Post by Aegis on Jan 15, 2019 9:54:56 GMT
Seems that we will finally see the end of the Act of War series, and how Cygnar invasion to Llael is going to outcome.
privateerpress.com/community/privateer-insider/acts-of-war-iii-stormbreak
Honestly, while I happy to see the narrative go on, I'm not thrilled by this "decide the outcome with a campaign". Honestly, tieing the story to a bunch of played games seems to me another step in the submission of the lore to the tabletop game.
Story has to be interesting, consistent and give interesting prospective for future lore (expecially if that lore is tied to a game), and I don't think leaving it to players, or even less to a few selected games in a campaign will help with that.
As an example, if a character is hated by most players not playing a faction, and loved by the ones who play it, and his survival is tied to a pool, he is likely to die (just for the statistic assumption that there are always more playing NOT playing a faction than the ones playing it). But is really good for the lore and for the game for him to die, being the favorite of the ones who actually buy the faction he/she is in?
Another example, a faction can have a specific role in the geopolitical lore of the Iron Kingdom. For the same reasoning as before (way more players NOT playing it then the ones playing it), if a pool would be made to ask if that faction should lose a big portion of his power, or even be distructed (extremizing it, I don't think that is what they will do with the book), it is likely to get an unfavourable result. But that is really good to have a consistent lore and keep the identity of every faction?
I'll look closely and a little worried on how this campaign will be managed.
And you? What do you think about the fluff being directed by players?
privateerpress.com/community/privateer-insider/acts-of-war-iii-stormbreak
Honestly, while I happy to see the narrative go on, I'm not thrilled by this "decide the outcome with a campaign". Honestly, tieing the story to a bunch of played games seems to me another step in the submission of the lore to the tabletop game.
Story has to be interesting, consistent and give interesting prospective for future lore (expecially if that lore is tied to a game), and I don't think leaving it to players, or even less to a few selected games in a campaign will help with that.
As an example, if a character is hated by most players not playing a faction, and loved by the ones who play it, and his survival is tied to a pool, he is likely to die (just for the statistic assumption that there are always more playing NOT playing a faction than the ones playing it). But is really good for the lore and for the game for him to die, being the favorite of the ones who actually buy the faction he/she is in?
Another example, a faction can have a specific role in the geopolitical lore of the Iron Kingdom. For the same reasoning as before (way more players NOT playing it then the ones playing it), if a pool would be made to ask if that faction should lose a big portion of his power, or even be distructed (extremizing it, I don't think that is what they will do with the book), it is likely to get an unfavourable result. But that is really good to have a consistent lore and keep the identity of every faction?
I'll look closely and a little worried on how this campaign will be managed.
And you? What do you think about the fluff being directed by players?