Making a mod incompatible with other mods

Remove all ads!

Is it possible to make an NPC mod purposefully incompatible with other mods?

 

i guess calling the CRE file the same as the mod in question, but im not that experienced with modding

 

Sure. It's easy as pie. It's enough that you know the names of variables or files they use. Avoiding total overtness would be a bit more tricky, though.

 

You can make your NPC mod not install if it detects the installation of another mod or mods.

You cannot reliably make other mods not install if yours is installed, as far as I am aware. You would have to check the installation procedures of the specfic mod you wished to ban and see if there was a way to fool it into thinking it was already installed and write your own setup to do so. But this is a nasty thing to do, bad practice, and could cause installation/uninstallation errors further down the track. Better to seek the co-operation of the makers of the mod you wish to exclude and have them include code in their setup to prevent their mod from installing if it detects the presence of yours. Or just document whatever incompatibility would happen if other specific mods were installed after yours and leave it up to the user.

 

It depends what you want to be intentionally incompatible with.

If you want to avoid other mods interfering with changes you made, carefully-selected cases of overwriting can do the trick. I do this occasionally when other mods making changes to the same files could potentially result in fatal situations (like, say, Arkanis Gath killing the player at the wrong time).

If you just want to make your NPC incompatible with Tactics because you don't like Weimer's face, then, uh, you're probably on your own.

 

Sort of right. Not Tactics, but Shadowkeeper. I've read so much about folks editing NPCs classes and stats just because they can.

 

shadow keeper is not a mod, its an editor and i dont think you can make it incompatible with that, thats like making a .txt file incompatible with notepad

 

I've played BG2 many times already without mods.
So what's wrong with editing game for my enjoyment? My last run I made Minsc barbarian because I've never played the class and didn't want to make PC a "dull tank". That way I didn't lose any banters. And I enjoyed it much. You know, that's why I play, for fun.

I personally don't like mods that restricts me do something or doesn't allow me choose components from it to install. Like IA for example, I would very much gladly play it's hardened fights/encounters but don't like it's other "enhancements". But it's ok for me I just won't play it, many players have found it awesome.

Sure, there was a time when I raised all abilities to 25 and get best weapons right away, but I couldn't finish the game because it got boring (surprise).

 

Shadowkeeper? NPC mod? Easy as pie.

IF
OR(7)
!Class("MySorc",SORCERER)
!CheckStat("MySorc",9,STR)
!CheckStat("MySorc",9,DEX)
!CheckStat("MySorc",9,CON)
!CheckStat("MySorc",9,INT)
!CheckStat("MySorc",9,WIS)
!CheckStat("MySorc",9,CHR)
Global("PlayerCheatedViaSK","GLOBAL",0)
THEN
RESPONSE #100
SetGlobal("PlayerCheatedViaSK","GLOBAL",1)
StartDialogueNoSet(Player1)
END

Add an appropriate banter to MySorcJ.d , where the NPC MySorc calls PC a jerk, or just leaves party. Or use DestroySelf() instead of StartDialogueNoSet() in the script.

Though I warn you: when I see, say, super-high romance requirements, I just delete this block from the NPC's script before installing - and you can't do anything about that.

 

This, of course, makes you look very silly and everyone stop playing your mod when you come up against some Mind Flayers and your NPC pipes up "EXCUSE ME I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN CHEATING!"
There is no practical way to make your NPC impermeable to game editors, and all things considered I suggest that it's not worth doing anyway.

 

Heheheh. Yes, and there's Lum machine, and the Ugly stick... oh, and tomes, too. Though some NPC mod (Chloe? Or Nathaniel?) tried to prohibit dual-classing in a similar way, I recall.

 

^It is Chloe, she has 25 DEX but can not be dualled to thief. Nathaniel on the other hand, has pretty average stats, and terrible starting HP (40 HP for a kensai! NO WAY! ) so I still had to SK him just to adjust his HP to max HP per level.

 

It's not editing the game.

It's editing something another person has created.

You know, I've never liked that the Mona Lisa has no eyebrows. I think I'll pop over to France and put some on because I can.

Here's my NPC:
A neutral, dwarven female F/T. She has high strength and constitution, okay dexterity, normal intelligence and charisma (for a dwarf), but a high wisdom (16). Now, let's say Anjo*, for example, downloads my NPC mod. He likes what he sees, but thinks to himself Why does she have such a high wisdom score? It would be better to make her a cleric! So Anjo uses SK to change the F/T class to cleric.

I suppose it becomes more of a legal standpoint - are mods available for download freeware; meaning the mod maker(s) have no recourse when players muck about with the programming? Or do said mods have copyright to them where the mod maker(s) could program the mod so it would cause bugs/glitches/game crashes when the code or NPC is changed?**

* Nothing personal, I just needed a name.
** These conflicts would be documented in the readme file and fair warning given.

 

That's more a question of intellectual property then?

I don't see what it so wrong if a player somewhere using your NPC mod decided to turn your character into a Cleric instead. I understand your feelings, you have put a lot of time in creating a character and making RPing decisions about her and you don't want people to mess it up. Nevertheless I think people should be free to enjoy a mod without facing "bugs/glitches/game crashes"... I know I wouldn't play a mod which would be so threatening in its readme.

I don't believe you could (or should) sue somebody living in New Zealand (just an example btw) for playing your character as a Cleric.

Things would be different however if this person actually released a "fix" for your mod which would allow anyone to "correct" the class of this very character.

 

I guess part of the reason BG2 is so popular is exactly that i can be editted and messed with and modded. And corrected and so on. As someone says it's for the fun of it. Thus I understand your PoW Kuemper, but I don't agree.

 

I also understand Kuemper's concern, and respect it. But I must say that If you make your mod incompatible with other mods or SK, I think most people will not want to try it, fearing conflicts, bugs or worse things. I think you should just do it like other mods. A few people may try to twist and edit your character, (let's face it, you can not prevent it) BUT you will get lots of people (including me, if this matters!) who will play your NPC and enjoy it like you intended.

 

I don't know what the legal perspective on all this is--it's utterly unenforcable either way. My standpoint is that if a modder considers his or her work so sacred that it shouldn't be touched by the filthy hands of players, he or she shouldn't release it in the first place.

There's also the question of what harm someone tweaking your mod does to you...

This is a poor analogy.
If you have a copy of the Mona Lisa on your wall, you'll look pretty daft drawing eyebrows on it, but nobody should be trying to patent ANTI-EYEBROW DEFENCES to stop you doing so.
If you are given a book, should it be laminated to prevent you drawing in the margin?
If you buy a coffee table and the legs are too long, are you forbidden from sawing them down because that's not how the original designer conceived it?
I can go on...

 

You can write on laminated papers with whiteboard or overhead markers (and probably a whole lot of other markers, too) - so, got you, sucker!

I think attempting to prevent the player from editing an NPCs strength is pretty stupid, and fully agree with Sim's "if a modder considers his or her work so sacred that it shouldn't be touched by the filthy hands of players, he or she shouldn't release it in the first place".

 

No, only a part of players. By doing this, those players who don't cheat/edit won't be rejected, they will play your mod. And that is also your goal, to give some an enjoyable mod to these group of players, isn't it?
Yes, it will restrict the group of players who will play it, but it's the author's decision. Anjo wrote:

And he is totally right, in my opinion. Anjo doesn't agree with the decision of IA's author but respects it. On the other hand, certain modders imply that such authors should be despised for what they do (It happens on another forum -- at least I haven't seen such posts here at SP yet). Why? Isn't it the author's right?

Generally, it makes sense to make protections because most players are not experienced, they don't know how to hack the mod, and most of them won't spend time to ask it on forums and then applying it on his game etc.
As long as the effort to make them is smaller than the effort to break them, it may be rational to add some "protections", to certain points where it makes sense.

Note: Obviously, intentional incompatibility and 'protections' are acceptable to a certain extent only. E.g. as long as your mod affects no other's work directly: i.e. it's OK if your mod refuses to install if another mod is installed (this is detection, i.e. passive protection), but it's not acceptable to make any changes on the work of someone else 'physically' (such as modifying a file of a mod made by someone else if it's detected).

Finally, the most important part:

This is an incorrect approach, obviously. A mod is a work of the mind, a product, the author is granted with the usual, obvious author rights. This fact makes all those viewpoints pointless that question whether it's morally (or otherwise) correct if the author applies restrictions on his/her work.

Someone else said something similar(ly funny) on another forum: "If you don't want people to utilize your mod, don't release it.". It's your product of mind, and as the author, you are free to select its features.

Yeah, it's not prohibited to saw the table's legs, but the creator also has right to build in things to prevent this if he doesn't support such user remakes.

The purpose of building in such 'protections' is dual:
1. To prevent unwanted, misleading bug reports. Many players have lots of mods installed, and if they edit them, it might lead to problems. The author has right to make an attempt to ensure (or rather to increase the chance) that all bug reports will come from a valid installation.
2. Unlike in case of table (or even a novel you've rewritten), the changes the player makes while editing are not well-defined, and they can't be followed easily. Even if he keeps in mind what changes he has made, he might not have the required knowledge to predict all effects. Furthermore, after some weeks/months of break, he might continue playing, and experience some weird things. He will tell them to other players or on gaming forums, people will try to guess what mod caused it, and boom: it harms the mod's reputation, yet the original mod has nothing to do with the weird dialogue/area crash/broken quest (Shall I continue?). The author has right to protect the good name of his/her work (and thus his/her own reputation too).

It's another matter how effective these 'protections' against editing/cheating are, but I definitely don't discourage some attempts if an author (such as kuemper) wants to make a try.

[ December 29, 2006, 23:07: Message edited by: Baronius ]

 

Sim, your example are of items purchased in a legal exchange of goods or services. I have yet to see or hear of a modder for BG2 getting paid just so someone can play their mod.

8people PM'ed me with a good idea that I will try.