Design & Development: Quests

[ThirdWizard]

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.

This runs counter to the rest of your arguments, which, if I read correctly, are in favor of the PCs doing what they want. (If you weren't, I don't see how you could dislike the quest idea...) But, here, you're saying that it is a bad thing to have lots of options because it increases DM prep time. But, if you're going to have options open to them anyway, then you must have found some solution that you're not telling us about.

Unless you think writing down a few lines of text on a note card during a session is increasing prep time?

Could you clarify this?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

As a DM, i am not a mere slave to the wills of the other players. (Far from it). I am there to provide fun. If my players have fun despite (or because) being railroaded, there is nothing wrong in it.

In my group, we usually enjoy following the DMs (or adventures) plot. That doesn't mean the players have (or will) follow it slavishly. If they diverge from it, so be it. But we _all_ prefer to follow the main plot, because usually, this means we will get served a few interesting and well-thought story. The DM might come up with something cool instead, but he also might not. But since he read the adventure and found it worth DMing, what ever is in there will be good enough for the group.

DM's don't exist in a vacuum. They usually know their players. They know what kind of adventures and quests will go with them, and which won't. If a DM isn't very good at spontatenous plot/adventure/quest generation (like me and at least one or two others of my fellow group), it's best for the whole group if they try to follow the suggested one (unless the suggested one sucks, and then all bets are off.)

 

[Jedi_Solo]

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?

To have them written down.
So all players know exactly what has been asked of the party.
So a single PC knows exactly waht has been asked of that PC (and not the party).
So the players can remember that NPC A asked quest X while NPC B asked quest Y.
So the players remember the particulars of what was asked (Quest Card 1 notes that NPC A wants the target alive while Quest Card 2 notes that NPC B want THE EXACT SAME TARGET dead).

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. ... <snip> ... In a quest you are laying out a specific set of actions and results that must be achieved to garner the XP bonus.

Will someone quote me where these Quest Card state that any particulars (i.e. returning the spy alive) is the ONLY way for the party to get quest xp? Yes, in the primary example the archbishop wants the spy alive. That is because it was the archbishop that gave the party the quest. It should be noted who gave the quest so the players remember (without having to ask the DM - or even to remind the DM if it's been a while) who they need to go back to.

The quest is the seed of the adventure. There is nothing... absolutely nothing that says my PC needs to bring that spy in alive. There may be some bonuses ("the archbishop offered a 100gp reward for each spy brought in"). But that is hardly a straightjacket. Nothing is stopping the party from telling the spies that they "are being paid 100gp to bring you in. Pay us 110gp and we will let you go."

If a reward has been offered it should be noted ("You've been promised the Sword of Kewlness +1") if for nothing else than to help the players "remember which quest would get them that cool sword". Why would that stop the players from looking for a better deal?

 

[Imaro]

This runs counter to the rest of your arguments, which, if I read correctly, are in favor of the PCs doing what they want. (If you weren't, I don't see how you could dislike the quest idea...) But, here, you're saying that it is a bad thing to have lots of options because it increases DM prep time. But, if you're going to have options open to them anyway, then you must have found some solution that you're not telling us about.

Unless you think writing down a few lines of text on a note card during a session is increasing prep time?

Could you clarify this?

I'm asking what purpose does it serve as an exact mechanic if you're essentially ad-libbing and switching it up anyway (the cards IMHO, are even more of a waste in this aspect)? I am in favor of PC's doing what they want...but how does creating a bunch of quests (which essentially still direct and influence the PC's choices unlesss you create an infinite number of "quests") facillitate this? I argued earlier that it should be a character/player driven mechanic (since in the end only the player knows how his PC will react to a situation) with some guidelines for DM's to assign xp dependant upon the challenges faced in achieving their goals. How does this contradict that? In the end I feel this setup is to rigid, and the assigning of xp makes it a punish/reward incentive for PC's to do what the DM wants.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Will someone quote me where these Quest Card state that any particulars (i.e. returning the spy alive) is the ONLY way for the party to get quest xp?

Mike Mearls, 4e designer, on the purpose of quest cards:

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!"​

 

[catsclaw227]

Mike Mearls, 4e designer, on the purpose of quest cards:

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!"​

Can't find that quote anywhere, but here's what he put in the ACTUAL design and development article:

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.

When the players have cards or some other visual representation of their quests, it's easy for them to remember what they're supposed to be doing -- and to sort out goals that might be contradictory. That's a really interesting ramification of the quest system: It's okay to give the players quests they don't complete, quests that conflict with each other, or quests that conflict with the characters' alignments and values.

Emphasis mine. I can't find the part that says that this will be a codified system in the DMG, I can't find the part of the article that states that what is on the card will reap XP rewards, nor can I find the part of the article that states that they must follow the quests on all the cards to enjoy playing the game.

Again:

It's okay to give the players quests they don't complete, quests that conflict with each other, or quests that conflict with the characters' alignments and values.

Is this line being missed by people?

 

[Imaro]

To have them written down.
So all players know exactly what has been asked of the party.
So a single PC knows exactly waht has been asked of that PC (and not the party).
So the players can remember that NPC A asked quest X while NPC B asked quest Y.
So the players remember the particulars of what was asked (Quest Card 1 notes that NPC A wants the target alive while Quest Card 2 notes that NPC B want THE EXACT SAME TARGET dead).

Okay so quest cards are basically PC notes? I have no problem with that, besides the fact that I personally feel the PC's should take their own notes (but that's a whole other argument). In essence I feel if PC's are interested in it they will take thier own notes. How is it any quicker for a DM to jot down a "quest card" than for a PC to do it. If anything the DM doing it stops the game full screech, while a PC doing it doesn't necessarily have to.

Will someone quote me where these Quest Card state that any particulars (i.e. returning the spy alive) is the ONLY way for the party to get quest xp? Yes, in the primary example the archbishop wants the spy alive. That is because it was the archbishop that gave the party the quest. It should be noted who gave the quest so the players remember (without having to ask the DM - or even to remind the DM if it's been a while) who they need to go back to.

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.

Emphasis mine...so if a non-quest goal grants the same xp bonus...why do we have this line in there?

The quest is the seed of the adventure. There is nothing... absolutely nothing that says my PC needs to bring that spy in alive. There may be some bonuses ("the archbishop offered a 100gp reward for each spy brought in"). But that is hardly a straightjacket. Nothing is stopping the party from telling the spies that they "are being paid 100gp to bring you in. Pay us 110gp and we will let you go."

If a reward has been offered it should be noted ("You've been promised the Sword of Kewlness +1") if for nothing else than to help the players "remember which quest would get them that cool sword". Why would that stop the players from looking for a better deal?

Except the xp bonus which alll deesignated "quests" give.

 

[Reynard]

DM's don't exist in a vacuum. They usually know their players. They know what kind of adventures and quests will go with them, and which won't. If a DM isn't very good at spontatenous plot/adventure/quest generation (like me and at least one or two others of my fellow group), it's best for the whole group if they try to follow the suggested one (unless the suggested one sucks, and then all bets are off.)

I am not suggesting that the DM doesn't come up with the adventure(s), or suggesting that the players should make every effort to diverge from the adventure. What I am saying is that if you have a mechanical system in place that rewards, through X, going about an adventure in a particular way -- i.e. a Quest as defined in the Des&Dev article and expounded upon in Mearls' post -- you are railroading and limiting the players options, which are btoh things that are almost universaally decried as "bad DMing".

Players taking notes is a good thing, but if the DM wants to do it for them, more power to him. But this isn't about notes or cards -- it is about taking a standard adventure (a situation) and deciding in advance what the outcome should be (the Quest reward mechanic). One of the great strength of RPGs over other kinds of games -- board games, computer games, card games -- is its open ended nature and its dependence upon the creativity of everyone involved.

 

[Imaro]

As a DM, i am not a mere slave to the wills of the other players. (Far from it). I am there to provide fun. If my players have fun despite (or because) being railroaded, there is nothing wrong in it.

In my group, we usually enjoy following the DMs (or adventures) plot. That doesn't mean the players have (or will) follow it slavishly. If they diverge from it, so be it. But we _all_ prefer to follow the main plot, because usually, this means we will get served a few interesting and well-thought story. The DM might come up with something cool instead, but he also might not. But since he read the adventure and found it worth DMing, what ever is in there will be good enough for the group.

Yet it's still a choice to follow the adventure (though I wonder how you know you are "following " the adventuree unless the DM tells you). You all are making a choice, and not being cajoled with gain or loss of xp to make that particular choice.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can't find that quote anywhere,

It's on his blog (or was) and is linked to earlier in this thread.

RC