'Favourite' suprises in scenarios

[mattsc]

To present a different view, as anybody who has played my campaigns can attest, I like surprises. I want my scenarios to be a bit more like "real life" (as far as a fantasy computer game with orcs and animated dirt and talking trees can be compared to real life) in that unexpected things can happen. And since I am writing my campaigns mostly for myself, I am not going to change that just because the majority of Wesnoth players (or even all of them) disagree with me on that.

Now having said that, I am trying to be "reasonable" to some extent:

• I'll give the player a warning that something is going to happen. So if the goblin tells you to "proceed carefully", I expect you to do so and advance units slowly and in a group. If you rush ahead with your most valuable unit all by itself, it's your own fault as far as I am concerned.
• If a surprise causes you to lose some units that you would not lose otherwise, I try to balance the scenario accordingly.
• I am trying to set up surprises in a way that it does not make the scenario significantly easier if you start over again from the beginning. Ideally, I would like to randomize the surprises in a way that starting over again does not help you at all, other than knowing that something is going to happen - but the dialog tells you that anyway, if you're paying attention.

Now, I am only saying that those are the principles I am trying to follow, not that my scenarios actually accomplish that. I neither have the time nor am I good enough to be entirely successful with that (and a lot of them were written at a time when I really had no idea what I was doing).

Anyways, the main point being: I actually appreciate things like those mentioned here happening in scenarios -- assuming they are done well and don't cause you to lose the scenario otherwise -- and I try not to go back and redo my last turn because I ran into an unexpected ambush. My assumption is that the scenario author meant this to happen and adjusted the scenario difficulty accordingly. But I also don't care if other people do. I'm not trying to state some moral high ground here, I'm just saying that I, personally and subjectively, enjoy this kind of stuff. I don't care at all how other people play (and I sometimes blatantly cheat my way through scenarios using debug commands for one reason or another). One of the great things about Wesnoth, IMO, is that there are so many ways to do things that can cater to very different preferences. There are lots of campaigns that I won't play (or stop playing halfway through), not because there's anything wrong with them but simply because I don't like that kind of play.

Spoiler:

As a side note, if you don't like your hero suddenly being downgraded or unexpectedly having to fight the army that you built earlier, you definitely should not play Grnk. Both of those are integral elements of the story I want to tell and, frankly, I don't care if other people don't like that.

[The_Afterman]

The Hammer of Thursagan's final scenario.

[Astoria]

The Hammer of Thursagan's final scenario.

Exactly this.

[taptap]

I am much against tomato surprises myself, playing Grnk however is different. It does all the things I would hate elsewhere (you not only lose your army but fight against armies you yourself raised), but when making pasta one shouldn't complain about tomatoes or so. But I believe it is important that surprises are both manageable and add something - the non-manageable surprises are quite rare, but plenty of surprises are kind of pointless like the typical orc assassins spawning somewhere after you are almost finished. What I really hate, however, is when scenarios are apparently balanced with assuming save-loads or debug mode being the normal way to play. (I am fine with ridiculously hard though.)

[Anonymissimus]

What I really hate, however, is when scenarios are apparently balanced with assuming save-loads or debug mode being the normal way to play. (I am fine with ridiculously hard though.)

This is the case all the time in mainline despite being stated otherwise. A good example are the "mighty troll" leaders in UtbS for instance; there is no way to ensure your elvish must-not-die units can survive its attack as a single one (3 hits) can do so much damage, and you usually have only 30% defense so are likely to die from it. Their movement is much better, you don't see far enough, and they tend to rush out and kill Kaleh or Nym. One of the reasons I consider allying with the trolls somewhat easier (Though dwarf lords are almost as dangerous.). So, to play the scenario through from the start without *any* saveloads you need to know it *really* well, despite the balancing rule stating you shouldn't need to know it at all. This is certainly a thing where many saveload and lie about it.

EDIT
A troll hero does in underground 3*22=66 damage at maximum; elves don't have resistances, Nym has 66 hps at level 3 which is probably that elvish unit with the most hps you have at that time. I don't recall whether you get units of the dwarvish guard line, those may be the only save way of approaching the troll leaders (generally the best suited units to block ai enemy leaders from rushing out and killing an important unit). Other than that, you'd have to sacrifice hunters until you get to slow the leader.

[mattsc]

What I really hate, however, is when scenarios are apparently balanced with assuming save-loads or debug mode being the normal way to play. (I am fine with ridiculously hard though.)

I agree with that. I have no issues with people using debug mode or save-loading if they want to, but I think that it should be possible to play through a (any) scenario without requiring this (although not necessarily by a beginner on the highest difficulty level).

[Telchin]

This is certainly a thing where many saveload and lie about it.

Well, I save/load in all campaigns I play (including my own) and I'm completely shameless about it.
On topic of surprises in UtBS, I was more displeased at Elyssa staying with the dwarves/trolls than with Garak dying. You can get more units with leadership (by promoting Desert Fighters or by advancing Kaleh), but Elyssa is your only fire mage and I actually propted her to the Great Mage the first time I played the campaign(at least she gives you a flaming sword as a consolation prize).
What I found jarring about Garak's death was rather the storyline than the gameplay. He is the desert elves' most experienced military leader (as the other were killed by the meteorites and Kaleh is a noob) and leads them across the harsh sands, then he decides to commit a suicide by undead and the rest of elves travel without him just fine. Contrast Nym, whose main in-world contribution (for most of the campaign at least) seems to being Kaleh's girlfriend, but her survival is mandatory as she is needed for storyline purposes (saving Kaleh in his fight with Yechnagoth in the final scenario). In a normal campaign, where you can keep all your loyal units I wouldn't nitpick about that, but I found it weird that the elves in UtBs can survive deaths of their previous leadership, military commander and most of their non-elvish allies, but if their new leader's girlfriend dies, it's game over, man, game over.

[AI]

Now having said that, I am trying to be "reasonable" to some extent:

• I'll give the player a warning that something is going to happen. So if the goblin tells you to "proceed carefully", I expect you to do so and advance units slowly and in a group. If you rush ahead with your most valuable unit all by itself, it's your own fault as far as I am concerned.
• If a surprise causes you to lose some units that you would not lose otherwise, I try to balance the scenario accordingly.
• I am trying to set up surprises in a way that it does not make the scenario significantly easier if you start over again from the beginning. Ideally, I would like to randomize the surprises in a way that starting over again does not help you at all, other than knowing that something is going to happen - but the dialog tells you that anyway, if you're paying attention.

Now, I am only saying that those are the principles I am trying to follow, not that my scenarios actually accomplish that. I neither have the time nor am I good enough to be entirely successful with that (and a lot of them were written at a time when I really had no idea what I was doing).

I was thinking similarly myself, but in the context of having the surprise not be a tomato surprise.

The term 'tomato suprise' comes from movies, where they're considered a good thing. The idea being that it makes you see the entire movie up to that point in a new light because of something that has been hidden from you but was known to the characters. (it's not really a very good name in our case. It's more of a generic plot twist, except it's not about the plot)
Of course, forcing the player to see his strategy for the scenario in a new light (typically a terrible one) is a gameplay problem. Dropping hints and not allowing the player to use knowledge from previous playthroughs doesn't just fix the problem, it also takes away the 'tomato' part.

[A Guy]

What is it about the scumbag hat that makes it fit on everything to give it the feeling of scumbaginess?

[8680]

What is it about the scumbag hat that makes it fit on everything to give it the feeling of scumbaginess?

…What? Are you sure you’re on the right forum?

[Dugi]

…What? Are you sure you’re on the right forum?

Look at the picture at the top of the first post.

[8680]

Look at the picture at the top of the first post.

I don’t see how that’s a “scumbag hat”, but okay.

[Dugi]

Google 'scumbag hat'.