Removing Game Systems from FG

[warderbrad]

Hello,

I have done a number of searches trying to figure out how to remove systems from FG so it updates faster and makes selecting the system I want to run easier with a smaller list. Specifically I want to remove everything other than Earthdawn and 5e D&D.

Please advise.

[Zacchaeus]

You can remove any content by deleting rulesets and modules from the rulesets folder and from the vault. However when you update it will load them all again. So, essentially there isn't a way to remove content once you have bought it. You will always have it and it will always update. (BTW the 5e ruleset also needs the corerpg ruleset in order to function - don't know about Earthdawn)

[damned]

The minimum rulesets that FG will install are:

CoreRPG
3.5e
4e
5e
Pathfinder
Numenera
Fate
+ anything you have bought

You can manually remove any other rulesets by removing them from the /rulesets folder.

The # of campaigns is the bigger impact in how long it takes to load.

[warderbrad]

Would it be a good suggestion to allow a user to uncheck some of the rulesets that they do not want, perhaps in the settings screen? I understand that some systems require the CoreRPG to be there so maybe not be able to take that off. I see this as being able to reduce the footprint of FG on the computer, reduce the bandwidth of the updates, and speed up the time of the updates.

[Bidmaron]

Yes, put it here and let us know when you have so we can go vote for it.

[Trenloe]

I think not updating rulesets is a risky way to go. We already have people posting issues because they aren't running up-to-date code, if you stop updating rulesets then when you suddenly might want to use one in future you might have issues because you're not up-to-date.

The standard ruleset footprint is very small - they're all less than 10MB in size (except Rolemaster that is a little larger). You're really not saving much by wanting to disable rulesets you're not using at this point.

Whereas disabling rulesets might be a nice feature for someone who is completely aware of what they're doing, making it available to all FG users could create much more issues than it solves. The things it "solves", to be perfectly honest, aren't earth shattering - a shorter list of rulesets and slightly faster update times.

[LordEntrails]

Because of What Trenloe mentions, you would have to disable the ability to access any games (probably even as a player) that you have disabled the ruleset(s) for. Of course, then you run into the problem of people not remember they disabled a ruleset and complaining, "Why can't I use FG to play xyz?"

But, it never hurts to add to the wishlist for voting and consideration.

[Andraax]

you would have to disable the ability to access any games (probably even as a player)

The player's client downloads the ruleset from the GM when connected. The player runs whatever ruleset the GM is using (even if the GM has patched their ruleset - the player uses the patched version while connected to the GM).

[Bidmaron]

I think not updating rulesets is a risky way to go. We already have people posting issues because they aren't running up-to-date code, if you stop updating rulesets then when you suddenly might want to use one in future you might have issues because you're not up-to-date.

The standard ruleset footprint is very small - they're all less than 10MB in size (except Rolemaster that is a little larger). You're really not saving much by wanting to disable rulesets you're not using at this point.

Whereas disabling rulesets might be a nice feature for someone who is completely aware of what they're doing, making it available to all FG users could create much more issues than it solves. The things it "solves", to be perfectly honest, aren't earth shattering - a shorter list of rulesets and slightly faster update times.

A properly implemented method of nixing rulesets would then warn you if you attempted to create a campaign using a ruleset for which you weren't doing updates. This is, in my opinion, not a reason not to do it. That said, I definitely agree with Trenloe that the hit on disk space and bandwidth on updates is fairly trivial and makes such a feature an EXTREMELY low priority thing to do.

[warderbrad]

I added it to the wishlist. I completely understand that even just hiding the unwanted rulesets could be a solution. I just thought it might be a little easier for some people.