I know there will be a difference of opinion. Probably as many as there are modders.

But, here is my question / dilema (sp?)...

If you who are reading this do not know, my personal project is to patch quest mods to start only when logical conditions are met.
The only mods I patch are those that interest me or are requested. Then I add the patch to my Delayers Patch Mod.
I have always worked under the premise that the mod author's work was their work and I would not alter their mod directly.
Their mods are always masters for my patches to work and I always credit them in the readme as well.

I added a couple of patches somewhat recently and the author of the mods that were patched expressed what I perceived as disapproval.

Quote: "I only wish I had been asked before the patches were made for my mods."

So my question is: Should I be asking for permission to make delayer patches for public release?
Or for that matter, look at my Stealth Overhaul, Cobl mod. Should I have asked permission before releasing it?
Should I remove it until I get permission?

It does bother me that an author of some mod would look at the simple patch I do and would feel: "I only wish I had been asked before the patches were made for my mods."

TIA for whatever input...

I wouldn't have thought that anyone would object to a delayer, unless they worry it will actually interfere with the function.

I wouldn't expect you to have to ask permission either, since it's a separate file that a user has to actively download.

Of course, until recently I would never have thought that someone could have the full rack of SM Plugin Refurbish mods installed and then post to ask why they didn't get the quest updates when leaving the sewers. What the heck did they think the SM Plugin Refurbish mods were for.

That said, if the modder has a valid reason for questioning the patch, then perhaps you should consider removing it. By valid I mean something other than "that's not the way I wanted it".

I say that because really what your patches do for the most part is eliminate the need to leave mods unactivated until you're ready to play them.

Telling the author that you intend to make a patch isn't the same as asking for permission. I don't think permission is required to release a patch, unless the patch has to include significant portions of the original mod and the mod's license doesn't permit that.

It's courteous to at least tell the original mod's author about your intentions, however. He or she may be able to provide information that influences how you build your patch -- pitfalls to avoid, or rationale for why certain things were done the way they were -- or may even persuade you not to make the patch at all (which is different from refusing permission).

Something else to consider is that perhaps the author in question might have preferred the delay option be built into the mod itself. Maybe they didn't know that could be done and just didn't articulate that very well.

As long as something is a patch and not a replacement of the main file I wouldn't mind at all if someone would make changes to Kragenir's Death Quest. You wouldn't need my permission, but I would like to know about it.

But if someone would contact me about a patch they would like to make and I find it to be a very good suggestion, being the tweakaholic that I am I'd rather add it to the main file myself.


Yeah.

This basically covers your question/dilemma. It doesn't hurt to ask I'd say. A little while ago two different people released a "StarX Vampire Death Mod", which used the death sequence from my mod as a standalone plugin. I could understand the reason why they made it, but at the very least it would have been common courtesy to ask if it's ok to release something based on my blood, sweat and tears, as I spend craploads of my free time to create it. As I said, I understood the motivations to do a seperate plugin: I even gave some advice on how to improve some parts. But I just wanted to know, that's all.

The same goes for quest delayers I guess, as the maker can have some input on what the conditions are to initiate their quest and it's simply polite to inform them.

I looked at the readme's for each of the mods I patched again.
Some of them state ask for permission before re-distributing a changed esp or using resources in your work.
Several of them say nothing at all about modding their mod.

Not necessarily to justify myself, but if the readme didn't say "no", I took it at face value (meaning, to me, the author didn't care).

After almost three years... I still pickup something new almost everytime I come around here.
I tend to agree with Wyzard256.
I will attempt to contact authors in the future.
Before I start working on a patch for their mod.
After all, now that I've talked it out, I realize it is the respectful thing to do.

If I were to make a mod, and then weeks later see that I had been credited for a patch of some sort, I would be pleased, but I would have liked to know beforehand. Same goes for my JK3 mods that were uploaded to other sites. If they don't like it, then it's really not a breach of their work at all, so it doesn't really matter. And some modders would simply like to release that kind of thing themselves--although it is your work, so I think as long as you tell them and ask for suggestions, then afterwards you can do whatever the heck you want.

Yes, you are right. I can do whatever the heck I want. As can anyone.
However, as I have just realized, it is a matter of respect.
To get it, one must give it.

Indeed, although no harm is done to an original mod and credit is always given.
Contacting the author before 'patching' a mod would seem more friendly to someone oblivious to your project than, an out-of-the-blue release.
Besides that, the word 'patch' might have a negative effect on some authors, as a patch generally fixes inconsistencies, bugs and errors.
As said, the author probably released the mod as planned and intended the mod to start at the beginning of the game.
The term 'Add-on' seams more fitting to me, when I think about it.

Edit: coherency, bed for me.

"Quest Delayer Add-on"
Now why didn't I think of that?...
You're right. "Patch" does have a somewhat negative interpretation.
I think I will be changing the name of my mods.
(The BOSS people are gonna love this...)

As I mentioned earlier, one possible worry is that the original author could conceivably get problem reports and bug fix requests from people complaining the quest won't begin properly.

Strange as it seems, people are capable of installing delayer mods and not actually knowing that they delay the start of mod quests.

I can imagine a lot of frustration from an author who can't figure out why a quest isn't starting because he/she doesn't even know a delayer exists, and the player doesn't know they have one installed.

Although I can hardly imagine that people like that are capable of posting in the comment section of a mod or even sending a PM to the author I agree that informing the author is a good idea. He could even add a link to your patch to the mod's description.

But I don't think you need to ask for permission if all you do is release an esp-mastered patch - at some point people just have to realize that it's just a mod they released and not the holy grail that must no be touched by mortal beings.

Removed

I vote for asking the author beforehand as well. It is just better to cover all of your bases. Plus, it does not take to much effort to ask. We know how badly comments in the wrong mods' thread can go...not to mention bad comments in general...

Edit: From what I have seen, aellis' delayers are fine.

Read and be astonished: http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1086273-quests-not-given-after-exiting-dungeon/page__view__findpost__p__15835971

...and those do not even surprise me anymore...

I can only chime in with the rest - it doesn't take much effort to contact the author first. For all the reasons said above. Who knows, if he/she has an upgrade of the mod in the works he might want to attend to delayers himself instead. Not to mention the problems occurring if the author is contacted by players who cannot understand why the mod doesn't start as intended, and the author hasn't got a clue, either, because he didn't know of any "patches".

Contacting the author won't take many minutes, and might prevent a whole load of later problems or misunderstandings.

If I thought "patch" was a dirty word I wouldn't have it plastered all over so many Open Cities patches

I don't see the issue, much less the point in renaming the mods. Doing that is an almost sure way to invite people to have them installed twice and not realize it.

No, patch isn't a dirty word at all. But it might not be what a modder wants to hear.
Yours are compatibility-patches, which fix issues when mods are combined, which was not in their authors intentions.
There is a chance that the modder might perceive a patch to their work that they intended and are happy with as a kind of threat.
Though, most would probably be happy with such work done for them, it is a chance.
There is no issue that aellis tends to, other than that of immersion-breaking perhaps. It adds to the mod.

That said, I was in no way suggesting a name change, it would be kind silly to have to destroy the well-known and appreciated name.
Perhaps only in communicating the intent to the author, name it an add-on?

I think "patch" is a better term than "add-on" for this sort of thing. A patch modifies existing content; an add-on adds new content and doesn't (or at least doesn't primarily) alter things that already exist.

The delayer addon/patch is a very nice addition to a game, as I for one will fully admit. Starting a new game and then getting bombarded by 20+ messages for various overhauls, houses, quests ect ect coming at you is a tad... distressing. A delayer is nice, how it is delayed I have mixed feelings on. The Lost spires is nice just I truly wonder how you can delay it.. perhaps when you first enter a city? Or leave the prison for the first time perhaps? I know, that I myself have a very hard time plotting out my quest, never mind how the player will stumble upon it. Add-on I think maybe the best term to use.. less invasive and just does what it says nicely. It'll "add" onto something, patches mean something "manditory" where as add ons are kind of optional.

Yes, I see where you're looking at this from, but I certainly wouldn't see it as a threat. Heck, I've been known to refer to modifications to my own stuff as patches. Even when it's the mod itself being updated. I just don't see anything negative about calling them patches.

Granted, her patches do something other than fix compatibility issues. They modify the existing content in a way the author did not necessarily intend. If they were true add-ons, they'd be extending existing content.

Thanks for all the comments.
I think the point about renaming my mods and then people using both is huge. I hadn't thought about the ramifications.
There most certainly will be people that do not realize or don't bother with the readme and will put both in their game.
That will create a hoard of questions to deal with that neither I or the original mod authors want.
While I don't think there would be problems, load order questions would certainly be at the top of the list.
My patches are supposed to be simple and straight forward.
Besides that, I've already changed the name once.
Now that I've thought about it, a second time wouldn't be such a good idea after all.

I've changed my mind. I'll continue to call them patches as that is what they do.
They modify scripts or quests to do what I think they should been.
I suppose this does not always meet with the original mod author's vision or intention.

I intend to contact each mod author whose work I've modified with my patches and let them know the following:
Apologize for not letting them know ahead of time.
Explain what I changed and how I did.
Ask if they would like to see it done differently.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

One thing to consider that hasn't been mentioned is that a patch is likely to use up a precious esp slot. I'd expect a lot of mod authors would include compatibility code in their mod to make a patch unnecessary if contacted first.