eTools Patch and Source Code

[EricLeaf]

I remember buying a special Pokeman product with a "free" instructional CD. Was that one of the two products? If so, what was the other one?

More than likely that is it. There were 2 versions of that, and it was translated into a number of other languages, it being pokemon and all. You can see all this info at Fluid's website, I just mentioned it because it was what Fluid did prior to MT, and seeing that and the CharGen demo should illustrate what Fluid does and then compare that to what the fans screamed for and you get eTools. Satisfying no one.
Instead of becoming more graphical than Core Rules, it ended up being less graphical. With only some minor skinning ability and tool icons.

No, I am not sure. That is just the way I remember it. I was hoping someone with better information would speak up.

As I recall, Ryan took over around GenCon 2001 and left around December, 2001.

In your earlier post, you stated that the project was cancelled shortly after GenCon.

I'm not the best with dates, so I'll do this all with relative dates. PHB was released at GenCon (2000?) a few month before that CharGen demo was done. MT work began at or shortly after that GenCon, I began work on the mapper September 2000.
Shortly before GenCon 2001 the mapper is dropped, and then a few months later the entire project is dropped. At about the time Eric Noah was test driving his sneak peak version, it was completely changed by the removal of the mapper. Mid September I was no longer working for Fluid, a few months later the other programmer (co-owner) is no longer working for Fluid (although still an owner). Then December Ryan Dancy gets a reduced project plan okayed and I start a (at that time) 2-3 month contract to clean it up and release it as is. This later evolved into a 6 month clean up, beta test and minor feature addition (namely the table editor and all the generators).

From the cut mapper to when the project came back, I expect it was Ryan working hard to bring something from it. The opposing force was Valterra whom I sure you know.
From what I know he wasn't in the software department at that time, having been drummed out in embarrassment (some legal problems with the Dragon Archive I hear) by Bill Dugan. But after Dugan and Bishop left, there was no software department (almost) so Valterra got back into it. But that is just a guess.

 

[Vpenman]

I'm not the best with dates, so I'll do this all with relative dates. PHB was released at GenCon (2000?) a few month before that CharGen demo was done. MT work began at or shortly after that GenCon, I began work on the mapper September 2000.
Shortly before GenCon 2001 the mapper is dropped, and then a few months later the entire project is dropped. At about the time Eric Noah was test driving his sneak peak version, it was completely changed by the removal of the mapper. Mid September I was no longer working for Fluid, a few months later the other programmer (co-owner) is no longer working for Fluid (although still an owner). Then December Ryan Dancy gets a reduced project plan okayed and I start a (at that time) 2-3 month contract to clean it up and release it as is. This later evolved into a 6 month clean up, beta test and minor feature addition (namely the table editor and all the generators).

Eric, thank you for the information. What happened with that project has been pretty mysterious to those of us on the outside.

One thing I notice that puzzles me is that both the WotC FAQ and the E-Tools help file state the difference between E-Tools and Master Tools is that E-Tools does not have a mapper.

I thought the differences were more substantial. For example, the Master Tools information WotC had posted on its web site as recently as this time last year stated it would allow people to create custom classes.

E-Tools does not allow people to create custom classes.

How did removing the mapper affect the ability to create custom classes? Or even, how did removing the mapper affect the program in ways people would not expect?

thanks,

Victor

 

[EricLeaf]

The removal of the mapper only forced a cut to a lot of the other media, like the models and sounds that were used in the mapping aspects. And many integration things as well as some of the misc generators like doors and traps. As for features cuts unrelated to mapping, those just went the way side under the new and reduced project I mentioned.
I think that class editing specifically was designed for Access editing only, in other words its in there as it was designed, but it was not designed to ever have an in-app UI.

 

[Vpenman]

According to official WotC statements regarding the differences between Master Tools and E-Tools, E-Tools is Master Tools, but without the mapper.

According to the official WotC E-Tools FAQ:

"Dungeons & Dragons E-Tools
"Frequently Asked Questions...

"Q: What is the difference between D&D E-Tools and the software originally announced as Master Tools?

"A: Master Tools originally included a mapper, which was developed using the Arcanum Engine technology, authored by Troika Games. E-Tools does not include this mapper...."

www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20020607a

According to Help file that is part of E-Tools (an official WotC product):

"What happened to Master Tools?

"E-Tools is the renaming of the originally scheduled Master Tools. The difference between Master Tools and E-tools is that E-Tools does not include a mapper function..."

This is in the Questions/General section of eTools Help.

I posted the relevant portions of those messages, but I do not believe the meaning is altered in any way by being removed from the entire messages. Please review them yourselves in their entirety.

The removal of the mapper only forced a cut to a lot of the other media, like the models and sounds that were used in the mapping aspects. And many integration things as well as some of the misc generators like doors and traps. As for features cuts unrelated to mapping, those just went the way side under the new and reduced project I mentioned.
I think that class editing specifically was designed for Access editing only, in other words its in there as it was designed, but it was not designed to ever have an in-app UI.

Prior to its disappearance, the Master Tools web page (on the official WotC web site) included the following regarding Master Tools:

"...Change the rules to fit your campaign: make your own races, classes, monsters and treasure..."

(Note: see above claims regarding taking things out of context.)

Even if Eric's other comments regarding features being cut due project reduction are disregarded, it is clear that E-Tools does not contain everything Master Tools was supposed to contain, except for the mapper -- the make your own classes ability for exaple is not in E-tools.

Does anyone have any idea why WotC is making the claim the E-Tools is Master Tools only minus the mapper?

thanks,

Victor

 

[Grimsword]

Eric, Iwas woundering why it was secided to make the Race and monster files/tables not visible/editable threw MS Access. I really don't like the interface that is currently used to edit the Monster/Race files in e-tools. Now with the Beta patch out part of the Raace Editor is broken the Button that adds Speicial Attacks and speicial qualitiesBut over all I like E-tools very much
and I want you to know that You and the other programers did
a good job on a very hard project.

Mike

 

[Cougar]

Victor, I am not sure, but I can suppose that it is perhaps to keep the confusion (for most people) down and make sure that visitors to the site know that eTools IS Master Tools in a fashion. As to the false claims about Master Tools being able to edit classes, perhaps that was something originally included in press releases (or whatever they use internally to describe the product) LONG ago and was never changed. WotC does not have a good history of keeping up with MT or eTools.

 

[Dustin Clingman]

I have been following this thread for a while but not posted since the beginning.

There are some obvious errors in ET, but it is basicly functional. The one point I wanted to make was concerning what level of technology a developer wants to expose to the end user. I have been a programmer in the video game industry for some time. Mods and level editors have certainly extended the lifespan of many games, but it take a certain technical inclination to handle them. That being said, people shouldn't have to change thier levels to get them in game. They should be able to just take another file or map drop and have it plug right into a menu for selection.

Most technically oriented people don't want a dumbed down product, but you have to consider the total number of technically inclined people who might consider a purchase of ET versus average Joe.

For that matter, consider how many people are/would be using a typical copy of ET. Now I am sure that everyone on this board has legitimately purchased thier copy of the product, but typically I would say that 5-6 people would use a single copy instead of everyone buying thier own. This is based on the typical group of gamers. How much can you make when you can only get 1 in 6 people to buy your product? Also, it's really not even 1 in 6 because you can get it on Kazaa... This is something that anyone making software for this market has to realize (and probably does, I hope)

All the software extensions that I am making for Blackmoor will be freely distributable as bonus for buying the book. I have no illusions of making money in that sector at this time.

If you were a bean counter at Hasbro and you came to that conclusion, what would you do? Cut the budget? Cut the project all together?

Remember the old adage about software(or anything really)

There's 3 ways to have something developed:
Quality, Cheap, Fast.

Pick 2 and set the third to false.

Dustin