# PCGen sellout



## Wanderer (Feb 24, 2003)

Looking at the big picture, something very disappointing has happened to PCGen.

Here's a good snip I found on the PCGen yahoo group that pretty much sums it up:

Subject:  Wizards must be laughing their heads off 


The beginning of the end for PCGen.
This goes a lot further than charging for Wizard's IP.

What started off as a great open source community development project has just undergone a very serious change.

Those who control the development and direction have now incorporated a company that has a legal agreement with wizards to support and develop the otherwise dead PCGen competitor - ETools.

Looks like a lot of effort that *could* have been spent on PCGen will now be spent on ETools - and some other commercial product to be released at GenCon.

Why was it necessary to strike a deal to *sell* ETools from the 
website and take on future development and support? Wasn't it enough to agree to sell the wizards modules.
And the subscriptions!! Geez, that's a huge switch to commercialism! 
Talk about a complete sellout from the original free and open source ideals!
There is an obvious conflict of interest here, with every financial 
and legal motivation to focus on ETools, to the detriment of PCGen.
Looks like this was coming for a while. It turns out that the PCGen dictators pleading with us to abandon the WotC copyright datasets actually end up having a strong personal financial interest in us doing so.

**** Congratulations Wizards! ****

With almost no effort you manage to solve your 2 most diffucult 
problems with zero effort to yourselves!
You find a way rescue your own almost dead and despised product, and at the same time you effectively start the scuttling of your thorn-in-
the-side rival software by getting the dicitators to sell out!
You must have thought that you were dealing with a bunch of monkeys, and then actually got away with it.

Ah well. All good things come to an end... I'm just surprised that 
the soul of a great open source community project could get sold so easily on the flimsy premise of Wizards IP datasets. Character 
generation is mostly about game mechanics - which are *not* subject to copyright. When Wizards changed the SRD spell names, a completely 
legal and workable set of *similar* names started getting used by the open community of publishers. That's called *trying*, and what I would have expected - prior to an "our hands are tied" sellout.

Very, very disenchanted. The sad part is that it all just goes to re-
inforce that everyone has a price.


----------



## Leopold (Feb 24, 2003)

uh oh here we go!


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2003)

I fail to see the problem here. WotC's limping dogs gets fixed, and the gutted PCGen gets reinstated and updated. PCGen is still free. Truly, the situation is as good as could be expected and still be legal.


----------



## Ysgarran (Feb 24, 2003)

All of PCGen is still open source.  You don't like the direction it is going, grab a copy of the source and run with it.

Ysgarran.


----------



## Barcode (Feb 24, 2003)

Wanderer said:
			
		

> * Very, very disenchanted. The sad part is that it all just goes to re-
> inforce that everyone has a price. *




Your other points notwithstanding, the saddest thing is not the fact that everyone has a price, but rather how low that price usually is...


----------



## reezel (Feb 24, 2003)

You're probably right. How dare they sell out. I mean, honestly, who wants to be able to feed themselves when instead they could work for free for people who just complain about how you did everything in the first place. Those PCGen people are horribly ungrateful


----------



## Darkness (Feb 24, 2003)

Moved to Software.


----------



## Wanderer (Feb 24, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *I fail to see the problem here. WotC's limping dogs gets fixed, and the gutted PCGen gets reinstated and updated. PCGen is still free. Truly, the situation is as good as could be expected and still be legal. *




Looks like a big step backwards for *PCGen* to me.

First Wizards made PCGen jump programming hurdles to satisfy D20, as well as OGL licensing issues (which made the program less friendly).
Then it turns out that they're going to charge for the content anyway. In fact, it looks like the costs may make it better to switch to ETools (which gets it for free!).
This is not what PCGen is about. PCGen is (was) about having just enough game mechanics content to use your computer _with your books_ - without having to pay for everything twice.

Now, it looks like a step forward, in that at least there is a legal way to get the content into PCGen (given that its always legal to do it for your own personal use anyway).

Problem is PCGen will *definitely* suffer badly, since the key people now have a legal duty to bolster the all-but-dead ETools, and ironically win "marketshare" from PCGen.

I don't mean to inflame with the word "sellout", but its unavoidable to notice that the key PCGen people now have a business that will ultimately detract very badly from PCGen.

On a personal level to the top PCGen hierarchy, good luck guys! I guess they've worked very hard for such an opportunity. Its a shame to see that such an RPG opportunity couldn't come from an area that wasn't so detrimental to PCGen.

To me personally, its a great shame to see the beginning of the end, of what was a wonderful open source community project.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Feb 24, 2003)

Wanderer said:
			
		

> *and some other commercial product to be released at GenCon.
> *




Not to change the subject, but what is this new product? Where has it been officially mentioned?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 24, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *I fail to see the problem here. WotC's limping dogs gets fixed, and the gutted PCGen gets reinstated and updated. PCGen is still free. Truly, the situation is as good as could be expected and still be legal. *




PCGen is still free only if you you continue to use only the material that is in it now. There is no difference whatsoever between what you will get for free before the deal and after. No Anthony's mojo is by far the stronger since he has in one deal resurected e-tools and priced PCGen out of buisness when they compeat on a level playing field of information. I thought the code monkeys were working on a deal that would give the non-SRD data back for free in exchange for other work, instead it will be priced such that if you use WotC material it will be cheaper to buy e-tools than use PCGen. This is not a Win-Win as is claimed but a Win for e-tools and a major loss to PCGen.


----------



## Nine Hands (Feb 24, 2003)

Calm down Negative Nancy 

Just because you have to pay for something now, does not mean anyone sold out.  Your probably just angry cause you didn't get included 

I guess you live in a country that does not have copyright laws or your rather Chaotic in alignment and therefore don't care.  Do you also kick cats on the way to work, because you can?

I saw you other post of the PCGen yahoo group and it seems you are trying to create a stir and your a little late 

Just sit back, crack open a beer and chill.  Eventually CMP will decide on thier cost plan (remember everything mentioned about price has not been finalized yet).

Nine Hands


----------



## HellHound (Feb 24, 2003)

Nine Hands, just because you put smilies at the end of each insult doens't mean you can or should be resorting to personal attacks on a person's credibility.

_"Your probably just angry cause you didn't get included... do you also kick cats ont eh way to work, because you can?... it seems you are trying to create a stir"_

Smilies or not, that is a really unpleasant way to deal with someone, and personally I find it repugnant.


----------



## Henry (Feb 24, 2003)

Nine Hands, please do not disparage other forum members that way. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but assumptions about where they live and why they believe the things they do doesn't make it kosher.

By the same token, it's not kosher to slam the Code MOnkey Publishing staff for their hard work. If you don't like the deal, and think it's a bad step, that's fine - but Mynex and crew don't need any ulterior motives attributed to them; they're evil enough just by themselves.


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2003)

> *Looks like a big step backwards for PCGen to me.*



*

How?

PCGen could not have continued putting out the copyrighted material without permission. That's a fact. If you are the type of person who doesn't give a damn about the propriety of the situation, then just grab the data sets when they show up on your favorite share engines. But if you want to use the material, paying the price requested is the right thing to do.

Now they can distribute that data, albeit at a cost. That is still a step forward, where it would have only supported such material with rogue projects. It is far better to have new datasets at a price than no new datasets at all. And even if you don't pay, all the free content is still out there and will continue to be developed.*


----------



## Psion (Feb 24, 2003)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *PCGen is still free only if you you continue to use only the material that is in it now. There is no difference whatsoever between what you will get for free before the deal and after. No Anthony's mojo is by far the stronger since he has in one deal resurected e-tools and priced PCGen out of buisness when they compeat on a level playing field of information. I thought the code monkeys were working on a deal that would give the non-SRD data back for free in exchange for other work, instead it will be priced such that if you use WotC material it will be cheaper to buy e-tools than use PCGen.*




Wrong. Etool data sets cost too.

Bottom line: you want to use WotC IP, you have to pay for it. Welcome to reality. You don't like it, I highly recommend that you shift away from using the core materials and to using open content which will be supported for free. There is plenty of it out there.


----------



## Gizzard (Feb 24, 2003)

What I found odd about the announcement was that Wizards is hiring a team with 1) a lot of qualifications in managing D&D source data, 2) qualifications in Java programming, 3) no qualifications in C or C++?  (Does CMP have C experience from separate projects?  If so, why that horrible Java language?)

Anyway, while its really cool to have a good long term architecture for dealing with the data, CMP's first e-Tools milestone is 90 days away with someone elses code (if I remember the commentary correctly!)  They arent going to have time to gut e-Tools and make it work like PCGen; they are looking at two tasks:

1) Figure out what makes e-Tools tick; understand the existing code.
2) Make whatever changes are necessary to meet the first milestone.

Now, thats assuming they are looking at a long term relationship with the e-Tools code.  They could be looking at this like mod-authors; that they just are going to mod the data but that would be a not very much of a solution.  Ie, the bulk of whats wrong with e-Tools would stay wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, for the Open Source question.  The PCGen guys carried the ball for a long time, and if its time for them to move on, then so be it.  For those of you crying about this, Open Source doesnt mean "Free Stuff For ME Forever!".   Open Source gives everyone an opportunity to make a contribution.  If you feel that PCGen will die without some help, then DL the source and do some pro bono work on your own.


----------



## narg (Feb 24, 2003)

*new e-tools wizards agreement*

just wondering how people feel about the agreement between wizards and cmp that basically ruin all the user made mods made to date.... it figures wizards would hire a bunch of guys named code monkeys, seeing as how i'm pretty sure a bunch of monkeys coded the original e-tools.


----------



## Ysgarran (Feb 24, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> Wrong. Etool data sets cost too.
> 
> Bottom line: you want to use WotC IP, you have to pay for it. Welcome to reality. You don't like it, I highly recommend that you shift away from using the core materials and to using open content which will be supported for free. There is plenty of it out there. *



There is nothing preventing you from creating your own data sets.   The real limitation is the amount of time that it costs.    I've created a number of 'lst' files for my own use out of a number of the MMII creatures and a large number of Green Ronin products.  Now, I did pay for the books.  
I have personally found PCGen to be useless if I didn't actually own the books for a reference.

Eventually a real LST editor will become available that will make the creation of the files that PCGen uses even easier and much quicker.

Ysgarran.


----------



## Henry (Feb 24, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> What I found odd about the announcement was that Wizards is hiring a team with 1) a lot of qualifications in managing D&D source data, 2) qualifications in Java programming, 3) no qualifications in C or C++?  (Does CMP have C experience from separate projects?  If so, why that horrible Java language?)




The reason for "that horrible" Java is that PCGen is intentionally a cross-platform application. You can use it on Windows/Mac OS/Linux/Unix/ Any operating system that can run Java programs.

Also, just because the coders in question work in Java does not mean they have no experience in C; most skilled coders nowadays have proficiency with several languages.



> Anyway, while its really cool to have a good long term architecture for dealing with the data, CMP's first e-Tools milestone is 90 days away with someone elses code (if I remember the commentary correctly!)




I do not know personally, but I am working on the assumption that the coders in charge of this project have been looking at the source code for E-Tools longer than we've known aout this deal. Why do I say this? Because they stated publically that they offered WotC a "confident" estimate of 90 days for the patch of the specific issues in queestion. This means they have been looking at the code long enough to make an estimate.




> Now, thats assuming they are looking at a long term relationship with the e-Tools code.  They could be looking at this like mod-authors; that they just are going to mod the data but that would be a not very much of a solution.  Ie, the bulk of whats wrong with e-Tools would stay wrong.




In their statement at www.codemonkeypublishing.com , their list of changes are not mod changes; they are actual code fixes they are looking at.



> Now, for the Open Source question.  The PCGen guys carried the ball for a long time, and if its time for them to move on, then so be it.  For those of you crying about this, Open Source doesnt mean "Free Stuff For ME Forever!".   Open Source gives everyone an opportunity to make a contribution.  If you feel that PCGen will die without some help, then DL the source and do some pro bono work on your own. [/B]




I agree here - anyone who feels they can make a better contribution, so be it - but such contribution needs to be legal. Right now, it is the IMPROVEMENT of their product over time that is causing the unrest, and I for one find that tremendously ironic. Very few people have expressed any desire to get the non-SRD material for free; more however, are concerned with the possibility that the LST material will become unusable inside of a year.


----------



## bushfire (Feb 24, 2003)

narg said:
			
		

> *just wondering how people feel about the agreement between wizards and cmp that basically ruin all the user made mods made to date.... it figures wizards would hire a bunch of guys named code monkeys, seeing as how i'm pretty sure a bunch of monkeys coded the original e-tools. *




I think it is the best thing that could have happened for eTools. Think about it, everything eTools users have been screaming about for the last two years is going to happen:

- bug fixes, especially by a team that has a proven track record of RPG software (especially D&D/D20)
- updated data from the splatbooks and other Wotc books licensed from Wotc
- commitment to future product improvements

None of the above things were ever promised by Wotc (except maybe for bug fixes). The chances of Wotc/Fluid ever making new data sets available or improvements to the program were getting dimmer and dimmer as time went on and most users had written them off totally.

Not just the Wotc stuff but with an active company doing the coding there is a very good chance that you may see some non-wotc data sets available. There are probably many people that would pay to have the Scarred Lands or Kalamar data (or Tome of Horrors!!!!) available for download from CMP (note: not just the OGC but also the IP). Having CMP provide licensed Wotc data could be just the start.

As far as the exsisting user made mods . . . 

Not to slam the time and talent that went into creating the mods, but how many of them were really fully complete and working??  I can't think of a single splatbook that had every feat/PrC input and working correctly. Even the monster files were not complete (special abilities in user notes for example).

Most of these problems were due to limitations to eTools *not* the talent of the users. People had to come up with some creative work arounds to get what little is available working as well as it does. 

So I think the Wotc/CMP deal is going to be great for eTools. It is nice to know the program you payed for is actually going to have a future.

As far as the effects on PCGen, I don't know since I don't use it. But I somehow doubt CMP's intention is to somehow "ruin" PCGen.


----------



## bushfire (Feb 24, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *What I found odd about the announcement was that Wizards is hiring a team with 1) a lot of qualifications in managing D&D source data, 2) qualifications in Java programming, 3) no qualifications in C or C++?  (Does CMP have C experience from separate projects?  If so, why that horrible Java language?)*




Actually I think the reason PCGen is in java is that the original programmer (merton_monk??) used writting PCGen as a way to teach himself java. I think several of the CMP programmers have experience in C/C++


----------



## Hardhead (Feb 24, 2003)

> What I found odd about the announcement was that Wizards is hiring a team with 1) a lot of qualifications in managing D&D source data, 2) qualifications in Java programming, 3) no qualifications in C or C++? (Does CMP have C experience from separate projects? If so, why that horrible Java language?)




Because it's a well-rounded, very fast (for being cross-platform) platform-independant lanaguage?  Java is a very popular, very sucessful programing language.


----------



## Wanderer (Feb 25, 2003)

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> *Calm down Negative Nancy
> 
> Just because you have to pay for something now, does not mean anyone sold out.  Your probably just angry cause you didn't get included
> 
> ...




I never stated I had a problem with paying for anything.
I also respect Wizard's copyright and their right to insist on a charge of some kind.
I certainly don't condone cruelty to animals.

What I find amazing is that key personel of an open source project have incorporated to make a business that is legally bound by agreement to save and promote a rival product.
Any way you cut it, ETools and PCGen are both character generators, and hence there is a clear conflict of interest.

*PCGen was built on the contributions and efforts of a large community that have been completely excluded from any say in this process.*
I actually think that having the ability to buy WotC IP datasets is a good thing - if its the only way that Wizards will allow it. Everything else about the deal smells pretty bad to me. From a PCGen point of view, nothing else in the deal was necessary, and nothing else was revealed to the community at large until it was all signed and delivered.

I think that the top PCgen hierarchy deserve something rewarding from their efforts. I'd like to think that there were more creative solutions than entering into a commercialized conflict of interest with a rival program.
I have nothing against ETools, and don't begrudge it an opportunity to resurrect itself, but I think that resurrecting it by diverting the key personnel of its big open source community rival is very distasteful.
Open source community projects imply certain ideals that are clearly at odds with what has happened here, and I have read PCGen yahoo posts by disappointed people who have donated their time to enter in PCGen data in the past.

_What I would like to know is if Wizard's *forced* the PCGen leadership to take on ETools and fix up ETools as part of the deal_. At least then I could understand that it came down to a question of how badly desirable the IP datasets are.

Some open community discussion would not have gone astray. In fact, it would have been *very appropriate*. I also wouldn't buy a "Wizard's made us keep it secret" line. Wizard's were coming from nowhere with their ETools PR disaster (shoddy program, no funds to fix, no option for support), and PCGen held all the cards.

Wizards played this one very, very well...


----------



## NPC (Feb 25, 2003)

Wanderer, you have summed up exactly how I feel better than I ever could have.

This move has left a bad taste in my mouth.  And I'm sure it's not just my bad breath.


----------



## Gizzard (Feb 25, 2003)

> Because it's a well-rounded, very fast (for being cross-platform) platform-independant lanaguage?




Maybe my C bias is showing here, but I thought the Java App bandwagon came and went long before the year 2003.  When people say "its fast for a cross-platform language" it highlights the basic problem - it is slow and it is always going to be slow.  Not to mention quirky little issues like Swing which show that the dream of 100% compatibility is going to remain exactly a dream. IMHO.

Anyway, I say that as an explanation of why I was dismissive of Java rather than as an invitation to a Holy Programming Language War.  ;-)  



> ...most skilled coders nowadays have proficiency with several languages.




Proficiency or experience?  I could put a ton of languages that I've dabbled in on a resume, but I would truthfully only say that I am proficient in C.  And maybe some obsolete assembly languages.  ;-)  I can't think of many people that I work with that I would hire for a Java gig even though several of us have at least looked at the language - I'd prefer to hire people who were doing Java day-in, day-out.

I mention that because as a project manager I'd want to see some ability to manage a C project from CMP before I hired them.  A 90 day schedule doesnt leave you a lot of time to config SourceSafe and VC6 if you have to start from ground zero.  And thats just the tools issues; not to mention some time to shake the rust off if you've been away from C for a couple years.

Anyway, I dont know what the CMP guys do in their work day; they could all be C programmers by day and Java hobbyists by night.  In which case its a great idea to hire them to fix up e-Tools.  If there is an implicit vote of "no confidence" in my even bringing this subject up, its more in Wizards ability to understand software development and hire an appropriate dev house to do the work it needs done.  I mean, CMP has shown that they can go from zero to product in a reasonable amount of time, so I really dont intend to slam them.


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Re: PCGen sellout*



			
				Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not to change the subject, but what is this new product? Where has it been officially mentioned? *




From the front page of http://www.codemonkeypublishing.com:



> The future is indeed very bright folks. We have more than just e-Tools and data sets going on here. Remember, we are also a publisher ourselves, with an entire line of products slated to be released this year, as well as software support for those products, and _our_ flagship program CampaignGen, we are aiming for a GenCon release. There are a lot of things planned in the future for a lot of different things, so stick about and join in the monkey mayhem!




----

As for PCGen charging, etc - I'm not too bothered by a smallish, one-off charge.  What bothers me is the claims that the fee will be annual.  But I can't find anything confirming this.

I'm also worried about other publishers charging through CMP for their material to be available in PCGen.  This could start to cost me a lot of money.

Also, on the PCGen yahoogroup people have stated that the money generated is likely to be used to pay bandwidth charges, yet PCGen is currently hosted on sourceforge.Net, which states on http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6025&group_id=1:


> SourceForge.net is the world's largest Open Source software development web site, _providing free hosting_ to tens of thousands of projects.



*Italics mine...

From what I read there, CMP/PCGen don't have to pay for downloads from SourceForge, so if the data remained open they could distribute it there for free.

Another point: will CMP be re-coding all of WotC's non-SRC data sets, or will they use the data already typed up in the pre-OGL days of PCGen?  Because, I don't think they should be able to use the old files - they were typed up by many different people, for free, and I don't think it's right for CMP to benefit from that work, nor do I think they "own" it.

I actually wonder if the reins of PCGen should now be handed over.  CMP have the responsibility for WotC's datasets, etools patchs, and their new product - what will happen to PCGen when they find their time too stretched?

Duncan


----------



## Hardhead (Feb 25, 2003)

> Maybe my C bias is showing here, but I thought the Java App bandwagon came and went long before the year 2003. When people say "its fast for a cross-platform language" it highlights the basic problem - it is slow and it is always going to be slow. Not to mention quirky little issues like Swing which show that the dream of 100% compatibility is going to remain exactly a dream. IMHO.




Exactly what do you need a Java program like PCGen to do that it needs to run as fast as C, though?  

PCGen runs plenty fast for me both on my Windows computer, and my old iMac running OS X.  There's about a three second delay while it loads up the data files, but there's no delay after that doing anything.  So, yeah, you wouldn't want to code Quake III in java, but a simple character generation program works just fine.  Plus, it's cross-platform.  I first started using PCGen when all I had was a Mac.  Two of my players still only use Macs.  It would be much less useful to me if it wasn't cross-platform.


- Z a c h


----------



## Mynex (Feb 25, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I mention that because as a project manager I'd want to see some ability to manage a C project from CMP before I hired them.  A 90 day schedule doesnt leave you a lot of time to config SourceSafe and VC6 if you have to start from ground zero.  And thats just the tools issues; not to mention some time to shake the rust off if you've been away from C for a couple years.
> 
> Anyway, I dont know what the CMP guys do in their work day; they could all be C programmers by day and Java hobbyists by night.  In which case its a great idea to hire them to fix up e-Tools.  If there is an implicit vote of "no confidence" in my even bringing this subject up, its more in Wizards ability to understand software development and hire an appropriate dev house to do the work it needs done.  I mean, CMP has shown that they can go from zero to product in a reasonable amount of time, so I really dont intend to slam them. *




All the primary coders do exactly what you describe above... they code in c by day and java 'for fun' by night... someone else pointed out that they thought that Bryan McRoberts (Merton Monk) started PCGen as a way to learn Java, that is 100% accurate.

Between all the Code Monkeys at CMP there is a total ov 90+ years worth of C language coding, for companies ranging from bank one, to lear corp...  so rest assured, the experience is there.


----------



## Henry (Feb 25, 2003)

Wanderer said:
			
		

> I have nothing against ETools, and don't begrudge it an opportunity to resurrect itself, but I think that resurrecting it by diverting the key personnel of its big open source community rival is very distasteful.
> Open source community projects imply certain ideals that are clearly at odds with what has happened here, and I have read PCGen yahoo posts by disappointed people who have donated their time to enter in PCGen data in the past.




Please show me how the design process, addition of new features, or the design goals of PCGen has changed in any way, shape or form with the coming of this announcement. PCGen will not slow down, since there is more than just Bryan doing the coding here.

Both E-tools and PCGen benefit from the arrangement. PCGen gets the option of datasets it didn't have before, legally. E-Tools gets the option of those same data sets, legally.

E-Tools users get support that they were entitled to, but lost due to business issues. PCGen was not, and will most likely not be, affected by the process; in addition to the fact that there are more code monkeys than are CMP employees, we have been given assurances that everything will still go on schedule.



> _What I would like to know is if Wizard's *forced* the PCGen leadership to take on ETools and fix up ETools as part of the deal_. At least then I could understand that it came down to a question of how badly desirable the IP datasets are.




The official statement is "mutually beneficial; from outside appearances, however, CMP still holds the most important cards. PCGen is still free. E-Tools is not. Both have to pay for data sets - same price, I'm willing to bet. E-tools has more windows users, PCGen has users in other OS'es.

PCGen has lost nothing. 

Is your apprehension that PCGen has been damaged based on a belief that the two programs cannot compete on a level playing field? They have the most level of playing fields now; heck, they're supported by some of the same people! _(though not all of same; see above.)_



> Some open community discussion would not have gone astray. In fact, it would have been *very appropriate*. I also wouldn't buy a "Wizard's made us keep it secret" line. Wizard's were coming from nowhere with their ETools PR disaster (shoddy program, no funds to fix, no option for support), and PCGen held all the cards.
> 
> Wizards played this one very, very well...




I really don't see the game, here. If anything, CMP got the good end of the stick. I don't know for certain, but I am guessing that there is involved some monetary compensation in addition to getting a license to sell data sets - I certainly hope so, because I hate to think Bryan, Greg, Robert, et. al. are doing it all for just selling data sets.



> _Originally posted by Duncan Haldane_
> I actually wonder if the reins of PCGen should now be handed over. CMP have the responsibility for WotC's datasets, etools patchs, and their new product - what will happen to PCGen when they find their time too stretched?




PCGen is directed by Bryan McRoberts; I'm guessing he kept ownership of the name, and therefore he'll decide when and if it ever needs to be handed over.

But I will re-iterate a point another poster made: _If a person feels that PCGen has gone astray, they are certainly within the rights of the Public License to take the code base for PCGen and develop it themselves._ If a person feels the program is going wrong, then fork it. They owe it to themselves, and to their beliefs.

Otherwise, trust Merton Monk and Mynex and the other Head Bananas just a bit longer. They've stewarded this project for almost three years now; they're not homicidal parents.

I for one am almost celebratory: The poor orphan-child known as E-Tools has finally found adoptive parents; PCGen is getting a new relative, and both of them have had the papers drawn up for their long-overdue inheritance.

"Options, not restrictions." It's the mantra for 3E, and it applies to the new deal between WotC and Code Monkey Publishing, too.


----------



## Hollywood (Feb 25, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> What I found odd about the announcement was that Wizards is hiring a team with 1) a lot of qualifications in managing D&D source data, 2) qualifications in Java programming, 3) no qualifications in C or C++?  (Does CMP have C experience from separate projects?  If so, why that horrible Java language?)




a) Java is NOT a horrible language.  Its actually a very good language by itself.  The biggest problem is that its supposed to be cross-platform and doing cross-platform UI is not an easy task and the Swing API for doing UI is really dodgy and slow... IBM's version is actually a bit better, but it also relies on taking advantage UI APIs found on the target machines in which its run on.

b) Java is based quite heavily on the C/C++ syntax anyways.  Its what is called a "managed" language, which means that it manages memory allocation/deallocation and some other things that can really trip up even the most experienced programmers.

c) More important to the issue is not whether the team can program in C, or why they chose Java, but whether they can actually DESIGN and DEVELOP software with proven SOFTWARE ENGINEERING concepts.   Since none of their resumes are available, I can't say whether any of them have this experience or not.   Having seen the Java code, since its open-source, I really suspect not, but may be wrong.  If they don't, then it was a horrid move on WotC's part.



> Open Source gives everyone an opportunity to make a contribution.  If you feel that PCGen will die without some help, then DL the source and do some pro bono work on your own.
> 
> But I will re-iterate a point another poster made: If a person feels that PCGen has gone astray, they are certainly within the rights of the Public License to take the code base for PCGen and develop it themselves. If a person feels the program is going wrong, then fork it. They owe it to themselves, and to their beliefs.




Why? Start fresh, don't use bad code thats full of a lot of proprietary and badly designed code and data storage/manipulation.



> Please show me how the design process.




How about we see some design and architecture documents for eTools and PCGen to prove that legitimate software development processes are being followed.  That won't ensure that broken software won't get turned out, but will prove that some time and effort has been spent on thinking through the project before any coding begins and its not just a "code-n-go" project.



> E-Tools users get support that they were entitled to, but lost due to business issues.




ETools users should have gotten their money back, with an apology, from WotC.  Fluid should have bailed on the software long before it got to the point it got, when it was apparent that WotC had no true goals that could and would be set in concrete.



> Otherwise, trust Merton Monk and Mynex and the other Head Bananas just a bit longer. They've stewarded this project for almost three years now; they're not homicidal parents.




I'm sorry, but I've not seen 3 years of value out of that work.  Luke's done far more with his RPM software.



> "Options, not restrictions." It's the mantra for 3E, and it applies to the new deal between WotC and Code Monkey Publishing, too.




I disagree.  This "deal" doesn't address anything.  It only allows TWO tools, one controlled by WotC and the other basically controlled by WotC, to use additional options that are not available to other tools like RPM or Twin Rose's software.  Thats not "options, not restrictions", thats "restricted to only our tools" of which both are mishappened hammers being used to pound in wood screws.


----------



## Henry (Feb 25, 2003)

Let me clarify a little...



			
				Hollywood said:
			
		

> Why? Start fresh, don't use bad code thats full of a lot of proprietary and badly designed code and data storage/manipulation.



My statement presumes that the naysayers of the direction of PCGen have been following and contributing to the existing design process, and are happy with the direction the code is going in now. If they haven't been involved until now, then they really shouldn't be concerned about this deal to begin with, and should be following their own efforts, as you say.


> How about we see some design and architecture documents for eTools and PCGen to prove that legitimate software development processes are being followed.



WotC has obviously seen enough to know they want CMP to handle the contract. CMP obviously has seen enough to know that the specific software fixes promised to WotC are accomplishable within 90 days. On CMP's site (can't recall exactly where right now) is a specific list of the issues that they will address. According to Mynex, several have been fixed within the past week. Both parties are confident the contract is able to be fulfilled.


> ETools users should have gotten their money back, with an apology, from WotC.  Fluid should have bailed on the software long before it got to the point it got, when it was apparent that WotC had no true goals that could and would be set in concrete.



Since neither of us nor most of the forum members were involved, neither of us have enough info to squarely place the blame of WotC's shoulders alone. Fluid may have as much financial culpability as WotC in the venture. All we have to go on is personal allegations and rumor, and most of it from individuals biased by the situation.


> I'm sorry, but I've not seen 3 years of value out of that work.  Luke's done far more with his RPM software.



No offense to Luke, but his situation is different.
1) RPM cannot run cross-platform, a situation that becomes more relevant as time goes on.
2) Luke charges for his time and effort, and has a financial stake in RPM, which the majority of the PCGen coders do not.
3) I have successfully used PCGen as a full-featured character generator, offering every character option imaginable, since December of 2000. A user base of about 5,000 others have had similar success. In what way has it not fulfilled its value?


> I disagree.  This "deal" doesn't address anything.  It only allows TWO tools, one controlled by WotC and the other basically controlled by WotC, to use additional options that are not available to other tools like RPM or Twin Rose's software.  Thats not "options, not restrictions", thats "restricted to only our tools" of which both are mishappened hammers being used to pound in wood screws.



I'll thank you to leave my hammers alone, please. 

Twin Rose CS and RPM are fine programs. They also aren't cheap, and have upgrade costs associated down the road. They also cost me time and effort in entering the data I need to enter, since they do not carry a lot of d20 OGL content. This is why I do not use them, or actively support them. Their program designs do not fit my needs.

With respect to the licensing deal: My comments are specifically delivered toward users who assume that this license means that PCGen has somehow lost functionality, or "sold out." It has the same functionality it did prior to the announcement, and will not likely lose any. In fact, my "options" statement is referring to the fact that users now have the option for MORE functionality, not less. I've said it before, and I'll repeat, PCGen has lost nothing.

I am sorry if it concerns you that other d20 software makers were not included, but they have every right and opportunity to approach WotC with their own proposals. Code Monkey Publishing cannot very well cut deals for all publishers across the board - they can only speak for themselves, and they have. CMP negotiated a deal, and they offer WotC a service that WotC needs. They gain is not automatically other publishers' loss.

I sorry we don't agree here, but I've got nothing but concrete use from PCgen over the years, with minor bugs to show for it, same as every program I have ever used.


----------



## Hollywood (Feb 25, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> WotC has obviously seen enough to know they want CMP to handle the contract.




Given WotC's trackrecord, I highly doubt that they known enough or made enough effort to guarentee that the fixes could be done.  And thats just assuming that we are talking about making changes to an existing code-base.  If we are talking about starting from near scratch, then its even more important that proper software design is followed.  And bids accepted from a variety of sources.



> Since neither of us nor most of the forum members were involved, neither of us have enough info to squarely place the blame of WotC's shoulders alone. Fluid may have as much financial culpability as WotC in the venture.




Its very easy to blame WotC because eTools went through so many different hands and therefore had many different guises.  The trail eTools took from the beginnings as MasterTools is a typical "trail of tears" that has produced numerous bad software titles throughout the years.  Fluid may indeed have been culpable, but they could only follow the directions given to them by WotC.



> 1) RPM cannot run cross-platform




Neither can eTools.  



> a situation that becomes more relevant as time goes on.




But no, I disagree that its relevant.  There are really only two platforms that consumers have, a) Windows or b) Mac.  The majority are still Windows machines.  Linux is no where yet ready where it has anywhere near the ability for the standard consumer to use and run it in a fashion they would a Mac or Windows machine.  Not to mention, Linux typically lacks the support for drivers and devices that are almost always updated with Windows/Mac machines.

Nonetheless, Java is a bad choice for cross-platform anyways, unless you are EXTREMELY careful with it.  Ask yourself how many Java based pieces of software you can buy at BestBuy, etc.  None.  There are very good reasons for it, and one is the Swing API.  Now there are some alternatives out there that use the native window APIs that can cause an increase in performance.



> 2) Luke charges for his time and effort, and has a financial stake in RPM, which the majority of the PCGen coders do not.




Yes, Luke and others like TwinRose software do.  And in neither case, free or paid-for, does it guarentee that you will have quality programmers let alone quality archtecture and design.  



> 3) I have successfully used PCGen as a full-featured character generator, offering every character option imaginable, since December of 2000. A user base of about 5,000 others have had similar success. In what way has it not fulfilled its value?




You poled this so-called 5,000 user base and thats the answer from everyone of them?  I doubt it.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that there are at least 1/4 of those users who are no-longer using or never really used the software at all.

But bottom-line, as soon as you leave the exact SRD rules for D&D, PCGen is broken unless you wish to add code or .lst files yourself.  Not easy for the general D&Der to do so, especially considering the state that the Java code of PCGen is in and the archaic .lst files.

Some other software do allow more customization to the general database of rules/templates/etc. ranging from simple manipulation of a form and its variable or up to scripting.

And to me, PCGen has zero value.  It can't handle my house rules, few as they are, and can't handle a single one of my characters or the characters in that exist in the group I play with [and thats not even bringing in Forgottem Realms material since that is where we play].  
Not to mention, on general principles, I wouldn't use PCGen after having looked at the code.



> I am sorry if it concerns you that other d20 software makers were not included, but they have every right and opportunity to approach WotC with their own proposals. Code Monkey Publishing cannot very well cut deals for all publishers across the board - they can only speak for themselves, and they have.




Which way did it go?  Did CMP approach WotC or did WotC approach CMP?  Whose hand is feeding whose?  I seem to remember that one of the guys from Twin Rose said they were in negotiations to be able to use some of the non-OGL material.

Nonetheless, WotC should have proceeded in a way to, as you said earlier, to allow users "Options, not restrictions.".  They failed.



> CMP negotiated a deal, and they offer WotC a service that WotC needs.




Who cares what WotC needs.  Its the users of eTools that WotC needed to think about, not themselves.  eTools is a mess, especially for the cost that was charged for the software, and it needs to be fixed.  No, not a few lines of code changed here and there, but a total rehaul and a new piece of software (*professionals with years of software design and development under their belts*) that fulfills the shipping goals for eTools and that software should be provided as a "patch", i.e. all users who bought eTools are entitled to a new free copy.

Screw WotC needs.  At this point, their needs are secondary to the needs of customers who already paid good money for a piss-poor product.


----------



## herald (Feb 25, 2003)

The fact of the matter is simple. The codemonkeys said that they were up to it. And thier time is worth something. I admire anyone who steps up to the plate and delivers. And if they can take some profit by it, well they earned it. I'm sure that WOTC would have liked to taken alot of bids on this but again, I'm sure the Codemonkeys would have beaten that too.

As for complaints about taking away from open source, well you don't build a company and keep it together by giveing everything away for free. You have to charge for something, so you can pay the bills. Once the bills are paid, then you can find time to do the things that you want.

I haven't always like the way that the PCGEN peole have conducted themselves, but I know enough to cut them some slack for the next 90 days (+Q&A time).


----------



## Knightcrawler (Feb 25, 2003)

Okay I'm speaking mainly on PCGen here.  I am not a member of CMP so I know very little of what is going on with E-Tools.  Here's What we have.

E-Tools - Commercial Product THat You Pay Money For

PCGen - OPen Source Program That Is Free

WotC *IP* Datasets - IP Datasets That Are *Not* OGC That *Both* E-Tool And PCGen Users Will Have To Pay For

OGC Datasets - Every Other Source Thats Out There Under THe OGL.  If Its OGC Its Freely Used By Everyone.

Okay PCGen has always been free and will remain that way.  While I don't like the fact that I'm going to have to pay for the WotC datasets anything that gets them back in PCGen is a good thing.

And as to a level playing field, please.  E-Tools will be worked on by employees of CMP only which unless I'm wrong means 10 at the most.  Now PCGen which uses OGC sources can be worked on by anyone.  We have about 40 "Official" LST Monkeys that can work on various sources.  These are the people with usually at least one source under their belts and lots of experience coding the datasets.  Then we have a whole community of people that come in and work on various parts of projects.  So just in manpower terms we have at the very least a 4 to 1 advatage.


----------



## Luke (Feb 26, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Let me clarify a little...
> 
> I'm sorry, but I've not seen 3 years of value out of that work. Luke's done far more with his RPM software.
> 
> ...




Hey, Henry. Just need to clarify a few things. They may be common misconceptions.
RPM isn't cross-platform, but does benefit from immensely from the platform it has chosen. My research shows very heavily that supporting all Windows platforms covers the immensely  dominant percentage of people. Not plagued by supporting the lowest-common-denominator, I give the best I can to the greatest number of people. That said,as my development platform evolves, I continuously take options that can very conceivably lead to a cross-platform RPM in the near future. I don't want to take backward steps - so no promises.

My program is shareware, but  I *do not charge for my time and effort*. Buying components for development systems cost money, and RPM shareware registrations pay for the on-going development.
The time and effort that *I* spend, is out of love for 3rd Edition, ,and partly for the challenge. Doing a complete suite from CharGen, to Advcenture and CampaignGen to full in-game support - in a completely open and extension d20 fashion, is no mean feat. I enjoy working on it immensely.
I'm not about to try and prove what I've just said, but I can tell you that people flock with money to WotC, and almost everyone else has a day job. This was explained very frankly to me by somebody I won't name who tried for years to make a business out of RPG-related software. I proceeded with my commitment out of love for 3rd edition - not money. If I want to make money, I would be doing something very different with my available time.

Sure, its possible that RPM registrations could do more than pay for itself with current developments in the future. If that happens, I have some *really* nice pipe dream developments in mind - not a holiday in Barbados 



> Twin Rose CS and RPM are fine programs. They also aren't cheap, and have upgrade costs associated down the road.



Prices are subjective, and everyone I asked about a $24 price tag said that they were very happy. Where I live, its far less than the cost of a single RPG book. I actually had a couple try to convince me sell for $40 (one person very well known and close to the WotC inner circle), but decided that I had the best balance between trying to make RPM available to the largest audience, yet be able to sustain on-going development.

I *definitely* need to say something about "on-going upgrades down the road"!
*You pay a one-time shareware registration for RPM that entitles you to a lifetime of free upgrades and support.*
People who paid early for an RPM registration, have continued to recieve on-going benefits with new features - often unexpectedly, and always at no cost. I don't view the RPM RPG community as a source of money. I view them as supporters of a program that I try continuously to improve for them.

Latest offerings about to appear include advanced dungeon generation, and network voice capability (as part of an internet enabling effort - I want to solve the hard problems first). These could be very useful, but they're still a shadow of my full intent. I release them early because people may benefit now.
I don't charge for any supplemental downloads. I find what I can that is quality and free (like D20 modern), and make it available for free. A couple of guys have also just started a yahoo group for file sharing that should be good. I won't moderate there, because I'd like that to be a community - where I have no dominion.
If you find any RPM supplements that cost anything, it will be because of a charge by the copyright owners of the material.

The most likely scenario for a paid supplement in RPM will be if people request me to do an import for PCGen lst files, ,so you can import stuff you bought from CMP 

Regards,


----------



## jdavis (Feb 26, 2003)

Hollywood said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Who cares what WotC needs.  Its the users of eTools that WotC needed to think about, not themselves.  eTools is a mess, especially for the cost that was charged for the software, and it needs to be fixed.  No, not a few lines of code changed here and there, but a total rehaul and a new piece of software (professionals with years of software design and development under their belts) that fulfills the shipping goals for eTools and that software should be provided as a "patch", i.e. all users who bought eTools are entitled to a new free copy.
> 
> Screw WotC needs.  At this point, their needs are secondary to the needs of customers who already paid good money for a piss-poor product. *




I am trying to figure out just what your point is here, you don't seem to like PCGen,you don't seem to like Java, you don't seem to like e-tools, and you don't seem to like WOTC. All that is fine but what is the point you are getting at. They are not going to give out a completly new program for e-tools and they don't need to, e-tools performs all the funtions it is supposed to, it's just buggy as hell. Fix the bugs and get on with life. Yes the program is goofy and sometimes hard to work with but all of these programs have their flaws, it isn't a real good program but it does work, and it will work much better once the bugs are fixed. The basic point is that I got what I bought, I can toss it or use it, but it won't be the first or last thing that I bought that I wasn't 100% happy with, heck I don't know if I have ever been 100% happy with any purchase ever. Thank goodness somebody/anybody is actually going to try and fix it.

Java?.....................Who really cares, if you don't like Java and you don't like PCGen and you don't like E-tools then don't use any of these products. Can we at least give them the 90 days before we start calling them failures or loosers or sellouts. The only suggestion from you that I actually saw was that they prove they can do the work and that WOTC should give e-tools buyers a completly new program. Well they will prove if they can do the work or not in 90 days and WOTC is not going to create a completly new program and give it out for free, that is just not going to happen and everybody knows it, it isn't even in the same realm as anything logical. We are going to get a patch and future support for e-tools not a new e-tools, I know that and accept that and am happy I am getting that much out of this crappy situation. It's not like this is the only piece of crappy software out there that didn't live up to the hype. Heck Microsoft puts out crappy software everyday.


----------



## Henry (Feb 26, 2003)

Hollywood:

I could keep debating you point for point, but that would still get us nowhere. While it's clear you are unhappy with the options as they are, I have to say that I am, and that most E-tools users will likely be as well. No support for a product they purchased is far worse than support from a company that has apparent qualifications to do so. Disparagement of WotC over poor choices by previous managers doesn't help anyone, least of all the user base.

I still don't see where this is a thorn to the users or developers of Character utility software. This is not some anti-competitive business deal; it's a license to let two programs get extra data support, that doesn't shut anyone else out from making their own deals, should they take initiative to do so.

I do have to ask for a favor, if you would: could you please provide a couple of examples of house rules that PCGen cannot handle? I honestly have never seen a character generation house rule anywhere that PCGen cannot currently handle, outside of extra ability scores or attributes, and in the near future even those will be taken into account. Also, PCgen has LST editors that should continue to improve, so anything that can be modeled with a formula of some sort is addable; the only things that aren't added are situational bonuses, which you don't necessarily want to see added to your base scores anyway.

Luke:

I appreciate your weighing in on this. Since it's been at least six months since I looked at either RPM or Twin Rose CS, I haven't been up on current status for RPM. I also appreciate the clarification on your lack of upgrade charge, since I couldn't find the definitive answer to that on your site this morning. Most softwares do not have free upgrades for their major version number changes, and I commend you for doing it, in an age where it's non-standard.

However, my statement about compensation still stands, if amended. Coders of PCGen outside of the CMP members receive no monetary compensation whatsoever for their code efforts, to my knowledge - I certainly understand that using effective API's, controls, and libraries for Windows programs costs money. But there is at least a materials compensation involved, by your statement. And the monetary compensation by CMP staff is fairly recent, to my understanding.

It is interesting though: I replied to this thread in response to Wanderer's concerns: that of a PCGen user who thinks the deal is detrimental to what he considered a good product; Hollywood, however, introduced me to a whole new consumer: one who simply doesn't like PCGen, and thinks this WotC/CMP deal is detrimental for the other 3rd party publishers! 

Leave it to Luke, however, to make lemonade with it all.


----------



## DMFTodd (Feb 26, 2003)

> but I do not charge for my time and effort.




I'll just add a little to what Luke said: Those of us charging for RPG software are not making money for our time and effort. Yeah, I charge for DM's Familiar. If I were to figure out my return for time and effort though it would be a very depressing number. I'd do much better to stick with my regular programming clients (and my wife would be happier).

Those of us writing RPG software do it because we love it. That's it. There's no money to be made here near as I can tell. 

If the folks at CPM actually think they are going to make a living selling datasets, I think they will be in for a rude suprise. I hope I'm wrong and they all become fabuously wealthy, but I'm doubting it.


----------



## Duncan Haldane (Feb 26, 2003)

Hollywood said:
			
		

> *You poled this so-called 5,000 user base and thats the answer from everyone of them?  I doubt it.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that there are at least 1/4 of those users who are no-longer using or never really used the software at all.*




check out http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/?group_id=25576;
It lists the statistics of downloads for PCGen.  You will see that in the last week the number of downloads have been somewhere around 8,000.

Since PCGen tries to put out a new release every week, and I'm sure that many people that use PCGen don't try every version, I', sure that the active user base is far higher than the number of downloads.

To be honest, I actually think that a weekly release schedule is too much.  Sure, putting a new version of the data files up every week is fine, and addressing bugs quickly is important, but they haven't had an official production release since 4.0.0, which was quite some time ago now.  I really think that they should try to go to fortnightly releases, where, say, Odd release are Alpha, so people who reported bugs can see if they were addressed, and some people could test new features, and Even releases being Beta, which only have bug fixes and additional data, with no new features.  These even releases could then become Production versions if there are no show-stoppers.

Duncan


----------



## Mynex (Feb 26, 2003)

Hollywood said:
			
		

> *
> And to me, PCGen has zero value.  It can't handle my house rules, few as they are, and can't handle a single one of my characters or the characters in that exist in the group I play with [and thats not even bringing in Forgottem Realms material since that is where we play].
> Not to mention, on general principles, I wouldn't use PCGen after having looked at the code.[/QB]*



*

Really?  Tell the house rules.  I'll make the files myself.




			[QB]
Who cares what WotC needs.  Its the users of eTools that WotC needed to think about, not themselves.  eTools is a mess, especially for the cost that was charged for the software, and it needs to be fixed.  No, not a few lines of code changed here and there, but a total rehaul and a new piece of software (professionals with years of software design and development under their belts) that fulfills the shipping goals for eTools and that software should be provided as a "patch", i.e. all users who bought eTools are entitled to a new free copy.

Screw WotC needs.  At this point, their needs are secondary to the needs of customers who already paid good money for a piss-poor product.
		
Click to expand...


*
Hollywood,

I sense more than a bit of disgruntlement here, and you are entitled to it, as it is your opinion.  However obliquely it is stated, my _opinion_ and my _perception_ here is that you are disparaging CMP's programing abilities.

I would respectfully ask that you please wait and see what happens with e-Tools before going off like this.  Our programming staff has a LOT of experience in coding in a professional enviornment.

Not to mention, you are slamming the door on things before they even begin.  relax, wait for the patch we are doing, then make a judgement call please.


----------



## Luke (Feb 26, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Hollywood:
> 
> Luke:
> I appreciate your weighing in on this. Since it's been at least six months since I looked at either RPM or Twin Rose CS, I haven't been up on current status for RPM. I also appreciate the clarification on your lack of upgrade charge, since I couldn't find the definitive answer to that on your site this morning. Most softwares do not have free upgrades for their major version number changes, and I commend you for doing it, in an age where it's non-standard.
> *




No problem. Not weighing in, just clarifying some RPM points.

On my website: 4th menu option is "Register RPM", and line 6 on that page under "Benefits of registering" is "Free updates of RolePlayingMaster".
I take your point, however, since I've answered about 4 e-mails from _current_ RPM users asking me if they needed to pay to upgrade to RPM 3.0 !!!  I've also spent a fair bit of "internet phone time" showing big-time RPM fans just how much they can actually do with the program. I _really_ sell myself short on advertising RPM's capabilities   . Thankfully, somebody massively keen on it is putting together a whole bunch of tutorials for it, whilst I continue coding 

Thanks for frank words on DMF, Todd. Perhaps Chris (TwinRose) has something to say about making money from RPG software? I think you'll find that we all either start out, or end up, doing it for the love of it.
In the end, it appears that even PCGen are going to see quality benefits in moving to a cost-model.
In the final analysis, I'd suggest that WotC were saved by community doing it for the love of it. PCGen saves ETools? If so, it was the existence of a dedicated group doing it for love that saved the failed commercial attempt.
Even Wizards couldn't make money from RPG software ??? Ironies abound, and we live in interesting times... 

Regards,


----------



## Mynex (Feb 26, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *I honestly have never seen a character generation house rule anywhere that PCGen cannot currently handle, outside of extra ability scores or attributes, and in the near future even those will be taken into account.*




Henry,

Actually, this can be done now, and has been enabled for a few months now.  There is no editor (yet, its coming!) to do it easily, but in the follwing folder (shown below), you can add/remove stats and define what they do/how they act to your heart's content.  I know, I use 2 addititional stats in my campaign world, and have been for a long time (1st as equipemt, now as real stats)...

go to;
>pcgen folder name</system/gameModes/DnD/statsandchecks.lst

There is even _some_ documentation on it, and we're working on some more as time progresses.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 26, 2003)

Wanderer said:
			
		

> *Some open community discussion would not have gone astray. In fact, it would have been very appropriate. I also wouldn't buy a "Wizard's made us keep it secret" line. Wizard's were coming from nowhere with their ETools PR disaster (shoddy program, no funds to fix, no option for support), and PCGen held all the cards.
> 
> Wizards played this one very, very well... *




Umm, the folks at CMP were almost certainly required to sign a nondisclosure agreement.  If so they most definetly _had_ to keep it secret, or face penalties - which could very well include losing access to the IP material. Depending on the wording of the agreement it could have led to considerably more.

As for playing cards, I think they both played their hands well. Those folks who purchased E-Tools may finally have a worthwhile program, while we PCGen users will see the return of the IP material.

It will be interesting to see if the amount of OGL material being made available for PCGen decreases, or as I suspect, it increases as the user base increases and the lst editors become more functional. PCGen does not rely solely on the work of the artists currently known as Code Monkey.  Only the WoTC OP material is being solely only by CMP.

I have heard a lot of complaints that the Splatbook material should have remained free. Well, I must admit I like free,  but I am sure that WoTC will want compensation for their material, and now that they are under contract so will CMP.

There also seems to be a fear that PCGen's lst files will suddenly stop working. I have my doubts about that, I suspect that PCGen will, over the course of this next year, finish nailing down their data format and the material will continue to function just fine. Just make sure you make backups of any purchased lst files so if you suffer a hardware failure or simply purchase a new computer you do not lose that data. 

The Auld Grump, for once feeling optimistic....


----------



## jujutsunerd (Feb 26, 2003)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> * If so, why that horrible Java language?)*




I'm going to stay out of this debate except for this.
The choice of programming language is a 'religious' decision. Debating about it will generate a lot of heat but very little light, and noone's opinion is likely to change.

For the record: I feel that with Java available, I can see absolutely *no* reason for any sentient being to use the abomination that is C++. (C is ok, for real-time low-level stuff.)

/Jonas


----------



## D'karr (Feb 26, 2003)

*Chill out Francis.*

PCGen is a sellout!!!

Worse yet, PCGen is dead!!!

CMP is an evil empire!!!

E-Tools has won!!!!

Oh my goodness, I have to pay for stuff...

Java is not coffee!!!

If I was coding I'd do it in ADA!!!

CMP can't blah, blah, blah...

WotC doesn't blah, blah, blah...

Luke's RPM blah, blah, blah...

Twin Rose is blah, blah, blah...

Eric Noah is a half-fiend love child!!!

The sky is falling!!!!



The is a name for this, the chicken little syndrome.


BTW the half-fiend love child song was hilarious.


----------



## Morik (Feb 26, 2003)

I'm not sure why there will be two programms basicly doing the same: E-Tools AND PCGen are IMO doing the same thing while I like PCGen a lot more (maybe because I used it before E-Tools had come out).

There is my second problem. I bought E-Tools and I'm using PCGen. What are my options here? Sureley I have to stick to one programm otherwise supporting two Charakter-Generating programms at the same time doesn't make any sense to me.

And... what happens if E-Tools will have far more customers than PCGen in the furture or vice versa? Will one programm be "shut down" then? 

Now, CMP is a company with all views on how to make profit (and rightly so). I'm not sure of this but  my guess is that they will close down one programm that is not generating enough sales for the effort done by the employees.

Yeah, it's a company... They're employees not programmers only.

I hope that PCGen will have the better start. I like the programm and I had never any problems with it (refering to the Java Discussion).

In fact PCGen were a wonderful programm with all the splat-books in it (it is very good without them too). And the fact that all the material will be back makes me smile. And the costs? Well, one have to wait and see. I will buy the data files for sure (not for any price though but a reasonable fee is okay for me).

I had dreamed about WOTc employees and PCGen developers would came together and settle on good terms and now exactly that had happend.

I congratulate WOTc too but in a positive way. Remember TSR? That was a tough company. WOTc is much softer and friendlier, don't you think? (Hope you will not punch me too hard for my last statement ;-) )


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Feb 26, 2003)

Morik said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I congratulate WOTc too but in a positive way. Remember TSR? That was a tough company. WOTc is much softer and friendlier, don't you think? (Hope you will not punch me too hard for my last statement ;-) ) *




That was true until they were bought by Ha$bro and Peter Atkinson left.


----------



## smetzger (Feb 26, 2003)

Luke said:
			
		

> *The most likely scenario for a paid supplement in RPM will be if people request me to do an import for PCGen lst files, ,so you can import stuff you bought from CMP *




Yes, I see that as a very real possibility for all 3rd party D&D software creators.  Unfortunately I just learned, from CMP's boards, that the splatbook update file for E-Tools and PCGen will be in different formats.  The PCGen format will continue to be in the .lst format while the E-Tools update format will be in Access.  

I was hoping that they would be the same format for a couple of reasons:
1) This would most likely become the defacto standard for distributing files since two of the largest user base programs use it.
2) It would likely be a suitable format for other people to use because it does meet the needs of two different programs.

But alas, it looks like we will not have a standard.  Some people will decide the Access db is easier for them to use and some will fine the .lst file easier to use and things will become further separated and efforts will be duplicated.


----------



## Mynex (Feb 26, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, I see that as a very real possibility for all 3rd party D&D software creators.  Unfortunately I just learned, from CMP's boards, that the splatbook update file for E-Tools and PCGen will be in different formats.  The PCGen format will continue to be in the .lst format while the E-Tools update format will be in Access.
> 
> ...




Scott,

Please report things like this a bit more accurately (and remember, I come here as well. )...

Yes, for now, they will remain 2 seperate formats.  Why?  Because swapping both programs to the same format at once is a logistical nightmare (not to mention WAY overly ambitious at this stage)... e-Tools needs some TLC before any drastic changes to it's format is even conceivable.

There are numerous threads where we have stated that we are looking at the possibility of going XML, but haven't decided yet, we have more research to do first.  Not to mention that PCGen has been planned to switch t XML for a while now, and that is slowly coming to be more of a reality (the XML guys are gelling things up)... 

So it's not a 'No it's not going to happen period' thing... it's a 'Give us a chance to evaluate everything first' thing.


----------



## BarakO (Feb 26, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Hollywood:
> 
> outside of extra ability scores or attributes, and in the near future even those will be taken into account. Also, PCgen has LST
> 
> *




Umm...

*whispers*

You can have extra stats...

I run with seven (the seveth being luck).


----------



## Henry (Feb 26, 2003)

Morik said:
			
		

> *...There is my second problem. I bought E-Tools and I'm using PCGen. What are my options here? Sureley I have to stick to one programm otherwise supporting two Charakter-Generating programms at the same time doesn't make any sense to me...
> 
> ...Now, CMP is a company with all views on how to make profit (and rightly so). I'm not sure of this but  my guess is that they will close down one programm that is not generating enough sales for the effort done by the employees...*



*

The answer to me is obvious - support the one that supports you best. If that's both of them, then so be it. 

And CMP will not shut down either program. I feel like I can state this pretty definitely. (Mynex may still correct me, though.) 

Why?

1) CMP does not own E-Tools. They did not buy E-Tools, but has a license to support it (and sell it, I believe.) Only WotC has the option to abandon it.

2) PCGen, the program, will never be shut down. Only lack of interest will ever shut it down. This is because even if tomorrow Bryan were to take leave of his senses and say, "I'm shutting down PCGen," and assuming he retains ownership of the name and can do this, then being a LGPL program, anyone who wanted to could take the code base, rally the troops, and continue on without Bryan and CMP, under another name, as a different program. No harm, no foul. PCGen, as long as there are a barrel of monkey still supporting it, will NEVER die. It's the entire founding principal of open source - that development never dies on a good program.

Any problems with the above, Mynex?

-------------------------

Also, thanks to Mynex, Barak, et. al. for helping me keep my facts straight. It's great to know that you've got proof to back you up, and even greater to know that the proof you've got is even better than you thought. 

One strong suggestion, Mynex -- PLEASE don't let the XML conversion die out. As much as I like LST files, the format drives me crazy when creating from scratch.*


----------



## Mynex (Feb 26, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The answer to me is obvious - support the one that supports you best. If that's both of them, then so be it.
> 
> ...




yup yup yup to the above stuff...

As for the XML thing, not a chance it's gonna die for PCGen.  e-Tools?  we have to see.  I'd like to go XML and have a shared format, thereby making one set of data files to use, but there's a lot of inherent problems with that, that we'd have to overcome.

But we're gonna try at least.


----------



## Hardhead (Feb 27, 2003)

> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by Morik
> 
> ...




I think they're definitly "harder" now, post-Hasbro.  But not as bad as TSR, at least not yet.


----------



## smetzger (Feb 27, 2003)

Mynex said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Scott,
> 
> ...




If your first realease of Splat Book files has two different formats, then you will most likely have to continue to release two different formats.  Once you have a file format, then its difficult to change this file format, especially if the only reason for change is to be more standardized.  I may be wrong, maybe you will change formats mid-stream.

It may be a logistical nightmare, overly ambitious, and not realistic to accomplish in the given time.  But, that doesn't mean that I am not a little bit disapointed at the missed opportunity for creating what would most likely become the defacto standard format for D&D files.  

I am sorry if it sounded like I was blaming you for 'messing up' this 'opportunity'.  I understand the added work that making one file format would entail.  

Again, I am not slamming your design decisions.  Especially since I am not privy to all the details.  I am merely expressing my disapointment  in a missed opportunity.  Even if I was on your development team and was privy to all the details and I concurred that it was best to have two different formats  for the initial realease, I would still be disapointed in the missed opportunity.

Thanks,
Scott Metzger


----------



## Mynex (Feb 27, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If your first realease of Splat Book files has two different formats, then you will most likely have to continue to release two different formats.  Once you have a file format, then its difficult to change this file format, especially if the only reason for change is to be more standardized.  I may be wrong, maybe you will change formats mid-stream.
> 
> ...




Actually, switching the data files from access to XML and plain text to XML isn't that hard, as long as there is a converter to do it, manually, yea, would be nightmare.

That's not really the problem, the problem is making sure the underlying code accepts/can handle the different format, and that's where things get hairy.  That's why we're doing the 2 formats for now, with _hopes_ of going 1 format down the road, it's all dependant upon the coding issues that will most definately arise from trying to do so (and mostly from e-Tools not PCGen issues).

So while it may be an opportunity to do it from the get go, it's not a viable opportunity (and if you saw the code for e-Tools, you'd be a convert in half a heartbeat on that one *sigh*).  So we make the best we can, and go from here, hopefully, to everyone's satisfaction!


----------

