Senseless Frustration

[Polecat]

Hey Guys,
I bought the Author Kit ages ago and I have now had three attempts to use it to build a game and its just such a pain in the ass. I have done game design in the past, but the fact I need to start with a pre-existing system and then go in and edit text files and remove things is just a freaking nightmare and it seems needlessly difficult.

Is there no way that you can include the default attributes and skills in the editor so they can be more easily removed? (or SOMETHING).

More to the point, could you just release the ability to open an empty project. I get the other game systems are supposed to serve as a frame to learn from (and that is helpful) but honestly, I'd just like to input all the game data I have in its respective category and THEN add the code.

But as it is set up you are MAKING ME code and fiddle with things in text files that I'd rather not at this time.

I want to use Hero Lab for this, but when I remove one thing and then cannot open the entire project because of a syntax error with something else (that isn't even going to be in my game) it can be extremely frustrating.

I know you are a small company, but please give us the ability to open a bare-bones template. I want the set up like it has now, but just empty, no linked code. PLEASE. I don't want to have to use .txt files. I can do everything I need to do in the editor as is, so all the "default" stuff is just bogging me down as a user. I'm sure I am not the only one.

 

[Mathias]

How are you creating the new game systems you're working from?

Are you using Develop...Create New Game System, or some other way to get a starting point.

Also, once you're creating a new system, you can re-write the editor, so if something doesn't show in the editor, create a new editor tab for it, so that it does.

But I'm sorry, there is no way we can allow new game systems to be created without editing the raw files in a text editor without taking months to build a UI for the entire set of authoring kit material. Game systems are not just defined by their content - you need to be able to define what sort of content is available, and that means you need to be able to edit the parts that define how things work.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Building a new games system is like building a house. It sounds like you want to get in a decorate the "house" (ie use the editor) but you have not even dug the foundation yet. The Authoring kits requires you build the foundation and align the posts before you even get to putting up drywall.

The core authoring kit is more of a programming language and you have to build the "components" and the UI interface. When you do coding you work with "text" editors to write the core foundation of any software. Users get to work with the nice GUI after you have created that foundation.

 

[EightBitz]

I know you are a small company, but please give us the ability to open a bare-bones template. I want the set up like it has now, but just empty, no linked code. PLEASE. I don't want to have to use .txt files. I can do everything I need to do in the editor as is, so all the "default" stuff is just bogging me down as a user. I'm sure I am not the only one.

You're not the only one who's frustrated. I've been extremely frustrated in the past. I'm still very frustrated at times. But you're glossing over a few things.

1) The skeleton system you're working from is there for, as much as anything else, an example and a bare bones foundation. If you really wanted to, you could skip the skeletal system and build your own system completely from scratch. It sounds like that's what you want to do. For that, there's a walk-through for the Savage Worlds system that shows how they built it from the ground up. Study that, and you'll learn how to build a bare-bones system like you want.

2) It's a learning curve. It's taken me a long time to get just an inkling of a sense that I think I might actually be at a starting point of knowing what I'm doing instead of just blindly mimicking example code.

3) There is a difference between using the editor and using the authoring system. It's the same code, but when you build .dat files, that is your base system. That is your gold copy. The editor can then be used for user-added content and house rules that aren't necessarily part of the core system. If someone makes code mistakes in the editor, all they have to do is delete the user files, and they're back to a working baseline. But that working baseline has to exist to begin with.

4) It helps ... a LOT ... to have a good editing tool and to know how to use it. My tool of choice is UltraEdit, but I'm lucky enough to have got in near the ground floor with a lifetime license. I think a total of $50 or $60, back in the late 90s or early 00s, got me a license and unlimited upgrades. At that time, I just wanted a decent hex editor. The program now is so much more, and is nearly perfect for working with Hero Lab's authoring kit. But doing this stuff in Notepad will drive anyone crazy.

So, yes, it's frustrating and complex, but only because it's designed to be versatile enough to accommodate nearly any game system.

 

[Polecat]

How are you creating the new game systems you're working from?

Are you using Develop...Create New Game System, or some other way to get a starting point.

No, I cannot. It is greyed out for me. I have been duplicating the sample system.

But I'm sorry, there is no way we can allow new game systems to be created without editing the raw files in a text editor without taking months to build a UI for the entire set of authoring kit material. Game systems are not just defined by their content - you need to be able to define what sort of content is available, and that means you need to be able to edit the parts that define how things work.

I understand, a lot of what is there is already is needed (regarding tabs and such). The problem is, lets say I don't want a strength attribute. And I want physical attacks to be handled by an attribute called "Attack" which in and of itself is derivative of strength and combat (which I treated like an abilities). This is supported within the editor, but if I then remove the strength attribute from the core attribute section in the .txt file then now I can no longer open the editor at all.

Every time I get to this point, I just quit and feel like I had wasted my money on the authoring kit.

I already have a system built in books and word files, but I'd like to be able to input it all and then after it is in the builder go through and add the respective code for said abilities and mechanics.

I don't think that is unreasable. If I can have a word document with a faux character sheet and a list of attributes and abilities and such, I should be able to do that in the editor too, right?

 

[ShadowChemosh]

So this all sounded familiar and I double checked and you said all this before in June of 2015. I am not sure why the answers would change. You can not add "Attack" into HL until you have defined what Attack is. This means building a component a "base" building block at a lower level than what Attack is.

Let me use an example from D&D. Sorry its the game system I know best. We have a Feat called "Dodge" that gives a +1 to AC. You want to open the authoring kit and enter the "Dodge" feat in. But you can't because the building block of a D&D Feat is not in the authoring kit. It has NO idea what "Dodge" is until you teach it.

You teach the Authoring kit about "Dodge" by building a base component for ALL feats in the system. Once you have defined all the tags, fields, and scripts that make up your building block for Feats you could then make an Editor Tab. Then you could use the editor to add the 'Dodge' feat.

In your case you first must define what fields and tags make up your "Attributes". This building block once created and a editor tab created would then and only then allow you to enter the "Attack" attribute.

You can not enter the Attack attribute until the base building blocks are first created. Based on your other posts it really seems you want to do it the opposite. You want to add the "Attack" attribute without defining the building blocks that make up an attribute. In any type of design you must start at the lowest possible level and work up.

 

[Farling]

You teach the Authoring kit about "Dodge" by building a base component for ALL feats in the system. Once you have defined all the tags, fields, and scripts that make up your building block for Feats you could then make an Editor Tab. Then you could use the editor to add the 'Dodge' feat.

I would say that you could build a basic building block of "Feat" without needing to add all the scripts initially. The scripts can come later when you start more work on the mechanics. But you definitely need to make the authoring kit aware of a thing called a "Feat".

(p.s. I was lothe to use the word "thing" since that is a type of object in HeroLab. It isn't being used for that reason here )

 

[Polecat]

So this all sounded familiar and I double checked and you said all this before in June of 2015. I am not sure why the answers would change. You can not add "Attack" into HL until you have defined what Attack is. This means building a component a "base" building block at a lower level than what Attack is.

Let me use an example from D&D. Sorry its the game system I know best. We have a Feat called "Dodge" that gives a +1 to AC. You want to open the authoring kit and enter the "Dodge" feat in. But you can't because the building block of a D&D Feat is not in the authoring kit. It has NO idea what "Dodge" is until you teach it.

You teach the Authoring kit about "Dodge" by building a base component for ALL feats in the system. Once you have defined all the tags, fields, and scripts that make up your building block for Feats you could then make an Editor Tab. Then you could use the editor to add the 'Dodge' feat.

In your case you first must define what fields and tags make up your "Attributes". This building block once created and a editor tab created would then and only then allow you to enter the "Attack" attribute.

You can not enter the Attack attribute until the base building blocks are first created. Based on your other posts it really seems you want to do it the opposite. You want to add the "Attack" attribute without defining the building blocks that make up an attribute. In any type of design you must start at the lowest possible level and work up.

Except, if I wanted to make a feat I could just add a feat to feat section. Name it, copy and paste the text, and then move on to the next feat (without having entered how it impacts the builder beyond being a feat) but I cannot do the same for attributes.

I commented on it in 2015, and again now, because I was hoping that in the time that had passed there had been some improvement or development.

So, in a way, yes I want to do it "backwards" rather than deciding "Ranged Attack" exists in my system so its derived from Dexterity + Thrown skill and then making the two attributes, I would RATHER make the Dexterity and Thrown skill, then later have "Range Attack" derived from that.

Instead, each time I get half way into getting this thing working I get knocked about with syntax errors and have to start again and it is hugely discouraging. And I see that as a problem with the product's user interface, since I do not think its user friendly.

The tools in the Editor are enough to do what I want to be able to do, but I cannot rely on that alone and it seems ass backwards.

I also don't know why I can't build the system from scratch. Like, I have no idea why it is greyed out and the only way I can do so is by duplicating a-persisting system.

I realize me making this thread isn't going to magically fix things but it might make the programmers rethink the authoring kit. I CANNOT be the only person that has been discouraged by this and as it is currently set up I could not recommend it to another user in good conscience.

 

[EightBitz]

I also don't know why I can't build the system from scratch. Like, I have no idea why it is greyed out and the only way I can do so is by duplicating a-persisting system.

Have you enabled data file debugging? It's under the Develop menu. First option.

 

[EightBitz]

I CANNOT be the only person that has been discouraged by this and as it is currently set up I could not recommend it to another user in good conscience.

Again, you're not the only person who has been discouraged, but you have to be persistent. As I said earlier, it's a learning curve. It's a complex system, and you have learn something about how it works before you can make things work the way you want them to. And I can't overstate this enough, you need the right type of editing tool, and you need to understand how to use it. Notepad won't cut it.

As far as recommendations, there are two things to keep in mind. 1) I always consider the type of person before I make a recommendation. If it's someone who has no experience with coding and no interest in learning, I tell them exactly what I've told you. It's a complex system with a learning curve. If you're not into coding and bug hunting and trouble-shooting, and lots of trial and error ... it's probably not for you.

2) Keep in mind that there are other people using the authoring kit. Someone made a Gurps Lite system. Someone made a Doctor Who system. Someone is working on an AD&D 2E system. I'm trying to hack my way through a Numenera system. There's a community created system called Alternity. If you want to tap into these user/community projects, you need the Authoring Kit ... even if you're not developing your own systems.

This isn't true for community projects for pre-existing systems. If you want to use the Pathfinder community stuff, you don't need the Authoring Kit.

 

[Mathias]

In order to remove strength from the game, you will also need to remove all the references to it. In order to do so, you'll want to open all the files in that game system in a text editor that can handle having lots of files open at once. Then, search through all those files for the text "aStr", and each time you find it, you'll need to decide how to remove it - I believe you mentioned you wanted to replace it with an "Attack" statistic.

This is not something that can be handled in the editor - it has to be done by manually editing the files.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Except, if I wanted to make a feat I could just add a feat to feat section. Name it, copy and paste the text, and then move on to the next feat (without having entered how it impacts the builder beyond being a feat) but I cannot do the same for attributes.

This is the fundamental issue right here. NO you can't. You can't make a feat until you create the building blocks for a Feat in the first place. I have tried several different ways of saying this and its just not working. I am sorry I suck at writing.

In the world of IT and programming you can not work "ass backwards". It simply can't be done as you "must" build from the lowest level up.

 

[EightBitz]

This is the fundamental issue right here. NO you can't. You can't make a feat until you create the building blocks for a Feat in the first place. I have tried several different ways of saying this and its just not working. I am sorry I suck at writing.

In the world of IT and programming you can not work "ass backwards". It simply can't be done as you "must" build from the lowest level up.

I think you're talking about two different things. It sounds like Polecat has duplicated a pre-built system, and is modifying it using the editor. In that case, yes. You can just add a feat, because the building blocks are already there. You don't have to define anything about it except its name and unique ID, but it won't have any impact except for consuming a feat slot.

You (Shadow) are talking about building a game from the skeleton system or from scratch. In those cases, yes. You do have to create the building blocks first.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

I think you're talking about two different things. It sounds like Polecat has duplicated a pre-built system, and is modifying it using the editor. In that case, yes. You can just add a feat, because the building blocks are already there. You don't have to define anything about it except its name and unique ID, but it won't have any impact except for consuming a feat slot.

You (Shadow) are talking about building a game from the skeleton system or from scratch. In those cases, yes. You do have to create the building blocks first.

The following is how I am reading what Polecat is saying. I could be totally wrong but I think the fact that you and Mathias are reading it different from me is not helping either. I will write out how I read it. And maybe Polecat would be so kind as to confirm which "interpretation" is correct. That would let us help him better.

From what I read Polecat has built a "brand" new game system that he created in word documents. Polecat wants to setup this "new" game in HL using the authoring kit. Polecat wants to use the editor to have a 'nice' GUI to do all the work and does not to want work in the RAW XML. Polecat is starting with attributes and wants to simply add a new attribute called "Attack" using the editor. The editor won't let Polecat do this as he has not defined the building blocks for Attributes yet or built the Editor Tab.

The above is how I am reading his posts and why I keep saying he has to start at the lowest possible level.

 

[Mathias]

ShadowChemosh, the Skeleton and Sample game systems (I think he's starting from the Sample) have Attribute components and they have attribute tabs in the editor. However, what they also have is a Strength attribute pre-defined, and then in the weapon compset, that strength attribute is used to calculate the weapon's attack value. So he's deleting the attribute itself in the editor, but then there are several other references to Strength elsewhere in the data files that still need to be deleted in order to completely remove strength, and those references are all in places that can't be accessed in the editor. So what he wants to be able to do, as I understand it, is alter the definition of how weapon attacks are calculated in this system without using the raw XML - handling that all in the editor.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

ShadowChemosh, the Skeleton and Sample game systems (I think he's starting from the Sample) have Attribute components and they have attribute tabs in the editor.

Didn't know that sorry my bad. All other game systems I have worked on have the attribute component hidden.

So what he wants to be able to do, as I understand it, is alter the definition of how weapon attacks are calculated in this system without using the raw XML - handling that all in the editor.

Pretty much exactly what I said above. Except for not understanding attribute did have a tab.

 

[Polecat]

Have you enabled data file debugging? It's under the Develop menu. First option.

No I didn't, thank you!!

 

[Polecat]

Again, this is considerably easier. Thank you.

 

[ShadowChemosh]

Again, this is considerably easier. Thank you.

Have you watched or viewed the YouTube videos for the HL editor? I mean not knowing about Debug is really basic. I would view FAQ#2 for all the places to find help about the Editor and Authoring kit wiki. Its worth watching the videos to cover the basic layout of scripts and scripting in HL.

Then it maybe best to start small and see about trying to do small changes or addition to an existing system like Pathfinder or d20. Work you way up to using the Authoring kit and XML.

I apologize for what I said here as I "assumed" incorrectly that anyone in the authoring kit forum is a experienced editor already. It didn't occur to me to think that you may have taken the plunge straight into the deepest part of HL from day one. My bad.. Sorry...

 

[Mathias]

In the authoring kit wiki, http://hlkitwiki.wolflair.com/index.php5?title=Home if you go to "Basic Concepts & Terminology" and then "Data File Development Process", the first thing that article talks about is the debug options. If you haven't read that section of the wiki, I highly recommend it before proceeding further. How to get the skeleton files is described further down on the Data File Development Process page.