Design & Development: Quests

[Tquirky]

"oh, the player's didn't do X, as expected, but they are now going for Y which I wasn't really prepared for, I might need to put some work in that for the next session."

Yes, interesting things start to happen when you let people treat information as objects.

I'd also point out that quest cards serve as a flag to the players that "I've got something prepared here". I think some of Raven Crowking's concerns are avoidable because unless you're improvising the whole thing, that's a useful thing for the players to have implied to them. When it's a choice between the Goblin Caves and the Old Mill, and the Old Mill has a quest card, then the evening's play is probably going to be more fun there (because it's obvious that the DM hasn't got around to detailing the Goblin Caves yet if there's no quest card for it...)

Unless...the players are given one when they turn up on it's doorstep on a whim. Hmm, maybe Crowking has a point. But this is avoidable by giving the players a quest card the moment they learn of that status quo adventuring site's existence - purely by virtue of being a dungeon it presents an automatic challenge to an adventuring party.

 

[Maggan]

about which every grognard out there will have something to say. Or so I predict.

I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone to not agree on that prediction. Only, substitute "quest cards" with "anything WotC does" to make it even more accurate.

/M

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

There are people who don't mind many CRPG aspects in D&D, and also don't mind using cards to keep track of spells or feats, but absolutely hate the idea of quest cards because they see them as restricting creativity. It is possible to like the idea of the DM using index cards as handouts, but not like handouts which suggest the players take one specific form of action. If the players get handed a card that guarantees a reward if they do X, then they may not think about alternate paths they might take and instead go straight for the suggested action and reward.

Quest Cards can be used to describe a general goal. "Rescue the princess", "Find out who killed Valance". They don't tell you that you how to do it. They also don't force you to do it all, but it's probably a good idea because apparantly, the DM has something prepared if you follow that quest. That's not different from the DM coming at the table and saying "Okay, I got all issues of the Dragon for the Savage Tides Adventure Path. It's pretty cool, so I am going to run it."

Going "off-track" is possible with or without a quest system and with or without quest cards. If your group's play style is very open-ended, the DM might want to use the quest system more "on the fly", and if he is using quest cards, some might be never used again*.
But if you usually follow the plot of a prepared (possibly bought) adventure, quests will probably remain as static or dynamic as the adventure allows (and the DM can still handle).

*) Though it's possible that quests emerging from the flow of play are actually more likely to be followed, since they seem very "natural" to the participants.

 

[JosephK]

I like having rules and suggestions for story (and quest) exp in the DMG, also the quest card thing might be handy for some.

Personally, I vastly prefer using in-game handouts.. Like a note or a piece of a journal, a wanted poster, and such, and let the players themselves figure out what the quest might be, but to each his own. I usually make a ton of these, and the designated party 'leader' usually hands on to them, if he drops down a chasm never to be seen again, tough luck for the rest of the party. Certainly, introducing quest cards as an idea (or even putting them in future adventure modules) doesnt mean any skin of my back.. Just hope it isnt at the expense of normal 'handouts'.

 

[erf_beto]

It is possible to like the idea of the DM using index cards as handouts, but not like handouts which suggest the players take one specific form of action. If the players get handed a card that guarantees a reward if they do X, then they may not think about alternate paths they might take and instead go straight for the suggested action and reward.

Wich, still, is fantastic!
Look at it this way: New campaing, 1st level, newcomers game. PCs want money, exp, and power, so they go to the baron and he gives them missions. Noob DM shows them 3 quest cards, they chose 1, complete, chose 2, complete, and so on. By the time the baron gives them the 14th quest card, probably before, the DM (wich is not such a noob anymore) realizes the players do EXACTLY what the baron (therefore, the DM himself) wants them to do, no questions asked. They are nothing more than simple mercenaries, not heroes. DM is troubled and can't sleep at night: "have I reached the point where my campaign is nothing more than a cRPG? Is this what the great-ENWorld-sages-of-older-edition call 'railroading'? What have I done?"...
But suddenly, the inspiration hits him, and he knows just what to do. Perhaps he'll look for advice over internet forums, or DDI, or read some magazine articles, who knows, but the 15th quest card will be different: maybe the baron will ask the players to kill an evil witch who is secretly rising in power - but she turns out to be one of the players mother/daughter/lover/sister. Maybe the baron will ask them to return an artifact that belonged to one of his ancestors, buried in a dungeon - but a mad man will aproach them and tell that the item is cursed or that by moving it the seal will break and a great evil will be released. Maybe the PC cleric will be contacted by his deity and be told the baron has evil plans...
Will they go with the mission to get the rewards, or will they (for the first time) think about their actions and their consequences? Suddenly, what was once a linear campaign is shaping up to become something else entirely. Players will be cautious before following every quest card they've been given. DM is proud of himself.

Really, I don't see why people are so angry about this SUGGESTION. Sure, it can be used in a wrong way, but so does every rule in the book. And it bothers me a lot to realize that I had to read over 100 posts to get to someone who mentioned what I'd like to discuss (the minor/major quest reward as encounter/monster level), and over 300 posts later very few people said anything about it... Shame on us :\

 

[WhatGravitas]

Really, I don't see why people are so angry about this SUGGESTION. Sure, it can be used in a wrong way, but so does every rule in the book. And it bothers me a lot to realize that I had to read over 100 posts to get to someone who mentioned what I'd like to discuss (the minor/major quest reward as encounter/monster level), and over 300 posts later very few people said anything about it... Shame on us :\

Yeah, that idea is great, especially because, let's face it, the DMG is not something for ENWorld-frequenters. Sure, we want the crunchy bits out of it, but most of us have moved on. We have gathered our own experiences with DMing, we've read Robin D. Laws, we have listened to the advice of the ENWorld hivemind.

But the DMG is essentially a "How to DM"-handbook. And such shortcuts are fantastic for new DMs. We have a bunch of handout stuff over there (Spell Cards, Magic Item handouts, gantasy money)... but the group starting D&D with nothing but the books and a bit of internet-knowledge? That's a HUGE help.

I'm not DMing that long (since... 2002 or so?) - and advice like that would have been incredibly helpful at the beginning. Sure, now I read these boards here, listen to GM-greatness from the people here, use handouts as crazy, love to read roleplayingtips.com... but back then? I only had a DMG and nothing else. And since NWN was a main inspiration, we (as in my group and me) found our way to D&D with only a single demo-game on the Spiel 02, done by less than inspired demonstrators.

Not everybody gets his DMing craft from other DMs, some have to trust on the DMG alone. And I'd wager that this number will increase, as RPGs are declining in the younger audience.

You have to hook people on D&D as fast as possible after they've cracked open the books for the first time. Quest cards are a good idea to help with this goal.

The DMG has to become a "DMing for Dummies", and a bunch of tips from more experienced GMs isn't going to hurt!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Does it? Where does it say that players must receive a reward for completing what's written on the card?

I guess you didn't read the article that closely? "Completing a quest always brings a reward in experience points (equal to an encounter of its level for a major quest, or a monster of its level for a minor quest)"

What if I give the players a quest card saying, "deliver X for Y and receive Z in payment," but I don't assign any story XP to completing the mission on the card, instead, I assign story XP to discovering that Y is a wererat and X is a shipment of poisoned wine?

Then you are not using the system as described, and ignoring the only mechanic (complete quest = gain XP) that has even been loosely described.


Cheers!

RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A quote just coming to my mind:

Freiheit sei der Zweck des Zwanges
Wie man eine Rebe bindet,
dass sie, statt im Staub zu kriechen,
froh sich in die Lüfte windet.

Rough Translation:
Freedom be the purpose of constraint*, as you bind a vine, so that, instead of crawling on the ground, it winds itself merrily into the air
*) or coercion? restraint?

And it bothers me a lot to realize that I had to read over 100 posts to get to someone who mentioned what I'd like to discuss (the minor/major quest reward as encounter/monster level), and over 300 posts later very few people said anything about it...

That's really the interesting matter - how did they design "quests" in way to assign a level and XP award to it? (Assuming there is still a "wealth by level" mechanic behind it, the monetary reward is just a function of the former two)

I think I might be able to designate a few basic guidelines:
"Rescue Village X" is probably a low level quest with a high XP value (for its level, not absolute), while "free your mother's soul from the 3rd Arch Devil" is probably a high level, but lower XP Value quest (as it primarily affects the character himself and also only a specific creature, not groups. A larger quest of similar level might be "free all souls from DamnedCity from the 3rd Arch Devil")

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd also point out that quest cards serve as a flag to the players that "I've got something prepared here". I think some of Raven Crowking's concerns are avoidable because unless you're improvising the whole thing, that's a useful thing for the players to have implied to them.

I find this somewhat interesting, because I doubt that I would give my players the choice between the Goblin Caves and the Old Mill if only the Old Mill was playable. I do a lot of outlining rather than detailing prior to determining what the players are interested in, but I never use this system to deal with things within the players' immediate scope. If I mention goblin caves, and they are within a distance you can get to that game session, you can be certain that the goblin caves are ready for visitors.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the DM needs a (more or less?) subtle way of saying he hasn't gotten stuff done, that there is only one choice for this evening's gaming. Not unlike saying, "I bought Age of Worms and want to run it", if your group is gold with railroading, then everything is great. Agreed-upon rails are not a problem. But the rails are implied in the very set-up you describe, whether agreed upon or not.

Because, what will you do if the players go to the Goblin Caves instead? Why isn't wiping out the goblins a quest?

And that is the one thing I have yet to hear anyone answer well -- why aren't player-driven goals also quests?

Under the system as described, only the DM determines what quests are. I hope that the expansion of this idea in the DMG will include the idea that the players can set goals, and the DM determine where they fall in the quest scale, but right now, that is not what we are seeing. Quest XP is story XP. The question becomes, who drives the story? Who determines what the story is? The players or the DM? Or both?

If the answer is "both", which is certainly my preference, then both the DM and players should be allowed to set objectives (i.e., create Quest Goals) that have the same value based on whatever criteria story XP use.

And, as already mentioned, it will make a great deal of difference how good the system for determining what story awards are appropriate is. IME, most of these systems collapse due to lack of structure.

RC

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I took the revelation to mean nothing more and nothing less than that the DMG is being retooled for less experienced DMs.

Let's even say "Beginning" DMs, because for any DM with any amount of experience under his belt at all, the easiest thing to bring under his control is the dispensation of XP.

It does take considerably more experience to learn how to keep your players on the rails, and even more to know what to do when they go off them.

So it seems to me the folks who are complaining the loudest have things rather backwards. Somehow, they seem to have the ability to keep their players on the rails without Quest Cards, and even to improvise when they go off the rails, and yet somehow they lack the ability to ignore or improvise Story XP...?