• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

DL: Noir, poverty is mandatory hindrance.

kturock

Active member
Noir has everyone having the poverty hindrance. It should be automatically added to every character when the setting is chosen, or at least be a 'free' hindrance.
Instead, it causes a 'to many hindrances' error.
 
Are you adding the Poverty hindrance manually? If so you shouldn't be. The file is set up so that "Poverty" is the default state. It works correctly without having to add the Hindrance.
 
It's not lsited on the character sheet when it isn't manually chosen; either in the print preview or the normal console.
 
Yeah, I know. I had to do it that way but all of the effects of it are in play. So even though it doesn't show you can't pick Rich without getting Comfortable first, and so on. All the effects are there.
 
zarlor, if you're in a situation where you've "had to do it that way", do you want to tell me about what rules you're trying to implement, and maybe I can help you figure out a way to show this hindrance on all characters in a way that's more obvious to the end user?

I'm thinking that a Mechanic could be used to bootstrap this hindrance.
 
From my original release notes: "Also the rules declare that all characters start with the Poverty hindrance. The problem is that if you take the Comfortable Edge it should just remove the Poverty Hindrance as its effect, but I've yet to find a good way to do that either. So instead the effects of the Poverty hindrance are applied to the character but the Hindrance is not listed on the sheet. Taking Comfortable will appropriately set starting cash to $150, though, and Rich and Filthy Rich also adjust money appropriately (as will Destitute.) So it's just something to be aware of that while the Poverty Hindrance doesn't show on the character sheet you ca rest assured that the effects are still applied appropriately."

In other words I tried to do it as a bootstrap but I couldn't then find a way to delete a Hindrance from within the program.
 
Can you hide the hindrance with tags?

Looking at the hindrance table in tab_edges.dat, looks like the answer's currently no.

I'll post a thread in the changes/enhancements thread to explain to CapedCrusader how he can modify things so that this is an option (I apologize - I'm way behind on a project for Pathfinder and can't currently take the time to find everything that needs to be changed myself). Once that's done, you'll be able to put a script on Comfortable that assigns a tag like Hide.Hindrance to Poverty, and while that tag is present, the Poverty Hindrance isn't shown anywhere.
 
You know, I think he did do something like that for us on something else, but i can't remember what it was right now... he may have some idea, though. Of course that will mean having to restructure the Noir file but I think that won't be a particular problem. Will something like a Hide.Hindrance tag also hide the effects? If not I suppose everything could stay as is and I'd just be creating a Hindrance only to make it show in the sheet, which is fine. Just curious how I'll need to approach it all once it's done.
 
If poverty has a script, you'll need to look at that script to see if there's a test for a disabling tag already built into it. If not, you'd need to change the script so that it tests for the presence of that tag, and doesn't run the rest of the script if it's there.

Alternatively, yes, the Poverty hindrance you're bootstrapping can be a fake that doesn't actually do anything, and isn't the one users would normally be purchasing.
 
Oh, I see... yeah, I think the second way would be the way I would go. Less to do or worry about in terms of potential interactions that way. Thanks!
 
Back
Top