Design & Development: Quests

[Firevalkyrie]

Oh. Then why are people suggesting that this is some sort of "new idea", and they're going to "yoink" it, and other such nonsense? Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of writing something down? I find that highly unlikely.

It's not "bad". It's also not "new", nor is it even an "idea". Writing things down is just something normal people do. Weird. (Except, the suggestion given by WotC is that the work is to be done by the DM when it can be done by the players, and that's always a bad thing.)

If you hand the players a note card, there is no question whether what is written down is important. Now that said, if you want to screw with players' heads, give them some quest notecards that are red herrings. Just remember which ones are red herrings (and don't tell them, because sometimes the red herring can become the real plot if everybody's having a blast following the red herring and you haven't the heart to tell them that the eight-hour marathon game session that everybody loved following a clue that was completely bogus, was completely bogus).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh. Then why are people suggesting that this is some sort of "new idea", and they're going to "yoink" it, and other such nonsense? Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of writing something down? I find that highly unlikely.

I never thought about the ideas of quest cards specifically. I used to write a "adventurer's notebook" in one campaign, but it was some work. These days, I have less time to write such things up in my free time (and the time I devote to D&D is for my own DMing and advancing my characters, if neccessary).

It's not "bad". It's also not "new", nor is it even an "idea". Writing things down is just something normal people do. Weird. (Except, the suggestion given by WotC is that the work is to be done by the DM when it can be done by the players, and that's always a bad thing.)

It is definitely an idea. And it's even new as being an advice given in the DMG.

Now with all that said, some sort of standardized reward for completing a goal is fine and dandy - too bad the original article barely gave any details on that (ie. thanks for nothing). Of course, that's not new, unique, or special either, since I've been doing it for multiple editions now, including 3e (in which the CR system makes it easy-peasy). Like I said - weird.

You're a cool guy coming up with such things and using them, and now we can all be cool and do it too.

 

[Arnwyn]

Maybe it's because it is a new idea to them, and they feel like they like this idea enough so that they'll yoink it for their play.

And like I already long-since covered in my post:
"Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of writing something down? I find that highly unlikely."

I suspect it's more of a case of a poorly written article that didn't properly concentrate on the mechanics and system itself (surprise!) along with a lack of detailed reading combined with a bit of continued excitement on any 4e-related tidbit.

Even if it's an old idea for you and ten thousand other D&D veterans

"Writing things down" has nothing specifically to do with D&D nor "D&D veterans". It's more of a "being human in a modicum of civilization" kind of thing.

You're a cool guy coming up with such things and using them, and now we can all be and do it too.

No "coming up" with anything - CR system and guidelines already exist. (Though, like I made very clear in my post above, quest XP is fine and dandy move by WotC.)



In any case, I look forward to seeing considerably more detail on the tools and mechanics the DM will be given to develop story XP, as that's the meat of this whole "Quest" thing and the portion that's valuable.

 

[Remathilis]

Wow. This is the first thread that has really made me want to shake my head in disbelief at the Enworld population...

People are REALLY bent out of the shape the the DMG has the GUTS to recommend an idea like a quest-card?

THIS is the MMO/CRPG/ANIME/WOW/DUMBing down of D&D?

Because your players are so smart they know instantly to write down every detail about an upcoming quest/adventure?

That handing a PC a plot-hook on cardstock is RAILROADING?

That 10-12 year olds (you know, the next gen of players) won't benefit from this sorta advice?

That your SOOOOOO against 4e that you'll look for ANY innovation that even REMOTELY has been done by a video game to decry the death of D&D and begin the mob scene outside Redmond?

I don't get it. I really don't.

I sat here before 4e's announcement I recall threads that decried "The [3e] XP system is too focused on combat." The classic example; which should be worth XP, recovering the golden idol for Lord Narran that was stolen or defeating the minotaur that guards it? In 3e, it was the minotaur. In 4e, it will be both. If you manage to avoid, trick, talk past, or otherwise neutralize the minotaur, you STILL get the XP for getting the idol. If you face the minotaur, you get more XP but a higher chance of dying in combat. BRILLIANT!

However, it appears this is nothing more than another way for "elitist" TRPG players to look down on CRPG players with. Which is sad. Since TSR took that same attitude in the waning years of the 90's (vs CRPGs, CCG, etc) and look where TSR ended up.

Adapt or Die. Darwin's law.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Won't what storylines/quests a DM gives you an XP value for, affect the direction and actions of a character? It's basically a less heavy-handed way of saying...This is what I want you to do.

Is it any different than the baron saying "This is what I'll pay you several hundred gold for?" If the players decide the best way to keep the bandits from hassling the village is to burn it down, they're probably not going to get paid. Nor would I give them a story XP reward for going that route, either.

There has to be some goals delineated for the party to achieve, and I don't see anything in the article to suggest they couldn't be player initiated. Also, you make it sound like there are storylines and quests which a DM creates but is unwilling to give XP for. Huh?

To me, these cards are only physical representations of what's already going on in the game. And as a player in a group which meets twice or even sometimes once a month, with some players in multiple other games, I have no issue with something that serves as a flag for "what were we doing again?" Even though some of the players take extensive notes, sometimes it takes a lot of page flipping through those notes to figure out what's goind on. A quick summary card is a great help.

 

[Frozen DM]

Personally it's suggestions like these that I'm happy to have in the DM's guide. The DMG should be, first and foremost, a guide to helping a DM run their game better. It shouldn't matter where the good advice comes from. Now if you've been behind the screen for years maybe a lot of the advice won't be helpful, or maybe it's things you've already learned. But for new DM's, suggestions like these can ease the burden of running a game as complex as D&D.

Would you complain that the PH has a section explaining what role-playing is? Or describing a typical encounter? These aren't things intended for experienced players, they're aides for new players just starting off. Similarly, suggesting that the DM write down quests in an easy-to-read, easy to manage format, is just a way for new DM's to help players manage the information in D&D. These are beginner skills for beginner players.

I see RPG books a lot like recipe books. Recipes are like the game rules. To a first time reader they are hard and fast ways of preparing a dish (or game). But with experience you learn to recognize what elements of the rules are really just suggestions. An experienced cook can alter a recipe, add ingredients or remove things they don't like without upsetting the balance of the dish. In the same way, and experienced DM can follow the suggestions and use the rules they like, toss out and ignore what they don't.

Personally I think the quest card idea is great. My players often have trouble remembering the details of all their missions/quests/adventures. How often do I have to answer questions like "Why are we in this dungeon again?" or "Who was it that asked us to hunt down the ogres?". Quest cards would go a long way to keeping this info straight. And it's not a lot of work on the part of the DM, a few seconds to write down the basics of the quest onto a card. It would take me more time to come up with a NPC name on the fly (which is something I hope to see in a DMG too... NPC name lists).

 

[Clavis]

WotC is no longer in the business of making tabletop roleplaying games. It will be at best a side project. I'm not being facetious here, I am serious. This isn't something I really wanted to admit to myself, but my Ref had it right when he and I spoke earlier.

WOTC NEVER had RPGs as their primary focus. They are a CARD GAME company (and subsidiary of Hasbro) that happens also to produce a game they call D&D (which bears an ever-shrinking resemblance to the game of the same name once produced by TSR). D&D books are a small percentage of their total income. As I understand it, Magic: The Gathering makes much more money.

Incidentally, I don't think the idea of using Quest cards is bad at all. It's blatantly cribbed from CRPGs, but its an example of the right kind of idea being taken. It sounds like it really would serve to remind players of the ongoing storyline.

The new tree-monster Dryads, on the other hand, are stupid on levels the English language doesn't possess words to adaquately express.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Item, monster & spell cards are totally different from mapping out what you want your players to do with cards. In what way does having a card with your abilities listed shape or influence the choices your character will make?

that part of my post was in response to the posters in this thread that frown upon any kind of "props" claiming that it makes D&D a boardgame.

is this not "metagamey"? Emphasis Mine...

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

Won't what storylines/quests a DM gives you an XP value for, affect the direction and actions of a character? It's basically a less heavy-handed way of saying...This is what I want you to do.

So the only difference between giving your players XP for completing a mission/quest before rather than after is the fact that, What? they know a head of time that they're going to get XP and how much? At that point the choice is still with the players whether they decide to do the quest or not or whether their focus is on the quest itself or the XP. Some players are going to do the mission / quest XP be damned. Other players are going to look at the XP and go "That's just enough to get me to my next level and then I can get that feat I want!" It doesnt change the game, just what motivates different players. Story based d00d's are are going to follow the story. Decrying metagaming as something bad (which is the not so subtle insinuation of several posters in this thread) is exactly what I'm talking about when I say elitist. I run a game with 4 players. a few of them are pretty decent role players, but they like XP and and crunchy bits as well. I have one player who's just looking to level and gain cool p0w3rz . I'm not gonna screw him because I feel that he should be playing the game a certain way especially since he's actually a good player and adds to the game and he's not disruptive. If he knows how much Xp he's going to get for completing a mission I dont see how that breaks the game or makes that way that I run and he plays BAD.

it is a card that tells you what choices your adventurers will, (and thus will not) be rewarded for. No one said not using them was how D&D must be played, but it's perfectly reasonable that people may not like it. To me it feels like laying a path of mission tiles down...and I don't like it. IMHO, it greatly depreciates the type of organic play that differentiates a TTrpg and a MMO.

It's fine that you dont like it. For you "it greatly depreciates the type of organic play that differentiates a TTrpg and a MMO." For me it's just another tool a different way of doing things and it doesn't preclude me tweaking things just a bit to make them work for my table.

, the challenges you face, no matter what you choose to do or not do, should be the xp reward you get. I really hope these quest rewards aren't integrated into the calculations for rewarding PC's. If they are optional then I'll have no problem.

I agree with this sentiment. Maybe I need to go back and re-read the article but I dont see how you can't do both. Designate what the "A plot/mission" is going to be but if the PC's decide not to pursue this mission and decide to go do the "B plot/mission" first they should still be rewarded accordingly. If you have to adjust the XP for the A plot as a result of actions taken by the PC's then do so. Like I said I dont see how this is really a bad thing. Especially for newer players or people making the transition from CRPG's. Who's not so say as newer players get acclimated to the game that you cant "phase out" the idea of mission cards.

But point taken, you don't like metagaming and these mission cards are not your thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I was working on a d20 Star Trek game, one of the ideas I considered was writing secondary goals onto cards, shuffling the cards, and giving one to each player. This was to simulate the complexity of backstory that was occasionally seen in Star Trek. Meeting the condition on the card would grant 1 Action Point.

For example, on a diplomatic mission to the Gorn, a player might have: "Your grandfather was killed by the Gorn attack at Cestus III. Beat a Gorn at anything for 1 AP."

I think that, for a non-sandbox game, this is a great idea. For a sandbox game, though, it has potential problems. In a sandbox, I agree with LostSoul's implications: the players should be allowed to set reasonable goals, instead of the DM. Hopefully, there will be some discussion in the DMG about how to use this idea where it isn't the DM supplying the cards.

RC

 

[PeterWeller]

I think that, for a non-sandbox game, this is a great idea. For a sandbox game, though, it has potential problems. In a sandbox, I agree with LostSoul's implications: the players should be allowed to set reasonable goals, instead of the DM. Hopefully, there will be some discussion in the DMG about how to use this idea where it isn't the DM supplying the cards.
RC

Even in a Sand Box, the DM can write out cards for the players based on their goals. For example, if one player sets up a backstory involving a lost heirloom, the DM can provide them, at the appropriate time, with a card detailing what they would have to do to recover it.

Really, I find the level of objection to this article pretty disheartening. Quest XP is a good thing that was neglected in 3rd edition. I always reward story XP because there is a lot of stuff that I believe deserves XP rewards but can't be worked out satisfactorily with the CR system. Giving a codified system for it is a bonus. It provides guidance for the new DM. Whether or not you use the RAW XP system, it provides a decent benchmark for the rewarding of XP.

But what I find really disheartening is the amount of outrage over a suggestion in the DMG. Quest cards are a great way to take care of bookkeeping and provide the players with a prop. Props are good. Easing bookkeeping is good. How frikking lazy do you have to be to think that jotting a few things down on a 3" by 5" is a load of extra work? The depths people are going to read some sinister plot to turn D&D into a CCG in this are comical. It's a suggestion in the DMG, people, not a mechanic or a rule or a system. It isn't going to affect your overall gaming experience much whether you use it or not. My biggest source of dismay over this is that there are people who think they are suggesting you write down player XP rewards on these cards. Why would they do this? Why would you do this? When have you ever told a player how much XP he or she would earn for something?