Design & Development: Quests

[SteveC]

As some others have said, this thread really makes me shake my head a little bit at some of my fellow ENWorlders.

The quest cards idea of the article is the sizzle, while the quest/roleplay awards are the steak.

We just learned that quest/roleplaying awards are going to be a core part of the 4E rules to the point where they're going to actually codify them. Yes, you can award quest experience now, but the formal guidelines aren't very descriptive. Ask anyone who debates D&D with D&D haters, and the idea that you can get XP for things other than killing monsters and taking their stuff is something that a lot of people don't see. Formal rules on quest experience are a good thing.

No one is saying you have to give out cards or even formally tell your players what quests are available in your game. This is simply being presented as an option for some, perhaps less experienced gamers out there.

And on that note: I want to remind everyone that D&D isn't a game that's just for experienced traditional gamers. Each years thousands, maybe tens of thousands of new people get a copy of the game and start playing. To them, the things that are obvious to you may not be so obvious. Yes, handouts and note taking are obvious to those of us who have been playing RPGs for ever. (I am surprised to learn that my old CoC game was inspired by MMORPGs with the handouts and notes I made for my players back in the day, since it was run many years before a MMORPG meant something other than a MUD, but I learned something as well from the thread!) At the same time, what's old hat to you is new to someone else.

--Steve

 

[Uder]

Oblivion, Diablo II, WoW lets you create things that really pay off later.

And those are just recent examples. I've seen it as far back as Wizard's Crown/Eternal Dagger.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even in a Sand Box, the DM can write out cards for the players based on their goals. For example, if one player sets up a backstory involving a lost heirloom, the DM can provide them, at the appropriate time, with a card detailing what they would have to do to recover it.

The way I read the article, the card stated the goal, not what would have to be done to complete the goal. "Find the ruby key" for example, not "look in the 3rd cupboard to the left, 2nd drawer down."

As such, it would be appropriate for the players to assign goals and the DM to assign a "level" (and XP value) to them. The players should not be assigning what they get as a reward for meeting their goals (although their goals might include getting certain rewards).

IMHO, of course.

Really, I find the level of objection to this article pretty disheartening. Quest XP is a good thing that was neglected in 3rd edition.

I think people have mixed emotions about quest XP. Story awards are a great thing in theory, but in practice they aren't always so wonderful. I admit to some curiosity about how the designers (and hence, the DM when 4e is released) decided what quests were what level. Hopefully they have a better system to determine Quest Level than CR/EL was to determine Monster Level.

But what I find really disheartening is the amount of outrage over a suggestion in the DMG.

(shrug) It's probably more in relation to the perception of shifting "baseline" playstyle. This is, as I said, one of the things that I don't find too objectionable (and potentially great, in the right game).

But the reward/Quest Level better have a solid system attached to it, or this will be an anvil around WotC's neck, about which every grognard out there will have something to say. Or so I predict.


RC

 

[Beginning of the End]

One of the suggestions in the 4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide is to give players a visual, tactile representation of a quest as soon as they begin it. At the start of the adventure, after the baron has briefed the characters on their mission and been bullied into paying them more than he intended, you can hand the players an index card spelling out the details of the quest -- including the agreed-upon reward. In the middle of the adventure, when the characters find a key with a ruby set in its bow, you can hand them a card, telling them that finding the matching lock is a quest.

D&D 4th Edition: Making Things Easier for the DM By Making Them Do More Work.

We already do this in our game. Only it's called the Party Note-Taker and one of the players takes care of it.

Also, my players aren't so retarded that they need to be told what a key is for. ("Ah, so this will open a 'lock' you say? And we should find such a device and try to... open it? Open, right? With this 'key'?")

The idea of a more detailed quest reward system sounds interesting, but -- based on the description in this essay -- it doesn't sound any more detailed than the guidelines available in 3rd Edition. But I'm willing to wait and see what they actually put together.

The biggest thing they could do to encourage quest-based XP would be to slow XP and level accrual from monsters. I loved the idea of using more goal-based XP when I came back to D&D with 3rd Edition -- but the reality was that the pace of advancement had been ramped up to such a degree that I needed to slow it down by reducing monster-based rewards, not speed it up even more by adding other sources of XP.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Won't what storylines/quests a DM gives you an XP value for, affect the direction and actions of a character? It's basically a less heavy-handed way of saying...This is what I want you to do. .

Quote the text where it says to use XP reward on the card.

Hint: You can't.

Oh. Then why are people suggesting that this is some sort of "new idea", and they're going to "yoink" it, and other such nonsense? Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of writing something down? I find that highly unlikely.

I have to ask, would you be so vocal about this idea if it were another poster on these boards suggesting it? Would the cries of outrage be their equal? Yeah, right. This is just people venting against 4e like usual. *yawn* Yet another example of a good idea that WotC is putting forth that people still want to complain about because its so obvious. Blah blah, 4e sucks, I've been doing that for years, blah blah.

This is insane. WotC writes something bad, people complain, and they should. But people are complaining even when WotC reases something that they agree with! How dare the DMG, one of the Core Books, one of the books that new players will start with, give advice on how to keep track of quests, have rules for giving rewards for quests, have actual gaming advice that would be useful to people just starting the game. HOW DARE THEY!!

No wonder my ignore list has over a dozen posters on it at this point. If you're going to complain at least do it about something that deserves it! I don't mind complaints, really I don't. But, if every post someone writes is going to be negative, even when they freaking agree with the thing they're complaining about, then what the heck is going on here on these boards?

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Questing, modules, adventures and the like - bleh. As an adult player who wants a little more depth than episodic, console game feel to a tabletop game, I just don't see myself using any of the suggestions from this article.

They just aren't neccessary in a living, breathing campaign world. I suppose they're great for new players who're new to tabletop games, but honestly - I would love to see something for the veterans beyond the normal CRUNCH of the system. I don't understand why the authors of the 4th edition need to 'dumb down' certain aspects of the game (like die rolls to resolve social encounters, instead of pushing rewards for roleplaying through social encounters). I don't believe they understand their audience.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have to ask, would you be so vocal about this idea if it were another poster on these boards suggesting it? Would the cries of outrage be their equal?

Is there another poster on these boards with the scope and influence of WotC? That's a non-argument. The books can and do change the expectations of people coming to the table to play, and people have a right to be concerned about how those expectations are being formed.

For many gamers, paying attention, deciding what is important, and keeping notes is the player's job. They might not think it a good idea to suggest that the DM should do this for them. Others might think that the DM telling the players what is important is a not-so-subtle railroading device, again not thinking that this is a good idea.

Some, like myself, might think that this could be a good idea, depending upon how it is handled mechanically (and, in my case, also depending upon how easily player-determined Quests can be dealt with)....and those folks might notice that there is not one iota of information to give the faintest idea of how this is going to actually play out mechanically in a game.

And, ultimately, without the mechanics, we can't tell if this is a good idea or not.

RC

 

[Imaro]

Quote the text where it says to use XP reward on the card.

Hint: You can't.

Isn't this implied?

If you find one old tattered piece of parchment in an unknown language and suddenly I hand you a quest card vs. You find a tattered piece of parchment in an unknown language and I don't...well I know the first I will get xp for exploring/deciphering/whatever. In the second case there's no reward. So it seems only logical to go for a guaranteed reward since the game is about rewards.

It's like those tests where if you push button A you get food...but if you push button B you don't. They don't label the word "food" on either but, after awhile, most test subjects will only focus on button A. Instilling this mentality early on, only makes it harder to get them to take advantage of the opportunity to do whatever they want when it arises(again IMHO, one of the advantages to a TT rpg vs. a videogame).

My beef is only partly with the cards and, moreso I guess, with the supposed structuring of something that IMHO should really be left either as broad guidelines or merely the actual xp gained from "challenges" involved in the attaining of a particular goal. Perhaps better advice would be how to structure a particular PC's goals into a discrete number and type of challenges that give him xp for pursuing and attaining it.

Let me ask a question...if I have a quest that says recover and return the Baron's stolen goods for x amount of xp...then in the middle of adventuring the PC's decide they want to take his stuff and head to another barony to sell it for themselves...why are they penalized (not recieving the bonus quest reward) for making a different choice than I want them to? If a DM did this I'd be pissed and it would probably cause conflict between those players who want the quest-based xp and those who want to pursue something else.

The "quest" as presented here is setting the player's goals for them (or at least the one's they will be rewarded for), but I think it's a step in the wrong direction, PC's should set their own goals. The DM can structure an adventure, but what any particular PC wants to do or get out of said adventure should not be determined through withdrawal or reward of XP. Even if all they want to do is kick but and take loot...the adventure will allow that. However, IMHO... why they do it should be totally up to them.

 

[LostSoul]

Let me ask a question...if I have a quest that says recover and return the Baron's stolen goods for x amount of xp...then in the middle of adventuring the PC's decide they want to take his stuff and head to another barony to sell it for themselves...why are they penalized (not recieving the bonus quest reward) for making a different choice than I want them to? If a DM did this I'd be pissed and it would probably cause conflict between those players who want the quest-based xp and those who want to pursue something else.

I see your point, but that's a bad example. "Do you want XP or gold?" is the choice, and it's a fair one.

It's nice that this quest system will allow that choice to be made, though. Errm, codify that choice, let's say.

The "quest" as presented here is setting the player's goals for them (or at least the one's they will be rewarded for), but I think it's a step in the wrong direction, PC's should set their own goals. The DM can structure an adventure, but what any particular PC wants to do or get out of said adventure should not be determined through withdrawal or reward of XP. Even if all they want to do is kick but and take loot...the adventure will allow that. However, IMHO... why they do it should be totally up to them.

I see where you're coming from. If the DM only has quest cards for his plot path, the players have a disincentive to go and do something they might want to.

eg. "Let's go search for the lost Dwarven city!"
"No, the DM didn't give us a quest card. Let's do the Haunted Crypt quest and get the XP."

The solution is pretty simple; the DM comes up with quest cards based on player input. Which is no different than how creating adventures work now.

In the end I think that the likelyhood of railroading remains the same with the quest system. (Or even less, because you can see first-hand, and have physical evidence of, the DM's adventures. If none of them have any player input at all, it should be obvious. The quest system makes railroading more transparent.)

 

[Mirtek]

So are they selling the quest cards in random boosters?

BTW I don't think it's a wise idead to give the rogue, the wizard and the paladin conflicting goals. The wizard and the rogue kille the paladin, the wizard makes a copy of the pages containing the ritual and the rogue delivers the book to his quest giver. Anyone is happy, excpet for the paladin player, he's currently making a new character