Design & Development: Quests

[Pale]

The players don't have the DM's notes. And it's very, very possible for them to miss things, or not make the connections that seem so obvious at the DM's end of the table. Especially when there's a week between sessions, or when the players just plain aren't as interested in your world, NPCs and plots as you are (shock! horror!).

What are you going to do, say "stop play, you've missed something important, refer to your notes for 5 minutes and get back to me"? Er, no, I'll take the cards over that thanks.

Ummm... no. I'm talking about DM prep work that involves player-made notes. Nothing more. I moved off the quest thing in my discussion with you, so I don't know how that popped back in as some kind of 'during play' thing.

In any case, since we weren't on the same page:

If they aren't making connections then you're being too vague in your presentation for your players. I don't think that it's a good idea to jump right to hitting them in the head with a hammer, so to speak.

 

[Imaro]

This feels like metagaming (offering experience points) for going along with the pre-set notions of how and what should be achieved. The problem I have with it...is what happens when the PC's are doing there own thing that doesn't mesh with what you expected or wanted them to do. If anything this seems to be a convenient way of railroading. Players want experience points, if you codify them for specific plotlines then the PC has one of two choices...

A.) Do what you want them to and be rewarded
B.) Do something else and miss out on experience points

Theres no way to know how a PC will react to a situation, in the above example I may not be interested in the Key with the ruby, and without the "quest card" may not even know it's something important. The problem is the minute the DM hands me a quest card or tells me there's a quest around it...well I'm kind of forced into a pre-plotted storyline in order to attain xp...even if there's something else I'd rather my character do, or I'm just not interested in it and my fellow players are.

I honestly think the PC's creating "quests" for themselves w/DM approval and assigning of xp, would be a better idea.

 

[Zaukrie]

Wow, I thought I over-reacted sometimes. There is a suggestion in the new DMG that people use, gasp, handouts! Those things that Goodmangames includes in their modules, you know, hand outs. It is a suggestion, that maybe when someone is hired, they get a contract (which acts as a handy reminder), as a handout.

I can't believe how people are reacting to this, as if somehow this actually would change how they play, one way or the other. Use the suggestion, or not. I'm with the poster that said it is nice that the new DMG has actual information on how to be a DM. This is one of those teaching things that newer DM's can, or cannot, use.

No where did they even IMPLY they were going to sell randomized CCG to support this idea. Wow.

 

[Rechan]

This feels like metagaming (offering experience points) for going along with the pre-set notions of how and what should be achieved.

What?!

Sure, if you want to be hyperbolic and extreme, you can look at it that way.

And if I want to be hyperbolic and extreme, I'd say that the only Alternative to the above is:

"You killed (Insert), so you get (Insert) XP." "But what about the fact that we consecrated the pool and now the woodlands are safe from the (insert)'s foul influence?" "Doesn't matter. Pool didn't have a CR, it didn't have an EL, and you didn't KILL it, your mission didn't have an EL or CR, so no xp."

 

[Tquirky]

If they aren't making connections then you're being too vague in your presentation for your players. I don't think that it's a good idea to jump right to hitting them in the head with a hammer, so to speak.

These aren't mutually exclusive. If you're being too vague for the players, they often require a hammer to make things clear, rather than dropping further hints until the cattle herd returns. That's people. Men, especially, are not good on getting the gist of subtle hints (just ask women). Sometimes you've just got to spell it out.

And the DM can be being perfectly clear, but seven days can wipe the player's memories. Notes are of limited help in fixing that, and they disrupt play....and make the beginning of a session a bit like homework.

We've pointed out "character amnesia", the problems with notes, breaking the 4th wall, and you still don't think there's a problem here? I can only assume that you've been lucky, or haven't played under a variety of DMs, because this problem is as common as dirt IME.

 

[Reynard]

Leaving the CRPG aspect alone, I think this Des&Dev article is very informative about 4E in general.

First, you have the issue of continuing to over-systemize everything in the game. This can be useful in some respects, but it can also cause huge headaches for those that think they need to "play by the rules" when DMing. The best example from 3E is the CR system -- it didn't provide what it intended and acted like a straightjacket for those that wanted to run the game RAW. System defined story awards and pre-set "quest goals" are likely to end up in the same category.

Second, it indicates something that has been more and more apparent as we find out more about 4E -- 4E appears to be intended to be played a lot more like a board game, at least insofar as providing a play experience that doesn't rely on the long sessions (encounter based design), delayed gratification (fast levelling), evolving playstyle ("adventures at 30th level will be just like adventures at 5th level"), sandbox style play (Quests!), and even player engagement and memory (now quest cards) that drove more "traditional" D&D play.

It's nice that WotC is trying to re-imagine what D&D is to survive in the 21st century, particularly given that the RPG industry in general have gone down the crapper in the last couple of years, but it isn't D&D as I play it and it won't find a place on my bookshelf.

 

[Feything]

Story awards are good. Story awards as they were used in 2nd edition were fantastic ways to encourage roleplaying. However, the system suggested here seems a bit different, and less RP-oriented.
Consider the following scenario:
Quest-giver(R) asks the PCs to recover the macguffin and bring it back to him because he needs it to save the Good Kingdom (TM).
You give the players a card, it says: "Recover the macguffin and return it to the Quest-giver(R)". The players know there's a story award attached to this.
However, roleplaying their characters, the actual goals of the quests may differ from what the Quest-giver(R) suggests. Let's say there are 5 PCs. Three of them wants to find the macguffin and sell it on the black market for profit. One of them wants to find the macguffin and use it to take power over the Good Kingdom (TM). The last PC wants to honour their agreement with Quest-giver(R).
With the presence of a quest-card and an implied or explicit story award for this particular option - bringing the macguffin to the Quest-giver(R) - they may be less inclined to play out their characters' personalities and agree on a different course of action. The meta-game takes over. Perhaps, as DM, I've defined a story award for this particular option but not for any of the others. How do I deal with an unforseen series of events? As an experienced DM I'll give them story awards (or rather RP-awards) for the other options as well, but for new DMs I'm sure this will have concequences for how they view the game and practice their "craft". This makes me sceptical.

 

[Reynard]

As an experienced DM I'll give them story awards (or rather RP-awards) for the other options as well, but for new DMs I'm sure this will have concequences for how they view the game and practice their "craft".

There is an important point in here. Very often when an "old schooler" like me rails against some new-fangled 4E element, pro-4E folk often suggest to simply housefule it back to the way I like it. That's fine and dandy, but the presumption is that 4E is going to be introducing a whole new generation to D&D, what it's base assumptions are and how it is played. I think, as a 22 year player, I have a right to be a little concerned about the future of the hobby -- and my place in it when trying to recruit new players -- based on this fact.

 

[Imaro]

What?!

Sure, if you want to be hyperbolic and extreme, you can look at it that way.

And if I want to be hyperbolic and extreme, I'd say that the only Alternative to the above is:

"You killed (Insert), so you get (Insert) XP." "But what about the fact that we consecrated the pool and now the woodlands are safe from the (insert)'s foul influence?" "Doesn't matter. Pool didn't have a CR, it didn't have an EL, and you didn't KILL it, your mission didn't have an EL or CR, so no xp."

Huh? actually defeating a challenge, however you want, rewards experience points...How do you kill a trap? Actually the above makes sense...you gain experience for overcoming challenges...whatever they may be and however you want.

This isn't the same as...you earn xp from completing the specific tasks and goals designated as what your character should be interested in pursuing.

It's like this...

Agree with...You should get xp for succesfully convincing the Baron to do what it is you want him to do. (You overcame a challenge in pursuit of your goals)

Disagree with...You should get xp for succesfully completing the Baron's request to retrieve the Ruby Key. (The DM is using xp to force/push/nudge you to go down a path you may or may not be interested in to continue a pre-set storyline). If anything this adventure should be structured so that you recieve your xp from the encounters and challenges it takes to accomplish this.

There's a big difference between the two.

 

[Imaro]

Story awards are good. Story awards as they were used in 2nd edition were fantastic ways to encourage roleplaying. However, the system suggested here seems a bit different, and less RP-oriented.
Consider the following scenario:
Quest-giver(R) asks the PCs to recover the macguffin and bring it back to him because he needs it to save the Good Kingdom (TM).
You give the players a card, it says: "Recover the macguffin and return it to the Quest-giver(R)". The players know there's a story award attached to this.
However, roleplaying their characters, the actual goals of the quests may differ from what the Quest-giver(R) suggests. Let's say there are 5 PCs. Three of them wants to find the macguffin and sell it on the black market for profit. One of them wants to find the macguffin and use it to take power over the Good Kingdom (TM). The last PC wants to honour their agreement with Quest-giver(R).
With the presence of a quest-card and an implied or explicit story award for this particular option - bringing the macguffin to the Quest-giver(R) - they may be less inclined to play out their characters' personalities and agree on a different course of action. The meta-game takes over. Perhaps, as DM, I've defined a story award for this particular option but not for any of the others. How do I deal with an unforseen series of events? As an experienced DM I'll give them story awards (or rather RP-awards) for the other options as well, but for new DMs I'm sure this will have concequences for how they view the game and practice their "craft". This makes me sceptical.

Okay, you've given a good example of the type of...Not really railroading, but railroading...I was talking about with designating specific awards for specific quests. Thank you.