# Design & Development: Quests



## bording (Nov 21, 2007)

Looks like a new Design & Development article is up, detailing the quest system thats going to be in 4th edition:


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071121


It sounds like it could end up being a pretty cool way to add some mechanics/guidelines to adventure rewards and making sure they are balanced with everything else.




> In D&D, the words "adventure" and "quest" are virtually synonymous. They both mean a journey, fraught with danger that you undertake for a specific purpose. We sometimes joke that the game is all about killing monsters and taking their stuff, but the reality is that the game is about adventures. You go into the dungeon and kill monsters with a larger purpose in mind: to stop their raids on caravans, to rescue the townsfolk they've captured, to retrieve the lost Scepter of the Adamantine Kings for the rightful descendant of those kings.
> 
> Quests are the story glue that binds encounters together into adventures. They turn what would otherwise be a disjointed series of combats and interactions into a narrative -- a story with a beginning, a middle, and a climactic ending. They give characters a reason for doing what they do, and a feeling of accomplishment when they achieve their goals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gundark (Nov 21, 2007)

edit...oooops beat to the punch


----------



## bording (Nov 21, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> edit...oooops beat to the punch





Yeah, I went back and added the article text right before you posted it.


----------



## Aloïsius (Nov 21, 2007)

Hum, quest-cards ?


----------



## Lackhand (Nov 21, 2007)

I very much doubt that I'll do the card part of that -- I tend not to do miniatures, even, so I'm no stranger to removing concrete representations of an abstract game  -- but this sounds awesome, and may easily introduce mechanics and advice that I, in my 3x5-less world, can adopt and adapt.

A bit gimmicky, a bit awesome, and a bit of actual "how to run the game" advice that I've not seen before.

Neat!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 21, 2007)

This could be quite useful in providing a structure and solid advice that helps novice DMs build strong adventures.

Or taken too far, it could degenerate into:

PC1: So what quests are we offered?
PC2: A, B, and C.
Player 1: How much XP for each?
Player 2: 1000, 2000, 4000
Player 1: Is C balanced for our character level?
Player 2: Sure, it's within the quest-by-level XP and gold guidelines.
PC1: We'll take quest C.


----------



## bording (Nov 21, 2007)

I like the idea of giving the players something physical to remind them of their goals. I already hand out index cards to represent magic items and other gear, so I think the addition of quest cards should work quite nicely in my games.


----------



## Commonblade (Nov 21, 2007)

*smack

My players need this...now...must go home and do this.


----------



## wedgeski (Nov 21, 2007)

Not a bad little idea, but one I won't take up myself. 

Highly reminiscebnt of the kind of quest log you get in MMO's. In and of itself, not a bad thing: it's just translating work traditionally done by the party book-keeper over to the DM.


----------



## adamda (Nov 21, 2007)

I think the card idea has potential. I do NOT think cards should have XP rewards written on them, just perhaps promised rewards if any from the quest giver. I don't want a video game, I want D&D, and knowing the rewards to every little quest in explicit detail does not ring to me of something where the story is flexible and the results for completion are not something that can always be scripted. I certainly do not want PCs choosing only the course of action that will get them the most experience, instead of choosing tasks that their characters are most interested in. In a mercenary campaign, sure, spelled out rewards make sense, but not in true heroic fantasy.

A concern of mine is flexibility. I don't want DMs or PCs to get stuck that what is written on paper is what needs to occur. Circumstances arise in a non linear game that deserve more or less rewards. Perhaps you manage to kill the evil wizard, but the collateral damage of the fight is half of the village. You sure won't be getting the full prize money, but PCs might argue that if it's written down it's a contract. Petty, sure, but potentially annoying.


----------



## sidonunspa (Nov 21, 2007)

bording said:
			
		

> Looks like a new Design & Development article is up, detailing the quest system thats going to be in 4th edition:
> 
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071121
> ...




Some Living Campaigns... such as ::: warning! Shameless plug, warning! :::   Living Arcanis have been doing this for years.

Except the "Cards" are replaced with "Certs"

Good to see that they have included it in 4e

Here is another idea for home games....  find a picture of an item online (lets use a brooch for instance) with Photoshop or some other program, add an inscription to it.. Or in a word processing program just write in some nice script what’s on the back of it.. 

Use that as the clue/outline of your quest, in character, cool looking, and gives the characters that "hook" to remind them what they need to do


----------



## Lackhand (Nov 21, 2007)

Remember that the cards are metagame.

At the point at which the players' characters stroll up to the (still on fire) Baron and request their thirteen chests of gold, he denies them payment.

They complain and proffer their "quest contract".


You smile, grimly, and hand them a new one -- "Steal thirteen chests of gold from the baron."


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 21, 2007)

I am so not a target customer for this game... :\


----------



## XCorvis (Nov 21, 2007)

adamda said:
			
		

> I think the card idea has potential. I do NOT think cards should have XP rewards written on them, just perhaps promised rewards if any from the quest giver...
> 
> A concern of mine is flexibility. I don't want DMs or PCs to get stuck that what is written on paper is what needs to occur...




Agreed. I think of the quests as being meta-objects. They don't exist in the game, they're just handy physical representations of something you were told verbally (or maybe you _do_ have an in-game contract). I think the key is to keep the wording pretty general. You're summarizing the quest, not describing it. For example: "Recover the MacGuffin for the Sinister Man," but not "Find the MacGuffin at 1505 Fifth St, slay all the hobgoblins who protect it, salt the earth with rock salt (not sea salt), and deliver it to the Sinister Man by 5 pm on Friday at the coffee shop on 3rd and Vine." If there are several conditions "required" by the quest-giver, let the players write them down on the card.

One thing that worries me about it is that more literal minded players may decide that if a GM doesn't give you a quest card for an event, it's not worth exploring. The cards seem great for GM-driven games, but could be problematic for player driven games. One quick fix for this might be to let the players write some quest cards too, or at least be able to ask the DM to write a card.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Nov 21, 2007)

Seemed like it was just a suggestion.

I can see how it would be a good idea to keep folks on track (players and DM)


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 21, 2007)

Quests?
Quests?
?
?
*?* 
*

?

*

[Sarcasm] No, they aren't MMO influenced [/Sarcasm]

I actually think it is an okay suggestion if you have a somewhat ditzy group or are light on immersion.  It's a DMG thing which basically means like all DMG stuff it will get ignored.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 21, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I am so not a target customer for this game... :\



Dude, it's just a suggestion in the DMG. THere's no rule that says "Make Quest Cards or you suck".


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 21, 2007)

adamda said:
			
		

> I think the card idea has potential. I do NOT think cards should have XP rewards written on them, just perhaps promised rewards if any from the quest giver. I don't want a video game, I want D&D, and knowing the rewards to every little quest in explicit detail does not ring to me of something where the story is flexible and the results for completion are not something that can always be scripted. I certainly do not want PCs choosing only the course of action that will get them the most experience, instead of choosing tasks that their characters are most interested in. In a mercenary campaign, sure, spelled out rewards make sense, but not in true heroic fantasy.




The article said nothing about writing the experience reward on the card...  only the agreed upon reward offered by the hiring NPC to the PCs, should they complete the job.  The card, for example, might cimply read something like:

"Find and destroy the Ruby Tome of Savrith to gain the loyal patronage of the Paladin's mentor."

Or:

"Find the ruby Tome of Savrith and return it the Shady Character at the Cloak & Dagger Tavern in exchange for untraceable gems and jewelry valued at not less than 1,000 gp."

It's simply meant to be a tangible reminder of what the characters have agreed to do in-game.


----------



## JoelF (Nov 21, 2007)

Overall, I like this idea.  However, I do see a few issues.  First, the example of the "you find a key, here's the quest card to find the lock it fits" seems a bit heavy handed to me.  If they find a key that gives them a quest card, they know it's important, but if they find some keys that have no card, they ignore them and they get forgotten more easily.  I'd rather have them find the key, then if they in character talk about how it must unlock something pretty important since it has a ruby on it, and make a big deal of finding that lock, then giving them the quest card.  If you already had something specific for it to open, great, if not, you can make it up and insert it later.

The other concern is with the conflicting PC quests.  If the paladin wants to destroy the book, but the rouge wants to sell it, and therefore makes a fake, replaces the real book with it, helps the paladin destroy the fake, then sells the real one, the rogue gets XP, the paladin doesn't, and the paladin PC therefore knows something is up - while without the quest cards, the fake-out could be handled through notes, email, etc, and the paladin player would never know (at least until the book was used for some horrible ritual later in the campaign and the rogue squirms.)


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 21, 2007)

I'm not sure I understand this "system".

What's the difference between this quest thingy and writing reminder notes to forgetful and/or lazy players?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 21, 2007)

To Expand, I think the cards can do something to lift a "who was that king guy again" game into a slightly higher narrative game.  I don't think my player driven, soap-opera style game would gain a lot.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 21, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand this "system".
> 
> What's the difference between this quest thingy and writing reminder notes to forgetful and/or lazy players?




Story awards with an attempt to balance them written into the DMG.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 21, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> To Expand, I think the cards can do something to lift a "who was that king guy again" game into a slightly higher narrative game.  I don't think my player driven, soap-opera style game would gain a lot.



Me either, but it's more useful and practical advice than is found in the 3E DMG, IMO. The stuff WotC put into the PHB2 and DMG2, helping new players and DMs come to grips with the game, is almost certainly going to be front and center in the 4E books. And that's a good thing, IMO. D&D shouldn't only be available to those able to pass through the gauntlet of "figure out how the hell to play this game or waste $100."


----------



## Cam Banks (Nov 21, 2007)

I want big yellow exclamation mark and big yellow question mark props, too.

Cheers,
Cam


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2007)

Yeah I think it's useful advice... But less so if you tend to play "one thing at a time" type campaigns...  I tend to do this already... Once the actual adventure is completed they get a XP bonus.  As others have said I guess this rules is aimed more at newbs...  

The onus now will be for the DM to create multiple quests and adventures going on at once...


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 21, 2007)

Makes me think about using the Paizo treasure and item cards. Those would be some very nice representations of rewards or items found.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 21, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand this "system".
> 
> What's the difference between this quest thingy and writing reminder notes to forgetful and/or lazy players?



The quest system is a system for assigning appropriate xp rewards for story-driven goals. Very different from reminder notes.

There is absolutely no difference between the handed out cards and reminder notes.

As a whole, I vastly prefer quest-based or goal-based xp to combat xp, so I like that they may have a proper system for it. This is another good change that I like.


----------



## Masquerade (Nov 21, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> What's the difference between this quest thingy and writing reminder notes to forgetful and/or lazy players?



There isn't much of a real difference. A written reminder is almost exactly what this is, but this suggestion provides a bit more formality to it. A consistent format.

I like it; in fact, these "quest cards" are something I wish I had thought of years ago. Yeah, it's MMORPG-derived, but that doesn't mean it can't work in D&D.


----------



## Commonblade (Nov 21, 2007)

Well here is some of what I think I am going to give my players to help remind them of the dangeling plot hooks.

Defeat Zam Fear "The Hunter" and his hounds.

Defeat Zam Fear "The Hunter" 's army of Choasitech creations and prevent them from exterminating the Shifter Tribes of the Southern Continent. 

Stop Baron Manclark from completing his scheme to conquer the lands of his rivals.

Stop Vickbone and his party from collecting the keys to open the Shrine in town of  Fortitude and releasing the weapon of Thazidun.

Bring down the radical elements in the Church of Pelor and prevent them from plunging the country into a religious Civil War. 

Find the "World Stone" and restore it to return the planet to the Prime. 

Keep Thazidun from escaping while doing the above.


----------



## Mortellan (Nov 21, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand this "system".
> 
> What's the difference between this quest thingy and writing reminder notes to forgetful and/or lazy players?




The difference is "cha-ching". I had a joking feeling D&D was headed toward a hybrid mini-CCG, maybe it isn't so crazy. This is just a test for something much larger I'm sure.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 21, 2007)

It seems to oversimplify things.  You can have a party that is doing different things for different reasons, and they may not be sure they even want to go all the way with a quest if they don't trust the source (or multiple sources).  They may be doing something to see if they wish to go further, or to see if they can trust a source or an idea.  The idea of "do this for this" just doesn't seem to work with a more complicated adventure.

I don't object at all to the fact that this sort of thing is most done in video games including WoW.  I think motivations and actions can be more complex in RPGs and this sort of removes one of the ways an RPG can really outshine a video game.


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (Nov 21, 2007)

I dunno. Next thing you know they'll be suggesting we have a tape recorder on hand to play that scribbling/scratching sound you hear anytime an NPC in a computer game says 'Here, let me update your map for you'.

I think handing out index cards with quests on them smacks too much of just trying to duplicate what works in computer games, even if it doesn't fit in with the play experience of a regular tabletop RPG. I'll be the first to admit that sometimes my players have forgotten exactly what item they are supposed to be looking for, and who to return it to, but this way of reminding them seems just a little too hamhanded.

OTOH, having a system defined for how to build quests and assign appropriate rewards is a fine idea. I'm just not sold on the cards.


----------



## Sammael (Nov 21, 2007)

While useful to keep the players focused on the game, quest cards seem like an open invitation for players to metagame. 

And yes, they are a direct port from CRPGs.


----------



## Stone Dog (Nov 21, 2007)

Cam Banks said:
			
		

> I want big yellow exclamation mark and big yellow question mark props, too.



I actually might buy one of the ballcaps with a yellow "!" to put on when something important is happening and everybody is arguing about pizza.


Or perhaps use the quest cards from Dungeoneer as supplements.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2007)

It's not saying the cards are something you HAVE to use. They just said it's advice on an easy way to keep track of it. Nothing is saying you need to do so though.


----------



## Mortellan (Nov 21, 2007)

Scribble said:
			
		

> It's not saying the cards are something you HAVE to use. They just said it's advice on an easy way to keep track of it. Nothing is saying you need to do so though.



 You don't have to use minis and a 5' per square grid either.


----------



## adamda (Nov 21, 2007)

As for worrying about XP being on the cards, I was referring to Olgar Shiverstone posting a theoretical example of quest cards a few posts above my first. My apologies! That idea just scared the warlock out of me.

I too fear the CRPG-dom. But some things could be well implemented, so I'm not going to hate everything just because it has a video game feel.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 21, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> You don't have to use minis and a 5' per square grid either.




Sure, but this is pretty different. The ramifications of not having a visual aid for combat are a bit more then not having a visual aid for a quest. 

To me, the quest cards are the same as any DM prop that people have advised using in the past. A neat thing players can hold in their hands that pulls them into the game. You could just as easily say: The Baron wants you to find the door this key fits into, and not hand them anything. Players might write it down or not.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 21, 2007)

I wonder if you could have players write down quest cards for their PCs (with DM approval, of course).


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Nov 21, 2007)

While certainly a CRPG port, there's nothing bad about this idea.  A good way for everybody to remember outstanding plot hooks.

Yes, I know players _should_ do better than "We're suppose to kill Guy A, recover plot item Alpha and return it to Allied Dude #1, right?" having something in their hands can help some people.

And no one says you *have* to use them.  If you find them annoying, feel free to keep the narrative story going verbally.

However... using cards could lead to a campagin specific _Wall of Fame_ where you put up all your successful quests.  A visible reminder of what you did to reach your current level, and maybe, just maybe, enough for the players to start to link together those plot elements the DM has been laying down since 1st level...


----------



## Stoat (Nov 21, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> However... using cards could lead to a campagin specific _Wall of Fame_ where you put up all your successful quests.  A visible reminder of what you did to reach your current level, and maybe, just maybe, enough for the players to start to link together those plot elements the DM has been laying down since 1st level...




That, my friend, is a brilliant idea.

**YOINK**


----------



## jasonbostwick (Nov 21, 2007)

I don't think that this is anything that precludes roleplaying or character immersion at all.

I've got a group of players that are very involved in an investigative style campaign (and interested in a story standpoint to the point of helping me detail NPC backgrounds and organizations), all of them with their own individual goals. We use cards similar to these, with portraits of important NPC benefactors on the front, and their motives and requests to the players written on the back. 
The players don't metagame too much using them, (oh well, the GM doesn't have a card for this character, she must not be important) as it is fairly obvious that the cards are mainly for the purposes of remembering easily forgotten details and "Quests" to use Wizard's terminology. 

The need for visual and physical representations of character knowledge is almost necessary to keep track of minutiae in a campaign with detailed social interactions and interweaving plots - details that would stay at the forefront of a character's mind will inevitably be forgotten in between sessions by players who have more important, out of game things to think about.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 21, 2007)

I have had players tell me, explicitly, that they do want to be railroaded (maybe too strong a word for what is described here) or strongly guided.  They don't want to flail around in the dark hoping they'll stumble onto the plot.  

I am trying to break them of this, actually; I want them to help tell me what the plot is.  My job right now is to not hand out cards with quests, but to get them to make their own quest cards (metaphorically speaking).  

Actually ... maybe not just metaphorically speaking.  Hmm.   If at the end of a session they handed me a card or two with a quest suggestion based on what happened during the game, that might be extremely helpful for me as the DM!


----------



## Ashardalon (Nov 21, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> The difference is "cha-ching". I had a joking feeling D&D was headed toward a hybrid mini-CCG, maybe it isn't so crazy. This is just a test for something much larger I'm sure.



Yeah, I bet the Randomized Blank Quest Cards product will be a great hit.



Seriously, there are areas where a C*G approach can work wonders. Miniatures is one. Most people can't create actual miniatures, many can't paint miniatures for various reasons, some people want out-there figures while many don't... the C*G approach can help with these things in one way or another.
Quest cards ... is not one. A full roleplaying game, even less so. Generic quest cards are easily written by oneself. No market. A campaign-specific quest card can only be used by someone in that campaign. Little market, if any at all. That doesn't even cover the promised in-character rewards that could be changed by the course of the game, reducing what value such a card may have. Unless it is blank. In which case, we're back at the blank cards square. Other game mechanics? Perhaps, but outside of tournament settings, you can fully expect people to come up with their own stuff, sharing their cards, and so on, as there is little incentive to use the actual cards, and any attempt to add an incentive to use them would do nothing but alienate the target demographic.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 21, 2007)

JoelF said:
			
		

> The other concern is with the conflicting PC quests.  If the paladin wants to destroy the book, but the rouge wants to sell it, and therefore makes a fake, replaces the real book with it, helps the paladin destroy the fake, then sells the real one, the rogue gets XP, the paladin doesn't, and the paladin PC therefore knows something is up - while without the quest cards, the fake-out could be handled through notes, email, etc, and the paladin player would never know (at least until the book was used for some horrible ritual later in the campaign and the rogue squirms.)



Except this problem can happen in D&D right now. "You want to find the wands of Control Water to stop the flooding." "But I want to *sell* the wands!"


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 21, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Dude, it's just a suggestion in the DMG. THere's no rule that says "Make Quest Cards or you suck".




That's a Design & Development column, for God's sakes. Not a footnote in supplement X. 

Design & Development: you know, the column that's supposed to explain the design logic, the intent behind the rules, what motivates the making of this or that aspect of the game. I take it as such. It might not be a hard rule, but it certainly says something about the target customer of 4E. 

Don't want me to take this as the design logic behind 4E? Don't put this in the *Design & Development* column, then!


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 21, 2007)

I don't really see a downside to this:

1) It suggests that there's going to be more than one option available to PCs at a time, meaning that they may be attempting to bring an end to the railroading culture of D&D.

2) Who hasn't, as a player, lost track of the DM's "subtle" machinations?  What may appear to be be really obvious from the DM's POV gets lost in the noise of a lot of red herrings (which aren't put there intentionally, but get there as a result of PCs talking to random unimportant-to-the-quest NPCs and the DM wanting to portray verisimilitude).  Putting up a flag like a card fixes this problem, even if it's a bit awkward and metagamey for those who like an immersion feel to their game.

Cool.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 21, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Design & Development: you know, the column that's supposed to explain the design logic, the intent behind the rules, what motivates the making of this or that aspect of the game. I take it as such. It might not be a hard rule, but it certainly says something about the target customer of 4E.




Given you've stated you're not the target customer, can I take it as read that you never have quests in your games? It's all about kill monsters and take their stuff?


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Nov 21, 2007)

As a veteran Call of Cthulhu player, I absolutely love the idea of quest cards. Collecting the little news snippets, treatises, tome summaries, witness testimonies and most importantly, pictures of the NPCs really enhances the game. It's especially nice to look back over your (brief) career and remember the good times. I think this will port wonderfully over to D&D. Giving out a quest summary and letting the players do what they like with it is a nice touch too - they can write the encounters they defeat, treasure they find, notes, NPCs with information, all sorts of things down on the quest card - something many players do anyway in a more disjointed way. Count me in!


----------



## Rechan (Nov 21, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> That's a Design & Development column, for God's sakes. Not a footnote in supplement X.
> 
> Design & Development: you know, the column that's supposed to explain the design logic, the intent behind the rules, what motivates the making of this or that aspect of the game. I take it as such. It might not be a hard rule, but it certainly says something about the target customer of 4E.



From the 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.



The article is not "Design and Development: Quest Cards". It's *Quests*, and mentions something they are suggestiong that goes along with them.

The quest cards make up 3 paragraphs of an 8 paragraph article.


----------



## Beastman (Nov 21, 2007)

:-/ i prefer the good old way. players (characters) should make notes. if i want to have cards in a game, i would play a boardgame. i think, this is another aspect of the "new" game straying from RPGs in general. although the idea of using cards (in one way or another) is not a new one (dragonlance saga anyone), do you remmeber any of the more prominent RPG lines using cards? i think it is only another distraction from the game and minis and battlemaps are distracting enough with their potential of ruining a flavorful roleplaying expereince because players tend to focus on game pieces and oftentimes do not hear the (more important) descriptions...

And perhaps WotC makes the cards collectible? what then?


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 22, 2007)

So I'm the only one who thinks its* bloody brilliant *that they reintroduced proper story awards into the game with the assumption of using them?

As for the cards, I don't mind a quest log. It might help with the classic problem in most D&D games: character amnesia


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 22, 2007)

> :-/ i prefer the good old way. players (characters) should make notes.



You can end up writing constantly instead of really playing and with a whole lot of useless notes this way.  

I've had a player do it really thoroughly before, and felt guilty that I was feeding them this information that wasn't really worth noting down, because I'd improvised it on the spot and there would be no followup.

Then, when you have your player notes, there's still no guarantee that the players will put the pieces of the puzzle together.  Say something from two pages and a session ago matches with something just presented.  If five people miss it (which often happens), you can hardly blame the players for "being stupid" or something - the onus rests on the DM to make the hook obvious.  These cards deal neatly with that problem.

The alternative is breaking the 4th wall and telling the players what they've missed, and what they "should" be doing.  Cards aren't as awkward as that.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Nov 22, 2007)

I'd like to agree with what Remathilis says at this point (see his sig, he's a smart feller)

Rewarding players for delving into the story is great-the fact that the devs support it is great too


----------



## Pale (Nov 22, 2007)

Back in my day, players took notes. The DM didn't have to pre-do it for them.

And... pick up an item and get a quest card??? That's something that they put into CRPGs because they couldn't tailor quests to every person. It's a good idea considering the limitations of a CRPG.

I guess that this will go into the 50% of things I don't like about 4E pile.


----------



## Pale (Nov 22, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> You can end up writing constantly instead of really playing and with a whole lot of useless notes this way.
> 
> I've had a player do it really thoroughly before, and felt guilty that I was feeding them this information that wasn't really worth noting down, because I'd improvised it on the spot and there would be no followup.




I've had that happen, too. Difference is I borrowed his notes a couple of weeks later and used them to enhance the overall adventure with subplots.

No sense in wasting creativity.


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Given you've stated you're not the target customer, can I take it as read that you never have quests in your games? It's all about kill monsters and take their stuff?




Not what I meant. I don't think the advice is relevant to me because I take notes during the game and ask players to do the same. I've been doing it for years, don't have issues about that kind of thing, and therefore do not consider modifying my way of DMing to include quest cards and such.

Ergo, I'm not the target audience.

You think that's a brilliant idea? By all means, rejoice, be happy! More power to you!


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 22, 2007)

> I've had that happen, too. Difference is I borrowed his notes a couple of weeks later and used them to enhance the overall adventure with subplots.
> 
> No sense in wasting creativity.



Nice thing to do if you've got the time to spend on that.  But there's still no guarantee they haven't missed your main plot points, despite the notes, though.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 22, 2007)

Pale said:
			
		

> Back in my day, players took notes. The DM didn't have to pre-do it for them.



Please note, again, that this is a _suggestion_ that will apparently be included in the DMG. The DM won't "have" to do it. I know some DMs who already do this sort of thing (myself included at times), because it's easier for them (us) to prepare such things before game time than to wait for players to make their notes during the session.

Also, did you really just say "back in my day"? Was that facetious?


----------



## Beastman (Nov 22, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Nice thing to do if you've got the time to spend on that.  But there's still no guarantee they haven't missed your main plot points, despite the notes, though.




So as a GM i'm expected to prepare a game session and I expect my players to review their notes. Another thing a GM is to do is to bring the players back on track and improvisation is part of the game and a fun part at that. Another part is for the GM to tie in the personal history/background of characters.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 22, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Ergo, I'm not the target audience.
> 
> You think that's a brilliant idea? By all means, rejoice, be happy! More power to you!



If I were to go through the 1E, 2E, 3E or 3.5 DMGs, I would find many, many pieces of advice that I choose to ignore, since I prefer to do something different. This does not mean I am not among the target audience for the books.

Saying you're not the "target audience" implies something far more than your interest in certain specific bits of advice.


----------



## Pale (Nov 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Please note, again, that this is a _suggestion_




Yes, and as a suggestion, I think it's a bunch of poo.



> Also, did you really just say "back in my day"? Was that facetious?




Yes indeed, I was. Morris needs to give us a facetious smiley.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 22, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Not what I meant. I don't think the advice is relevant to me because I take notes during the game and ask players to do the same. I've been doing it for years, don't have issues about that kind of thing, and therefore do not consider modifying my way of DMing to include quest cards and such.
> 
> Ergo, I'm not the target audience.




You are missing the point. It is NOT a design and development article about quest cards. It is a design and development article about quests. Systemised story awards. 

Whether you take notes during a game or not has no bearing on the whole basis of quests as described in the design and development article.

For some reason many people in this thread seem to be fixing their attention on the *suggestion* which will be made in the DMG for how to help players get their heads around... quests for story awards (note - not just xp awards but other stuff too - titles, grants etc). The *meat* of the article is about the quests themselves.

Cheers


----------



## cthulhudarren (Nov 22, 2007)

Seems like another way to railroad the characters to me. I mean, if you give out a card for it the players know you REALLY want them to go this way.


----------



## Pale (Nov 22, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> Nice thing to do if you've got the time to spend on that.  But there's still no guarantee they haven't missed your main plot points, despite the notes, though.




Well, you've got your own adventure notes for that, don't you? And how much time does it take to go over 2 to 5 pages of notes?


----------



## Rechan (Nov 22, 2007)

I wish the 3E DMGs didn't have CR lists with XPs. Back in my day, a DM just knew how to run monsters and didn't need this "Encounter Level" system. He just eyeballed it and then slapped an XP award that he FELT was good enough.

And what's this "Characters making magical items" thing? Magical items just WERE. There was no _creation_. That is far too videogamey. 

Clearly I am not the target audience for 3e.


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 22, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You are missing the point. It is NOT a design and development article about quest cards. It is a design and development article about quests. Systemised story awards.




I think you are missing my point, Plane Sailing, that since this is a Design and Development article, its contents and how they are presented actually say something about the target audience of Fourth Edition, and that I do not recognize myself as the target audience here.

Both points can be valid. One does not refute the other.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 22, 2007)

Beastman said:
			
		

> :-/ i prefer the good old way. players (characters) should make notes. if i want to have cards in a game, i would play a boardgame. i think, this is another aspect of the "new" game straying from RPGs in general. although the idea of using cards (in one way or another) is not a new one (dragonlance saga anyone), do you remmeber any of the more prominent RPG lines using cards? i think it is only another distraction from the game and minis and battlemaps are distracting enough with their potential of ruining a flavorful roleplaying expereince because players tend to focus on game pieces and oftentimes do not hear the (more important) descriptions...
> 
> And perhaps WotC makes the cards collectible? what then?




Huh?

I don't think they're talking about actual pre-made cards... nowhere in the article does it indicate that... I have a feeling they're talking about a notecard... Like the kind you make flash cards out of... You could just as easily use scraps of paper, or actual physical representations of the item (an old key you had around the house) with a note attached...  or even a dead fish with the note written on the side if you want...


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 22, 2007)

> Well, you've got your own adventure notes for that, don't you? And how much time does it take to go over 2 to 5 pages of notes?



The players don't have the DM's notes.  And it's very, _very_ possible for them to miss things, or not make the connections that seem so obvious at the DM's end of the table.  Especially when there's a week between sessions, or when the players just plain aren't as interested in your world, NPCs and plots as you are (shock! horror!).

What are you going to do, say "stop play, you've missed something important, refer to your notes for 5 minutes and get back to me"?  And then play a game of "warmer, colder" while they guess what the important bits are?  Er, no, I'll take the cards over that thanks.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 22, 2007)

I _wish_ players would bother taking notes. And I game _online_! They could just cut and paste my posts verbatim! But no.


----------



## Pale (Nov 22, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> The players don't have the DM's notes.  And it's very, _very_ possible for them to miss things, or not make the connections that seem so obvious at the DM's end of the table.  Especially when there's a week between sessions, or when the players just plain aren't as interested in your world, NPCs and plots as you are (shock! horror!).
> 
> What are you going to do, say "stop play, you've missed something important, refer to your notes for 5 minutes and get back to me"?  Er, no, I'll take the cards over that thanks.




Ummm... no. I'm talking about DM prep work that involves player-made notes. Nothing more. I moved off the quest thing in my discussion with you, so I don't know how that popped back in as some kind of 'during play' thing.

In any case, since we weren't on the same page: 

If they aren't making connections then you're being too vague in your presentation for your players. I don't think that it's a good idea to jump right to hitting them in the head with a hammer, so to speak.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2007)

This feels like metagaming (offering experience points) for going along with the pre-set notions of how and what should be achieved.  The problem I have with it...is what happens when the PC's are doing there own thing that doesn't mesh with what you expected or wanted them to do.  If anything this seems to be a convenient way of railroading.  Players want experience points, if you codify them for specific plotlines then the PC has one of two choices...

A.) Do what you want them to and be rewarded 
B.) Do something else and miss out on experience points

Theres no way to know how a PC will react to a situation, in the above example I may not be interested in the Key with the ruby, and without the "quest card" may not even know it's something important.  The problem is the minute the DM hands me a quest card or tells me there's a quest around it...well I'm kind of forced into a pre-plotted storyline in order to attain xp...even if there's something else I'd rather my character do, or I'm just not interested in it and my fellow players are.

I honestly think the PC's creating "quests" for themselves w/DM approval and assigning of xp, would be a better idea.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 22, 2007)

Wow, I thought I over-reacted sometimes. There is a suggestion in the new DMG that people use, gasp, handouts! Those things that Goodmangames includes in their modules, you know, hand outs. It is a suggestion, that maybe when someone is hired, they get a contract (which acts as a handy reminder), as a handout.

I can't believe how people are reacting to this, as if somehow this actually would change how they play, one way or the other. Use the suggestion, or not. I'm with the poster that said it is nice that the new DMG has actual information on how to be a DM. This is one of those teaching things that newer DM's can, or cannot, use.

No where did they even IMPLY they were going to sell randomized CCG to support this idea. Wow.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> This feels like metagaming (offering experience points) for going along with the pre-set notions of how and what should be achieved.



What?!

Sure, if you want to be hyperbolic and extreme, you can look at it that way.

And if I want to be hyperbolic and extreme, I'd say that the only Alternative to the above is:

"You killed (Insert), so you get (Insert) XP." "But what about the fact that we consecrated the pool and now the woodlands are safe from the (insert)'s foul influence?" "Doesn't matter. Pool didn't have a CR, it didn't have an EL, and you didn't KILL it, your mission didn't have an EL or CR, so no xp."


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 22, 2007)

> If they aren't making connections then you're being too vague in your presentation for your players. I don't think that it's a good idea to jump right to hitting them in the head with a hammer, so to speak.



These aren't mutually exclusive.  If you're being too vague for the players, they often require a hammer to make things clear, rather than dropping further hints until the cattle herd returns.  That's people.  Men, especially, are not good on getting the gist of subtle hints (just ask women).  Sometimes you've just got to spell it out.  

And the DM _can_ be being perfectly clear, but seven days can wipe the player's memories.  Notes are of limited help in fixing that, and they disrupt play....and make the beginning of a session a bit like homework.

We've pointed out "character amnesia", the problems with notes, breaking the 4th wall, and you still don't think there's a problem here?  I can only assume that you've been lucky, or haven't played under a variety of DMs, because this problem is as common as dirt IME.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 22, 2007)

Leaving the CRPG aspect alone, I think this Des&Dev article is very informative about 4E in general.

First, you have the issue of continuing to over-systemize everything in the game.  This can be useful in some respects, but it can also cause huge headaches for those that think they need to "play by the rules" when DMing.  The best example from 3E is the CR system -- it didn't provide what it intended and acted like a straightjacket for those that wanted to run the game RAW.  System defined story awards and pre-set "quest goals" are likely to end up in the same category.

Second, it indicates something that has been more and more apparent as we find out more about 4E -- 4E appears to be intended to be played a lot more like a board game, at least insofar as providing a play experience that doesn't rely on the long sessions (encounter based design), delayed gratification (fast levelling), evolving playstyle ("adventures at 30th level will be just like adventures at 5th level"),  sandbox style play (Quests!), and even player engagement and memory (now quest cards) that drove more "traditional" D&D play.

It's nice that WotC is trying to re-imagine what D&D is to survive in the 21st century, particularly given that the RPG industry in general have gone down the crapper in the last couple of years, but it isn't D&D as I play it and it won't find a place on my bookshelf.


----------



## Feything (Nov 22, 2007)

Story awards are good. Story awards as they were used in 2nd edition were fantastic ways to encourage roleplaying. However, the system suggested here seems a bit different, and less RP-oriented.
 Consider the following scenario:
Quest-giver(R) asks the PCs to recover the macguffin and bring it back to him because he needs it to save the Good Kingdom (TM).
You give the players a card, it says: "Recover the macguffin and return it to the Quest-giver(R)". The players know there's a story award attached to this.
However, roleplaying their characters, the actual goals of the quests may differ from what the Quest-giver(R) suggests. Let's say there are 5 PCs. Three of them wants to find the macguffin and sell it on the black market for profit. One of them wants to find the macguffin and use it to take power over the Good Kingdom (TM). The last PC wants to honour their agreement with Quest-giver(R). 
With the presence of a quest-card and an implied or explicit story award for this particular option - bringing the macguffin to the Quest-giver(R) - they may be less inclined to play out their characters' personalities and agree on a different course of action. The meta-game takes over. Perhaps, as DM, I've defined a story award for this particular option but not for any of the others. How do I deal with an unforseen series of events? As an experienced DM I'll give them story awards (or rather RP-awards) for the other options as well, but for new DMs I'm sure this will have concequences for how they view the game and practice their "craft". This makes me sceptical.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 22, 2007)

Feything said:
			
		

> As an experienced DM I'll give them story awards (or rather RP-awards) for the other options as well, but for new DMs I'm sure this will have concequences for how they view the game and practice their "craft".




There is an important point in here.  Very often when an "old schooler" like me rails against some new-fangled 4E element, pro-4E folk often suggest to simply housefule it back to the way I like it.  That's fine and dandy, but the presumption is that 4E is going to be introducing a whole new generation to D&D, what it's base assumptions are and how it is played.  I think, as a 22 year player, I have a right to be a little concerned about the future of the hobby -- and my place in it when trying to recruit new players -- based on this fact.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> What?!
> 
> Sure, if you want to be hyperbolic and extreme, you can look at it that way.
> 
> ...




Huh?  actually defeating a challenge, however you want,  rewards experience points...How do you kill a trap?  Actually the above makes sense...you gain experience for overcoming challenges...whatever they may be and however you want.

This isn't the same as...you earn xp from completing the specific tasks and goals designated as what your character should be interested in pursuing.

It's like this...

Agree with...You should get xp for succesfully convincing the Baron to do what it is you want him to do. (You overcame a challenge in pursuit of your goals)

Disagree with...You should get xp for succesfully completing the Baron's request to retrieve the Ruby Key. (The DM is using xp to force/push/nudge you to go down a path you may or may not be interested in to continue a pre-set storyline).  If anything this adventure should be structured so that you recieve your xp from the encounters and challenges it takes to accomplish this.

There's a big difference between the two.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2007)

Feything said:
			
		

> Story awards are good. Story awards as they were used in 2nd edition were fantastic ways to encourage roleplaying. However, the system suggested here seems a bit different, and less RP-oriented.
> Consider the following scenario:
> Quest-giver(R) asks the PCs to recover the macguffin and bring it back to him because he needs it to save the Good Kingdom (TM).
> You give the players a card, it says: "Recover the macguffin and return it to the Quest-giver(R)". The players know there's a story award attached to this.
> ...




Okay, you've given a good example of the type of...Not really railroading, but railroading...I was talking about with designating specific awards for specific quests.  Thank you.


----------



## JohnSnow (Nov 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> There is an important point in here.  Very often when an "old schooler" like me rails against some new-fangled 4E element, pro-4E folk often suggest to simply housefule it back to the way I like it.  That's fine and dandy, but the presumption is that 4E is going to be introducing a whole new generation to D&D, what it's base assumptions are and how it is played.  I think, as a 22 year player, I have a right to be a little concerned about the future of the hobby -- and my place in it when trying to recruit new players -- based on this fact.




And you, and many of the others who are "troubled" by this, are _assuming_ that there isn't anything in the DMG about creating mini-Quest awards for filling character-specific goals. If the DMG has advice about taking player-designated "character goals" and designating them as quests or even mini-quests, would that change your opinion of this approach?

This is especially amusing to me in light of what was actually said in the _Design & Development_ article...



			
				Design & Development said:
			
		

> 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.




So, we've been told explicity that a character's personal goals can be turned into quests. It seems to indicate that they're just trying to give guidelines to new DMs on ways to make the game more than just a series of encounters. I don't see anything wrong with that.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 22, 2007)

[can't help myself]

So, do you think collecting 4 aurumvorax pelts is going to be a major quest or a minor quest?

[/can't help myself]


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Nov 22, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Wow, I thought I over-reacted sometimes. There is a suggestion in the new DMG that people use, gasp, handouts!



Handouts are the epitome of CRPGs.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Huh?  actually defeating a challenge, however you want,  rewards experience points...How do you kill a trap?  Actually the above makes sense...you gain experience for overcoming challenges...whatever they may be and however you want.



Except that traps have specific CR. What's the CR of using the Diplomacy Skill to talk the king out of engaging in a war? Is it the CR of the king? If not, what's the CR of stopping a war? 



> (The DM is using xp to force/push/nudge you to go down a path you may or may not be interested in to continue a pre-set storyline).




No, the DM isn't. That's like saying "Getting XP for killing monsters is push/force/nudging PCs to go kill monsters for XP." 

How is "You get xp for accomplishing your goal" different from "You get a +1 sword because that's what the Baron said he'd give you for accomplishing your goal"? 

OMG, DM is offering _rewards_ for _doing story-related arcs_. Total railroading.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Huh?  actually defeating a challenge, however you want,  rewards experience points...How do you kill a trap?  Actually the above makes sense...you gain experience for overcoming challenges...whatever they may be and however you want.
> 
> This isn't the same as...you earn xp from completing the specific tasks and goals designated as what your character should be interested in pursuing.
> 
> ...




He put in the article that it's not just about one thing. There were two characters already with twodifferent overall agendas. 

The idea is just a way to keep track of "segments" of the game.

Come on man, you can't tell me you've honestly never had someone hire your PCs to complete some quest/mission/adventure? 

If you haven't then I'd say your DMing career is radically different then the vast majority of the players out there...

The whole idea of an adventure is set up arounbd the quest idea. 

Players get to the town. 
Players find out about something happening.
Players are motivated to participate be it though gold/pursuit of adventure/women/altruistic reasons...
Players head of to fulfill the adventure.

Then you give them a quest card.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 22, 2007)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Handouts are the epitome of CRPGs.



That's so anime.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 22, 2007)

> Second, it indicates something that has been more and more apparent as we find out more about 4E -- 4E appears to be intended to be played a lot more like a board game, at least insofar as providing a play experience that doesn't rely on the long sessions (encounter based design), delayed gratification (fast levelling), evolving playstyle ("adventures at 30th level will be just like adventures at 5th level"), sandbox style play (Quests!), and even player engagement and memory (now quest cards) that drove more "traditional" D&D play.



On the whole, I think D&D would actually benefit from a slight shuffle towards "Talisman" and it's ilk.  Look at all editions so far, and they're very abstract in terms of specifics, which can make it difficult to "focus" the game in the hands of those of us who are less experienced, or unwise, or low on time (which, face it, covers pretty much everybody).  A few handrails wouldn't hurt at all, IMO, and make it much easier to introduce others to this strange pastime.

An unfocused game is less likely to be fun for anyone but the DM, who may get a "wannabe fantasy writer" thrill out of the worldbuilding side of things, but that's a bit selfish.  More people having fun because of a more "gamey" game, less of purely an outlet for DMs to present their unpublished fantasy worlds to their friends...yeah, I can get on board with that.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 22, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> That's like saying "Getting XP for killing monsters is push/force/nudging PCs to go kill monsters for XP."




It is.  That for which XP is given in D&D is perhaps thye most important aspect of what determines playstyle (except in the rare cases where you have players that don't care about advancement).

If you give XP for gold, for example, as 1E did, you create a playstyle where the PCs tend to clean the place out.  It has good and bad points.  On the one hand, it drives PCs to explore, just in case there might be some treasure down that there hallway.  On the other hand, it makes it difficult to get PCs to focus on something, anything else sometimes.

If you give XP primarily for combats, you get a lot more combats.  If you broaden the definition of "overcoming a challenge" to include sneaking or talking past it, you have a lot more freedom to create encounters with variable possible solutions.

If you give XP for "good roleplaying", you usually get hurt feelings.

If you give XP for achieving specific quest goals, though, you end up with railraoded adventures because players know the "victory condition" for which they will be rewarded.

I don't give Role-Playing XP or Story Awards in XP.  There are plenty of in game benefits that can be bestowed upon PCs in regards to those things.  I do give XP for overcoming challenges, regardless of whether it is combat, and I withhold XP if the challenge is not overcome.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 22, 2007)

> If you give XP for achieving specific quest goals, though, you end up with railraoded adventures because players know the "victory condition" for which they will be rewarded.



That's one way of looking at it.  Another way is, the players have three of these quest cards, and get to choose which to do next.  That's the opposite of railroading - the players choose what happens next.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 22, 2007)

So, do the people who think that quest cards are a bad idea also think that initiative cards are a bad idea?


----------



## Stone Dog (Nov 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Second, it indicates something that has been more and more apparent as we find out more about 4E -- 4E appears to be intended to be played a lot more like a board game, at least insofar as providing a play experience that doesn't rely on the long sessions (encounter based design), delayed gratification (fast levelling), evolving playstyle ("adventures at 30th level will be just like adventures at 5th level"),  sandbox style play (Quests!), and even player engagement and memory (now quest cards) that drove more "traditional" D&D play.




The playstyle doesn't rely on them, but doesn't have to detract from them either.  

Encounter based design as it is in SWSE does nothing against a long session.  In fact, I've noticed the opposite since at the end of four hours resources of the party are strained, but not exhausted.  Both players and characters are able to go on without danger of over extending themselves.

Fast leveling and delay of gratification are not exclusive.  My game right now levels about every two to three weeks (I give bigger chalanges than they should face for thier level.  It is a miracle they have survived) and yet my players strain and yearn for the next accomplishment.  Leveling is a nice little happy moment, but gratification wont come until Inquisitor Tenebrous lays dead before them.  I prefer to see levels as something inconsequential to gratification compared to GOALS. 

The theory is that level 30 adventures won't be as daunting to run and play as they are now, not that they will be identical to 5th level adventures.  Everything I've heard or seen indicates that tactically and thematically the game will still be very different in epic levels compared to heroic.  In theory.  The game should still have an evolving playstyle.

Sandboxes are more fun with tools and toys.  Characters and quests are tools and toys (interchangably).  So are quest cards.  They can add focus when things are wandering and bring up new direction when people are contemplating them.  Okay, if they are tied down to  "do x then y and get z reward" then they aren't so hot.  If they are more like "Scene 24, rewarded by Z" and the players can get Z by answering the questions properly, building a bridge across the gorge, tricking the old man into saying "I don't know that," killing him or anything else they think of then awesome.  right now though, they sound like 2nd edition rewards with a visual and tactile reminder.  Nifty.


----------



## jasonbostwick (Nov 22, 2007)

For those talking about player-created quests, Star Wars Saga Edition had a mechanic that let characters choose an open-ended "Destiny" that they were rewarded for achieving.
Choosing a destiny was completely optional, but gave characters clear mechanical benefits for pursuing it, and was tied in somewhat with the action points mechanic. Through achieving goals that move the character closer to their Destiny, they recieve a minor bonus (such as a +2 bonus to damage rolls for the "Rescue" destiny) and upon fulfilling it, they would recieve permanent bonus on par with a feat.

From the ideas presented in the Quests column, the concepts may have changed slightly, but if player-created quests and goals were discussed in the DMG (or hopefully even the PHB!) they might share some of these mechanics.


----------



## Betote (Nov 22, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I wish the 3E DMGs didn't have CR lists with XPs. Back in my day, a DM just knew how to run monsters and didn't need this "Encounter Level" system. He just eyeballed it and then slapped an XP award that he FELT was good enough.




... And you had to walk 20 miles on foot under a snow storm just to get to your FLGS 



> And what's this "Characters making magical items" thing? Magical items just WERE. There was no _creation_. That is far too videogamey.




Really? I can't recall any videogame where playes could make their own magical items.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 22, 2007)

Betote said:
			
		

> Really? I can't recall any videogame where playes could make their own magical items.



Oblivion, Diablo II, WoW lets you create things that really pay off later.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 22, 2007)

Betote said:
			
		

> Really? I can't recall any videogame where playes could make their own magical items.




How to create the Potion of Life...

up up down down left right left right


----------



## Stone Dog (Nov 22, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> That's one way of looking at it.  Another way is, the players have three of these quest cards, and get to choose which to do next.  That's the opposite of railroading - the players choose what happens next.



TANGENT!

Dungeoneer is a fun little game where this sort of thing can happen with hilarious results.  In one game two players had a quest that involved the same room.  One had to get a book and drop it into a chasm.  They other had to save a virgin and get her to the exit.  The player needing the book got into the room first and dashed out with it.  We had a good laugh imagining the conversation.

"Thank god you've arrived!  I was about to be... HEY!  What are you doing? GET BACK HERE AND RESCUE ME!!!!"
"Don't worry!  Somebody else will be along shortly!"

Also, some quests could have secret time limits and having them taken away from the group might inspire them out of character to go see what the hell just happened... and get a new (possibly harder) quest!

There are lots of ways that these could be used for good or ill.  I'm all in favor of quest cards being an optional suggestion, which it looks like they are and quests themselves... D&D has used them for a long long long time.


----------



## Stone Dog (Nov 22, 2007)

Scribble said:
			
		

> How to create the Potion of Life...
> 
> up up down down left right left right




You have the components of the cross correct, but have neglected the ritual of the Red Circles and the application of the Sinister Tabule.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 22, 2007)

Betote said:
			
		

> Really? I can't recall any videogame where playes could make their own magical items.



It's a staple of MMORPGs.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 22, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> You have the components of the cross correct, but have neglected the ritual of the Red Circles and the application of the Sinister Tabule.





ARRG!!!  All those experience points wasted!!!


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 22, 2007)

> "Thank god you've arrived! I was about to be... HEY! What are you doing? GET BACK HERE AND RESCUE ME!!!!"
> "Don't worry! Somebody else will be along shortly!"



Heh...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 22, 2007)

FireLance said:
			
		

> So, do the people who think that quest cards are a bad idea also think that initiative cards are a bad idea?



Or that Paizo's item and treasure cards are a bad idea?  I try to use visual aids and handouts all the time in the game. It helps with immersion, keeps the players focused and allows them to think out loud with each other. 

In the past I always suggested that the players write down every proper noun I told them because someday that person/place/thing might become important.  No one ever did it. None of my players are "competitive note-takers" so this kind of clue makes sense to them.

And its another positive argument for bring in newer players.  It is a familiar interface.  Noting important quests with cards is something that someone new to RPGs (that might be familiar with games) will positively associate with.  My wife would get this idea easily and therefore she might play.  To her, there is too much to remember and the story gets too complicated.  This kind of thing would help a lot.

If I had a table full of 10+ year gamers, I wouldn't be as obvious about my quests, but with newer players, this is a great suggestion.

my 2cp.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 22, 2007)

This idea of quest cards can be VERY useful and cool, but it depends on the kind of campaign.

I think that many groups play mostly serial adventures, for example the published ones: you start an adventure, then you end it. Sometimes you get 1-2 "side quests" but that's all. Not much need for quest cards.

However, I think I'd like to play campaigns where you have dozens of quests going on at the same time, and in that case quest cards would really be useful to keep track of everything.

I would not however go as far as writing rewards on them, and absolutely not the XP. These quest cards could just be one page per quest where the players keep track of important details, which may include a reward promised by an NPC, but I would do my best to make them as little metagaming as possible (I think the only unavoidable metathought would be defining that this is a quest on its own).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> [can't help myself]
> 
> So, do you think collecting 4 aurumvorax pelts is going to be a major quest or a minor quest?
> 
> [/can't help myself]




Major.  Pelts only drop off elite aurumvoraxes.  And 90% of the time, you get RUINED Aurumvorax Pelts.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 22, 2007)

So, finally we get some roles for "story goals"? That's good news in my book. 

Finally, you could make a murder mistery story without having the murderer be an appropriate leveled enemy that the characters can beat to get appropriate XP (or just winging it).

Together with the social encounter rules, this opens up thousands of new possibilities (that work in the framework of the D&D rules and advancement.)

Quest Cards are an interesting idea. 
We have one session per week, but each week, we change the DM and play in a different game system/setting/adventure. There are dozens of plot lines to follow. We are playing the Paizo adventure paths, and hand outs have proven valuable assets. Adding a "Quest Card" isn't a bad idea. (Even if the card was not actually related to XP or Wealth gain at all - they are simply handy and reliable reminders)


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 22, 2007)

I thought this 

*"equal to an encounter of its level for a major quest, or a monster of its level for a minor quest"*

was an interesting bit of information.

Under 3rd Ed they would be the same value.

IE: 4 CR 3 critters give an EL 7 encounter. - Each monster gives 900xp x 4 = 3600 xp

1 CR 7 critter gives an EL 7 encounter - and one CR 7 monters is 3600 xp.

In 3rd Ed You work out the XP for an Encounter by working out the XP for all the individual monsters in it.

This implies that in 4th Ed a EL 7 encounter is worth more XP than a CR7 monster. Also that encounter XP is calculated differently than monster XP, and is generally worth more.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 22, 2007)

It's interesting that 4e will be the first edition to provide actual rules on how to design quests.

Woot!

This will be eminently steal-able for FFZ!


----------



## FadedC (Nov 22, 2007)

I kind of like the quest card idea. I'm not sure that I will actually use it in my game, but that's in part due to my horrible handwriting and the fact that a "quest laser printer page" doesn't have quite the same effect.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 22, 2007)

You can get all sorts of handwriting style fonts for free you know. The quest cards are a lot like a journal in a CRPG.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 22, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> I thought this
> 
> *"equal to an encounter of its level for a major quest, or a monster of its level for a minor quest"*
> 
> was an interesting bit of information.



From what we've been told, an encounter basically works like this (WARNING: Numbers pulled straight from my butt, merely illustrating a point):

An encounter of say, level 4 has a total xp value of 400. 

Monsters and traps and such have a flat xp total. You just add them up until you reach that total. So you nab 4 monsters with xp 100, and bam, 4th level encounter. Or two traps and two monsters. 

An Elite appears to qualify as two monsters for an encounter (so like, double the xp rate for tossing an elite into the combat). Mook rules, I'm willing to bet, are the opposite (halve the xp rate, do this to their stats, you now have two monsters for the price of one). 

This way you can slap an encounter together on the fly.


----------



## Naathez (Nov 22, 2007)

I've been reading the debate on 4th edition for quite some time on here... I'm an affectionate reader of ENWorld. And I never posted... mostly because it felt like talking about something I knew a shadow of an hint to an hypothesis, and that isn't something I think is right to do.

But right now, after reading several threads (quite a lot considering it's been 3 months since the announcement) I feel like I do have something to say.

It's not a very nice thing. But it isn't about 4th edition. It's about us: us gamers. All of us.

Why in the world do we have to polarize on EVERYTHING? why does EVERYTHING have to be reason to say "I'm right" "No *I'm* right" "That means you can't play" "That means YOU can't even count"... and the ever-present "Things were better when I was younger!"We have a hobby. I think it's the best hobby in the world, better than sports, than chess, than origami, even better than cooking. Why do we have to rabble and fight about things that in NO WAY can touch or alter ANYTHING of how we live and play in that hobby?

The article is a quite interesting piece about QUESTS: something that is part and parcel in a game which links adventures, and probably a little less in games where adventures are more or less linked only by the fact the same characters participate in each. (DISCLAIMER: BOTH are the CORRECT way of playing. Reason is, ANY WAY of playing a game which lets all participants have fun IS THE CORRECT WAY. That is, unless someone gets hurt, of course.) In any case, the suggestion in the article is: 
Games are often story-driven. 
Stories are called quests in RPG-speak. 
When you present your players with a quest, (which I would say, is whenever they meet something or someone or do something or DON'T do something: it's a quest to retrieve the scepter for the legitimate prince, it's a quest to find a cure for your mentor, it's a quest to disable the security systems for the building you want to get in) it's suggestible - if you use it for a plot purpose - that you help the players remember it. 
One way of helping players remember quests is writing them down.
One way of writing them down is on index cards. 
While you're at it, you can also write on the index card that the quest has been proposed by someone who offers a monetary reward. Or the reward of a fiefdom.
Also, you can make several index cards. The same object, for example, might be something one players covets, another wants to destroy, and another wants to sell. (You could even make all 3 cards, and give each player his own. The paladin's could say "Your mentor often mentioned a book during sermons on the foulness of necromancy. It is a tome bound in blue dragonskin, with a mummified dragon eye on the cover, and gold trimmings. It's the evil Karethinopulous' spell book - and it contains, among other things, details on a ritual most foul. Your mentor wants it destroyed.", the wizard's "Your research has hit an obstacle. You need details on the five secret runes of ancient Arathnian mages. As far as you know, the greatest expert ever on the subject was Karethinopulous the Cerulean, a Necromancer. His spell books, famous for their rare blue dragonhide binding, probably are your best source for information.", and the thief's might say "Seems wizard Guilds are always after a book or another. You've heard that some Karethinopulous penned a tome, time ago, which is quite coveted by the local wizard guild - probably contains some special spell. They'd pay quite handsomely for the thingie. Book is bound in blue dragonhide - which probably means the guy who wrote it wasn't exactly a newbie at magicky stuff, 'specially if he harvested the hide himself. Better be very careful and double check for magical traps... you don't want to end like "Lefty" Rapshanders, after all."

Where is the railroading? in giving a quest? then don't give quests: the problem isn't with the system.
where is the computer-gameyness? in giving a quest? then don't give quests: the problem isn't with the system

Where is the fall of RPGing as we know and love it? 
Nowhere. I'm sorry, I REALLY don't want to say anything to offend anyone, but it just isn't there.

As for the "oversystemification"... I'm sorry, but just like anything else, it's simply SUGGESTED that you use guidelines to make quests. You could also give a starter quest: "defeat the lich Karnazooul de'ftahng" at first level, when players begin playing. It's not something they CAN or will WANT to do right away, but for many reasons each of them wants to get there. and HOW they get there will be the adventure. 
As for new player's expectations, I don't really understand that problem. Either people play and have fun the same way you do - in which case playing together will be fun - or they have a different idea of how to have fun, and probably playing together will be less enjoyable. But I don't understand how it can be a problem if a new young player says "I thought we'd get a card with what we are meant to do" and you as the DM say "Oh, I've read that... I don't use it. You probably could use some notes... sorry we didn't clear that up. Look, for the future, take notes of what you think your character would be interested in and thus would remember. For this time, here's what was said... I'm sure your character would notice, it's the kind of thing you told me he's always on the look for."

.. it's my 2 cents, of course. but really... why was news of a new edition - some things of which I think are quite interesting, and YES; they are interesting BECAUSE they are changes  - enough to take a bunch of wonderful people like those found on here and make so many of them start rabidly attacking each other? especially when there's nothing to be rabid about...?

I'm really sorry if this offended anyone...


----------



## FireLance (Nov 22, 2007)

Naathez said:
			
		

> .. it's my 2 cents, of course. but really... why was news of a new edition - some things of which I think are quite interesting, and YES; they are interesting BECAUSE they are changes  - enough to take a bunch of wonderful people like those found on here and make so many of them start rabidly attacking each other? especially when there's nothing to be rabid about...?



Fear
-> Anger
-> Hate
-> Suffering


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 22, 2007)

I like this idea, but I dont think I will use the cards, thanks.. 

I like the emphases on helping the DM put more story into their games and giving some structure to the process. 

It is badly needed in my game as I have less time to prepare and I seem to have lost my on-the-fly gaming mojo.

Keep up the Good Work WOTC guys and gals....


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 22, 2007)

Naathez said:
			
		

> I've been reading the debate on 4th edition for quite some time on here... I'm an affectionate reader of ENWorld. And I never posted... mostly because it felt like talking about something I knew a shadow of an hint to an hypothesis, and that isn't something I think is right to do.
> 
> But right now, after reading several threads (quite a lot considering it's been 3 months since the announcement) I feel like I do have something to say.




Thanks for speaking up, and well said.


----------



## Derren (Nov 22, 2007)

Player 1: Hey guys, look what I have drawn out of a Quesbooster, a "Slay the red Dragon" quest. And it got two level 5 magic item rewards.

Player 2: Don't get too excited you need to preform a "Locate the lair" quest before attempting that. and this quest is really long winded and gives crap reward.

Player 3: Yes but we are currently doing the "Rescue the nobles Bride" quest and it has the patronage reward which we can use to automatically complete a quest without reward. We can use that to locate the lair and start with killing the dragon right away.

Player 2: Good idea, I just hope the DMs Magic Item card display will arrive next week. I don't want to waste the level 5 item reward on his outdated equipment.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 22, 2007)

I think this is a fine Variant Rule for kids 10 and under.  It concretizes things and makes it easier to remember.  It also helps lead them around the world to the more interesting parts instead of relying on them to be independently creative with their decision making.  Shyness is very common in young children and standing out while in front of your peers is the definition of peer pressure.

For me, however, this was the Red Flag being waved.  WotC is no longer in the business of making tabletop roleplaying games.  It will be at best a side project.  I'm not being facetious here, I am serious.  This isn't something I really wanted to admit to myself, but my Ref had it right when he and I spoke earlier.

To illustrate, RPGs are known by over a billion people worldwide as computer games.  Mention "Tabletop RPG" and almost always these same folks emit a "huh?" in response.  This is simply the world at large not knowing our very niche community's jargon.  Instead, "D&D" or "Dungeons & Dragons" are how TRPG'rs have to predominately identify their pastime to anyone outside the tiny hobby. (and plenty of non-D&D TRPG'rs resent it I hear)

With 75-80% of all TRPG sales already going to Wizards where can they possibly grow?  Taking into account the sheer fact of ongoing innovation, this percentage is more likely to decline than stay the same.  Wizards has to change venue, if they want to show profitability.  The obvious answer of course is computer RPGs.  

I'm very happy the hobby is becoming more computer accessible. I'm happiest about the new 4 prong initiatives. But, in truth, I think Wizards is going farther than computer-aided tabletop design.  I believe they are building a set of rules to be equivalent between TRPGs, MMORPGs, and their own cross over online game hosted at their website.  

The exhibited so far have increasingly displayed a lack of expansiveness in the style TRPGs excel at, but MMORPGs do not.  This Quests option really switched on the light for me.  D&D Online, Digitial Initiave online play, & TRPG D&D will all use the same rules.  And IMO the tabletop game will suffer for it.  Maybe the community will be better off for profits, but quality by my measure will sink to the lowest common denominator.  MMO play is what I'm guessing.

If a game can be played with all its parts on a computer, why bother playing it face to face?  Sure, we the diehards will, but I can no longer believe we are the customer base WotC is after.  And let's not kid ourselves.  If you play a TRPG, you _are_ a Hardcore RPG'r.  The niche of a niche game (RPGs not on a computer) is a field only for those purposefully going out to find it.  It's a great field and I love it, but it isn't World of Warcraft.  Or Wii.  Or XBox.  How much of the toy market is computer games anyhow?  

This course seems an inevitability and a sad one for me.  Until VR gets to the point were my imagination can alter its description as fast as my words can in a conversation, computer RPGs are going to be lacking.*  


*And that's supremely hard given visuals require predesigned computer animation - the weakest part of all CRPGs.


----------



## Jinete (Nov 22, 2007)

Naathez said:
			
		

> When you present your players with a quest, (which I would say, is whenever they meet something or someone or do something or DON'T do something: it's a quest to retrieve the scepter for the legitimate prince, it's a quest to find a cure for your mentor, it's a quest to disable the security systems for the building you want to get in) it's suggestible - if you use it for a plot purpose - that you help the players remember it.
> One way of helping players remember quests is writing them down.
> One way of writing them down is on index cards.
> While you're at it, you can also write on the index card that the quest has been proposed by someone who offers a monetary reward. Or the reward of a fiefdom.




I write stuff down IRL too, but it's mostly stuff like "buy a light bulb". I never had to write down "go out on friday". 
I have no trouble remembering things that I find interesting and that I want to do. I also tend to remember the names of interesting people I meet. The same thing happens with quests. It's not like I haven't asked "what's the name of the town we're going to?" a hundred times, but I don't think that looking it up on a card should be the solution to this problem.

Quest cards can be a great tool for some games, but IMO tips for the DM on how to make quests and NPC's more memorable and interesting to the characters should be the way the wizards are taking this game.


----------



## Naathez (Nov 22, 2007)

I understand what you mean, Jinete. It might be that I haven't been clear though in expressing one thing: the usefulness of helping players remember things their characters would surely remember increases with the decrease, for example, of session frequency. In that case, the cards, I think, could be useful, because they are  good representation of the CHARACTER'S memory: while the player's memory is unfortunately cluttered, in some cases, with job, school, family, traffic, political issues that happened in the 7, 14, 30 days since the last session. (Yes, even if they REALLY love the game... ) Of course, if players in a group don't need them... no need to use them! 

In any case, cards were just a part of the article. I think focusing just on them distracts from finding what good ideas were in the article besides.

As for the advice on how DMing, I agree that should be the main content of a DM guide. But we have no way, I think, of knowing they are NOT doing it: and I don't think we should start out by thinking "they're doing wrong, because they're not talking about what I think they should be doing." Maybe they're doing it but they haven't told yet... or maybe not. In that case yes, it would be a pity. it wouldn't mean 4th ed is automatically a bad game, but yes it would be a wasted opportunity.

On a totally different note, I also wanted to thank Plane Sailing for what he said.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 22, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> The exhibited so far have increasingly displayed a lack of expansiveness in the style TRPGs excel at, but MMORPGs do not.  This Quests option really switched on the light for me.  D&D Online, Digitial Initiave online play, & TRPG D&D will all use the same rules.  And IMO the tabletop game will suffer for it.  Maybe the community will be better off for profits, but quality by my measure will sink to the lowest common denominator.  MMO play is what I'm guessing.




You might be interested to know that the reason the D&D RPG and the D&D DI online play will share the same rules is because the online play isn't computer moderated.

The DI online play component will do two things:
* it will allow players from around the world to chat (either voice or by text)
* it will display where their miniatures are on a virtual tabletop.

It's an enablement tool to allow people to get together and play RPGs. That's it.

If you don't have a DM, the computer won't do it for you.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 22, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> I write stuff down IRL too, but it's mostly stuff like "buy a light bulb". I never had to write down "go out on friday".




And yet, incredibly, millions of people in the real world keep diaries with lists of important dates they need to remember. People write shopping lists - the archetypal quest list.

It gets worse for roleplayers when they only meet once per fortnight, or once per month, or have several games they're playing in. Can you remember exactly what happened every session?

Last week, I had one of my players ask me to list all the tasks his party needed to accomplish in the recent Dungeon adventure, "Tides of Dread". (There's over a dozen of them). So, I'm now going to steal the quest card idea. I think it's going to work.

This is an enablement tool.

And if Wizards also spends time on the other aspects of quests... as I quite expect them to do... this may be an exceptional edition yet.

Cheers!


----------



## Jinete (Nov 22, 2007)

MerricB said:
			
		

> And yet, incredibly, millions of people in the real world keep diaries with lists of important dates they need to remember. People write shopping lists - the archetypal quest list.
> 
> It gets worse for roleplayers when they only meet once per fortnight, or once per month, or have several games they're playing in. Can you remember exactly what happened every session?




And all of these tools, diaries, shopping lists are very useful. But when someone else gives me a shopping list I go to the store and just go from shelf to shelf until I have completed the list. I don't browse, I don't even think about if the list is missing something I just get each item on the list, pay, go home, get the reward 

In one of the recent sessions, the barbarian was fighting the barkeep who was standing on the bar. On his turn the player said "I try to push him of the bar". This left most of us (to some extent the DM too) pretty surprised. It's not a bull rush, it's not a trip, it's not a grapple, but it's a fairly reasonable thing to do. However most of us are thinking of our character's in game options based on the rules of the game, so if it's not covered in the rules it doesn't even cross our minds.

My point: just like the many rules for combat IMO limit player creativeness to using clever combinations of possible maneuvers (ToB anyone?), quest cards result in player focus on DM given quests, making it easier to ignore the "unnecessary" NPC's and parts of the campaign world.

And from a player's point of view, these are the ones that give the feeling of playing in an imaginary *world*, as opposed to playing in a detailedly scripted video game environment.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to say OMG 4e is an anime MMORPG, I just have that nagging "haven't I seen this somewhere" feeling.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 22, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Dude, it's just a suggestion in the DMG. THere's no rule that says "Make Quest Cards or you suck".




But the WotC ninjas will repel from your ceiling and force you to use quest cards if you are not already doing so.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 22, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> so if it's not covered in the rules it doesn't even cross our minds.




That is one way of playing the game. One other, which I find prevalent among new players I DM for, is the paralysis of not knowing what a PC can do.

"But, you can do anything you want!" I hear you say.

Yes, in theory that is true. But not every gamer embraces that freedom of action, or feel comfortable with it. They want to have five, ten or twenty options to look at, to get inspired by, to get ideas from.

Instead of being paralysed by the enormity of "do whatever you think is a good idea", they feel comfort in knowing what the scope of actions normally are. They will stick with the most common actions for a while, and then when they feel confidence will start making up actions of their own.

Notes/cards/reminders of what quests they are on and what they have learned while questing, will help them weigh up their options. Just having them always be totally free to do whatever they feel can be intimidating, for some players.

/M


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 22, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> That is one way of playing the game. One other, which I find prevalent among new players I DM for, is the paralysis of not knowing what a PC can do.
> 
> "But, you can do anything you want!" I hear you say.
> 
> ...




Or, as in my case, sometimes they will choose totally ineffective and obscure actions that should have little effect on the encounter and will bog it down. 

Maybe I have very poor, tactically thinking, Players...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 22, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> "But, you can do anything you want!" I hear you say.
> 
> Yes, in theory that is true. But not every gamer embraces that freedom of action, or feel comfortable with it. They want to have five, ten or twenty options to look at, to get inspired by, to get ideas from.




I shall never forget the first time I played D&D and the DM said we could do anything. One player, wide eyed and bushy-tailed, and slightly panicking, declared "I shoot the watchman!" And thus we had our first TPK. Good times, good times.

But, on topic, I love the idea of built in quest rewards. Very smooth.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 22, 2007)

This is the first tidbit about 4th Ed that leaves a slightly bad taste in my mouth.

As much as people are going on about the WoW impact on 4th Ed, I myself sometimes get a "Dungeons & Dragons:The Gathering" vibe.

But I'm still excited about 4th Ed, and the second I get my grubby little carnie hands on that PHB, I'm going to shove it straight up my bottom!


----------



## Lackhand (Nov 22, 2007)

The cards aren't collectible. If premade packs of them were to be sold, many people would buy them, but to say that they kill imagination because they define the boundaries of the game is to admit that imagination was already dead.

They're more a litmus test for imagination than anything else.


----------



## Derren (Nov 22, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> The cards aren't collectible.




Of course not,it would be impossible to make cards for every adventure seed.

But with the tavern brawl card game which will com out, who knows if we won't see a D&D the CCG in a few years as a spinoff. After all thats where WotC/Hasbro makes the money.

Still, even as this card thing is optional it still shows where the designers want D&D to be heading and I don't know if I like that direction.


----------



## Jinete (Nov 22, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> That is one way of playing the game. One other, which I find prevalent among new players I DM for, is the paralysis of not knowing what a PC can do.
> 
> "But, you can do anything you want!" I hear you say.
> 
> Yes, in theory that is true. But not every gamer embraces that freedom of action, or feel comfortable with it. They want to have five, ten or twenty options to look at, to get inspired by, to get ideas from.




I was also a new player once  I remember on my first session (lvl 9 ranger) we were attacking a mad baron's stronghold. The enemy archers were shooting, and the other players were saying things like "total defense as a standard action and move 30 feet" which at the time was all greek to me. I suggested we take cover behind the cart we arrived in, and push it towards the entrance to completely avoid the arrows. 

Somewhere along the line, as I learned the rules i stopped thinking that way. A bush is no longer a bush, it's half movement+concealment, and this sort of thinking prevents me from using it in any other way (except if I'm playing a druid, then it's also a viable entangle target) 

I forgot my point  I guess I just miss that time when my D&D experience  wasn't so much about number crunching and metagaming as it is now.


----------



## glass (Nov 22, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> [Sarcasm] No, they aren't MMO influenced [/Sarcasm]



One more time: MMOs are influenced by D&D!


glass.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 22, 2007)

Looking at my past games, and the fact that I usually had to recap what the characters were there for this time, and what happened to make them get there (or have a player with good notes do it), I don't think giving out advice on how to keep the last game in everybody's memory is a bad idea.

What I do think is a bad idea is "standardizing" the whole thing and putting it on the DM's shoulders on top of everything else. Sure, it might take only 5 minutes to prepare a few Quest Cards for the next adventure...or less than one to write one out in the middle of the game. But I'd really prefer it if it was less of the DM's job to keep his players on track, and more of the *players'* job. I mean...they come to my table to play, they bring their characters, they can bloody well take some notes about what they put their characters through, and why? And I'm only half-kidding here.

Also, I'd hate to see adventures for 4E come with pre-printed Quest Cards...and somehow, I have this weird impression it would happen, as marketing ploy under the guise of DM support. I realize that a new edition is as much aimed at new players as it is at the old guard, if not more, and that some support will help new DMs into their job better...but I'd view something like preprinted Quest Cards as stifling and limiting in the long run. Give the fellows as much advice as you can print in the DMG. Give examples on how to prepare adventures, what problems might arise at the game table, how to fix them, etc...but don't create tools that will turn into straightjackets after a while. That's all I'm asking for.


----------



## Jinete (Nov 22, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> One more time: MMOs are influenced by D&D!




Just like video games are influenced by movies.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 22, 2007)

Huh, I'm totally not a 4E booster but this quest card thing is actually a pretty good idea. 

I think that I might actually snatch this up. I use Item Cards for my games (both Paizo and TOGC) as well as Spell and monster cards. It's easier for my players ( and players in general seem to be a particularly focused and and also a forgetful lot. Meaning focused on one or two particular things and forgetful of most others...) to keep track of things. As an example, for my player who is a summoning based sorcerer I printed out a deck of Summoned Monster cards for each level of Summon Monster that he has access to. So now there's no flipping through the book to see what he can summon or having to jot down it's stats. It's on a card right in front of him. 

Is it metagamey, hell no. does it make things flow a little easier, hell yes. 

I really don't see how it's metagamey except if you have an really narrow (re:elitist) idea of what D&D is and should be for everyone. And to be blunt, what works for your table, may not work for 60 different players at 20 different tables. I use cards and miniatures and props to enhance play not to turn it into a boardgame. If your players are easily distracted by these things then that has to do with your players (which is not saying anything bad about your players) not the game. and even if they are distracted initially after a while these things (cards and such) just become an accepted part of the game.


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 22, 2007)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> The cards aren't collectible.




But Feats will be…


----------



## Baby Samurai (Nov 22, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> Just like video games are influenced by movies.




And films are influenced by comic books, and comic books are influenced by films, and so on and so on.

All forms of media/entertainment affect each other these days.  It's like Aunt Edna's ass; you don't where it begins or ends…


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 22, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> I forgot my point  I guess I just miss that time when my D&D experience  wasn't so much about number crunching and metagaming as it is now.




I've been toying with the fantasy of just keeping the rules to myself (or as much that is possible). I think I may have pushed my players to learn more of the game (since 3.x) to take some of the pressure from me. If 4e is easier to run I may just ask what the person is doing (fluff) and translate that internally (crunch). With mechanical incentive to use the scenery it may make the battles more cinematic.

I'll still use the minis as it takes some of my bias out of the picture. I can see if someone is going to get hit with the fireball spell.


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Nov 22, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand this "system".
> 
> What's the difference between this quest thingy and writing reminder notes to forgetful and/or lazy players?




Nothing.

However, is the idea such a bad one?  My players do enjoy the game, but they often forget key details of plot elements that they ought to remember.  If you like introducing a plot element, and then letting it sit on the back burner for 5 games, odds are good that when you drop the clue, your players will not pick up on it if the game where you gave them the clue was a month ago.

If you like running campaigns where you have multiple long term plot arc's active, then this system will allow you to have many things going on at once while letting you players have some idea of what things are worth keeping an eye out for.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## vagabundo (Nov 22, 2007)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> If you like running campaigns where you have multiple long term plot arc's active, then this system will allow you to have many things going on at once while letting you players have some idea of what things are worth keeping an eye out for.




I think this is one of the best reasons to use the card system. I just think that I will get the players to right out thier own damn cards


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Huh, I'm totally not a 4E booster but this quest card thing is actually a pretty good idea.
> 
> I think that I might actually snatch this up. I use Item Cards for my games (both Paizo and TOGC) as well as Spell and monster cards. It's easier for my players ( and players in general seem to be a particularly focused and and also a forgetful lot. Meaning focused on one or two particular things and forgetful of most others...) to keep track of things. As an example, for my player who is a summoning based sorcerer I printed out a deck of Summoned Monster cards for each level of Summon Monster that he has access to. So now there's no flipping through the book to see what he can summon or having to jot down it's stats. It's on a card right in front of him.




Item, monster & spell cards are totally different from mapping out what you want your players to do with cards. In what way does having a card with your abilities listed shape or influence the choices your character will make?   



			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> Is it metagamey, hell no. does it make things flow a little easier, hell yes.




How is this not "metagamey"? Emphasis Mine...

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, *uses external factors to affect the game*, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.  

Won't what storylines/quests a DM gives you an XP value for,  affect the direction and actions of a character?  It's basically a less heavy-handed way of saying...This is what I want you to do. 



			
				ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I really don't see how it's metagamey except if you have an really narrow (re:elitist) idea of what D&D is and should be for everyone. And to be blunt, what works for your table, may not work for 60 different players at 20 different tables. I use cards and miniatures and props to enhance play not to turn it into a boardgame. If your players are easily distracted by these things then that has to do with your players (which is not saying anything bad about your players) not the game. and even if they are distracted initially after a while these things (cards and such) just become an accepted part of the game.




Because it is a card that tells you what choices your adventurers will, (and thus will not) be rewarded for.  No one said not using them was how D&D must be played, but it's perfectly reasonable that people may not like it.  To me it feels like laying a path of mission tiles down...and I don't like it.  IMHO, it greatly depreciates the type of organic play that differentiates a TTrpg and a MMO.  IMHO, the challenges you face, no matter what you choose to do or not do, should be the xp reward you get.  I really hope these quest rewards aren't integrated into the calculations for rewarding PC's.  If they are optional then I'll have no problem.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 22, 2007)

Lord Zardoz said:
			
		

> Nothing.
> 
> However, is the idea such a bad one?



Oh. Then why are people suggesting that this is some sort of "new idea", and they're going to "yoink" it, and other such nonsense? Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of _writing something down_? I find that highly unlikely.

It's not "bad". It's also not "new", nor is it even an "idea". Writing things down is just something normal people do. Weird. (Except, the suggestion given by WotC is that the work is to be done by the DM when it can be done by the players, and that's _always_ a bad thing.)


Now with all that said, some sort of standardized reward for completing a goal is fine and dandy - too bad the original article barely gave any details on that (ie. thanks for nothing). Of course, that's not new, unique, or special either, since I've been doing it for multiple editions now, including 3e (in which the CR system makes it easy-peasy). Like I said - weird.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 22, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Then why are people suggesting that this is some sort of "new idea", and they're going to "yoink" it




Maybe it's because it is a new idea to them, and they feel like they like this idea enough so that they'll yoink it for their play.

Even if it's an old idea for you and ten thousand other D&D veterans, doesn't mean it is new to a thousand others, and neither is it nonsensical for them to want to use said idea, if they feel that it would add to their games.

/M


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Nov 22, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Oh. Then why are people suggesting that this is some sort of "new idea", and they're going to "yoink" it, and other such nonsense? Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of _writing something down_? I find that highly unlikely.
> 
> It's not "bad". It's also not "new", nor is it even an "idea". Writing things down is just something normal people do. Weird. (Except, the suggestion given by WotC is that the work is to be done by the DM when it can be done by the players, and that's _always_ a bad thing.)



If you hand the players a note card, there is no question whether what is written down is important. Now that said, if you want to screw with players' heads, give them some quest notecards that are red herrings. Just remember which ones are red herrings (and don't tell them, because sometimes the red herring can become the real plot if everybody's having a blast following the red herring and you haven't the heart to tell them that the eight-hour marathon game session that everybody loved following a clue that was completely bogus, was completely bogus).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 22, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Oh. Then why are people suggesting that this is some sort of "new idea", and they're going to "yoink" it, and other such nonsense? Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of _writing something down_? I find that highly unlikely.



I never thought about the ideas of quest cards specifically. I used to write a "adventurer's notebook" in one campaign, but it was some work. These days, I have less time to write such things up in my free time (and the time I devote to D&D is for my own DMing and advancing my characters, if neccessary). 



> It's not "bad". It's also not "new", nor is it even an "idea". Writing things down is just something normal people do. Weird. (Except, the suggestion given by WotC is that the work is to be done by the DM when it can be done by the players, and that's _always_ a bad thing.)



It is definitely an idea. And it's even new as being an advice given in the DMG.



> Now with all that said, some sort of standardized reward for completing a goal is fine and dandy - too bad the original article barely gave any details on that (ie. thanks for nothing). Of course, that's not new, unique, or special either, since I've been doing it for multiple editions now, including 3e (in which the CR system makes it easy-peasy). Like I said - weird.



You're a cool guy coming up with such things and using them, and now we can all be cool and do it too.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 22, 2007)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Maybe it's because it is a new idea to them, and they feel like they like this idea enough so that they'll yoink it for their play.



And like I already long-since covered in my post:
"Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of _writing something down_? I find that highly unlikely."

I suspect it's more of a case of a poorly written article that didn't properly concentrate on the mechanics and system itself (surprise!) along with a lack of detailed reading combined with a bit of continued excitement on _any_ 4e-related tidbit.



> Even if it's an old idea for you and ten thousand other D&D veterans



"Writing things down" has nothing specifically to do with D&D nor "D&D veterans". It's more of a "being human in a modicum of civilization" kind of thing.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You're a cool guy coming up with such things and using them, and now we can all be and do it too.



No "coming up" with anything - CR system and guidelines already exist. (Though, like I made very clear in my post above, quest XP is fine and dandy move by WotC.)



In any case, I look forward to seeing considerably more detail on the tools and mechanics the DM will be given to develop story XP, as that's the meat of this whole "Quest" thing and the portion that's valuable.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 22, 2007)

Wow. This is the first thread that has really made me want to shake my head in disbelief at the Enworld population...

People are REALLY bent out of the shape the the DMG has the GUTS to recommend an idea like a quest-card?

THIS is the MMO/CRPG/ANIME/WOW/DUMBing down of D&D? 

Because your players are so smart they know instantly to write down every detail about an upcoming quest/adventure?

That handing a PC a plot-hook on cardstock is RAILROADING?

That 10-12 year olds (you know, the next gen of players) won't benefit from this sorta advice?

That your SOOOOOO against 4e that you'll look for ANY innovation that even REMOTELY has been done by a video game to decry the death of D&D and begin the mob scene outside Redmond?

I don't get it. I really don't.

I sat here before 4e's announcement I recall threads that decried "The [3e] XP system is too focused on combat." The classic example; which should be worth XP, recovering the golden idol for Lord Narran that was stolen or defeating the minotaur that guards it? In 3e, it was the minotaur. In 4e, it will be both. If you manage to avoid, trick, talk past, or otherwise neutralize the minotaur, you STILL get the XP for getting the idol. If you face the minotaur, you get more XP but a higher chance of dying in combat. BRILLIANT!

However, it appears this is nothing more than another way for "elitist" TRPG players to look down on CRPG players with. Which is sad. Since TSR took that same attitude in the waning years of the 90's (vs CRPGs, CCG, etc) and look where TSR ended up.

Adapt or Die. Darwin's law.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Won't what storylines/quests a DM gives you an XP value for,  affect the direction and actions of a character?  It's basically a less heavy-handed way of saying...This is what I want you to do.



Is it any different than the baron saying "This is what I'll pay you several hundred gold for?"  If the players decide the best way to keep the bandits from hassling the village is to burn it down, they're probably not going to get paid. Nor would I give them a story XP reward for going that route, either.

There has to be _some_ goals delineated for the party to achieve, and I don't see anything in the article to suggest they couldn't be player initiated. Also, you make it sound like there are storylines and quests which a DM creates but is unwilling to give XP for. Huh?

To me, these cards are only physical representations of what's already going on in the game. And as a player in a group which meets twice or even sometimes once a month, with some players in multiple other games, I have no issue with something that serves as a flag for "what were we doing again?" Even though some of the players take extensive notes, sometimes it takes a lot of page flipping through those notes to figure out what's goind on. A quick summary card is a great help.


----------



## Frozen DM (Nov 22, 2007)

Personally it's suggestions like these that I'm happy to have in the DM's guide. The DMG should be, first and foremost, a guide to helping a DM run their game better. It shouldn't matter where the good advice comes from. Now if you've been behind the screen for years maybe a lot of the advice won't be helpful, or maybe it's things you've already learned. But for new DM's, suggestions like these can ease the burden of running a game as complex as D&D.

Would you complain that the PH has a section explaining what role-playing is? Or describing a typical encounter? These aren't things intended for experienced players, they're aides for new players just starting off. Similarly, suggesting that the DM write down quests in an easy-to-read, easy to manage format, is just a way for new DM's to help players manage the information in D&D. These are beginner skills for beginner players. 

I see RPG books a lot like recipe books. Recipes are like the game rules. To a first time reader they are hard and fast ways of preparing a dish (or game). But with experience you learn to recognize what elements of the rules are really just suggestions. An experienced cook can alter a recipe, add ingredients or remove things they don't like without upsetting the balance of the dish. In the same way, and experienced DM can follow the suggestions and use the rules they like, toss out and ignore what they don't. 

Personally I think the quest card idea is great. My players often have trouble remembering the details of all their missions/quests/adventures. How often do I have to answer questions like "Why are we in this dungeon again?" or "Who was it that asked us to hunt down the ogres?". Quest cards would go a long way to keeping this info straight. And it's not a lot of work on the part of the DM, a few seconds to write down the basics of the quest onto a card. It would take me more time to come up with a NPC name on the fly (which is something I hope to see in a DMG too... NPC name lists).


----------



## Clavis (Nov 22, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> WotC is no longer in the business of making tabletop roleplaying games.  It will be at best a side project.  I'm not being facetious here, I am serious.  This isn't something I really wanted to admit to myself, but my Ref had it right when he and I spoke earlier.




WOTC NEVER had RPGs as their primary focus. They are a CARD GAME company (and subsidiary of Hasbro) that happens also to produce a game they call D&D (which bears an ever-shrinking resemblance to the game of the same name once produced by TSR). D&D books are a small percentage of their total income. As I understand it, Magic: The Gathering makes much more money.

Incidentally, I don't think the idea of using Quest cards is bad at all. It's blatantly cribbed from CRPGs, but its an example of the right kind of idea being taken. It sounds like it really would serve to remind players of the ongoing storyline.

The new tree-monster Dryads, on the other hand, are stupid on levels the English language doesn't possess words to adaquately express.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Item, monster & spell cards are totally different from mapping out what you want your players to do with cards. In what way does having a card with your abilities listed shape or influence the choices your character will make?




that part of my post was in response to the posters in this thread that frown upon any kind of "props" claiming that it makes D&D a boardgame.




			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> is this not "metagamey"? Emphasis Mine...
> 
> Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, *uses external factors to affect the game*, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.
> 
> Won't what storylines/quests a DM gives you an XP value for,  affect the direction and actions of a character?  It's basically a less heavy-handed way of saying...This is what I want you to do.




So the only difference between giving your players XP for completing a mission/quest before rather than after is the fact that, What? they know a head of time that they're going to get XP and how much? At that point the choice is still with the players whether they decide to do the quest or not or whether their focus is on the quest itself or the XP. Some players are going to do the mission / quest XP be damned. Other players are going to look at the XP and go "That's just enough to get me to my next level and then I can get that feat I want!" It doesnt change the game, just what motivates different players. Story based d00d's are are going to follow the story. Decrying metagaming as something bad (which is the not so subtle insinuation of several posters in this thread) is exactly what I'm talking about when I say elitist. I run a game with 4 players. a few of them are pretty decent role players, but they like XP and and crunchy bits as well. I have one player who's just looking to level and gain cool p0w3rz . I'm not gonna screw him because I feel that he should be playing the game a certain way especially since he's actually a good player and adds to the game and he's not disruptive. If he knows how much Xp he's going to get for completing a mission I dont see how that breaks the game or makes that way that I run and he plays BAD. 




			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> it is a card that tells you what choices your adventurers will, (and thus will not) be rewarded for.  No one said not using them was how D&D must be played, but it's perfectly reasonable that people may not like it.  To me it feels like laying a path of mission tiles down...and I don't like it.  IMHO, it greatly depreciates the type of organic play that differentiates a TTrpg and a MMO.




It's fine that you dont like it. For you "it greatly depreciates the type of organic play that differentiates a TTrpg and a MMO." For me it's just another tool a different way of doing things and it doesn't preclude me tweaking things just a bit to make them work for my table. 




			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> , the challenges you face, no matter what you choose to do or not do, should be the xp reward you get.  I really hope these quest rewards aren't integrated into the calculations for rewarding PC's.  If they are optional then I'll have no problem.




I agree with this sentiment. Maybe I need to go back and re-read the article but I dont see how you can't do both. Designate what the "A plot/mission" is going to be  but if the PC's decide not to pursue this mission and decide to go do the "B plot/mission" first they should still be rewarded accordingly. If you have to adjust the XP for the A plot as a result of actions taken by the PC's then do so. Like I  said I dont see how this is really a bad thing. Especially for newer players or people making the transition from CRPG's. Who's not so say as newer players get acclimated to the game that you cant "phase out" the idea of mission cards. 

But point taken, you don't like metagaming and these mission cards are not your thing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 22, 2007)

When I was working on a d20 Star Trek game, one of the ideas I considered was writing secondary goals onto cards, shuffling the cards, and giving one to each player.  This was to simulate the complexity of backstory that was occasionally seen in Star Trek.  Meeting the condition on the card would grant 1 Action Point.

For example, on a diplomatic mission to the Gorn, a player might have:  "Your grandfather was killed by the Gorn attack at Cestus III.  Beat a Gorn at anything for 1 AP."

I think that, for a non-sandbox game, this is a great idea.  For a sandbox game, though, it has potential problems.  In a sandbox, I agree with LostSoul's implications:  the players should be allowed to set reasonable goals, instead of the DM.  Hopefully, there will be some discussion in the DMG about how to use this idea where it isn't the DM supplying the cards.

RC


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 22, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that, for a non-sandbox game, this is a great idea.  For a sandbox game, though, it has potential problems.  In a sandbox, I agree with LostSoul's implications:  the players should be allowed to set reasonable goals, instead of the DM.  Hopefully, there will be some discussion in the DMG about how to use this idea where it isn't the DM supplying the cards.
> RC




Even in a Sand Box, the DM can write out cards for the players based on their goals.  For example, if one player sets up a backstory involving a lost heirloom, the DM can provide them, at the appropriate time, with a card detailing what they would have to do to recover it.

Really, I find the level of objection to this article pretty disheartening.  Quest XP is a good thing that was neglected in 3rd edition.  I always reward story XP because there is a lot of stuff that I believe deserves XP rewards but can't be worked out satisfactorily with the CR system.  Giving a codified system for it is a bonus.  It provides guidance for the new DM.  Whether or not you use the RAW XP system, it provides a decent benchmark for the rewarding of XP.

But what I find really disheartening is the amount of outrage over a suggestion in the DMG.  Quest cards are a great way to take care of bookkeeping and provide the players with a prop.  Props are good.  Easing bookkeeping is good.  How frikking lazy do you have to be to think that jotting a few things down on a 3" by 5" is a load of extra work?  The depths people are going to read some sinister plot to turn D&D into a CCG in this are comical.  It's a suggestion in the DMG, people, not a mechanic or a rule or a system.  It isn't going to affect your overall gaming experience much whether you use it or not.  My biggest source of dismay over this is that there are people who think they are suggesting you write down player XP rewards on these cards.  Why would they do this?  Why would you do this?  When have you ever told a player how much XP he or she would earn for something?


----------



## SteveC (Nov 22, 2007)

As some others have said, this thread really makes me shake my head a little bit at some of my fellow ENWorlders.

The quest cards idea of the article is the sizzle, while the quest/roleplay awards are the steak.

We just learned that quest/roleplaying awards are going to be a core part of the 4E rules to the point where they're going to actually codify them. Yes, you can award quest experience now, but the formal guidelines aren't very descriptive. Ask anyone who debates D&D with D&D haters, and the idea that you can get XP for things other than killing monsters and taking their stuff is something that a lot of people don't see. Formal rules on quest experience are a good thing.

No one is saying you have to give out cards or even formally tell your players what quests are available in your game. This is simply being presented as an option for some, perhaps less experienced gamers out there.

And on that note: I want to remind everyone that D&D isn't a game that's just for experienced traditional gamers. Each years thousands, maybe tens of thousands of new people get a copy of the game and start playing. To them, the things that are obvious to you may not be so obvious. Yes, handouts and note taking are obvious to those of us who have been playing RPGs for ever. (I am surprised to learn that my old CoC game was inspired by MMORPGs with the handouts and notes I made for my players back in the day, since it was run many years before a MMORPG meant something other than a MUD, but I learned something as well from the thread!) At the same time, what's old hat to you is new to someone else.

--Steve


----------



## Uder (Nov 22, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Oblivion, Diablo II, WoW lets you create things that really pay off later.



And those are just recent examples. I've seen it as far back as Wizard's Crown/Eternal Dagger.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 22, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Even in a Sand Box, the DM can write out cards for the players based on their goals.  For example, if one player sets up a backstory involving a lost heirloom, the DM can provide them, at the appropriate time, with a card detailing what they would have to do to recover it.




The way I read the article, the card stated the goal, not what would have to be done to complete the goal.  "Find the ruby key" for example, not "look in the 3rd cupboard to the left, 2nd drawer down."    

As such, it would be appropriate for the players to assign goals and the DM to assign a "level" (and XP value) to them.  The players should not be assigning what they get as a reward for meeting their goals (although their goals might include getting certain rewards).

IMHO, of course.  



> Really, I find the level of objection to this article pretty disheartening.  Quest XP is a good thing that was neglected in 3rd edition.




I think people have mixed emotions about quest XP.  Story awards are a great thing in theory, but in practice they aren't always so wonderful.  I admit to some curiosity about how the designers (and hence, the DM when 4e is released) decided what quests were what level.  Hopefully they have a better system to determine Quest Level than CR/EL was to determine Monster Level.



> But what I find really disheartening is the amount of outrage over a suggestion in the DMG.




(shrug)  It's probably more in relation to the perception of shifting "baseline" playstyle.  This is, as I said, one of the things that I don't find too objectionable (and potentially great, in the right game).  

But the reward/Quest Level better have a solid system attached to it, or this will be an anvil around WotC's neck, about which every grognard out there will have something to say.  Or so I predict.


RC


----------



## Beginning of the End (Nov 22, 2007)

> 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.




D&D 4th Edition: Making Things Easier for the DM By Making Them Do More Work.

We already do this in our game. Only it's called the Party Note-Taker and one of the players takes care of it.

Also, my players aren't so retarded that they need to be told what a key is for. ("Ah, so this will open a 'lock' you say? And we should find such a device and try to... open it? Open, right? With this 'key'?")

The idea of a more detailed quest reward system sounds interesting, but -- based on the description in this essay -- it doesn't sound any more detailed than the guidelines available in 3rd Edition. But I'm willing to wait and see what they actually put together.

The biggest thing they could do to encourage quest-based XP would be to slow XP and level accrual from monsters. I loved the idea of using more goal-based XP when I came back to D&D with 3rd Edition -- but the reality was that the pace of advancement had been ramped up to such a degree that I needed to slow it down by reducing monster-based rewards, not speed it up even more by adding other sources of XP.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Won't what storylines/quests a DM gives you an XP value for,  affect the direction and actions of a character?  It's basically a less heavy-handed way of saying...This is what I want you to do. .




Quote the text where it says to use XP reward on the card.

Hint: You can't.



			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Oh. Then why are people suggesting that this is some sort of "new idea", and they're going to "yoink" it, and other such nonsense? Are people honestly trying to say that they've never thought of _writing something down_? I find that highly unlikely.




I have to ask, would you be so vocal about this idea if it were another poster on these boards suggesting it? Would the cries of outrage be their equal? Yeah, right. This is just people venting against 4e like usual. *yawn* Yet another example of a _good idea_ that WotC is putting forth that people still want to complain about because its _so obvious_. Blah blah, 4e sucks, I've been doing that for years, blah blah.

This is insane. WotC writes something bad, people complain, and they should. *But people are complaining even when WotC reases something that they agree with!* How dare the DMG, one of the Core Books, one of the books that new players will start with, give advice on how to keep track of quests, have rules for giving rewards for quests, have actual gaming advice that would be useful to people just starting the game. _HOW DARE THEY!!_

No wonder my ignore list has over a dozen posters on it at this point. If you're going to complain _at least do it about something that deserves it_! I don't mind complaints, really I don't. But, if every post someone writes is going to be negative, even when they freaking agree with the thing they're complaining about, then what the heck is going on here on these boards?


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Nov 22, 2007)

Questing, modules, adventures and the like - bleh. As an adult player who wants a little more depth than episodic, console game feel to a tabletop game, I just don't see myself using any of the suggestions from this article. 

They just aren't neccessary in a living, breathing campaign world. I suppose they're great for new players who're new to tabletop games, but honestly - I would love to see something for the veterans beyond the normal CRUNCH of the system. I don't understand why the authors of the 4th edition need to 'dumb down' certain aspects of the game (like die rolls to resolve social encounters, instead of pushing rewards for roleplaying through social encounters). I don't believe they understand their audience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 22, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I have to ask, would you be so vocal about this idea if it were another poster on these boards suggesting it? Would the cries of outrage be their equal?




Is there another poster on these boards with the scope and influence of WotC?  That's a non-argument.  The books can and do change the expectations of people coming to the table to play, and people have a right to be concerned about how those expectations are being formed.

For many gamers, paying attention, deciding what is important, and keeping notes is the player's job.  They might not think it a good idea to suggest that the DM should do this for them.  Others might think that the DM telling the players what is important is a not-so-subtle railroading device, again not thinking that this is a good idea.

Some, like myself, might think that this _could be_ a good idea, depending upon how it is handled mechanically (and, in my case, also depending upon how easily player-determined Quests can be dealt with)....and those folks might notice that there is not one iota of information to give the faintest idea of how this is going to actually play out mechanically in a game.  

And, ultimately, without the mechanics, we can't tell if this is a good idea or not.

RC


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Quote the text where it says to use XP reward on the card.
> 
> Hint: You can't.




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).

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.

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.  

The "quest" as presented here is setting the player's goals for them (or at least the one's they will be rewarded for), but I think it's a step in the wrong direction, PC's should set their own goals.  The DM can structure an adventure, but what any particular PC wants to do or get out of said adventure should not be determined through withdrawal or reward of XP.  Even if all they want to do is kick but and take loot...the adventure will allow that.  However, IMHO... why they do it should be totally up to them.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.




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.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> The "quest" as presented here is setting the player's goals for them (or at least the one's they will be rewarded for), but I think it's a step in the wrong direction, PC's should set their own goals.  The DM can structure an adventure, but what any particular PC wants to do or get out of said adventure should not be determined through withdrawal or reward of XP.  Even if all they want to do is kick but and take loot...the adventure will allow that.  However, IMHO... why they do it should be totally up to them.




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.)


----------



## Mirtek (Nov 22, 2007)

So are they selling the quest cards in random boosters?  

BTW I don't think it's a wise idead to give the rogue, the wizard and the paladin conflicting goals. The wizard and the rogue kille the paladin, the wizard makes a copy of the pages containing the ritual and the rogue delivers the book to his quest giver. Anyone is happy, excpet for the paladin player, he's currently making a new character


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 22, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> 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."
> ...




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.




			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 22, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2007)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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. 



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> 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...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

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



It's there because you can base their change on something. You know that there exists a kind of "mechanic" for a quest. It invites you to structure the DM's and the group's play in a  way that is easy to remember. Once you've defined a quest, it exists as a ready concept that can be referred back. A quest card would even go further and provide you a tangible object that you can refer too, instead of a scribbled note on the border of your adventure print out. It serves as the DM's reminder "oh, the player's didn't do X, as expected, but they are now going for Y which I wasn't really prepared for, I might need to put some work in that for the next session." or the player's reminder "Hmm, X will probably not work out hot, but Y sounds interesting. Let's keep a look out if we find more clues/allies/items for Y." 
And the fun is that you might notice a "hidden quest" - something that did only appear due to the specific dynamic of the game. Having it written down as a quest means you won't forget it and can increase the chance you will revisit the idea before the party has moved on too far. 

These information always existed somewhere, but their accessibility wasn't always there, and sometimes people just forget things about the game. Because it is one game of many they play in, or because real life took hold of their mind instead of the game...


----------



## MerricB (Nov 22, 2007)

I've just bought my first set of quest cards. Cool, huh?

There are a couple of myths already about this idea, so let's debunk a few of them:

*Myth #1: Quest Cards will be released by Wizards in collectable packs.*

Err, no. Quest Cards are group-generated. You get a blank piece of card, and you _write the details of the quest down on it_. 

*Myth #2: Quest Cards can only be given out by the DM for his big group stories*

No, again. Indeed, in the article it's stated that "[q]uests can be major or minor, they can involve the whole group or just a single character's personal goals". Quest cards are just a way of visually representing the quests.

The examples given in the article are of the type of "and here's one I prepared earlier..." where the adventure the DM's written is likely to generate certain quests, and so the DM can just hand out those quests.

If a player decides he needs to see an oracle, he can just create his own Quest Card on the spot.

*Myth #3: Quest Cards include the XP reward the PCs will get for completing the quest*

No. Look, there's the DM's tools for running quests in the DMG, and there is the Quest Cards which are the reminders to the players that they're on a quest - or several!

The 4e DMG will have tools to allow the DM to generate quests - they'll have a level assigned to them, which determines the amount of XP they have as a final reward. The level will probably be determined by how difficult the quest is. Not all quests will have XP rewards or levels, but it's there for quests the DM considers important enough.

There's some confusion coming from one of the examples, but have a look at it again: "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."

The PCs are going on a quest (so a Quest Card), and they've bullied the Baron into paying more than he intended, so the reward he'll pay them is written on the card as a reminder.

That's all it is. You don't write Quest Level or XP awards on the card; it's just a reminder for the characters of things that happened in-character, just like a journal a PC might keep.

Cheers!


----------



## Stone Dog (Nov 22, 2007)

> 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?



No.  Not in the least.   If the game the DM has planned out involves going through a dwarven mine rather than over some mountains, it is more obnoxious to say "We don't care about the work you've done... we want to go over."  It is in fact NICER of the GM to say "Key milestones will be rewarded, but only if you actually get to them" rather than saying "Oh yeah?  What do you say about a big damn blizzard in your way?  Nope.  Nothing you can do.  King of evil wizards sent it." 

Okay, pretend Moria was a lot more fun for that example.   



> Set story awards collaborated upon and agreed upon by both DM and player are my thing...



Yeah, and there are rooms for both things.  One can be a Story Quest and one can be a Personal Quest.



> IMHO, story awards created by just the DM is more akin to pushing for things to go the way you envision them.



Of COURSE they are.  Making a campaign is a lot of work.  Is it really so rude and awful to have a pretty little handout ready that says "This way to fortune and glory?"

Clarifying quests is no different from just telling the players "Look, the adventure is THAT way, over there is stuff I'm not ready for and won't be as cool or fleshed out."  Story based rewards are BASIC to D&D.  Most of the time they are just "The Baron will give you 500 gold pieces for smacking the goblins around," but there isn't anything wrong with "500 more XP for bringing the warlord to trial instead of riding into the city with his head on a pike."



> 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.



 No, Tom should get a bonus if he can find the clues he is seeking and Jacob should get a bonus if he manages to take on the Jabberthingie rumored to be in the castle singlehandedly.

You want clues?  I'll give you a special challenge for YOU to overcome and you can get your clues and maybe a little extra XP in the bargain.

You want to kick ass and get stuff?  There is a monster in there with your name on it and somebody at the Tavern has a ruby the size of an egg that says you can't take it on yourself.  Oh, and you don't have to share the XP with the rest of the party.

There are lots of ways that Quests can go to be tailored for individual players.  They don't have to be turned into a pixel-bitch where you have to figure out the exact way the DM wants you to dance.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 22, 2007)

Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> We already do this in our game. Only it's called the Party Note-Taker and one of the players takes care of it.
> Also, my players aren't so retarded that they need to be told what a key is for. ("Ah, so this will open a 'lock' you say? And we should find such a device and try to... open it? Open, right? With this 'key'?")




Obviously a link won't work, so I'm going to have to paste the whole thing...


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.




So I get the same amount of XP for killing the people in the Keep that I do going out to the Cave of Chaos? Sweet. Down enough of those CR 1 wusses and get all the good loot from the armory. Pretty soon, I'm 3rd level, decked out in +1 gear, and ready to go ADVENTURING!


----------



## Aenghus (Nov 22, 2007)

Quest handouts are a suggestion and the example is of a record of a particular task and the IC reward to be given to the party on completion of the quest.  Since the idea is to hand these cards to the players, I think it very unlikely that xp details will be provided on them.

While this does seem to be primarily aimed at new players, I still see it as a more generally useful idea. I have less time to prepare games than I used to, and I don't think I am alone in this. While a fully organic and realised setting is the ideal, this takes time I can no longer rely on having. It is harder and harder to actually arrange games, as RL gets in the way.

Quest cards can help in a number of ways. For beginners, they give a concrete task to focus on. Sometimes players _accidentally_ wander away from a plot, reminders can help, and  can be less heavy handed than straight DM reminders.  A lot of players don't take any notes, which limits the sorts of plots useable. Good handouts can add a lot to a game.

These aids are less relevant to player-driven and plot-light campaigns, unless the players interests and pc motivations are taken into account. I understand the raliroading and bad habit concerns. but these happen already in any case. 

And for the people who habitually sabotage plots, quest cards make it easier to do


----------



## Mostlyjoe (Nov 23, 2007)

What's funny is I've used the card idea before. And had it used on me. Well, quest note sheet. Each 'story' was given to us as notes in a *Composition Notebook*. It's a classic play style called Blue Booking.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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.




Does it?  Where does it say that players must receive a reward for completing what's written on the card?  What if I give the players a quest card saying, "deliver X for Y and receive Z in payment," but I don't assign any story XP to completing the mission on the card, instead, I assign story XP to discovering that Y is a wererat and X is a shipment of poisoned wine?  Quest cards _can_ be simple reminders of what the players have been asked to do; they don't have to define what is and is not an important goal or part of the story.

I think people need to divorce the first part of this article, rules for quest rewards, from the second part, a suggestion to ease bookkeeping.  Sure, they both deal with the concept of quests, but they're not linked any further than that.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 23, 2007)

Like several other posters here, I'm baffled (but sadly, not surprised) by the reactions in this thread.

The point of the article is that 4e is going to have story awards built in the system; this is excellent news. (Particularly since one of the long-standing criticisms of D&D is "You only get XP from killing things!") And I don't see how this will lead to either railroading or "non-adult episodic gaming" any more than the current system, either.

Yet _way_ too many people have focused on the suggestion of the DM using index cards as hand-outs, with the (by now all too predictable) calls of "MMOs", "CRPGs" and "pre-teen gamers" ruining the essential fluids of our precious D&D, and WotC turning D&D into a board game or whatever.

I swear, there is something wrong with us gamers.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 23, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> The point of the article is that 4e is going to have story awards built in the system; this is excellent news. (Particularly since one of the long-standing criticisms of D&D is "You only get XP from killing things!") And I don't see how this will lead to either railroading or "non-adult episodic gaming" any more than the current system, either.
> 
> Yet _way_ too many people have focused on the suggestion of the DM using index cards as hand-outs, with the (by now all too predictable) calls of "MMOs", "CRPGs" and "pre-teen gamers" ruining the essential fluids of our precious D&D, and WotC turning D&D into a board game or whatever.
> 
> I swear, there is something wrong with us gamers.




There are people who don't mind many CRPG aspects in D&D, and also don't mind using cards to keep track of spells or feats, but absolutely hate the idea of quest cards because they see them as restricting creativity.  It is possible to like the idea of the DM using index cards as handouts, but not like handouts which suggest the players take one specific form of action.  If the players get handed a card that guarantees a reward if they do X, then they may not think about alternate paths they might take and instead go straight for the suggested action and reward.


----------



## Tquirky (Nov 23, 2007)

> "oh, the player's didn't do X, as expected, but they are now going for Y which I wasn't really prepared for, I might need to put some work in that for the next session."



Yes, interesting things start to happen when you let people treat information as objects.

I'd also point out that quest cards serve as a flag to the players that "I've got something prepared here".  I think some of Raven Crowking's concerns are avoidable because unless you're improvising the whole thing, that's a useful thing for the players to have implied to them.  When it's a choice between the Goblin Caves and the Old Mill, and the Old Mill has a quest card, then the evening's play is probably going to be more fun there (because it's obvious that the DM hasn't got around to detailing the Goblin Caves yet if there's no quest card for it...)

Unless...the players are given one when they turn up on it's doorstep on a whim.  Hmm, maybe Crowking has a point.  But this is avoidable by giving the players a quest card the moment they learn of that status quo adventuring site's existence - purely by virtue of being a dungeon it presents an automatic challenge to an adventuring party.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> about which every grognard out there will have something to say.  Or so I predict.




I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone to not agree on that prediction. Only, substitute "quest cards" with "anything WotC does" to make it even more accurate.

/M


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 23, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> There are people who don't mind many CRPG aspects in D&D, and also don't mind using cards to keep track of spells or feats, but absolutely hate the idea of quest cards because they see them as restricting creativity.  It is possible to like the idea of the DM using index cards as handouts, but not like handouts which suggest the players take one specific form of action.  If the players get handed a card that guarantees a reward if they do X, then they may not think about alternate paths they might take and instead go straight for the suggested action and reward.



Quest Cards can be used to describe a general goal. "Rescue the princess", "Find out who killed Valance". They don't tell you that you how to do it. They also don't force you to do it all, but it's probably a good idea because apparantly, the DM has something prepared if you follow that quest. That's not different from the DM coming at the table and saying "Okay, I got all issues of the Dragon for the Savage Tides Adventure Path. It's pretty cool, so I am going to run it."

Going "off-track" is possible with or without a quest system and with or without quest cards. If your group's play style is very open-ended, the DM might want to use the quest system more "on the fly", and if he is using quest cards, some might be never used again*.
But if you usually follow the plot of a prepared (possibly bought) adventure, quests will probably remain as static or dynamic as the adventure allows (and the DM can still handle).

*) Though it's possible that quests emerging from the flow of play are actually more likely to be followed, since they seem very "natural" to the participants.


----------



## JosephK (Nov 23, 2007)

I like having rules and suggestions for story (and quest) exp in the DMG, also the quest card thing might be handy for some.

Personally, I vastly prefer using in-game handouts.. Like a note or a piece of a journal, a wanted poster, and such, and let the players themselves figure out what the quest might be, but to each his own. I usually make a ton of these, and the designated party 'leader' usually hands on to them, if he drops down a chasm never to be seen again, tough luck for the rest of the party. Certainly, introducing quest cards as an idea (or even putting them in future adventure modules) doesnt mean any skin of my back.. Just hope it isnt at the expense of normal 'handouts'.


----------



## erf_beto (Nov 23, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> It is possible to like the idea of the DM using index cards as handouts, but not like handouts which suggest the players take one specific form of action.  If the players get handed a card that guarantees a reward if they do X, then they may not think about alternate paths they might take and instead go straight for the suggested action and reward.



 Wich, still, is fantastic!
Look at it this way: New campaing, 1st level, newcomers game. PCs want money, exp, and power, so they go to the baron and he gives them missions. Noob DM shows them 3 quest cards, they chose 1, complete, chose 2, complete, and so on. By the time the baron gives them the 14th quest card, probably before, the DM (wich is not such a noob anymore) realizes the players do EXACTLY what the baron (therefore, the DM himself) wants them to do, no questions asked. They are nothing more than simple mercenaries, not heroes. DM is troubled and can't sleep at night: "have I reached the point where my campaign is nothing more than a cRPG? Is this what the great-ENWorld-sages-of-older-edition call 'railroading'? What have I done?"...
But suddenly, the inspiration hits him, and he knows just what to do. Perhaps he'll look for advice over internet forums, or DDI, or read some magazine articles, who knows, but the 15th quest card will be different: maybe the baron will ask the players to kill an evil witch who is secretly rising in power - but she turns out to be one of the players mother/daughter/lover/sister. Maybe the baron will ask them to return an artifact that belonged to one of his ancestors, buried in a dungeon - but a mad man will aproach them and tell that the item is cursed or that by moving it the seal will break and a great evil will be released. Maybe the PC cleric will be contacted by his deity and be told the baron has evil plans... 
Will they go with the mission to get the rewards, or will they (for the first time) think about their actions and their consequences? Suddenly, what was once a linear campaign is shaping up to become something else entirely. Players will be cautious before following every quest card they've been given. DM is proud of himself. 

Really, I don't see why people are so angry about this SUGGESTION. Sure, it can be used in a wrong way, but so does every rule in the book. And it bothers me a lot to realize that I had to read over 100 posts to get to someone who mentioned what I'd like to discuss (the minor/major quest reward as encounter/monster level), and over 300 posts later very few people said anything about it...  Shame on us  :\


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 23, 2007)

erf_beto said:
			
		

> Really, I don't see why people are so angry about this SUGGESTION. Sure, it can be used in a wrong way, but so does every rule in the book. And it bothers me a lot to realize that I had to read over 100 posts to get to someone who mentioned what I'd like to discuss (the minor/major quest reward as encounter/monster level), and over 300 posts later very few people said anything about it...  Shame on us  :\



Yeah, that idea is great, especially because, let's face it, the DMG is not something for ENWorld-frequenters. Sure, we want the crunchy bits out of it, but most of us have moved on. We have gathered our own experiences with DMing, we've read Robin D. Laws, we have listened to the advice of the ENWorld hivemind.

But the DMG is essentially a "How to DM"-handbook. And such shortcuts are fantastic for new DMs. We have a bunch of handout stuff over there (Spell Cards, Magic Item handouts, gantasy money)... but the group starting D&D with nothing but the books and a bit of internet-knowledge? That's a HUGE help.

I'm not DMing that long (since... 2002 or so?) - and advice like that would have been incredibly helpful at the beginning. Sure, now I read these boards here, listen to GM-greatness from the people here, use handouts as crazy, love to read roleplayingtips.com... but back then? I only had a DMG and nothing else. And since NWN was a main inspiration, we (as in my group and me) found our way to D&D with only a single demo-game on the Spiel 02, done by less than inspired demonstrators.

Not everybody gets his DMing craft from other DMs, some have to trust on the DMG alone. And I'd wager that this number will increase, as RPGs are declining in the younger audience.

You have to hook people on D&D as fast as possible after they've cracked open the books for the first time. Quest cards are a good idea to help with this goal.

The DMG has to become a "DMing for Dummies", and a bunch of tips from more experienced GMs isn't going to hurt!

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Does it?  Where does it say that players must receive a reward for completing what's written on the card?




I guess you didn't read the article that closely?  "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)"



> What if I give the players a quest card saying, "deliver X for Y and receive Z in payment," but I don't assign any story XP to completing the mission on the card, instead, I assign story XP to discovering that Y is a wererat and X is a shipment of poisoned wine?




Then you are not using the system as described, and ignoring the only mechanic (complete quest = gain XP) that has even been loosely described.


Cheers!

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 23, 2007)

A quote just coming to my mind:  


			
				Friedrich Wilhelm Weber said:
			
		

> Freiheit sei der Zweck des Zwanges
> Wie man eine Rebe bindet,
> dass sie, statt im Staub zu kriechen,
> froh sich in die Lüfte windet.



Rough Translation: 
Freedom be the purpose of constraint*, as you bind a vine, so that, instead of crawling on the ground, it winds itself merrily into the air
*) or coercion? restraint?



> And it bothers me a lot to realize that I had to read over 100 posts to get to someone who mentioned what I'd like to discuss (the minor/major quest reward as encounter/monster level), and over 300 posts later very few people said anything about it...



That's really the interesting matter - how did they design "quests" in way to assign a level and XP award to it? (Assuming there is still a "wealth by level" mechanic behind it, the monetary reward is just a function of the former two)

I think I might be able to designate a few basic guidelines: 
"Rescue Village X" is probably a low level quest with a high XP value (for its level, not absolute), while "free your mother's soul from the 3rd Arch Devil" is probably a high level, but lower XP Value quest (as it primarily affects the character himself and also only a specific creature, not groups. A larger quest of similar level might be "free all souls from DamnedCity from the 3rd Arch Devil")


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> I'd also point out that quest cards serve as a flag to the players that "I've got something prepared here".  I think some of Raven Crowking's concerns are avoidable because unless you're improvising the whole thing, that's a useful thing for the players to have implied to them.




I find this somewhat interesting, because I doubt that I would give my players the choice between the Goblin Caves and the Old Mill if only the Old Mill was playable.  I do a lot of outlining rather than detailing prior to determining what the players are interested in, but I never use this system to deal with things within the players' immediate scope.  If I mention goblin caves, and they are within a distance you can get to that game session, you can be certain that the goblin caves are ready for visitors.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the DM needs a (more or less?) subtle way of saying he hasn't gotten stuff done, that there is only one choice for this evening's gaming.  Not unlike saying, "I bought Age of Worms and want to run it", if your group is gold with railroading, then everything is great.  Agreed-upon rails are not a problem.  But the rails are implied in the very set-up you describe, whether agreed upon or not.

Because, what will you do if the players go to the Goblin Caves instead?  Why isn't wiping out the goblins a quest?

And that is the one thing I have yet to hear anyone answer well -- why aren't player-driven goals also quests?

Under the system as described, only the DM determines what quests are.  I hope that the expansion of this idea in the DMG will include the idea that the players can set goals, and the DM determine where they fall in the quest scale, but right now, that is not what we are seeing.  Quest XP is story XP.  The question becomes, who drives the story?  Who determines what the story is?  The players or the DM?  Or both?

If the answer is "both", which is certainly my preference, then both the DM and players should be allowed to set objectives (i.e., create Quest Goals) that have the same value based on whatever criteria story XP use.

And, as already mentioned, it will make a great deal of difference how good the system for determining what story awards are appropriate is.  IME, most of these systems collapse due to lack of structure.

RC


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Nov 23, 2007)

I took the revelation to mean nothing more and nothing less than that the DMG is being retooled for less experienced DMs.

Let's even say "Beginning" DMs, because for any DM with any amount of experience under his belt at all, the easiest thing to bring under his control is the dispensation of XP. 

It does take considerably more experience to learn how to keep your players on the rails, and even more to know what to do when they go off them.

So it seems to me the folks who are complaining the loudest have things rather backwards. Somehow, they seem to have the ability to keep their players on the rails without Quest Cards, and even to improvise when they go off the rails, and yet somehow they lack the ability to ignore or improvise Story XP...?


----------



## Jinete (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What you seem to be suggesting is that the DM needs a (more or less?) subtle way of saying he hasn't gotten stuff done, that there is only one choice for this evening's gaming.  Not unlike saying, "I bought Age of Worms and want to run it", if your group is gold with railroading, then everything is great.  Agreed-upon rails are not a problem.  But the rails are implied in the very set-up you describe, whether agreed upon or not.
> 
> Because, what will you do if the players go to the Goblin Caves instead?  Why isn't wiping out the goblins a quest?
> 
> And that is the one thing I have yet to hear anyone answer well -- why aren't player-driven goals also quests?




I was in the middle of writing a post about quest cards being bad because they are like a DM saying "I have this prepared" and "sorry no quest card, don't even bother doing this" when it dawned on me. 

Just write ALL quest cards on the spot. If the players head for the Goblin caves, take out a piece of paper and write "Investigate the Goblin caves". Then do whatever you do when players try a course of action you haven't prepared for. 

More importantly, this will prevent WoTC from selling you quest cards booster packs. IN YOUR FACE WoTC, your evil plan has backfired!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> So it seems to me the folks who are complaining the loudest have things rather backwards. Somehow, they seem to have the ability to keep their players on the rails without Quest Cards, and even to improvise when they go off the rails, and yet somehow they lack the ability to ignore or improvise Story XP...?




If you are imagining that I am complaining, you have things rather backwards.  Pointing out the potential pitfalls of a system is a good way to ensure that they have a chance to be addressed before final copy.

As for story XP, I've never seen a system that wasn't full of wibbly-wobbly questy-westy...stuff.  The _idea_ is a good one.  For my Doctor Who game, for example, you get XP based on how much you participated in a given session.  I narrowed the range to 1-5 XP per session, though, to avoid wibbling more than necessary.  

I considered something like quest cards for my Star Trek d20, and would have used them if I'd ever gotten an interested group of players for the setting.  The idea there would have been, specifically, to give players background "extras" for role-playing that didn't (necessarily) disrupt the main storyline.  In my homebrewed 3.X, characters choose a "personality"; each personality has a condition that must be met to gain 1 AP that session (a system I would abhor were it the DM, and not the player, who chose the personality!).  I've considered a Star Wars game with pregen characters, each of which has a specific agenda, and each of which has specific victory conditions, stuck together in an escape pod (and then an "unknown" world).  Each player would get a description of the events that led to being in the escape pod from that character's point of view.

These are not ideas that I am adverse to, but they are ideas that I have some experience with the pitfalls of.  The pitfalls, as I see them, could be dealt with by instituting the following:

(1)  Discuss how Quest Cards might lead to railroading, with advice on avoiding the same.  Less experienced, and especially new, DMs need some solid guidelines on the pitfalls of railroading.  This applies doubly for DMs who cut their teeth on 3.X.

(2)  Discuss an alternate where the players can devise personal goals, and earn story XP for them.  This should include personal goals at odds with DM Quest Cards.

(3)  Ensure that you have a good, clear description of how to determine XP for Quests.  This is by far the hardest of the three (in fact, I have never seen it done well), and must be clear enough that a DM allowing players to determine personal goals can easily decide what XP are appropriate.

If the WotC does a good job with (3), I will be impressed, even if they ignore (1) and (2).  (This is not a swipe at WotC; it is a statement of fact.  I've never seen a good Story Award system, certainly not for a system that rewards multiple factors in addition to story, and I would be mightily impressed by anyone who devised one that met my criteria for clarity!)  I would, of course, prefer that they hit all of these marks.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> I was in the middle of writing a post about quest cards being bad because they are like a DM saying "I have this prepared" and "sorry no quest card, don't even bother doing this" when it dawned on me.
> 
> Just write ALL quest cards on the spot.




Or, better yet, have the players write out a card on the spot.    



> More importantly, this will prevent WoTC from selling you quest cards booster packs. IN YOUR FACE WoTC, your evil plan has backfired!




I can't imagine any scenario under which Quest Cards could be sold as booster packs.  I could see "official quest cards" with good cardstock and a snazzy looking parchment background for you to write on (and I honestly think that they would be a cool "toy" for gaming), but I cannot imagine how you could randomize content that has to also fit into your campaign world.

I very, very much doubt that Quest Cards have anything to do with marketting.

RC


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 23, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Quest Cards can be used to describe a general goal. "Rescue the princess", "Find out who killed Valance". They don't tell you that you how to do it. They also don't force you to do it all, but it's probably a good idea because apparantly, the DM has something prepared if you follow that quest. That's not different from the DM coming at the table and saying "Okay, I got all issues of the Dragon for the Savage Tides Adventure Path. It's pretty cool, so I am going to run it."




Agreed.  With pre-bought modules, even really good pre-bought modules, then this isn't as much of an issue but there can still be problems.  Usually the players know they are on a quest.  Usually there is a twist.  After the plot point, the players then may very well not want to complete the quest.  Now at this point, does the xp award that was attached to the quest go away?  Or if the players complete the quest would they still get the award.

I don't want to give out any spoilers and this isn't the perfect example, but since you mentioned Savage Tide: In the first module "There is No Honor" the party is sent on a quest, but they don't have all the information.  When they get all the information, they might want to do is something different (gosh I'm being vague.)  So at this point, how does the quest card system work?  You probably write them up new quest cards and let them choose?  If you're going to be giving out story awards, wouldn't it be better to keep the feel a little more open ended and give out the story award when they accomplish something you think seems worthy but wasn't necessarily written down?



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Going "off-track" is possible with or without a quest system and with or without quest cards. If your group's play style is very open-ended, the DM might want to use the quest system more "on the fly", and if he is using quest cards, some might be never used again*.
> But if you usually follow the plot of a prepared (possibly bought) adventure, quests will probably remain as static or dynamic as the adventure allows (and the DM can still handle).
> 
> *) Though it's possible that quests emerging from the flow of play are actually more likely to be followed, since they seem very "natural" to the participants.




In my longest campaign, I created an incredibly detailed city.  I filled it with situations and conflicts.  They players had their own motivations and interacted with the city and the nearby wildnerness.  Could quest cards work here?  Perhaps if the players wrote up all their own quest cards it might.  Even in that situation though, I would prefer not to have the xp awards tied to the cards the players were writing.  Sure, it's good for them to write down their character goals and motivations.  I don't like the idea of them cashing in one of those cards for xp.  Let the DM decide when the xp awards are either on the spot or after the game.


----------



## Jinete (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I can't imagine any scenario under which Quest Cards could be sold as booster packs.  I could see "official quest cards" with good cardstock and a snazzy looking parchment background for you to write on (and I honestly think that they would be a cool "toy" for gaming), but I cannot imagine how you could randomize content that has to also fit into your campaign world.
> 
> I very, very much doubt that Quest Cards have anything to do with marketting.
> RC




I wasn't being serious   

However, sometimes my paranoia kicks in and I get the feeling that all of these changes to the game are just a part of a devious scheme by WotC. I don't know what that scheme is and how it works, but that is just because my mortal mind is to weak to comprehend it in it's diabolicalness. In fact it is so sinister and subtle that we won't even realize what's happening, until it's too late. It is of course devised entirely by lawyers and people from marketing.

And one day we will suddenly realize that the game we're playing is totally different from the game we used to play those many years ago. It's fun and cool and simple, and you don't have to think very much or do math or imagine stuff. It costs more though. 

wow, I managed to scare myself


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 23, 2007)

erf_beto said:
			
		

> Wich, still, is fantastic!
> Look at it this way: New campaing, 1st level, newcomers game. PCs want money, exp, and power, so they go to the baron and he gives them missions. Noob DM shows them 3 quest cards, they chose 1, complete, chose 2, complete, and so on. By the time the baron gives them the 14th quest card, probably before, the DM (wich is not such a noob anymore) realizes the players do EXACTLY what the baron (therefore, the DM himself) wants them to do, no questions asked. They are nothing more than simple mercenaries, not heroes. DM is troubled and can't sleep at night: "have I reached the point where my campaign is nothing more than a cRPG? Is this what the great-ENWorld-sages-of-older-edition call 'railroading'? What have I done?"...
> But suddenly, the inspiration hits him, and he knows just what to do. Perhaps he'll look for advice over internet forums, or DDI, or read some magazine articles, who knows, but the 15th quest card will be different: maybe the baron will ask the players to kill an evil witch who is secretly rising in power - but she turns out to be one of the players mother/daughter/lover/sister. Maybe the baron will ask them to return an artifact that belonged to one of his ancestors, buried in a dungeon - but a mad man will aproach them and tell that the item is cursed or that by moving it the seal will break and a great evil will be released. Maybe the PC cleric will be contacted by his deity and be told the baron has evil plans...
> Will they go with the mission to get the rewards, or will they (for the first time) think about their actions and their consequences? Suddenly, what was once a linear campaign is shaping up to become something else entirely. Players will be cautious before following every quest card they've been given. DM is proud of himself.




What your describing here is a game that might very well be worth playing.  If the players become stagnant because it's easier to follow quest cards the campaign could recover from a quest card situation.  I'm not claiming that quest cards are the devil and a game can't ever be saved if the players get too used to the cards.  I am saying that I don't think this really encourages good habits and creativity.  



			
				erf_beto said:
			
		

> Really, I don't see why people are so angry about this SUGGESTION. Sure, it can be used in a wrong way, but so does every rule in the book. And it bothers me a lot to realize that I had to read over 100 posts to get to someone who mentioned what I'd like to discuss (the minor/major quest reward as encounter/monster level), and over 300 posts later very few people said anything about it...  Shame on us  :\




Sure it is a suggestion in 4ed DMG.  It is clearly a controversial suggestion that many gamers are not agreeing with.  There is probably better advice they could be giving new DMs in that space instead.  As for people being angry, it sounds to me like the pro-quest card posters are every bit as angry as the opposition.  I think maybe this is an angry time.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 23, 2007)

*On the Lighter Side*



			
				Jinete said:
			
		

> I was in the middle of writing a post about quest cards being bad because they are like a DM saying "I have this prepared" and "sorry no quest card, don't even bother doing this" when it dawned on me.
> 
> Just write ALL quest cards on the spot. If the players head for the Goblin caves, take out a piece of paper and write "Investigate the Goblin caves". Then do whatever you do when players try a course of action you haven't prepared for.
> 
> More importantly, this will prevent WoTC from selling you quest cards booster packs. IN YOUR FACE WoTC, your evil plan has backfired!




I'm gonna wait till my friends buy a full booster pack of quests and then photocopy them all and put them on laminated cards!  WotC can eat that!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 23, 2007)

Here's the best piece of advice I can give:

*Never give out plot hooks at the beginning of a session.*

I cannot emphasize that enough. I can't bold it enough. I can't subliminally implant it into people's minds enough. With regard to my DMing philosophy this is one of the highest priority rules, one of the most important things to remember, because it is so very basic. Handing out plot hooks at the beginning of a session is bad. It leads to no good. It backfires. It is putting all your eggs in one basket in the middle of a herd of elephants. Players just don't do what you expect them to do. It doesn't matter how well you know them, something is going to go wrong eventually.

Drop plot hooks in the middle of sessions. At the end. Interspersed throughout the quest they're working toward at the time. Drip subtle hints, drop bombs on them. Hit them upside the head with plot twists or obvious liars. Pounds that adventure hook into their heads. Give clues that they might not even pick up on. Whatever. Just don't do it at the beginning of the session expecting them to pick up on it and run with it. That way only leads to madness.

This way, after each session, you can ask what they're plans are for the next one. The baron has offered them a large sum to find his grand-daughter? Great, but they might not pick it up. Or maybe they will. Or maybe they'll hire some other adventurers to do it for them. They're insane, after all, they're _PCs_! But, now you know and you can plan what areas to work on and what plots to move forward and all that fun stuff. And the best part: _you know they'll participate in it_. They've already told you they're interested. That's what they're doing.

Now, they might change their mind. This isn't fool-proof. Call everybody up between the sessions. Make sure they haven't changed their minds. Be sure to remind them of any things that they might be forgetting. Maybe even write each quest down in, I don't know, card form! What a good idea! Make sure they don't have more pressing things they've forgotten. Be ready for any changes, just in case they happen, but let them know that you plan based off their own ideas.

It's a kind of sandbox. A smaller sandbox that the players build around themselves instead of a desert they can run through. That's okay, I think its better. It leads to an open ended game that is still detailed and full of intrigue and all that other fun stuff. Have you ever tried to run a 15th level adventure on the fly? It isn't very impressive, let me tell you. Especially when its a plane-hopping game of 15th level. Just don't try it. Trust me.

So, there you go.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> These are not ideas that I am adverse to, but they are ideas that I have some experience with the pitfalls of.  The pitfalls, as I see them, could be dealt with by instituting the following:
> 
> (1)  Discuss how Quest Cards might lead to railroading, with advice on avoiding the same.  Less experienced, and especially new, DMs need some solid guidelines on the pitfalls of railroading.  This applies doubly for DMs who cut their teeth on 3.X.
> 
> ...




I like.  If this discussion was included in the DMG, it would be a helpful part of the book.  Some people would use quest cards and they would not be abused quite as much in the ways I expect them to be.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> I wasn't being serious
> 
> However, sometimes my paranoia kicks in and I get the feeling that all of these changes to the game are just a part of a devious scheme by WotC. I don't know what that scheme is and how it works, but that is just because my mortal mind is to weak to comprehend it in it's diabolicalness. In fact it is so sinister and subtle that we won't even realize what's happening, until it's too late. It is of course devised entirely by lawyers and people from marketing.
> 
> ...





Maybe I can help you here.

4th Edition is, one must assume, being devised in such a way as to work well with the Digitial Intiative.  The idea is to sell you books, of course, but even more so to get you to sign up for the DI and pay a monthly stipend.  Design decisions that require you to have a "bigger table" (for example), or keep track of terrain pieces, help to make the DI worthwhile to DMs even if they are playing a tabletop game.  The laptop replaces the DM screen.

Let's not forget that there are some beautiful projection tables out there now, and folks are playing D&D by projecting the map from the DM's laptop to the tabletop.  Hell, I wish I could afford such a system myself, as well as the ability to devote a whole room to the game.  If you subscribe to the DI, and have such a system, you can project not only the DI tabletop, but the DI minis as well.  And the DI tabletop automatically shows you only what you can "see" based on your light source.

In addition, I imagine that if they are selling you digital "items" like minis, they might also be willing to sell you digital enhancements, such as quest cards.  In fact, it might well come to pass that there is a basic subcription rate where you get basic services, but if you pay more you get more.  Right now, for example, they are saying that the digital tabletop will offer counters if you don't fork over cash for minis.  This is, in fact, rather similar to the very successful Second Life model.

Players outnumber DMs by a large margin, and playing over the Interweb is becoming a big thing.  I'd love to have taken Hussar up on his offer to join his WLD Interweb group, but I don't have the free time to commit to sitting at the computer from X-Y pm however many nights a week.

But say, instead, that it was a job.  Imagine that WotC set me up with access to a special DMing platform, and gave me a percentage of "sales" from folks playing in my games.  Then say that they set up a "pay-n-play" section of the DI for folks who don't have a regular DM, or who want to be in the game of a particular DM.  Under such a setup, I could easily make as much as I make at work now, and WotC would make a boatload of cash as well.

Better yet, WotC knows that I would give back a % of that income, automatically, to update the rules, minis, and whatnot that I had available to make my "table" a better one.  After all, if I don't update, my players may well trickle away to the "table" of someone who does.  They might even make me pay upfront for the DMing platform, ensuring an income on the basis of offering that resource.

Now, remember also that WotC has unlimited rights to anything you create using their software (unless the user agreement has changed from when I last looked, at draft), meaning that WotC can easily use the materials of all those DMs to create a "core world" that is, in effect, one hell of a huge sandbox with all kinds of quests and all kinds of characters running around, with full-time DMs who pay for the priviledge of being full-time DMs (and, perhaps, make something off it as well).

If they get the DI up and running, and do as good a job as is possible, WotC may well give MMORGs a run for their money.

RC

_*EDIT:  Dang.  I might have just talked myself into supporting the Digital Initiative..... *_


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Here's the best piece of advice I can give:
> 
> *Never give out plot hooks at the beginning of a session.*




Good post.    

RC


----------



## erf_beto (Nov 23, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> What your describing here is a game that might very well be worth playing.  If the players become stagnant because it's easier to follow quest cards the campaign could recover from a quest card situation.  I'm not claiming that quest cards are the devil and a game can't ever be saved if the players get too used to the cards.  I am saying that I don't think this really encourages good habits and creativity.  .



Fair enough. But when you start gaming there are so many things you need to know and remember. Things that, today, we do on the fly, but before, it was just hard remembering everything. Again, these suggestions are aimed at novice players. Heck, when we game a lot, we can possibly toss the books, dices and character sheets away in favor of just telling a good story - have you seen the amount of people looking for d20-lite? They're NOT newbies.


			
				KingCrab said:
			
		

> Sure it is a suggestion in 4ed DMG.  It is clearly a controversial suggestion that many gamers are not agreeing with.  There is probably better advice they could be giving new DMs in that space instead.  As for people being angry, it sounds to me like the pro-quest card posters are every bit as angry as the opposition.  I think maybe this is an angry time.



 I don't think it's a waste of space, but I agree with you on everything else (even the bit about better tips for new DM). I know trying to get your point through is important, but people are getting angry for so little...


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I guess you didn't read the article that closely?  "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)"
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I read the article fine, thank you, but RC, you're missing my point entirely: why does what is written on the card have to be _the_ quest?  There are two things being discussed in this article and they are no more related than the fact that they both deal with the generic concept of quests.


----------



## carmachu (Nov 23, 2007)

Tquirky said:
			
		

> 2) Who hasn't, as a player, lost track of the DM's "subtle" machinations?  What may appear to be be really obvious from the DM's POV gets lost in the noise of a lot of red herrings (which aren't put there intentionally, but get there as a result of PCs talking to random unimportant-to-the-quest NPCs and the DM wanting to portray verisimilitude).  Putting up a flag like a card fixes this problem, even if it's a bit awkward and metagamey for those who like an immersion feel to their game.




Sorry, I disagree, smacks of railroading.

Lose track? Try taking notes, in a notebook. Thats what at least two of us do in the party of 6.Others take less sporatic notes, at least 2 more. The last two write down names at least.

Yeah, sometimes players get off track. But I'm not sure quest cards are a great answer.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> I read the article fine, thank you, but RC, you're missing my point entirely: why does what is written on the card have to be _the_ quest?  There are two things being discussed in this article and they are no more related than the fact that they both deal with the generic concept of quests.




OK, but when you said "Where does it say that players must receive a reward for completing what's written on the card?" I took it to mean that you were asking about where it says that they must receive a reward.  Especially as it was in response to

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.​
The article also says:

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.​
(emphasis mine)

So it is quite clear that the card represents a quest, and that completing the quest grants you a reward.  

If you now want to say that I am misunderstanding your emphasis on the word "the" (as in there may be several quests involved), I am not.  It is quite clear from the article that there may be several quests involved, that the cards represent quests, and that completing a quest grants you an XP reward.

So again, in response to your query,



			
				PeterWeller said:
			
		

> What if I give the players a quest card saying, "deliver X for Y and receive Z in payment," but I don't assign any story XP to completing the mission on the card, instead, I assign story XP to discovering that Y is a wererat and X is a shipment of poisoned wine?




Then you are not using the system as described, and ignoring the only mechanic (complete quest = gain XP) that has even been loosely described.


Cheers!


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So again, in response to your query,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not really.  I'm still rewarding XP for completing a quest; I've just used the card as a red herring.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Not really.  I'm still rewarding XP for completing a quest; I've just used the card as a red herring.




Using the card as a red herring, however, is _*not*_ the system described.

The system described is simple:

If Card, then Quest.  If Quest, then XP reward for completing Quest.

If Story Award, then Quest.  If using Quest Cards system, then hand card at beginning of Quest; give XP when Quest completed.​
Quest Cards and story awards are linked in the Quest Card system, as described.

Your suggestion is "If card, then not Quest; do not hand out Quest Card at begining of quest, hand out card as red herring to trick players, give XP for something not on card."

They are not the same systems.

Yours might be (and I am not saying that it is, just saying for sake of argument that it might be) a better system, but the merits of the system from the article cannot be judged on the basis of a different system, however much you might like that system.  

It is fair game, however, to suggest at this point that WotC intentionally _expand_ the system described to take this sort of thing into account.  It might, in fact, be a brilliant suggestion...although one that would undermine what WotC apparently expects the Quest Card system to do.  I.e., to clearly indicate to the players what their characters should be doing.

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 23, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Agreed.  With pre-bought modules, even really good pre-bought modules, then this isn't as much of an issue but there can still be problems.  Usually the players know they are on a quest.  Usually there is a twist.  After the plot point, the players then may very well not want to complete the quest.  Now at this point, does the xp award that was attached to the quest go away?  Or if the players complete the quest would they still get the award.



If I'd only play in one adventure path, and would only play or only DM, there might be less problems. But that's not the case. In our group, everyone DMs, and we switch DMs (and thus campaigns, possibly even systems) each week. Keeping track of all the information we gather, and all the things we want to do is difficult. Not all of us are great DMs, and none of us have a lot of spare time to prepare their own game and also manage our various characters to the best advisable extent. 

Visual aids helped us a lot int he past. The main quest of the adventure paths is probably pretty simply described, but our concrete goals at a time "why are we in this city again? Did we meet the contact already? Why were we invited to the dinner?" are sometimes hard keep track off.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 23, 2007)

RC, I see where you're coming from, but my point is, in reference to your worries about rail-roading, that you can easily show players that not every card is a real quest, and not every quest is going to be on a card.  You were worried that players will get railroaded by quest cards; I presented a way in which you could incorporate quest cards while also showing your party that they aren't the be all and end all to story development.  By giving the players a quest card for every job they take, whether or not it's a real quest, you show the players that not every quest will be on a card, and not every card will contain a quest.  Now your original concern about the party ignoring location B because location A has a card associated with it has been dealt with.  Or, if you really want to diligently stick to the quest cards, when the players discover the wine is poisoned or Y is a wererat, you take back the original quest card, and give the players a new card concerning the real quest.  You can also have cards made for your "hidden" quests.  Really, I'm just showing that in your game (or my game, or whatever), it's not hard to use the quest cards _and_ avoid their threat of railroading the game.  

Another thing, you can divorce the system from the suggestion, and you can build upon the suggestion and modify it because it's just a suggestion.  In fact, it's somewhat disingenuous to discuss quest cards as part of the system because they're not.  They're a suggestion for easing bookkeeping for the players.

I dunno, I guess I'm being a lot less literal about the article's contents than you are, and that probably supports your point better than mine.  New players are probably going to take everything in the book literally, so hopefully the discussion of quest cards in the book will deal with your concerns.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> RC, I see where you're coming from, but my point is, in reference to your worries about rail-roading, that you can easily show players that not every card is a real quest, and not every quest is going to be on a card.




Ah.  Well, I am not worried that _I_ will not be able to do so; I am worried that three years from now, when I sit down to game with someone who cut their teeth on 4e, that they will not have learned (as players) to set their own goals, or (as DMs) to let me set my own goals.

The reason that I am being more literal about the article's contents than you are is that I assume that the article gives the indication (unless WotC is twigged to the idea that there should be changes) that this is how a new generation of players is going to learn to play.  

As you say, "New players are probably going to take everything in the book literally, so hopefully the discussion of quest cards in the book will deal with your concerns."  Because, if they handle this well, this could not only be a good system for D&D, but a portable system for other games as well.

RC


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 23, 2007)

Yeah, I figure you're fine with dealing with railroading; our discussion of sandboxes in the other thread shows that you know how to let players do what they want to do.  I also think my example shows a way you can break those future players of any bad railroading habits.  Finally, I should point out that I trust Mearls and co. to deal with these sorts of concerns in the DMG.  Like everything else in a Design & Development article, I'm assuming this isn't the entire picture.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Yeah, I figure you're fine with dealing with railroading; our discussion of sandboxes in the other thread shows that you know how to let players do what they want to do.  I also think my example shows a way you can break those future players of any bad railroading habits.  Finally, I should point out that I trust Mearls and co. to deal with these sorts of concerns in the DMG.  Like everything else in a Design & Development article, I'm assuming this isn't the entire picture.




Nonetheless, I think it is important to point out potential pitfalls _now_, when they can still be dealt with, in hopes of a better product in June.

RC


----------



## Zweischneid (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Because, if they handle this well, this could not only be a good system for D&D, but a portable system for other games as well.
> 
> RC




It aint all that new. The Everquest RPG (pen & paper version) uses quest cards in many of their adventure and setting books (and likely some obscure game before that, EQrpg is the only D20 I can think of though).
At least in that example, they are rather specific and tend look abit like this (stolen from rpg.net)



> Originally Posted by Befallen p.11
> *Quest*: Dagger of Marnek
> *Faction*: Priests of Marr (+3 rank)
> *NPC*: Serna Tasknon
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> It aint all that new. The Everquest RPG (pen & paper version) uses quest cards in many of their adventure and setting books (and likely some obscure game before that, EQrpg is the only D20 I can think of though).
> At least in that example, they are rather specific and tend look abit like this (stolen from rpg.net)




Well, if it is a system for story awards that gives a clear indication of how much something that comes up off the cuff should be worth, and that works well in a tabletop game, _*that*_ will be something new!    

It isn't that the idea is new; it is one of those things where the execution in the past has always fallen rather flat.  IMHO anyway.  YMMV.

RC


----------



## Zweischneid (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, if it is a system for story awards that gives a clear indication of how much something that comes up off the cuff should be worth, and that works well in a tabletop game, _*that*_ will be something new!
> 
> It isn't that the idea is new; it is one of those things where the execution in the past has always fallen rather flat.  IMHO anyway.  YMMV.
> 
> RC




Is it? 

There's precious few rgs out there besides D20 that do not reward storys instead of beasties (note that gaining xp for slaying bad guys is IMO about as videogamey as you could possibly get). Having started rpging on White Wolf, rather than D&D I've never seen the sense in handing out xp for killing things (and never did, we've always played D&D with "story-awards" only).

The quest-card thing IMO seems once again something overtly complicated for things one can (and should) do on the fly. Waste of space int eh book if you ask me. YMMV though.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 23, 2007)

Zweischneid said:
			
		

> Is it?
> 
> There's precious few rgs out there besides D20 that do not reward storys instead of beasties (note that gaining xp for slaying bad guys is IMO about as videogamey as you could possibly get). Having started rpging on White Wolf, rather than D&D I've never seen the sense in handing out xp for killing things (and never did, we've always played D&D with "story-awards" only).




This is a good point.  One might say that XP for kills is one of D&D's sacred cows.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> This is a good point.  One might say that XP for kills is one of D&D's sacred cows.




That doesn't mean that it should be killed just for the XP.........


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 23, 2007)

Here's the thing.  I didn't read anywhere in the article that quest cards were going to be a "system" as others have unintentionally (or intentionally) labelled it.

I read it as a suggestion to help DMs and players to recall the different plot elements out there.  I might give quest cards for stuff three different things, but its not necessarily true that all of them are relevant to my campaign.  One may be a rumor or a trap, the other a dead end, the third may be something.

It appears that there are two kinds of players (and DMs) that are arguing the different points.

1. The players and dms that like to have the PCs drive the story, lead the way and the DM generally riffs of what they do, building the scenes either on the fly or pre-game based upon last session.  The game might not benefit as well from quest cards because it feels like "railroading"

2. The players and DMs that are running an AP or pregen adventure, or those players that don't like to have to play with a wide open sandbox.  They like to have leads, clues and be provided a story that they can participate in.  Quest cards are good for this.

Neither one is badwrongfun, and both can take advantage of quest rewards.  

In the example provided in the article, they had just finished talking to the baron about what he needed them to do.  Then the DM gave them a quest card summarizing what was discussed.  How is this railroading?  Isn't this a reminder of the conversation with the Baron?

Some of my players suck at taking notes. One or two are good at it.  Both would benefit from reminders about important encounters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean that it should be killed just for the XP.........



So, killing all the D&D sacred cows in the past 2.5 editions means that the designers have gained more levels? But will they kill next, once cows don't grant any more XP? 
Maybe they will create quests, like "Find a new way of dealing with Armor and Damage Reduction" or "Create a free-form spell based system that is compatible with traditional D&D assumptions". (What a good thing they made the new quest rules up.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Here's the thing.  I didn't read anywhere in the article that quest cards were going to be a "system" as others have unintentionally (or intentionally) labelled it.




Among other meanings, the word "system" means "any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge."



> I might give quest cards for stuff three different things, but its not necessarily true that all of them are relevant to my campaign.  One may be a rumor or a trap, the other a dead end, the third may be something.




Certainly you might; but if you did so, you would be doing something other than what is suggested in the Design & Development article.  So my question is this:  _Would the final version appearing in the DMG be stronger or weaker if it included these kinds of options?_

I say, "stronger", and therefore believe that we should bring this stuff up now, so that WotC has a chance to see it before the DMG final copy goes to print.

You and I might read that article and go, "Wow!  That sparked off a different way of using that idea that isn't actually in the article but seems awfully keen!"  We might even fool ourselves into thinking our sparked idea was actually in the article.  But, when the 4e DMG hits the shelves, and some new DM picks it up, he's going to go off _what the text actually says_, not what we _wish it had said_ or _believe it said_.  Therefore, if there are problems with the text, now is the time to at least point them out and give WotC a chance to deal with them.



> In the example provided in the article, they had just finished talking to the baron about what he needed them to do.  Then the DM gave them a quest card summarizing what was discussed.  How is this railroading?  Isn't this a reminder of the conversation with the Baron?




A reminder of the in-game conversation, and the in-game (i.e., negotiated with baron) rewards isn't railroading.  Making the metagame rewards (i.e., XP) based off the players doing as the DM says _*is*_ railroading.

Again, if player-set goals are rewarded in the same manner, this problem goes away.  As noted earlier.  Multiple times.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, killing all the D&D sacred cows in the past 2.5 editions means that the designers have gained more levels? But will they kill next, once cows don't grant any more XP?
> Maybe they will create quests, like "Find a new way of dealing with Armor and Damage Reduction" or "Create a free-form spell based system that is compatible with traditional D&D assumptions". (What a good thing they made the new quest rules up.)


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 23, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, if player-set goals are rewarded in the same manner, this problem goes away.  As noted earlier.  Multiple times.
> 
> RC




The mention of personal goals would seem to imply that player set goals are rewarded.  In fact, rewarding player set goals is such an encouragement to roleplaying that I would be shocked to not see it included.  This is, of course, as evidenced by previous D&D articles, just a glimpse and not the whole picture.  You're right that we should bring up any concerns with what's been presented, but we should also keep in mind that they're only giving us little glimpses of the new edition, and our information about any facet at this point is incomplete.

Also, there's no need to argue over semantics with "system."  The implication was that quest cards aren't part of the game system.  They're not a rule, not even an optional one.  They're presented as a suggestion, presumably one of many.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 23, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> The mention of personal goals would seem to imply that player set goals are rewarded.  In fact, rewarding player set goals is such an encouragement to roleplaying that I would be shocked to not see it included.




Didn't see it included in that article, though, did you?  Neither did I.

Simply because our information about any facet at this point is incomplete does not mean that we shouldn't point out potential pitfalls.  If the designers have already considered them, great!  If not, then they get the opportunity.  Win/win.



> Also, there's no need to argue over semantics with "system."  The implication was that quest cards aren't part of the game system.  They're not a rule, not even an optional one.  They're presented as a suggestion, presumably one of many.




Semantics?  In order to see what the article said, and whether or not your ideas were in accordance with it, I broke down the system the article was talking about.  Something doesn't have to be a rule to be a system.  For that matter, something doesn't have to be a system to be a rule.

When someone says something along the lines of 

I didn't read anywhere in the article that quest cards were going to be a "system" as others have unintentionally (or intentionally) labelled it.​
they strongly imply that a point is merely semantical (as you are now, seemingly, also trying to do), and that it is unimportant as a result.  Moreover, that "unintentionally (or intentionally)" implies some sort of wrongdoing, which is (frankly) bizarre.

However, if the D&D article was the basis of the DMG text (and didn't contain expansions such as the ones I suggested earlier), neither your (apparently) nor my preferred use of Quest Cards would be suggested.  In fact, none of the good uses of Quest Cards in this thread would be suggested -- all falling outside the system presented -- which would be a disservice to new DMs (or DMs without internet access!).

I mean, really, what part of 

(1) Discuss how Quest Cards might lead to railroading, with advice on avoiding the same. Less experienced, and especially new, DMs need some solid guidelines on the pitfalls of railroading. This applies doubly for DMs who cut their teeth on 3.X.

(2) Discuss an alternate where the players can devise personal goals, and earn story XP for them. This should include personal goals at odds with DM Quest Cards.

(3) Ensure that you have a good, clear description of how to determine XP for Quests. This is by far the hardest of the three (in fact, I have never seen it done well), and must be clear enough that a DM allowing players to determine personal goals can easily decide what XP are appropriate.​
do you people find so distasteful?

RC


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 23, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I have to ask, would you be so vocal about this idea if it were another poster on these boards suggesting it? Would the cries of outrage be their equal? Yeah, right. This is just people venting against 4e like usual. *yawn* Yet another example of a _good idea_ that WotC is putting forth that people still want to complain about because its _so obvious_. Blah blah, 4e sucks, I've been doing that for years, blah blah.
> 
> This is insane.  _HOW DARE THEY!!_
> 
> No wonder my ignore list has over a dozen posters on it at this point.



Heh. Where's the "ORLY" owl when you need him?

"Venting against 4e as usual", huh? I guess you haven't been paying attention all that much, since my posts about 4e mechanics have been positive. In your zeal to apparently take anything as a deadly slight against 4e - even from those who have posted positively on it - it looks like your quote and wild ranting is probably directed at the wrong person (not that I'm surprised, this being ENWorld).

Really, now. If the best you've got is a dreadful lack of attention and flailing about with accusations, I would be more than pleased if you put me (or if I'm already) on your ignore list. Thanks!



And back to the subject at hand - I do indeed look forward to the detailed mechanics on this Quest system. Any help in creating appropriate story awards for certain tasks and situations will always be helpful. Systems are particularly great in porting the concepts and processes to other situations.


----------



## Stormtower (Nov 23, 2007)

*Quest cards example*

I like quest cards and just started experimenting with them for my home campaigns a few weeks ago.  It's not a new idea but codifying it into solid advice for new DMs is a good strategy for the 4e DMG, IMO.  Many players love fiddly bits like equipment cards, real coins, etc. and the quest cards seem a natural extension of that.  

They don't have to be railroad-y either.  I have attached my quest cards for DCC #1 - Idylls of the Rat King to this post, which are largely based on the XP awards for sub-objectives in the back of that excellent module by Goodman Games.  I hope they're a useful example of how the quests can be worded clearly without being explicitly railroad-y.

The template is based on a simple 7.5" x 3" table so the cards are similarly sized to an RPGA reward card or another similar document which easily fits into common poly-vinyl currency sleeves (like for minis cards but bill-sized).  You can print the quest cards on cardstock and laminate them for re-use (give the players a dry- or wet-erase pen for checkoffs) or just let them write on the cardstock.  

These work probably best with groups who have an expectation of following the plot hooks and wanting to uncover everything they can, finding all the challenges and secrets.  They're still useful for a sandbox game though, in that a DM can detail a broad quest on a card and the player can fill in the details as s/he plays.

I say good for 4e if it encourages such things, but we could have another, different discussion about whether such fiddly bits are contrary to their stated design goal of speeding up the game.  Fiddly stuff like cards and coins, etc. = fun, but not fast.


----------



## Stogoe (Nov 24, 2007)

> Clarifying quests is no different from just telling the players "Look, the adventure is THAT way, over there is stuff I'm not ready for and won't be as cool or fleshed out."




Exactly.  It's a way of reminding your players what irons they've got in the fire.  There's stuff to do 'over there', and challenges and obstacles and XP and treasure, of course there is.  But here's what you think that evil priest is up to, and the Sword of Purest Silver was lost in that black and briny swamp to the south ages ago, and only that sword can rid your hometown of that pack of werewolves, etc, so let's keep those in the back of your mind while you traverse the Howling Cliffs of Madness and see what's beyond, shall we?

And I've done notetaking, believe me.  At best it deprives a player of a session of fun while they write down stuff that I can't read and they'll never refer back to.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 24, 2007)

*111*



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Didn't see it included in that article, though, did you?  Neither did I.
> 
> Simply because our information about any facet at this point is incomplete does not mean that we shouldn't point out potential pitfalls.  If the designers have already considered them, great!  If not, then they get the opportunity.  Win/win.




I think we're in agreement over this, since we're both saying the same thing with a minor difference in emphasis.  I just look at it as one of those, "don't get your panties in a knot" moments; the chances of the XP system not rewarding personal goals, especially when the article said that personal quests warranted their own rewards, are about zero.




> Semantics?  In order to see what the article said, and whether or not your ideas were in accordance with it, I broke down the system the article was talking about.  Something doesn't have to be a rule to be a system.  For that matter, something doesn't have to be a system to be a rule.
> 
> When someone says something along the lines of
> 
> ...




In a discussion such as this, the word "system" generally has the connotative meaning "game rules."  Thus, calling the quest card stuff a "system" can give one the impression that it is part of the rules.  I believe Catsclaw's point was that quest cards aren't part of _the_ system, or a sub-system of it.  Sadly, by trying to clarify what I felt he meant, I ended up starting the very thing I was against.  Sorry about that.



> I mean, really, what part of
> 
> (1) Discuss how Quest Cards might lead to railroading, with advice on avoiding the same. Less experienced, and especially new, DMs need some solid guidelines on the pitfalls of railroading. This applies doubly for DMs who cut their teeth on 3.X.
> 
> ...




I don't find anything distasteful about this, except that it seems you think this quest card thing is a whole lot more pervasive than I do.  It's a suggestion in the DMG.  It's not part of the rules.  That implies that is is a sidenote to the established rules, and it is presented as something you _may_ want to use during play.  Looking in detail, I believe your (1) is a necessity that must be addressed when addressing quest cards.  Your (2) may possibly be necessary, but I seriously doubt the DMG isn't going to include a discussion on player goals, whether or not they might be at odds with your own, and how to reward them.  This may not be addressed as part of the quest card suggestion, but I'm sure it will be addressed as part of the general XP system, and thus not necessary in a short suggestion about using cards to keep track of mission details.  Your (3) is a given, and I don't see why you're worried they won't include such guidelines.  After all, the article already mentioned that minor quests deserve a reward equal to defeating one foe, and major quests deserve a reward equal to an appropriately leveled encounter.  The question becomes what differentiates a minor quest from a major one.

There's nothing wrong with voicing concerns, but you're sounding very worrisome about something that I don't believe there's any need to worry over.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 24, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> When someone says something along the lines of
> 
> I didn't read anywhere in the article that quest cards were going to be a "system" as others have unintentionally (or intentionally) labelled it.​
> they strongly imply that a point is merely semantical (as you are now, seemingly, also trying to do), and that it is unimportant as a result.  Moreover, that "unintentionally (or intentionally)" implies some sort of wrongdoing, which is (frankly) bizarre.




Regarding "unintentionally (or intentionally)"..

Pardon my mistake.  I typed this as my wife was calling me out the door to go Black Friday shopping.   I could have spent 2 or 3 sentences more to explain what I meant, but I used these terms because they came to my mind more quickly than others.

When I leave the door open unintentionally and the dog goes outside, it doesn't imply that the dog going outside is a bad thing.  It simply means that I did not conciously leave the door open for that express purpose.  It may have been because I had my hands full of shopping bags and couldn't close it.

Also, it appears that I made the mistake of inferring from the phrase "Quest Card system" from one of your previous posts, that you were referring to a codified set of rules or guidelines.

As a result, I meant that you may have intentionally (unintentionally) used this word, not realizing that others may also infer that you meant a codified set of rules or guidelines.

No wrongdoing implied.  And nothing bizarre about my assumption, really.



> I mean, really, what part of
> 
> (1) Discuss how Quest Cards might lead to railroading, with advice on avoiding the same. Less experienced, and especially new, DMs need some solid guidelines on the pitfalls of railroading. This applies doubly for DMs who cut their teeth on 3.X.
> 
> ...




This is not distasteful to me either.  It is well stated.   

But like PeterWeller, I feel like you are looking upon the suggestion of utilizing quest cards as much more distasteful and possibly more heavy-handed than I do.  I don't feel that using a quest card is any more heavy handed than a PC trying to put together a post-game summary document about what happened.  If anything, my assistance will simply remind them of key events from the game session.  "Previously on 24..."

I also think that we are taking a design and development article WAY too literally.  It is not the text from the DMG, it's not even a quick summary of a section of the DMG.

I look forward to seeing how they position themselves on this one, for real, in the DMG itself.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 24, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Didn't see it included in that article, though, did you?  Neither did I.




When the article speaks of "a single character's personal goals" qualifying as a quest, I can't really see it as meaning anything except player-set goals.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 24, 2007)

edit: not going there

I will say this, though. I've had checkboxes for story awards in my adventures for over a decade now. And, I think it is a good thing. Depending on the difficulty of the path they take or the intrigue that they uncover they get more XP. If they go off and do something random that I didn't think of, they generally get a bonus, because it is always something crazy and fun. The more my, as the DM, enjoyment increases, the more the story awards are! Maybe selfish, but I don't think that is a bad thing.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 24, 2007)

> For example, the mentor of the group's paladin might ask him to find and destroy the Ruby Tome of Savrith the Undying. At the same time, a shady character is offering the rogue a sizable sum in exchange for the same tome, and the wizard's research turns up a reference to a ritual contained in the Ruby Tome that the characters will need to use in order to complete another quest. Three quests stand at odds, and it's up to the players to decide what they want to do.




This is a BAD BAD BAD idea.  Speaking from experience.  Maybe it is just my players, but I had a similiar "idea" in mind.  Each of my players were after a magic item, each with their own reasons/motivations for obtaining it.  They did not know each other, in fact, this was my attempt to get them to meet (I try to get away from "you all meet at a tavern").  What ended up happening?  Just a bunch of party in-fighting and players attacking other players.  It was not a good session, and I learned from it.

A party should be able cohesion, otherwise, why are they even hanging around one another?  At least, it "should" be about cohesion if you value any semblance of harmony.  If your story revolves around players eventually betraying each other, then that's a different story.

Anyway, I had to chime in when I read this passage.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 24, 2007)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> However... using cards could lead to a campagin specific _Wall of Fame_ where you put up all your successful quests.  A visible reminder of what you did to reach your current level, and maybe, just maybe, enough for the players to start to link together those plot elements the DM has been laying down since 1st level...




We used to have a player graveyard for awhile.  A white board with all our character's names who have died over the years...  The white board got too filled, so we stopped doing that.


----------



## Naathez (Nov 24, 2007)

Although i see your point in worrying that the different reasons for wanting to get at the magic item might lead to intra-party conflict, Rigamortus, I think that, if they're not used as a way to BRING the group together, but thrown in at a later time, they can also lead to interesting interactions  and no hostility.

Paladin:" No way! For the umpteenth time, the ritual contained in that tome is too evil. It must be destroyed."
Rogue: B-but.. but we'd get a TON of money. I mean, if you can just relax a tad on this, I can just accept to give an extra percentage to a charity, or your church directly... I mean.. it's a LOT of money you know... really lots..."
Wizard: "frankly, you know me, Pallie. (Ain't Pallie a GREAT name for a Paladin? Like Reggie the Rogue and Wizzie the Wizard?) And you know what I am looking for in that book isn't evil. Not in the least. And I think..."
P : "I know YOU are not evil! but the tome is a temptation. And if not destroyed, even if we used it soundly - assuming that can be done - it might be stolen, taken, copied. And then, we'ìd be responsible for the evil that was wrought."
W: "What if we used it to GET the guys who want to do evil with it?"
R: "er, like how?"
W: "I copy the part I need. Then we make a fake copy of the book... I can study the ritual - under supervision from your church, Pallie! I was getting to it - and make a flase copy of it, flawed so that it doesn't work but close enough that it isn't apparent at first glance. Then we destroy the original copy and have the false one delivered to your "customers", Reggie."
R: "me deliver a FAKE? and then have them all on my trail?"
W: "Sure, Reggie... like you don't have half a dozen alternate identities you use when dealing in-"
R: "Ok, OK, Wizzie - No need to go into that, I got it.".
P: "I still don't get how that helps us GET them. they'll probably send a middle agent to retrieve the book!"
W "-sighs- Sure. but we can have a spell cast to trace the fake book. It'll lead us to their REAL lair - and in the meanwhile, while they find out the ritual is flawed, we can even muster our forces, gather some intelligence. How's about THAT? I'll even accept to have my memory of the exact evil ritual erased from my memory, Pallie. I really don't care for that, you know me, we've been risking our lives together for years. I only need the OTHER info."
P:"  .... I have to talk to my superiors at the church about this, but...  it's not a bad plan..."


.... just an idea that came to me. Different goals can lead to something different than violence, and still all get solved. It's a matter of players PLAYING. and in no way having a quest card hampers this, on the contrary, it makes them think more on HOW TO GET what they want. 

My 2 cents, as always.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 26, 2007)

Lurks-no-More said:
			
		

> When the article speaks of "a single character's personal goals" qualifying as a quest, I can't really see it as meaning anything except player-set goals.




No doubt you are referring 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.​
And you really can't see that as meaning anything except player-set goals?  Well, I hope that you are correct.  OTOH, since this thread contains examples of Quests that affect one PC only, but are not player-set, I don't think that this is as clear as you do.  Again, though, I hope that you are correct.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 26, 2007)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Regarding "unintentionally (or intentionally)"..
> 
> Pardon my mistake.  I typed this as my wife was calling me out the door to go Black Friday shopping.




No worries.

RC


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No doubt you are referring 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.​
> And you really can't see that as meaning anything except player-set goals?  Well, I hope that you are correct.  OTOH, since this thread contains examples of Quests that affect one PC only, but are not player-set, I don't think that this is as clear as you do.  Again, though, I hope that you are correct.
> ...




I think reading "character's personal goals" as alluding to player determined goals is the most reasonable interpretation of the text.  Granted, there is room for that to be incorrect, but that would be flying in the face of previous DMGs as well as Roleplaying in general.  Really, I think you are worrying over this one a lot more than you should.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 27, 2007)

Eh, the way I look at the cards, they're just taking some of the onus from taking notes from the Players and giving them to the PCs.  With newer PCs, this can help to lead them into the proper habit of taking good notes.  They might not be for everyone, but I'm not quite sure I see the reason so many people seem to instinctually lash out at the idea.

As for the possibility of railroading...just dont give out a card until the players decide they want to do something and avoid specifics.  Nothing says all the cards have to be pregenerated and they're only supposed to be reminders in any case.  The players hear about the mines being infested, hand them a card labeled "Solve the Goblins in the Mines Problem'.  If they want to ignore your goblin in the mine adventure, and instead decide to go check out those ruins they heard about before, hand them a card that says 'Explore the Ruins at "Location X" '


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

What what what? We're still talking on this thread?

People. We have a _new_ article to complain about! The topic is "Golden Wyvern" crappiness! Get with it!


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 27, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> What what what? We're still talking on this thread?
> 
> People. We have a _new_ article to complain about! The topic is "Golden Wyvern" crappiness! Get with it!




Bad as it is, the quest card thing is still more annoying.  Plus we can multitask.


----------



## Rechan (Nov 27, 2007)

KingCrab said:
			
		

> Bad as it is, the quest card thing is still more annoying.  Plus we can multitask.



More annoying for you perhaps.


----------



## KingCrab (Nov 28, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> More annoying for you perhaps.




Agreed.  Quest cards are more annoying for me, (someone who doesn't like the idea of quest cards) than for you (someone who does.)


----------



## kennew142 (Nov 28, 2007)

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> I think this is a fine Variant Rule for kids 10 and under.  It concretizes things and makes it easier to remember.  It also helps lead them around the world to the more interesting parts instead of relying on them to be independently creative with their decision making.  Shyness is very common in young children and standing out while in front of your peers is the definition of peer pressure.
> 
> This seems like hyperbole at best and a borderline ad hominem attack on all of us who've been playing with props and concrete mnemonics since 1979. It's not just 10 year olds who use props in game. My group consists of well-educated professionals with an average age of 40. We've been playing rp intensive games for decades. Guess what? We've been doing it with gm created handouts and props.
> 
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 28, 2007)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> This seems like hyperbole at best and a borderline ad hominem attack on all of us who've been playing with props and concrete mnemonics since 1979.




Agreed.  While I might have some concerns about how QUest Cards are implemented, the maturity of those using them (or lack thereof) is certainly not among them.

RC


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Nov 29, 2007)

*Mike Mearls on Quest Cards*

I found this post from Mike Mearls  on the Gleemax forums;



			
				WotC Mearls said:
			
		

> Re: Quests... Feh
> Quests are all about 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!"
> 
> If this mechanic helps beginning DMs build better adventures and stories, and tells beginning players "This is what you should do next", then that's awesome.
> ...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 29, 2007)

Mearls pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one.  This is exactly how I felt that the idea of quest cards be used.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 29, 2007)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Mearls pretty much hit the nail on the head with this one.  This is exactly how I felt that the idea of quest cards be used.




The cards aren't the important part.  The important part is that the mechanic is built around the idea of forcing the PCs into courses of action for the benefit of the DM's "story".



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> Quests are all about 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!"
> ...
> If your quests are things the PCs would do anyway, or if they aren't tied to driving the story forward, you're missing out on the strength of this mechanic.




Note that this is a _mechanic_.  It is in the DMG and is intended to teach new DMs how to run the game.  Essentially, the idea is, "Come up with a cool idea and force your players into doing it by withholding XP if they don't."

For example, instead of


> * Uncover the Temple spies in Hommlett and bring them alive to the archbishop in Verbobonc for questioning.



He could have stopped after "Hommlett".  After all, isn't the point of being a PC being able to decide what to do.

And for those that might not know -- I am a DM, and a bit of a RBDM at that witha  solid neo-grognard streak.  But "storytelling" is not something DMs do.  DMs allow players to tell stories but providing situations and possible outcomes.  The whole Quest mechanic undermines that, and in so doing undermines the role of the DM (particularly the DM that uses published modules).


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> He could have stopped after "Hommlett".  After all, isn't the point of being a PC being able to decide what to do.



And they will.  But when the Archbishop says "I'd like it if you brought them back alive," that seems a meaningful thing to note before setting off.  There's certainly no guarantee that that's how it'll go, and some high-falootin' fancypants asking real nice-like has never deterred a PC from going with his gut, in my experience.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The cards aren't the important part.  The important part is that the mechanic is built around the idea of forcing the PCs into courses of action for the benefit of the DM's "story".
> 
> Note that this is a _mechanic_.  It is in the DMG and is intended to teach new DMs how to run the game.  Essentially, the idea is, "Come up with a cool idea and force your players into doing it by withholding XP if they don't."
> 
> And for those that might not know -- I am a DM, and a bit of a RBDM at that witha  solid neo-grognard streak.  But "storytelling" is not something DMs do.  DMs allow players to tell stories but providing situations and possible outcomes.  The whole Quest mechanic undermines that, and in so doing undermines the role of the DM (particularly the DM that uses published modules).




Use Quests differently, then.  Make them more open-ended.

The setting: the muddy streets and dark alleys that make up the slums. Gangs rule block-by-bloody-block.
"Your uncle, the man who holds your gang together, just died.  Resolve this."
"You've just been offered a chance to join another gang if you betray your own.  Resolve this."
"Your little brother has been kidnapped by the other gang.  Resolve this."

Or, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil:
"The daughter of the sage/potion maker is upset because her father has gone missing.  Resolve this."
"Y'Dey fears the return of Lareth the Beautiful, and is obsessed with him to the point of ignoring her other duties.  Resolve this."
"The paladin in town is a drunk.  Resolve."

The DM makes more Quests based on how the PCs resolve these.  If no more Quests can be made, then that line of adventure is done with.

It's still DM-heavy, but it doesn't force the players into making certain choices.  And once the first initial Quests are completed, the choices the players have made are what determines the next Quest or Quests.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 29, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Use Quests differently, then.  Make them more open-ended.




I don't have to, because I won't be playing 4E. 

But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story".  That is not a good thing.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The cards aren't the important part.  The important part is that the mechanic is built around the idea of forcing the PCs into courses of action for the benefit of the DM's "story".



Forcing, how? Cajoling, suggesting, or even bribing I could see, but not forcing. You can get XP from other sources as well, after all.

Also, do you think that story awards are a bad thing overall? Because they're the staple of just about every other RPG except D&D.


----------



## Simon Marks (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story".  That is not a good thing.




That's not how I read (or would implement) this.

I'd say it was a way of rewarding a Character for completing an objective - not an outcome.

This objective can either be created by the Player to guide the game, the DM to guide the game, or both.

I feel that you are trying to hard to read something 'bad' into it. It's a tool, like a hammer. You can see how to break bones, I can see how to make Shelves.

We are both right - it's both possibilities. I just think my one is more likely.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story".  That is not a good thing.




I don't like Mearls' quests either (for a certain style of game), but it's so easy to change:

"Uncover the Temple spies in Hommlett and bring them alive to the archbishop in Verbobonc for questioning."
to
"The Archbishop of Verbobonc wants the Temple spies in Hommlett alive for questioning.  Resolve."

The players can kill the spies, kill the Archbishop, send fake "spies", say that there aren't any spies, whatever; and get some XP.  Then the smart DM can react to the player's choices and make a new Quest.

I think Quests are a good thing, even if the default ones aren't your bag, because it seems like they would help support different play styles.  I'd rather have something there that I can slightly tweak in order to get what I want than nothing at all.

Of course, that depends on how rigid the system is.  But I'm optimistic.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I don't have to, because I won't be playing 4E.
> 
> But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story".  That is not a good thing.




Umm, what?  Are you trying to say that this is new?  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.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Umm, what?  Are you trying to say that this is new?  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.




It's worthwhile, I think, to go back and read Mearls' ToEE suggestions for Quests.  They aren't simply "Uncover the Spies in hommlett" broad goals, they are instructions on what to do beyond that.

Moreover, "convincing the guard to let them pass" isn't a quest goal.  The guard is an encounter with an EL, which gives XP if it is "overcome".


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The cards aren't the important part.  The important part is that the mechanic is built around the idea of forcing the PCs into courses of action for the benefit of the DM's "story".




I'm afraid I really don't understand where you are coming from - I presume that you don't think DMs should take random room layouts and roll randomly for monsters and treasure in each location - in other words that the DM puts some thought into designing adventures/adventure locations.

And yet how would it be possible to design a credible (or interesting) adventure without there being an implied story to it?

Furthermore, you mention RBDMing... one of the key features of being a RBDM is that actions (or inactions) by the PCs have consequences, and that world events can and will continue on regardless of the specific actions the PCs are taking (or not taking).

I think you are completely misunderstanding the purpose of the mechanic - which is to give all DMs a reasonable, balanced and thought-through means of awarding xp for something other than killing stuff and takings its treasure. 

The quest idea is an interesting one because it brings to the surface things which the PCs can get story awards for (rather than them just stumbling across "story award xp" as sometimes happens.

Similarly, how many adventures start with "The merchant wants to hire guards to get his caravan safely across the burning desert..." or "patron x wants to hire y in order to do x for him".

Unless an adventure is run by rolling on the encounter tables while trudging across the wilderness, a game session normally involves at least a tacit agreement between the DM and the Players, that the DM will attempt to set up something that the Players will find fun, and they won't bother ignoring all the effort the DM is putting into something and going and doing something else instead.

Maybe you have different experience and expectations though? I'd be slightly curious to find out how you would normally expect adventures to work.

Regards


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 29, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> And yet how would it be possible to design a credible (or interesting) adventure without there being an implied story to it?




It is quite possible to seperate the implied story of setting and the (more important) story of what the PCs do in that setting, how they intereact with its inhabitants, etc.  Certainly, each inform the other, but that is a very far cry from

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!"​
Of course, as always, YMMV.

RC


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Nov 29, 2007)

> * Uncover the Temple spies in Hommlett and bring them alive to the archbishop in Verbobonc for questioning.




The given statement could have finished after 'Hommlett', I agree.  However; as a player I would want the rest of statement written down.

Why?

Because the rest of the statetment tells me what was asked.  I wasn't asked to 'uncover the spies.'  I was asked to 'uncover the spies and bring them in alive.'  That 'alive' portion may or may not be important in the grand scheme of things - but that is what was asked.

That notation on the card can act as a nice reminder when we've been asked to Find the Spies (alive) and Stop the Bandits (dead) and Find the Thief (doesn't matter).  When I've been asked to find a half dozen different people and I am supposed to bring them all in to different people.  Sure, the DM should be keeping track of that but it's still nice to have written down.

And if there comes a time when between holidays, weddings, moving and babies it's been a month or two since I've gamed?  It would be nice to have these written down somewhere so I can refresh myself on what has been asked of my PC.  It would be a real BRDM that would deny the player ANY xp for killing the spy (assuming the confruntation was a normal xp situation - whatever that may be for the group in question).  No bonus xp for bringing the spy in alive?  Sure, I forfeited that when a severed the head off of the body.  But no xp because I didn't follow the notecard to the letter?

Nothing on that card is stopping my PC from killing the spy, or bringing the spy in to someone other than the archbishop, being a turncoat and becoming a spy myself or even leaving Hommlet to its own devices and going "that-a-way".  The rest of the party might stop me - but not a notecard.  That notecard says what has been asked of the PCs.  Nothing more.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Umm, what?  Are you trying to say that this is new?  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".



Really, "if the PCs kill this monster, award them a CR X xp award," is pretty much just a subset of a quest-based XP system.  Unfortunately, we haven't had the rest of the system.

They're just extending the idea of "do task, get reward" beyond the boundaries of hacking and slashing.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But my point is that they are building in a mechanic for determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes to support the DM's "story".




How is that any different than determining the CR (and thus the XP) that comes from killing your game's BBEG? Hint: it's not; you're still determining XP rewards by meeting pre-determined outcomes (killing the BBEG) to support the DM's "story."


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 29, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> And yet how would it be possible to design a credible (or interesting) adventure without there being an implied story to it?




The problem is that you get XP for doing things like "taking the prisoners back to the Archbishop."

What if you wanted to work with them from the inside?  No XP for that.  Or maybe you think they deserve to be killed outright.  No quest XP for that.  Players will feel like they don't have the choice to do those other things.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> What if you wanted to work with them from the inside?  No XP for that.  Or maybe you think they deserve to be killed outright.  No quest XP for that.  Players will feel like they don't have the choice to do those other things.




Says who? Just because they have one quest card that says "Take spies to the Archbishop" doesn't mean that they have to do it. Hell, the spy could talk them into helping him, and suddenly they have a new quest card that says "Feed the Archbishop false information and give him a false spy to interrogate."

It's a BOOKKEEPING technique. If it will limit your ability to run a game, then I'd say you're already limited in your ability to do so.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 29, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Says who? Just because they have one quest card that says "Take spies to the Archbishop" doesn't mean that they have to do it. Hell, the spy could talk them into helping him, and suddenly they have a new quest card that says "Feed the Archbishop false information and give him a false spy to interrogate."
> 
> It's a BOOKKEEPING technique. If it will limit your ability to run a game, then I'd say you're already limited in your ability to do so.



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.  That's a far cry from just a bookkeeping technique.

I don't think the problem is limiting the ability to run a game.  It's more like bringing the hammer down on what you (as impartial DM... :\ ) feel should be the way the PC's handle a given situation.  You don't return the spies alive...BAM no story xp for you.  IMHO, as described (instead of how everyone's talking about tweaking it) it's a crude, heavy-handed, and rail-roadey mechanic.  People talk about DM's who force their stories to go the way they want on PC's now...well you just gave actual rules for rewarding and punishing players for not jumping through the DM's pre-designed hoops.  And yes, I say the DM's pre-designed hoops because that's what all the examples have been of.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 29, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Says who? Just because they have one quest card that says "Take spies to the Archbishop" doesn't mean that they have to do it. Hell, the spy could talk them into helping him, and suddenly they have a new quest card that says "Feed the Archbishop false information and give him a false spy to interrogate."




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.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> 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.




Yes, I can see how having a crappy DM that can't adapt to changes in the situation would be annoying. However, the problem you present has nothing to do with the concept of writing down goals and rewards and everything to do with a DM that is incapable of changing his plans to make the game continue to be fun for his players.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.  That's a far cry from just a bookkeeping technique.




Every single thing in this entire post can be chalked up to "crappy DM."

If the DM can't adapt, or is unwilling to change his precious story to keep his players interested and happy, then it's his own shortcomings that cause it, not a simple suggestion to write things down in an easily referenced format.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 29, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Every single thing in this entire post can be chalked up to "crappy DM."
> 
> If the DM can't adapt, or is unwilling to change his precious story to keep his players interested and happy, then it's his own shortcomings that cause it, not a simple suggestion to write things down in an easily referenced format.




Are you totally ignoring the fact that following a quest as written or presented grants extra xp?  If you're changing everything then what was the point of constructing a quest (with the xp bonus) in the first place?  It seems they're should just be a certain bonus dependant upon level for good roleplaying.

Side Note: 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.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 29, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Are you totally ignoring the fact that following a quest as written or presented grants extra xp?




No, I'm not. I don't know where you get that assumption from, but it certainly isn't in any of my posts. I've been doing things like quest cards for years, and I often make more quests than I end up using in my campaigns, since I like to offer my players options and easy reference material. I've even written up brand new ones on the spot while my players interact with an NPC that I never intended to give quests, just to keep up with my players.



> If you're changing everything then what was the point of constructing a quest (with the xp bonus) in the first place?




For reference? So I have some easily thing to show my players so they can make the decision of whether they would want to do the quest?



> It seems they're should just be a certain bonus dependant upon level for good roleplaying.




Good roleplaying is subjective. I've seen DMs give out "good roleplaying" experience to people that I would have penalized for their roleplaying.



> Side Note: 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.




And that's why few roleplaying games succeed, since they don't make an effort to suggest simple things like bookkeeping and information sharing.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 29, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Yes, I can see how having a crappy DM that can't adapt to changes in the situation would be annoying. However, the problem you present has nothing to do with the concept of writing down goals and rewards and everything to do with a DM that is incapable of changing his plans to make the game continue to be fun for his players.




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.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> No, I'm not. I don't know where you get that assumption from, but it certainly isn't in any of my posts. I've been doing things like quest cards for years, and I often make more quests than I end up using in my campaigns, since I like to offer my players options and easy reference material. I've even written up brand new ones on the spot while my players interact with an NPC that I never intended to give quests, just to keep up with my players.




You continue to miss the point to the extent that I suspect you are doing it on purpose.

The card doesn't matter.  The bookeeping element isn't the point.

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.

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.

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?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.  That's a far cry from just a bookkeeping technique.




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.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> 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,



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 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:



			
				Design & Development: Quests said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> 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?




			
				Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Can't find that quote anywhere,




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

RC


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

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




Ah yes, I recall. Thanks.

I think that was the blog entry that essentially told everyone to relax, that they are reading too much into what he said in his Des&Dev article.

I will try to dig it up...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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".




I think story awards come down to a few different things:


 a reward for accomplishing more complex goals than Kill The Monster
 a cohesive mechanic relating various points together
 a "wrap up" for quests with specific beginnings and endings


One thing everyone wants in their games (that I've seen at least) is some over-arching plot line or at the very least a link between Point A in the campaign and Point B. Something that says to them "This is why we do what we do." It can be as simple as killing the goblin raiders to save the village or as complex as... well, there's no quick way to summarize a complex plot, so I won't try.  

We can call it a quest or a story or whatever we want, but it is an interlinked series of encounters (whether they be combat, traps, dialog, whatever). When we design these encounters and when we look back on them, we see the trappings of the Quest. That's all the quest is, in effect, but it makes things more interesting, because it gives flavor and a sense of something greater to the PCs actions.

The story award is basically a conceit that the PCs have worked through these linked encounters and come out victorious. It is a way of rewarding players for their ability to recognize this series, work their way through the series, and overcome the series. Whether the series comes about through DM creation before play, through DM improv during play, the player talking to the DM before play, or through the players own devious machinations during play doesn't matter. The point is that some goal has been attained, some quest has been fulfilled.

So, that's where the story award comes in. The DM determines the difficulty of the whole attempt and assigns some XP. This takes for granted that some quests are actually more difficult than the sum of their parts. Just because no CR broke 4, as an arbitrary example, doesn't mean the quest was a "CR 4" quest. In effect, it wraps up the odds and ends that aren't accounted for. That's not all, though, just a part of it. It can also be used as a way to round XP to a nice even number, a way to reward players for great ideas on how the quest was handled, wrapped up with roleplaying XP, given out as a "end of adventure" award during wind down, and whatever else can be thought up.

There are many many good reasons people have for like story awards. People like getting XP is probably _the best_ good one in my book. Beyond all the fluffy stuff above, that's probably the core reason, Occam's Razor and all.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> 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?




Here's the thing. In my book, you _are_ giving out quests in your game if you have any kind of linked encounters going on. So, you are creating a bunch of quests already. No extra work involved. I like handouts that explain these quests, and you don't?



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.




They just want a system for the story awards instead of it being all DM-fiat. I think that's fine. But, it has to be a DM mechanic because he is deciding how much XP to award. The Card is more of a helpful reminder than anything else, a concise place for Quest information. So, instead of having info strewn out among several loose-leaf, like we always have in the past, you've got a nice note card with the information on it.

I'm not sure what you find distasteful. The quests will remain regardless, it isn't changing how quests work - indeed there has never been, and it isn't implied that 4e will have, any system for _designing_ quests. Which, I think, is a shame, actually. Perhaps there will be and I'm just getting the wrong idea from the article. Unless the DMG2 had some? I didn't get the book.

But, in any event, just because something is written down on a quest card doesn't mean that it has to be any more fleshed out because it is written down. I don't see it changing much beyond a suggestion of a helpful handout. If you have no problem with Quest XP then I'm not sure what would be troubling.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The story award is basically a conceit that the PCs have worked through these linked encounters and come out victorious. It is a way of rewarding players for their ability to recognize this series, work their way through the series, and overcome the series. Whether the series comes about through DM creation before play, through DM improv during play, the player talking to the DM before play, or through the players own devious machinations during play doesn't matter. The point is that some goal has been attained, some quest has been fulfilled.




When speaking of play in general, I think you are right and I agree with you.  but that'snot what we are discusing here.  What we are discussing is the Quest _mechanic_ that is designed to reward players for accomplishing a goal _in a particular way_.  Every edition from AD&D1 up has had "story awards" -- XP gained for things that weren't killing monsters or taking their stuff.  To my knowledge, no edition -- except in the case of sanctioned, organized play -- has built in a concrete mechanic designed to reward players only for acting in a manner that best supports the DM's/designer's predetermined outcome.

If this wasn't coming out of 4E, I am guessing that half of the people lauding it would be decrying it as the railroading, restrictive mechanic that it is.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.



Well, if they don't follow the adventure, they will not gain the XP from that adventure. Because they might not encounter the monsters and traps I put in there. They might also not the cool +4 Holy Flaming Longsword that lures in one of the treasure chests.

---

Another important thing: No matter how many quests you invent on the fly. If you want to reward the players at succeeding at something, and this reward is not just linked to the challenge rating / level of a monster or NPC, there are now guidelines for how you award it. 

Imagine as part of the game, players (secretly, without quest cards, because that would give away too much), they manage to uncover a would-be assassin. "Traditionally", I would make the Assassin a high level NPC that the PCs have to kill / subdue to "beat". If he runs once he fears being uncovered, I might want to give them some XP (since they still foiled his plan), but how much? The Full CR? But the Assassin didn't threaten them at all, he didn't even stand in their way! (It's not like they were circumventing a Hobgoblin patrol looking for them) What's the guideline for this? I'd probably give half XP or something like that. On the other hand, if they beat him, they get just XP for beating an high level Assassin? Shouldn't the whole process of uncovering an Assassin at all be worth something? Again, half of his regular XP extra? Or just twice as much?

With Quest rules, I can (hopefully) determine how much XP uncovering the Assassin was worth. And the Assassin doesn't even have to be high level - he could be a low-key scribe with access to the victim and a small dose of poison. I might miss out one cool fight, though. But it means I am also not forced to have all assassins and murderers be NPCs of appropriate level to the PCs. I can avoid using "XP for kills" and instead use "XP for quests". 

There is, obviously, alway a question about how much of story & style do you want to express mechanically, and how much you are fine with just guessing or hand-waving.

Without feats or talents, there is little mechanical difference between a Longsword wielder and a Battleaxe wielder (if you're unlucky, one of them is plainly inferior), but that's it. With feats and talents, you can customize your character to enforce the different stereotypes.
Without skills, you couldn't represent someone being trained in a specific task - climbing, sneaking, knowing things about religion. You might be able to persuade your DM that you should be good at something, but you might not.

Without a quest system, we only had two types of challenges - traps and monsters/NPCs - that we could express mechanically. Without mechanical guidelines, the rest was just guesstimating. (What about puzzles, by the way? How can they be rewarded?)

With social encounter rules, non-combat encounters with NPCs either relied on a single skill check, or on convincing the DM with sweet talk (or a combination of both). 

When do you have to little rules? When do you have too much? I don't think there are fixed borders - some people love rules-light, others prefer rules-heavy. 
If D&D really is such a great toolbox for all kinds of campaigns and settings, it needs one of the following two (or both)
1) A hell of a lot of good and solid role playing advice.
 (how do you handle "mother may I?-situations", "100 ways of intoning your voice without hurting yourself", "how do I avoid favoritism towards certain players?", "How to describe a scene in an engaging fashion?"), 

2)
A rule system containing tools for all kinds of scenarios, campaigns, settings or play styles, presented in an engaging manner and describing them in a way that learning to use them is easy. ("How can I distinguish a character that is good at climbing to one that is just very strong?" "How can I build a monster to challenge the NPCs?" "How do I reward the PCs for beating monsters, surviving traps, solving puzzles?")

I guess D&D has always been falling to the latter part, and I am afraid the former part is neglected in most game systems, anyway (aside from a little standard talk.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> When speaking of play in general, I think you are right and I agree with you.  but that'snot what we are discusing here.  What we are discussing is the Quest _mechanic_ that is designed to reward players for accomplishing a goal _in a particular way_.  Every edition from AD&D1 up has had "story awards" -- XP gained for things that weren't killing monsters or taking their stuff.  To my knowledge, no edition -- except in the case of sanctioned, organized play -- has built in a concrete mechanic designed to reward players only for acting in a manner that best supports the DM's/designer's predetermined outcome.
> 
> If this wasn't coming out of 4E, I am guessing that half of the people lauding it would be decrying it as the railroading, restrictive mechanic that it is.



I am not sure, but aren't you adding something to the mechanic that wasn't described in the article?



			
				James Wyatt said:
			
		

> In D&D, the words "adventure" and "quest" are virtually synonymous. They both mean a journey, fraught with danger that you undertake for a specific purpose. We sometimes joke that the game is all about killing monsters and taking their stuff, *but the reality is that the game is about adventures. You go into the dungeon and kill monsters with a larger purpose in mind: to stop their raids on caravans, to rescue the townsfolk they've captured, to retrieve the lost Scepter of the Adamantine Kings for the rightful descendant of those kings*.
> 
> Quests are the story glue that binds encounters together into adventures. They turn what would otherwise be a disjointed series of combats and interactions into a narrative -- a story with a beginning, a middle, and a climactic ending. They give characters a reason for doing what they do, and a feeling of accomplishment when they achieve their goals.
> 
> ...



(*Emphasis* Mine)
Quests don't describe how you have to solve them. They just tell you what you want (should/might hope/are railroaded) to achieve. (top their raids on caravans, to rescue the townsfolk they've captured, to retrieve the lost Scepter of the Adamantine Kings for the rightful descendant of those kings).


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> .  What we are discussing is the Quest _mechanic_ that is designed to reward players for accomplishing a goal _in a particular way_.





No we're not; we're discussing a suggestion as to how to implement the quest mechanic.  The quest mechanic, as far as we know, is simply: "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)."

Now, we can argue for ever and ever over whether quest cards are railroading, but that's not arguing the mechanic.  Quest cards are not the mechanic; they are a suggestion on how to implement it.  The only thing the mechanic says, as far as we know, is that you (the DM) should give the players experience points for completing story goals.  Nowhere has it said that you only reward them for your story goals.  In fact, the line, "[quests] can involve the whole group or just a single character's personal goals," would point to just the opposite, that the players' goals should be rewarded, upon completion, with experience.  All the quest mechanic does is specify how much should be rewarded for completing a story goal.  It's codified into the experience system and thus balanced with the rest of the character advancement rules, which IMO is a pretty good thing.



> If this wasn't coming out of 4E, I am guessing that half of the people lauding it would be decrying it as the railroading, restrictive mechanic that it is.




And if this wasn't coming out of 4E, I am guessing that half of the people decrying it would laud it as the empowering and better thought out experience system (as compared to 3E's "test your mettle" set up) that it is.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> 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.




(Fairly close to an actual in-game conversation...  Modified to fit primary example)

Player 1: Okay, so this guy wants us to find the spies, correct?
DM: Yes.
Player 2: Cool.  I guess we go kill the spies next.
DM: He wants them alive.
Player 2: Oh.
Player 1:  What's this guy's name again?
DM: Archbishop (Something).
Player 1: Can you spell that?
DM: [Spells it out]
Player 3: It was the bartender that was acting shadey wasn't it?
Player 2: The bar-maid.  The bartender was talking to [Player 1] the entire time.
DM:  Glad you caught that.
Player 1: What's the name of the town again?

Okay... Besides asking the name of the town (which isn't exactly an unheard of question) when I take notes for the group it quite often goes like this.  And let's be honest - if it is the first session in a new location the question of the town's name can easily come up (multiple times).

And yes, I do actually ask for the spelling many times.  That way I don't write the names down wrong and mispronounce them forevermore (because I'm "properly" pronouncing what I wrote down and not the actual name).

If the DM knew the group would be getting the quest that session - Yes, I honestly think it would be a lot faster to have it written down ahead of time.  If the DM didn't know the quest was going to pop up (such as the party starting to work with the spies and thus starting the 'Remove the Archbishop' quest) it wouldn't take long to scribble stuff down on a card.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 30, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> The only thing the mechanic says, as far as we know, is that you (the DM) should give the players experience points for completing story goals.




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.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 30, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> And yes, I do actually ask for the spelling many times.  That way I don't write the names down wrong and mispronounce them forevermore (because I'm "properly" pronouncing what I wrote down and not the actual name).




One thing that is useful is having a whiteboard handy where the Dm can write down "fantasy names" so that you don't have to go through the "That's Bob, with a 'kh'pa!" bit.

Player handouts are fine.  In fact, they are better than fine.  They are cool and fun and help promote immersion.  Even a bullet point fact sheet might be a good handout (though it would kill that whole immersion part).  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.

The original article itself was pretty innocuous.  It said, in short, "4E is going to put story awards in the DMG and tie it to the CR system for determining how much they are worth, XP wise." Nothing new.  i was kind of dissapointed, in fact, as I was all ready to scream "WoWism" and upon reading it found that it wasn't a fair assessment.  But then you have Mearls' comments on the subject and it becomes clear that the intent is, in fact, to create hardcoded victory conditions in the game.


----------



## PeterWeller (Nov 30, 2007)

But Reynard, where did Mearls ever say those were the only quests.  Where does it say that infiltrating the spies or turning them doesn't earn a different, distinct quest reward of its own.  I would say that infiltrating the spy network is a different quest than capturing the spies and returning them alive.  Your taking a list of examples as an exclusive list of the only quest available.  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.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> 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".
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.



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


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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.




Then, please, quote us the exact passage that states that quests are only handed out at the beginning of an adventure/quest/story/whatever and that you can never change them, introduce new ones, or throw them out. Please point out where the *suggestions* in the DMG override your ability to control your own game.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.
> *snip*
> 
> 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.
> ...



FIFY.

The cult needs to be dealt with, and when the players decide to uncover and deal with it, *bing* they get a quest--which they define themselves by deciding to take the hook presented to them.  The archbishop promises favours, cash, or something in return for prisoners.  This is not connected to the quest, which is "deal with the cult," and so the XP award is not connected to the archbishop's request.  The treasure that is associated with the XP award is also not connected.  The archbishop's request, and the reward associated with it is either another quest entirely, which the PCs may or may not want to take on (and get XP and treasure for), or is a hook planted by the DM to further draw out the story of the cult: why does the archbishop want prisoners?  Does he have a hidden agenda?  Is it wise to hand over the cult leaders?

Now that the DM knows that the players are going to take on the cultist quest, he can write up the cultists and their hideout.  The fact that the quest and its associated reward are written down on a card helps to ensure that the PCs won't get distracted and forget that they had intended to go smash the cult if, for example, they're already busy with the local bugbear problem.  This means that the DM's work is less likely to go to waste.  Rather than the DM railroading PCs using quests and quest cards, the PCs are deciding on a course of action and getting the "rewards" carrot dangled in front of them to get them to follow through on it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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.



So given that your claims are neither upheld nor specifically denied by the article, you choose to believe that the system is designed to act as an impediment to gameplay rather than an aid?  Why have you decided to believe that?  Do you think that they're deliberately trying to make a more restrictive narrative environment in 4E?  Why?  What would be the benefit to doing so?  Do you suppose that the designers think that it would go over well if they did so?

And where do you get the idea that players can't define their own goals in 4E?  You'll have to pardon my incredulity, but it sounds like you're just attempting to convince us that the sky is falling.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 30, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Advancing the main story (capturing the spies)
> Advancing a personal story (gaining favor with the Archbishop)



You just described a major quest and a minor quest.  Perhaps the PCs also have the minor quest "make sure the Archbishop doesn't get his hands on the cultist prisoners.  We know he wants them because they have a secret ritual that will allow him to gain power over the Duke."  Maybe they also have the quest "Don't bring them to the Archbishop.  Bring them to us instead."

edit: Ah, I see you already suggested these quests.  This stuff just writes itself, doesn't it?

Doesn't that sound like it could get interesting?  And the PCs are right in the thick of it, their decisions having a major effect on the course of the story.  The players will probably take note of how important they are, and will take their in-character decisions seriously (even if they're really reward-generated metagame decisions that just look like in-character decisions, for the loot- and XP-motivated guys at your table), leading to good gaming for all involved.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So given that your claims are neither upheld nor specifically denied by the article, you choose to believe that the system is designed to act as an impediment to gameplay rather than an aid?  Why have you decided to believe that?  Do you think that they're deliberately trying to make a more restrictive narrative environment in 4E?  Why?  What would be the benefit to doing so?  Do you suppose that the designers think that it would go over well if they did so?
> 
> And where do you get the idea that players can't define their own goals in 4E?  You'll have to pardon my incredulity, but it sounds like you're just attempting to convince us that the sky is falling.



Well, it comes from being in the 4e forum to show the great undecided that 4e isn't being, to quote, "blindly accepted". This often seems to require imagining the worst possible application of something described in a preview, then presenting it as fact. Agendas are being served.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Well, it comes from being in the 4e forum to show the great undecided that 4e isn't being, to quote, "blindly accepted". This often seems to require imagining the worst possible application of something described in a preview, then presenting it as fact. Agendas are being served.




Agreed.

So firmly against 4e that they can't help but reinterpret everything they read as a negative, even if that reinterpretation goes so far as to make things up. Plenty of people have legitimate problems with the direction, but there are those that simply like being negative for negativity's sake.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Nov 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Ah, I see you already suggested these quests.  This stuff just writes itself, doesn't it?




Shhhhhh... I may not DM that often but I have found one of the great secrets of the job.

I didn't get that much xp for it though...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Nov 30, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Shhhhhh... I may not DM that often but I have found one of the great secrets of the job.
> 
> I didn't get that much xp for it though...




Reminds me of that commercial. 

"Haha, DM's don't level up, stupid!" *high five*

The pay sucks, too.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Nov 30, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Reminds me of that commercial.
> 
> "Haha, DM's don't level up, stupid!" *high five*
> 
> The pay sucks, too.



I believe it's "have levels", rather than "level up".

Grognards assemble! Did they ever, or was that just from the Tom Hanks movie?


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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.




I'm like that too.  I don't want to hand out rewards for what choices I think the players should make.

It's the difference between player-driven games and DM-driven ones.

Will the Quest system promote/support/not get in the way of player-driven games?  I think it will, even if you need to do a little tweaking to get it to work.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> 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?"




This is why the Quest system, if robust enough, will be awesome.  It can handle these types of player's goals and make it transparent.  
"What do you want to do?"
"Where's the Quest card?"
"Oh... okay, here's one.  Explore the crypt of Dodallah the Magnificent."

I also like the fact that I can give the players dilemmas: "Rescue the Princess so she can marry Duke Bundleswat" and "Make sure the Princess can't marry Bundleswat."

Or for exploration games:
"Discover the secret that lies in the heart of Fell Gorge that will only show itself during the next full moon."
"Take part in the ritual of Gorgonasta during the next full moon."

Or character-driven ones:
"Apologize to your father."
"Show your father you will never apologize to him."


----------



## Aenghus (Nov 30, 2007)

Before, I played in a Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil campaign. After overextending ourselves at one point early in the mines, the party focused on a systematic room-by-room clearance of the dungeon, retreating before resources fell low.

This slow and steady approach proved to be the best way to balance experience gain and survival. And there was roleplaying, and interparty issues. But the constant grinding could get monotonous. 

I see the quest mechanic as providing an xp incentive to do activities other than just kill monsters as efficiently as possible and taking their stuff. The stuff that stories are made of. Taking prisoners, making deals with npcs, being inquisitive. 

Every game is an exercise in communication. Most railroading issues are due to bad communication within a group. I think the dangers of the quest mechanic and the quest card suggestion are being  exaggerated here.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 30, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I also like the fact that I can give the players dilemmas: "Rescue the Princess so she can marry Duke Bundleswat" and "Make sure the Princess can't marry Bundleswat."



Oh gods, I can already hear my players...

"So, in this kingdom, do you have to be a virgin in order to get married?"


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 30, 2007)

Aenghus said:
			
		

> Before, I played in a Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil campaign. After overextending ourselves at one point early in the mines, the party focused on a systematic room-by-room clearance of the dungeon, retreating before resources fell low.
> 
> This slow and steady approach proved to be the best way to balance experience gain and survival. And there was roleplaying, and interparty issues. But the constant grinding could get monotonous.
> 
> I see the quest mechanic as providing an xp incentive to do activities other than just kill monsters as efficiently as possible and taking their stuff. The stuff that stories are made of. Taking prisoners, making deals with npcs, being inquisitive.



That sounds like another good idea.  The DM notices that the dungeon crawl is getting boring.  The players come across a room full of orcs, and he feels like spicing things up a bit.  *ding!* Quest card: Make peaceful contact with these orcs and question them about the dungeon instead of killing them.  Reward: they'll tell you something iiiinteresting.

Every time the DM throws something like this in, it changes their options.  They could probably just sneak up and kill all the orcs.  Or, they could lose the element of surprise and take a risk on talking to them, which may or may not work out.  The ball is still in the players' court, and they get a reward (CR XP vs. Quest XP) either way.

I could also see the quest card system providing what is sometimes called "Lightbulb" or "Idea rolls" in other games (or Nifft's action point rules), where the DM provides some kind of leading hint about something to help the PCs out.  If the PCs come across a ruined temple in a dungeon, they might not think too hard about it.  There's lots of ruined temples in D&D, right?  This is another one.  But if, upon finding the temple, they receive "Quest: figure out the origins of the ruined temple," they're given a clue that this location is more important to them than any other random location in the dungeon.  They get an XP reward for figuring out why, plus they get whatever benefit the information they uncover might provide (for example, this is a temple dedicated to the same god that the evil cultists seem to be working for.  Perhaps this is a clue to locating the cultists).

The more I think about this system, the more interesting options and techniques I can imagine using it for.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Oh gods, I can already hear my players...
> 
> "So, in this kingdom, do you have to be a virgin in order to get married?"




New Quest received: Be Her First!
Reward: Price on your head and the satisfaction of sliding home before any other man.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 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.




The opposite is not supported by the article either.  If it turns out this way great...if a blog that adresses and supports this pops up that's great too.  But I'm going by what is presented in the article not by others interpretation of what the quest mechanic will encompass.  In fact the blog by Mearls actually supports the opposite of what you're claiming.




			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> "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.




While totally avoiding the fact that xp is always assigned to these "quests" so no it's not just a reminder...it's a push nudge or whatever to do this thing, whatever it may be, as opposed to something which isn't a quest, but you may want to do.




			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> So firmly against 4e that they can't help but reinterpret everything they read as a negative, even if that reinterpretation goes so far as to make things up. Plenty of people have legitimate problems with the direction, but there are those that simply like being negative for negativity's sake.




Glass houses and all because there are a few posters I recognize as unconditionally supporting everything presented about 4e...hmm wonder who?  I haven't even posted in the 4e threads that much, and in the polls have always voted undecided as to whether I will play it or not.  So these types of generalizations can swing both ways.  Better to just avoid them, don't you think?




			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm like that too.  I don't want to hand out rewards for what choices I think the players should make.
> 
> It's the difference between player-driven games and DM-driven ones.
> 
> Will the Quest system promote/support/not get in the way of player-driven games?  *I think it will*, even if you need to do a little *tweaking* to get it to work.




Emphasis mine... 
In the end this is the crux of the argument.  Numerous pro-posters are in fact acting like this is fact when their has been no present evidence to back this up.  As far as tweaking...well that's great but it's not what is being debated.


----------



## LostSoul (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> New Quest received: Be Her First!
> Reward: Price on your head and the satisfaction of sliding home before any other man.




New Quest: Get rid of that price on your head.

That makes me think of a thread game.  One person posts a quest, the next person posts how they resolve it and the quest that results from the first one's resolution.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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.



For this to work, it has to be assumed that the players (and thus, their PCs) will agree with the GM as to who the good guys and the bad guys are. Is that railroading? If not, why is it railroading to assume that the players will have their PCs be allies of the Archbishop?



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> IThe 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



What if the players don't want their PCs to overcome the challenges, but to ally with them? Then they don't get any XPs.

As I said in my earlier post, D&D has always assumed that, when it comes to the direction of play, the GM and the player will share inclinations.


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> The opposite is not supported by the article either.  If it turns out this way great...if a blog that adresses and supports this pops up that's great too.  But I'm going by what is presented in the article not by others interpretation of what the quest mechanic will encompass.  In fact the blog by Mearls actually supports the opposite of what you're claiming.




If new quests in the middle of an adventure isn't allowed, then why does the article explicitly use a new quest for an item found mid-campaign as an example? If there can't be player-based quests, then why do they give an example of three separate players having different objectives concerning the same item?



> While totally avoiding the fact that xp is always assigned to these "quests" so no it's not just a reminder...it's a push nudge or whatever to do this thing, whatever it may be, as opposed to something which isn't a quest, but you may want to do.




Oh noes! The DM might actually want to reward people for delving into content they have worked on. God forbid the DM want to have some kind of control over his game and run it how he chooses!



> Better to just avoid them, don't you think?




Every post I've read you interprets any release of information as a negative. The Quest article basically points out that they're going to be putting *suggestions* (the key word they explicitly use that you ignore, along with the fact that this is basically a refinement of what was already in 2nd ediion) for basing story rewards on encounters/monsters of the appropriate level, so that players will feel rewarded for roleplaying out some kind of social encounter/non-combat task just as they would for killing some ogres. But, you choose to interpret it as "We are forcing you to put narrow objectives with single solutions despite what you, as a DM, might want to do with your game."



> Emphasis mine...
> In the end this is the crux of the argument.  Numerous pro-posters are in fact acting like this is fact when their has been no present evidence to back this up.  As far as tweaking...well that's great but it's not what is being debated.




Player-based goals are given as examples, very clearly, in the article. If plainly given examples aren't evidence, then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 30, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> If new quests in the middle of an adventure isn't allowed, then why does the article explicitly use a new quest for an item found mid-campaign as an example? If there can't be player-based quests, then why do they give an example of three separate players having different objectives concerning the same item?




Please show me where it gives an example of a player making their own quest up...even a refrence that this mechanic is intended to be used in such a way.  The blog by Mike Mearls even infers that this is a DM tool.  When I say player based...I mean what the player wants to do, not what the DM thinks the character should do.





			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Oh noes! The DM might actually want to reward people for delving into content they have worked on. God forbid the DM want to have some kind of control over his game and run it how he chooses!




Wow, I remeber all the heated debates about worldbuilding, relevance and the fact that players shouldn't be forced into exploring or listening to things that don't interest them by a majority of posters on this site ( I of course argued the opposite).  Ah, I see now it's better if they are bribed and cajoled into it, even if it's not necessarily what they want to do.



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Every post I've read you interprets any release of information as a negative. The Quest article basically points out that they're going to be putting *suggestions* (the key word they explicitly use that you ignore, along with the fact that this is basically a refinement of what was already in 2nd ediion) for basing story rewards on encounters/monsters of the appropriate level, so that players will feel rewarded for roleplaying out some kind of social encounter/non-combat task just as they would for killing some ogres. But, you choose to interpret it as "We are forcing you to put narrow objectives with single solutions despite what you, as a DM, might want to do with your game."




And you've supported everything they've announced about 4e.  The difference is I only feel it necessary to comment on things that worry me.  The races don't concern me so I really have nothing to say about them, the new classes (except the possible limitation of warlocks as evilish) don't concern or worry me so I don't comment. The paladin's smite doesn't worry me (yet) so no comment, The cosmology did so I commented. How my game and those who join or I play under does concern me and if I don't like the direction the game is taking then I will comment.  You comment on EVERYTHING and support EVERYTHING.

Huh, roleplaying out a social encounter (if it helps overcome a particular challenge) does reward xp, non-combat tasks do reward xp, what are you talking about?  When you as a DM tell me I must capture the spies alive and return them to the archbishop for x experience...that's not the things you're talking about above.





			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Player-based goals are given as examples, very clearly, in the article. If plainly given examples aren't evidence, then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.




Again, show me where it is infered, or stated that a player can create his own goals.  What examples of this are given?


----------



## The Little Raven (Nov 30, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Please show me where it gives an example of a player making their own quest up...even a refrence that this mechanic is intended to be used in such a way.




Whose to say the rogue-paladin-wizard example didn't come from the players? Whose to say that the paladin didn't get the quest from the DM and the wizard talked the DM into making one for him that conflicted?



> The blog by Mike Mearls even infers that this is a DM tool.  When I say player based...I mean what the player wants to do, not what the DM thinks the character should do.




It is a DM tool because the DM is the ultimate authority in the game he's running. All the claims of "Getting my dog back" is a great quest is fine and dandy, but it doesn't allow a player to override his DM. If any player of mine thinks he can tell me what is acceptable in my games, then he can damned well run it himself.



> Wow, I remeber all the heated debates about worldbuilding, relevance and the fact that players shouldn't be forced into exploring or listening to things that don't interest them by a majority of posters on this site ( I of course argued the opposite).  Ah, I see now it's better if they are bribed and cajoled into it, even if it's not necessarily what they want to do.




So, it's better for the DM to spend weeks working up a campaign just to have it tossed in the trash because Joe doesn't want to be friends with the Archbishop and goes out of his way to avoid anything the DM wants, all in the name of "player choice." It's the same kind of player that whines about railroading when he's told he can't play a CE drow cleric of Lolth when the campaign is supposed to be about good characters. Wannabe iconoclasts is the term I usually use.



> And you've supported everything they've announced about 4e.




Nope. I post in support of things I like. You'll note a distinct lack of support for Dragonborn from me, since I'm neutral on them. Most people, like you, post about negative things (worries and such). I tend to post in response to other people's negativity rather than posting my own.



> You comment on EVERYTHING and support EVERYTHING.




I don't recall supporting the Dragonborn, nor the removal of the gnome, nor the lack of Frost Giants in the first MM. I also haven't supported the Smite stuff released, as I want full context before I judge something.

And yeah, I comment on almost everything, because these are supposed to be discussion forums. Got a problem with that?



> Huh, roleplaying out a social encounter (if it helps overcome a particular challenge) does reward xp, non-combat tasks do reward xp, what are you talking about?




So, point out the experience reward for winning a footrace? Bobbing for apples? Making orphans happy by providing a bard for entertainment? There's a lot more to story awards than "I bypassed a CR 6 goblin using social skills instead of combat."



> When you as a DM tell me I must capture the spies alive and return them to the archbishop for x experience...that's not the things you're talking about above.




See, there you go, with that whole "you must do this" nonsense. You're making up this sudden inability to make your own decisions because the DM gave you some kind of objective that an NPC wants accomplished. Nothing is stopping you from giving the Archbishop the finger and helping the spies. In fact, if you have a DM worth his salt, he'd have a quest card ready for you if you decide to do that.

The only person claiming that quests are carved into stone is you. Your entire argument is built upon the premise that "absence of proof is proof of absence."


----------



## Reynard (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> See, there you go, with that whole "you must do this" nonsense. You're making up this sudden inability to make your own decisions because the DM gave you some kind of objective that an NPC wants accomplished. Nothing is stopping you from giving the Archbishop the finger and helping the spies. In fact, if you have a DM worth his salt, he'd have a quest card ready for you if you decide to do that.




You are wrong.  Nothing, not a single word, in either the article or Mearls' post suggest that you just slap a new quest card down when the PCs decide to do something different.  you are "making it up".  And I'll even tell you why -- without that caveat, the system is problematic and railroady and not even the most adoring 4E supporter would accept it. but there it is: that is what we've been shown.

You continue to pronounce "nuh uh!"at the top of your lungs and have yet to find any evidence  -- i.e. quotes -- to support your position, simply because there aren't any.  the original article is vague at best and reiterates typical game play, with the inclusion of player hand outs as a suggestion.  The Mearls blog post says, very directly, that the intent is to force the players to follow te DM's storyline, with examples of how that will work and how doing those things will be the only way to get the bonus XP.

So, you can continue to ignore the actual facts in this case and assert things that simply aren't there, at all, in the information presented, in order to preserve your undying devotion to 4E.  That's fine.  Enjoy.  I, however, have quite finished repeating the facts over and over.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 1, 2007)

Look Mourn, I'm not trying to get into a flame-fest with you so how about we agree to disagree.  If the RAW allows players to create their own quests and doesn't actually reinforce only DM's designating what is and isn't worth xp as a "quest"...I'll buy you a beer if you're ever in the Chicago area.  If it doesn't how about you buy me one if I'm ever in...well...wherever you live.  Truce?


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Look Mourn, I'm not trying to get into a flame-fest with you so how about we agree to disagree.




I think that's probably best, since you seem to be taking the article as a condensed version of what is in the DMG (no other additional permutations to the concept, just flesh on the bones in the article), and I view it as a limited description of the concept, constrained by the limited space given in the article, and lacking all kinds of permutations that will be present in the final version.



> If the RAW allows players to create their own quests and doesn't actually reinforce only DM's designating what is and isn't worth xp as a "quest"




There's only one problem with this qualifier, and that is the DM is the final authority. The players may think "Get Jed's dog back" is a good quest, but the DM doesn't. The system should allow them to work together to create player-specific quests, but never should the DM cease to be the ultimate arbiter, since it is his game.



> ...I'll buy you a beer if you're ever in the Chicago area.  If it doesn't how about you buy me one if I'm ever in...well...wherever you live.  Truce?




Works for me. Neither of us has to be right for me to buy another passionate D&D gamer a beer, even if we disagree. Hell, disagreeing about D&D over beers has been a pastime of mine for quite some time.


----------



## Grog (Dec 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The Mearls blog post says, very directly, that the intent is to force the players to follow te DM's storyline,



Now you are the one making things up.

Mearls' blog post says nothing about "forcing" anyone to do anything.


----------



## Grog (Dec 1, 2007)

Also, I've seen the term "railroading" get thrown around a lot in this discussion. I don't think the people using it know what it actually means. Merely offering incentives isn't raliroading. Now, something like this:

DM: The town's mayor asks you to go clear the nearby crypt of undead.
Player 1: Hmm. I don't really feel like doing that.
Player 2: Me either. Let's head off into the woods and hunt some orcs instead.
DM: As you're passing through the gate to head for the woods, the town guard ambushes you, pummels you into submission, then ties you up, drags you to the crypt, and dumps you inside.

*That's* railroading. Saying "You'll get bonus XP if you do this" isn't even remotely the same thing.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Dec 1, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Also, I've seen the term "railroading" get thrown around a lot in this discussion. I don't think the people using it know what it actually means. Merely offering incentives isn't raliroading. Now, something like this:
> 
> DM: The town's mayor asks you to go clear the nearby crypt of undead.
> Player 1: Hmm. I don't really feel like doing that.
> ...




I've been refraining from posting here, because for the most part I think the arguing that's going on over this particular topic is futile. I've said it before and and I'll say it again all tables are different all the have in common is the use of the core rules as a starting point. 

I just wanted to say that I strongly agree with your example of railroading and most other definitions are just things that people dont like and therefore subtle ways of saying we don't like that way of playing and it sucks. Sandbox play if that's your thing is GREAT, if you have a group of players that need to be dragged by the nose from one encounter/adventure/quest to the next GREAT. Blasting one or the other is quite simply people saying that their way is better (and it may be. FOR THEM...)


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> never should the DM cease to be the ultimate arbiter, since it is his game.




I imagine that is the source of disagreement here.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I imagine that is the source of disagreement here.




Which I find odd, because if the DM isn't the ultimate authority in his own game, then what is to stop the players from overruling him every time things don't go their way?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Which I find odd, because if the DM isn't the ultimate authority in his own game, then what is to stop the players from overruling him every time things don't go their way?




There's a big difference between "ultimate authority" and "ultimate arbiter".  With the latter, I agree with you.  Part of the contract that is written when you sit down to play a game is that the DM will, to the best of his or her ability, arbitrate play in a fair and unbiased (whether in regards to his world, his NPCs, a particular PC, his adventure story, or what have you) fashion.

But the DM isn't the "ultimate authority".  it is his table, but it is everyone's game.  he has the right and the responsibility to design scenarios for the PCs, but how those scenarios are engaged and dealth with is the right and the responsibility of the players.  Just as it is bad Play to throw off every adventure hook just to upset the DM's preparation, it is bad DMing to restrict the choices of the players in regards to the adventures he creates.

In the context of the subject of this thread, it isn't that the DM designs or chooses "quests" that concerns me, or that those quests come with a "story award" associated with them, above and beyond the rewards gained during play.  It is that the way the system is described by Mearls (very directly and with little ambiguation, I might add), those quest rewards are not dependent upon vague goal settings ("There are evil spies in Hommlett; deal with them.") but very specific victory conditions ("Bring them alive before the Archbishop.")

And while I agree with Grog that his example is railroading, it is a rather extreme example and hardly the only way to railroad.  The reason I call this Quest system, as described by Mearls, railroading is simply that XP is the primary motivator in play, and witholding XP unless the players prop up the DM's predetermined outcome is, in fact, railroading.  It is different than putting landslides across every path but the "right one", certainly, but only insofar as it is less subtle.  Instead of saying "You can't do this" it says "You can do this, but you aren't going to get bonus XP for it."

All in all, I think the idea of providing beginning DM's with a guideline for how to award XP for achieving certain goals is a good one.  However, if the final result looks anything like Mearls' explanation or is invested with his philosophy behind the design, what it will do is limit the one thing that is unique and wonderful about table top RPGs -- freedom for the players to do what they wish and go where they wish in the context of the agreed upon setting/campaign/adventure framework.


----------



## The Little Raven (Dec 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> In the context of the subject of this thread, it isn't that the DM designs or chooses "quests" that concerns me, or that those quests come with a "story award" associated with them, above and beyond the rewards gained during play.




Again, this is a DM problem, not the quest system. If your DM can't adapt, that's no fault of the designers of this game.



> It is that the way the system is described by Mearls (very directly and with little ambiguation, I might add), those quest rewards are not dependent upon vague goal settings ("There are evil spies in Hommlett; deal with them.") but very specific victory conditions ("Bring them alive before the Archbishop.")




Except the article gives us a perfect example of a vague victory condition: "Find the lock that this key fits."



> The reason I call this Quest system, as described by Mearls, railroading is simply that XP is the primary motivator in play, and witholding XP unless the players prop up the DM's predetermined outcome is, in fact, railroading.




Again, the problem with a crappy DM. Crappy DMs railroad players with or without a quest system.



> Instead of saying "You can't do this" it says "You can do this, but you aren't going to get bonus XP for it."




Once more, crappy DM. If the DM can't handle his players going off the rails and blazing their own path through the adventure, it's his shortcomings that are causing it.



> However, if the final result looks anything like Mearls' explanation or is invested with his philosophy behind the design, what it will do is limit the one thing that is unique and wonderful about table top RPGs -- freedom for the players to do what they wish and go where they wish in the context of the agreed upon setting/campaign/adventure framework.




Players have always only had the freedom that the DM allows, and this changes that in no way. All it does is say "Hey, maybe you should quantify these in an easily referenced manner."


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The reason I call this Quest system, as described by Mearls, railroading is simply that XP is the primary motivator in play, and witholding XP unless the players prop up the DM's predetermined outcome is, in fact, railroading.




Rewarding extra experience points for completing a quest according to the parameters set out by an NPC is not withholding experience points.  It's receiving extra points for doing what you have been asked to do.  You're acting as if the players are entitled to XPs.  That's not true.  They have to earn them, and there's nothing rail-roading about earning extra experience for completing a mission given to you by an NPC.


----------



## neceros (Dec 1, 2007)

In 12 pages I don't have one response, as I don't' see this as a big deal, but I digress: I finally have something to add.

If your DM is giving you exp entirely on some sort of narrow quest-goal system then you both need to get together and rework the way your game plays out.

Quests are, in my games and as I've known them, events and plots that _may _come true if the players decide to go down that route. _Sometimes _they are required to continue play with the character, but I'd estimate 80% of quests should be optional.


Again, quests should not be your only source of experience, ergo a new Quest System should be a boon and rewarding _chances _for additional exp, not limiting it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 1, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Please show me where it gives an example of a player making their own quest up...even a refrence that this mechanic is intended to be used in such a way.  The blog by Mike Mearls even infers that this is a DM tool.  When I say player based...I mean what the player wants to do, not what the DM thinks the character should do.




I seriously don't see how you could write the quest system in such a way that the DM couldn't say, "you want to go rescue the bard that the lizardmen dragged off?  Okay.  Let's make it a minor quest, level 5."  Explain to us how they can write a system that prevents the DM and players from running a sandbox game in which quests are assigned as the opportunities for quests come up.  What measures would they have to write in to cause the system to fail to operate if players say "I want to have a quest based on finding my long-lost father"?  All the DM has to say is "okay."  If the DM says "no," then it's not a problem with the quest system, it's a problem with the DM.



> Wow, I remeber all the heated debates about worldbuilding, relevance and the fact that players shouldn't be forced into exploring or listening to things that don't interest them by a majority of posters on this site ( I of course argued the opposite).  Ah, I see now it's better if they are bribed and cajoled into it, even if it's not necessarily what they want to do.



This is utterly amazing.  I think I might keep it for posterity.



> And you've supported everything they've announced about 4e.



I haven't.  Guess your carefully considered argument collapses like a house of cards, eh?   



> Again, show me where it is infered, or stated that a player can create his own goals.  What examples of this are given?



Do you really need to be told to do something before you'll do it?  I really don't know what to say about that.

Anyway, why can't a player create his own goals?  What possible reason, other than the DM being a nay-sayer, would prevent it?  Is there going to be a line in the DMG that says "the player can't create his own goals"?  Even in the laughably improbable scenario in which this is the case, wouldn't we just ignore it and allow players to make up their own goals because that would be cool, get the players involved in the game, and make it more fun for everyone?  So isn't the whole question of whether players are supposed to come up with quests or not completely irrelevent?  Can we please just get on with coming up with cool ideas for quests now?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, it's better for the DM to spend weeks working up a campaign just to have it tossed in the trash because Joe doesn't want to be friends with the Archbishop and goes out of his way to avoid anything the DM wants, all in the name of "player choice." It's the same kind of player that whines about railroading when he's told he can't play a CE drow cleric of Lolth when the campaign is supposed to be about good characters. Wannabe iconoclasts is the term I usually use.




We call it "bigfooting," as in "Bob keeps bigfooting the DM by undermining all the plot hooks."  Meaning, Bob wants to let everyone know that he's always totally in control, and no one has any authority over him or his character, especially the DM.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 1, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Again, quests should not be your only source of experience, ergo a new Quest System should be a boon and rewarding _chances _for additional exp, not limiting it.



Hmm...  I could go on this quest to find seven goldfish for the princess, scale the razor mountain, and make fruit salad for an ogre's tea party, or I could just go kill seven bugbears and a troll and get the same reward.

...Options, not restrictions


----------



## neceros (Dec 1, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> ...Options, not restrictions



Hey, that's my phrase.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 1, 2007)

neceros said:
			
		

> Hey, that's my phrase.



I optioned it.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 1, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Which I find odd, because if the DM isn't the ultimate authority in his own game, then what is to stop the players from overruling him every time things don't go their way?




The rules.


----------



## PeterWeller (Dec 1, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> The rules.




Tell that to the rules lawyers.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> 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.




Going back a bit.

How is this ANY different than any game ever?  You get hired by the dark stranger in the bar to go murder a bunch of goblins.  

As a DM, I generally hand out a bunch of hooks and let the players decide which one interests them.  How is writing them down any different?



> Wow, I remeber all the heated debates about worldbuilding, relevance and the fact that players shouldn't be forced into exploring or listening to things that don't interest them by a majority of posters on this site ( I of course argued the opposite). Ah, I see now it's better if they are bribed and cajoled into it, even if it's not necessarily what they want to do.




Wow, nice way to mischaracterize those discussions.  

In that debate, the entire POINT of the discussion was that the DM's goodies should be relavent to the game.  Tacking on an xp award makes something entirely relevant doesn't it?  Makes it actually matter.  If discovering why they use square windows in Forgotten Realms gains me a bonus on xp, I miight just expend the effort to track it down.  Otherwise, fergeddaboutit.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 1, 2007)

PeterWeller said:
			
		

> Tell that to the rules lawyers.




Rules lawyers are cheaters.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How is this ANY different than any game ever?  You get hired by the dark stranger in the bar to go murder a bunch of goblins.




See Burning Wheel's Beliefs.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> See Burning Wheel's Beliefs.




Sorry, by game, I meant "game of D&D", not all games ever written.  Should have said edition I suppose.

But, the point is still there.  I'm going to go with my gut here and say that being hired by X to do Y has occurred in most D&D campaigns at one point or another.  Could be wrong there, but, I don't think so.  And, I would say that most DM's do award more xp for doing Y than not doing Y.  

When the archbishop hires you to capture the spy, and you go and frolic with the dryads, you don't get xp for capturing the spy.  How is writing it down changing anything?


----------



## pemerton (Dec 1, 2007)

Hussar, agree totally.

Reynard, you still haven't explained what happens if the players want to make friends with the monsters/NPCs that the (nasty railroading) GM has set up as the bad guys to be overcome? Or putting it round the other way: if the game only works if the players adopt the same perspective on certain NPCs as the GM (ie see them as bad guys to be defeated) then why is it any worse if the game presupposes that the players will have their PCs make friends with the GM's Archbishop?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 1, 2007)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Reynard, you still haven't explained what happens if the players want to make friends with the monsters/NPCs that the (nasty railroading) GM has set up as the bad guys to be overcome? Or putting it round the other way: if the game only works if the players adopt the same perspective on certain NPCs as the GM (ie see them as bad guys to be defeated) then why is it any worse if the game presupposes that the players will have their PCs make friends with the GM's Archbishop?




Are you sking me in general, or are you asking in regards to the Quest system as it is presented.  because, in general, there's no specific "quest".  There's an adventure, which is composed of some combination of location(s), challeng(es) and person(s), and what the players do in regards to that adventure is up to them.  While there might be an "in game" quest presented (the PCs choose to speak to the Archbishop who offers them a reward of some sort in exhcange for bringing the spies in alive) there's no meta-game construct -- XP -- attached to it.  In other words, choice and conequence for PCs exists only in the context of the game world, not the "game" itself.

If you are asking me from the other direction, what the quest system presented would do, I don't know.  The Des&Dev article is so vague as to provide little or no information regarding what it means to change quests mid stream; the Mearls post suggests that, while PCs can do things differently, they only get the meta-game reward of extra XP if they do things the DM's way.

There is a world of difference ebtween "Uncover the spies in Hommlett" and "Uncover the spies in Hommlett and bring them alive to the Archbishop" as a meta-game goal for the players and their characters.  the former is a pretty typical "adventure" hook; the latter is a victory-condition that limits player driven outcomes.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2007)

> While there might be an "in game" quest presented (the PCs choose to speak to the Archbishop who offers them a reward of some sort in exhcange for bringing the spies in alive) there's no meta-game construct -- XP -- attached to it.




So, you never award any bonus xp for completing taskings?  



> There is a world of difference ebtween "Uncover the spies in Hommlett" and "Uncover the spies in Hommlett and bring them alive to the Archbishop" as a meta-game goal for the players and their characters. the former is a pretty typical "adventure" hook; the latter is a victory-condition that limits player driven outcomes.




How is there any difference?  Find the spy vs Find the spy and bring him in alive are both plot hooks.  One's a bit more specific, but, as far as plot hooks go, they're both pretty much the same.  Neither one tells you how to achieve that goal.  Neither one affects the player's actions at all, other than to give them direction.


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Dec 1, 2007)

Let's pretend XP for an encounter is (100xlevel) and a monster is (20xlevel), and this Hommlett affair is for level 5 PCs. Is there a reason this horribly restrictive quest of the Archbishop's (which is restrictive because you don't get free XP for not doing it) couldn't be written "Uncover the spies in Hommlett (500 XP) and bring them alive to the archbishop (100 XP)"? EDIT: You know, while we're pretending you write the XP reward on the quest card, which you don't.

All I'm seeing argued is "CR means you only get XP for killing monsters and surviving traps! There's no roleplaying, no goals, just hack & slash!" from a different angle. Same misconceptions about a given mechanic, same devotion to reading it in such a way that you assume the rules aren't intended to work - based on not liking the examples. Or directly ignoring portions of the relevant text, like the part on the Quests article where it suggests Quests could be player-given goals.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How is there any difference?  Find the spy vs Find the spy and bring him in alive are both plot hooks.  One's a bit more specific, but, as far as plot hooks go, they're both pretty much the same.  Neither one tells you how to achieve that goal.  Neither one affects the player's actions at all, other than to give them direction.




See, I think it is an issue of definitions.  "bring them to the Archbishop" isn't a plot hook, it is a task.  Tying the XP reward for the adventure as a whole to a specific task, as oposed to a general goal, impacts player choice by enticing them in a meta-game context to take certain actions that might be neither appropriate nor "in character" just to get the meta-game reward of bonus XP.

XP is a powerful motivator, perhaps the most powerful motivator in the game.  What you give, and don't give, XP for has a huge impact on how the players engage the game.  If you only give XP for slain foes, for example, you end up with lost of slit throats and running down goblins like dogs.  if you give XP for anything that aounts to overcoming a challenge, you get a lot more variable play.  if you give XP for purposefully avoiding certain kinds of challenges, it broadens even more (ex: sneaking around the goblin patrol versus engaging it).  The same is true for treasure, traps, NPC interactions, goal and task completion and so on.  Thus, the rules of the game, the mechanics for rewarding XP, promote a certain playstyle.  One of the things about 4E that bothers me in general -- above and beyond the silly and unneccessary core flavor changes -- is that the intent in many of the rules changes is to enforce a very particular playstyle.  The nice thing about editions 1 through 3 is that it is perfectly viable to run everything from hack and slash dungeon crawling to political machinations to horror to epic high fantasy questing.  The available options for creating adventures and encounters were broad and deep -- for example, the presence of physically weak, magically powerful seductive fey in the woods that existed without a battle-form -- and while I am sure that after 4E starts to pile on the supplements it too will build up a varied base of options, the core materials appear to be entirely too specific and intended toward a singular playstyle for my tastes.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 1, 2007)

> See, I think it is an issue of definitions. "bring them to the Archbishop" isn't a plot hook, it is a task.




I agree it's an issue of definitions.

How is "Bring them to the Archbishop" not a plot hook but, "Find the spies" is?  They're both plot hooks.

Put it another way.

If the town puts up wanted posters for a bad guy and puts a reward on the wanted poster, is that a plot hook or a task?  What's the difference?  And, if the players do bring in the bad guy, do you give any xp over and above the combat xp for defeating the bad guy?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If the town puts up wanted posters for a bad guy and puts a reward on the wanted poster, is that a plot hook or a task?  What's the difference?




The wanted poster is a plo hook.  the PCs wander into town, heading for the nearest tavern as they are wont to do, and they see the sign.  The players say, "hey look, a plot hook!" and they decide whether or not they'll bite.  The task comes in when they do some talking, find out that the Archbishop is the one with the concern over the spies, and they go to him and he offers them a specific reward (100 gp and this shiny sword) for a specific task (bring them to me, alive).  That is an in-game task and reward and it works just fine.  When dealing with the spies, making a decision about whether or not to complete that task has only in-game consequences: no 100 gp or shiny sword if they decide to kill them all, or join them, or sell them out to someone else or whatever.  There's no meta game XP rward gained or lost, because what the players decide to do, how they want to run their characters in the context of the scenario as presented, is the determinate of XP gain.



> And, if the players do bring in the bad guy, do you give any xp over and above the combat xp for defeating the bad guy?




If so inclined, I might tack a "story award" on to the entire situation (it depends on the type of campaign and what sort of play I am trying to promote).  However, I would not apply different story awards for bringing them in alive or destroying the cell in its entirety or joining up with them.  Telling the players what to do and how to engage the scenario is not my job.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 1, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> All I'm seeing argued is "CR means you only get XP for killing monsters and surviving traps! There's no roleplaying, no goals, just hack & slash!" from a different angle.




I think it's a slightly different argument.  While CR means XP for killing things, it doesn't have anything to say about roleplaying.  You can roleplay ("act in character") however you want, and it won't impact your XP.  Unless you play a pacifist, but this is D&D. 

Quests (might) mean that certain choices you make get you XP, and other choices don't.  There is an incentive to only make choices that get the XP.

While you could argue that the CR-based XP system creates an incentive to face challenges, I'd have to ask: if you don't want to face challenges, why play D&D?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> If the town puts up wanted posters for a bad guy and puts a reward on the wanted poster, is that a plot hook or a task?  What's the difference?  And, if the players do bring in the bad guy, do you give any xp over and above the combat xp for defeating the bad guy?




See I would personally give them a bonus xp reward for the resolution of the "bad guy" situation.  Regardless of whether they bring the "bad guy" to the town, join him and start raiding the town, execute him or sell the town's defense plans to him.

I think, and this is all IMHO, the difference between a plot hook and a task is as follows.

Plot Hook: Presents a situation, but does not designate how that situation should be handled or approached.

Task: Presents a situation and attaches conditions on to it that must be met to resolve the situation in a specific manner.  

I have no problem with either of these having in-game rewards which you choose to accept or not accept.  It's when you start offering extra xp to complete a task and not to deal with a plot hook in general.  

Most players want xp, and even if some in those groups where some don't care but others do you suddenly have a party working at cross-purposes or those wishing to do something besides the quest being bullied into doing it anyway.  Just think there should, if anyhing, be a general reward for completing an "adventure"...however your PC's accomplish this.


----------



## Imaro (Dec 1, 2007)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think it's a slightly different argument.  While CR means XP for killing things, it doesn't have anything to say about roleplaying.  You can roleplay ("act in character") however you want, and it won't impact your XP.  Unless you play a pacifist, but this is D&D.
> 
> Quests (might) mean that certain choices you make get you XP, and other choices don't.  There is an incentive to only make choices that get the XP.
> 
> While you could argue that the CR-based XP system creates an incentive to face challenges, I'd have to ask: if you don't want to face challenges, why play D&D?




I agree with what you are saying here, and furthermore the whole "might get you xp" is a "definitely gets you xp"... if you go along with the quest



			
				Design&Development said:
			
		

> 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*.




So unless I'm reading this wrong, XP are guaranteed if you complete a quest...while in-game rewards aren't necessarily guaranteed.  People keep arguing that if you give PC's a "quest card" they won't have XP on them...that isn't the point.  The PC's will know bonus xp is guaranteed if they complete the "quest" regardless of if the amount is listed or not.  While they also know if they do something that is not designated as a quest...well there's a real chance they won't get the bonus xp.


----------



## Grog (Dec 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> XP is a powerful motivator, perhaps the most powerful motivator in the game.  What you give, and don't give, XP for has a huge impact on how the players engage the game.  If you only give XP for slain foes, for example, you end up with lost of slit throats and running down goblins like dogs.  if you give XP for anything that aounts to overcoming a challenge, you get a lot more variable play.  if you give XP for purposefully avoiding certain kinds of challenges, it broadens even more (ex: sneaking around the goblin patrol versus engaging it).  The same is true for treasure, traps, NPC interactions, goal and task completion and so on.



Hmm. This sounds an awful lot like 4E, where you'll be able to give XP for quests that are completely unrelated to combat and killing foes.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> Thus, the rules of the game, the mechanics for rewarding XP, promote a certain playstyle.  One of the things about 4E that bothers me in general -- above and beyond the silly and unneccessary core flavor changes -- is that the intent in many of the rules changes is to enforce a very particular playstyle.



What playstyle is that, and how is offering bonus XP *forcing* anyone to do anything?


----------



## Reynard (Dec 1, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Hmm. This sounds an awful lot like 4E, where you'll be able to give XP for quests that are completely unrelated to combat and killing foes.




The key here is *Quests*. I am not talking about Quests, I am talking about actions, things the PCs do during the course of an encounter, session, adventure or campaign.  "Quests" are simply "adventures" that have, for whatever reason, been infused with a meta-game reward mechanic that is apparently designed to allow the DM to tell his "story" and remind the players to "snap to it".  In a best case scenario, where Quests are fluid and responsive to player input and PC action, it is a wholly superfluous and meaningless mechanic.  In the best case scenario, it empowers the DM to force his players to take a predetermined set of actions by with-holding XP -- the prime motivator -- should they diverge from his script.

"Story awards" and "non-combat awards" are *not* some miraculous 4E construct -- they've been around since at least the 1E DMG (I don't know if they existed in OD&D).


----------



## Grog (Dec 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> The key here is *Quests*. I am not talking about Quests, I am talking about actions, things the PCs do during the course of an encounter, session, adventure or campaign.  "Quests" are simply "adventures" that have, for whatever reason, been infused with a meta-game reward mechanic that is apparently designed to allow the DM to tell his "story" and remind the players to "snap to it".  In a best case scenario, where Quests are fluid and responsive to player input and PC action, it is a wholly superfluous and meaningless mechanic.  In the best case scenario, it empowers the DM to force his players to take a predetermined set of actions by with-holding XP -- the prime motivator -- should they diverge from his script.



There's that word again - "force." Again, I will ask - how does offering *bonus* XP for taking a particular action equate to *forcing* players to take that action? They are still free to do whatever they like - they may not get the bonus XP, but they can just get XP in other ways.


----------



## Reynard (Dec 1, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> There's that word again - "force." Again, I will ask - how does offering *bonus* XP for taking a particular action equate to *forcing* players to take that action?




You are right.  Replace "force" with "strongly promote through mechanics inherent in the system based around the singularly most powerful motivator in the game".


----------



## Grog (Dec 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> You are right.  Replace "force" with "strongly promote through mechanics inherent in the system based around the singularly most powerful motivator in the game".



The singularly most powerful motivator in the game is to have fun. If the players think they can have more fun by doing something other than completing a quest the DM gives them, they're pretty likely to do that, bonus XP or no. After all, they can _always_ earn more XP, but a few hours spent on a (from their perspective) boring or undesirable quest is a few hours of their lives they can never get back.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Are you sking me in general, or are you asking in regards to the Quest system as it is presented.



The former.



			
				Reynard said:
			
		

> in general, there's no specific "quest".  There's an adventure, which is composed of some combination of location(s), challeng(es) and person(s), and what the players do in regards to that adventure is up to them.



In most D&D adventures, the challenges and the person (either NPCs or monsters) overlap pretty tightly, so I'll focus on them.

The GM writes or buys an adventure. The adventure contains a number of detailed encounters, in which the PCs can earn XP by defeating/overcoming/thwarting a number of persons. If the PCs instead drink tea with those persons, or ally with them, or otherwise fail to defeat or overcome them, they do not earn XP.

Therefore, bog-standard D&D creates a strong (XP-driven) pressure on _players_ to treat as enemies, rather than allies, all the people that the GM (or module writer) has statted up as enemies. Is this railroading?

If it's not, then why is it any different when the GM writes up an adventure which creates pressur for the players to take the same attitude towards the Archbishop as the GM does? Conversely, if the reward system should be able to tolerate the players having their PCs not do as the Archbishop asks, then shouldn't it be able to cope with the players making friends with the tribes of the Caves of Chaos, rather than massacring them?



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> While you could argue that the CR-based XP system creates an incentive to face challenges, I'd have to ask: if you don't want to face challenges, why play D&D?



It doesn't just create an incentive to face challenges. It creates an incentive to treat as challenges the situations that the GM has written up - that is, it creates an incentive for the players to adopt the same perspective on the gameworld (who is an ally, who an enemy) as the GM does. Is this railroading? If not, what is wrong with the Archbishop Quest?

It is possible to have an XP system which doesn't create incentives for the players to adopt the same outlook on the gameworld and story elements as the GM. One is the RQ/RM style one, where XP are earned simply for using abilities successfully (whether or not any challenge is overcome or plot resolved). Another is one where the players are themselves able to introduce the story elements or plots which they must resolve if they are to earn XP (in 4e terms, these would be player-generated Quests).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 2, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> "Story awards" and "non-combat awards" are *not* some miraculous 4E construct -- they've been around since at least the 1E DMG (I don't know if they existed in OD&D).



That's true. But the point is, story awards in D&D so far where guesstimating. There are no rules that tell you how much XP rescuing the Princess from the Dark Lord is worth, aside from the XP for overcoming the traps and monsters. The RAW doesn't forbid it explicitely, and we will often find published adventures as well as DMs that grant some rewards for it.

The new thing in D&D 4 will not be that it's possible to hand out "non-combat awards"/"story awards", but that there is a system for it that helps you determining how much such awards should bring. 

How important is this? In 3rd edition, I think it would be pretty important. If you hand out extra GP for completing a task, this might give the characters more equipment than they should have by their level. If you hand out XP, they might have too little. If you assign a CR to a story award, you can determine appropriate treasuer and XP fitting the system. Still doesn't give you a guideline how much something is worth, and how you should handle such rewards if they only apply to specific characters.

D&D 4 will _not_ reinvent the wheel. But it will probably help it run smoother (and possibly make it more bullet-proof).


----------



## Reynard (Dec 2, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> How important is this? In 3rd edition, I think it would be pretty important. If you hand out extra GP for completing a task, this might give the characters more equipment than they should have by their level. If you hand out XP, they might have too little. If you assign a CR to a story award, you can determine appropriate treasuer and XP fitting the system. Still doesn't give you a guideline how much something is worth, and how you should handle such rewards if they only apply to specific characters.




That's a good point: one of 3E's problems that it is too easily upset by an overage in XP or gold than previous editions.  In 1E or 2E an accidental "Monty" haul was more easily resolved because, generally speaking, what the PCs bought with that exra 50K gp didn't have that big of an impact on play.  In 3E, not so much.  And a lot more XP was required to level, so a too-big XP reward wouldn't have a great impact over the length of a few sessions.

However, one benefit of not having a structured system for doling out "non combat" XP is that the DM can determine the relative value of the non-combat stuff to the players, and thereby define its relative importance in the campaign.  If the non-combat stuff nets you twice the XP, for example, it indicates that the DM thinks it is twice as important (without being forced to put twice as many encounters of this type in the adventure).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 2, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> That's a good point: one of 3E's problems that it is too easily upset by an overage in XP or gold than previous editions.  In 1E or 2E an accidental "Monty" haul was more easily resolved because, generally speaking, what the PCs bought with that exra 50K gp didn't have that big of an impact on play.  In 3E, not so much.  And a lot more XP was required to level, so a too-big XP reward wouldn't have a great impact over the length of a few sessions.
> 
> However, one benefit of not having a structured system for doling out "non combat" XP is that the DM can determine the relative value of the non-combat stuff to the players, and thereby define its relative importance in the campaign.  If the non-combat stuff nets you twice the XP, for example, it indicates that the DM thinks it is twice as important (without being forced to put twice as many encounters of this type in the adventure).



Well, at this point, we might enter house-rule territory, but a DM could certainly use the structured story awards and just double the values, while halving the XP values for monsters. 

The _quest_ion might be how useful the quest/story award mechanics turn out to be. If the guidelines on how to judge story award XP/Treasure are good, they will be a boon. I tend to assume that an experienced DM will not really require them. An experienced DM might have come up with the "Story Goal => CR for XP and treasure), but a new-comer might be glad if the method is mentioned in the DMG. 

I think many of the new rules in the DMG are there to give the inexperienced DM the tools that an experienced DM has come up on his own, and show them possiblities they otherwise would have gathered later (or never!). I think that as a boon for the game and its players as a whole.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

It shocks me this is still being argued.


----------



## Wormwood (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> It shocks me this is still being argued.




Really? _Really?_


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Really? _Really?_



Yeah. 13 pages of "It's good to give Xp for completing tasks." "NO, that's railroading."

It's only two people carrying the torch for one side.  

But I guess, you know, "Internet message board". Guess I'm just naive.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 2, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Yeah. 13 pages of "It's good to give Xp for completing tasks." "NO, that's railroading."
> 
> It's only two people carrying the torch for one side.
> 
> But I guess, you know, "Internet message board". Guess I'm just naive.



It's a normal phenomena and I have watched it countless of times. And I also participated in it. I guess it's some kind of masochism that makes us do this. 

Though I think the past 10 posts might have contained something new, or at leas a slight change in the "back and forth". Maybe that's why we do it?


----------



## Imaro (Dec 2, 2007)

I just want to be able to say I got the last post...so...uhm...there.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Dec 6, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> I just want to be able to say I got the last post...so...uhm...there.



I'd rather hand that privilege to Mike Mearls, from the WotC boards, whose words you have been hanging on throughout this thread:


			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> Second, what's to stop the DM from asking the players to create quests?


----------

