Design & Development: Quests

[ThirdWizard]

Is there another poster on these boards with the scope and influence of WotC?

That was a very small point of a very long post. I stand by my point that even when some people agree with something, they still complain. And, I find that exceedingly annoying. My rant was not about people pointing out flaws, which I am perfectly fine with.

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...

Except, as I noted, XP will not be on these cards. So you can't do, for example, a comparison between quests A, B, and C to determine which would be most beneficial. I know someone was complaining about that earlier.

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.

Then perhaps the quest should be reworded so that obtaining the stolen goods should net the xp instead of returning the treasure, hm?

EDIT: As an aside, I've been doing story awards since I started playing and have had no problems thus far.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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).

Well, if nothing good would come up from pushing button B, who does really need the option of pressing button B?

The flaw in the analogy is that in a pen & paper role playing game, there will also be some food behind button B. You analogy only applies to a computer game with no DM to make decisions on the fly if necessary.

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.

If you only give XP for challenges, then there is no mechanical reason to follow a plot. Roleplayers also consist of _players_, which means they will look at what gets them game benefits. If only killing monsters and take their stuff really does that, some will easily fall prey to ignoring the "role" stuff. It's nice if the game puts a mechanical reminder that it's not only about killing and looting only. It's also about putting your mind into the game world itself.

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.

Because they have a evil or stupid or at least inexperienced DM that don't know how or doesn't want to adjust to an unexpected situation?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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.

Okay. I understand your viewpoint a little better now I think. You seem to be against "set" story rewards. If that's not youre thing then I can see why you'd have problems with this. I'm used to issuing story based rewards so this goes right up my alley.

If I a group of story based rewards and the PC's dont meet one or any of those goals then they don't get the XP for them. it's that simple. they may get XP for good role-playing and the requisite combats, but if they didnt meet the story goals they dont get the XP. Theyre not being robbed of anything and for them to presume that they are somehow owed XP for something that they didn't do would be pretty obnoxious of them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That was a very small point of a very long post. I stand by my point that even when some people agree with something, they still complain.

And my point was that someone can agree about part of something, while pointing out the flaws of another part of that same thing. But, no worries.

Except, as I noted, XP will not be on these cards. So you can't do, for example, a comparison between quests A, B, and C to determine which would be most beneficial. I know someone was complaining about that earlier.

Imagine two possible options for action. One has a quest card, the other does not. The PCs automatically know that, if they choose the quest card option, that it is worth some amount of XP, and that if they do not, it is not.

In Imaro's example, if returning stolen goods is worth some amount of XP X, where X is an unknown factor (but, depending upon how the rewards system is structured, possibly a knowable or estimatable factor like the XP from CR is in 3.X, whether or not it is written on the card), and fencing the loot is not worth XP, then the players are forced to choose between what the DM wants them to do (return the loot), and what they want to do (fence the loot) on the basis of XP.

However, the root question is, why is the DM's quest goal (return the loot) worth XP, but the players' quest goal (fence the loot) not worth XP?

The DM's goals being given primacy over the player's goals is the root of all railroading. So, I can easily see how some might view this as a codified form of railroading. A better system, IMHO, would see the players setting quest goals, and the DM determing how much XP (if any) they were worth.

And rewording the quest so that obtaining the stolen goods nets the XP instead of returning the treasure just changes the scope of the problem, rather than eliminating it. What if the players want to do something that has nothing to do with stolen goods?

Imagine that you were having this problem (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3899444&postcount=1) with the Quest Card system. It would be easy enough to prevent the PCs from visiting Chopper's Island -- just hand them quest cards that lead them elsewhere, along the trail of your prepared material. The question is, though, is that what is best for the game? Is that what best meets the needs of the players at your table?

And those are valid questions, IMHO.


RC

 

[Imaro]

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.

Why should there be a choice between xp or gold. If the PC's have to fight and elude the Baron's men or figure out a way to smuggle his goods out of the barony they are doing just as much, if not more, adventuring as they would be if they returned the stuff. Yet they lost out on an easier way to grab bonus xp.

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.)

I agree with the top part of your post, I think if anything these "quests" should be player made.

The problem is most new players will go by the book. In all honesty I think this is more a ploy to increase the sales of adventures by WotC. A less organic game means that adventure modules are easier and more likely to be used in a campaign (I'd be willing to bet less "sandbox" games make use of pre-structured adventures than more linear games). So WotC gets you, from the beginning, into the mind set that this (pre-set quests) is the way to play. This is made especially effective if the person running the game has authority (and power through xp delienation) to decide what players should be doing. If you follow this adventure the way you're suppose to you get extra xp plain and simple. I don't know if this is the type of methodology I want a Dm to feel justified in using when I play under him... or the way I want new players to think is the norm when they play in my games.

Except, as I noted, XP will not be on these cards. So you can't do, for example, a comparison between quests A, B, and C to determine which would be most beneficial. I know someone was complaining about that earlier.

You totally missed my point. If I hand you a card for something and don't hand you one for something else...it really doesn't matter if the xp is on there or not, I know one offers it and one doesn't.

Then perhaps the quest should be reworded so that obtaining the stolen goods should net the xp instead of returning the treasure, hm?

So how far does this go...I mean what if they take the goodwill payment the baron gave them and make a run for it? Should the quest now have anything to do with obtaining the stolen goods. The things players come up with really make this an almost ludicrous argument. How about the "quest " being do what you want to have a fun game?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Imagine two possible options for action. One has a quest card, the other does not. The PCs automatically know that, if they choose the quest card option, that it is worth some amount of XP, and that if they do not, it is not.

I agree that it would be questionable if the DMG does not give the DM advice along the lines of allowing PCs to alter quests or to allow the PCs to come up with their own personal quests. I believe some text in the article, though, does lead me to believe that individual PC goals (ie sell the loot in the nearby city) would indeed be quest worthy.

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 (equal to an encounter of its level for a major quest, or a monster of its level for a minor quest), and it often brings monetary rewards as well (on par with its XP reward, balanced with the rest of the treasure in the adventure). They can also bring other rewards, of course -- grants of land or title, the promise of a future favor, and so on.

However, the root question is, why is the DM's quest goal (return the loot) worth XP, but the players' quest goal (fence the loot) not worth XP?

My own personal answer is that it is not. I also think that if the DM knows that the PCs very often want to do something not set down by his quest cards, he'll come to the conclusion that the system should be expanded on... but that might be my own optimism. I would hope at least that DMs are that flexible. I would also hope that the suggestion is not written in a way as to be "rules-tight" but to be written instead as a way to help your players (thus being more helpful is better). Of course, we'll have to read the actual text before we can know for certain.

The DM's goals being given primacy over the player's goals is the root of all railroading. So, I can easily see how some might view this as a codified form of railroading. A better system, IMHO, would see the players setting quest goals, and the DM determing how much XP (if any) they were worth.

I agree, that would be much better. I think I would run it that way, myself.

And rewording the quest so that obtaining the stolen goods nets the XP instead of returning the treasure just changes the scope of the problem, rather than eliminating it. What if the players want to do something that has nothing to do with stolen goods?

Ahh the age old question!

But, it goes far beyond the scope of quest cards, methinks. If the DMG gets into that kind of debate, it could be great! (Or really really bad. )

 

[Imaro]

Well, if nothing good would come up from pushing button B, who does really need the option of pressing button B?

The flaw in the analogy is that in a pen & paper role playing game, there will also be some food behind button B. You analogy only applies to a computer game with no DM to make decisions on the fly if necessary.



If you only give XP for challenges, then there is no mechanical reason to follow a plot. Roleplayers also consist of _players_, which means they will look at what gets them game benefits. If only killing monsters and take their stuff really does that, some will easily fall prey to ignoring the "role" stuff. It's nice if the game puts a mechanical reminder that it's not only about killing and looting only. It's also about putting your mind into the game world itself.


Because they have a evil or stupid or at least inexperienced DM that don't know how or doesn't want to adjust to an unexpected situation?

Soo...what was the point of "quests" again iif I'm changing everything on the fly?

As far as roleplaying...this isn't the same argument. You can roleplay very well and it has notihing to do with a DM's view on what your PC's goals or objectives should be. If you don't want to roleplay, then you will not and you can enjoy the tatical and power-up nature of the game. Neither of these is hindered by only awarding xp for challenges (notice I didn't and haven't used the phrase killing monsters.). With the new social system a challenge being defeated could encompass a wide array of things and it seems that your personal bias is to regulate it to fighting, even though in my mind that is only one of numerous types of challenges.

Tom, who loves roleplaying, has his PC go into The Forlorn Castle because the clues of his father's whereabouts have led him here...Jacob, who loves the tactical side and gaining new powers, has his PC enter Forlorn Castle because he wants to raid it for loot and kick but. IMHO, it seems like yur saying Tom should be rewarded more because he plays better?? than Jacob. While I say it should be what they overcome in Forlorn Castle that determines their XP.

 

[Imaro]

Okay. I understand your viewpoint a little better now I think. You seem to be against "set" story rewards. If that's not youre thing then I can see why you'd have problems with this. I'm used to issuing story based rewards so this goes right up my alley.

If I a group of story based rewards and the PC's dont meet one or any of those goals then they don't get the XP for them. it's that simple. they may get XP for good role-playing and the requisite combats, but if they didnt meet the story goals they dont get the XP. Theyre not being robbed of anything and for them to presume that they are somehow owed XP for something that they didn't do would be pretty obnoxious of them.

Emphasis Mine:

Isn't it just as obnoxious to assume that what you as DM feel the PC's should be doing is what they should be rewarded for? Are these xp story awards always something the PC's (not players) would do?

Set story awards collaborated upon and agreed upon by both DM and player are my thing...IMHO, story awards created by just the DM is more akin to pushing for things to go the way you envision them. YMMV of course.

 

[The Little Raven]

Handouts are the epitome of CRPGs.

Except for the fact that D&D box sets have had stuff like that for decades. Hell, I've got an old box set that has pre-printed land grants, banking notes, and letters of marque.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Emphasis Mine:

Isn't it just as obnoxious to assume that what you as DM feel the PC's should be doing is what they should be rewarded for? Are these xp story awards always something the PC's (not players) would do?

Look, I can see where this is going, and what it's about to degenerate into an argument over a difference in playstyle. it won't be the first time that you've talked about the need for players to dictate their own path in an adventure. Which I usually dont have a problem with, since it gives me less work to do on that accord. However, I'm talking about players who really arent into that as much and just want me to run a game for them. given the opportunity they'll give me specific stuff that they want me to do in terms of their PC's but dictating what adventures they're going on? No, they leave that to me. and in that case if theyre bitching about getting XP for something that they didnt earn then yeah, they're being obnoxious.

Set story awards collaborated upon and agreed upon by both DM and player are my thing...IMHO, story awards created by just the DM is more akin to pushing for things to go the way you envision them. YMMV of course.

The subtle snipe at other playstyles none withstanding if your style works for you great. youre right about my milage varying though as I can see the value in BOTH ways of doing things...