Re: Campaign Story

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@gmx.net>]

On 17.08.2004 00:01, Dave Fancella wrote:
> On Sunday 15 August 2004 01:33 pm, Jens Granseuer wrote:
> > I like it. But I'm not quite sure how you intend the setbacks to look like.
> > Do the Nexians really lose a map (if so, the campaign system doesn't
> > support that, yet) or do they win the map, but the greater story later
> > tells them that this battle wasn't that important after all and the Empire
> > made advances on a different battlefield?
>
> Hmm, not sure about the setbacks, but you probably don't want to have the 
> story later on tell the player that battle wasn't important after all.  ;)  
> Better to have the player start the map knowing what he's up against then 
> tell him later on "Oh yeah, that map you did such a job on?  Doesn't matter 
> at all, don't know why you even played it".  ;)
What's the difference?

> I'm not really sure how to make setbacks happen for a player that has to 
> literally win each map to play the next.  On the other hand, allowing for one 
> side or the other to win each map either takes us back into branching 
> campaign stories, or finds us with some maps that just plain don't make sense 
> in the story.
Isn't having scenarios the player must _lose_ really pointless? And yes,
the branching stuff scares me.

Jens