Ruleset updates for older rulesets - for community developers (commission work)

[ddavison]

Since acquiring a number of older rulesets from Digital Adventures in our acquisition, it has become apparent that these are starting to fall far behind our newer rulesets in functionality. If you are interesting in porting over functionality from BRP or 4E into an older product, here is your chance to do so and have it shared with the community while receiving a commission.

Commission Structure:

Decided on a case-by-case basis after receiving a list of planned updates. This can range up to 15% like our standard updates.
Commissions will be limited to a 6-month window so that we don't end up in the same situation 6-months or a year later. You will be expected to do minor updates within this period in order to extend your commission period. If you disappear or fail to keep it up to current, a new developer may be tapped for future maintenance.
Commissions would be for new sales of the ruleset. We don't expect to charge existing customers for these upgrades. This might be decided on a case-by-case basis if it would make the difference of having an upgrade or not.


Requirements:

The new version should be compatible with the existing modules and libraries published for the ruleset.
New functionality should contain a mix of additions that allow double-clicking, preferences, the box, image toolbars, chat box re-styling to show speak bubbles, additional drag and drop support, additional combat tracker functionality, CT Menus, etc.
You must send a full list of updates (or planned updates) and include a change log text file which can be included with the new version and posted to the forums.
The new version should come in the form of a .PAK file
The ruleset *may* contain graphical updates to frames, backgrounds, etc. but these are subject to review and approval
You may split this with another developer for a pre-agreed split of the commission
Any graphics additions must use public domain graphics, original content or graphics pulled from the original product being supported.
You can use any code logic or xml snippets from any of our commercial rulesets freely. Any third-party ruleset code ported over must be accompanied by a copy of an email or document granting SmiteWorks unrestricted use and access (but not ownership) to the code.

[VenomousFiligree]

The fact that you are giving commission for the ruleset implies that you will be charging for the updated ruleset?

[ddavison]

Thanks for bringing this up. We were not planning to charge existing customers for the update. The commission would be for new sales after release of the update. We can review this on a case-by-case basis though if we have trouble getting developers to come on board.

* I edited the original post to reflect this answer.

[VenomousFiligree]

Would some of these not be better off being extensions, rather than full rulesets, ie the D20 based ones?

[drahkar]

Does this apply the cross the board or is it limited to rulesets that are pending requests? For example if there is a ruleset that everyone likes as it is, so no changes haven been made to it over 7 months, would the time limit apply? Would we have to add features for the sake of adding features just to renew?

[ddavison]

Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for a few days.

The motivation would be to keep it up to date, not to force unnecessary updates on developers just to retain a commission. We still need to work out the exact language we will use in the contract and it is probably going to have to be written subjectively to allow us to take action where necessary. Since a developer will continually receive residual commissions for sales of the ruleset, we expect this will provide enough incentive for most to keep them current as-is.


MurghBpurn, extensions would probably work for most of the D20 spin-offs. I played around with a D20 Modern extension to port over the skin and extra customizations from it -- but it ended up touching so much of the core ruleset that you really started to lose the benefit of the extension. With some redesign of the core ruleset, this could be a much better approach though. The challenge is to do it in a backward compatible way.

[Magnatude]

I would like the help in getting a 3.5 extension made for Iron Heroes and will ing to help out with my minimalist scripting abilities. I currently run an Iron Heroes campaign and can provide a lot of GM input on what needs to be changed... though I'm still using the buggy/faltering original version, I would be extrememly happy (as well as my players) to have a rulest that functioned properly.

[ddavison]

Having Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved and D20 Modern as extensions/skins to the 3.5E ruleset would definitely be the preferred way forward. We would then be able to list it in with the rest of the D20/OGL, 3.5E and Pathfinder compatible products.

Have you played around at all with extensions for FG?

[Magnatude]

I have played a bit with BRP, at least with the notes included with that ruleset on extensions. I have yet to delve into the 3.5, but will soon, I devote a lot of my time on my Iron Heroes campaign for my players (creating custom maps and developing the campaign world, they are a good devoted group that show up consistently... and they make me feel appreciated for the work I put into the game). With that aside I've put some effort into looking up some information on the wikis and links on modding the files, some days I wish i had more hours in the day to delve into more. I have some time off work at the end of November, so I'm going to hit the xml hard during that time. I know I'm going to have to, the quirks in the Iron Heroes ruleset show more with each patch.

[Dracones]

I wonder if there aren't other ways to do funding for the rulesets. Maybe kickstarter campaigns to get new rulesets off the ground in the first place.

Or maybe monthly subscriptions for players/GM who are willing to "subscribe" to rulesets and help fund their updates/get their issues resolved/vote on added features.

I know there are a lot of people that don't want to pay for updates and that's fine. But I personally don't mind kicking some funds towards devs who are putting in hours scratching our itches. Put enough of us together and it could really help pay to keep certain tools and rule sets up to date.

[VenomousFiligree]

Kickstarter sounds like a good idea...

[Draeus]

Can anyone confirm if brp is still being developed?

[phantomwhale]

Can anyone confirm if brp is still being developed?

Better off asking in the BRP forums. I think the developer (Foen) is still an active user, but I'm not sure if he has any plans to update the ruleset currently.

[Draeus]

I did ages ago and got no answer. I guess its a no. Oh well.

[ddavison]

Hello Draes, do you have any specific requests for BRP? It might be best to post them under the BRP forum area.

[sehmerus]

I just bought the d20 modern ruleset in the market, and come to find i cant use it because it needs updating. shouldnt these older rulests be taken off the market until they can be updated? im a little upset that i paid for a ruleset that i cant even use!

[ddavison]

Sehmerus, the D20 Modern ruleset is still usable it just doesn't have the level of features that are present in the latest rulesets. It should have everything listed in the description which includes the data elements for running a D20 Modern campaign. If you are not happy with the ruleset, please shoot an email over to [email protected] and we will reimburse you for the purchase.

I added some new screenshots showing some of the various screens and functionality that are available. I also added a note to explain the difference between this product and some of the newer rulesets.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.xcp?id=DGA054

[sehmerus]

I cant get it to work

[sehmerus]

i created a file "rulesets" and added the d20modern ruleset to the file just like the Readme.txt says, but when i start up FG into DM it does not list D20Modern as an available ruleset.

[ddavison]

Sehmerus, you shouldn't have to create a Rulesets folder. Click on the Start | Programs | Fantasy Grounds II | Application Data Folder and then you should see a series of folders here (ex - modules, rulesets, extensions.) Inside the rulesets folder, you want it to show your "D20-MSRD" folder without the quotes and the files inside this folder should include a bunch of xml files, such as base.xml, and some folders like "fonts", "frames", "icons", "tokens."

You will place your .mod files in the modules folder instead. The portraits go in the portraits, etc.

[sehmerus]

I miss read the location of the ruleset folder in the txt. fixed it and now its working , . i was worried that when the rulesets switched to the pak files that the older rulesets would no longer work. so im a happy customer now ;)

[ddavison]

Glad it got sorted. We do hope to improve upon it for a future release and that will include one of the updated installers. Thanks for sticking with it and please let us know if you need any further assistance.

[greenduck6]

hey i was wondering if you guys will put an official ruleset and modules for 2E into the program my friends and i are having problems finding modules for 2E

[JohnD]

hey i was wondering if you guys will put an official ruleset and modules for 2E into the program my friends and i are having problems finding modules for 2E
Hey there.

I'm pretty sure the 2E ruleset that exists hasn't had anything done to it in quite a while (someone will correct me if I'm wrong... they always do), and wasn't an official production to begin with.

If you are looking for a ruleset to capture that "old school" feel, you should take a gander at Castles & Crusades. I run a lot of old AD&D and 2E stuff and it ports over almost effortlessly (i.e. little conversion needed) to C&C.

[ddavison]

We don't have any plans to do anything official at this stage. With it being an older game system, we'd really have to weigh the time investment with the return. If we had an actual license to carry the adventures officially, then it might swing it more in favor of us doing one. For now, the last I was aware of was a community made ruleset to support it. You can get it on the wiki page here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Ruleset:_2E

[xKrisx]

I still think there would be a lot of interest in 2e if there was an actual official rule set for it. There are a lot of players coming into FG now for D&D now 5e is on here, and many might be players who play 2e. Or have played 2e in the past. I myself am looking for more 2e support and I am disheartened by it a bit. Some of the best times I've has was playing 2e. I have no idea about policies and licence agreement costs, but I can imagine it can be quite costly. It would be nice to see it here one day as we have the technology to preserve and utilize it more. Think of new players wanting to try something old too but if it's not easily accessible then it doesn't get recognition. What would be the harm in trying to acquire a licence eventually from Wizards. It is just going to make money as players would look to buy into nostalgia and have some old school campaigns ran again. All the old content and everything. I love FG and I think in time it could possibly happen. Or at least hope it does.

[GunnarGreybeard]

There must be a market with WoTC re-issuing the old modules in PDF. Their masters, Hasbro, rarely do anything with old IP unless there's $$ attached to it.

[Nylanfs]

You know, now with 5e sets out, somebody could make the 5e adventures that are on Drivethru...

[ddavison]

I personally love a lot of the 2E settings and content that was available. Our focus (and license) at this time is for the D&D 5E material. We may look to expand this later if we have the bandwidth and if it makes sense for our partners as well.

[damned]

I still think there would be a lot of interest in 2e if there was an actual official rule set for it. There are a lot of players coming into FG now for D&D now 5e is on here, and many might be players who play 2e. Or have played 2e in the past. I myself am looking for more 2e support and I am disheartened by it a bit. Some of the best times I've has was playing 2e. I have no idea about policies and licence agreement costs, but I can imagine it can be quite costly. It would be nice to see it here one day as we have the technology to preserve and utilize it more. Think of new players wanting to try something old too but if it's not easily accessible then it doesn't get recognition. What would be the harm in trying to acquire a licence eventually from Wizards. It is just going to make money as players would look to buy into nostalgia and have some old school campaigns ran again. All the old content and everything. I love FG and I think in time it could possibly happen. Or at least hope it does.

Are you gonna ressurect every 2e thread?
Just asking...

[xKrisx]

Lol, Maybe.. ;) :p

[Giomancer]

I bought Fantasy Grounds with the express intent of working on rulesets. At the moment, I'm working on my first project, which is updating an old community ruleset. I suppose I could use it (when complete) as a portfolio of sorts to apply for this? Who should I contact when the time comes?

[ddavison]

You can shoot a note to [email protected] and it will get read by John (aka Moon_Wizard) and me.

[damned]

welcome Giomancer - make sure you build a layered ruleset on top of CoreRPG for maximum effect and fastest build time :)
look at the 3.5e/4e/Numenera rulesets that ship with your client for examples - and of course look at CoreRPG itself

[drahkar]

welcome Giomancer - make sure you build a layered ruleset on top of CoreRPG for maximum effect and fastest build time :)
look at the 3.5e/4e/Numenera rulesets that ship with your client for examples - and of course look at CoreRPG itself

That is something I wonder though. There is a strong possibility that building on top of CoreRPG could break the ability to use modules and campaigns built on the original version. Would that disqualify their eligibility for this?

[damned]

you dont HAVE to build on CoreRPG but there are a lot of features already in the CoreRPG ruleset that make building a new ruleset easier and possibly give you a better final outcome.
The big downside (imo) to building on CoreRPG is that there is a need to constantly maintain the ruleset as CoreRPG continues to evolve.

[Patou]

Do we know what extensions are compatible with the latest FG update? I do know that the 14 point font and Black image mask is not.

Thank you

[phantomwhale]

Staying up to date with CoreRPG is a little bit of a bind - but I see it as I HAVE to do 10% of the work, often at times that DON'T suit, but then I get the other 90% of awesome feature for free afterwards.

Also, with a little more time investment (yeah, which I totally have...) you can start retiring bits of snowflake code that have been done more elegantly, or using the latest new elements from the FG platform, via CoreRPG.

It's certainly not an de facto choice, but if I were creating a ruleset today, I wouldn't consider going off CoreRPG; it's got so much stuff built into it that you really don't want to recreate (and debug / maintain) yourself.

[LordEntrails]

Do we know what extensions are compatible with the latest FG update? I do know that the 14 point font and Black image mask is not.

Thank you
The extension lists (such as for CoreRPG and 5E) identify those that are. But you will otherwise need to check each extension's thread to see if it is.

[damned]

I just tested BigFonts and Black Image Mask and didnt see any new issues... they both have existing issues - Big Fonts can bleed over into other fields, rows and creating a new image with Black Image Mask you cant draw on it.

[Patou]

Thanks for the follow-up guys��