What makes a good quest?
| Author | Topic: What makes a good quest? |
|---|---|
|
Apprentice
Member # 5015
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 09:09
Profile
As far as what I learned there are three basic quests in an rpg: An object to acquire - retrieve an object - rescue a person A task to be done - destroy something - kill something - deliver something A place to visit - discover a place - "clean out" a place Can there be something more? If so, what? How can you make an rpg that isn't quest-driven? quote:After reading this, I've been thinking hard on what else could be done differently in an rpg that "would" be interesting and doesn't follow the top three quests? And I'm stumped... As far as I know all rpgs follow the top three quests, but they only differ by the plot of each, and the plot alone determines whether the game is interesting or not, not the "quest engine" itself. So what I think it comes down to is if you are sick of quests... Then you are sick of rpgs. Unless someone can enlighten me on another option other then quest-driven games. Posts: 10 | Registered: Friday, September 24 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4942
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 10:09
Profile
Well, in games like BoE, (where you make your own scenarios) I think the challange is not just making interesting plots, but taking the BoE engine and pushing it to its limits. In scenarios like Bandits 2, you have the option to read books. In Drizzt's scenario, Shadow of the Stranger, he throws a day and night sequence in there. So I think that RPGs are not only making good and interesting plots, but making them more reallistic and fun to play. -------------------- Wham Bam Shizam Posts: 247 | Registered: Monday, September 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 10:11
Profile
Homepage
Nine Variations on Point B was a scenario that mused essentially on this. It constructed a scenario backwards, from the obstacles to the plot instead of the other way around, and I think it was almost successful in doing so. Ultimately I think there is no one formula that pleases everyone. Some people like the tactical challenge of complicated, difficult combat. Some people like puzzles. Some people like choices and role-playing those choices. Some people like graphics. Some people like other elements. Most people like some combination of the above elements. I still enjoy getting a new ruleset, so to speak, and new monsters, new spells, new abilities, and new situations create interesting combat for me. Some people just don't like combat at all. I like puzzles that are obviously puzzles but are difficult to solve. Some people like puzzles that are more subtle. I like pretty graphics (I admit it) but not so much that I need something more elaborate than the Avernum engine. I've been musing on the difference in reactions to VoDT and ASR. Some people worship ASR and loathe VoDT. Some people worship VoDT and hate ASR. I think the difference may be that the ones who liked ASR care more about choices, plotline, moral dilemmas, and deeper meanings. The ones who liked VoDT care more about exploration and combat. VoDT is an unashamed dungeon crawl, whereas ASR is more plot-driven. The Exile and Avernum Trilogies tend to lean more towards the VoDT style of design, whereas Geneforge has so far tended more towards ASR. Hrm. More musing to come later. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5015
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 10:23
Profile
quote:yes, but these are all examples of incentives. Which are nice additions to an rpg... But rpgs still are basically a plot that is told by the list of quests in my post above all woven together. If there is another way of telling an interactive story and still make it interesting without the use of these quests, I would like to know. If many people complain that they are tired of these quests. Then what else is there to replace them? (I'm not just talking any of the blades editor/games) I'm just looking for insight. Kelandon - I understand many people enjoy different aspects of an rpg, such as some prefer better graphics, others prefer to see new spells, more powerful weapons, etc... However, that doesn't really touch base on my original question either. I've seen it too many times that people complain that they are tired of quest-driven rpgs... But if you take the quests out of an rpg, what do you have left? Nothing at all. Quests are used in order to progress a story in an rpg. If there are other ways in doing so. What are they? :confused: Posts: 10 | Registered: Friday, September 24 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4942
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 10:40
Profile
I think that Kelandon made a very good point. Moral dillemas and deeper meaning is a big thing in rpgs now as well. Philosophy and ethics adds more meat to a scenario, and makes it more fun to play. -------------------- Wham Bam Shizam Posts: 247 | Registered: Monday, September 6 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 10:49
Profile
What makes a quest interesting is if finishing the quest gets you rewards that would have not been readily available in the game. There are a few variations on your list. 1. Protecting a person on a journey. 2. Talking to various creatures/npc's to gather enough information to solve a problem. Having to talk to three npcs to get the final answer for a fourth NPC. 3. Solve a mystery. Gather several pieces of "evidence"-- items to solve a happening-- murder, theft, disappearance. 4. Sequential journey. Required to go to three locations in sequence. Religious pilgrimage, or exploring expedition. 5. Purposefully unsolvable quest-- find a beast which does not exist or always runs away, item that never existed. This might be interesting. You never complete the quest, but you get hints along the way. Ends in unsolved quest or proof that item did not exist. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 11:11
Profile
Homepage
quote:Agreed, but still some hate Geneforge and preferred ASR over VoDT. TM for one. I'm also sure you can classify all those quests into categories, but these might not have been the best ones. Let's see--- Person oriented: - Kill a person/monster - Rescue/kidnap a person - Protect/escort someone to a place Object oriented: - Retrieve/steal an object - Destroy an object/intercept a message - Deliver an object/message Place oriented: - Travel to/explore a place - As you said, "clean out" a place - Destroy/sabotage a place However, the combinations are almost endless. There's bound to be something that hasn't been done before... for example I'm sure the party has never been hired to intercept a message before. Usually it's the bad guys who do the intercepting. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 11:26
Profile
Homepage
I'd like to consider myself sufficiently experienced enough to make a few comments on this issue: It's easy, when posed with the mounting problem of innovation in a roleplaying setting, to question how one can be innovative. This, of course, is an over-generalization that itself asks a few questions which I will address in turn: What comprises an "old" RPG? Technically, the oldest RPGs are Dungeons and Dragons. Unfortunately, this type of game is impossible in the vaccuum of this discussion. For example, I give you Realmz: It is essentially D&D in a computer setting, and the nuances of D&D are lost therein- the plotline is fixed. True, it's very open ended: But essentially, the story has already been laid out for the characters. Who, for instance, has led a conversation with a character in any computer game? The computer does not have the ability to anticipate a player's every response as a DM would. Likewise, neither does a computer game have the ability to facilitate every possible thing a player can do. Try as it may, this type of game is patently impossible. Thus, an old RPG is a type of game wherein it tries futilely to act like D&D. This is not a possibility, and it is this enlightenment which produces better RPGs in a computer setting when embraced. What comprises a "new" RPG? As covered earlier, truly open-ended RPGs are a feat of impossibility. This poses a dillema, then: There are comparatively "linear" RPGs, such as Final Fantasy or the majority of better BoE scenarios; there are comparatively "open-ended" RPGs, such as Fallout or Morrowind. (Not that the examples given are even near being similar in terms of quality, mind you.) There are definitely successes on both ends of the spectrum. Let us, then, examine the successes and failures of each individually: What makes a successful "open-ended" game? Fallout is perhaps the best "open-ended" RPG I have thus seen, with the sole exception of its prodigy. What portions of it make it so successful, then? Since so much of that game is successful, it would serve us better to examine the antipathy: Fallout is least successful when one immediately leaves Vault 13 and when one needs to deal with the mutants. In Fallout, one is provided with ample leads and a story that does not let up on any of its tiers- neither the local interactions nor the overreaching plot are ever stale, and the player always knows where to go in order to be a part of either. (Fallout 2, on the other hand, has no portions of gameplay where the player is disenchanted or lost. This makes it a poor example to use in this discussion, but an excellent game, and massively undercharged at a whopping 20$.) What makes a successful "linear" RPG? A Final Fantasy product is rife with problems beyond the paradigm it has selected. Putting those aside, then, it is still a worthwhile exercise to examine a FF game for its more successful moments. FF7's Midgar City is one of the best moments of the franchise's history up to and beyond this individual game's conception. What makes it a success is also an engrossing plot, as well as an element of conscious control. There is no straying from the path in FF7 in any of its moments, which is why I think one of the most masochistic design choices in making this game is including such a slew of hidden "gems" that take the player off of his/her path which the plot has provided. In Midgar, this type of nonsense exists in moderation, but does not exist so far as there are individual dungeons whose only reasons to exist are nooks and crannies to pick up new materia. (Such arguments work marvelously against its final dungeon as well, which is a genuine tragedy, but the player has been so completely disenchanted by this point that the game they expected to play two days ago at its apex has descended into its nadir so rapidly thereafter that the player is no longer surprised by such incompetence.) In Midgar as well as any well-executed linear plotline, then, there are critical elements which culminate in success: Focus, Engrossment, and Control. The lattermost of this list is optional, but the difference between control and its lack thereof is the difference of success and mediocrity, whereas the difference between the former two and their lacks thereof is the difference between success and total failure. What unites "new" RPGs, regardless of paradigm, and how is this achieved? This is the trickiest horse to tackle, and will remain nebulous after Spiderweb Software has collapsed. Herein lies the element of innovation. How does one invent new ways keep a player interested? In the old days, a castle was a castle and a dragon was a dragon. By now, however, a player has seen so many castles that yet another castle means nothing and a dragon means noting but 5000 gil and 1000 EXP or roundabouts. The Blades of Exile scenario An Apology sits proudly at the top of Comprehensive Scenario Reviews. It is considered to be innovative- in the genre of Blades of Exile, it said something important about control, but even beyond that, it made a story that involved the player. In Of Good and Evil, one makes an important choice that alters the world around them, the only disadvantage of such a choice being its opacity. Fallout doesn't have any control, nor does it have choices beyond those on the local level. What makes these games so high-end, then, is character involvement. By effectively resonating with a player, an RPG can be controlled by a player or control the player however it wishes depending on its paradigm and be quality. Dungeons and Dragons too involves the players, it is the ideal of a world which the players can control and is open to their collective imaginations, and in doing so makes them a part of the game. Innovation in modernized and computerized RPGs, then, is reclaiming what they lost with their conception. The more a player feels like he or she is in the boots of the role he or she is playing, the better the RPG becomes. Essentially, while the means of achieving this have changed by necessity, the key to a Roleplaying Game is Role Playing. -------------------- 私のバラドですそしてころしたいいらればころす Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5091
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 14:50
Profile
*points silently at his displayed name* Posts: 180 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, October 24 2004 19:24
Profile
Homepage
U4 is basically just 16 fetch quests and 9 visit quests. Virtue-building feels more like level-building than questing; somthing you need to do gradually in order to be able to do the other stuff. Actually, that gives me an idea. Perhaps it's better to think not in terms of what kinds of quest there are but in terms of what fundamental elements a quest is composed of. After all, virtually all quests involve travelling a particular location, which sometimes has to be discovered. Most involve talking to someone, if only to receive the mission in the first place. Many involve combat. Many involve retrieving items. Perhaps other fundamental elements could be added to this list, but it's a pretty short list; what makes a quest interesting isn't what motions the party has to go through, it's how you combine them and what unique details they involve (character, atmosphere and so on). Asserting that there are only a few types of quest is like asserting that there are only 16 different types of story or whatever number is currently fashionable among academics: technically correct if you define your terms a certain way, but absurd and useless in practice. There's no point talking about what makes general types of quest good without going into specific details, because it's the specific details that make a quest good. A quest to kill someone is bland and generic; a quest to assassinate a king is a little less so; a quest to assassinate a king who killed your father less so still; and a quest to assassinate a king who killed your father because, unbeknownst to anyone but the two of them, he was the rightful heir to the throne, is starting to sound like an original plot. Complexity lies not in the individual elements but in the number of ways different plot elements and atmospheric details can be combined. [ Sunday, October 24, 2004 19:30: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 22
|
written Monday, October 25 2004 00:24
Profile
I fail to see what the problem is in the types of quests. After all, I can't think of a situation in life that isn't people orientated, object orientated or place orientated. You're giving yourself fairly wide variables there. It's all a matter of what you bring to the table - there will always be room for imagination and originality in any medium, be it literature, life or computer gaming. That said, many RPGs are becoming infuriatingly repetitive, but I'm not sure whether that has more to do with the quests or the medieval fantasy background that most of them are set within. Posts: 2862 | Registered: Tuesday, October 2 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5092
|
written Monday, October 25 2004 10:22
Profile
What makes a good quest??? ... ... ... Fires...Lots and lots of FIRES!!! Uh, and CHICKS! Posts: 38 | Registered: Friday, October 15 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4389
|
written Monday, October 25 2004 14:04
Profile
Homepage
HOT chicks. -------------------- fame fame fatal fame it can play hideous tricks on the brain Posts: 407 | Registered: Friday, May 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, October 25 2004 15:39
Profile
Homepage
Speaking of which, I think I'll make a scenario in which several of my large_draw_pic_dialog calls bring up pictures of Ms. wosie posie. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4847
|
written Monday, October 25 2004 15:46
Profile
Kelandon: Wouldn't that be playing with fire? (Hint: Use the phrase 'ménage à trois'... it has more cachet, and a better chance for success;) -------------------- You are standing at the end of a road before a small brick building. Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and down a gully. Posts: 16 | Registered: Thursday, August 12 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Monday, October 25 2004 16:26
Profile
There are a few situational quests. 1) You have been framed prove your innocence. 2) You have amnesia figure out who you are. 3) You are asked to do something which turns out to be a hoax. 4) You receive an inheritance/gift now you must collect it. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Monday, October 25 2004 16:29
Profile
Aye and there are quests to improve yourself - Become an avatar as was pointed out earlier - Earn the right to join the Vahnatai These do sorta fall under the quest for items category but are at least in their own special sub category. Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, October 25 2004 17:21
Profile
Homepage
I'd say quests become better when you are given a goal, not the actions you must take to accomplish it. Hence, in place of "assassinate the king so that his less genocidal son inherits the throne," you might be told simply to "stop the genocidal purges of fluffy bunnies and puppies." You can kill the king, convince him to love fluffy bunnies, or kidnap him and usurp his power for yourself. Obviously there are still good and bad ways to pull this off, but even simple things like "retrieve artifact A by killing dragon B or convincing dragon B that you are doing it a favor by showing it recall order C (artifact A contains small parts and is dangerous if swallowed)" are better than simply killing the dragon or giving the dragon something else in exchange for the artifact. —Alorael, who still cares more about the plot in which a quest is couched than the mechanics of the quest. That's the problem with so many sidequests. They scream meaningless sidequest at the player. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Wednesday, October 27 2004 03:26
Profile
Why are quests necessary? Sure, you may need an overarching one, but the best RPGs are those that immerse you in their world. That doesn't have to mean a constant succession of quests. -------------------- Voice of Reasonable Morality Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Wednesday, October 27 2004 13:03
Profile
Homepage
To immerse you in the world, there obviously has to be an objective. The longer a single objective lasts, the better (a long arcing plot of fulfilling one quest appears more structured than thousands of tiny side quests strung up after each other). Also, some games hide their quests, or make the knowledge of what exactly you have to do a secret in itself. Great idea. Go MYST. :D Just because the term "quest" is used, it doesn't mean it has to be a straightforward, generic mission like someone walking up to you and saying "do this, kill that, go there, get the other and bring it here, and you get 5000 gold". It can be far more subtle and original. But entirely without one, the game is impossible to play. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |