Heir to the Throne

[The_Hero]

I just finished the last scenario of the Heir to the Throne. It took me a little more than one week to finish the whole campaign. It was great. The music, the design of each character and how strength of each unit was balanced. But the story was bad. Well I did not put my time and effort to become someone's husband. I mean she took part in her mother's evil deeds which she should be responsible for and who is the one who worked so hard for it. It would be much better if Konrad just finished the incompetent and corrupted dynasty and start his own one. Hope this helps writing a new scenario in the future.

[cretin]

i rather liked the storyline. plenty of twists, lots of loyal troops (i LOVE loyal troops) and lots of areas covered.

[megane]

It's called a twist, ask M Night. And anyway, he still gets to be king.

[Blarumyrran]

HTTT and a lot of other wesnoth campaigns in general have very un-indepth characters, i agree. it wouldve been much more interesting to have an actual psychotic usurper konrad or a really senile delfador. or kalenz backstabbing all 3 others (konrad, lisar & delf) in the end and burn down the capital to force the evil tree-murdening humans under elvish hegemony. so the plot could have certainly been a LOT better that it is.

but i guess thats part of the grand plan of appeasing a younger audience.

[Velensk]

I honustly don't get why people get a kick out of backstabbing and traitors, especialy if you know it's coming.

As far as the origional post, the story is there too give a reason for the seranios and characters, they don't have to be a good story in and of themselves. Other camapins do better than HTTT, but that is not difficult.

[wsultzbach]

I remember when I first finished HttT, I had about 10 times more respect for the game because of its story.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I liked the story, it was a very good, unexpected twist. I mean, it seemed like a cliché "Heir comes back to claim his throne" story, with an interesting twist. I never saw the twist coming, to tell the truth.

[Blarumyrran]

I honustly don't get why people get a kick out of backstabbing and traitors, especialy if you know it's coming.

ya, kalenz did look suspicious from start on

As far as the origional post, the story is there too give a reason for the seranios and characters, they don't have to be a good story in and of themselves. Other camapins do better than HTTT, but that is not difficult.

it is VERY possible to have both good story AND good gameplay in 1 campaign, eg SoF does pretty good there.

and ya i know it wont be changed also because of historical reasons, and due to the large changes in WML any decent plot change would cause. but im just saying the HTTT plot isnt good, but it could be.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Honestly, backstabbing has almost become cliché, ironically enough.

[Shadow]

It is a nice and simple story line which doesn't distracts from the game play. For a deeper campaign you would have too break some of the basic game play rules.

Personal I would like a campaign with a bit self irony, more important people dieing and a small dose of pathos thrown in with a catchy catch phrase.
But Shakespeare is in the other building.

[Jetrel]

But the story was bad.

HTTT and a lot of other wesnoth campaigns in general have very un-indepth characters, i agree. it wouldve been much more interesting to have an actual psychotic usurper konrad or a really senile delfador. or kalenz backstabbing all 3 others (konrad, lisar & delf) in the end and burn down the capital to force the evil tree-murdening humans under elvish hegemony. so the plot could have certainly been a LOT better that it is.

but i guess thats part of the grand plan of appeasing a younger audience.

You're correct about the presence of a problem, but short-sighted about its nature and solution. What you're suggesting actually wouldn't be a solution to the problem; it would be an equally boring "simple twist" - like our friends "Arthas" and "Kerrigan", of blizzard fame. "Oh noes - we've suddenly turned on our allies and become psychotic and evil!" How droll. What you were talking about didn't have to do with character depth; character depth/multi-dimensionality is precisely what's needed, but what you were doing was confusing "unusual character motivations" with depth. We could actually do just fine with things as they are; in fact the current basic framework of Heir to the Throne is fertile ground for a really interesting story and characters, it's just a matter of fleshing out the characters' histories.

Right now, the problem with, say, a character like Konrad, is that his biography is almost completely empty! We know nothing about him, even at the end of the story. "Hi, I'm Konrad; I grew up in Aethelwood with the elves, about which absolutely nothing is recounted, and I'm fighting Asheviere because .. uh. Lol, I don't know. I'm just doing it. Maybe there's a good reason why I'm fighting asheviere rather than sneaking off under an assumed name and farming, but if there is, the campaign author failed to demonstrate it. Maybe I just never considered that, assuming that people would recognize me; who knows." There is a reason; leastways unless he actually doesn't have any motive, in which case he really is a muppet.

It's not a matter of revealing useless minutiae; it's a matter of the characters revealing things in conversation that deal with the things they care about - the deep things that define us as people. There are a whole host of those besides just the primary fighting motive.


Another major thing is 'character development' - having characters who actually grow and change during a story - cowards becoming brave; dour men becoming amiable, grudge-holders forgiving, etc. Right now, everyone who starts HttT basically ends it the same way they began. Except Asheviere, who ends up dead.


Sadly, most of our campaigns fail on these points, as in fact do many of those in commercial games. They're merely the thinnest of frameworks to build a campaign around; just excuses to throw enemies at the player-characters. If you want your campaigns to have serious character value, then you need to at least exercise the same level of character development that goes into most good RPGs. You can't just throw a few dozen lines onto your main character, and think they're "well-developed". Not to mention that, but quantity != quality.

It is a nice and simple story line which doesn't distracts from the game play. For a deeper campaign you would have too break some of the basic game play rules.

Personal I would like a campaign with a bit self irony, more important people dieing and a small dose of pathos thrown in with a catchy catch phrase.
But Shakespeare is in the other building.

Not necessarily. Good writing has a tendency to trump all other rules, since it's so fundamental to enjoyment of the material - it's kinda like good acting in movies. Incredibly good acting, in a movie, can float even the most otherwise dubious work - it can even make it excel.

[Weeksy]

I'd really like to see something play on the two-dimensionality of Konrad. In a way it could make sense, Delfador has brainwashed him, told him what to believe. Make Delfy a little more manipulative, and you'd have a very interesting storyline... it'd be even better if Asheviere was lawful as well, and Li'Sar was purposely rather dull-witted, so her alliance could be explained that way.

[Shadow]

Not necessarily. Good writing has a tendency to trump all other rules, since it's so fundamental to enjoyment of the material - it's kinda like good acting in movies. Incredibly good acting, in a movie, can float even the most otherwise dubious work - it can even make it excel.

True though but good books for example offer changes of perspective. Flashbacks and all the other neat tricks. To progress the plot. Which actual illuminate the characters and give them room to develop.
This could be done in Wesnoth too. Although the Wml would be a hell to handle.

But it would make a big difference.

[Dave]

You're correct about the presence of a problem, but short-sighted about its nature and solution. What you're suggesting actually wouldn't be a solution to the problem; it would be an equally boring "simple twist" - like our friends "Arthas" and "Kerrigan", of blizzard fame. "Oh noes - we've suddenly turned on our allies and become psychotic and evil!" How droll. What you were talking about didn't have to do with character depth; character depth/multi-dimensionality is precisely what's needed, but what you were doing was confusing "unusual character motivations" with depth. We could actually do just fine with things as they are; in fact the current basic framework of Heir to the Throne is fertile ground for a really interesting story and characters, it's just a matter of fleshing out the characters' histories.

Right now, the problem with, say, a character like Konrad, is that his biography is almost completely empty! We know nothing about him, even at the end of the story. "Hi, I'm Konrad; I grew up in Aethelwood with the elves, about which absolutely nothing is recounted, and I'm fighting Asheviere because .. uh. Lol, I don't know. I'm just doing it. Maybe there's a good reason why I'm fighting asheviere rather than sneaking off under an assumed name and farming, but if there is, the campaign author failed to demonstrate it. Maybe I just never considered that, assuming that people would recognize me; who knows." There is a reason; leastways unless he actually doesn't have any motive, in which case he really is a muppet.

I concur completely.

I must admit that when I originally wrote Heir to the Throne, I put almost no effort into character development. In fact, I often wrote lines of dialog and then decides who should say them! This of course being an awful way to do things.

IMO the best way to do things is to decide to begin with a character's history, motivations, and personality. Before writing a campaign one should decide upon the history of the characters in it. Ideally, one should flesh out the character's history in more detail than is necessarily revealed during the campaign.

How did Delfador raise Konrad? Was he detached? Distant? Or loving and caring? Was he strict or easy? What other experiences did Konrad have as a child?

Likewise, how was Li'sar raised? Was Asheviere loving toward her or distant? Strict? Harsh? Doting? What did Asheviere do that would cause Li'sar to turn against her?

As for Kalenz, he has absolutely no character development at all, and Delfador has very little.

David

[Theo]

You're correct about the presence of a problem, but short-sighted about its nature and solution. What you're suggesting actually wouldn't be a solution to the problem; it would be an equally boring "simple twist" - like our friends "Arthas" and "Kerrigan", of blizzard fame. "Oh noes - we've suddenly turned on our allies and become psychotic and evil!" How droll. What you were talking about didn't have to do with character depth; character depth/multi-dimensionality is precisely what's needed, but what you were doing was confusing "unusual character motivations" with depth. We could actually do just fine with things as they are; in fact the current basic framework of Heir to the Throne is fertile ground for a really interesting story and characters, it's just a matter of fleshing out the characters' histories.

Right now, the problem with, say, a character like Konrad, is that his biography is almost completely empty! We know nothing about him, even at the end of the story. "Hi, I'm Konrad; I grew up in Aethelwood with the elves, about which absolutely nothing is recounted, and I'm fighting Asheviere because .. uh. Lol, I don't know. I'm just doing it. Maybe there's a good reason why I'm fighting asheviere rather than sneaking off under an assumed name and farming, but if there is, the campaign author failed to demonstrate it. Maybe I just never considered that, assuming that people would recognize me; who knows." There is a reason; leastways unless he actually doesn't have any motive, in which case he really is a muppet.

I concur completely.

I must admit that when I originally wrote Heir to the Throne, I put almost no effort into character development. In fact, I often wrote lines of dialog and then decides who should say them! This of course being an awful way to do things.

IMO the best way to do things is to decide to begin with a character's history, motivations, and personality. Before writing a campaign one should decide upon the history of the characters in it. Ideally, one should flesh out the character's history in more detail than is necessarily revealed during the campaign.

How did Delfador raise Konrad? Was he detached? Distant? Or loving and caring? Was he strict or easy? What other experiences did Konrad have as a child?

Likewise, how was Li'sar raised? Was Asheviere loving toward her or distant? Strict? Harsh? Doting? What did Asheviere do that would cause Li'sar to turn against her?

As for Kalenz, he has absolutely no character development at all, and Delfador has very little.

David

Any chance that we could get a writer for specific campaigns that the original author doesn't want to work on, or is this a submit and review thing?