Lands of Adventure: A Gold-Box Inspired CRPG

[Cosmo]

As mentioned, that's one of the options. I'm just trying to decide if it's the best one.

I don't know how confident you are with creating/buying good animations, but one thing i know is that i prefer good-looking static pictures rather than poorly animated models.
So i guess the question is : have you enough funds to go all the way or will you be forced to cut corners ? And would the latter really be worth it ?

 

[Rhuantavan]

Soon, I am planning to walk the same path as you are and I am asking pretty much the same questions. I am using the Unity engine and will be purchasing many models (vegetation, actors, buildings, ...), art (textures), and scripts (AI, weather).

Then, my plan is to do the following:

• Medium-compressed (about one tenth of real world size, subject to tests) 3D world when traveling and exploring.
• 3D actors with a basic daily routine, and enemies with encounter locations predetermined and scripted
• 3D villages with building you cannot walk in, but instead:
  • a text screen/menu/interface for performing actions pops up OR
  • 2D image representation of the place with clickable hotspots for performing actions
• 2D image representation with clickable hotspots for large cities
• 3D caves/mines/dungeons

I have reduced my ambitions to as much I was honestly comfortable with, but I am in no hurry to finish the project... this might take me many years.

Hopefully this will help.

 

[theSavant]

This scale will take you many many years. Don't forget, that a large world also requires to be filled with content, a task heavily underrated. Skyrim had dozens of people creating content, but it's still empty and boring. Now imagine you have to do this yourself. If you are doing it alone there's a high chance the huge amount of work (altogether) eventually brings you down, causing you to lose interest and then all the work was useless.

Btw. I just recall another level of abstraction. When I first heard of Might & Magic X, rumors were about "doll-house" models. I interpreted it like this, that you have some kind of miniature representation of towns (same as a base in Heroes of MM), 1 single model representing a whole town. Once you reached the dollhouse you'd see a 2D townpicture with hotspots. Now this sounded totally cheap, and it didn't turn out this way, but I would have bought such a game just for the sake of seeing this level of abstraction.

Investigating this, I'd consider the following abstractions as doable:
- Doll-house buildings with 2D representation on the inside (like in HOMM)
- Enemies on map as moving placeholders (like in Wizardry: Tale of Forsaken Land)
- Combat represented in a first person screen (like in Lords of Xulima)

Basically it would similar to HOMM5, but from 1st person view. Hence the abstraction would also allow Cooperative play like in Heroes 5. You'd also save a lot of time in pathfinding, as you don't need group AI or avoidance AI.
But even if using THIS level of abstraction, it's still a lot of work. Think of the skill system, items to create, enemies, balancing, spell visualization, sound effects, music, story, 2D town screens, miniature models, designing the landscape so it's attractive (the HOMM series somehow achieved a magical look with all their glitter, bling-bling, although the graphics weren't that great).

 

[Rhuantavan]

Well, I am sure you have a point there. My ambitions will probably bury me, but I feel I need to go into this level of complexity to achieve what I want (A Betrayal at Krondor inspired RPG, basically).

In my previous iteration, the goal was quite achievable. Roughly this:

• Map travel with camping, encounters, etc...
• Darklands-style cities with textual navigation
• BaK style turn-based combat

But, I really want a first-person exploration experience, which I cannot achieve using the overland map.


Anyway, ProphetSword sorry for hijacking your thread. I really want to see what presentation style you'll end up choosing.

 

[Magellan]

Looks really good ProphetSword! Keep up the good work!

 

[ProphetSword]

Big changes have come to the game. I've received permission to use the Basic Fantasy RPG system (http://www.basicfantasy.org). For those of you who don't know, the system is basically a version of Basic D&D created under the OGL with some things pulled from 3.5 (like ascending armor classes).

As a result of that, some things have changed. The game now has 10 classes instead of 12:

The classes that are dimmed out are not available to the current character because they didn't make the prime requisite rolls required to select those classes. In addition here is a screenshot of the current character sheet, showing the new system being used (although, the Saving Throws aren't currently implemented, which is why they have a static number showing...they are next on my list):

That's the update of what I've been working on.

I'm considering doing a Kickstarter purely to get money for assets to make the game a little better. At this point, I'm no longer worried about making money with the game, so I just want to make it the best free game that it can possibly be. So, I'll let you know when that happens in case any of you want to help support the game and make it better.

 

[Piety]

Do let us know if you decide to go that route, I'd toss you a few bucks without hesitation. Looking good, keep the updates coming!

 

[Magellan]

Do let us know if you decide to go that route, I'd toss you a few bucks without hesitation. Looking good, keep the updates coming!

Yep, me too!

 

[Jaesun]

Do let us know if you decide to go that route, I'd toss you a few bucks without hesitation. Looking good, keep the updates coming!

Yep, me too!

 

[ProphetSword]

Unfortunately, after exploring the Open Gaming License a little further, it appears that implementing the game in a way that would satisfy the legality of the license would be tricky. So, instead of pursuing the use the Basic Fantasy gaming system, I am simply going to develop a system that is familiar but not quite the same (there are no laws to prevent that). No one is more bummed about it than me, but I would prefer to avoid any legal issues over a video game that I'm going to give away for free.

 

[Alchemist]

Unfortunately, after exploring the Open Gaming License a little further, it appears that implementing the game in a way that would satisfy the legality of the license would be tricky. So, instead of pursuing the use the Basic Fantasy gaming system, I am simply going to develop a system that is familiar but not quite the same (there are no laws to prevent that). No one is more bummed about it than me, but I would prefer to avoid any legal issues over a video game that I'm going to give away for free.

I'm curious what legal problem you could see arising - since my understanding was that making an OGL-based computer game is quite possible under the license terms. The main sticking point is you need to supply the rules used in some kind of human-readable format. In-game help would probably serve this purpose well. I believe this is what Knights of the Chalice does (OGL, based on D&D 3.5). They've been selling their game for a while now and still no news of WotC coming after them.

The software FAQ on the WotC site clarifies a lot of questions on this: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i

 

[ProphetSword]

Actually, that's exactly the issue. In order to make a video game using the OGL, you have to allow all the rules to be extracted, and you have to indicate which rules are Open Content. So, every mechanic would have to include all the rules that could be easily extracted or provided in a human readable file that accompanies the game. In addition, within the game, I would need to tag all Open Content as part of the OGL to clearly indicate that it is part of the OGL. That sounds like a tedious mess. Here's a quote from the page you linked:

The biggest problem we've found with software and the OGL is that programmers aren't paying attention to Section 8 of the OGL. Section 8 states: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content. This doesn't mean you can say "all rules in my program are Open," the users need to be able to see all that Open Content. You can do this by putting Open Content in a format that is easy to understand. Popular solutions have been to place everything in text files that the program pulls info from, having everything in a viewable database within the software, using Java script on a webpage (viewing the source of the webpage will display the code and Java script is relatively easy for a user to interpret). The key is that the user has to see everything that is Open Content that the program uses and be able to understand it without too much effort. The whole point of the OGL is that once information is declared Open everyone has free access to it under the OGL. Compiling that information into a program denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming License.

The only way I can think of to do that is to include the Basic Fantasy PDF with the game, and I'm not sure I can get permission to do that (even though it can be freely downloaded from the website).

 

[V_K]

What puzzles me is why would you want to miss out on the most exciting part of RPG design and use a run-of-the-mill and hardly perfect system in the first place.

 

[ProphetSword]

Maybe because a lot of people like it and immediately understand it?

 

[V_K]

That makes sense from a salesperson point of view, but since you've said before that you're going to give the game away for free... Wouldn't it be easier to use some existing toolset then?

 

[ProphetSword]

At this point, it would be easier to rollback to the RPG system I had already developed for the game nearly two years ago. And, that's what I've done.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

The only way I can think of to do that is to include the Basic Fantasy PDF with the game, and I'm not sure I can get permission to do that (even though it can be freely downloaded from the website).

I suspect what section 8 requires is Lands of Adventure's implementation of Basic Fantasy ruleset.

In addition, within the game, I would need to tag all Open Content as part of the OGL to clearly indicate that it is part of the OGL.

Again, I suspect you 'just' need to provide the relevant source code. I'm no lawyer though. Anyone?

 

[Excidium]

Yeah that is not how it works. Play KOTC.

 

[ProphetSword]

Then explain how it works.

 

[Excidium]

You need to provide the OGL system documentation inside the game, like KOTC does. I think you should try to contact Pierre. Or maybe HobGoblin here in the codex, he was working on an OGL CRPG before it got cancelled.

 

[ProphetSword]

I'll look into it and I'll ask around and decide what the best option is for the game.

 

[Grunker]

I'll look into it and I'll ask around and decide what the best option is for the game.

Do it like KotC. Basically do proper documentation and the problem solves itself

 

[ProphetSword]

How did KotC handle it? That's the part I'm not clear on.

 

[Grunker]

How did KotC handle it? That's the part I'm not clear on.

Oh. Well, it basically has complete documentation of every part of the OGL used. An in-game Player's Handbook, in the form of a sort of internal wiki-page for the game's system. On top of this, all text in the game is hyperlinked. So if you're in your spellbook and a spell says that the subject must save or be fatigued, "fatigued" is highlighted and functions as a hyperlink that brings you to the 'Conditions' page where you can see what being fatigued means, mechanically.

If you haven't played it, you should . Or, you could just torrent it/stream an LP of it quickly to see how it handles documentation.

Have you considered using the Pathfinder OGL instead of just 3.5?

Anyway, good luck with your game, man

 

[ProphetSword]

After careful consideration and weighing all the options, I'm pretty sure I'm going to go back to my home brew RPG system. The biggest reason why is that I started this project two years ago (January 2012) and I felt I'd be done by now. In that time, I have changed engines and restarted three times. If I have to invest a ton of time to link rules in the game, it'll probably put an end to the project; because it sounds like a lot of tedious work. The system I developed for the game works fine. It's a simple system and it won't be hard for an RPG player to understand.

Don't get me wrong, I wanted to use the Basic Fantasy ruleset in the game for a lot of reasons, but following the legality adds a ton of work. I could spend that time developing the story, better systems, robust combat, etc. I think my time would be better spent in developing the game rather than trying to make sure I'm not irritating WotC by not following the OGL. In a way, I'm sorry I even brought it up now. Had I found this out just a day or two sooner, I would have never posted the update about it.