Please add a name to an unnamed object in CoreRPG

[swest]

Greetings,

This thread is probably for @Moon Wizard, primarily. Jump to TL;DR for the concise request.

And, I hope that it's not the sort of thing that's intended to be added to The Wish List...

Anyway, I'm working on a ruleset that'll be based on CoreRPG, and the layout of the decorative frames for the character sheet make it desirable to alter the positions of the Portrait and Token slightly. Unfortunately, the locale for selecting/dropping the portrait (probably the icon too, but I haven't gotten that far) has a blank frame that is unnamed, and so can't be modified (overlaid?) downstream (upstream?)... So:

TL;DR

In CoreRPG -> campaign/record_char.xml at line 34, could the code for the portrait background (before selection of a portrait):


<genericcontrol>
<bounds>-137,21,45,45</bounds>
<icon>charlist_base</icon>
<disabled />
</genericcontrol>

be modified to have a name attached to it? e.g.:


<genericcontrol name="portrait_base">

or similar?

Thanks!

- s.west

[Moon Wizard]

Just a heads up that while I can do this for CoreRPG and a few others; it is almost universally re-implemented by every single ruleset, since the charsheet is re-implemented by every single ruleset. Just in case that matters...

Also, the portrait base is in place to denote the empty location for a user's portrait to appear, so that they have a visual indication of what to click on to set their portrait.

Regards,
JPG

[swest]

I'm not sure I understood the first sentence, but regarding the portrait base, I completely understand that (I think). It's just that, while I can re-define the portrait template (to get it repositioned for my purposes), I can't re-define the portrait base because it doesn't have a name.

So, what happens is that the user would click on the portrait base, get a portrait (placed where I want it), but the portrait base would still be there, as an unsightly leftover, instead of being covered up by the chosen portrait.

Perhaps there's something I'm still not getting about this, however.

- s.west

[edit: Ahh, re-implementing the entire charsheet... yes, I do get that. And, yes, I'm certainly prepared to do that, and it wouldn't be a big problem. So, if that is the preferred answer, that's fine, I get it. Thanks.]

[jharp]

I'm not sure I understood the first sentence, but regarding the portrait base, I completely understand that (I think). It's just that, while I can re-define the portrait template (to get it repositioned for my purposes), I can't re-define the portrait base because it doesn't have a name.

So, what happens is that the user would click on the portrait base, get a portrait (placed where I want it), but the portrait base would still be there, as an unsightly leftover, instead of being covered up by the chosen portrait.

Perhaps there's something I'm still not getting about this, however.

- s.west

[edit: Ahh, re-implementing the entire charsheet... yes, I do get that. And, yes, I'm certainly prepared to do that, and it wouldn't be a big problem. So, if that is the preferred answer, that's fine, I get it. Thanks.]

Regarding line one, what I think Moon is trying to say is that he can make the change, but that the change in CoreRPG will not influence the other rulesets because the other rulesets tend to redefine the entire charsheet. So the CoreRPG change will have little effect, if any, elsewhere. However, he is saying that to determine if that really matters to you. Maybe you only intend to have the "thing you are building" work in coreRPG.

Jason

[swest]

Regarding line one, what I think Moon is trying to say is that he can make the change, but that the change in CoreRPG will not influence the other rulesets because the other rulesets tend to redefine the entire charsheet. So the CoreRPG change will have little effect, if any, elsewhere. However, he is saying that to determine if that really matters to you. Maybe you only intend to have the "thing you are building" work in coreRPG.

Jason

Yep. Got it. And, yes, I have a feeling that I will end up redefining the entire thing anyway, so the point is taken.

Thanks,

- s.west

[Moon Wizard]

This is in the Test channel now.

Note: You should avoid redefining "charsheet". If your extension is supposed to work across multiple rulesets; you would have to account for that somehow in the extension; otherwise, all the built-in rulesets should have the change.

You never mentioned what ruleset(s) you are building for; so it's really hard to answer your question...

Regards,
JPG

[damned]

He is building (very ealy days) a RIFTS ruleset.
Ive put it out there now swest you are committed now!

[jharp]

Well if that is true, I have some contacts he should talk to.

Jason

[swest]

This is in the Test channel now.

Note: You should avoid redefining "charsheet". If your extension is supposed to work across multiple rulesets; you would have to account for that somehow in the extension; otherwise, all the built-in rulesets should have the change.

You never mentioned what ruleset(s) you are building for; so it's really hard to answer your question...

Regards,
JPG

Now I am confused! I thought, above, that you said: "... it is almost universally re-implemented by every single ruleset, since the charsheet is re-implemented by every single ruleset."

So... re-implement is not redefine? I have been making progress on doing exactly that, as it turns out.

Anyway, yes, I'm actually working with the Palladium guys to do an 'official' ruleset for RIFTS. I'm off to a slow start, but I think that I'll be picking up speed a little bit every day (as I add, or as damned provides me with, items to the my knowledge-base and repertoire : - )

I think that RIFTS is going to be a particularly knotty challenge, but we'll see.

- s.west

[swest]

He is building (very ealy days) a RIFTS ruleset.
Ive put it out there now swest you are committed now!

Oh, there's no doubt. I will be committed (in the psychiatric sense) before this is all done. So keep the Intervention phone line handy in case it becomes necessary.

- s.west

[swest]

Well if that is true, I have some contacts he should talk to.

Jason

I'm currently working with Cameron Cleveland, as a sort of liaison to Palladium/Siembieda...

- s.west

[jharp]

Now I am confused! I thought, above, that you said: "... it is almost universally re-implemented by every single ruleset, since the charsheet is re-implemented by every single ruleset."

So... re-implement is not redefine? I have been making progress on doing exactly that, as it turns out.

Anyway, yes, I'm actually working with the Palladium guys to do an 'official' ruleset for RIFTS. I'm off to a slow start, but I think that I'll be picking up speed a little bit every day (as I add, or as damned provides me with, items to the my knowledge-base and repertoire : - )

I think that RIFTS is going to be a particularly knotty challenge, but we'll see.

- s.west

I believe the assumption being made was that it was an extension you were making since you were asking for a change to CoreRPG. If you are doing a Rifts ruleset then you just take CoreRPG (or 5E or ???) and adapt it wholesale. So for such a case you don't bother asking anyone to change CoreRPG you just change it and call it Rifts.

Jason

[jharp]

I'm currently working with Cameron Cleveland, as a sort of liaison to Palladium/Siembieda...

- s.west

Wonderful.

[swest]

I believe the assumption being made was that it was an extension you were making since you were asking for a change to CoreRPG. If you are doing a Rifts ruleset then you just take CoreRPG (or 5E or ???) and adapt it wholesale. So for such a case you don't bother asking anyone to change CoreRPG you just change it and call it Rifts.

Jason

Right, I had come to that conclusion. I had, more or less, made that point earlier, but what I missed in MW's post (that you noted above) was the 'extension' assumption.

I think I'm all caught up now.

Thanks!

- s.west

[damned]

So you can either merge some changes onto CoreRPG windowclassses or you can replace them.
Moon Wizard is saying that in most rulesets charsheet is just replaced.
To replace it you have to redefine each/every object that you are keeping.
In traditional method thats easy - you copy the charsheet.xml file to your ruleset folder and you are done - or you can just edit that file directly.

In ruleset wizard you will have to define each of those token and portrait and resize and close buttons.
Ofc its all doable - but I wouldnt start my learning experience there.
Id start it with Strength and Intelligence, and Name and Race etc.

[swest]

Roger that.

As it turns out, like I implied before, doing this activity teaches many other things about what is going on behind the scenes.

For instance, I just wasn't getting the connection between a 'control' item and, for instance, an associated windowclass. So, redefining all the controls on charsheet meant that I would have to recreate the related windowclasses.

I was really struggling with how these connections were being made, but now it's much clearer. I know that it probably seems obvious to the experienced, but to me it felt like a mystery.

Thanks, again, for the continued help and interest.

- s.west