Design & Development: Quests

[The Little Raven]

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.

Says who? Just because they have one quest card that says "Take spies to the Archbishop" doesn't mean that they have to do it. Hell, the spy could talk them into helping him, and suddenly they have a new quest card that says "Feed the Archbishop false information and give him a false spy to interrogate."

It's a BOOKKEEPING technique. If it will limit your ability to run a game, then I'd say you're already limited in your ability to do so.

 

[Imaro]

Says who? Just because they have one quest card that says "Take spies to the Archbishop" doesn't mean that they have to do it. Hell, the spy could talk them into helping him, and suddenly they have a new quest card that says "Feed the Archbishop false information and give him a false spy to interrogate."

It's a BOOKKEEPING technique. If it will limit your ability to run a game, then I'd say you're already limited in your ability to do so.

I gotta disagree it's only a bookkeeping techinique, when xp gets involved. PC's who follow the path the DM has laid out will advance quicker, while those who do their own thing (regardless of if it is more interesting or more in character for their PC) will advance slower. That's a far cry from just a bookkeeping technique.

I don't think the problem is limiting the ability to run a game. It's more like bringing the hammer down on what you (as impartial DM... :\ ) feel should be the way the PC's handle a given situation. You don't return the spies alive...BAM no story xp for you. IMHO, as described (instead of how everyone's talking about tweaking it) it's a crude, heavy-handed, and rail-roadey mechanic. People talk about DM's who force their stories to go the way they want on PC's now...well you just gave actual rules for rewarding and punishing players for not jumping through the DM's pre-designed hoops. And yes, I say the DM's pre-designed hoops because that's what all the examples have been of.

 

[LostSoul]

Says who? Just because they have one quest card that says "Take spies to the Archbishop" doesn't mean that they have to do it. Hell, the spy could talk them into helping him, and suddenly they have a new quest card that says "Feed the Archbishop false information and give him a false spy to interrogate."

Let's say you have that quest. You meet the spy, and you like him. The Archbishop is kind of a loser, too. So you don't want to take the spy back as a prisoner.

The second quest card never shows up; you just miss out on some XP.

You see how that would be annoying.

 

[The Little Raven]

Let's say you have that quest. You meet the spy, and you like him. The Archbishop is kind of a loser, too. So you don't want to take the spy back as a prisoner.

The second quest card never shows up; you just miss out on some XP.

You see how that would be annoying.

Yes, I can see how having a crappy DM that can't adapt to changes in the situation would be annoying. However, the problem you present has nothing to do with the concept of writing down goals and rewards and everything to do with a DM that is incapable of changing his plans to make the game continue to be fun for his players.

 

[The Little Raven]

I gotta disagree it's only a bookkeeping techinique, when xp gets involved. PC's who follow the path the DM has laid out will advance quicker, while those who do their own thing (regardless of if it is more interesting or more in character for their PC) will advance slower. That's a far cry from just a bookkeeping technique.

Every single thing in this entire post can be chalked up to "crappy DM."

If the DM can't adapt, or is unwilling to change his precious story to keep his players interested and happy, then it's his own shortcomings that cause it, not a simple suggestion to write things down in an easily referenced format.

 

[Imaro]

Every single thing in this entire post can be chalked up to "crappy DM."

If the DM can't adapt, or is unwilling to change his precious story to keep his players interested and happy, then it's his own shortcomings that cause it, not a simple suggestion to write things down in an easily referenced format.

Are you totally ignoring the fact that following a quest as written or presented grants extra xp? If you're changing everything then what was the point of constructing a quest (with the xp bonus) in the first place? It seems they're should just be a certain bonus dependant upon level for good roleplaying.

Side Note: I think this is why very few roleplaying games, if any, try to codify this into an actual rule system as opposed to a DM judgement call with suggestions and examples. Otherwise it's usually a totally character driven mechanic.

 

[The Little Raven]

Are you totally ignoring the fact that following a quest as written or presented grants extra xp?

No, I'm not. I don't know where you get that assumption from, but it certainly isn't in any of my posts. I've been doing things like quest cards for years, and I often make more quests than I end up using in my campaigns, since I like to offer my players options and easy reference material. I've even written up brand new ones on the spot while my players interact with an NPC that I never intended to give quests, just to keep up with my players.

If you're changing everything then what was the point of constructing a quest (with the xp bonus) in the first place?

For reference? So I have some easily thing to show my players so they can make the decision of whether they would want to do the quest?

It seems they're should just be a certain bonus dependant upon level for good roleplaying.

Good roleplaying is subjective. I've seen DMs give out "good roleplaying" experience to people that I would have penalized for their roleplaying.

Side Note: I think this is why very few roleplaying games, if any, try to codify this into an actual rule system as opposed to a DM judgement call with suggestions and examples. Otherwise it's usually a totally character driven mechanic.

And that's why few roleplaying games succeed, since they don't make an effort to suggest simple things like bookkeeping and information sharing.

 

[LostSoul]

Yes, I can see how having a crappy DM that can't adapt to changes in the situation would be annoying. However, the problem you present has nothing to do with the concept of writing down goals and rewards and everything to do with a DM that is incapable of changing his plans to make the game continue to be fun for his players.

Yeah, I think that is what the argument is: crappy DMing. They need to put advice in there about changing/adding quests based on what happens in the game. I have no doubts they will do that.

 

[Reynard]

No, I'm not. I don't know where you get that assumption from, but it certainly isn't in any of my posts. I've been doing things like quest cards for years, and I often make more quests than I end up using in my campaigns, since I like to offer my players options and easy reference material. I've even written up brand new ones on the spot while my players interact with an NPC that I never intended to give quests, just to keep up with my players.

You continue to miss the point to the extent that I suspect you are doing it on purpose.

The card doesn't matter. The bookeeping element isn't the point.

The point is that the theoretical module -- in this case, ToEE -- rewards the PCs only for takinga single course of action, and by virtue of that punishes them for taking any other course of action.

Dr. Awkward suggested that there's no difference between XP from killing the BBEG and XP from the quest of killing the BBEG. He's wrong. The difference is exactly twice as big as the question in fact. Because we know that quest XP equals either the creature, encounter or adventure XP reward, and that quests are narrowly defined goalposts, then it follows that any individual quest ("Kill BBEG") is worth twice the XP if you do it the DM's/adventure designers way. In the BBEG example, the PCs don't have to kill him to get the encounter XP for him -- they only have to overcome him, which could be anything from banishing him into the Void to converting him to the cause of good to wiping his mind and letting him start anew. But only the PCs that kill him get the bonus XP.

Now, I understand that one, as an experienced DM, could just ignore that very explicit aspect of the subsystem, but isn't that a problem in and of itself? If a rule or mechanic can be completely ignored without any systemic cojnsequence whatsoever, does it need to exist at all?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I gotta disagree it's only a bookkeeping techinique, when xp gets involved. PC's who follow the path the DM has laid out will advance quicker, while those who do their own thing (regardless of if it is more interesting or more in character for their PC) will advance slower. That's a far cry from just a bookkeeping technique.

Go back and read the post you are responding to. Note that Mourn provides a good example of how the PCs don't follow the path the DM has laid out, and get their XP anyway, because the DM then gave them a new quest based on the goals they laid out for themselves. Go. Read it. Then read it again.