Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="megasycophant" data-source="post: 4312885" data-attributes="member: 69639">Forgive me for chopping up your post to respond.  Don't think I've rearranged it to take anything out of context.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I beg to differ.  Now, representing the effects of feats/powers/etc would be a bit more laborious, but simpler in a way as well, since you're not validating data by the end user. Well-defined type derivations could cover it.  (With perhaps a CYA type for the least common denominator, containing freeform exception text.)Since we're talking about building a schema for character definition rather than building a rules engine, I only meant to imply that the choices associated with a feat/power would be built in, and I think those are relatively limited.  Of course, I've only had the rulebooks for a few days, but I can't think of any powers off the top of my head that require a choice (some of the Ranger powers, frex, require two weapons OR a ranged weapon, but you don't CHOOSE either/or when you pick the power).  There are some feats that require a choice, but your example is probably about as complicated as it gets.I mentioned that as an aside in my post.  If that's the objective, making things as simplistic as possible would be ideal and you're on the right track.  I'll even rescind my statement about the generic attributes.I'm not sure how the GSL would cover such things.  I wouldn't think we'd be defining more than the GSL allows (still under the assumption that we're not giving the details of feats/powers/etc, just config info).  Seems like the touchy bit would be that they wanna have their own software for creation/maintenance of characters.  I'm no lawyer, either.  On legal grounds, though, I'd say we'd only distribute the schema for defining datasets, not the data itself.  (Ah, brings back memories of PCGen.)I attempted to address these points regarding maintenance, legality, etc in my post, but I was running out of steam at that point. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> A schema compiler is just what I'd propose.  I don't like the actual data being defined in the schema either.  I'd see it working this way, with rulesets in play: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A schema is defined to define rulesets.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">User creates multiple datasets based on this schema. (Or fetches rulesets that are sanctioned by publishers.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A schema is defined which describes a schema for definition and validation of character data.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some magical construct (or software significantly advanced to appear as such to most) compiles the rulesets into said character schema.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">User creates character data based on this compiled schema.</li> </ul>Alernately, if rulesets are unavailable, a schema could be defined allowing for the same format which does minimal validation (sans rulesets).  This would allow for "freeform" definition as well as definition/validation based on compiled rules.So, I think we're in violent agreement!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification