Revising the HttT Text & Dialogue

[vodot]

After this weekend, I could help with this if you want. Maybe we could split it between us. If you want to take me up on my offer, just send me some of the dialogue.

Well, first: help is always appreciated. Second, have you read the scenarios I've posted so far? I'd really appreciate comments on those prior to working/coordinating work on anything new. Do you have any writing/WML coding experience? Are there any scenarios/sections/characters you are particularly interested in? And third, the text and style has to remain consistent, so I'd ask that if you do decide to try a scenario, please:

1. Let me know which one(s) you are doing, so that I can focus elsewhere, and
2. Be flexible and willing to collaborate in order to maintain harmony with the rest of the campaign.

Or, you could always just create a new thread and post your own competing text, and let the dev team sort it all out. Sounds bleh to me, but it's an open-source project, right? :)

As for the dialogue, I am ripping it straight out of the data/campaign files themselves- anyone can find it in the same place I did :)

[Pewskeepski]

There's a typo in Bay of Pearls, "k=now". It should be "now".

[vodot]

There's a typo in Bay of Pearls, "k=now". It should be "now".

Thanks! Fixed in v0.6.

[Temuchin Khan]

...have you read the scenarios I've posted so far? I'd really appreciate comments on those prior to working/coordinating work on anything new.

Unfortunately not, but I should be able to soon.

Do you have any writing/WML coding experience?

Again, unfortunately not, except for bugfixes to the unit files and/or copying and altering the unit files to create new units.

Are there any scenarios/sections/characters you are particularly interested in?

Not really. Just whatever needs redone.

And third, the text and style has to remain consistent, so I'd ask that if you do decide to try a scenario, please:

1. Let me know which one(s) you are doing, so that I can focus elsewhere, and
2. Be flexible and willing to collaborate in order to maintain harmony with the rest of the campaign.

That makes sense. Later this week, I'll check out what you've already done and get back to you.

[vodot]

Scenarios 0-5b are up; S3-S5b here. After Elesnsefar I'll swing back through and release a zip with the first major edit. Keep the feedback coming.

[tr0ll]

Another issue: I like all the didactic stuff in HttT, but why do I have to read it when I play on challenging?

This one is a secondary priority, but I'd appreciate this too. If you can point out specific instances in my revisions that are unnecessary for experienced players, please let me know and in the WML we can qualify under which difficulty levels those messages appear.

i dont think "experienced" can be assumed the same as "challenging". players may have started with the shorter novice campaigns and therefore be experienced but find the game too easy. (or they could have played HttT before and still find it too hard, perhaps because they didnt pay attention to the "didactic stuff".) they could enjoy the extra flavour that good writing brings, or skip every dialogue by pressing the button.

[Groggy_Dice]

I read your Introduction earlier, and now I've checked your versions of scenario 5 (a and b), and frankly, I find them over-written. Well-written, but over-written.

Also, I don't know if you've played Liberty, but that whole backstory behind the inhabitants of the Three Sisters is discarded in your version of Isle of the Damned.

Although I agree the writing in HttH could use improvement, in general, I'm not crazy about your changes. Furthermore, you're changing actual events in the canon, disrupting other campaigns. If not in mainline, in UMC.

You are not entirely to blame for that, as I'm not a fan of the "new direction" (unveiled in an art thread!?) that is being adopted for HttH.

Perhaps my criticism is partly due to the fact that I have my own ideas for how the campaign should be rewritten. I had a post I've been kicking around for months, brainstorming every rationale I could think of for why Konrad and Delfador let Li'sar go at the end of "Princess of Wesnoth." That's probably moot now, as you probably have your own ideas for the scenario's storyline. So maybe my rotten tomatoes are really sour grapes.

[taptap]

In general, it would be helpful if you play / read through the whole campaign.

Isle of Alduin:

Don't add new loyals. Even L0 loyals (that grow up to a royal guard / halbardier / master bowman) that stay with you break the balance. Even a non-loyal peasant would be a big asset (too big imo) - as you can't recruit loyalist forces other than horsemen in the campaign. There are cavalry heavy levels later in the campaign where especially an halbardier would be a huge asset. (esp. the level where you meet Li'sar - a peasant from the start of scenario 3 could easily be a halbardier here already - and Test of the Clans, giving you a good source of melee pierce damage you usually don't have)

It is inconsistent to have Asheviere ship troops from Blackwater port, when Blackwater port was under control of some knight supporting you.

I don't like that your dialogs tend to be much longer than the original ones.

Isle of the Damned:

"The voyage over the sea has been a risk from start" - why?

All this "Speak stranger!", "Yes, my lord." "My pale friend." camaraderie stuff doesn't convince me. I would prefer using them like precious spices - only at appropriate time when they have an effect - not as a general flavouring poured over every scenario (I know ancient cuisine wasn't that sophisticated, but we should be). And, Konrad isn't a spoiled noble youth but grew up among elves. Also, there is no point in calling someone living on an Isle with only undead "brigand". Whom is he robbing? (It really doesn't matter if he is an outlaw unit type and the recruits are chaotic. My understanding was they are survivors of the initial inhabitants fighting a guerrilla warfare with the UD.) If Konrad wasn't unconscious you can skip half the dialog.

The purpose of dialog should be to create atmosphere with as little words as possible. Clicking through 20 lines of talk, most of it inconsequential, even better when shouted over the whole battlefield + scrolling back and forth, at the start of the scenario likely leads to less people reading the dialog, not to a denser atmosphere. More isn't better. Dead Water (in my eyes the best mainline campaign I played so far) for sure has dialog, but it is not so much of it that you grow tired of it. Also, avoiding overcommitment in the story and leaving it vague enough (while giving enough detail) makes sympathy/identification with main characters easier, you get some broad outlines and you fill it yourself. A lot like the story art between scenarios - broad strokes, outlines, but not every detail.

Furthermore, many campaigns started as spin off from elsewhere. Over-explaining and giving unnecessary details limits the possibilities of such spin offs in future. Think about Moremirmu: If you don't have a whole story, short campaign for him, don't give him too much story. It may interfere.

[vodot]

Also, I don't know if you've played Liberty, but that whole backstory behind the inhabitants of the Three Sisters is discarded in your version of Isle of the Damned.

Although I agree the writing in HttH could use improvement, in general, I'm not crazy about your changes. Furthermore, you're changing actual events in the canon, disrupting other campaigns. If not in mainline, in UMC.

Ok: canon changes are accidental. What I need to know is not so much that I tramped all over some area of the canon (which is inevitable, if still embarrassing) as much as what the canonically correct backstory/text/dialogue should be.

Perhaps my criticism is partly due to the fact that I have my own ideas for how the campaign should be rewritten. I had a post I've been kicking around for months, brainstorming every rationale I could think of for why Konrad and Delfador let Li'sar go at the end of "Princess of Wesnoth." That's probably moot now, as you probably have your own ideas for the scenario's storyline. So maybe my rotten tomatoes are really sour grapes.

Send me a PM- I guarantee I haven't given any of this as much thought as you think.

...Finish the campaign, no additional units, and It's. Over. Written.

Ok, guys, message received. I'll do the major edit now, and put off Elensefar until after.

[Jozrael]

For storage of these, how about Dropbox?

Also, dropped you a PM.

[zookeeper]

Since you're just one scenario short of having the first "chapter" of the campaign done, I'll wait until you've done that, and then we can pause for a bit and go through all the material so far and see what sort of revisions are needed in order to finalize it. I think a lot of the criticism posted here is basically valid, but I also don't think they're nearly as big or overarching issues as the wording of some posts might suggest, and I'm sure we can resolve them without too much extra work.

mmm. Any hope of my having more than the two weeks?

Unlikely, really. Text overhauls aren't really critical and this is just one project that's going on, so I doubt there's much of a chance of delaying the schedule just for this; and we can't really know for sure how long it's going to take exactly anyway. So, I think it's a good idea to just take your time and not try to rush it; it's ready when it's ready.

[vodot]

S6: The Siege of Elensefar v0.4 is up, and my storage location has been moved to Dropbox. See first post for updated links.

Getting out the shears for the major edit. Please continue to post feedback and PMs; and read S6.

[Jozrael]

I have shown vodot http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4890896/HttT_Intro_v0.51.txt as my recommendations for the Intro. I'm using WinMerge on the two files to generate an easy-to-peruse diff.

[vodot]

I have shown vodot http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4890896/HttT_Intro_v0.51.txt as my recommendations for the Intro. I'm using WinMerge on the two files to generate an easy-to-peruse diff.

This is pre-trimming. Wordcount is still too high.

[Pewskeepski]

I think it's weird that Konrad instantly curses the undead, especially because the player can't even see them. Or is he talking about the undead in the previous scenario? I think some clarification could go here.