d20pfsrd Data Sets - Powered by Hero Lab....

[ShadowChemosh]

Originally Posted by Lord Magus

Mild bug: one of the files is named "PFRG_Carrion_Crown_AP.user".

Works fine, mind you, but if a well-intentioned user were to rename it "correctly", and update to a later version, it would effectively duplicate the file.

Sort of why I don't change it actually as it means I would have to put in a "Delete" then of the file named "PFRG" otherwise gamers upgrading would get hit with Duplicate Thing errors. I really try and do do as little "Delete" of files as I can as I am always nervous about removing files from peoples systems.

So as it does not really hurt anything I have just left the incorrect name for now....

[ShadowChemosh]

Originally Posted by Unseelie

I haven't had a chance to go through in detail and see exactly which files have mistakes, but I see a number of issues if I enable the community bestiary and the other community sources. I apologize if some of these are not actually CB issues...

1) Lots and lots of duplicates, both in the races, and in templates. For example, there are two copies of the Dread <undead> templates.

Yes I know. I have asked the editors to NOT duplicate the same stuff but they really don't seem to have time to double check. So we have some monsters that are listed 4 times now. The issue I have is "who's" do I delete? When I have just done some "adjustments" before some editors have been a little upset. I understand as they put hard work into something and who I am "I" to change/adjust their stuff?

Next thing is removing "Things" can cause some weird issues. Especially as what if a person has created special version of a undead using "Dread" template and used version B not version A. If I delete Version B their .por files are now totally busted. how *happy* they going to be about that?

I really have no good idea how to solve these issues right now....

Originally Posted by Unseelie

1a) Most of the time, the details are identical, but there are a few where the two entries vary. An example of that would be the Bombardier Beetle. Did they come from two different sources with different stats?

Most likely they where done by different editors at the same time. As noted above I am not sure how to solve this right now. I am nervous about "pissing" editors off as they do this all for "FREE".

Originally Posted by Unseelie

2) Speaking of not being able to track it down. The Beholder is somewhere in one of my data files. Can someone confirm that it's just me, or did WOTC PD end up in one of the data files?

I don't remember seeing Beholder but I will look. If I find it will have to delete it as its not OGL and very copy righted. As far as I know the only thing close is the "Eye Tyrant" or something like that from a 3PP.

Originally Posted by Unseelie

3) Can we standardize on "Appears in" in the description of the race? Some entries have them and other entries do not.

I would love to be able to do this. The problem here is that this should be done by a central person say myself. The logistics problem of me doing this is huge. I make the changes to dozen monsters in 6 different .user files. Another editor is making changes also to some of the same files as they maybe files with their names on it even. Then trying to merge the data from their changed .user files with my changed .user file is a NIGHTMARE. I found a tool that can do a compare of differences at the XML level but its $300 bucks for the software. I love doing this but not $300 bucks worth.

If someone knows a Cheaper or free version that could help. The problem is still takes allot of time to then see what the differences are and copy/paste just pieces of XML from one document to another.

Now if this works I have created really a 3rd version of the .user file that now contains both my changes and the editors changes. Do to the time to do this to a dozen files 2 weeks have gone by. I release this new version. The Editor has been moving forward with NEW changes based on his "older" version. Then he submits his now "totally" outdated version of the .user file that has to be merged in with pieces again.

I think I got a little off point but that is the reason I don't do it. I can setup a set of standards and "ask" editors to follow them but if they don't they don't.

Originally Posted by Unseelie

4) A number of entries like 'Portal Golem', rather than 'Golem, Portal.'

See above same thing.

Originally Posted by Unseelie

5) This may be more of a philosophical issue, but there are a number of specific NPCs in the community bestiary. For example, Xulthos from the Legacy of Fire AP. He's a modified Glomeray Daemon, which is also in the bestiary... shouldn't NPCs like that be done via .por files?

Here you getting into the history of things. LoF is very old and no Bestiary existed at that time I don't think. So either A) the editor didn't know Bestiary had it or didn't even own the Bestiary data package B) the Bestiary data set came out after this was created or C) the editor felt at the time that even if you didn't have the Bestiary you should still have access to Xulthos.

Either way its their and see above for why I don't remove it.

Originally Posted by Unseelie

6) The text for the Ghast reads that Ghasts are Ghouls with the advanced monster template. If that's the case, why do they have an entry? Why not just apply the advanced monster template to Ghouls?

Ghasts where not templates in 3.5 so I am 99% sure these came from the original Rise of the Runelords AP or from a 3PP. So again what you dealing with is what version is the Ghast from and you can't assume its the latest rules from Pathfinder.

Their is allot of history to monsters.

[Unseelie]

Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh

Yes I know. I have asked the editors to NOT duplicate the same stuff but they really don't seem to have time to double check. So we have some monsters that are listed 4 times now. The issue I have is "who's" do I delete? When I have just done some "adjustments" before some editors have been a little upset. I understand as they put hard work into something and who I am "I" to change/adjust their stuff?

Next thing is removing "Things" can cause some weird issues. Especially as what if a person has created special version of a undead using "Dread" template and used version B not version A. If I delete Version B their .por files are now totally busted. how *happy* they going to be about that?

I really have no good idea how to solve these issues right now....

That's totally fair, and I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining. I know this has to be a pain to try and coordinate. That said, I worry a little bit because this seems like an issue that will only get worse over time.

I don't remember seeing Beholder but I will look. If I find it will have to delete it as its not OGL and very copy righted. As far as I know the only thing close is the "Eye Tyrant" or something like that from a 3PP.

I'll keep trying to isolate it and see if I can figure out where it came from as well. Since this is a clean install of the Mac version of Hero Lab, I am reasonably sure that it's not some random file I installed.

I would love to be able to do this. The problem here is that this should be done by a central person say myself. The logistics problem of me doing this is huge. I make the changes to dozen monsters in 6 different .user files. Another editor is making changes also to some of the same files as they maybe files with their names on it even. Then trying to merge the data from their changed .user files with my changed .user file is a NIGHTMARE. I found a tool that can do a compare of differences at the XML level but its $300 bucks for the software. I love doing this but not $300 bucks worth.

If someone knows a Cheaper or free version that could help. The problem is still takes allot of time to then see what the differences are and copy/paste just pieces of XML from one document to another.

Hell... I'd donate towards that if it would make your 'job' easier and the final result better. Assuming it wouldn't cause problems with Lone Wolf, maybe a paypal donation button?

I think I got a little off point but that is the reason I don't do it. I can setup a set of standards and "ask" editors to follow them but if they don't they don't.

Standards are good. That's why we have so many of them.

[ShadowChemosh]

Originally Posted by Unseelie

That's totally fair, and I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining. I know this has to be a pain to try and coordinate. That said, I worry a little bit because this seems like an issue that will only get worse over time.

Its no problem at all and I figured you where not complaining. Its nice in many ways to get feed back as it means people are using this data set.

I have actually seen people posting about the CB on the paizo boards so word of it is spreading. It does mean some "clean" up work is really needed to standardize the data set. Hmmm things to think about...

[blzbob]

Let me put this out there, if you feel the need to change my work to better fit the community, go right ahead. I have no problems with it at all.

[bodrin]

Originally Posted by blzbob

Let me put this out there, if you feel the need to change my work to better fit the community, go right ahead. I have no problems with it at all.

Ditto. Feel free to edit / replace as you see fit.

Heck you maintain the dataset from goodwill alone. I for one wouldn't have the time to update / edit / upload and continue with the day job.

If the functionality is maintained and a standard naming / data convention is employed by removing / replacing duplicates then it should create a better end user experience for all to see. As long as the authors are credited and the change log is updated it shouldn't matter.

Perhaps drafting a few community data input submission guidelines, with the collaboration of the authors, and getting a sticky post upon the boards for everyone's perusal at this juncture would be beneficial for all.

[Lord Magus]

Originally Posted by bodrin

Ditto. Feel free to edit / replace as you see fit.

Heck you maintain the dataset from goodwill alone. I for one wouldn't have the time to update / edit / upload and continue with the day job.

(...) As long as the authors are credited and the change log is updated it shouldn't matter.(...)

My opinion too. Feel free to edit/replace the few things I have contributed!

[ShadowChemosh]

Awesome thanks guys.

My only plan I can think off is after the next release to do a sort of Half-Freeze where no changes will be put in only NEW things in New .user files. This would give me the chance to spend a few weeks sorting and changing everything. I am still nervous about removing stuff but I think I have an idea on how to fix or allow a fall back maybe without breaking all the .por files.

See if I can cut out some time to do something like this.

[CorzatTheGray]

Originally Posted by bodrin

Ditto. Feel free to edit / replace as you see fit.

Heck you maintain the dataset from goodwill alone. I for one wouldn't have the time to update / edit / upload and continue with the day job.

If the functionality is maintained and a standard naming / data convention is employed by removing / replacing duplicates then it should create a better end user experience for all to see. As long as the authors are credited and the change log is updated it shouldn't matter.

Perhaps drafting a few community data input submission guidelines, with the collaboration of the authors, and getting a sticky post upon the boards for everyone's perusal at this juncture would be beneficial for all.

+1
The CB is definitely appreciated and in my opinion, if the end result is better for the community then all the better to set the standards and adjust as needed.

All the hard work of all the contributors is GREATLY appreciated, and I don't think anyone would/should fault your hardwork, Shadow, in compiling it all if you took the liberty to set and adjust to a standard for the betterment of the CB and all the Datasets that you maintain.

[Unseelie]

Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh

Awesome thanks guys.

My only plan I can think off is after the next release to do a sort of Half-Freeze where no changes will be put in only NEW things in New .user files. This would give me the chance to spend a few weeks sorting and changing everything. I am still nervous about removing stuff but I think I have an idea on how to fix or allow a fall back maybe without breaking all the .por files.

See if I can cut out some time to do something like this.

I was thinking... I know you said previously (due to a misnamed file) that you try to avoid deletes. In a case like that one, couldn't you introduce a new, properly named, file and make use of replace thing? At least, I think it's replace thing... what lets you say "use this version instead of the existing one."