software, like a D&D character editor, that's accessible and useful to the average D&D player means making it very, very simple, and intuitive and unless you're an experienced tools programmer and have a good UI designer, it's very unlikely your product is going to be awesome, especially when you're working in an open source environment with lots of people working separately under disparate schedules and conditions all modding the stuff.

What they acheived with PCGen is very impressive! But asking people in this thread to help fix it is exacerbating the problem. The people in this and other threads are not experienced tools programmers.


----------



## DethStryke (Jan 4, 2007)

karianna said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> 
> This thread has kicked up a massive new discussion on our developers list.  All of our developers agree that the UI is too complicated .  What we're looking to do now is to complete several of the UI feature requests we've had out there for years (recommendations from UI experts in the past) which will at least make the UI consistent.
> 
> ...




I like the concept of PCGen. I like that it is free and I have paid money for it/sourcebooks/developmentfunds/monkeycookies/whatevertheyusethemoneyfor with the hopes that it would help bandwidth costs and generally contribute to a better product.

However, I have to allocate over 512MB to the fricken program for it to even begin to run in some resemblance of smooth. That's ridiculous and most laptops barely even HAVE 512 total in the first place. Lucky for me, I work in IT and have stupidly powerful equipment to play games on. I don't even THINK about using the GM tools to keep track of the party or run it networked. These things are awesome concepts, but I can crash the thing with ONE character on rock-solid machine simply trying to PRINT. What world is this useful in?

I don't care if it's so cross-platform that people running Amigas can use it, the platform is crap. The things stated above are generally true in my mind as well (the UI being clunky and such). The Java performance is so above and beyond crappy that you could paste my monitor with $20 dollar bills as the UI and I still wouldn't use it anymore.

Maybe with a few $100 though... I could use a few hundred bucks right now...


----------



## DethStryke (Jan 4, 2007)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> Designing software is something people specialize in for a reason. A: Programmers have radically different values than end users. B: End users often don't know what they want, or want contradictory things.
> 
> Therefore it takes a specialist to step in and mediate.
> 
> ...




Indeed. I am in the technical field and have done QC work for UI programmers. What you speak is gospel for the most part, but many are not bothered to strike that balance; typically for personal and selfish reasons, but I digress.

I would maintain that the more technically minded *would* be found here. Consider, this is a website (yes, that means little but it does imply ownership of at least one machine) and not the General forum. You have to specifically enter this area titled Software, Computers & D&D Utilities manually, then specifically open this post. It's not like you can trip over a rock and end up here.

And, considering both yourself and I have replied on this thread multiple times, we make up a sizable, albeit minority, group here. With the addition of the people from PCGen Dev Team, I'd almost claim Majority.

The people in this thread ARE experienced end users. While they may not know how to program, they DO know exactly what they want in their PCs/NPCs and how the Saving Throw bonuses stack with three magic items effecting them.  That gives them insight into the needed results that the nameless UI programmer who is lurking on the thread can use.

When you are the end user, you ARE a second-hand UI programmer - it is your requests and needs that are being fulfilled based on your specification.


----------



## DethStryke (Jan 4, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Really? Windows Explorer is set up in a treeing schematic for folder hierarchies. I would have assumed, apparently wrongly, that users familiar with Windows (which is still the predmominant OS) would be familiar with that set-up.




If it were marketed and presented as a "set-up", then your logic would stand. As it is, every new version of windows since 3.1 has introduced wizards made to automate just about every single thing any end user would ever want to do with a PC. Millions of people drive cars every day and don't know what a clutch is or how it works, despite every car having one - it is done for you in automatics (the majority in America).

As mattcolville has pointed out (and I did in a little rant a few posts before this) it fails in that many people can't stand to use it. *IF* it ran less like a C-64 game with the loading times and did not require above average knowledge of software/computer use to make it function, then it would be the best thing ever and this thread wouldn't exist. It would literally be the original post, a link to PCGen and a bunch of people reading it. Maybe another few posts comprised of "Bump!" and a request to have it stickied.

If you have the cure for cancer but you chisel the knowledge on a stone tablet in a dead language, what good is it going to do anyone?


----------



## Taurendil (Jan 4, 2007)

DethStryke said:
			
		

> I don't care if it's so cross-platform that people running Amigas can use it, the platform is crap. The things stated above are generally true in my mind as well (the UI being clunky and such). The Java performance is so above and beyond crappy that you could paste my monitor with $20 dollar bills as the UI and I still wouldn't use it anymore.




I do care that it's cross-platform since I use windows less and less. That being said, I don't think Java's to blame for the speed issues. Having looked at the source for pcgen, it's main problem seems to be it's domain model with lots of data being needlessly copied and passed around and too many classes inheriting from one class. This means that something like a language object can be assigned follower objects and that makes a language object bloated. 

I think another problem might be that it loads to many data at startup, even if it never gets used. It maight benefit from some form of lazy loading, but I guess that it would need a db backend for that.

Java certainly isn't the fastest language out there but refactoring the program could do a lot to alleviate the speed issues. So I wouldn't throw out the cross-platform-ness of pcgen.

I don't have anything to do with pcgen (I just use it in my campaign and had a look at the source), but I'm guessing some of the developers are working towards a beter domain model, some documents on the wiki seem to suggest that much.


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 4, 2007)

Taurendil said:
			
		

> IHaving looked at the source for pcgen, it's main problem seems to be it's domain model with lots of data being needlessly copied and passed around and too many classes inheriting from one class. This means that something like a language object can be assigned follower objects and that makes a language object bloated.



Our code team has been trying to eliminate the unnecessary copying of objects for a while now.


			
				Taurendil said:
			
		

> I think another problem might be that it loads to many data at startup, even if it never gets used. It maight benefit from some form of lazy loading, but I guess that it would need a db backend for that.



Are you saying the users are loading to many datasets, or that PCGen is grabbing more datasets then is intended? Its a known issue that loading more datasets slows the program down, and the coders are looking at that as well.


			
				Taurendil said:
			
		

> but I'm guessing some of the developers are working towards a beter domain model, some documents on the wiki seem to suggest that much.



That they are. Its taking time to so to make sure nothing breaks in the process though.


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 4, 2007)

DethStryke said:
			
		

> If it were marketed and presented as a "set-up", then your logic would stand.



So, if I had stated the docs were set up in a tree/sub-tree format, that would have been better?


			
				DethStryke said:
			
		

> Millions of people drive cars every day and don't know what a clutch is or how it works, despite every car having one - it is done for you in automatics (the majority in America).



Heh, I started on a standard, so I know about clutches and popping a clutch to get a car started.


			
				DethStryke said:
			
		

> If you have the cure for cancer but you chisel the knowledge on a stone tablet in a dead language, what good is it going to do anyone?



So, you want PCGen written in Egyptian hieroglyphics then?   

But seriously, as I stated earlier, overhauling the GUI is something thats been attempted in the past, but those GUI monkeys disappear on us.


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 4, 2007)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> Therefore it takes a specialist to step in and mediate.



Are you volunteering?  


			
				mattcolville said:
			
		

> But asking people in this thread to help fix it is exacerbating the problem.



Why?


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 4, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> mattcolville said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Very next sentance;



			
				mattcolville said:
			
		

> The people in this and other threads are not experienced tools programmers.




I'm not a tools programmer. I'm one of the people the tools programmers has to occasionally say "no" to. I don't have that education or experience.

This is why I don't think we're going to see a mass-market D&D character editor until a large company with the right experience steps up and signs a deal with WotC. I think this requires a Cathedral, not a Bazaar. Maybe if there were 30 million D&D players, you'd have a wide enough potential developer base, but that's not the case.


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 4, 2007)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> I'm not a tools programmer.



And who said help had to come from just programmers? Design specs were being discussed as well, and how the GUI was not appealing. I don't code for PCGen, yet I help out with the project.


----------



## DethStryke (Jan 4, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> So, if I had stated the docs were set up in a tree/sub-tree format, that would have been better?




My apologies, that was not clear... I meant if that format in _Windows_ was presented as a standard. My mistake. :/



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> But seriously, as I stated earlier, overhauling the GUI is something thats been attempted in the past, but those GUI monkeys disappear on us.




That's because to be interested in doing GUI work, you have to be an ar-teest; hence the Graphic end of that. 

We all know them artists be flaky!


----------



## labyrinth (Jan 5, 2007)

If you want an example of character creation software that has an intuitive UI that even a non-techie can figure out quickly, go check out Hero Lab at www.wolflair.com. For a V1.0 product, they sure seem to have done a lot of things right on the first try. 

Maybe WotC should go talk to those guys about a license....

Or maybe the PCGen team should take a look and take some notes. Supposedly, Hero Lab was written by only TWO guys. Perhaps the trick is to have a small team that actually understands usability (like Matt opined) instead of an army of coders working in a vacuum. Yes, I tried PCGen and no, I was not impressed. Hero Lab makes intuitive sense from a user's perspective, while PCGen is a confusing mess to me. 

Hero Lab has a free demo, so there's no excuse for not checking it out. That includes the PCGen team.


----------



## Taurendil (Jan 5, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Are you saying the users are loading to many datasets, or that PCGen is grabbing more datasets then is intended? Its a known issue that loading more datasets slows the program down, and the coders are looking at that as well.




No, I'm under the impression that loading a dataset in pcgen is an all-or-nothing thing. I had the impression that if i load the Dragonlance set (from CMP) to use the mystic class, all spells, feats, races, etc. are also loaded. So when you only use one thing from a dataset, a lot of redundant data gets loaded (taking up system memory).
Looking at the .lst files I also guess that you always load an entire file, even if you only need one thing from that file.
So if you use a feat from source A, a class from B, some items from D and E and a monster from F, you've got a whole lot of redundant info floating around in memory.

I think you could allow users to specify which parts of a dataset to load (e.g. load the classes, but not the items). Although I can imagine that some parts of a dataset are dependent on each other (class a needs feat z to function or some other thing).
Loading only a part of a file is probably not possible with the current .lst files and would probably require some kind of rdbms (sqlLite or other?).


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 5, 2007)

Taurendil said:
			
		

> No, I'm under the impression that loading a dataset in pcgen is an all-or-nothing thing. I had the impression that if i load the Dragonlance set (from CMP) to use the mystic class, all spells, feats, races, etc. are also loaded. So when you only use one thing from a dataset, a lot of redundant data gets loaded (taking up system memory).



Ah, I understand you now. Yes, currently, there's no way, at least none that I know of, to have PCGen pick and choose only the items that you want out of various datasets. I know some users have created custom *.pcc files so they only call the files they need.


----------



## mosat (Jan 5, 2007)

Taurendil said:
			
		

> I think you could allow users to specify which parts of a dataset to load (e.g. load the classes, but not the items). Although I can imagine that some parts of a dataset are dependent on each other (class a needs feat z to function or some other thing).
> Loading only a part of a file is probably not possible with the current .lst files and would probably require some kind of rdbms (sqlLite or other?).





There is a Customise button in the Source Materials Tab which will do this to an extent. You can create your own Source (.pcc file) which will load any specific .lst file in PCGens data folder. You are right about potencial problems with unincluded dependencies, that is a risk. And also this method does not allow you to pick out single objects, however I feel this is where PCGen shines, since the data is all in text files you don't need anything more than a text editor to start digging in any creating this level of customization for yourself.


----------



## soulcatcher (Jan 5, 2007)

DethStryke said:
			
		

> If it were marketed and presented as a "set-up", then your logic would stand. As it is, every new version of windows since 3.1 has introduced wizards made to automate just about every single thing any end user would ever want to do with a PC. Millions of people drive cars every day and don't know what a clutch is or how it works, despite every car having one - it is done for you in automatics (the majority in America).
> 
> As mattcolville has pointed out (and I did in a little rant a few posts before this) it fails in that many people can't stand to use it. *IF* it ran less like a C-64 game with the loading times and did not require above average knowledge of software/computer use to make it function, then it would be the best thing ever and this thread wouldn't exist. It would literally be the original post, a link to PCGen and a bunch of people reading it. Maybe another few posts comprised of "Bump!" and a request to have it stickied.
> 
> If you have the cure for cancer but you chisel the knowledge on a stone tablet in a dead language, what good is it going to do anyone?




I just want to point out here, PCGen may be very complicated, but I think it's fair to say that what it's trying to do is *absurdly* complicated.  If people want a character generator for just the SRD, our solution may well be far to complicated.  But we didn't set out to create a character generator that can just do SRD.  We set out to build a character generator that will allow people to use rules from essentially any source (yes, we can't distribute data for everything, but if a person wants to do something with their character, odds are, PCGen can do it).  So far as I'm aware, there just isn't another application that can model as many rules as PCGen can.  Can we make the GUI better?  Yes.  Can we improve perfomance?  Certainly.  

Improving PCGen is something we have had to put a lot of thought into.  Writing an app that can do what we can with the data *and* performs *and* has a simple gui is not the trivial problem you all seem to think it is.

I'm open to any suggestions, but the simple fact is, writing an app that will let a person create an epic psionic vampire wereboar, and do so accurately is in itself a difficult problem.  Coming up with an interface that makes this easy borders on the impossible.

Simply put options increase complexity, and complexity increases perceived difficulty.  It is *inherently* at odds to allow a person to create an epic psionic vampire wereboar, and at the same time consider interface simplicity to be paramount.

Now, I'm *not* saying that we can't make pcgen easier.  But making pcgen *easy* is at odds with our chosen goal of making pcgen capable of performing as many rules as possible.  (Really think about this.  Really just sit back and consider that there are hundreds of OGL books on the market, and each has subtle new rule changes, and outright conflicting rules and rule changes.  The actual possible combinations that these rules can make when used on a character probably number in the billions of billions.)  There are plenty of applications that can make building a Player's Handbook character, there are less that can do the whole SRD.  There (so far as I'm aware) is *one* that can handle almost any book thrown at it.  The SRD only market clearly isn't our target market. I don't intend to be snarky at all when I say this: If you only need the rules from the PHB and DMG, PCGen was not designed for your needs.  There are indeed simpler and faster tools out there for this simple subset of the rules.  But when you buy that shiny new book from Green Ronin, and want to use it (or some of it) in your game, almost none of the other apps out there won't meet your needs anymore. Few of them will let you even enter new rules.  You can enter the rules in PCGen.  It's not simple to do so, but it does work, but likely you won't even have to, because PCGen may even ship with the book you are now using.

 I invite you all to *actually* look at pcgen 5.10.1, because a lot of thought was put into it to make the interface more consistent, and for it to offer the user more clues to the user.  I suspect many of you have used PCGen here and there over the past 5 years.  The application has had it's ups and downs, but it has continued to improve, continued to accept more and more rule variations, and *continued to get faster and easier*.  Before 5.10.1 shipped, we put a lot more polish on it then any previous release.  We standardized the windows in it, added search boxes just about everywhere, added clear tips as to what was unfinished with your character, and a number of other UI improvements.  *yes* it is still the same basic UI, but it it a hell of a lot cleaner then 5.8 or any previous version.  And in the future, 5.12 will be cleaner still, and on to 6.0.

And to those who scoff at us asking you to come help, You don't have to be a programmer to help.  You don't have to edit lst files to help.  You don't have to document to help.  Even filing bugs, or pointing out specific elements that are flawed helps.  Come over, join our lists, and throw stones constructively.  Like products put out by businesses or not, all of you have unparalleled access to the people who make and maintain PCGen, and we do it *for you*.  If you want a better character generator, you have the forum and the access to the people to make it happen.

Devon Jones
PCGen BoD
Code Architecture Silverback


----------



## soulcatcher (Jan 5, 2007)

Taurendil said:
			
		

> I do care that it's cross-platform since I use windows less and less. That being said, I don't think Java's to blame for the speed issues. Having looked at the source for pcgen, it's main problem seems to be it's domain model with lots of data being needlessly copied and passed around and too many classes inheriting from one class. This means that something like a language object can be assigned follower objects and that makes a language object bloated.
> 
> I think another problem might be that it loads to many data at startup, even if it never gets used. It maight benefit from some form of lazy loading, but I guess that it would need a db backend for that.
> 
> ...




Yes, the object model is a complete mess.  We have been designing a new backend for the app that should resolve most of this.  You are right, java isn't the problem, the code is the problem.  That being said, PCGen is *way* faster then it was 2 years ago.  We have been fixing and polishing the code for some time, and it is certainly paying dividends.

Here's the problem with lazy loading - you never know which rules will impact others.  The gaming system wasn't designed to be 'loaded' piecemeal, but we don't in general notice, because humans are really good at dealing with this kind of thing.  That being said, we are moving towards a somewhat different paradigm - you may still have to load all the rules you want when you make a character, but we are working on a method to allow the character to  load *only* the data the character uses.  This has a number of benefits, including the future ability to load characters from multiple game modes at the same time.

Where we are going has been my aim for some 2 years now, but it took a long time for us as a team to get the code up to a level where we could make this kind of architecture change.  It's still not quite there, but its *much* closer.

As for UI speed, we are looking at a number of new ideas in that space.  We may well dump swing at some point in the future, and use something else a little speedier.  Swing is a genuine speed issue.  It doesn't have to be, but there are simpler ways to make a gui that performs then swing.

Devon Jones
PCGen BoD
Architecture Silverback


----------



## DethStryke (Jan 5, 2007)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> I just want to point out here, PCGen may be very complicated, but I think it's fair to say that what it's trying to do is *absurdly* complicated.  If people want a character generator for just the SRD, our solution may well be far to complicated.  But we didn't set out to create a character generator that can just do SRD.  We set out to build a character generator that will allow people to use rules from essentially any source (yes, we can't distribute data for everything, but if a person wants to do something with their character, odds are, PCGen can do it).  So far as I'm aware, there just isn't another application that can model as many rules as PCGen can.  Can we make the GUI better?  Yes.  Can we improve perfomance?  Certainly.
> 
> Improving PCGen is something we have had to put a lot of thought into.  Writing an app that can do what we can with the data *and* performs *and* has a simple gui is not the trivial problem you all seem to think it is.
> 
> ...




I was not trying to insinuate what the program was trying to accomplish is trivial or the work you are doing to harness the system was easy. Regardless, the bottom line is that if you want to have a successful product there are certain markers/goals you have to meet/accomplish/overcome. Those are the items I was pointing out. I'm not saying that it isn't something that would take a huge amount of time, brilliant programming and very reliable people. Perhaps this is why some have brought up the question as to whether what would need to be done could be accomplished in a Open-Source manner.

I have used 5.10. The UI changes and improvements you mentioned are a noted improvement from 5.8 and previous versions. I was dismayed that the WotC sourcebook would only work with 5.8 and that the contract problems they had with WotC would mean that no other sets would be forthcoming. I even tried manually adding just the feats and such for what I needed, but you could only make custom magical items per the DMG with the official sourcebooks... so I was stuck with the older version. That's just my experience. If I'm being limited to an older version, what does it matter if the new version is all new and shiny?

That being said, both versions still ran sluggish with a huge amount of available memory allocated to it. It is a resource hog in the extreme. You point out that PCGen's "intended market" is not the basic SRD / Corebook crowd. Well, that's great. When you load more than 1-2 sources it sucks up so much memory and processor resource that you can't do anything in less than thirty seconds per click. Gods help you if you want to work on more than one character at a time, or have followers/familiars/companions/etc. I would say that this is a show-stopper for your intended audience. If you have show-stoppers like that in existence, then you have not fulfilled your intended goal for the project. To say otherwise is marketing and blowing smoke. I would recommend polishing that stone A LOT more before it is a viable product that should see wide-spread use.

You use the term "clues" as to what to do in the GUI; that is a troublesome thing. I should not have to decipher the code of your GUI like a scavenger hunt, never knowing where I should step next to arrive at my destination.

While this sounds harsh, please consider that the original question was "what is a simple PC Generator program for D&D?" Since PCGen is free (yay!) and fairly well known having been around for a few years, it of course came up.... but not as a very widely backed suggestion. The above, and I'm sure a few others, are the reasons for that. Now you can say all that you did to justify why these problems exist in the program, or you can take control of them and work towards a better tomorrow for us all, but the end result will still be that a majority of people have this view of the program - a view that will not change until the program does on those points. You can even write off those of us who think this, claiming that we're not your intended customer... but that won't change my view on it.

I, for one, wish you great luck and speed in making the program better. I think you and your co-monekys have the best chance in the market today of making it happen! However, sugar-coating the truth of the matter and cooing over flash in the pan when there are these 800-lb gorillas in the way doesn't strike me as something that helps anyone here. The point of the thread was asking for suggestions and critique of available generators for D&D. I kept all of my points to things that are specific, accurate and personally experienced - I'm not trying to make things up just to slander or belittle the product and team here. As I've said before, I actually do like and have used the program... the mentioned cons simply outweighed the pros.

Edit- outweighed the pros.... for now. I'm always willing to check out future releases and changes. Hopefully these benefits and changes you've mentioned do see the full light of day in all their glory, and then I will praise PCGen for overcoming those hurdles and use it all the time.


----------



## BarakO (Jan 5, 2007)

DethStryke said:
			
		

> I have used 5.10. The UI changes and improvements you mentioned are a noted improvement from 5.8 and previous versions. I was dismayed that the WotC sourcebook would only work with 5.8 and that the contract problems they had with WotC would mean that no other sets would be forthcoming. I even tried manually adding just the feats and such for what I needed, but you could only make custom magical items per the DMG with the official sourcebooks... so I was stuck with the older version. That's just my experience. If I'm being limited to an older version, what does it matter if the new version is all new and shiny?




Not to derail the thread and all, but since this came up...

CMP datasets were updated to 5.10.1 in November and will be updateded to 5.12 after it comes out, so you're not stuck with an older version at all.  

Unfortunately, you *are* stuck on the "no more new WotC books from CMP" issue.  

But creating data for PCGen is not as difficult as a lot of people think (I don't want to trivialize it, as some things *are* very difficult, but for the most part, it's straightforward).  You just need to be methodical, and willing to RTFM and ask question on the PCGen forums.  

For the average user who only needs one or two tings from any given book, with a willingness to try and some help from the people involved with PCGen, you *can* add what you need to PCGen from any new book that comes along to make it create the characters you want.


----------



## soulcatcher (Jan 6, 2007)

DethStryke said:
			
		

> ..Snip..
> 
> I, for one, wish you great luck and speed in making the program better. I think you and your co-monekys have the best chance in the market today of making it happen! However, sugar-coating the truth of the matter and cooing over flash in the pan when there are these 800-lb gorillas in the way doesn't strike me as something that helps anyone here. The point of the thread was asking for suggestions and critique of available generators for D&D. I kept all of my points to things that are specific, accurate and personally experienced - I'm not trying to make things up just to slander or belittle the product and team here. As I've said before, I actually do like and have used the program... the mentioned cons simply outweighed the pros.
> 
> Edit- outweighed the pros.... for now. I'm always willing to check out future releases and changes. Hopefully these benefits and changes you've mentioned do see the full light of day in all their glory, and then I will praise PCGen for overcoming those hurdles and use it all the time.




I hear you, and I do want to gain the benefits of criticism here.  I just wanted to point out that to some degree, what people are asking for (a pcgen that is as simple as say one of the character generator spreadsheets, or some of the other software out there) is not really possible, given the niche it intends to fill.  

This thread has spawned a number of conversations on the pcgen lists, so at least know, we are listening, and trying to find a path to a solution.

Devon


----------



## LrdApoc (Jan 6, 2007)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> I hear you, and I do want to gain the benefits of criticism here.  I just wanted to point out that to some degree, what people are asking for (a pcgen that is as simple as say one of the character generator spreadsheets, or some of the other software out there) is not really possible, given the niche it intends to fill.
> 
> This thread has spawned a number of conversations on the pcgen lists, so at least know, we are listening, and trying to find a path to a solution.
> 
> Devon




So does this mean that PCGen might have two distinct audiences? The DM or user with multiple sources and detailed expectations who wants a Half-Fiend War Ape Awakened Sorcerer and the core player who uses a few sources and wants to create and track their PC through a campaign?

You have GMGen which I think in many ways serves the first group well.. why not make a PCGen lite (actually I seem to remember something like this early on) - using the same core engine but with a retooled GUI for simple users.. build them from the same tree but make the branches lower for the simpler folk. 

I'm not sure if this is the right suggestions as I am not involved in the coding at all but it might be the easiest to serve both groups well. You state that the goal of PCGen is to be the most versatile and complete generation tool for the d20 system - that rocks but I'm not sure your common users understand that in order to get a versatile tool they must seemingly sacrifice simplicity and ease of use for common users.

I am an owner of etools - and while I don't much care for the program interface I found it easier to introduce to my players as a character generator than I did PCGen. I honestly have not found a tool out there that is as simple as the Char Gen demo that came with 3.0 - is there a way to move the GUI that way while maintaining the feature rich nature of tools like PCGen and GMGen? 

Once again maybe I'm asking for something not practical from a software development standpoint but I'm looking at this as a user not a developer and seeing what my players and I have encountered in trying to use PCGen as a campaign tool and character manager over the last few years.

Also I have not played with LST files for some time but is there a wizard like mode for data entry for simple data  objects - feats that don't have major rule tied effects etc, or is it still a "edit the text file and read the F'in manual dude" sort of tool? 

That was a huge obstacle for me early in the products life because I just frankly didn't have the time to hand enter the info in the lst files and of course you can't share anything you enter to help anyone else because of copywrite  which meant the moment I used a non-standard source I abandoned the tool because I couldn't easily integrate the one or two features I was using outside the SRD. 

I am awaiting the latest stable release - I'm using the Alpha right now and like it, but loading sources still seems to take a long time - and probably I'm doing it wrong because I have not reread the manual - however the program could be more user friendly and offer to warn or assist when loading sources to help optimize and control the user's experience - managing user expectations can often be done with just a simple - "Warning - loading XX sources will take serious time!" sort of message - followed by a "We recommend you do thus and thus to quickly get to work" sort of wizard or guidance.

Many people decry the Microsoft Wizard approach as the dumming down of users but lets face it - the average user does not care about what a program does they just want to do their work and get the results from it quickly and easily. Giving them a supertool when all they need is a simple screwdriver can prevent them from using your tool. Help the user, hide the gears and allow maybe an advanced or simple mode to segregate yet serve the two distinct groups PCGen is used by.

Sorry if I'm belaboring a point here. I see a conflicting purpose and design goals of PCGen at work (Basic users want a simple tool, advanced users want a versatile tool, the developers want good features and good speed) and I know my statements are not the first time any of you have heard this - so let me ask the next question: 

 How do I help change this? What can I do to help you as a user? 

How often do you see threads here asking for a simple tool only to have readers refute the simplicity of the tool you developed and effectively build that impression that PCGen is arcane and hard to use? What can be done to prevent that from ever being an issue?


----------



## Firzair (Jan 6, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Are you saying the users are loading to many datasets, or that PCGen is grabbing more datasets then is intended? Its a known issue that loading more datasets slows the program down, and the coders are looking at that as well.




I think he speaks about something I do in my program RPG XML Rules Engine (new beta version  0.9.5 shall be out next week with some meat for the beginners): only loading data into memory that you need in memory! I have all data in the database and the data is only loaded into memory if it is to be modified or used for execution, pure read access only goes to the database.
Of course I know that PCGen currently uses no database.

Greetings
Firzair


----------



## mosat (Jan 7, 2007)

labyrinth said:
			
		

> Hero Lab has a free demo, so there's no excuse for not checking it out. That includes the PCGen team.




Sure there is, it's Windows only, I can't run the demo on my Mac.


----------



## athynz (Jan 7, 2007)

With all due respect this seems to me like a pcgen bash thread with only people who do work on pcgen in some form or another rising to it's defense. I've used pcgen for over a year - and used several versions now - and while I'm not a power user or a programmer by any stretch, pcgen to me seems a lot more inuitive than a lot of you seem to think. I'll grant that it's not a really fancy looking program and it is at times buggy but to me its one of the best character generators out there and IMHO WOTC really screwed up when they made the decision not to extend the contract to CMP to code more of the books.


----------



## soulcatcher (Jan 8, 2007)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> So does this mean that PCGen might have two distinct audiences? The DM or user with multiple sources and detailed expectations who wants a Half-Fiend War Ape Awakened Sorcerer and the core player who uses a few sources and wants to create and track their PC through a campaign?
> 
> You have GMGen which I think in many ways serves the first group well.. why not make a PCGen lite (actually I seem to remember something like this early on) - using the same core engine but with a retooled GUI for simple users.. build them from the same tree but make the branches lower for the simpler folk.
> 
> ...




This is a very reasonable suggestion, and we probably could build a PCGen Lite that only did say SRD generation, and made it easy for a person who understood it to move to the full fledged app.  The biggest problem presently inside the code is that the needed separation between the gui and the engine to do this.  This separation is more of a guideline then a rule in the present code, and this is the source of many of the problems we have with PCGen.

A proposal of how to fix this is the change to the code that I alluded to above, and really is the prime facilitator needed to make such a thing possible.  The best I can say is that we know this separation needs to happen, and we are working on it.

As to your idea, I actually like the idea of us making a lite version.  perhaps we should take a page from the original D&D Generator that came with the PHB, and make a lite version that is really limited in what it can do, but as a result dead simple.

Hrm.... this gives me an idea.  In many cases, I see that there is one person who is the driving force behind pcgen in a specific gaming group, and potentially the rest of the people find it to hard.  If we made it possible for a user to go in to the full pcgen app, and allow them to define from top to bottom what is in an out for a specific campaign, then they could export that data for use in a pcgen lite, that has a very simplified interface.  Maybe we could call it PCGen GMs edition and PCGen Players edition.  Perhaps the way to make PCGen more capable and usable for more people is to really split up what it offers each audience into totally separate applications.

Good idea.



			
				LrdApoc said:
			
		

> Once again maybe I'm asking for something not practical from a software development standpoint but I'm looking at this as a user not a developer and seeing what my players and I have encountered in trying to use PCGen as a campaign tool and character manager over the last few years.
> 
> Also I have not played with LST files for some time but is there a wizard like mode for data entry for simple data  objects - feats that don't have major rule tied effects etc, or is it still a "edit the text file and read the F'in manual dude" sort of tool?
> 
> That was a huge obstacle for me early in the products life because I just frankly didn't have the time to hand enter the info in the lst files and of course you can't share anything you enter to help anyone else because of copywrite  which meant the moment I used a non-standard source I abandoned the tool because I couldn't easily integrate the one or two features I was using outside the SRD.




Well, we do have LST editors, but to be honest, they are pretty craptastic.  Over the life of pcgen it's been very hard to maintain these, because they can't keep up with the rest of the code.  I have potential solutions in mind for how to deal with this, but the lst generator problem unfortunatly takes a back seat to splitting the GUI from the core.  On the plus side, a separated front and backend could make it possible to have a whole LST tool that is it's own program.



			
				LrdApoc said:
			
		

> I am awaiting the latest stable release - I'm using the Alpha right now and like it, but loading sources still seems to take a long time - and probably I'm doing it wrong because I have not reread the manual - however the program could be more user friendly and offer to warn or assist when loading sources to help optimize and control the user's experience - managing user expectations can often be done with just a simple - "Warning - loading XX sources will take serious time!" sort of message - followed by a "We recommend you do thus and thus to quickly get to work" sort of wizard or guidance.




I recommend using the minimal number of sources necessary.  I think some people do load every source, and frankly, that breaks pcgen.  A reasonable number is in the 5-6 range.



			
				LrdApoc said:
			
		

> Many people decry the Microsoft Wizard approach as the dumming down of users but lets face it - the average user does not care about what a program does they just want to do their work and get the results from it quickly and easily. Giving them a supertool when all they need is a simple screwdriver can prevent them from using your tool. Help the user, hide the gears and allow maybe an advanced or simple mode to segregate yet serve the two distinct groups PCGen is used by.




Actually, the wizard approach from my perspective is fine, but like everything else, it needs the split between the front and back that everything else depends on.  We probably could do it now, but in this case it would be at the cost of making that split happen a harder thing.  I do want to see a wizard, I just hope we can get it into place before we lose to much market share.



			
				LrdApoc said:
			
		

> Sorry if I'm belaboring a point here. I see a conflicting purpose and design goals of PCGen at work (Basic users want a simple tool, advanced users want a versatile tool, the developers want good features and good speed) and I know my statements are not the first time any of you have heard this - so let me ask the next question:
> 
> How do I help change this? What can I do to help you as a user?
> 
> How often do you see threads here asking for a simple tool only to have readers refute the simplicity of the tool you developed and effectively build that impression that PCGen is arcane and hard to use? What can be done to prevent that from ever being an issue?




There is a lot you can do:
1) Use it, and show it to others
2) When you find a bug, or if something frustrates you, *tell* us.  File a bug.  Start a conversation on our mailing lists, just don't keep it to yourself.  Even small things help a lot.  If something behaves in a way you don't expect, it's near certain that hundreds of other people have the same frustration, but don't tell us.
3) The documentation team is one of the most important teams on the project, but has a hard time keeping itself staffed.  It doesn't matter if you are a coder, know LST or have never written a line in your life, *anyone* can help the docs team.


Thanks for your input 

Devon Jones
PCGen BoD
PCGen Architecture Silverback


----------



## iwarrior-poet (Jan 8, 2007)

I have been using PCGen for a long time. Here's my bottom line---

It is almost unbearably slow
Its UI is not intuitive by a long stretch
Once you get the hang of it (which can take QUITE a while), it is exceptionally powerful
If you are not a coder, and want to create prestige classes/feats (one of the most essential components of 3.0/3/5) you are OUT OF LUCK!
I love to complain about it-----but it is FREE (after all), so I am aware that my complaints are somewhat churlish
I only used PCGen becuase I was using WoTC datasets from CMP. Now that WoTC has squashed that----I am a very embittered gamer.


----------



## LrdApoc (Jan 8, 2007)

Thanks Devon,

I will be a good user and try and be more responsive. I'm about to launch a new campaign and I'm going to try and convince everyone to use the tool for character management - most of the group are experienced computer users but should give good feedback on the quirks and I'll do my best to relay that to the forums.

I remember how hard it was to get the Docs team going originally, maybe I can find some time to help again.


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 9, 2007)

iwarrior-poet said:
			
		

> If you are not a coder, and want to create prestige classes/feats (one of the most essential components of 3.0/3/5) you are OUT OF LUCK!



No, you're not. We've been telling you for several years now to look at existing files for examples and to read the documentation. We've also tried to help you out in answering questions on how to go about doing things.

*.lst files are raw text, not java like the program.


----------



## Taurendil (Jan 9, 2007)

Devon,

thanks for all the info. I see where you're going and I thank you for the effort. From looking at the code I know it can't be easy but with enough refactoring you'll get there.

Is there someplace I can read some more about PCGen's achitecture and where it's going? I'm currently learning Java and I'm always interested in seeing ways of designing and implementing such a large and complex thing as the D20 engine.


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 9, 2007)

Taurendil said:
			
		

> Is there someplace I can read some more about PCGen's achitecture and where it's going? I'm currently learning Java and I'm always interested in seeing ways of designing and implementing such a large and complex thing as the D20 engine.



Do I hear a new volunteer?


----------



## Taurendil (Jan 9, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Do I hear a new volunteer?




Maybe...   

As I said, I'm still learning Java. I'd rather know the language before jumping into a codebase as big as PCGen.

I do have experience with OOP in php 5 which looks quite a bit like Java, so it shouldn't be too hard.

Other than that it all depends on my free time. Of course, you never have enough of that...


----------



## soulcatcher (Jan 9, 2007)

Taurendil said:
			
		

> Devon,
> 
> thanks for all the info. I see where you're going and I thank you for the effort. From looking at the code I know it can't be easy but with enough refactoring you'll get there.
> 
> Is there someplace I can read some more about PCGen's achitecture and where it's going? I'm currently learning Java and I'm always interested in seeing ways of designing and implementing such a large and complex thing as the D20 engine.




So the architecture document is still in process: http://www.geocities.com/thpr/CDOM_Arch_0.1.pdf

Let us know what you think, we are still very much in the request for commentary phase on this.

Devon


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 9, 2007)

Intro:
Many moons ago PCgen was used by everyone in the campaign I ran to create and track their D&D characters.  When I started the next campaign PCgen had left such a bad taste in MY mouth for various reasons that I decided not to use it for myself.  Apparantly nobody else did either for without ME to have a copy of it on my computer all my players felt it wasn't worth the bother to do so for themselves at home.  It's probably just as well since I then discovered that with software to assist them they had completely forgotten how to level-up characters on their own.  They couldn't even make level-based changes to BAB and saves without software to do it for them.  Talk about a crutch!

Anyway, that was YEARS ago.  Not until I recently started looking at HeroLab have I even thought about using software for this again.  PCgen was THAT negative of an experience!  Comments here got me thinking about it yet again and PCgen in particular.  I went to the website and my knee-jerk responses follow:

As I personally see it, a character generator for D&D, regardless of what its intended or hoped-for capabilities are for "power users", should require no more knowledge or intuition than the rules present in the PH itself and a blank paper character sheetfor any given user to start it up and begin making a character.  After the program is started a user should be able to start creating an SRD character with the very next mouse click or key press.  I should should be able to proceed to build this character RIGHT NOW, not after reading software documentation of any kind.  If it's ABSOLUTELY necessary that I learn how & why the software does something arcane & computer-ey before I can proceed then the first thing I see should be a simple, clear, written tutorial, walkthrough, or wizard button that can take me through the initial steps in a simple fashion - with another option to skip it and proceed right to the intricacies of customizing the software to my personal ends.

Maybe this is just my own personal POV, but my understanding is that you are first and foremost attempting to sell ANY user on the convenience of your product - the ability to use your software INSTEAD of rulebooks and paper to build a character.  The moment that you require users - ANY users - to have to "learn" your software before they can procede, to _hunt_ for anything that a core rules character needs as part of the character creation process then you're already failing.  For example the need to load "datasets" should be left for those who need something beyond the SRD.  The need to even understand the concept of datasets should be left for when the user says, "Okay, now I need something BEYOND the core rules."

When I first think about possibly using PCgen the website that comes up should be GEARED to showing me AS A USER what it can do for me and convincing me to use it.  The FIRST thing I see should be a nice, friendly button or link to download the most recent general release version _with the very next click_.  I should NOT HAVE TO GO LOOKING FOR IT - not even if it requires clicking a tab marked "downloads".  If you insist that I DO go to "Downloads first then it should be the FIRST thing I see there.  It should be obvious RIGHT THERE what the link is to start that download.  Put the reference information about the download BELOW the link.

The second thing I see on the home page should be a nice, freindly link or button that will SHOW me basics of what PCgen looks like and how it's used.  It should convince me with text AND some basic screenshots that it is more comprehensive but also EASY TO USE - or at least easier than your next closest competitor.  SELL your software to me even if it IS free.  PCgen's website looks and feels like reading stereo instructions.  It's dry and lifeless and as a potential new USER I do not need or even want to see information about the ongoing PROJECT when looking for information about the PRODUCT.  Information for project participants and potential users should be quite seperate and/or the assumption should always be that I am a user, not a participant.  Now maybe that doesn't work for your project webpage but as a potential new user I can DEFINITELY tell you that your project webpage doesn't work for ME.

One of the things I remember from several years ago when I last looked at/used PCgen is that I needed to go get java-related software in addition to PCgen.  That meant that I had to go digging around, bringing myself up to date on just what the hell a JRE (?), etc. was and where I was supposed to get it in order to make PCgen run.  Near as I can tell that has not changed.  So, right up there next to the PCgen version of the "Easy Button" should be DIRECT links (or as direct as is allowable) to whatever Java software I need to install - and then instructions on how to intall it all since clearly there is no PCgen installer that will actually do these things FOR me.  All in all, though this may be unavoidable for YOU it is yet another stumbling block for ME, your potential new user.  You should be moving heaven and earth to eliminate these barricades for me or at least making them moronically easy to get over.

And then there's bug reporting.  While it's useful to have users reporting bugs so that you can provide ever-better software for them IT IS NOT THE USERS JOB.  When a user has to report a bug it's a FAILURE of your project.  Now one bug is seldom going to stop anybody, but if you feel compelled to make bug reporting a feature of your software what kind of message are you sending to me?  It's not a message that I have nothing to worry about in choosing PCgen over something else (including books and paper).  How many bugs am I potentially looking at here?  I'm NOT a beta-tester or a programmer - I'm the potential USER.  Bugs should be the last thing I EVER have to deal with.

Now just one of the above elements won't likely stop anyone from trying PCgen - but what about two of them?  More?  These are the sorts of things that CUMULATE when you start dealing with PCgen and it is this kind of cumulative list that makes PCgen seem more like a PAIN IN THE ASS to use than the ANSWER to my character generation and tracking issues.

I'm pretty sure that I, personally, am never going to turn to PCgen again until a LOT of those cumulative issues are resolved and I just don't see that happening in the reasonable future.  PCgen is by no means a _bad_ product!  But I find it just as easy to use books and paper as even think about the bother of dealing with PCgen again.


----------



## iwarrior-poet (Jan 9, 2007)

I couldn't agree more---and started a similar thread on this topic. Right HERE


----------



## soulcatcher (Jan 9, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> And then there's bug reporting.  While it's useful to have users reporting bugs so that you can provide ever-better software for them IT IS NOT THE USERS JOB.  When a user has to report a bug it's a FAILURE of your project.  Now one bug is seldom going to stop anybody, but if you feel compelled to make bug reporting a feature of your software what kind of message are you sending to me?  It's not a message that I have nothing to worry about in choosing PCgen over something else (including books and paper).  How many bugs am I potentially looking at here?  I'm NOT a beta-tester or a programmer - I'm the potential USER.  Bugs should be the last thing I EVER have to deal with.




Just so it's clear, what you are asking for is software that doesn't ask for anything from you, and a company that sits behind it who will solve your problems for you.  We don't make money from you.  We work on this program for our enjoyment, and as a gift to the community.  If the value of our gift to you is so low in your eyes that you are unwilling to help a little here and there to make the software fit your needs better, then the people who *are* willing to do so are likely going to get their needs met first.

PCGen is at least competitive with most of the other software out there.  Yes, we have our failings, and we are trying to fix those.  No one is being hoodwinked by us.  No one is spending hard earned money on PCGen itself, and getting something that wasn't advertised.  We are what we are, and yes, we have flaws, and we want to fix them.  But we first and foremost are a community that is made up of hundreds of people donating their time.

What you mention about the website is reasonable, and repairable in fairly short order, and I appreciate your analysis of it, even if you specifically have told us in your missive that you have no intention of trying to help out our community project. So no offense, but I have a hard time wanting to go out of my way for someone who explicitly has told me that the time I donate isn't good enough for them, and that they want more, but are unwilling to lift a finger to help at all.  If you want this level of support, consider paying money for it - demanding people donate more for your personal benefit, and being unwilling to reciprocate strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.

Devon
Note: This specific comment is my own, and I don't intend this to be read as the opinion of the rest of the board of  directors.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 10, 2007)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> Just so it's clear, what you are asking for is software that doesn't ask for anything from you, and a company that sits behind it who will solve your problems for you.  We don't make money from you.  We work on this program for our enjoyment, and as a gift to the community.  If the value of our gift to you is so low in your eyes that you are unwilling to help a little here and there to make the software fit your needs better, then the people who *are* willing to do so are likely going to get their needs met first.



Q.E.D.  I tried to make it clear that I'm not a user of PCgen and haven't been for a long time and don't intend to be for any and all of the reasons I mentioned and more.  Take it for what it IS.  There's no personal insult to ME there from the PCgen community and no intent to insult THEM.  I just thought you might find it USEFUL to know some reasons WHY I don't use it and won't - reasons that I did not see being mentioned elsewhere in the thread but which I consider prohibitive to other potential users.


> PCGen is at least competitive with most of the other software out there.  Yes, we have our failings, and we are trying to fix those.  No one is being hoodwinked by us.  No one is spending hard earned money on PCGen itself, and getting something that wasn't advertised.  We are what we are, and yes, we have flaws, and we want to fix them.  But we first and foremost are a community that is made up of hundreds of people donating their time.



So be it.  I don't use it and so, don't much care.  PCgen is not MY hobby - D&D is.  PCgen is only of any value to me if I could find it beneficial as what it purports to be - a solution for gamers to deal with character creation and tracking issues. That means that you have more than math errors and missing prestige class bonuses to deal with.  If you REALLY want your project to be more than programming challenges to occupy your time then you need more than just bug reports.  Whether you're getting paid for it or not, if you want PCgen to be the premier software and not just a hobby in and of itself then this too needs to be part of your project - not just coding, but SELLING potential new users on the benefits of your software.  As one of those potential new users (though because of past experiences a MUCH harder sell) I'm telling you what I want.  You don't have to give it to me if you don't want to.  Do you want to?  That's what I'm asking.



> What you mention about the website is reasonable, and repairable in fairly short order, and I appreciate your analysis of it, even if you specifically have told us in your missive that you have no intention of trying to help out our community project.



You know, it seems to me I made similar comments about the website in the past.  Heck, if that's the only thing that you take from my comments have they not done your project some good?



> So no offense, but I have a hard time wanting to go out of my way for someone who explicitly has told me that the time I donate isn't good enough for them, and that they want more, but are unwilling to lift a finger to help at all.  If you want this level of support, consider paying money for it - demanding people donate more for your personal benefit, and being unwilling to reciprocate strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.



So who's ASKING you to?  You'll do what you want to in your own good time as a community and it won't really make a difference to me.  I'm just telling you what you're up against if you want more than just more coders but more USERS of your software.  Ostensibly that's what all the coding is intended to accomplish, yes?  Or IS it just a hobby for you?  I WOULD pay for it if I DIDN'T have to make swift, simple character creation software itself a second hobby in order to get it.  Once again - I'm not a potential project participant, I'm a potential USER of the successful RESULT of that project.  You don't have to give me the moon if I ask for it unless that's what you're TRYING to do.

All the comments in this thread about object models, .lst files, and whatall means nothing to someone like me who just wants to get his hands on software able to create characters for a campaign WITHOUT having to wade through all kinds of crap _just like that_.  In fact it DRIVES THEM AWAY to find their solution elsewhere - or just stick to books and paper, just as it did me and the players in my group.


----------



## Taurendil (Jan 10, 2007)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> So the architecture document is still in process: http://www.geocities.com/thpr/CDOM_Arch_0.1.pdf
> 
> Let us know what you think, we are still very much in the request for commentary phase on this.
> 
> Devon




I had a quick read, seems like you've put a lot of thought into this. Can't say I understand everything right now. I need to read some of the links (not that familiar with graph theory) and propably have a better understanding of the rest of the codebase. Not being a native english speaker doesn't help either. Are there other documents about the current architecture and such? e.g. What are Tokens? Are they the code representation of the LST tags?

Most of the general assumptions are inline with what I try to use myself on projects.

I'm looking for an easy intro to the project. Do you have a team that does Unit Tests (or other tests)? Seems like a good way to get started without getting in over my head. I'm familiar with unit testing under php using simpletest, should be similar to JUnit.

But maybe this conversation shouldn't be held in this thread. So show me the way...


----------



## schporto (Jan 10, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> I WOULD pay for it if I DIDN'T have to make swift, simple character creation software itself a second hobby in order to get it.




I'm just curious - how much would you pay?
-cpd


----------



## soulcatcher (Jan 10, 2007)

Taurendil said:
			
		

> I had a quick read, seems like you've put a lot of thought into this. Can't say I understand everything right now. I need to read some of the links (not that familiar with graph theory) and propably have a better understanding of the rest of the codebase. Not being a native english speaker doesn't help either. Are there other documents about the current architecture and such? e.g. What are Tokens? Are they the code representation of the LST tags?
> 
> Most of the general assumptions are inline with what I try to use myself on projects.
> 
> ...




You can subscribe to the developers list at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pcgen-devel

After you are set up there, we can get you sourceforge access and get you some more explanation of how things work.

I agree that this is now getting off topic of this thread enough that we should take it offline.  But, I'll answer those questions real quick like:

Architecture Docs: No, the old code didn't really have any documentation, this is the first real attempt to really get a firm architecture in place.  That being said, between myself and the others, we can probably explain a fair beit to you.

Tokens: Every LST command is it's own plugin.  You can find them all in separate jar files in your plugins/lstplugins folder.  Other tokens we use are jepplugins (for formulas), bonusplugins (for bonuses), outputplugins (for tokens used on export sheets like pdf), and systemlstplugins (tokens used for setup of the interface/game modes).

There are still some tokens trapped in the rest of the code, and we need to pluginize them, or deprecate them before we hit 5.12, so that we can know that all of the tokens we use can be permanently supportable.  (for those listening here, this is partially so that we can permanently support old CMP lst files.)

Entry to the team/junits: Yes, we do junits, and are always happy to get more.  our present coverage is I think in the 50-60% range.  Junits are a great way to get started, but also helping to finish the above tokenization effort is a good place to start as well.

Welcome to the team 

Devon


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 11, 2007)

schporto said:
			
		

> I'm just curious - how much would you pay?



At the risk of setting myself up I'd say that it depends on the actual software.  Yet all game software is $50 whether it's Solitaire, Call of Duty, or Civilization.    At $50 I would not deem PRICE a serious consideration.  At $60 it would start to bother me but I'd still pay it - all other considerations being equal.  At $70+ price IS a consideration: will this REALLY be worth the cost to my D&D games or should I just buy Spore instead and then go out to dinner?

Right now I just don't have need of it however, so while I'm still interested in the possibilities, I'm not actually on a quest.


----------



## Taurendil (Jan 11, 2007)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> You can subscribe to the developers list at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pcgen-devel
> 
> After you are set up there, we can get you sourceforge access and get you some more explanation of how things work.
> 
> ...




Ok, I'll see you there. Looking forward to it.


----------



## SJPadbury (Jan 12, 2007)

Ok, I've used PCGen for almost as long as I've been playing D&D 3.0/3.5, so about 5 years now.
Short version is, yes, there's a learning curve, but just about everyone I've played with (11 people over that time period) was able to learn fairly quickly how to do it, even when it wasn't the somewhat cleaned up version it is now. (And yes, that includes the versions where adding skill points were a 5-10 minute chore...)
And like the people up above said, it can handle just about any rule, to the point of insanity.
The rules? working from a base of what's already been written, using cut-n-paste and tweaking, I can make most feats in a couple minutes, and full classes in a "functional, but ugly" form in half an hour to an hour. (Most recent example, I did a Dragon Shaman for a friend. I asked him up front what Dragon Totem he was going to use, and coded it with that hard-wired. Took about 45 mintues. Went back later and spent the 3-4 hours to make a version that could make choices on the fly, but that was more knowing that someone would want another one later. And they did.)
Did I mention that I'm not a programmer?
Oh, and the people that complain about the slowness of the program and that loading too much stuff slows it down unbearably, I have a P4 1.5 laptop that I let PCGen have 384 Meg of Memory on. I _start_ with Core 3 and Complete 4 before I even start thinking about if I want to load anything else. XPH, DMG2, pretty much always get loaded anymore too, and 2-3 more on top of that don't seem to hurt. 
If you just want the SRD, yeah it's probably not for you.
If you want to use the entire bookshelf that you've spent your hundreds of dollars on, and you can find something better, I'll certainly pay attention, but until then, I'm sticking with this one.

(And if I sound incoherant, you try making a sensible post with people having a football arguement in the background at work.


----------



## schporto (Jan 12, 2007)

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> At the risk of setting myself up I'd say that it depends on the actual software.  Yet all game software is $50 whether it's Solitaire, Call of Duty, or Civilization.    At $50 I would not deem PRICE a serious consideration.  At $60 it would start to bother me but I'd still pay it - all other considerations being equal.  At $70+ price IS a consideration: will this REALLY be worth the cost to my D&D games or should I just buy Spore instead and then go out to dinner?
> 
> Right now I just don't have need of it however, so while I'm still interested in the possibilities, I'm not actually on a quest.



I wasn't setting you up, although it could seem that way.
I will say I disagree with comparing it to games (like call of duty etc).  To me there's probably 2 better comparisons:
Microsoft Office costs ~$400 (standard version) - reason for comparison:  well office let's you create documents, and doesn't wear out.  I do know people who still use office 2000 (not 97 because those pcs have died for the most part).
World of Warcraft costs $20 + $15 per month - reason for comparison:  new features added.  Counterpoints - new version will require new purchase (at about $20 - $50 + $15/month), can't create an output to go play somewhere else.
To me PCGen is an expensive piece of software.  Probably worth those two comparisons I think.  Your price point may be different and I'm not arguing that.  For comparison - I don't buy video games.  Not how I choose to spend my money.  To each their own.
If PCGen was a commercial endeavor I'd place it's pricepoint around $30 for the software with the SRD.  Additional datasets would be based on a percentage of the book - maybe 10% of the cost of the book.  Or $400 for a lifetime all data membership.  Again - that's what I'd pay.
-cpd


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 12, 2007)

schporto said:
			
		

> To me PCGen is an expensive piece of software.



Yes and no. Its free to d/l. However, if you're talking about the time cost the coders take to improved the program and/or the time cost the data monkeys take to add new datasets and/or the time cost you (generic, not specific) take to add your own data, then yes, the time cost does indeed add up.

Of course, if you're referring to the CMP datasets that were available, that also adds up.


----------



## Mercule (Jan 12, 2007)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Yes and no.




I think what he was saying is that PCGen has the infrastructure (probably not quite the right word) of an expensive piece of software.  You can make some real comparisons between what PCGen does and what a $400 piece of software does.

Personally, I think that's an appropriate comparison.  Since PCGen is free, though, we pay in ways other than money.  We pay in time for bug fixes.  We pay in compatibility issues when it up-versions.  We pay in having to deal with Notepad to enter our own datasets.  We pay in minor interface issues, too.  We pay in occasionally having to actually contribute to the project (even if it's just an idea).

I think that the people griping about some of these things would do well to remember that.  I'm sure that if we all chipped in and paid a $75k salary for four code monkeys and four data monkeys, PCGen would have no problem turning out a stellar product in, say, six months, with most of these issues addressed in some way.  Add in a bit of overhead, and I bet you could lure the D&D license back from WotC.  That ain't happening, though.


----------



## iwarrior-poet (Jan 12, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I think what he was saying is that PCGen has the infrastructure (probably not quite the right word) of an expensive piece of software.  You can make some real comparisons between what PCGen does and what a $400 piece of software does.
> 
> Personally, I think that's an appropriate comparison.  Since PCGen is free, though, we pay in ways other than money.  We pay in time for bug fixes.  We pay in compatibility issues when it up-versions.  We pay in having to deal with Notepad to enter our own datasets.  We pay in minor interface issues, too.  We pay in occasionally having to actually contribute to the project (even if it's just an idea).
> 
> I think that the people griping about some of these things would do well to remember that.  I'm sure that if we all chipped in and paid a $75k salary for four code monkeys and four data monkeys, PCGen would have no problem turning out a stellar product in, say, six months, with most of these issues addressed in some way.  Add in a bit of overhead, and I bet you could lure the D&D license back from WotC.  That ain't happening, though.




Gotta wonder if that isn't what CMP tried to do---and that didn't work out too well...


----------



## kingpaul (Jan 12, 2007)

iwarrior-poet said:
			
		

> Gotta wonder if that isn't what CMP tried to do---and that didn't work out too well...



Well, for one point, CMP's data monkeys were contractors, not employees. The only owner to work full-time for a time, TMK, was Lone Jedi. Both Mynex and Merton Monk kept their day jobs.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jan 14, 2007)

schporto said:
			
		

> I wasn't setting you up, although it could seem that way.
> I will say I disagree with comparing it to games (like call of duty etc).  To me there's probably 2 better comparisons:
> Microsoft Office costs ~$400 (standard version) - reason for comparison:  well office let's you create documents, and doesn't wear out.  I do know people who still use office 2000 (not 97 because those pcs have died for the most part).
> World of Warcraft costs $20 + $15 per month - reason for comparison:  new features added.  Counterpoints - new version will require new purchase (at about $20 - $50 + $15/month), can't create an output to go play somewhere else.



Except that I think MS Office is gawdawfully overpriced just because it's MS and they can do that.  And a game like WoW is something I pay for monthly because I use that software frequently day-in, day-out, whereas character generation is not something I need to do constantly.  When I DO need to do it I may need to do a fair amount of it for NPC's, or a half-dozen new PC's for a new campaign - but ultimately that's pretty infrequent.

I also don't need gobs of UPDATES for it.  I may be a bit of an exception, but I run quite close to Core Rules and don't need to keep feeding rules supplements with go-faster stripes to the players.  With just the Core Rules and perhaps a few purchased supplementary bits and a minimal ability to customize a few magic items I'd likely use the software unchanged for the next 5 years.


> If PCGen was a commercial endeavor I'd place it's pricepoint around $30 for the software with the SRD.  Additional datasets would be based on a percentage of the book - maybe 10% of the cost of the book.  Or $400 for a lifetime all data membership.  Again - that's what I'd pay.



I'd buy that - except the lifetime membership thing.  Nobody needs to have everything and have it for the rest of their lives.    Except, perhaps rules designers who are trying to NOT conflict with existing rules, create confusion, or reinvent wheels.  But then, NONE of them bother to do that, so again...


----------



## Notmousse (Jan 20, 2007)

This thread just gives me warm fuzzies about not using PCGen.


----------

