The Deceiver's Gambit - Revision - Suggestions and Feedback Thread

[Dalas120]

I get what you're saying, but AFAIK that's not what happens in the campaign?

Delfador is titled "The Great" as part of his promotion to the position of High Advisor by the King of Wesnoth, publically and with multiple people celebrating him. This is an official title given by an official authority figure (*cough* unlike the original DM where Delfador just gives it to himself for no reason *cough*).

Then Garard dies and Delfador loses his official standing. Delfador despairs, but Methor convinces him he's still great - Methor doesn't bestow anything on Delfador, just reaffirms it.

As an analogy, imagine the USA president (I'm american) makes me Secretary of Defense. The president is then killed in a bloody coup. If I'm fighting the usurper, I don't think it's at all weird for me to still consider myself "Dalas, Secretary of Defense" even though my title is no longer official.

Why exactly TDG gives Delfador bandit allies instead of royal troops in later scenarios? In HttT we remember him rather as elite on exile then some kind of highwayman...

1) the original DM has Delfador commanding humans, undead, elves, and dwarves, with multiple recall lists. I wanted to preserve some bits of that army-switching in TDG.

2) in lore terms, it's because Eldred refused to give Delfador royal troops for the mission. Eldred, obviously, doesn't want Delfador to succeed.

3) out of 13 scenarios in TDG, only 3 are outlaw-only.

[holypaladin]

1) the original DM has Delfador commanding humans, undead, elves, and dwarves, with multiple recall lists. I wanted to preserve some bits of that army-switching in TDG.

2) in lore terms, it's because Eldred refused to give Delfador royal troops for the mission. Eldred, obviously, doesn't want Delfador to succeed.

3) out of 13 scenarios in TDG, only 3 are outlaw-only.

That makes some sense but why not just give him elves with whom he had good relations and wasn't directly under king's command?

[Dalas120]

I always saw Delfador first and foremost as a human of Wesnoth, and wanted to emphasize that in TDG. The plot of scenarios 3-4 is also about elves refusing to fight the orcs, so it'd be a little odd to have them show back up again.

That said, elves certainly could have been made to work, and if a lot of people feel that I should replace outlaws with elves I can still possibly make that happen. I see cons but also pros to it.

[holypaladin]

I always saw Delfador first and foremost as a human of Wesnoth, and wanted to emphasize that in TDG. The plot of scenarios 3-4 is also about elves refusing to fight the orcs, so it'd be a little odd to have them show back up again.

That said, elves certainly could have been made to work, and if a lot of people feel that I should replace outlaws with elves I can still possibly make that happen. I see cons but also pros to it.

If you can share here pros and cons of elves instead of bandits. I would replace female rogue with female elvish marksman and give elvish fighter and elvish archer to recruit list.

[holypaladin]

Thing that is weird for me in TDG is also the saurian role. I don't understand why their alliance with the orcs is causing such surprise to loyalists while saurians are very often allied with orcs. Also, showing them as almost equal power to orcs is suprising because they are rather orcish vassals.

[Dalas120]

Saurians are often allied with orcs? I remember that from SotBE (which happens 300+ years after TDG), but off the top of my head I can't think of any other mainline campaigns that make a big deal out of the 2 working together. If saurians + orcs are a common thing I can easily revise that dialogue.

The saurians allied with the blackcrests aren't orcish vassals, they're an independent force that was commanded by their "Great One" to help the blackcrests fight wesnoth. Was that not made clear in the campaign?

[Vendrick]

Delfador's "The Great" title doesn't really bother me either way - it's secondary to the main narrative thrust of the story.
I guess part of the issue with title here is that it is a formal title bestowed by Garard. It is an extension of what Delfador has been grasping for, so rejecting it and empty pomp would be a more natural follow-through.
I think that when Delfador's arc concludes and he rallies the troops that the title fits but there's a tension between "titles, status and glory aren't true greatness" and then Delfador earning/growing into a title.

[Dalas120]

Ah, hmm, I see what you mean. That's a fair point.

Do you have any suggestions to help reconcile this? IMO Delfador needs to end up as "The Great" in the finish or I'm pretty sure people will riot, but I'm open to tweaking some of the other narrative bits to help that flow better.

Also, if you'd like to try out the current WIP version and see how it flows, you can access it here: https://github.com/Dalas121/The_Deceivers_Gambit/

[holypaladin]

Saurians are often allied with orcs? I remember that from SotBE (which happens 300+ years after TDG), but off the top of my head I can't think of any other mainline campaigns that make a big deal out of the 2 working together. If saurians + orcs are a common thing I can easily revise that dialogue.

The saurians allied with the blackcrests aren't orcish vassals, they're an independent force that was commanded by their "Great One" to help the blackcrests fight wesnoth. Was that not made clear in the campaign?

TRoW, Liberty, SotBE as I get to know recently also HttT (scenario Sceptre of Fire) are showing saurians as orcish allies. So I don't find their aliance as very unusual.

[Dalas120]

You're right - thanks for pointing those out! I'll tone down the "gasp, saurians" line!

I won't remove it completely though, since it's important lead-in for the Delfador-hunts-Omaranth plotline. (also that's only 3 orc-saurian scenarios in mainline? That still strikes me as fairly unusual)

[holypaladin]

Oh yes, I forget about saurians alliance with orcs in LoW! It comes from what happened at the end of TRoW, when Shek'Kahan died saurians allied with orcs, most propably trough nagas who were allied with both already. In Liberty it's indeed just one scenario, Dalben is attacked by orcs and their allies saurians there.

[Gweddeoran]

You're right - thanks for pointing those out! I'll tone down the "gasp, saurians" line!

I won't remove it completely though, since it's important lead-in for the Delfador-hunts-Omaranth plotline. (also that's only 3 orc-saurian scenarios in mainline? That still strikes me as fairly unusual)

Actually, I'm thinking of elaborating on how and why Orcs ally with Saurians, since currently most mainline campaigns featuring this alliance don't really explain why they are allied. The logic is often 'Saurian bad, Orc bad, so bad together'. In fact, TRoW might not feature the Saurian-Orc alliance in the same way (they may be allied, but in a more transactional relationship similar to hired mercenaries).
So, the line about surprise with Saurians allying with Orcs can stay, since this is the first time they aren't acting like hired mercenaries for the Orcs, unlike TRoW Reworked and LoW.

[Dalas120]

Sounds good, good ideas.

[Vendrick]

Do you have any suggestions to help reconcile this? IMO Delfador needs to end up as "The Great" in the finish or I'm pretty sure people will riot, but I'm open to tweaking some of the other narrative bits to help that flow better.

I don't really have any solid ideas to reconcile it. I agree that it's better to retain the title and avoid complete re-writes of HttT's Delfador.
The previous version (I haven't played the new one yet) doesn't put too much focus on Delfador's titles.

I suppose the distinction the story is drawning is between a title like "Dragonbane" and a title that is an extension of Delfador's character: the title reflects his personal qualities - that he'll never give up on Wesnoth, etc. - rather than his deeds. Delfador's "The Great" title then has to transition from being one to the other.

I guess some possible approaches for this, but I don't have any love for them:
(1) Avoid putting too much narrative weight on the title itself and drawing attention to the disconnect.
(2) Eldred's offer of empty fame and early retirement to Delfador in the finale is sincere on his part, if not Ashievere's: Delfador more firmly rejects empty accolades. (Doesn't really fit with Eldred unless he really hates fighting but Delfador is more important and alive.)
(3) After Delfador rallies, he is "re-awarded" the title, either by Methor or as a rallying cry by the army: Contrast the title's current use with its meaning earlier.

Modifying how the title is given:
(4) Garard also provides some scribes for Delfador to recount his exploits to: Emphasise the vanity of the title and it initially being an extension of reputation building.
(5) The player's veterans call Delfador "The Great" first. Delfador or Garard then moves to make it official; the official stamp of approval matters to Delfador but it dims the enthusiasm in the camp: Undermine the title when it is first given by emphasising the official prestige; that element isn't present when it is used later.
(6) Delfador doesn't get called "The Great" until the end when he rallies the army. Potentially paired with the accumulation of cheap (unofficial?) titles for every random thing he does, but he doesn't earn any wide renown or titles that anyone respects until he wins the war. Delfador discards the titles after failing: Try and draw a clearer distinction between earned and unearned titles.
Another variation on this is Delfador adopting "The Great" early in the story, with the goal of getting Delfador "The Great" into the history books. Delfador discards the title but is then re-awarded it at the end.

I don't think the issue is that significant and I don't much care for my own suggestions; I think they're mostly shuffling stuff around without improving it.
Prequels are good when they add more depth to the original and to me how Delfador gets "The Great" title feels like a checklist item that shouldn't distract from material that adds texture to the events in HttT.

[holypaladin]

I think Garard doesn't have to be an evil character since he can just get a bad advisor. In the old version we had Sagus and I have an idea how to use him here. Sagus is Garard's selfish advisor (but no longer Asheviere's father, even his plans are somewhat at odds with hers), and he uses his large influences to manipulate the king and his entourage. As an archmage, he trains a huge number of mages, several of whom he also secretly teaches the dark arts. He is responsible for the deaths of at least a few people including Leolllyn (criminals were hired to kill him, the judicial commission had no way of working out the principal through his scheming) and the failed assassination attempt on Delphador (similar situation but Delfador expected it)