Design & Development: Quests

[JohnSnow]

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.

And you, and many of the others who are "troubled" by this, are assuming that there isn't anything in the DMG about creating mini-Quest awards for filling character-specific goals. If the DMG has advice about taking player-designated "character goals" and designating them as quests or even mini-quests, would that change your opinion of this approach?

This is especially amusing to me in light of what was actually said in the Design & Development article...

Quests can be major or minor, they can involve the whole group or just a single character's personal goals, and they have levels just like encounters do. Completing a quest always brings a reward in experience points.

So, we've been told explicity that a character's personal goals can be turned into quests. It seems to indicate that they're just trying to give guidelines to new DMs on ways to make the game more than just a series of encounters. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Reynard]

[can't help myself]

So, do you think collecting 4 aurumvorax pelts is going to be a major quest or a minor quest?

[/can't help myself]

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Wow, I thought I over-reacted sometimes. There is a suggestion in the new DMG that people use, gasp, handouts!

Handouts are the epitome of CRPGs.

 

[Rechan]

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.

Except that traps have specific CR. What's the CR of using the Diplomacy Skill to talk the king out of engaging in a war? Is it the CR of the king? If not, what's the CR of stopping a war?

(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).

No, the DM isn't. That's like saying "Getting XP for killing monsters is push/force/nudging PCs to go kill monsters for XP."

How is "You get xp for accomplishing your goal" different from "You get a +1 sword because that's what the Baron said he'd give you for accomplishing your goal"?

OMG, DM is offering rewards for doing story-related arcs. Total railroading.

 

[Scribble]

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.

He put in the article that it's not just about one thing. There were two characters already with twodifferent overall agendas.

The idea is just a way to keep track of "segments" of the game.

Come on man, you can't tell me you've honestly never had someone hire your PCs to complete some quest/mission/adventure?

If you haven't then I'd say your DMing career is radically different then the vast majority of the players out there...

The whole idea of an adventure is set up arounbd the quest idea.

Players get to the town.
Players find out about something happening.
Players are motivated to participate be it though gold/pursuit of adventure/women/altruistic reasons...
Players head of to fulfill the adventure.

Then you give them a quest card.

 

[Rechan]

Handouts are the epitome of CRPGs.

That's so anime.

 

[Tquirky]

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.

On the whole, I think D&D would actually benefit from a slight shuffle towards "Talisman" and it's ilk. Look at all editions so far, and they're very abstract in terms of specifics, which can make it difficult to "focus" the game in the hands of those of us who are less experienced, or unwise, or low on time (which, face it, covers pretty much everybody). A few handrails wouldn't hurt at all, IMO, and make it much easier to introduce others to this strange pastime.

An unfocused game is less likely to be fun for anyone but the DM, who may get a "wannabe fantasy writer" thrill out of the worldbuilding side of things, but that's a bit selfish. More people having fun because of a more "gamey" game, less of purely an outlet for DMs to present their unpublished fantasy worlds to their friends...yeah, I can get on board with that.

 

[Reynard]

That's like saying "Getting XP for killing monsters is push/force/nudging PCs to go kill monsters for XP."

It is. That for which XP is given in D&D is perhaps thye most important aspect of what determines playstyle (except in the rare cases where you have players that don't care about advancement).

If you give XP for gold, for example, as 1E did, you create a playstyle where the PCs tend to clean the place out. It has good and bad points. On the one hand, it drives PCs to explore, just in case there might be some treasure down that there hallway. On the other hand, it makes it difficult to get PCs to focus on something, anything else sometimes.

If you give XP primarily for combats, you get a lot more combats. If you broaden the definition of "overcoming a challenge" to include sneaking or talking past it, you have a lot more freedom to create encounters with variable possible solutions.

If you give XP for "good roleplaying", you usually get hurt feelings.

If you give XP for achieving specific quest goals, though, you end up with railraoded adventures because players know the "victory condition" for which they will be rewarded.

I don't give Role-Playing XP or Story Awards in XP. There are plenty of in game benefits that can be bestowed upon PCs in regards to those things. I do give XP for overcoming challenges, regardless of whether it is combat, and I withhold XP if the challenge is not overcome.

 

[Tquirky]

If you give XP for achieving specific quest goals, though, you end up with railraoded adventures because players know the "victory condition" for which they will be rewarded.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is, the players have three of these quest cards, and get to choose which to do next. That's the opposite of railroading - the players choose what happens next.

 

[FireLance]

So, do the people who think that quest cards are a bad idea also think that initiative cards are a bad idea?