Design & Development: Quests

[Raven Crowking]

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.)

 

[PeterWeller]

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

RC

The mention of personal goals would seem to imply that player set goals are rewarded. In fact, rewarding player set goals is such an encouragement to roleplaying that I would be shocked to not see it included. This is, of course, as evidenced by previous D&D articles, just a glimpse and not the whole picture. You're right that we should bring up any concerns with what's been presented, but we should also keep in mind that they're only giving us little glimpses of the new edition, and our information about any facet at this point is incomplete.

Also, there's no need to argue over semantics with "system." The implication was that quest cards aren't part of the game system. They're not a rule, not even an optional one. They're presented as a suggestion, presumably one of many.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The mention of personal goals would seem to imply that player set goals are rewarded. In fact, rewarding player set goals is such an encouragement to roleplaying that I would be shocked to not see it included.

Didn't see it included in that article, though, did you? Neither did I.

Simply because our information about any facet at this point is incomplete does not mean that we shouldn't point out potential pitfalls. If the designers have already considered them, great! If not, then they get the opportunity. Win/win.

Also, there's no need to argue over semantics with "system." The implication was that quest cards aren't part of the game system. They're not a rule, not even an optional one. They're presented as a suggestion, presumably one of many.

Semantics? In order to see what the article said, and whether or not your ideas were in accordance with it, I broke down the system the article was talking about. Something doesn't have to be a rule to be a system. For that matter, something doesn't have to be a system to be a rule.

When someone says something along the lines of

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.​

they strongly imply that a point is merely semantical (as you are now, seemingly, also trying to do), and that it is unimportant as a result. Moreover, that "unintentionally (or intentionally)" implies some sort of wrongdoing, which is (frankly) bizarre.

However, if the D&D article was the basis of the DMG text (and didn't contain expansions such as the ones I suggested earlier), neither your (apparently) nor my preferred use of Quest Cards would be suggested. In fact, none of the good uses of Quest Cards in this thread would be suggested -- all falling outside the system presented -- which would be a disservice to new DMs (or DMs without internet access!).

I mean, really, what part of

(1) Discuss how Quest Cards might lead to railroading, with advice on avoiding the same. Less experienced, and especially new, DMs need some solid guidelines on the pitfalls of railroading. This applies doubly for DMs who cut their teeth on 3.X.

(2) Discuss an alternate where the players can devise personal goals, and earn story XP for them. This should include personal goals at odds with DM Quest Cards.

(3) Ensure that you have a good, clear description of how to determine XP for Quests. This is by far the hardest of the three (in fact, I have never seen it done well), and must be clear enough that a DM allowing players to determine personal goals can easily decide what XP are appropriate.​

do you people find so distasteful?

RC

 

[Arnwyn]

I have to ask, would you be so vocal about this idea if it were another poster on these boards suggesting it? Would the cries of outrage be their equal? Yeah, right. This is just people venting against 4e like usual. *yawn* Yet another example of a good idea that WotC is putting forth that people still want to complain about because its so obvious. Blah blah, 4e sucks, I've been doing that for years, blah blah.

This is insane. HOW DARE THEY!!

No wonder my ignore list has over a dozen posters on it at this point.

Heh. Where's the "ORLY" owl when you need him?

"Venting against 4e as usual", huh? I guess you haven't been paying attention all that much, since my posts about 4e mechanics have been positive. In your zeal to apparently take anything as a deadly slight against 4e - even from those who have posted positively on it - it looks like your quote and wild ranting is probably directed at the wrong person (not that I'm surprised, this being ENWorld).

Really, now. If the best you've got is a dreadful lack of attention and flailing about with accusations, I would be more than pleased if you put me (or if I'm already) on your ignore list. Thanks!



And back to the subject at hand - I do indeed look forward to the detailed mechanics on this Quest system. Any help in creating appropriate story awards for certain tasks and situations will always be helpful. Systems are particularly great in porting the concepts and processes to other situations.

 

[Stormtower]

Quest cards example

I like quest cards and just started experimenting with them for my home campaigns a few weeks ago. It's not a new idea but codifying it into solid advice for new DMs is a good strategy for the 4e DMG, IMO. Many players love fiddly bits like equipment cards, real coins, etc. and the quest cards seem a natural extension of that.

They don't have to be railroad-y either. I have attached my quest cards for DCC #1 - Idylls of the Rat King to this post, which are largely based on the XP awards for sub-objectives in the back of that excellent module by Goodman Games. I hope they're a useful example of how the quests can be worded clearly without being explicitly railroad-y.

The template is based on a simple 7.5" x 3" table so the cards are similarly sized to an RPGA reward card or another similar document which easily fits into common poly-vinyl currency sleeves (like for minis cards but bill-sized). You can print the quest cards on cardstock and laminate them for re-use (give the players a dry- or wet-erase pen for checkoffs) or just let them write on the cardstock.

These work probably best with groups who have an expectation of following the plot hooks and wanting to uncover everything they can, finding all the challenges and secrets. They're still useful for a sandbox game though, in that a DM can detail a broad quest on a card and the player can fill in the details as s/he plays.

I say good for 4e if it encourages such things, but we could have another, different discussion about whether such fiddly bits are contrary to their stated design goal of speeding up the game. Fiddly stuff like cards and coins, etc. = fun, but not fast.

 

[Stogoe]

Clarifying quests is no different from just telling the players "Look, the adventure is THAT way, over there is stuff I'm not ready for and won't be as cool or fleshed out."

Exactly. It's a way of reminding your players what irons they've got in the fire. There's stuff to do 'over there', and challenges and obstacles and XP and treasure, of course there is. But here's what you think that evil priest is up to, and the Sword of Purest Silver was lost in that black and briny swamp to the south ages ago, and only that sword can rid your hometown of that pack of werewolves, etc, so let's keep those in the back of your mind while you traverse the Howling Cliffs of Madness and see what's beyond, shall we?

And I've done notetaking, believe me. At best it deprives a player of a session of fun while they write down stuff that I can't read and they'll never refer back to.

 

[PeterWeller]

111

Didn't see it included in that article, though, did you? Neither did I.

Simply because our information about any facet at this point is incomplete does not mean that we shouldn't point out potential pitfalls. If the designers have already considered them, great! If not, then they get the opportunity. Win/win.

I think we're in agreement over this, since we're both saying the same thing with a minor difference in emphasis. I just look at it as one of those, "don't get your panties in a knot" moments; the chances of the XP system not rewarding personal goals, especially when the article said that personal quests warranted their own rewards, are about zero.

Semantics? In order to see what the article said, and whether or not your ideas were in accordance with it, I broke down the system the article was talking about. Something doesn't have to be a rule to be a system. For that matter, something doesn't have to be a system to be a rule.

When someone says something along the lines of

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.​

they strongly imply that a point is merely semantical (as you are now, seemingly, also trying to do), and that it is unimportant as a result. Moreover, that "unintentionally (or intentionally)" implies some sort of wrongdoing, which is (frankly) bizarre.

However, if the D&D article was the basis of the DMG text (and didn't contain expansions such as the ones I suggested earlier), neither your (apparently) nor my preferred use of Quest Cards would be suggested. In fact, none of the good uses of Quest Cards in this thread would be suggested -- all falling outside the system presented -- which would be a disservice to new DMs (or DMs without internet access!).

In a discussion such as this, the word "system" generally has the connotative meaning "game rules." Thus, calling the quest card stuff a "system" can give one the impression that it is part of the rules. I believe Catsclaw's point was that quest cards aren't part of the system, or a sub-system of it. Sadly, by trying to clarify what I felt he meant, I ended up starting the very thing I was against. Sorry about that.

I mean, really, what part of

(1) Discuss how Quest Cards might lead to railroading, with advice on avoiding the same. Less experienced, and especially new, DMs need some solid guidelines on the pitfalls of railroading. This applies doubly for DMs who cut their teeth on 3.X.

(2) Discuss an alternate where the players can devise personal goals, and earn story XP for them. This should include personal goals at odds with DM Quest Cards.

(3) Ensure that you have a good, clear description of how to determine XP for Quests. This is by far the hardest of the three (in fact, I have never seen it done well), and must be clear enough that a DM allowing players to determine personal goals can easily decide what XP are appropriate.​

do you people find so distasteful?

I don't find anything distasteful about this, except that it seems you think this quest card thing is a whole lot more pervasive than I do. It's a suggestion in the DMG. It's not part of the rules. That implies that is is a sidenote to the established rules, and it is presented as something you may want to use during play. Looking in detail, I believe your (1) is a necessity that must be addressed when addressing quest cards. Your (2) may possibly be necessary, but I seriously doubt the DMG isn't going to include a discussion on player goals, whether or not they might be at odds with your own, and how to reward them. This may not be addressed as part of the quest card suggestion, but I'm sure it will be addressed as part of the general XP system, and thus not necessary in a short suggestion about using cards to keep track of mission details. Your (3) is a given, and I don't see why you're worried they won't include such guidelines. After all, the article already mentioned that minor quests deserve a reward equal to defeating one foe, and major quests deserve a reward equal to an appropriately leveled encounter. The question becomes what differentiates a minor quest from a major one.

There's nothing wrong with voicing concerns, but you're sounding very worrisome about something that I don't believe there's any need to worry over.

 

[catsclaw227]

When someone says something along the lines of

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.​

they strongly imply that a point is merely semantical (as you are now, seemingly, also trying to do), and that it is unimportant as a result. Moreover, that "unintentionally (or intentionally)" implies some sort of wrongdoing, which is (frankly) bizarre.

Regarding "unintentionally (or intentionally)"..

Pardon my mistake. I typed this as my wife was calling me out the door to go Black Friday shopping. I could have spent 2 or 3 sentences more to explain what I meant, but I used these terms because they came to my mind more quickly than others.

When I leave the door open unintentionally and the dog goes outside, it doesn't imply that the dog going outside is a bad thing. It simply means that I did not conciously leave the door open for that express purpose. It may have been because I had my hands full of shopping bags and couldn't close it.

Also, it appears that I made the mistake of inferring from the phrase "Quest Card system" from one of your previous posts, that you were referring to a codified set of rules or guidelines.

As a result, I meant that you may have intentionally (unintentionally) used this word, not realizing that others may also infer that you meant a codified set of rules or guidelines.

No wrongdoing implied. And nothing bizarre about my assumption, really.

I mean, really, what part of

(1) Discuss how Quest Cards might lead to railroading, with advice on avoiding the same. Less experienced, and especially new, DMs need some solid guidelines on the pitfalls of railroading. This applies doubly for DMs who cut their teeth on 3.X.

(2) Discuss an alternate where the players can devise personal goals, and earn story XP for them. This should include personal goals at odds with DM Quest Cards.

(3) Ensure that you have a good, clear description of how to determine XP for Quests. This is by far the hardest of the three (in fact, I have never seen it done well), and must be clear enough that a DM allowing players to determine personal goals can easily decide what XP are appropriate.​

do you people find so distasteful?

RC

This is not distasteful to me either. It is well stated.

But like PeterWeller, I feel like you are looking upon the suggestion of utilizing quest cards as much more distasteful and possibly more heavy-handed than I do. I don't feel that using a quest card is any more heavy handed than a PC trying to put together a post-game summary document about what happened. If anything, my assistance will simply remind them of key events from the game session. "Previously on 24..."

I also think that we are taking a design and development article WAY too literally. It is not the text from the DMG, it's not even a quick summary of a section of the DMG.

I look forward to seeing how they position themselves on this one, for real, in the DMG itself.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Didn't see it included in that article, though, did you? Neither did I.

When the article speaks of "a single character's personal goals" qualifying as a quest, I can't really see it as meaning anything except player-set goals.

 

[ThirdWizard]

edit: not going there

I will say this, though. I've had checkboxes for story awards in my adventures for over a decade now. And, I think it is a good thing. Depending on the difficulty of the path they take or the intrigue that they uncover they get more XP. If they go off and do something random that I didn't think of, they generally get a bonus, because it is always something crazy and fun. The more my, as the DM, enjoyment increases, the more the story awards are! Maybe selfish, but I don't think that is a bad thing.