Module Creation: FG or straight to XML?

**DrClarke** · January 17th, 2007, 23:42

I was curious how many people create their modules straight from XML source or if anyone uses the functionality of FG to make their entire module?

**Stuart** · January 18th, 2007, 07:31

I use a combination - straight into FG for 90%, into campaign db.xml for tables.

**Nokameeno** · January 18th, 2007, 08:03

Well I suppose that means I should learn XML...how much will I benefit from that?

**Casamordius** · January 18th, 2007, 18:27

if anyone likes to test my simple moduleeditor then please send me your email.
you can open an save the db.xml an edit it including copy/paste.

**tdwyer11b** · January 18th, 2007, 22:12

I'm kinda interested, shoot it my way, [email protected]

**Oberoten** · January 18th, 2007, 22:55

I sent a PM but tiread as I am...
Forgot the whole E-mail thing.
[email protected]

**Griogre** · January 19th, 2007, 07:28

Originally Posted by DrClarke

I was curious how many people create their modules straight from XML source or if anyone uses the functionality of FG to make their entire module?

Currently I use both. I will build a skeleton in FG of the encounters using just the encounter names and then go into the xml and add the data. Mostly I do this because I can cut and paste easily into the xml and since I build the xml skeleton in FG I don't have to worry about the xml tags much. You can build everything in FG but I find the poor cut and paste support to be too slow for my taste.

As Stuart, mention you do have to do tables in the xml, but tables in modules are fairly rare.

Thread: Module Creation: FG or straight to XML?

Thread Tools