Design & Development: Quests

[Simon Marks]

But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story". That is not a good thing.

That's not how I read (or would implement) this.

I'd say it was a way of rewarding a Character for completing an objective - not an outcome.

This objective can either be created by the Player to guide the game, the DM to guide the game, or both.

I feel that you are trying to hard to read something 'bad' into it. It's a tool, like a hammer. You can see how to break bones, I can see how to make Shelves.

We are both right - it's both possibilities. I just think my one is more likely.

 

[LostSoul]

But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story". That is not a good thing.

I don't like Mearls' quests either (for a certain style of game), but it's so easy to change:

"Uncover the Temple spies in Hommlett and bring them alive to the archbishop in Verbobonc for questioning."
to
"The Archbishop of Verbobonc wants the Temple spies in Hommlett alive for questioning. Resolve."

The players can kill the spies, kill the Archbishop, send fake "spies", say that there aren't any spies, whatever; and get some XP. Then the smart DM can react to the player's choices and make a new Quest.

I think Quests are a good thing, even if the default ones aren't your bag, because it seems like they would help support different play styles. I'd rather have something there that I can slightly tweak in order to get what I want than nothing at all.

Of course, that depends on how rigid the system is. But I'm optimistic.

 

[Hussar]

I don't have to, because I won't be playing 4E.

But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story". That is not a good thing.

Umm, what? Are you trying to say that this is new? Read any module ever printed and you get EXACTLY this. Using a 3e example, "If the PC's convince the guard to let them pass, award them a CR X xp award". Look in the pages of Dungeon and you'll see something like this in just about every 3e module they produced.

Earlier editions had the same. Complete tasking X, get reward Y. Explicitly stated in the module text. Not every module maybe (I'm leery of making such a sweeping statement lest the pedantic amongst us start getting too uppity) but enough that it's certainly not anything new.

 

[Reynard]

Umm, what? Are you trying to say that this is new? Read any module ever printed and you get EXACTLY this. Using a 3e example, "If the PC's convince the guard to let them pass, award them a CR X xp award". Look in the pages of Dungeon and you'll see something like this in just about every 3e module they produced.

Earlier editions had the same. Complete tasking X, get reward Y. Explicitly stated in the module text. Not every module maybe (I'm leery of making such a sweeping statement lest the pedantic amongst us start getting too uppity) but enough that it's certainly not anything new.

It's worthwhile, I think, to go back and read Mearls' ToEE suggestions for Quests. They aren't simply "Uncover the Spies in hommlett" broad goals, they are instructions on what to do beyond that.

Moreover, "convincing the guard to let them pass" isn't a quest goal. The guard is an encounter with an EL, which gives XP if it is "overcome".

 

[Plane Sailing]

The cards aren't the important part. The important part is that the mechanic is built around the idea of forcing the PCs into courses of action for the benefit of the DM's "story".

I'm afraid I really don't understand where you are coming from - I presume that you don't think DMs should take random room layouts and roll randomly for monsters and treasure in each location - in other words that the DM puts some thought into designing adventures/adventure locations.

And yet how would it be possible to design a credible (or interesting) adventure without there being an implied story to it?

Furthermore, you mention RBDMing... one of the key features of being a RBDM is that actions (or inactions) by the PCs have consequences, and that world events can and will continue on regardless of the specific actions the PCs are taking (or not taking).

I think you are completely misunderstanding the purpose of the mechanic - which is to give all DMs a reasonable, balanced and thought-through means of awarding xp for something other than killing stuff and takings its treasure.

The quest idea is an interesting one because it brings to the surface things which the PCs can get story awards for (rather than them just stumbling across "story award xp" as sometimes happens.

Similarly, how many adventures start with "The merchant wants to hire guards to get his caravan safely across the burning desert..." or "patron x wants to hire y in order to do x for him".

Unless an adventure is run by rolling on the encounter tables while trudging across the wilderness, a game session normally involves at least a tacit agreement between the DM and the Players, that the DM will attempt to set up something that the Players will find fun, and they won't bother ignoring all the effort the DM is putting into something and going and doing something else instead.

Maybe you have different experience and expectations though? I'd be slightly curious to find out how you would normally expect adventures to work.

Regards

 

[Raven Crowking]

And yet how would it be possible to design a credible (or interesting) adventure without there being an implied story to it?

It is quite possible to seperate the implied story of setting and the (more important) story of what the PCs do in that setting, how they intereact with its inhabitants, etc. Certainly, each inform the other, but that is a very far cry from

making the DM's story important to the campaign. Nothing says important in D&D more than, "You'll get XP for doing this, chuckles, so snap to it!"​

Of course, as always, YMMV.

RC

 

[Jedi_Solo]

* Uncover the Temple spies in Hommlett and bring them alive to the archbishop in Verbobonc for questioning.

The given statement could have finished after 'Hommlett', I agree. However; as a player I would want the rest of statement written down.

Why?

Because the rest of the statetment tells me what was asked. I wasn't asked to 'uncover the spies.' I was asked to 'uncover the spies and bring them in alive.' That 'alive' portion may or may not be important in the grand scheme of things - but that is what was asked.

That notation on the card can act as a nice reminder when we've been asked to Find the Spies (alive) and Stop the Bandits (dead) and Find the Thief (doesn't matter). When I've been asked to find a half dozen different people and I am supposed to bring them all in to different people. Sure, the DM should be keeping track of that but it's still nice to have written down.

And if there comes a time when between holidays, weddings, moving and babies it's been a month or two since I've gamed? It would be nice to have these written down somewhere so I can refresh myself on what has been asked of my PC. It would be a real BRDM that would deny the player ANY xp for killing the spy (assuming the confruntation was a normal xp situation - whatever that may be for the group in question). No bonus xp for bringing the spy in alive? Sure, I forfeited that when a severed the head off of the body. But no xp because I didn't follow the notecard to the letter?

Nothing on that card is stopping my PC from killing the spy, or bringing the spy in to someone other than the archbishop, being a turncoat and becoming a spy myself or even leaving Hommlet to its own devices and going "that-a-way". The rest of the party might stop me - but not a notecard. That notecard says what has been asked of the PCs. Nothing more.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Umm, what? Are you trying to say that this is new? Read any module ever printed and you get EXACTLY this. Using a 3e example, "If the PC's convince the guard to let them pass, award them a CR X xp award".

Really, "if the PCs kill this monster, award them a CR X xp award," is pretty much just a subset of a quest-based XP system. Unfortunately, we haven't had the rest of the system.

They're just extending the idea of "do task, get reward" beyond the boundaries of hacking and slashing.

 

[The Little Raven]

But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story".

How is that any different than determining the CR (and thus the XP) that comes from killing your game's BBEG? Hint: it's not; you're still determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes (killing the BBEG) to support the DM's "story."

 

[LostSoul]

And yet how would it be possible to design a credible (or interesting) adventure without there being an implied story to it?

The problem is that you get XP for doing things like "taking the prisoners back to the Archbishop."

What if you wanted to work with them from the inside? No XP for that. Or maybe you think they deserve to be killed outright. No quest XP for that. Players will feel like they don't have the choice to do those other things.