Design & Development: Quests

[Jedi_Solo]

What we are discussing is the Quest mechanic that is designed to reward players for accomplishing a goal in a particular way.

Remove "in a particular way" and I would agree with you. (I'd also question the use of the word "mechanic". Maybe "suggestion" or "tool". Anyway...)

I would agree that the card would (likely) include the 'suggested' or maybe even 'expected' method of completing the goal. The archbishop wants the spies alive. The card says "alive" because that is how the archbishop (not the DM but the NPC) would like the quest completed.

The DM, if he is a RBDM will have the Archbishop, a rival group that wants the spies died and the Spymaster himself all having given the party Quest Cards that all contradict eachother.

The party couldn't possably complete all three fully because the Archbishop wants the spies alive; the rival group wants the spies dead and the SPymaster wants the party working for them.

How exactly does the fact that these plotlines are notarized on a 3x5 card stop the players from having all three quest cards at the same time?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is the important piece. Now take it in context with Mearls' deeper explanation of the system. The idea is, when you combine those two sources, that players get extra XP for "completing story goals" that are both predetermined and restrictive. "Uncover the spies and bring them alive before the Archbishop" is a predetermined, restrictive thing for which to give bonus XP. The PCs that kill the spies don't get the bonus XP. The PCs that trick the spies into giving false information to their masters don't get bonus XP. The PCs that engineer infighting and self destruction of the spies don't get bonus XP. Only the PCs that do what the Quest description says -- bring them alive before the Archbishop -- get the bonus XP. It turns XP from carrot" to "stick" pretty effectively.

It's stupid within a combat, to lay down your arms and get yourself hammered to death. You don't get XP for that. Now, if you happen to convince your enemy that you are not actually their enemy, you might get XP for that.

It's stupid in the world to kill the spies if the Archbishop wants them alive. You don't get XP for that. Now, if you happen to work together with the spies, you might get XP for that.

So, what's wrong with designating certain actions by the PCs simply as failures? If the PCs were supposed to rescue the village, and failed, well, they shouldn't be rewarded for that, right?
If my boss offers me to works extra time for a little bonus, is that using the stick to force me to work extra time? If I don't like/can't work extra time, I just don't get the bonus.

Using the stick would be "What? You killed the the spies? You don't get the XP for beating them then, you know that? That wasn't your goal". Because the PCs achieved something (they killed the spies, after all!), but didn't get anything in return. That sounds unfair.

Players get XP for killing monsters. That doesn't meant he bully everyone running around (and not looking too tough) into a fight to get XP, too!

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Also, I would say that the players should get a specific additional XP reward for bringing the spies in alive. It's actually a lot easier and safer to just waste someone in D&D than it is to capture them alive, and capturing them alive will have distinct benefits over just killing the lot of them, so players should be given something extra for choosing the more difficult yet ultimately more rewarding course of action. In this case, it's a carrot, not a stick.

Full agreement. If there was just a rumor of a spy network or something and the PCs were expected to remove the network I would guess soemwhere around 95% or parties would go in with wands blazing.

The joke is after all to "kill things and take their stuff".

For this reason I would rate the xp for killing the spies as the standard xp reward. I can definately see bringing them in alive getting a bonus.

This doesn't contradict my above statement with having a group wanting the spies dead either. If the PCs want to kill the spies the rival group doesn't give as big a reward (maybe just some extra cash and no bonus xp).

 

[Reynard]

Full agreement. If there was just a rumor of a spy network or something and the PCs were expected to remove the network I would guess soemwhere around 95% or parties would go in with wands blazing.

The joke is after all to "kill things and take their stuff".

For this reason I would rate the xp for killing the spies as the standard xp reward. I can definately see bringing them in alive getting a bonus.

This doesn't contradict my above statement with having a group wanting the spies dead either. If the PCs want to kill the spies the rival group doesn't give as big a reward (maybe just some extra cash and no bonus xp).

See, i totally disagree with this method of DMing and doling out XP. What *I* think the players should do in completing the adventure is totally irrelevent. It is my job to create an interesting, engaging situation and then adjudicate around the PCs' actions and the die rolls. Extra XP for acting a certain way or doing a certain thing gets in the way of that.

Of course some players like having specific goals and well defined predetermined courses of action. Those are the hardest people for me to DM for because we end up just staring at each other every time I say, "What are you going to do?"

 

[ThirdWizard]

What we are discussing is the Quest mechanic that is designed to reward players for accomplishing a goal in a particular way.

Hm. I don't see it that way at all. Never mind that we haven't seen the actual text in the DMG, the article presented implies the opposite. It has been quoted many times, but I'll do it again anyway:

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.

I can't find anything in the article that contradicts this paragraph.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Of course some players like having specific goals and well defined predetermined courses of action. Those are the hardest people for me to DM for because we end up just staring at each other every time I say, "What are you going to do?"

I'm sure this isn't what you are saying but this is how I just read this:

That you are just going to sit there until some one says that they go out looking for a dungeon. No adventure seeds, no rumors to go after and no NPCs to interact with until the fighter goes up and starts a tavern brawl.

I'm sure I'm missing something.

What I can't quite grasp at the moment if - with our primary example - what you take issue with is that the Archbishop gave the PCs a quest (what it sounds like from your above post) or that the Archbishop wants the spies alive.

I have no problem with either aspect. I'm in gaming for the story. I don't want A quest card - I want a half-dozen cards active the same time. I want a roladex to flip through and choose from. I want a hlaf-dozen different assignments that all contradict eachother. Give me so many options that I can't possibly do them all. A single Quest Card is boring, a bunch of cards is a recipe for a really cool character history that I built.

I want to be given the challenge of bringing the bad guys in alive (something veteran players are often trained against doing because a live villain will always come back to torment you later). I want stuff that will make this fight different from the last one. I want a fight where we have to take the bad guy alive. I want a fight where we have to achieve some goal in a certain number of rounds. I want a fight where we have to take down the bad guy without using weapons - or without using spells.

I don't care about the bonus xp (I won't refuse to take it) but the munchkin player beside me might need an incentive to go that extra mile. The player beside him might want the bonus gpp for prisoners in order to afford the new tower on his keep. The player beside him might want to be in favor with the Archbishop for story reasons.

I have DMed before but it doesn't happen very often. That said, I want a DM to want the players to care. I believe that if the players care the game become exponentially better. It becomes more engaiging and characters become more developed. There are a bunch of ways to make the players care about a certain outcome (the desired outcome may not be the same for all players, but al players desire an outcome):

Advancing the main story (capturing the spies)
Advancing a personal story (gaining favor with the Archbishop)
PC gain (extra gp)
Power gain (extra xp)

I see nothing wrong with offering a carrot. Different players just want different carrots.

 

[The Little Raven]

It isn't the Quest Cards that are at issue, its the implementation of Quests as it has been described to us by Mearls that I think is problematic for a lot of folks.

"A lot of folks."

That's funny, because only a handful of people (only really you and Imaro, now) are complaining and they keep making things up like "You have to complete this quest in one particular way or you don't get experience," while completely ignoring people that point out that is untrue.

Most other people see the benefit in writing down objectives for their players to easily understand.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Fixed that for you.

I take it that by "fixed," you mean "deliberately misconstrued."

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

only a handful of people (only really you and Imaro, now) are complaining and they keep making things up like "You have to complete this quest in one particular way or you don't get experience," while completely ignoring people that point out that is untrue.

This bears repeating. The notions that you can't alter quests on the fly, chuck old quests and replace them when the plan changes, or allow players to determine what the quests are going to be, are all entirely constructed by the posters in this thread, and are not presented by the article in question.

 

[Reynard]

This bears repeating. The notions that you can't alter quests on the fly, chuck old quests and replace them when the plan changes, or allow players to determine what the quests are going to be, are all entirely constructed by the posters in this thread, and are not presented by the article in question.

They aren't supported by the article, either, and Mearls' comments make it clear that these are supposed to be goals handed out at the beginning of the adventure/quest and are to be completed by the PCs.