Design & Development: Quests

[PeterWeller]

Yeah, I figure you're fine with dealing with railroading; our discussion of sandboxes in the other thread shows that you know how to let players do what they want to do. I also think my example shows a way you can break those future players of any bad railroading habits. Finally, I should point out that I trust Mearls and co. to deal with these sorts of concerns in the DMG. Like everything else in a Design & Development article, I'm assuming this isn't the entire picture.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I figure you're fine with dealing with railroading; our discussion of sandboxes in the other thread shows that you know how to let players do what they want to do. I also think my example shows a way you can break those future players of any bad railroading habits. Finally, I should point out that I trust Mearls and co. to deal with these sorts of concerns in the DMG. Like everything else in a Design & Development article, I'm assuming this isn't the entire picture.

Nonetheless, I think it is important to point out potential pitfalls now, when they can still be dealt with, in hopes of a better product in June.

RC

 

[Zweischneid]

Because, if they handle this well, this could not only be a good system for D&D, but a portable system for other games as well.

RC

It aint all that new. The Everquest RPG (pen & paper version) uses quest cards in many of their adventure and setting books (and likely some obscure game before that, EQrpg is the only D20 I can think of though).
At least in that example, they are rather specific and tend look abit like this (stolen from rpg.net)

Originally Posted by Befallen p.11
Quest: Dagger of Marnek
Faction: Priests of Marr (+3 rank)
NPC: Serna Tasknon
CR: 15
Reward: +1 faction rank with the Priests of Marr; 10,000 gp
Consequences: -1 faction rank with the Befallen Denizens and the Burning Dead
Quest Summary: Characters may be approached by Senior Mother Serna Tasknon (female human, Clr 26, OG, Priests of Marr), High Priestess of the Temple of Marr in Freeport, for this quest. The Senior Mother asks the characters to delve into Befallen and recover the pieces of the dagger of Marnek. If pressed, she reveals that the dagger is a magic item that once belonged to Marnek Jaull, the legendary gnome necromancer, and he enchanted it to complete the process of transforming himself into a lich. Serna believes the dagger may contain some portion of Jaull's power and does not want it to fall back into the hands of the Burning Dead.
The dagger was once in the hands of the Burning Dead, until it was taken from them when the forces of Lanys, the Daughter of Hate, took control of Befallen. The dagger was lost when Lanys' followers left Befallen after she was slain, but Serna has heard that emissaries of Mayong Mistmoore have come to Befallen with a missing piece of the dagger and plan to trade it to the Burning Dead as a sign of Mistmoore's power. The handle is the hands of Annalure the will sapper (Befallen Area 3-8) and the blade is in the hands of the Thaumaturge (Befallen Area 3-19).
Serna is perfectly content to receive the dagger in pieces. If the PCs wish to assemble it, they must find someone to make a Trade Skill (blacksmithing) check (DC 40).
This quest can be completed only once.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It aint all that new. The Everquest RPG (pen & paper version) uses quest cards in many of their adventure and setting books (and likely some obscure game before that, EQrpg is the only D20 I can think of though).
At least in that example, they are rather specific and tend look abit like this (stolen from rpg.net)

Well, if it is a system for story awards that gives a clear indication of how much something that comes up off the cuff should be worth, and that works well in a tabletop game, that will be something new!

It isn't that the idea is new; it is one of those things where the execution in the past has always fallen rather flat. IMHO anyway. YMMV.

RC

 

[Zweischneid]

Well, if it is a system for story awards that gives a clear indication of how much something that comes up off the cuff should be worth, and that works well in a tabletop game, that will be something new!

It isn't that the idea is new; it is one of those things where the execution in the past has always fallen rather flat. IMHO anyway. YMMV.

RC

Is it?

There's precious few rgs out there besides D20 that do not reward storys instead of beasties (note that gaining xp for slaying bad guys is IMO about as videogamey as you could possibly get). Having started rpging on White Wolf, rather than D&D I've never seen the sense in handing out xp for killing things (and never did, we've always played D&D with "story-awards" only).

The quest-card thing IMO seems once again something overtly complicated for things one can (and should) do on the fly. Waste of space int eh book if you ask me. YMMV though.

 

[PeterWeller]

Is it?

There's precious few rgs out there besides D20 that do not reward storys instead of beasties (note that gaining xp for slaying bad guys is IMO about as videogamey as you could possibly get). Having started rpging on White Wolf, rather than D&D I've never seen the sense in handing out xp for killing things (and never did, we've always played D&D with "story-awards" only).

This is a good point. One might say that XP for kills is one of D&D's sacred cows.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is a good point. One might say that XP for kills is one of D&D's sacred cows.

That doesn't mean that it should be killed just for the XP.........

 

[catsclaw227]

Here's the thing. I didn't read anywhere in the article that quest cards were going to be a "system" as others have unintentionally (or intentionally) labelled it.

I read it as a suggestion to help DMs and players to recall the different plot elements out there. I might give quest cards for stuff three different things, but its not necessarily true that all of them are relevant to my campaign. One may be a rumor or a trap, the other a dead end, the third may be something.

It appears that there are two kinds of players (and DMs) that are arguing the different points.

1. The players and dms that like to have the PCs drive the story, lead the way and the DM generally riffs of what they do, building the scenes either on the fly or pre-game based upon last session. The game might not benefit as well from quest cards because it feels like "railroading"

2. The players and DMs that are running an AP or pregen adventure, or those players that don't like to have to play with a wide open sandbox. They like to have leads, clues and be provided a story that they can participate in. Quest cards are good for this.

Neither one is badwrongfun, and both can take advantage of quest rewards.

In the example provided in the article, they had just finished talking to the baron about what he needed them to do. Then the DM gave them a quest card summarizing what was discussed. How is this railroading? Isn't this a reminder of the conversation with the Baron?

Some of my players suck at taking notes. One or two are good at it. Both would benefit from reminders about important encounters.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That doesn't mean that it should be killed just for the XP.........

So, killing all the D&D sacred cows in the past 2.5 editions means that the designers have gained more levels? But will they kill next, once cows don't grant any more XP?
Maybe they will create quests, like "Find a new way of dealing with Armor and Damage Reduction" or "Create a free-form spell based system that is compatible with traditional D&D assumptions". (What a good thing they made the new quest rules up.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's the thing. I didn't read anywhere in the article that quest cards were going to be a "system" as others have unintentionally (or intentionally) labelled it.

Among other meanings, the word "system" means "any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge."

I might give quest cards for stuff three different things, but its not necessarily true that all of them are relevant to my campaign. One may be a rumor or a trap, the other a dead end, the third may be something.

Certainly you might; but if you did so, you would be doing something other than what is suggested in the Design & Development article. So my question is this: Would the final version appearing in the DMG be stronger or weaker if it included these kinds of options?

I say, "stronger", and therefore believe that we should bring this stuff up now, so that WotC has a chance to see it before the DMG final copy goes to print.

You and I might read that article and go, "Wow! That sparked off a different way of using that idea that isn't actually in the article but seems awfully keen!" We might even fool ourselves into thinking our sparked idea was actually in the article. But, when the 4e DMG hits the shelves, and some new DM picks it up, he's going to go off what the text actually says, not what we wish it had said or believe it said. Therefore, if there are problems with the text, now is the time to at least point them out and give WotC a chance to deal with them.

In the example provided in the article, they had just finished talking to the baron about what he needed them to do. Then the DM gave them a quest card summarizing what was discussed. How is this railroading? Isn't this a reminder of the conversation with the Baron?

A reminder of the in-game conversation, and the in-game (i.e., negotiated with baron) rewards isn't railroading. Making the metagame rewards (i.e., XP) based off the players doing as the DM says is railroading.

Again, if player-set goals are rewarded in the same manner, this problem goes away. As noted earlier. Multiple times.

RC