Gameplay is divided between the more traditional visual novel aspect of the dialogue, and the free exploration of the player. The dialogue is like a visual novel style. The background is a blurred image of the in-game camp, to save the need for too many illustrations. Conversations have a main backbone but can branch into different directions depending on the player’s dialogue choices. The involved characters will be rendered behind the text bubble where their dialogue appears, as well as Tyler’s dialogue options. Meanwhile, the player in the exploration mode is able to explore the map without any constraints, in a traditional top-down pixel art style.

Resource： GDD Verdant – Google Docs

My initial idea is that we will have a main storyline, but players are not required to blindly follow it from start to finish. Of course, they can do so, but that would lead directly to a default ending.

If players want to explore more content, they will need to actively explore the map to gather additional information. In other words, exploration and the visual-novel experience are not two separate gameplay modes (by “separate modes” I mean something like Red Dead Redemption 2, where story mode and online mode are completely split). These two ways of playing exist simultaneously, and which one the player leans toward is entirely their own choice.

Rather than being a choice of gameplay styles, these two “modes” are more about controlling the density of information.

For more details:

Reference Analysis: Red Dead Redemption 2 and Mode Separation – Don’t mind me I’m just passing by…

So far, based on Erik’s GDD, I can confirm that what we need is:

1. A main storyline
2. A collection of scattered side content, including some environment-based narrative elements (such as text triggered during interactions)
3. A multiple-ending system

With a clearly guided main storyline, we will likely need corresponding UI or HUD elements to track main story progress. If there are important side quests, those could be tracked as well. For example, in Stardew Valley, players can check accepted quests and see what items are required to complete them.

For more details:

Reference Analysis: Quest Tracking in Stardew Valley – Don’t mind me I’m just passing by…

Sierra and Marcus both have a reputation bar scaling from 0-100. The gameplay depends on the progression of these bars so it’s very important that the increments that they are increased by are paced appropriately to make the gameplay logical and feasible. The player can raise the reputation through dialogue and giving appropriate items they discover on the map. The two other areas of the map are unlocked with certain milestones reached with reputation.

Resource： GDD Verdant – Google Docs

From this perspective, reputation seems to be a fairly important mechanic—this will heavily depend on Alex’s narrative work.

At the current stage, it’s probably not urgent to fully define how the reputation system works. Instead, we should first clarify more “system-level” elements, such as wolf packs, healing items, and similar mechanics. I think we could start by using Erik’s map design to sketch out a rough block-based map, then decide where wolf packs could be placed, and determine where healing items should appear based on the order in which players encounter wolves or other hostile creatures.

On the other hand, we also need to clarify how “combat” is supposed to work (or even whether we really have combat at all??!!!). It’s possible that what Erik wants is something like a turn-based RPG similar to FF4 or Octopath Traveler, or perhaps a system that relies purely on probability-based triggers instead.

Octopath Traveler / Final Fantasy IV: Why They Are Not Suitable References for a Full Combat System – Don’t mind me I’m just passing by…