Single Player campaign overhaul discussion (non-Developers Forum version)

[name]

Posting these responses here since I cannot do so on a developer forum topic directly:

So, constraint 1: further (incidental) depictions of Drakes in mainline between WoV and NR need to be worked to connect those dots. (Maybe not all, but some certainly)

I got the impression that Krash and his band of drakes in Northern Rebirth are quite likely the distant descendants of the Spiral path influenced drakes of Flight Galun that settle in the Heart Mountains in the final scenarios of Wings of Victory. (I say distant descendants because there is over 500 years between the two campaigns and it is worth considering just how much more is likely to have taken place over that span.) And as SigurdFireDragon said, more can be written that will connect the two.

But I would like to point out a general bit of hypocrisy here by not holding the Legacy of Black-Eye Karun (tLoBEK) to the same standard and removing it from mainline as well. Because tLoBEK wrongfully depicts orcish culture in a way that is completely out of character for how they have been in every other mainline campaign that features them, besides a single scenario in tHoT. Suddenly the merciless, monstrous, apocalyptic orcish hordes becomes more or less the noble, downtrodden, plucky heroes just fighting to survive and hold on to what is theirs. With no explanation and no transition shown. After just over 300 years since the last orcish campaign for conquest, enslavement and genocide. Which is considerably less time for some off screen transition to take place.

Currently we have a gap where WoV was, where there aren't canon answers to basic questions such as

When did drakes finally come to the Great Continent, and why?
Is the drake-saurian alliance part of canon or is it only a for-game-balance part of multiplayer?
Are there names of Drakes that we could drop in as references?

In order:

Having drakes arrive at the Great Continent sooner rather than later is greatly preferable because it allows campaign authors to employ them in stories set in the early timeline.

A drake-saurian alliance is important for campaign game play, not just multiplayer. Saurians help fill in gaps in the drake recruit roster by providing healers and pierce resistant units. Of course, it should be possible to tell stories of factions of drakes with no allies or allies of other races. But it is generally much easier to make drake focused campaigns that play well, if there are saurians in the mix.

Without WoV in canon, there are very few drake named characters in mainline. Drakes are criminally underutilized in mainline campaigns.

[Whiskeyjack]

But I would like to point out a general bit of hypocrisy here by [...]

I feel somewhat compelled to point out a general bit of reading incomprehension here... *

with the misogyny thing out of the way, I personally don’t see a fundamental problem with re-adding WoV.

But that’s [axing 2/3 of mainline campaigns] precisely why this rework is supposed to happen. Because there are probably 2/3 of the Wesnoth campaigns are somewhere between not good and bad storytelling-wise.

The above quotes give you the context of my post (raising the level of mainline storytelling with the rework) and why it was written like that. I also say the exact same thing you then do with SotBE in more general terms...

And tying stuff together, as expressed in the quote you took issue with is something that is sorely necessary for such a lore rework - SotBE (or more, the story arc of the orcs in general) is a prime candidate for this and one of the main plot lines nemaara and I talked about... doing things like that for WoV, should it be readded, can only be helpful...

In S01, how about adding a line when Galun advances, with Vank finally believing that he could become a Dominant?

Good idea to tighten up that particular plot point!

1) When did drakes find come to the Great Continent, and why?
2) Is the drake-saurian alliance part of canon or is it only a for-game-balance part of multiplayer?
3) Are there names of Drakes that we could drop in as references?

2) I wouldn't fix such an alliance in place as a century-spanning constituted thing (like the Northern Alliance), but I second name here that it doesn't hurt to have it in cannon. I'd personally prefer it as a general tendency towards good relations with occasional "alliances" when working towards a common goal / against a common foe.

3) IIRC, drakes have a normal lifespan of 20-30 years, so I wouldn't focus too hard on this (e.g., the distance between TRoW and SoF is already greater than this...). Namedropping never hurts, but is also a rather weak connective in most cases and doesn't need to be forced. Not even taking into account that most of the few drakes players encounter don't survive the occasion.


*take this as a good-natured chuckle, not passive-aggressiveness please

[name]

But I would like to point out a general bit of hypocrisy here by [...]

I feel somewhat compelled to point out a general bit of reading incomprehension here... *

More so poor word choice on my part, as that second paragraph was not aimed at your stance on the issue, in particular.

By "general hypocrisy" I meant how this recent phenomenon of de-mainlining campaigns is being handled hypocritically by developers with the power to de-mainline WoV, as was done, but who have not taken the same axe to SotBE. And who have not reinstated WoV, even after their primary stated issue with it was remedied entirely.

And tying stuff together, as expressed in the quote you took issue with is something that is sorely necessary for such a lore rework - SotBE (or more, the story arc of the orcs in general) is a prime candidate for this and one of the main plot lines nemaara and I talked about... doing things like that for WoV, should it be readded, can only be helpful...

Could you post or link to these discussions or the conclusions they reached?

Because it would be quite a lot easier to see how these new mainline quality standards might apply to WoV if there were any examples of what they do actually look like.

[Whiskeyjack]

Could you post or link to these discussions or the conclusions they reached?

Because it would be quite a lot easier to see how these new mainline quality standards might apply to WoV if there were any examples of what they do actually look like.

That was mostly PMs on Discord, so until I have time to really write something down (and before that, I need to do a lot of replaying), I can't show you anything besides what nemaara wrote in the Rewrite thread.

I don't think there will ever be a "list of standards" or the like, because that's simply not how writing works. The general concept(s) I'm talking about here are simply removing inconsistencies, tying your story together, and providing an overarching narrative. That last one is a thing for the rework and more something for a subtle touch, not "make Wesnoth one story", while the two former are simple concepts of good writing and one of the reasons why mainline Wesnoth is kinda lacking...

[name]

I don't think there will ever be a "list of standards" or the like, because that's simply not how writing works.

Naturally, but there absolutely must be at least some positive examples of what the standard actually is, in the form of a completed campaign or scenarios or something, for it to be a standard in the first place. There has to be some form of communication. No one can read nemaara's mind.

Does even a single of the most popular and well written existing mainline campaigns, like Northern Rebirth or the Rise of Wesnoth, meet the bar? If there was just one, it could be used as the example of this new quality standard. That gives campaign developers something to work with. But I have seen no indication this is the case.

The general concept(s) I'm talking about here are simply removing inconsistencies, tying your story together, and providing an overarching narrative. That last one is a thing for the rework and more something for a subtle touch, not "make Wesnoth one story", while the two former are simple concepts of good writing and one of the reasons why mainline Wesnoth is kinda lacking...

Agreed.

[Whiskeyjack]

Does even a single of the most popular and well written existing mainline campaigns, like Northern Rebirth or the Rise of Wesnoth, meet the bar? If there was just one, it could be used as the example of this new quality standard. That gives campaign developers something to work with. But I have seen no indication this is the case.

The examples most commonly named by nemaara are DiD (which got some revisions in 2018 that, I think, are in 1.14, but I'm not certain about that) and UtBS, , but I've heard appreciative words for Liberty, TRoW and doofus' revisions to SoF (I don't think these reached 1.14 yet) as well. NR is not actually written all that well, but does somewhat have its own flair going for it. Plot-wise it could use a lot of improvements IMO...*

To cite Diskord dev channel (24.11.19):

Which campaigns are generally considered solid?

for me, solid are DiD, UtBS, TRoW
even TRoW isn't that solid if you want to look at gameplay
[...]
Liberty stand alone is actually not bad
it's a nice, small campaign that probably just wants a little pruning

*Edit: "a lot" depending on how far-reaching you look at improving the writing quality. As I said, it somewhat works as is, but you could certainly improve a lot of aspects.

[SigurdFireDragon]

...tLoBEK wrongfully depicts orcish culture in a way that is completely out of character...

I also say the exact same thing you then do with SotBE in more general terms...

I thought the UMC The Founding of Borstep (TFoB) did a better job of handling the ruthlessness of the orcs.



For any who are wondering, I do intend to resubmit WoV to mainline at some point. Though after some improvements are made. Stay tuned.

[Tom_Of_Wesnoth]

That was mostly PMs on Discord, so until I have time to really write something down (and before that, I need to do a lot of replaying), I can't show you anything besides what nemaara wrote in the Rewrite thread.

I'm strongly in favour of nemaara's proposals in the rewrite thread, but I have to say that the way this process is being handled isn't great. It seems like a lot of decisions are being made unilaterally, and/or on the basis of discussions held behind closed doors. SigurdFireDragon doesn't seem to have been consulted on the removal of 'his' campaign, which is... Not great.

While the development of a video game can never be a purely democratic process - in fact, sometimes I think too much talking has stunted Wensoth's progress - I think that transparency is a reasonable request. As it is now, we're in a situation where a proposal that wants to rework the entirety of Wesnoth's mainline lore and campaigns has started to influence decision-making, despite the majority of it existing only in Discord DMs.

Nemaara's project has the potential to revitalise Wesnoth's mainline campaigns and vastly improve the singleplayer experience. It's something I really want to see succeed, and I believe the best way for that to happen is for it to involve the community and be out in the open.

[Whiskeyjack]

That was mostly PMs on Discord, so until I have time to really write something down (and before that, I need to do a lot of replaying), I can't show you anything besides what nemaara wrote in the Rewrite thread.

I'm strongly in favour of nemaara's proposals in the rewrite thread, but I have to say that the way this process is being handled isn't great. It seems like a lot of decisions are being made unilaterally, and/or on the basis of discussions held behind closed doors. SigurdFireDragon doesn't seem to have been consulted on the removal of 'his' campaign, which is... Not great.

While the development of a video game can never be a purely democratic process - in fact, sometimes I think too much talking has stunted Wensoth's progress - I think that transparency is a reasonable request. As it is now, we're in a situation where a proposal that wants to rework the entirety of Wesnoth's mainline lore and campaigns has started to influence decision-making, despite the majority of it existing only in Discord DMs.

Nemaara's project has the potential to revitalise Wesnoth's mainline campaigns and vastly improve the singleplayer experience. It's something I really want to see succeed, and I believe the best way for that to happen is for it to involve the community and be out in the open.

There are possibly various things getting mixed here.

1. The proposal (as it is), is all there in its own thread (as it was a proposal meant to spark discussion, a lot changed from the original post though...). Later in the thread, there is a concrete proposal for arc 2 (the HttT arc) because that's the first one that was supposed to get done. That is, to the best of my knowledge, still up to date (at least mostly).
2. My PM's with nemaara started from the fact that I participated in that discussion but can't post officially in the dev forum, so I had to ask someone else to post it for me. We started PMing about arc 3 (and intentions, background ideas, asf.), because we agreed that it would be better to keep the public discussion focused on arc 2, so this could get anywhere (more on that later).
3. The removal of WoV was mostly unrelated to all that, you can find the original reasoning in the respective thread. Most people agreed by now, that the handling of said removal didn't go well.
4. Now the rework obstructing WoV is wording that comes entirely from me and has a very specific context (from what I can tell from official Discord and forum discussions): octalot was actively trying to get the discussion about what can be done for WoV to bring it to a mainline-able state rolling again. My comment was mostly noting that its hard to tell what can/should be done in regards to lore integration so long as the rework is in limbo - which, I assume, is why few were willing/able to comment on those inquiries (and from that came the words in question). To spin my words into "decision are being influenced by Discord DMs" (my personal DMs with nemaara have nothing to do with all of this, I'm not involved in any decision-making and was merely offering my perspective on the WoV situation) is missing the point entirely!
5. Me speaking of "I can show you nothing right now" was a) a matter of time (I haven't yet found the time to formulate my proposal for arc 3), b) the fact that I agreed to keeping other stuff off the radar so we could actually get anywhere with arc 2, and c) the fact that most of those PMs are precisely about arc 3, so there isn't much I could dig up there regarding other stuff. Note also, that the things I quoted are from the official (and readily visible) Discord channels for a reason - most discussions took place there or on the forums... I simply appear to be one of the few people following (all) the various discussions on the two main platforms and willing to chime in to clarify stuff and answer questions. There isn't a big closed-doors project going on as far as I can tell.
6. I fully intend to make a community-visible and involved proposal for arc 3, however, at the earliest that would be when nemaara and I reached a point we are satisfied with (for a public proposal...) and at the latest when its arc 3's turn (so after arc 1 and 2 are mostly done). (Maybe I should add to that the fact that I didn't work on anything of this for a month because I finished my thesis, so those DMs are not only misunderstood, but also older than the current drama...)

Now to your points on the whole democracy thing. Simply speaking from past Wesnoth experiences, such a project doesn't get anywhere if it is based on public discussions. Those are only helpful if the people discussing things are also the people putting in the work. Otherwise they draw more resources than they serve new ideas. nemaara offered to actually do a rework on their terms and made public their plans and intentions. I don't think you can expect more from a project that should have any chances of actually succeeding (my personal opinion)! I assume the current limbo comes from inactive "democratic" processes (or a deadlock thereat) in the actual team, preventing (intentionally or incidentally) giving nemaara the necessary creative control. Large-scale involvement of the community won't make it any better IMO (and I say that as a member of the community). To cite Iris from Discord dev channel (18.01.20):

Incidentally, I'm really concerned about the fact that we keep talking in hypotheticals three months into this business :/

[Tom_Of_Wesnoth]

There are possibly various things getting mixed here.

1. The proposal (as it is), is all there in its own thread (as it was a proposal meant to spark discussion, a lot changed from the original post though...). Later in the thread, there is a concrete proposal for arc 2 (the HttT arc) because that's the first one that was supposed to get done. That is, to the best of my knowledge, still up to date (at least mostly).
2. My PM's with nemaara started from the fact that I participated in that discussion but can't post officially in the dev forum, so I had to ask someone else to post it for me. We started PMing about arc 3 (and intentions, background ideas, asf.), because we agreed that it would be better to keep the public discussion focused on arc 2, so this could get anywhere (more on that later).

Ah, I didn't know that those discussions were mostly about arc three. My understanding was that they were about the project more generally.

Now the rework obstructing WoV is wording that comes entirely from me and has a very specific context (from what I can tell from official Discord and forum discussions): octalot was actively trying to get the discussion about what can be done for WoV to bring it to a mainline-able state rolling again. My comment was mostly noting that its hard to tell what can/should be done in regards to lore integration so long as the rework is in limbo - which, I assume, is why few were willing/able to comment on those inquiries (and from that came the words in question). To spin my words into "decision are being influenced by Discord DMs" (my personal DMs with nemaara have nothing to do with all of this, I'm not involved in any decision-making and was merely offering my perspective on the WoV situation) is entirely missing the point!

Again, now that you've made it clear that the discussions were specifically about arc three, my reading of your posts has changed and is more accurate to what your intended message was.

I will say, though, that I never meant to aim anything at you, or to spin your words. I was just using your comment as a building-off point for my more general thoughts on this project.

Note also, that the things I quoted are from the official (and readily visible) Discord channels for a reason - most discussions took place there or on the forums... I simply appear to be one of the few people following (all) the various discussions on the two main platforms and willing to chime in to clarify stuff and answer questions. There isn't a big closed-doors project going on as far as I can tell.

Discussions on Discord are easily missed, given how quickly the discussion can move there at times, and the lack of specific threads. You're one of the best, by the way, when it comes to writing up thoughts from Discord onto the forums where they're more accessible.

Now to your points on the whole democracy thing. Simply speaking from past Wesnoth experiences, such a project doesn't get anywhere if it is based on public discussions. Those are only helpful if the people discussing things are also the people putting in the work. Otherwise they draw more resources than they serve new ideas. nemaara offered to actually do a rework on their terms and made public their plans and intentions. I don't think you can expect more from a project that should have any chances of actually succeeding (my personal opinion)! I assume the current limbo comes from inactive "democratic" processes (or a deadlock thereat) in the actual team, preventing (intentionally or incidentally) giving nemaara the necessary creative control. Large-scale involvement of the community won't make it any better IMO (and I say that as a member of the community).

Generally speaking, I agree that Wesnoth democracy is fairly often a hinderance rather than a help. In this specific case, it looks to me as though uncertainty around this project is making the situation - of Wings of Victory, in particular - a bit more difficult than it needs to be.

I previously thought that there was more of this project decided, that simply hadn't been written up publicly yet, but I now know that's not the case.

[Mawmoocn]

Dunno if this is the appropriate thread but here’s my opinion.

We’ll assume the grand plot was completed and there are other campaigns that won’t fit, do they need a similar rework or be completely removed?

If they need a similar rework, would they need new overarching campaign line/series (or integrated somewhere) as what would happen to “grand design” campaigns?

If “completely” removed, what are the standards needed to add mainline (campaign) content? Would they need similar resources similar to the proposal?


The grand design is great for a dedicated plot for mainline content, but has the potential to restrict other content or ideas, if, the plot is intertwined without “mystery”.


This is an assumption, so it may not be the real problem if it’s established for future content.

Spoiler:

The grand design needs a working or intended standard, as new content will be non existent after the completion of the proposal.

[Whiskeyjack]

@Mawmoocn:

I don't think so. It is almost certain that there will be stand-alone campaigns as, basically, a fourth set of campaigns (e.g., DiD, UtBS). Not everything has to be pressed into the overarching storylines of the arcs, so everything that doesn't go against given canon could still find a place. And there would always remain the possibility of adding a whole new arc for a big release...

[name]

The proposal (as it is), is all there in its own thread (as it was a proposal meant to spark discussion, a lot changed from the original post though...). Later in the thread, there is a concrete proposal for arc 2 (the HttT arc) because that's the first one that was supposed to get done. That is, to the best of my knowledge, still up to date (at least mostly).

What has been written there is extremely vague. Too vague to give you any real idea what these rewritten campaigns will actually play like. And far too vague to be actionable as a quality standard, yet under the auspices of this proposal, both an Orcish Incursion and Wings of Victory, two mainline campaigns, were removed extremely fast.

The removal of WoV was mostly unrelated to all that, you can find the original reasoning in the respective thread.

It seems very unlikely that these sudden mainline campaign removals are somehow not related to the rewrite proposal. See this post from nemaara after getting WoV removed:

"I think we should wait a bit until trying to mainline another [Drake] campaign. If and when my SP rework gets approved, I think I'll be able to show in more detail why I think we need campaigns that form set plotlines (rather than a hodgepodge of disconnected events). Then, we'll be able to see where Drakes might be able to fit in."

Now to your points on the whole democracy thing. Simply speaking from past Wesnoth experiences, such a project doesn't get anywhere if it is based on public discussions.

You might not be able to write a story arc that way, but this does not mean a rewrite of the entire wesnoth canon should happen without the approval of a majority of the community. The community is where future developers come from, the wesnoth project's next generation essentially.

Those are only helpful if the people discussing things are also the people putting in the work. Otherwise they draw more resources than they serve new ideas.

Well the people putting in the work are the campaign maintainers, like SigurdFireDragon. Having a single plot dictator that can simply overrule them on their own work sounds like a recipe for disaster. And this WoV controversy may have been the first taste.

If they need a similar rework, would they need new overarching campaign line/series (or integrated somewhere) as what would happen to “grand design” campaigns?

If “completely” removed, what are the standards needed to add mainline (campaign) content? Would they need similar resources similar to the proposal?

The grand design is great for a dedicated plot for mainline content, but has the potential to restrict other content or ideas, if, the plot is intertwined without “mystery”.

Depending on who ends up in charge of the approval process and what the new standards would actually look like, it could be that any new campaign with a story line too independent of the big arc would be unlikely to ever get mainline approval even if there is no official rule against it.

[Whiskeyjack]

[...]

Not going to engage that (it reaches the limits of my time, interesting, and feeling of productive discussion and, as I said, I'm not anyone that has to make any decisions, so...)

The one thing I will state, before I leave this conversation is that I support the rework knowing fully well that I won't like every change in the end, won't agree with every removal, won't love every addition. I still think the final result would be worth it.
We had "dictators" for (visual) art and music for years and I don't see how anyone complained about that. We didn't have anything of the like for writing and look where mainline is at after more than 10 (!) years of continual improvements on the campaigns. If that's the only way to actually get this done - so be it.

Edit: I should add that I intentionally use your hyperbolic narrative here and that from my experience with nemaara and with the other people in the project until now, I don't believe this will be anything near the oppressive dictatorship you seem to imagine.

[Mawmoocn]

Not everything has to be pressed into the overarching storylines of the arcs, so everything that doesn't go against given canon could still find a place.

The goal was to add coherent plot or increase quality, yeah?

Therefore you get two things to improve and that’s story and gameplay.

The idea for the story (improvement) was to create continuity, distinction, and quality control.

Basically anything outside of it is rejected (my assumption).

Gameplay has more things to look out for but nevertheless, similar problems with additional criteria.

• Campaign length? Yes or no?
• Does it need scenarios unique only for that campaign? (All day/night, Reliant on “X” feature, wait for “X” event etc…)
• Use unique units only for that campaign? Yes or no?
• Abilities unique only to a campaign?
• Campaign rise/decrease difficulty?
• Other ”X” features allowed/disallowed?
• Sequels required? (Grand campaign?)

It’s recommended to know the criterion, so future campaign creators/maintainers can choose to abandon, conform to new standard or to simply have an informed decision.

Why? The use of temporary measures has likelihood for being the other new standard for shadow removal/acceptance.

Basically, idea completed -> campaigns not fit are “X” tab -> want to keep but standard said no -> campaign gets removed -> what now? -> reworked -> plot said no -> reworked -> low quality because incoherent plot -> removed -> tried again but with new plot -> unfortunately there’s no room for it -> find new timeline -> rejected? -> ask what should change -> no feedback -> stuck with ??? -> finally you get approved for Wesnoth 2 (sequel)!

Yeah that’s exaggerated but transparency is recommended for these things, so people can opt to contribute or to keep doing what they want.


Otherwise, you either need a new category for "solo" campaigns versus “grand” campaigns, if, keeping them is a priority (which could get many complaints and removed).


It’s inevitable, increase of quality will always or most likely be the new standard.


Hopefully this gets a clarification before the completion of the idea.

And there would always remain the possibility of adding a whole new arc for a big release...

Most campaigns come from UMC origin (assumption) so I want to make things simple to digest if other users want to make campaigns on a mainline standard (regardless if they really want to be mainlined or not).

it could be that any new campaign with a story line too independent of the big arc would be unlikely to ever get mainline approval even if there is no official rule against it.

That’s inevitable, though you can always use the reason of spin-off for parallel worlds to forcibly fit these type of stories or make a loop hole that will eventually tie the plot to the main story, might not be a good way to circumvent them if you want to remove those excuses.

I’m curious if it’ll really affect future content.