Design & Development: Quests

[Reynard]

See, there you go, with that whole "you must do this" nonsense. You're making up this sudden inability to make your own decisions because the DM gave you some kind of objective that an NPC wants accomplished. Nothing is stopping you from giving the Archbishop the finger and helping the spies. In fact, if you have a DM worth his salt, he'd have a quest card ready for you if you decide to do that.

You are wrong. Nothing, not a single word, in either the article or Mearls' post suggest that you just slap a new quest card down when the PCs decide to do something different. you are "making it up". And I'll even tell you why -- without that caveat, the system is problematic and railroady and not even the most adoring 4E supporter would accept it. but there it is: that is what we've been shown.

You continue to pronounce "nuh uh!"at the top of your lungs and have yet to find any evidence -- i.e. quotes -- to support your position, simply because there aren't any. the original article is vague at best and reiterates typical game play, with the inclusion of player hand outs as a suggestion. The Mearls blog post says, very directly, that the intent is to force the players to follow te DM's storyline, with examples of how that will work and how doing those things will be the only way to get the bonus XP.

So, you can continue to ignore the actual facts in this case and assert things that simply aren't there, at all, in the information presented, in order to preserve your undying devotion to 4E. That's fine. Enjoy. I, however, have quite finished repeating the facts over and over.

 

[Imaro]

Look Mourn, I'm not trying to get into a flame-fest with you so how about we agree to disagree. If the RAW allows players to create their own quests and doesn't actually reinforce only DM's designating what is and isn't worth xp as a "quest"...I'll buy you a beer if you're ever in the Chicago area. If it doesn't how about you buy me one if I'm ever in...well...wherever you live. Truce?

 

[The Little Raven]

Look Mourn, I'm not trying to get into a flame-fest with you so how about we agree to disagree.

I think that's probably best, since you seem to be taking the article as a condensed version of what is in the DMG (no other additional permutations to the concept, just flesh on the bones in the article), and I view it as a limited description of the concept, constrained by the limited space given in the article, and lacking all kinds of permutations that will be present in the final version.

If the RAW allows players to create their own quests and doesn't actually reinforce only DM's designating what is and isn't worth xp as a "quest"

There's only one problem with this qualifier, and that is the DM is the final authority. The players may think "Get Jed's dog back" is a good quest, but the DM doesn't. The system should allow them to work together to create player-specific quests, but never should the DM cease to be the ultimate arbiter, since it is his game.

...I'll buy you a beer if you're ever in the Chicago area. If it doesn't how about you buy me one if I'm ever in...well...wherever you live. Truce?

Works for me. Neither of us has to be right for me to buy another passionate D&D gamer a beer, even if we disagree. Hell, disagreeing about D&D over beers has been a pastime of mine for quite some time.

 

[Grog]

The Mearls blog post says, very directly, that the intent is to force the players to follow te DM's storyline,

Now you are the one making things up.

Mearls' blog post says nothing about "forcing" anyone to do anything.

 

[Grog]

Also, I've seen the term "railroading" get thrown around a lot in this discussion. I don't think the people using it know what it actually means. Merely offering incentives isn't raliroading. Now, something like this:

DM: The town's mayor asks you to go clear the nearby crypt of undead.
Player 1: Hmm. I don't really feel like doing that.
Player 2: Me either. Let's head off into the woods and hunt some orcs instead.
DM: As you're passing through the gate to head for the woods, the town guard ambushes you, pummels you into submission, then ties you up, drags you to the crypt, and dumps you inside.

That's railroading. Saying "You'll get bonus XP if you do this" isn't even remotely the same thing.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Also, I've seen the term "railroading" get thrown around a lot in this discussion. I don't think the people using it know what it actually means. Merely offering incentives isn't raliroading. Now, something like this:

DM: The town's mayor asks you to go clear the nearby crypt of undead.
Player 1: Hmm. I don't really feel like doing that.
Player 2: Me either. Let's head off into the woods and hunt some orcs instead.
DM: As you're passing through the gate to head for the woods, the town guard ambushes you, pummels you into submission, then ties you up, drags you to the crypt, and dumps you inside.

That's railroading. Saying "You'll get bonus XP if you do this" isn't even remotely the same thing.

I've been refraining from posting here, because for the most part I think the arguing that's going on over this particular topic is futile. I've said it before and and I'll say it again all tables are different all the have in common is the use of the core rules as a starting point.

I just wanted to say that I strongly agree with your example of railroading and most other definitions are just things that people dont like and therefore subtle ways of saying we don't like that way of playing and it sucks. Sandbox play if that's your thing is GREAT, if you have a group of players that need to be dragged by the nose from one encounter/adventure/quest to the next GREAT. Blasting one or the other is quite simply people saying that their way is better (and it may be. FOR THEM...)

 

[LostSoul]

never should the DM cease to be the ultimate arbiter, since it is his game.

I imagine that is the source of disagreement here.

 

[The Little Raven]

I imagine that is the source of disagreement here.

Which I find odd, because if the DM isn't the ultimate authority in his own game, then what is to stop the players from overruling him every time things don't go their way?

 

[Reynard]

Which I find odd, because if the DM isn't the ultimate authority in his own game, then what is to stop the players from overruling him every time things don't go their way?

There's a big difference between "ultimate authority" and "ultimate arbiter". With the latter, I agree with you. Part of the contract that is written when you sit down to play a game is that the DM will, to the best of his or her ability, arbitrate play in a fair and unbiased (whether in regards to his world, his NPCs, a particular PC, his adventure story, or what have you) fashion.

But the DM isn't the "ultimate authority". it is his table, but it is everyone's game. he has the right and the responsibility to design scenarios for the PCs, but how those scenarios are engaged and dealth with is the right and the responsibility of the players. Just as it is bad Play to throw off every adventure hook just to upset the DM's preparation, it is bad DMing to restrict the choices of the players in regards to the adventures he creates.

In the context of the subject of this thread, it isn't that the DM designs or chooses "quests" that concerns me, or that those quests come with a "story award" associated with them, above and beyond the rewards gained during play. It is that the way the system is described by Mearls (very directly and with little ambiguation, I might add), those quest rewards are not dependent upon vague goal settings ("There are evil spies in Hommlett; deal with them.") but very specific victory conditions ("Bring them alive before the Archbishop.")

And while I agree with Grog that his example is railroading, it is a rather extreme example and hardly the only way to railroad. The reason I call this Quest system, as described by Mearls, railroading is simply that XP is the primary motivator in play, and witholding XP unless the players prop up the DM's predetermined outcome is, in fact, railroading. It is different than putting landslides across every path but the "right one", certainly, but only insofar as it is less subtle. Instead of saying "You can't do this" it says "You can do this, but you aren't going to get bonus XP for it."

All in all, I think the idea of providing beginning DM's with a guideline for how to award XP for achieving certain goals is a good one. However, if the final result looks anything like Mearls' explanation or is invested with his philosophy behind the design, what it will do is limit the one thing that is unique and wonderful about table top RPGs -- freedom for the players to do what they wish and go where they wish in the context of the agreed upon setting/campaign/adventure framework.

 

[The Little Raven]

In the context of the subject of this thread, it isn't that the DM designs or chooses "quests" that concerns me, or that those quests come with a "story award" associated with them, above and beyond the rewards gained during play.

Again, this is a DM problem, not the quest system. If your DM can't adapt, that's no fault of the designers of this game.

It is that the way the system is described by Mearls (very directly and with little ambiguation, I might add), those quest rewards are not dependent upon vague goal settings ("There are evil spies in Hommlett; deal with them.") but very specific victory conditions ("Bring them alive before the Archbishop.")

Except the article gives us a perfect example of a vague victory condition: "Find the lock that this key fits."

The reason I call this Quest system, as described by Mearls, railroading is simply that XP is the primary motivator in play, and witholding XP unless the players prop up the DM's predetermined outcome is, in fact, railroading.

Again, the problem with a crappy DM. Crappy DMs railroad players with or without a quest system.

Instead of saying "You can't do this" it says "You can do this, but you aren't going to get bonus XP for it."

Once more, crappy DM. If the DM can't handle his players going off the rails and blazing their own path through the adventure, it's his shortcomings that are causing it.

However, if the final result looks anything like Mearls' explanation or is invested with his philosophy behind the design, what it will do is limit the one thing that is unique and wonderful about table top RPGs -- freedom for the players to do what they wish and go where they wish in the context of the agreed upon setting/campaign/adventure framework.

Players have always only had the freedom that the DM allows, and this changes that in no way. All it does is say "Hey, maybe you should quantify these in an easily referenced manner."