4.9 KiB
Phase 0A Preliminary Recommendation
Date: 2026-09-01
Status: Static recommendation; pending Phase 0B clone/build/runtime experiments.
Recommendation
First choice to validate: AI-DnD
Use AI-DnD as the preliminary production fork candidate.
This is a change from the earlier slight preference for Open Dungeon.
The deciding evidence is not feature count; it is where the hard architectural work already lives.
AI-DnD already implements:
- parent/lineage story tree,
- alternate takes,
- non-destructive retry,
- branch-aware state rollback,
- prompt snapshots,
- context windowing,
- memory bank + embeddings,
- story cards,
- complete tree export/import,
- local Ollama,
- a substantial automated test suite.
Those are precisely the systems most dangerous to retrofit after a linear chat application has accumulated behavior.
Why Open Dungeon is second
Open Dungeon remains the best direct match to the desired product:
- simple browser fiction interface,
- Ollama,
- local SQLite,
- strong local image path,
- visual continuity.
However, its present persistence semantics are linear and destructive:
- prior messages can be updated,
- retry/erase deletes the selected message and the story tail.
To satisfy the specification, we would need to introduce turn parentage/branches, branch-specific summaries/state, and non-destructive editing underneath features already written around a list. That is foundational work.
Open Dungeon should remain the fallback base if Codex proves AI-DnD's RPG/cloud systems are too entangled to remove.
Why ai-adventure is third
ai-adventure has the cleanest architecture for state authority and local-only trust:
- typed model proposals,
- validation,
- atomic commit,
- append-only events,
- replay,
- checkpoints,
- branches,
- deterministic local lore,
- explicit minimal network posture.
Its problem is product distance:
- CLI presentation,
- LM Studio primary provider,
- no browser application,
- no media,
- less semantic long-memory machinery.
It should be the architectural control against which the selected browser fork is judged.
Do not merge repositories
The recommendation is not to combine several projects mechanically.
Fork one project and re-implement selected ideas using compatible patterns/code only where justified.
A merged codebase would import:
- incompatible assumptions,
- duplicate persistence models,
- different provider abstractions,
- unnecessary dependencies,
- licensing complexity.
Proposed target architecture after Phase 0B
If AI-DnD passes validation:
Retain
- React/Vite browser shell,
- FastAPI service boundary,
- SQLite,
- story tree/lineage,
- state snapshots,
- context budgeting,
- Memory Bank,
- story cards,
- Insights,
- Ollama path,
- export/import,
- relevant tests.
Remove
- multi-user/hosted auth,
- demo keys/rate-limit hosting features,
- Render/Neon path,
- analytics,
- cloud model providers,
- QuickJS scripting,
- AI-Dungeon compatibility not needed for core stories,
- RPG-only presentation/mechanics.
Generalize
- world-state engine -> narrative state/facts/entities/threads,
- Story Cards -> local knowledge sources with authority/provenance,
- Memory Bank -> branch-safe story memory with Canon/Scene/Heuristic trust classes,
- scenario -> genre-neutral campaign/story profile.
Add
- local document ingestion,
- Canon / Reference / Inspiration source classification,
- local lexical + optional Ollama semantic retrieval,
- scene snapshots,
- visual character/location fields,
- media asset/job records,
- media-provider interface,
- later local image/video adapters.
Phase 0B should be narrow
Codex should not repeat the broad research.
It should validate three concrete engineering hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 — AI-DnD can be stripped safely
Prove local Ollama story/branch/memory operation still works after disabling/removing hosted/cloud/analytics/scripting paths and running with minimal RPG state.
Hypothesis 2 — Open Dungeon branch retrofit is materially larger
Map exactly how many DB functions/API routes/UI components/summary behaviors must change to make retry/edit non-destructive and branch-aware.
Hypothesis 3 — ai-adventure is viable but farther from product
Prove Ollama adapter effort is small and estimate the service/browser wrapper effort without starting production UI development.
Then choose the fork based on measured modification cost.
Decision gate
Select AI-DnD unless Phase 0B finds one of these blockers:
- branching/state logic is inseparable from RPG mechanics,
- removing hosted/scripting paths destabilizes a large percentage of tests,
- local-only configuration still requires hard-to-remove external services,
- dependency/security burden is materially worse than static review suggests.
If any blocker is confirmed, select Open Dungeon and explicitly budget a story-tree/persistence rewrite as the first production architecture milestone.