Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="soulcatcher" data-source="post: 3268277" data-attributes="member: 5940">This is a very reasonable suggestion, and we probably could build a PCGen Lite that only did say SRD generation, and made it easy for a person who understood it to move to the full fledged app.  The biggest problem presently inside the code is that the needed separation between the gui and the engine to do this.  This separation is more of a guideline then a rule in the present code, and this is the source of many of the problems we have with PCGen.A proposal of how to fix this is the change to the code that I alluded to above, and really is the prime facilitator needed to make such a thing possible.  The best I can say is that we know this separation needs to happen, and we are working on it.As to your idea, I actually like the idea of us making a lite version.  perhaps we should take a page from the original D&D Generator that came with the PHB, and make a lite version that is really limited in what it can do, but as a result dead simple.Hrm.... this gives me an idea.  In many cases, I see that there is one person who is the driving force behind pcgen in a specific gaming group, and potentially the rest of the people find it to hard.  If we made it possible for a user to go in to the full pcgen app, and allow them to define from top to bottom what is in an out for a specific campaign, then they could export that data for use in a pcgen lite, that has a very simplified interface.  Maybe we could call it PCGen GMs edition and PCGen Players edition.  Perhaps the way to make PCGen more capable and usable for more people is to really split up what it offers each audience into totally separate applications.Good idea.Well, we do have LST editors, but to be honest, they are pretty craptastic.  Over the life of pcgen it's been very hard to maintain these, because they can't keep up with the rest of the code.  I have potential solutions in mind for how to deal with this, but the lst generator problem unfortunatly takes a back seat to splitting the GUI from the core.  On the plus side, a separated front and backend could make it possible to have a whole LST tool that is it's own program.I recommend using the minimal number of sources necessary.  I think some people do load every source, and frankly, that breaks pcgen.  A reasonable number is in the 5-6 range.Actually, the wizard approach from my perspective is fine, but like everything else, it needs the split between the front and back that everything else depends on.  We probably could do it now, but in this case it would be at the cost of making that split happen a harder thing.  I do want to see a wizard, I just hope we can get it into place before we lose to much market share.There is a lot you can do:1) Use it, and show it to others2) When you find a bug, or if something frustrates you, *tell* us.  File a bug.  Start a conversation on our mailing lists, just don't keep it to yourself.  Even small things help a lot.  If something behaves in a way you don't expect, it's near certain that hundreds of other people have the same frustration, but don't tell us.3) The documentation team is one of the most important teams on the project, but has a hard time keeping itself staffed.  It doesn't matter if you are a coder, know LST or have never written a line in your life, *anyone* can help the docs team.Thanks for your input <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Devon JonesPCGen BoDPCGen Architecture Silverback</blockquote>

Verification