Unofficial Patches Extension

[phantomwhale]

Phloog,

Firstly, the nature of the FG ruleset development has been heavily covered in this thread, so I'd rather keep such debate off of this thread for now.

As for the nature of these extensions, let me explain what we've done. To fix elements on a certain "chunk" (e.g. the powers part of the character sheet), we've directly copied the XML chunk that creates this "chunk" and put it into our extension file, and then changed the one line that calls the magic LUA scripting that "does the clever stuff".

So from this approach it doesn't seem possible to have two extensions both adjusting the same "chunk", as it's not a case of saying I'm overwriting this scripting method for this part of it's functionality, but someone else is overwriting this other method. This might not be the only / best way to do it - but it's certainly the approach that we've taken. And in this case we arevchanging exactly the same scripting method anyway, as we are both fixing the same "power damage dice not aceing" problem.

As for problems when integrating these fixes in the main ruleset, this contention would simply not exist, as you would just copy and paste the scripting parts you want into the main scripting files, and leave the XML as it was. In fact, when I make a bugfix, I adjust the main ruleset first, which normally won't take too long and ends up adjusting 3-4 lines of code. A good part of the work has then been turning that into an extension, doing the steps above.

It would be easier just to add these bugfixes straight into the ruleset. But then you wouldn't release that ruleset to all users without more then the 2-3 minutes of quick testing that I'm prepared to do (although my changes have always been small, so I'd be surprised if they really do break anything else). So in a way, having this unofficial patches extension is good - it can act like a beta test for the changes, so that they can be applied to the next main release of the Savage Worlds ruleset with greater confidence.

As for not liking unofficial user extensions, I totally understand that. That's why I wanted all the simple, straight forward bugfixes to be made available here in one place, so most users only have to get one extension that is fairly stable; and I do believe it is - I'm a ruleset author as well (well, an unpublished one at the moment) but being able to see the original source code, myself and any other contributor is in just as strong a position as the original creator to provide stable bugfixes.

Hence I wanted to get a little user feedback before doing anything to the bugfix extension. I really want to keep this extension stable, simple and user friendly. But equally I wanted to see if anything could be done to accommodate those who do want to use multiple extensions here to remove the contention within any limitations of what FG extensions can do.

Hopefully knowing the details helps people understand the nature of the work done here.

Ben

[ProfMarks]

phantomwhale,

Thanks for looking into the issue, and using your scripting skills to benefit the whole community. I, for one, really appreciate you doing it, and promise in another life to learn coding/scripting when the mind is still absorbs new skills.

From what I read of the double fix problem, perhaps you could post the code and lines that would be need to changed in the base file for this particular issue. Understanding that the extension is the prefered (and right way to go) fix method, if we are at a crossroads, rather than having one fix or another, I'd argue that the fix that is easiest to impliment in the main file be left out but detailed. Then let the extention fix all others. Not so elegent, but until a better option becomes clear.

Thanks again.

[phloog]

It's always hard for me to be clear on web forums (fora?)...It's not that I don't like community stuff, I just would prefer that things be done by the main company...and it did concern me when it SOUNDED like (and I might be wrong) fixes were breaking new things...and it concerns me when there seems to be no official patch in the near term. If a patch comes from the dev., you have a lot more freedom to complain when it doesn't work...I can't really complain about free stuff.

I guess if I had to express my concerns they wouldn't be anything about the community stuff, because I think it's awesome folks are doing this for everyone out of the goodness of their hearts. My concerns are more along the lines of:

1) Is the fact that user patches are present causing people to drop their pitchforks, so the actual developers feel far less pressure to fix the thing that THEY got paid for? If there weren't all these folks stepping up, would more people be vocal and would we be more likely to have a new version?

2) Is the main company just waiting until everything is fixed by user extensions and then they'll bundle those together? I honestly don't have a problem with that so long as they don't put in conflicting code, but then why not just make the whole thing open, free, and charge for the licensed stuff?

3) It's always a little troubling to me when the core product has issues, but the company seems more interested in selling add-ons. It's unfair of me to feel this way I realize, but part of me wants to say 'Stop spending time making new things until the old things are better' - - I realize the money is in accessories, but I BOUGHT accessories, and I'm not really up for buying any more if this thing is not going to see any more development.

Well, now I'll probably not post again for another month or so (which was a promise I kept last time), and maybe next time I post there'll be a new version.

[CAPryde]

Thanks a lot for this thread, PW. I've really appreciated the patches and especially the ease of use.

[ddavison]

This thread has been stickied.

[Mortani]

I'm looking to start running a Savage Worlds game. Are these updates included in the 2.7.0 update?

[phantomwhale]

I'm looking to start running a Savage Worlds game. Are these updates included in the 2.7.0 update?

I believe the latest version of Fantasy Grounds is 2.6.5 (unless my updater is keeping something from me...) but in any case this would not make any difference to the Savage Worlds ruleset.

The latest Savage Worlds ruleset (release 3) is technically v3.0.8, and does not contain these patches. Again, I'm not aware of a newer version, although one was talked about.

Final point to add is I think there is some hope to get the 3rd party ruleset updates (such as Savage Worlds) integrated with the Fantasy Grounds updater, which might make pushing out patches much simpler, rather than having lots of different versions floating around.

With all these things, I wouldn't hold your breath, but that said, the current versions of FGII and the Savage Worlds ruleset is more than playable right now. (and naturally, the inclusion of the unofficial patches helps make it just that little bit smoother too )

Regards,
Ben

[Mortani]

Gotcha, thank you for the clarification.

[phantomwhale]

Have added in a patch to allow players to also move any ally (friend) tokens, as well as show the reach of them, as described on the first page of this thread :

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forum...ad.php?t=12816

I spent a little time considering if this was a "bug" or "enhancement" - after all, some GMs might like to show "friendly bystanders" on the combat map, but not let the players move them. Finally, I consulted the SWEX book and reminded myself that unlike other RPGs, Savage promotes the concept of player controlled allies, and GM's can always use the neutral status for bystander tokens.

Hopefully others agree this is a "bug" (or at least "desired enhancement to the core ruleset") and not a "optional enhancement for certain cases" and so belongs in this extension.

[Oberoten]

I would agree. After all innocent bystanders is the yellow neutral after all?

- Obe