Design & Development: Quests

[Reynard]

Go back and read the post you are responding to. Note that Mourn provides a good example of how the PCs don't follow the path the DM has laid out, and get their XP anyway, because the DM then gave them a new quest based on the goals they laid out for themselves. Go. Read it. Then read it again.

If that is the case, what's the point of the mechanic in the first place?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If that is the case, what's the point of the mechanic in the first place?

Providing XP awards for story goals; providing consistent notation of the goals currently being chased after.

 

[The Little Raven]

The point is that the theoretical module -- in this case, ToEE -- rewards the PCs only for takinga single course of action, and by virtue of that punishes them for taking any other course of action.

Yeah, that's what modules traditionally are. A linear storyline for the players to chew through. I'm not talking about modules, I'm talking about preparation for gaming, as well as on-the-fly changes.

Because we know that quest XP equals either the creature, encounter or adventure XP reward, and that quests are narrowly defined goalposts, then it follows that any individual quest ("Kill BBEG") is worth twice the XP if you do it the DM's/adventure designers way.

You don't have to give players additional experience above and beyond what they get for killing the BBEG. It isn't just like WoW where you get additional experience for turning in VanCleef's head. And who says a quest has to spell out how you achieve the objective? The quest can be as vague as "Disrupt the Shadow Thieves criminal empire" to as specific as "Kill the Guildmaster with the Sword of Hurting People."

And this isn't to say a DM can't arbitrarily give different rewards, or give you a bonus if you pull of some super cool way to achieve the objective without doing it the way he thought. Flexibility is key to good DMing, in my opinion.

In the BBEG example, the PCs don't have to kill him to get the encounter XP for him -- they only have to overcome him, which could be anything from banishing him into the Void to converting him to the cause of good to wiping his mind and letting him start anew. But only the PCs that kill him get the bonus XP.

Now, I understand that one, as an experienced DM, could just ignore that very explicit aspect of the subsystem, but isn't that a problem in and of itself? If a rule or mechanic can be completely ignored without any systemic cojnsequence whatsoever, does it need to exist at all?

This isn't a system like combat mechanics or spell mechanics. This is a non-rules suggestion for tracking objectives, whether they're combat related or not. They can be whatever the DM chooses, from killing stuff, to winning a foot-race. Quest cards are also great for things like side quests, and odd jobs to make money, since the rewards don't always have to be experience.

 

[Hussar]

The point is that the theoretical module -- in this case, ToEE -- rewards the PCs only for takinga single course of action, and by virtue of that punishes them for taking any other course of action.

Reynard - it's an example, not an exhaustive treatise on very possible path the DM could take. I'm fairly sure that the designers of D&D have some comprehension of this issue and will include more information than the blurb that was tossed up here.

Let's not forget that this is NOT the text of the DMG. This is one designer musing over a rule in the DMG. It's a sidebar. Getting bent out of shape over all the things he hasn't covered in a 500 word essay is not all that useful.

 

[pemerton]

I think this is why very few roleplaying games, if any, try to codify this into an actual rule system as opposed to a DM judgement call with suggestions and examples. Otherwise it's usually a totally character driven mechanic.

I think you mean "player-driven" rather than "character-driven". Other than that, I agree with you. But D&D (at least in its typical published modules and campaign worlds) has always been a GM-driven game to a much greater degree than many other RPGs.

Read any module ever printed and you get EXACTLY this. Using a 3e example, "If the PC's convince the guard to let them pass, award them a CR X xp award". Look in the pages of Dungeon and you'll see something like this in just about every 3e module they produced.

Earlier editions had the same. Complete tasking X, get reward Y. Explicitly stated in the module text. Not every module maybe (I'm leery of making such a sweeping statement lest the pedantic amongst us start getting too uppity) but enough that it's certainly not anything new.

Agreed.

I gotta disagree it's only a bookkeeping techinique, when xp gets involved. PC's who follow the path the DM has laid out will advance quicker, while those who do their own thing (regardless of if it is more interesting or more in character for their PC) will advance slower.

And any dungeon is exactly the same - if the only way for the players to earn XPs for their PCs is to assault the GM's dungeon, then they don't have any real choice. But in most D&D games this is not called railroading, it's called the start of the session.

And I think that Mearls' idea is this: in 3E and earlier editions, it is assumed that if the GM writes (or buys) the dungeon, the players will agree to have their PCs assault it, because if they don't, the game falls apart as there is no adventure for the session. So, with GM-driven Quests, it becomes possible to have the same basic play structure - that is, the players turn up and take their PCs through the GM's prepared adventure - for non-dungeon-bashes.

This is obviously not tactical railroading, nor even is it necessarily the sort of railroading that characterises poorly-written modules. At most, it is the same sort of rail-roading as one finds at the start of each of the G modules: "You have agreed to investigate the Giants, and here your party is at the entrance to their stronghold." Both the G modules and Mearls' Verbobonc Quest will be fun - and thus unlike railroading - provided that the GM, in choosing the adventure for that session, has a reasonable grasp of the sort of adventure his or her players enjoy (in the latter case, do they enjoy engaging in subterfuge for Cardinal Richelieu - sorry, the Archbishop of Verbobonc?).

 

[pemerton]

Let's say you have that quest. You meet the spy, and you like him. The Archbishop is kind of a loser, too. So you don't want to take the spy back as a prisoner.

The second quest card never shows up; you just miss out on some XP.

You see how that would be annoying.

Sure. But,

Dr. Awkward suggested that there's no difference between XP from killing the BBEG and XP from the quest of killing the BBEG. He's wrong. The difference is exactly twice as big as the question in fact. Because we know that quest XP equals either the creature, encounter or adventure XP reward, and that quests are narrowly defined goalposts, then it follows that any individual quest ("Kill BBEG") is worth twice the XP if you do it the DM's/adventure designers way. In the BBEG example, the PCs don't have to kill him to get the encounter XP for him -- they only have to overcome him, which could be anything from banishing him into the Void to converting him to the cause of good to wiping his mind and letting him start anew. But only the PCs that kill him get the bonus XP.

What happens if the PCs, upon finally meeting the BBEG, decide to ally with him or throw him a party, and don't want to overcome him at all? Then they get no CR-based XP.

The point is that D&D already takes for granted that the inclination of the players, and the adventure the GM has prepared for them, are aligned - thus (for example), it takes for granted that the players will want their PCs to overcome the GM's BBEG.

Likewise, before setting up the Verbobonc quest, the GM would want to be confident that the players will be inclined to help out the Archbishop. Otherwise, a crappy game will be had by all.

 

[Reynard]

Likewise, before setting up the Verbobonc quest, the GM would want to be confident that the players will be inclined to help out the Archbishop. Otherwise, a crappy game will be had by all.

That is all still a "story" the DM is trying to tell through his players, which is one of the worst ways to run a game. Rather than have an predetermined idea of what the PCs should be doing, merely creatinga situation in which there are bad guys over here, good guys over there and the PCs in between, and then letting the PCs decide howe to engage the situation is what DMing is about.

There is nothing worse than having a group of players stare blankly at you waiting for you to push them onto the choo-choo express because they have come to expect adventures to be doled out to them. I'd rather fight to be heard over them, have them trample my carefully laid plans, and frustrate me with constant ideas than have them wait for me to toss them their next mission.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I think that is what the argument is: crappy DMing. They need to put advice in there about changing/adding quests based on what happens in the game. I have no doubts they will do that.

If the goal is

making the DM's story important to the campaign. Nothing says important in D&D more than, "You'll get XP for doing this, chuckles, so snap to it!"​

then I have doubts.

RC

 

[Imaro]

Go back and read the post you are responding to. Note that Mourn provides a good example of how the PCs don't follow the path the DM has laid out, and get their XP anyway, because the DM then gave them a new quest based on the goals they laid out for themselves. Go. Read it. Then read it again.

I read it...and in the end you. as a DM, are creating random quests which may or may not be taken. Thus what was the poiint of creating these quests in the first place? Does this increase or decrease wasted prep-time? IMHO it increases it, and if the quests are thrown to the wind and not used it is wasted prep-time. If anything this is a stronger argument for not trying to precisely codify "quests" and/or making them a player/character driven mechanic.

Providing XP awards for story goals characters going along with the DM's pre-planned progression; providing consistent notation of the goals currently being chased after set by your DM.

Fixed that for you.

And any dungeon is exactly the same - if the only way for the players to earn XPs for their PCs is to assault the GM's dungeon, then they don't have any real choice. But in most D&D games this is not called railroading, it's called the start of the session.

And I think that Mearls' idea is this: in 3E and earlier editions, it is assumed that if the GM writes (or buys) the dungeon, the players will agree to have their PCs assault it, because if they don't, the game falls apart as there is no adventure for the session. So, with GM-driven Quests, it becomes possible to have the same basic play structure - that is, the players turn up and take their PCs through the GM's prepared adventure - for non-dungeon-bashes.

This is obviously not tactical railroading, nor even is it necessarily the sort of railroading that characterises poorly-written modules. At most, it is the same sort of rail-roading as one finds at the start of each of the G modules: "You have agreed to investigate the Giants, and here your party is at the entrance to their stronghold." Both the G modules and Mearls' Verbobonc Quest will be fun - and thus unlike railroading - provided that the GM, in choosing the adventure for that session, has a reasonable grasp of the sort of adventure his or her players enjoy (in the latter case, do they enjoy engaging in subterfuge for Cardinal Richelieu - sorry, the Archbishop of Verbobonc?).

The difference, IMHO, is "quests" as presented so far are more specific than an adventure. In an adventure the PC's are usually presented with a situation and left to deal with it in a manner they find suitable. They recieve xp for overcoming the challenges (and contrary to popular belief you don't have to kill something to recieve xp for overcoming it) that arise due to the course of action(s) they take to accomplish their goals. They are not penalized because they didn't do it in a particullar way.

In a quest you are laying out a specific set of actions and results that must be achieved to garner the XP bonus. Thosee PC's who follow this path are rewarded with extra xp, those who don't aren't.

An example would be like so...

Adventure: A group of cultist have built a temple to Tuarn deity of corruption, near the village of Pellington. They have begun kidnapping certain villagers and the PC's have been comissioned to investigate.

Quest: Uncover and capture the leaders of the cult of Tuarn near the village of Pellington and deliver them to the archbishop of Pellington.

The difference is...in the first you are basically free to go about investigating the cult and ultimately deciding how you deal with it, and there is no loss of xp for what way you choose to go about it. In the second you will be penalized by loss of xp unlesss you capture the leaders of the cult and return them to the archbishop of Pellington. With the supposed de-emphasization of alignment in D&D 4e, how you interact with the cult could have numerous outcomes but the quest nudges/pushes/forcefully directs players to take a certain course of action.

 

[catsclaw227]

That is all still a "story" the DM is trying to tell through his players, which is one of the worst ways to run a game. Rather than have an predetermined idea of what the PCs should be doing, merely creating a situation in which there are bad guys over here, good guys over there and the PCs in between, and then letting the PCs decide howe to engage the situation is what DMing is about.

No, that is NOT what DMing is about. Well, it may be what it is about in your game, but it is not the definition of DMing. Depending on what set of players and DMs you talk to, DMing can be about a lot of things.

For example, my players wanted to run through Age of Worms, we set it in Greyhawk and we are going through the adventures as defined by the AP. My players like it when I improvise and riff a little here and there, but they want to play out the story set in the AP.

In your opinion, this "is one of the worst ways to run a game." Hmmmm. Tell that to the gang at Paizo. Or to all the other DMs and players that have run an AP. They are very popular, you know.

EDIT: Not pertinent to the thread.