Heroic: campaign

[Groovy]

This topic was spawned from here.

While not a part of the core game design, I think that campaigns are sufficiently important in this genre to warrant serious attention. What I would like to explore in this topic is campaign structure (not story) with the eye to finding ways to make it fresh and effective at making the fantasy world within which it is set come alive. I would like to get away from static, linear campaigns in favour of flexible, open-ended ones that require significant decision-making on the player’s part with respect to which missions to tackle, in what order, and to what extent.

My current idea of the campaign works as follows:
• It presents a macro view of the game world so that the player can have a context within which to make decisions. It would probably be useful to be able to zoom in on a local region of interest and zoom back out to show the entire world
• The world itself is divided into territories. Each territory corresponds to a map on which a campaign mission can be played. It faithfully represents the local geography. If one were to lay the mission maps from adjacent territories next to each other, one would get the world map, with some adjustment possibly needed for scale, especially when it involves the sea
• Because a mission’s map is determined by the world territory that it represents, the player might end up playing on the same map at different points during the campaign, possibly on different parts of it and presumably with different goals
• The campaign has a calendar that governs the unfolding of world events that are not under the player’s control. The calendars of individual missions are integrated into the world calendar – it ticks along as the player spends time on each mission
• The events themselves comprise a part of the campaign’s storyline. The storyline is open-ended – it has multiple starting points (one for each faction) and multiple end points, allowing the player to influence the choice of missions that become available and their end result by the decisions that he makes in the game

To get a feel for the campaign, let’s say that the player starts in control of the Stronghold faction. Theirs is a nomadic society that subsists on livestock, for which they need sufficient grazing. Due to rains being late this year, their tribes are forced to migrate further north in search of pasture. This takes them beyond the borders of their land to human territory, and brings them into conflict with the humans who are settled there.

At the beginning of the campaign, the player will be informed of skirmishes between the orc tribes and human settlers and the growing danger of their escalation into full-blown war, and asked to intervene. He will choose one of the troubled territories, which will become his first mission of the campaign.

Depending on which territory he has chosen, the player will interact with different orc tribes and heroes and have different options at his disposal. If he chooses a north-western territory, for example, he will be given an opportunity to lead the local orc tribe to the west in search of pasture, taking it out of human lands but into elven ones.

While he is busy there, skirmishes will continue to escalate in other borderlands. If he takes too long with his current mission, some orc chiefs in other territories might decide to start raiding human settlements on their own initiative. If left unchecked, this will provoke humans into mobilising their armies and lead to full-blown war. If he wants to avoid this, the player will have to choose to suspend his first mission as soon as the local orcs are on their way out of human lands so that he can focus on other border territories.

This illustrates some of the campaign’s additional features:
• The player can choose to suspend a mission at any time so that he can turn his attention to another mission that has become more pressing. Because the time spent on a mission is added to the world calendar, and the world calendar drives certain events in the story, the player may have to suspend his current mission from time to time in order to respond to these events timeously
• While the player is not active in a region, the events in that region unfold as per the default storyline, taking into account the events from other regions that have a bearing on them
• It makes sense to me for the player to be represented in the campaign by a specific hero who travels from one region to another in accordance with the player’s change of focus, and whose interaction with other characters is a vehicle for the player to make his decisions known

The campaign structure also lends itself to multiplayer format:
• Different players can start in control of different factions, each with its own starting conditions
• Their missions will be synchronised because they all feed into the world calendar. Players who are active in different territories can play their turns simultaneously; others have to take consecutive turns
• The common requirement of having to win every mission in order to win the campaign no longer applies. Players might fail to accomplish some important objectives and still be able to bounce back from their defeat later on

In the above example, the player’s orc tribes might get annihilated by humans, but he can continue playing as the leader of the single tribe that has found refuge in elven lands. The story might also make provision for him to continue playing as a vassal within some other faction. He might even have the opportunity to do so freely, without being forced into it by the demise of his people.

Depending on the story, it might be possible for all the players to win, if they find a way to cooperate against a common non-player enemy. Alternatively, depending on their own and others’ choices, they might have to eliminate certain other players to win, or even all of them.

All this yields a campaign that is a game in its own right. The world map that the player works with between missions should give the campaign a sense of scale, while individual missions should help personalise the world that might otherwise appear abstract and distant.

While the campaign is ultimately constrained by a predefined storyline, that storyline can be sufficiently vast and multifaceted to give the impression that the player has free reign over its course. It also makes it possible to cater for different playing styles:
• A king, who follows world events, decides which objectives to pursue, and leads armies and issues orders for his subordinates to follow
• A general, who has a limited leadership role, constrained by the wishes of his king. This is the current campaign playing style, where constraints are imposed by objectives that the player has to achieve
• A mercenary, who also has a limited leadership role, but lacks the loyalty/allegiance of a general. He is free to offer his services to any king/general he fancies at the time
• Possibly even a wanderer, who also sets his own objectives, but seeks to influence world events indirectly, through espionage, sabotage and counsel (Gandalf-style). He doesn’t usually lead armies, but may have a small band of followers

Depending on the choices that he makes, the player might end up trading one of these roles for another during the course of the campaign.

I’m mentioning these because I think that the Heroes design in general and Heroic design in particular is sufficiently rich to allow for such variations in playing style. It strikes me as one area of the game series that has been tapped significantly below its potential.

[Pol]

I disagree. Very often and quite rightly the sole reason to write up a game is a story, in other words campaign. Without good story the game lacks reason to be created.

That's design issue and hence core part of the game.

[Mozared]

I disagree. Very often and quite rightly the sole reason to write up a game is a story, in other words campaign. Without good story the game lacks reason to be created.

That depends on the game, though. There's plenty of games with eff all story that simply fill a role in the market (Team Fortress 2, Minecraft, FIFA). Probably more so than games that run almost entirely on story (Mass Effect, Neverwinter Nights, Fable). A lot of both is best though, I guess. But then again, sometimes you want to play something HUGELY immersive like Mass Effect, while another time you just want to shoot stuff in Team Fortress 2.

[MattII]

Well there's some interesting ideas, but most of them sound more like a "world-conquest" type game than a "storyline-base-campaign" type one.

[klaymen]

That depends on the game, though. There's plenty of games with eff all story that simply fill a role in the market (Team Fortress 2, Minecraft, FIFA). Probably more so than games that run almost entirely on story (Mass Effect, Neverwinter Nights, Fable). A lot of both is best though, I guess. But then again, sometimes you want to play something HUGELY immersive like Mass Effect, while another time you just want to shoot stuff in Team Fortress 2.

The thing is, though, that expecting a deep story from, say, FIFA is weird at best. Or expecting no story from hardcore (read: non Diablo-like clickfest) RPG.

Yes, you may want sometimes just to shoot the crap out of everything, but for that purpose you will pick Painkiller or Quake instead of Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment.

[Pitsu]

I disagree. Very often and quite rightly the sole reason to write up a game is a story, in other words campaign. Without good story the game lacks reason to be created.

That's design issue and hence core part of the game.

I would agree with groovy in *Homm* a campaign should NOT be a part of core design. Like in H1 or H2. The core is the platform that defines the limits of fantasy, customization, replayability, variety of playstyles and balance. Setting a single specific story on the same level or even above these is not wise. You risk ending up with infernopolis, naked spirits in human society and no elves or dragons whatsoever, non-functional editor and improper multiplayer support.

[Kristo]

As interesting as this sounds, I think it's way, way to broad in scope. Remember that every branch point in your storyline means another map to be created and playtested. Your vision feels like it would take decades to create.

What if we simplified things? Picture a map with a set of regions, some owned by you, some owned by the enemy. Each region represents one scenario. You get to choose any region adjacent to one you already control (i.e., you're always fighting on the frontier). If you win, you gain control of that region and get to pick the next one. But if you lose, the enemy retains control of it *and* picks the next scenario for you. That way, you can retry a mission you've failed, but only after you fight your way back. Lose several missions in a row, and you're literally driven off the map. Winning the campaign (for either side) means taking control of all the regions.

This gives a larger variability in the storyline than we've had before while hopefully keeping the amount of content under control.

[Groovy]

As interesting as this sounds, I think it's way, way to broad in scope. Remember that every branch point in your storyline means another map to be created and playtested. Your vision feels like it would take decades to create.

Just to make sure that we are on the same page, in the campaign design that I’m proposing, the number of maps is limited by the size of the game world. It doesn’t depend on the number of branches in the storyline. What the complexity of the story does determine is how many times the maps are reused. I suspect that this won’t be a serious issue, but I’m not sure; I haven’t worked it out in detail.

What if we simplified things? Picture a map with a set of regions, some owned by you, some owned by the enemy. Each region represents one scenario. You get to choose any region adjacent to one you already control (i.e., you're always fighting on the frontier). If you win, you gain control of that region and get to pick the next one. But if you lose, the enemy retains control of it *and* picks the next scenario for you. That way, you can retry a mission you've failed, but only after you fight your way back. Lose several missions in a row, and you're literally driven off the map. Winning the campaign (for either side) means taking control of all the regions.

This gives a larger variability in the storyline than we've had before while hopefully keeping the amount of content under control.

That’s definitely more manageable than what I’m suggesting.

Given that the player is required to win every mission, one concern that I have is the temptation to simply reload the lost mission instead of accepting defeat. What incentive is there for the player to allow his forces to be pushed back, given that he is going to have to come back and replay the mission later anyway?

[klaymen]

Given that the player is required to win every mission, one concern that I have is the temptation to simply reload the lost mission instead of accepting defeat. What incentive is there for the player to allow his forces to be pushed back, given that he is going to have to come back and replay the mission later anyway?

Why being forced to reply the mission anyways?

I think it was in the Wing Commander games. If you have failed the mission, the story continued, but the conditions have slightly changed.

It can make sense in Heroes too. For example maps with time limit. Say, friend of your hero is being executed and you have three months to free him/her. What sense makes replaying the map for five times? If you win, you have one more ally for later missions. If you fail, he won't accompany you later (well, he/she was executed, right?) but you may have optional mission to find another ally (if you feel you would be severely disadvantaged without him/her) or maybe try to resurrect him, if you don't play some goody-two-shoes faction or if the hero is willing to do anything to have his friend back. Even if it means using necromancy.

This can be applied to searh for artifacts or even killing enemy faction leader - you didn't manage to success? Let's try something else.

Of course, not all scenarios may be continued this way, but story writer with some common sense could do something with it.

[MattII]

I like that idea, adaptive campaigns, maybe even campaign length being dependent on your success in earlier campaigns.

[Naki]

WTF?? When I read the thread title, I thought this is a way to enable Heroic difficulty on the campaigns. You should really title your threads properly...

[Groovy]

Thanks, klaymen. That’s basically what I was getting at with my question about incentive. I wanted to see how Kristo was going to maintain interest in a second mission being played on the same map. If this is done by changes in the storyline that result in the second mission being somewhat different from the first, it is essentially the same approach that I was thinking of.

[Groovy]

I like that idea, adaptive campaigns, maybe even campaign length being dependent on your success in earlier campaigns.

Sounds good for single player campaigns; not sure whether it can work in multiplayer.

[Groovy]

WTF?? When I read the thread title, I thought this is a way to enable Heroic difficulty on the campaigns. You should really title your threads properly...

Sorry for the confusion. I started this series of threads before H6 was released.

[MattII]

Sounds good for single player campaigns; not sure whether it can work in multiplayer.

Probably can't, which is where the "world conquest" style comes in.

[klaymen]

Thanks, klaymen. That’s basically what I was getting at with my question about incentive. I wanted to see how Kristo was going to maintain interest in a second mission being played on the same map.

You can use two maps. One with the objective, the second (easier) to "redeem yourself" after your previous failure. Both will have the same level cap to prevent intentionally losing lest you could grind experience/artifacts, the second map may even contain no artifact, or just some weak ones (if hero's inventory will be transferrable). If you lose even in the second map, the story will carry on.

Using the very same map may appear cheap and lazy, unless you have some good story-wise excuse. At least the map may be somehow changed, if you want to keep it so badly. For example when you fail to defend something against demon invasion, you may expect that when you come back, the landscape will be charred or destroyed. That would mean opening or closing of passages (remember that forest near where the demons came from? Well, it is now burned and who knows what may be behind?)

[Groovy]

Using the very same map may appear cheap and lazy, unless you have some good story-wise excuse. At least the map may be somehow changed, if you want to keep it so badly. For example when you fail to defend something against demon invasion, you may expect that when you come back, the landscape will be charred or destroyed. That would mean opening or closing of passages (remember that forest near where the demons came from? Well, it is now burned and who knows what may be behind?)

The reason that I want to reuse maps is that they are supposed to accurately represent the campaign world. If you’ve played The Battle for Middle-earth II, it would be like the War of the Ring mode of that game. Whenever the player undertakes a mission in a particular territory, that territory should have the mountains, valleys, rivers, etc, in the same place as before. Of course, as you say, the maps shouldn’t be identical. They should reflect the passage of time. To do that, I’m hoping to make use of the features of my design that allow for terrain changes during the course of the mission (discussed here), so as not to have to create multiple static versions of the same map. This will probably be necessary anyway, if we are to enable the player to suspend and resume missions at will.

Both will have the same level cap to prevent intentionally losing lest you could grind experience/artifacts, the second map may even contain no artifact, or just some weak ones (if hero's inventory will be transferrable).

Do you think these kinds of restrictions are needed in a campaign design where the calendar time spent on the mission is added to the world calendar time? In other words, where more of the campaign storyline unfolds the longer the mission (any mission) goes on?