Testers for updated Cthulhu ruleset

[S Ferguson]

New update to the Dev version of the CoC ruleset.

Regards,
JPG

I noticed. Nice work.

Cheers,
SF

[Bubo]

My group has just started a new campaign using this alpha version of FG/CoC. How would you like bug reports submitted? We encountered the following script error while attempting to roll the following entries off of the character sheet: SAN, Idea, Luck, and Know.

Script Error: [string "scripts/manager_actions.lua"]:214: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value)

I have modified the ruleset files to create an additional page for the character sheet. To preserve my modifications, I copied the CoC ruleset provided from the update with a different name. This morning, I created a new campaign in FG with the original ruleset files, and experienced the same error.

[Bubo]

On a separate tangent, I have a couple of questions regarding modifying the ruleset entries.

1. What is the font used on the character sheet tabs?

2. Is there any documentation on how to generate sub-window entries (i.e. new skills, new inventory, etc) using the foundation concept in 3.0? I noticed that there was actual script inside the XML files related to the character sheet in this CoC ruleset, where in the previous version the script was contained elsewhere and called through the character sheet XML.

[S Ferguson]

My group has just started a new campaign using this alpha version of FG/CoC. How would you like bug reports submitted? We encountered the following script error while attempting to roll the following entries off of the character sheet: SAN, Idea, Luck, and Know.



I have modified the ruleset files to create an additional page for the character sheet. To preserve my modifications, I copied the CoC ruleset provided from the update with a different name. This morning, I created a new campaign in FG with the original ruleset files, and experienced the same error.

I believe that under the 5e ruleset (which the alpha release is based on) that those are "non-rollable" values SAN being determined by POW, Idea off of INT etc. It's not actually a bug. it's just that the rules have been changed.

Cheers,
SF

Post Scriptum: You post bugs here, or on the Alpha Release Thread under development.

[S Ferguson]

On a separate tangent, I have a couple of questions regarding modifying the ruleset entries.

1. What is the font used on the character sheet tabs?

2. Is there any documentation on how to generate sub-window entries (i.e. new skills, new inventory, etc) using the foundation concept in 3.0? I noticed that there was actual script inside the XML files related to the character sheet in this CoC ruleset, where in the previous version the script was contained elsewhere and called through the character sheet XML.

Until the beta cycle is complete and FG 3.0 becomes "official" the documentation is in the code. the CoC, 4e, 3.5e, Pathfinder and Numeria.

Cheers,
SF

[Trenloe]

I believe that under the 5e ruleset (which the alpha release is based on) that those are "non-rollable" values SAN being determined by POW, Idea off of INT etc. It's not actually a bug. it's just that the rules have been changed.

Err, are you sure? Yes, they are derived values but you frequently make rolls against these values - how do you "make a SAN check"? Make an Idea roll? You roll percentile dice against these values.

They *are* rollable values in the 2.9.4 CoC ruleset (double-click on them and the percentage dice are rolled).

The fact that an error is coming up indicates that there is some code based off the double-click event for these fields - this code is actually attempting to do a roll...

This *is* a bug.

EDIT: And are you seriously saying that an error that comes up every time a specific action is carried out in the ruleset is *not* a bug? Really??

[S Ferguson]

Err, are you sure? Yes, they are derived values but you frequently make rolls against these values - how do you "make a SAN check"? Make an Idea roll? You roll percentile dice against these values.

They *are* rollable values in the 2.9.4 CoC ruleset (double-click on them and the percentage dice are rolled).

The fact that an error is coming up indicates that there is some code based off the double-click event for these fields - this code is actually attempting to do a roll...

This *is* a bug.

EDIT: And are you seriously saying that an error that comes up every time a specific action is carried out in the ruleset is *not* a bug? Really??

Well no. I'm not stating that. But given the fact that these are auto-filled value slots, and we are running 3.0, not 2.9.4, I still maintain that this is it's default behavior. There might be a bug underlying it but it's not with the auto-filled stats.
Cheers,
SF

EDIT: I was able to reproduce. The 5e rules are quite different than the 4e rules that shipped with 2.9.4, Given the nature of the problem, I'd say there is possibly a bug in the double-clicking (which shouldn't be allowed by default) still lingering in the code. Those boxes weren't made to be double-clicked.

[Trenloe]

But given the fact that these are auto-filled value slots, and we are running 3.0, not 2.9.4, I still maintain that this is it's default behavior.

I don't see how this has any bearing on this issue. The CoC ruleset has been ported from FG 2.9.4 to 3.0 - it has not been rewritten from the ground up for 3.0. So the default stance should be "if it is working in 2.9.4 and it is not working in 3.0 then there is an issue here." Also, the fact that the fields are auto-filled has nothing to do with this. There is code hanging off these fields that initiates a roll. It doesn't roll and an error comes up. This is the code for the idea check:

function action(draginfo)
	local nTotal = getValue();

	local rActor = ActorManager.getActor("pc", window.getDatabaseNode().getChild("..."));
	local sDesc = "[ABILITY] Idea Check (" .. nTotal .. "%)";
	local rRoll = { sType = "ability", sDesc = sDesc, aDice = {"d100","d10"}, nMod = 0 };
	ActionsManager.performAction(draginfo, rActor, rRoll);
end

There might be a bug underlying it but I haven't been able to reproduce. You?

Yes - absolutely, 100%. Open a character sheet - if it is a new character SAN, Idea, Luck and Knw will all be 50. Double click on the "50" for any of these fields and the error will come up.

The 5e rules are quite different than the 4e rules that shipped with 2.9.4, Given the nature of the problem, I'd say there is possibly a bug (that I haven't been able to reproduce) but not according to the rules as they are written.

I'm confused as to what you are actually saying here. Are you saying that in moving from Call of Cthulhu 4th edition rules to Call of Cthulhu 5th edition rules that suddenly you don't make a percentage roll against SAN, Luck, Idea or Know? Read page 20 of your CoC 5th edition rulebook - it clearly shows that these "characteristic rolls" are rolls that are made against these "derived" statistics. Your statement of the "rules as written" is completely inaccurate.

[S Ferguson]

Okay, you win. I back down. The problem bypassed me completely. I was under the impression you were suggesting that the stats themselves were rollable;. as in generated. And the code for COC was pretty much written from the ground up, under 3.0, being built on the CoreRPG layer if it was written line by line from the 2.9.4 version, there would be no need to update it (or have bugs introduced). But that's an obvious statement. The post was edited, but probably after you got the "from the gut" one. I apologize if this was offensive or provocative). I did check the code over and realized the error after the post was initially written.

Cheers,
SF

EDIT: FWIW the option for auto-rolling was turned off when I was testing, in which no error appears. The error probably stems from these optional rules.

[Trenloe]

And the code for COC was pretty much written from the ground up, under 3.0, being built on the CoreRPG layer if it was written line by line from the 2.9.4 version, there would be no need to update it (or have bugs introduced). But that's an obvious statement.

To be clear here, as there seems to be lack of understanding on how the CoreRPG vs specific ruleset structure works, and how 2.9.4 rulesets are being migrated to 3.0. The CoreRPG ruleset gives a complete base level Fantasy Grounds implementation - giving all of the objects that are ruleset agnostic: chat window, chat functionality, story entries, images and maps, base characters (a blank main tab, and inventory tab and a notes tab), basic items, personalities, tables, dice rolling, whispers, tokens, basic combat tracker, etc., etc.. It is made this way so that all future changes to the core functionality can be upgraded across all rulesets based on top of the CoreRPG ruleset.

Then, each ruleset that is layered on top of the CoreRPG ruleset gives all of the ruleset specific needs: character sheet layout and functionality, NPC sheet layout and functionality, Combat tracker layout and functionality, ruleset theme, etc..

For the Call of Cthulhu ruleset - do you really think that Moon_Wizard has started from scratch and re-built the Call of Cthulhu ruleset from the ground up? No, he has not. Building from the ground up, even on top of CoreRPG would be a big effort, and would introduce the very real possibility of 2.9.4 campaigns not being usable in 3.0. What he has done is taken the 2.9.4 ruleset and removed all of the "stuff" that is now in the CoreRPG base ruleset layer. He has then taken all of the CoC ruleset specific "stuff" and modified it so that it fits on top of the CoreRPG base layer and also makes use of any new functionality in the CoreRPG layer that was not there in the 2.9.4 CoC ruleset. There have been some tweeks and minor layout changes - but the basis for the 3.0 ruleset was the 2.9.4 ruleset.

Hence my statement "if it is working in 2.9.4 and it is not working in 3.0 then there is an issue here." The reason for this statement is that the CoC ruleset specific code should be similar in 3.0 as it was in 2.9.4 (with any changes needed to fit in on top of the CoreRPG base layer). In our example - if the code was there in 2.9.4 to roll the dice on the Idea characteristic then it should be there in 3.0 - which it is (but there is a "bug" with it). If you look inside the 2.9.4 CoC ruleset and the 3.0 CoC ruleset you will see CoC specific files with very similar names, e.g. to construct the character sheet the following 5 files are used (2.9.4 ruleset file name first): charsheet_main.xml = record_char_main.xml, charsheet_skills.xml = record_char_skills.xml, charsheet_inventory.xml = record_char_inventory.xml, charsheet_personal.xml = record_char_personal.xml, charsheet_notes.xml = record_char_notes.xml. These 5 XML files make up the 5 tabs in the character sheet. They have been migrated from the 2.9.4 version to the 3.0 version with changes made to fit within the CoreRPG structure (and some minor cosmetic changes). They most certainly *have not* been "written from the ground up".