Where is the full documentation for the XML for modules and campaigns?

[Zacchaeus]

I think you probably need a combination of things in order to see the xml. As was suggested above you can get a good idea by creating a campaign in Fantasy Grounds, add in a couple of story entries and NPC or two an image a parcel, encounter etc. When you export that and look at the db.xml file that will give you the current file structure. As you have discovered from other posts you can't get the reference structure from an FG export so you would have to use par5e for that. Through a combination of those you should be able to see everything that there is.

However this might not be infallible becasue some things just can't be done in the public version of par5e so you won't necessarily see everything that is possible.

[Varsuuk]

Yes, that all makes sense except for that last sentence

That's why I wish there was an example entry for each category that just used all the possible XML tags (with description if not self-descriptive) taken from some internal product in use but with the DATA changed so it is not a copyright issue. For example, if some Story entry from Strahd Chapter 666 had "all the features" (presumably, we'd need more than one entry to cover all since some are probably exclusive) the Devs could rename everything and replace the stuff inside the xml tags with "junk" or documentation

But, given they have little extra time - perhaps they could just write a fast script/xslt etc to take sample db files and replace the text inside elements with XXXX then give it a manual looksie for any in-element copyright issues with anything in there that might not be distributable.


But of course, this is really aimed at Davidson, et al

I think you probably need a combination of things in order to see the xml. As was suggested above you can get a good idea by creating a campaign in Fantasy Grounds, add in a couple of story entries and NPC or two an image a parcel, encounter etc. When you export that and look at the db.xml file that will give you the current file structure. As you have discovered from other posts you can't get the reference structure from an FG export so you would have to use par5e for that. Through a combination of those you should be able to see everything that there is.

However this might not be infallible becasue some things just can't be done in the public version of par5e so you won't necessarily see everything that is possible.

Righ

[damned]

Just throwing it out there.... the fact that you arent getting the answer you want may mean there is no great desire to provide this info...
No one will stop you making a new par5e tool but it is neither in the Wizards or SmiteWorks best interests to see a tool that can make production quality output and share it without FGs inbuilt copy protections...
So quite possibly no one is going to hand you this info...
Just my thoughts...

[Varsuuk]

That's fine. I can get that reasoning. However, no one ever mentioned such a reason before. In fact, with all the talk about being able to add your own data and the ruleset wiki, the opposite was my (mis)impression.

As for sharing without inbuilt copy protections, we are talking about making our own modules and data. Correct me if I am wrong, but right now, some things cannot be added via the FG program itself for our own campaigns right? I mean I am still barely experienced with it (day job and family) but, for example - is it possible to add a Background for yourself in the FG product? It may be obvious to you and others how to do that and I don't mind that pointed out to me But if PAR5E is the only way for me to add custom Backgrounds, then I would want to know what fields are available for use so I can make these myself when PAR5E has bugs.

It would be different if PAR5E (public) were updated with these things and fixed bugs like not being able to have "list" in background name without fubarring the output etc. But that is not the case.

So how do we create new custom things in correct manner. IF you say only the manufacturer can, then that is a caveat that should be included with the "advertising of 'features'"

[damned]

Im not a part of SW, Im just another user like you. I dont have much extra info or knowledge on this topic - just my thoughts.
I have only ever used Par5e to create CoreRPG and other non 5e ruleset data. I dont know anything about the complexities, intricacies and troubles of making backgrounds and other ruleset specific output.
From what I understand you can create backgrounds with the publicly available par5e.
You probably cant add everything in but you can do a fair bit with it. Yes it has bugs. Galore. The internal version still has bugs too. And some new ones.
You can enter a Background directly into the char sheet but it wont have any linked data.
Does this matter? I dont believe it does. After char creation has finished I dont believe that the background offers any further automation (I could very well be wrong) so there is nothing to stop you adding your own values in here and making the neccesary adjustments to the char sheet if you dont want to generate it via Par5e.

[Varsuuk]

Correct, I thought about that and it works. But the automation in question is a simple case of letting players poke through a large list of backgrounds or races etc and read about them and select one which then adds N (where N can be rather large) features, items, skills, etc to the sheet based on whatever FG does with the processing of the created background data in the db.xml


There is zero "wrong" with no allowing players to add content in a reusable form, there are models where this makes a lot of sense. PAR5E is NOT a Smiteworks-included-with-FG app however, it is not kept "up to date". If it were, then the point of me making my own version goes away (sad for me, since I love to code - better for me and others who just want to play D&D with custom campaigns)

The misunderstanding that Smiteworks wanted to support this level of first-class support (not a judgement phrase, I mean in the engineering sense of treating the client data same as built in/dlc) for custom data was engendered because OF the Parse tool.

Perhaps that tool was never envisioned and at that time they found they were "too" open with contents of xml and a smart coder made a product that they didn't expect. Or, because they didn't have s license, they [b]needed[b] someone to make this task less onerous so that they could sell FG without themselves risking alienating wotc.

Whatever the reason, the deprecation of Parse indicates that at some point making new entries of things that cannot be exported via FG will not be supported in the long term since eventually they will add or remove tags and parse will no longer work with the future FG format.


FG allows you to enter (nearly? Thought recall reading that wasn't the case but not sure) everything a tool like parse does but it does not allow you to export your own user content to make "first class" backgrounds, races, classes etc.

If we are expected to rely on parse by Smite, then a public parse should be maintained. If it isn't officially part of FG, then a way to manually enter and create backgrounds etc should be allowed.

If Smite feels this impacts the ability to sell dlc, then a fair compromise is to allow you to make these parse-only things but instead of going into your campaign they go into the content locker under a "user section" and that data is encrypted just like the rest. So if I created a cavalier with background of banker and race of Changeling, it is in my DM module that users can see if I share and they can pick the data for their chars (more than onc without worrying if they hit all the options as needed right). That data is only visible on my acct and not copyable but it is accessible to ppl connects to me in a form that lets them see the meta-info (Cavalier, Banker, Changeling) when selecting options but does not copy the meta info to their acts just ads the features, skills, etc to their character sheets.

In this way, Smite controls the secret xml but allows ppl to creat new easy to use in their campaigns custom data.

Or Smite can manage expectations better by not making it seem as if there is a way to use a 3rd party tool to "complete" their app's ease of modification since it may not be able to do so in future and no one is working on that apps bugs for their users.

[Varsuuk]

PS. My interest is not in maligning FG - but in pointing out how that set of limitations pans out as time and th FG moving target evolves away from Parse.

I think I (overly) pointed out my thoughts, so I won't ask anymore about XML documentation that they do not wish to provide. I'll confine my questions to that which is already visible only in the future.

It is Smitework's product, they understand their product model and pro/cons of disclosure better than I and it is obviously their call to make and I respect it.

I wrote about why I misunderstood what was a feature and what wasn't as a thing to think on mainly because it was not Doug responding so felt freer to argue vs just accepting it

But ya, I won't be starting things about this again about this going forward.

[Trenloe]

Trenloe,

I'll attempt to answer some of your questions. Proviso - I don't work for Smiteworks and I don't do any in-depth work with 5E so don't know about any subtle changes over versions.

You suggested that basic parser to create some of the XML to look at and learn what is expected/possible to put in the XML.

I was concerned however, that it is a good deal older than even the last public PAR5E - it's from 2014 it seems. Is the XML output changed in a way that might cause a problem? [/QUOTE]
I don't know what, if anything, has changed - I would imagine there has been some underlying changes. It still seems to work, so give it a go as your starting point.

Do the FG "release notes" ever list XML db changes? I haven't gone through them, and will when I get to that point but was wondering - if it did, then it's a no-brainer to correct the output from the 2014 parser to use as my "template."

The release notes are more functional than at a DB level.

Although, anyone with History info, why does it directly create the Monster/Spells modules but didn't create one full one with backgrounds and rest? Seems it is capable of module creation via evidence of the Monsters/Spells.

It was the developer's decision. I imagine he'd got it to the point he wanted (spells and monsters) and didn't want to do any more in depth coding, but kindly did some coding to provide the base files for PAR5E so others could use it.

Lastly, anyone have any idea if these would be "sufficient" to generate xml that shows all possible XML db output? Ie, for Bacgrounds, all current legal xml elements can be found in by at least taking a union of all the output bacgrounds. Same question for the rest like classes. Not sure I am being clear or not its easier to ask via voice than for me to type... it's my curse. (One of them...)

I'd imagine it won't generate all possible db XML.

For classes within a ruleset, I'm afraid it's a case of going through the ruleset code/xml to work out what's possible.

[Moon Wizard]

I think that the answer is that it's more about not having time to document capabilities that are not heavily used and primarily used by internal content creators, which is generally a lower priority for us. Just check out the wish list, let alone our nice to Unity and more recent updates.

All of the information can be figured out by looking at the CharManager script within the 5E ruleset. In fact, this is exactly what I would need to do to make sure that only relevant fields are included even in an example.

I'm away from my machine, but each record type has 1-2 functions in the Lua script you can review and ask questions. I think the function called by the PC sheet is called addInfoDB, and then farmed out to the specialized function(s) for that record type.

Regards,
JPG

[Varsuuk]

Thanks Moon, I don't know squat about Lua either and since I was not into extensions/rule sets yet I didn't look there.

In hindsight now it seems obvious the scripts would need access to the XML elements. Since I didn't look in those directories, it didn't occur to me. Thanks much,

Dan