Why's it so hard to create a character generator that rocks?

[Silveras]

As a DM that's why I want a character generator that can do everything. I spend so much time statting up mid-to-high level NPCs and advancing monsters. That's time better spent working on flavor material for the campaign and adventure.

The human brain is amazing. It can handle all those rules with no problems (barring ambiguous or contradictory rules). Now use that brain to develop software to do the same thing. Good luck with your program.

If you remove the extensibility question ("No, you can't use a PrC, Feat, Spell, Skill, or Monster that was not already available when...."), it becomes much, much easier. That's why projects like the D&D Core Rules 2.0 CD work; they draw a line and say "This much, and no more". That's also why they are ultimately only right for a few people; most long-lasting games include at least some new material, even if they are the DM's own inventions.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think it would also be quite fair to accuse char-gen program designers of biting off more than they can chew and ending up with nearly unusable programs.

I don't need a program that tracks what feats I am or am not allowed to have. I don't need one that tracks what classes I do or do not fit the requirements for.

I just need to be able to assign skill points quickly, stat up characters and have their bonuses come out right. I need to be able to choose feats and have their impact get added right away.

I DON'T need a "rulebook in a box" -- PC Gen goes WAY overboard in this regard. Just give me a way to specify character stats (preferably via point buy at a level I can set), and track the consequences of the classes I take insofar as BAB, saves, skill points, spells, feats and so on increase per level. Then let me assign my skill points (tracking class skills per class, sure), and keep calculating my modifiers as I choose feats. That's it.

Don't tell me I'm not qualified for some class because I have the wrong alignment, or worry about what feats I'm allowed to take. Just make the math easier.

I'm a DM. I stat up maybe five, maybe twenty characters PER GAME. I don't have the time or the inclination to worry about jumping through hoops and doing everything in just the right order -- AND I don't want to have to browse through a dozen character sheet options just to get a stat block. I'm not going to keep these characters -- I don't ever use the Save feature. Just give me my Fighter 10/Rogue 5 with a +3 dagger whip in magazine stat block format and GIMME NOW!

 

[kirinke]

if you just want something simple... i may be able to help you
this is a 3.5 ruleset character generator. now, it only has the core classes, minus the psionic class, but it is pretty good.
http://slicer69.tripod.com/dnd/dnd.htm

here is a monster stat calculator. just input a few basic numbers and it will stat out your monster for you with reasonable accuracy.
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/shadows/Handbook/MonsterCalc.html

hope it helps.

 

[BarakO]

I'm a DM. I stat up maybe five, maybe twenty characters PER GAME. I don't have the time or the inclination to worry about jumping through hoops and doing everything in just the right order -- AND I don't want to have to browse through a dozen character sheet options just to get a stat block. I'm not going to keep these characters -- I don't ever use the Save feature. Just give me my Fighter 10/Rogue 5 with a +3 dagger whip in magazine stat block format and GIMME NOW!

Well, you could just delete all the character sheets you don't want to use and leave just the stat block.

Now, from *my* perspective as a DM, I *WANT* all that stuff that you don't want. I let my players create their character using a program (most use PCGen but one uses E-Tools), and I certainly don't want it to let them add stuff willy-nilly. I have to check them over enough just to make sure they added what I gave them and not what they *thought* I gave them (*wry smile*) without a program that doesn't discourage incorrect additions.

Of course, I think we're talking about two different things here.. you want a DM's quick and dirty tool, and I want a character generator/maintainer that takes care of most of the character creation rules so I don't have to.

 

[WingOver]

If you remove the extensibility question ("No, you can't use a PrC, Feat, Spell, Skill, or Monster that was not already available when...."), it becomes much, much easier. That's why projects like the D&D Core Rules 2.0 CD work; they draw a line and say "This much, and no more". That's also why they are ultimately only right for a few people; most long-lasting games include at least some new material, even if they are the DM's own inventions.

Earlier you talked about "exceptions" which I assume you meant (for example):

Humans may pick "any" language as a bonus language except secret languages such as "druidic". I can see how that could become problematic, especially later if the user was to add more normal/secret languages to his campaign.

The exception problem doesn't sound the same as the extensibility problem. Can you give a specific example of the extensibility problem?

 

[WingOver]

Of course, I think we're talking about two different things here.. you want a DM's quick and dirty tool, and I want a character generator/maintainer that takes care of most of the character creation rules so I don't have to.

I don't see why a properly designed character generator couldn't fulfill both roles. Enforcing prerequisites could be optional and this would suit users like barsoomcore. And users such as you (and me ) would keep those prereqs on.

And I agree, you could make a case for having a character generator with 2 modes: one that builds a fully statted NPC at random for busy DMs like barsoomcore, and one that has level-by-level build functionality for players and nitpicky DMs.

 

[Silveras]

Earlier you talked about "exceptions" which I assume you meant (for example):

Humans may pick "any" language as a bonus language except secret languages such as "druidic". I can see how that could become problematic, especially later if the user was to add more normal/secret languages to his campaign.

The exception problem doesn't sound the same as the extensibility problem. Can you give a specific example of the extensibility problem?

They are related; often, the extensions contain NEW exceptions.

Example: In the Core rules, may Prestige Classes add to the spellcasting ability of a "Previous Spellcasting Class". Others have their own progressions, which are separate no matter what you had before.

Someone coding a tool would look at that and say, "Ok, I need to make the tool able to recognize spellcasting classes and be able to allow you to specify which one gets advanced when there's a choice."

Then, along comes the 3.5 revisions, and the Mystic Theurge. Wait a minute ! TWO classes get improved ? It is an EXCEPTION to the normal "set" of rules.

With a little foresight, the coder *might* be able to predict "It is not too unreasonable that some PrC might boost a specific prior class, or grant it if you did not already have it, I suppose. So I should write in stuff to handle that. "

So, Complete Warrior's "Stalker of Kharrash" PrC is handled (gives +1 Ranger spellcasting per level).

Now, some 3.0 expansions gave 1/2 spellcaster advancement.

But I don't think most people would have predicted that Complete Divine would add classes that give two different versions of 8 levels out of 10 (+1, +1, +1, +1, NO, +1, +1, +1, +1, NO as Seeker of the Misty Isle, or +1, +1, +1, NO, +1, +1, +1. NO, +1, +1 as Sacred Fist), an arcane class with 6 out of 10 (Rainbow Servant), another Divine class with 7 out of 10 (Hospitaler), and another with 8 out of 13 (Void Disciple).

These are exceptions that don't fit any prior patterns. Under the original rules, giving 10-for-10 would be normal and the Eldritch Knight's 9-for-10 a singular exception. Giving #-for-10 would be fine, if the same number had the same pattern, but the two 8-for-10 progressions don't, and the 13-level PrC is just "waaay out in left field" as far as exceptions go.

Most programs use internal rules to make sure the data gets in correctly. PrCs had 5 or 10 levels in the core rules, not 13. Trying to add "Level 11" to a Prestige Class would, in user-friendly software, trigger an error message, because up until the release of this class, it WOULD be a mistake (the individual DM's creations excluded).

Other Exceptions:
Rule: Only characters with 4 levels of Fighter can select the Weapon Specialization feat.
Exception: Favored Soul gets the feat for free at 12th level.

Based on that, one could write a tool that allows only characters with 4 levels of Fighter to have the Weapon Specialization feat. Trying to add the Favored Soul class would require more than just listing the levels, though; you'd need some way *around* the built-in limitation so they could get Weapon Specialization at 12th.

 

[Silveras]

Now, from *my* perspective as a DM, I *WANT* all that stuff that you don't want. I let my players create their character using a program (most use PCGen but one uses E-Tools), and I certainly don't want it to let them add stuff willy-nilly. I have to check them over enough just to make sure they added what I gave them and not what they *thought* I gave them (*wry smile*) without a program that doesn't discourage incorrect additions.

And *that* illustrates why "one size fits all" does not work.

Maintaining and supporting software can be very labor-intensive. A screen that seemed obvious to the focus groups and the developers can sometimes leave the "real" user looking at it and saying "what do I do ?" That often means a call to customer service.

Trying to maintain 2 different versions is very hard. Did you remember to add the same classes to both ? Was it someone else's job ? Did s/he do it right ? If it was *your* job, did you remember what you needed to do differently from one program to the other ? If you think the rules debates here are intense, just imagine what happens when two programmers differ on how to read the same rule.

Barsoomcore and BarakO together illustrate another issue. "Character generator" means something a little different to each. If you write a "character generator" that does not automatically create a character, it is not really a "generator", is it ? It is a "record keeper" or "tracker", but not a "generator".

 

[Silveras]

I think it would also be quite fair to accuse char-gen program designers of biting off more than they can chew and ending up with nearly unusable programs.

I don't need a program that tracks what feats I am or am not allowed to have. I don't need one that tracks what classes I do or do not fit the requirements for.

Actually, I find that my own tools work best if I don't try to make them enforce eligibility rules. Why ? Because most "house rules" are relaxations of those, anyway. It becomes much easier to write a tool that just records the feats or classes that I tell it to, and let me worry about whether they are right or not. Of course, I am not a new player whose DM wanted a tool to help guide him/her, am I ?

I just need to be able to assign skill points quickly, stat up characters and have their bonuses come out right. I need to be able to choose feats and have their impact get added right away.


I DON'T need a "rulebook in a box"

I submit that what you are asking for actually does require a "rulebook in a box".

The program has to "know" that some feats affect skills. It has to "know" which feats affect which skills. It has to "know" there are skill synergies. It has to "know" that Jump gets a bonus or penalty based on the creature's base speed. It has to "know" that Hide gets a bonus or penalty based on size. It has to "know" that races get bonuses on some skills. It has to "know" that certain races have certain base speeds, and are certain sizes. It has to "know" to combine all those elements to get the final skill modifier. It also has to "know" which skills are class skills, and which are cross class skills, for each class. It has to "know" the total character level +3 is the cap for all class skills, and half that is the cap for cross-class skills.

I DON'T need a "rulebook in a box" -- PC Gen goes WAY overboard in this regard. Just give me a way to specify character stats (preferably via point buy at a level I can set), and track the consequences of the classes I take insofar as BAB, saves, skill points, spells, feats and so on increase per level. Then let me assign my skill points (tracking class skills per class, sure), and keep calculating my modifiers as I choose feats. That's it.

Don't tell me I'm not qualified for some class because I have the wrong alignment, or worry about what feats I'm allowed to take. Just make the math easier.

Yep. You want a tool custom-tailored to your style. So do I; that's why I write my own instead of using PCGen. And that's why very few are really 100% pleased with the ones that are available; they're all "someone else's idea of what's perfect".

 

[Silveras]

I don't see why a properly designed character generator couldn't fulfill both roles. Enforcing prerequisites could be optional and this would suit users like barsoomcore. And users such as you (and me ) would keep those prereqs on.

And I agree, you could make a case for having a character generator with 2 modes: one that builds a fully statted NPC at random for busy DMs like barsoomcore, and one that has level-by-level build functionality for players and nitpicky DMs.

Uhm... No. How many "enforcement" options are there ? 2 ? or 20 ? Which things do *you* want to enforce ? Those kinds of things make the tools incredibly more difficult to write. You *do* want something this decade, right ?

Let's say you only have 2 modes. The program has to check its settings to see if it is supposed to enforce requirements. How often do you check ? Can the user change his/her mind after starting a character ? If so, you have to check pretty much every time s/he changes something.

Let's say you have more than 2 settings.. 3.. maybe Feats get checked but PrCs don't. That pretty much doubles the workload of writing the code, and certainly doubles any testing that gets done. 4 settings ? Double again. 5 ? You get the picture.