Incline Time for more involving quests!

[PorkyThePaladin]

Playing some "more modern" RPGs now, and one thing that's really grating on me is the lack of active player participation beyond being the ultimate errand-boy/hired gun. Part of it, of course, is the infamous quest compass, which is ever so annoying. In older games, you'd actually have to pay attention to dialogue, pick up clues on locations, then search them out, consult your map, not it's just follow the damn arrow. But it goes beyond that, to something older RPGs might be guilty of as well.

The problem is that most quests have an equivalent of a quest compass built into the very structure of the quest. Instead of giving the player some relatively complex task to achieve at their own discretion, using their mind, RPGs typically break down the overall goal of the quest into small simple steps (if the entire quest isn't simple to begin with), which are then given to the player, much like the arrows on the compass. So even if the overall "quest" sounds interesting and involves something complex, for example, helping a group of people evacuate a dangerous region, the player will be given simple mindless tasks that together lead up to this, e.g. first run to place A, fetch food there for the journey, then task #2, run to place B, fetch wagon for the journey there, then task #3, clear road leading to evacuation route of monsters. Even though the evacuation sounds like an interesting undertaking, what you actually end up doing is a bunch of simple fetch and combat quests, without having to think about anything at all.

A much more interesting approach to quests would be to simply give the player high level instructions and let them figure out how to get it done. In the example above, the player would simply be told to help a group to evacuate the region. It would be up to the player to think of ways to get this done, and it would have to be designed in a logical, common sense way. Ideally, there would be different ways to achieve the goal (e.g. different places to obtain supplies, different transportation methods, and so on), and also different results from the quest based on how much work you put in. So for instance, obtaining a wagon, some food, and arming some of the group for protection during the journey would be the lowest threshold, after which you can complete the quest. But if that's all you do, they might come across a river on their route (which you didn't foresee because you didn't scout the route ahead even though they told you that's the route they are taking), and since you haven't supplied a boat or fixed the bridge on that river, they will be stuck there for a while, fixing it themselves, during which time they will be attacked by bandits and suffer losses. So even though you completed the quest, you will get that sub-optimal "quest ending" and possibly lose some NPC merchants/etc because they died. If you didn't think of arming the group before the journey, maybe they d be defenseless and completely wiped out during a bandit attack. Again you'd complete the quest but in a very different way, with very different results for the world.

These kinds of quests would be much more difficult to implement, but they would make the player really think about stuff, and be really involved in the gameplay, beyond just combat and dialogue and exploration. They would also obviously introduce a ton of deep C&C. Now, I am sure it would be next to impossible to implement something like this in mainstream RPGs, where many of the casual players would have a fit the moment they were confronted with ambiguous, high level instructions. But I would love to see either indie devs or maybe a studio like Obsidian with Kickstarter help try something like this.

 

[Midair]

How would solving a high level objective actually involve the player's own creativity? In my opinion, quests with multiple pre-scripted solutions do not add much in terms of player participation.

 

[JarlFrank]

The best thing about a quest design like you suggest it (which is, in my opinion, the "ideal" way of designing good quests) is that most quests would involve a lot of exploration, so you'd start exploring the gameworld in a context rather than just for randomly stumbling upon dungeons/encounters/treasure. It would also make the player more invested in the world, the story and his character, as he's not just following a set path but making his own solutions. The gameplay would still consist of dialogue, combat and exploration (the three main gameplay components you mentioned) but the player would not do these things because he has to, but because he thinks they might lead to a solution. Talk to the nobleman, not because he was sent to him by a compass but because he was told that the nobility could help him in his current situation and he just decided to start with that particular nobleman; kill the bandits near the trade route, not because he was told to but because he wants to gain some favour with the merchants and this seems like a good way; explore the wilderness because both nobility and merchants collect ancient treasures, and the player thinks a valuable item could give him some power when negotiating with either of these groups.

Setting a broader goal for the player and then letting him do whatever the fuck he thinks is best to attain it works perfectly - if there are enough ways to meet that goal, that is. Baldur's Gate 2 has a pretty good start to its main quest by just telling the player "You want to free your friend from the cowled wizards? We can help you - if you pay us 20k gold. Right now you're piss-poor, so go out there and make some money, we don't give a shit how, just get the money and pay us and you can continue the main quest then". Many people think this is one of the best parts of the game.

It's also how (good) pen and paper works, the DM gives the party a goal and then they try to achieve it in any way they can think of. This is the kind of quest design that RPGs are meant to have. Give the players a problem, let them solve it. Everyone has fun by trying out creative solutions.

 

[majestik12]

Popamole crap:
To stop the Great Foozle you must retrieve The Lich Crown.
*Quest journal updated*
It is hidden in the Caverns of Doom
*Map maker added*

Active player participation:
To stop the Great Foozle you must retrieve some powerful artifact that was lost quite a while ago.
(Also, you must write down this exact sentence on some scrap of paper, otherwise you'll never be able to complete the main quest, and you won't even know why. But I won't tell you that)

High level instructions are only good when you have enough simulation, and the player is able to craft his own solutions using the rules of the game, like in strategy games. Otherwise, the player ends up doing the same things he would if he was provided with a set of clearly defined objectives, but after hours of frustrated attempts to figure out what the fuck he's actually supposed to do.

 

[Castanova]

It feels like this would be really cool but would also be very time consuming. It almost seems like you'd only have time and resources to put <= 3 of these sorts of quests in a single game. Which is fine, honestly, as long as the world is interesting to explore while finishing them up.

 

[Trojan_generic]

It feels like this would be really cool but would also be very time consuming. It almost seems like you'd only have time and resources to put <= 3 of these sorts of quests in a single game. Which is fine, honestly, as long as the world is interesting to explore while finishing them up.

Drop voice acting and you can make 6 quests.

 

[Nihiliste]

That shit is all well and good but to me the bottom line is content. More cult of the unseeing eye and less fetch the turkey sandwich nabbed by the racoon living in my backyard

 

[baturinsky]

If you have a game world complex enough, it can make even simply-formulated quests complex.

For example, "evacuating people" quest can be simple objective of bringing as much people (of the set) alive to the quest compass location. More and faster you bring, better the reward.
But then complications and possibilities kick in. Game allows you to command people to do simple task (follow/stop following), lend them items, use carts and horses. And game world geography is such that there is short route with strong enemies and roundabout ways with no/less/less dangerous enemies.

So, you can people to follow you and go short route, but you will be attacked a lot. You can find a cart, tell them to use it, and hope to outrun any attackers, or just use longer safer route. You can first go by yourself and clear the road and then return for people. You can tell them to go without you, then aggro enemies and keep them occupied while your escortees run by. Etc.

 

[JarlFrank]

Popamole crap:
To stop the Great Foozle you must retrieve The Lich Crown.
*Quest journal updated*
It is hidden in the Caverns of Doom
*Map maker added*

Active player participation:
To stop the Great Foozle you must retrieve some powerful artifact that was lost quite a while ago.
(Also, you must write down this exact sentence on some scrap of paper, otherwise you'll never be able to complete the main quest, and you won't even know why. But I won't tell you that)

High level instructions are only good when you have enough simulation, and the player is able to craft his own solutions using the rules of the game, like in strategy games. Otherwise, the player ends up doing the same things he would if he was provided with a set of clearly defined objectives, but after hours of frustrated attempts to figure out what the fuck he's actually supposed to do.

I think you forgot the part where there are multiple possible solutions to the quest rather than just one specific solution that you have to follow by the letter in order to succeed.

 

[majestik12]

I think you forgot the part where there are multiple possible solutions to the quest rather than just one specific solution that you have to follow by the letter in order to succeed.

If you know what the options are, you can make choices and suffer the consequences. If you don't, you're stuck with whatever option you happen to stumble upon. Which is better and why?

On the other hand, Adventure games are all about lack of instructions and figuring out what you should do, and they can be quite fun even with only one correct solution per problem. So I don't really agree with myself 100%. If there are clearly defined rules of the game world (like 'foozles are afraid of everything made of mithril') that allow the player to make assumptions about what might work and then test them, multiple scripted solutions can be enough. So yes, you are right.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

How would solving a high level objective actually involve the player's own creativity? In my opinion, quests with multiple pre-scripted solutions do not add much in terms of player participation.

Well the idea is that instead of having several pre-packaged solutions, all presented to you in quest-related dialogue, the developers would create complex quests involving many parts, each of which would require the player to figure out how to solve it (separately from other parts of the same quest), and also, each of which would have multiple possible solutions placed or enabled in the game world by the developers. So it wouldn't be frustrating as in trying to solve some riddle, but instead require the player to keep their eyes open and think about how to use what's available out there in the game world to solve whatever quests they might have come across. And many of these quest "parts" might even be optional, in the sense that you can complete the quest without them, but doing them might lead to a better result and feel more rewarding. When you combine the quest parts and the multiple solutions to them, and some being optional, the final combination of actions a given player chooses to do for a given quest certainly will allow them to put their own stamp on it and thus be creative (within the limits of the options that developers gave them). So in my example in the OP, one player might find the group a boat, and enlist with their leader to serve as a guard while they sail to their destination, while another obtains a wagon for them with some horses, and weapons for their members. Keep in mind, all of this will be organic, there won't be a dialogue choice in the beginning that offers them boat vs wagon, instead that's something the players will figure out on their own as they play.

The best thing about a quest design like you suggest it (which is, in my opinion, the "ideal" way of designing good quests) is that most quests would involve a lot of exploration, so you'd start exploring the gameworld in a context rather than just for randomly stumbling upon dungeons/encounters/treasure. It would also make the player more invested in the world, the story and his character, as he's not just following a set path but making his own solutions. The gameplay would still consist of dialogue, combat and exploration (the three main gameplay components you mentioned) but the player would not do these things because he has to, but because he thinks they might lead to a solution. Talk to the nobleman, not because he was sent to him by a compass but because he was told that the nobility could help him in his current situation and he just decided to start with that particular nobleman; kill the bandits near the trade route, not because he was told to but because he wants to gain some favour with the merchants and this seems like a good way; explore the wilderness because both nobility and merchants collect ancient treasures, and the player thinks a valuable item could give him some power when negotiating with either of these groups.

Yep, that's why I mentioned the whole quest compass angle. In much the same way as the quest compass makes for passive gameplay in terms of exploration, cartography, etc, the current quest structure does the same for gameplay more generally. You just go from one specified step to another without thinking, and this can get boring in a hurry, especially when you've played a ton of RPGs already.

Popamole crap:
High level instructions are only good when you have enough simulation, and the player is able to craft his own solutions using the rules of the game, like in strategy games. Otherwise, the player ends up doing the same things he would if he was provided with a set of clearly defined objectives, but after hours of frustrated attempts to figure out what the fuck he's actually supposed to do.

If you know what the options are, you can make choices and suffer the consequences. If you don't, you're stuck with whatever option you happen to stumble upon. Which is better and why?

On the other hand, Adventure games are all about lack of instructions and figuring out what you should do, and they can be quite fun even with only one correct solution per problem. So I don't really agree with myself 100%. If there are clearly defined rules of the game world (like 'foozles are afraid of everything made of mithril') that allow the player to make assumptions about what might work and then test them, multiple scripted solutions can be enough. So yes, you are right.

As JarlFrank said, this type of gameplay isn't really about having some esoteric unique solution to a quest, and having to search for it. Instead quests will have multiple "common-sense" or logical solutions that players can arrive at just by regular thinking (not rocket science), in combination with other RPG mechanics. Some can require the player to investigate far and wide, but many can have local solutions, where simply by exploring/talking/fighting in some area, the player can figure out multiple solutions to a given quest. You do have a point that games that present the player with ALL the solutions right away probably will have more C&C on paper than a game that makes the player work just to discover each solution, but that sort of approach is more like a choose-your-own-adventure novel than anything with actual gameplay, so I think it would be a worthy trade-off for many people. I think any choice that you figured out in your own head, and any consequences from it will feel vastly more satisfying than simply choosing a dialogue option.

It feels like this would be really cool but would also be very time consuming. It almost seems like you'd only have time and resources to put <= 3 of these sorts of quests in a single game. Which is fine, honestly, as long as the world is interesting to explore while finishing them up.

Probably more than three, but yeah, there will probably be a smaller number of such quests than the typical FedEx/assassination stuff. At this point, I would take the trade-off. Played too many games to enjoy the whole go-here-do-this ad infinitum approach any more.

If you have a game world complex enough, it can make even simply-formulated quests complex.

For example, "evacuating people" quest can be simple objective of bringing as much people (of the set) alive to the quest compass location. More and faster you bring, better the reward.
But then complications and possibilities kick in. Game allows you to command people to do simple task (follow/stop following), lend them items, use carts and horses. And game world geography is such that there is short route with strong enemies and roundabout ways with no/less/less dangerous enemies.

So, you can people to follow you and go short route, but you will be attacked a lot. You can find a cart, tell them to use it, and hope to outrun any attackers, or just use longer safer route. You can first go by yourself and clear the road and then return for people. You can tell them to go without you, then aggro enemies and keep them occupied while your escortees run by. Etc.

Yeah, generally I am with you, and all for the procedural simulation approach. Unfortunately, there are very few people/companies trying that, with Dwarf Fortress being one of the very few examples. Because of that, I think RPG devs, if they don't want to explore the full simulation approach as it seems, should at least try some sort of compromise between the two.

 

[Abelian]

I think adding some probability-based outcomes would make the multiple option scenario more interesting. To continue the "evacuation" example, you could take a risk choose not to equip the group, and there would be a chance for them not to be attacked by the bandits.

Two concrete examples that come to mind are escorting the caravans in Fallout, where the more dangerous routes paid more, but there was also the chance of avoiding combat during the trip, and CK2's events, where the player can choose multiple options, but each option can result in several different randomly-chosen outcomes.