how do you approach side quests

[Poseidon00]

From the side. Slowly. Then I attack when they have their guard down.

 

[Smerlus]

How the NPC is written usually decides how I respond to them. If I do the quest or not and if so, if it results in something favorable to the quest giver.

It is kind of random. I try not to pick all evil or all good choices but weigh each situation on its merits.

If I'm struggling for money in a game I will usually take whatever reward is given but if the game is throwing cash at me like I'm a Canadian stripper, I sometimes refuse rewards when offered.

I always do companion quests no matter how inane the request is.

One of the few constants is slavery. I usually fight them or simply don't help them at all.

 

[laclongquan]

In hubs. For my convenience.

I dont do running around to solve one side quest unless there's others need to be solved in that direction too.

XP and rewards are nice but killing REs can give them. Background are very nice but that depends on writings and they are not always reliable. Unexpected benefits are the best but they are not my main drive in 1st run.

 

[Darkwind]

I do them on a purely mechanical basis and what I mean by that is, I metagame because my time is valuable.

If reviews of the game complain about MMO like fetch quests I will avoid all of them unless they are directly in my MQ path. In the rare cases where the writing for sidequests matches the main quest I will do as many as I run across. But I'm not going out of my way for them like some crazy completionist would.

Too many sidequests are a game killer and one of the best examples of this recently was AC Odyssey. I started off doing them and then realized that only about 1/4 of them were decently written and I had no metric other than trial & error to know which ones were good or not. I also realizes that if I did every single thing on the map (which Ubi open worlds are notorious for now) I'd be looking at a 200+ hour time commitment on content that somewhere between monotonous and rage inducing lots of the time. Pass...

Having been burned many times now by open world games in particular but even other RPGs to a lesser extent I do as much available research as I can on a game before attempting any of them. Many may not like this method since it isn't 'organic' and 'roleplay oriented' but the bloat of sidequests in games has reached very high proportions in recent years so its almost a requirement now for me.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Between 0 and 50 %.

 

[Harthwain]

Basically, it's quite common practice for RPG developers to write a strong main plot, typically with dire personal stakes, but then also bolt on a large sandbox around it. On the one hand, this has the benefit of fleshing their world out, making it feel like it's an autonomous, functioning space, but it also has the risk of introducing severe narrative dissonance.

You could solve this by making the state of the world deteriorate or getting more dangerous as the time goes by. In Space Rangers 2 you have essentially the AI invasion that threatens the universe, which can either be solved without you (if the coalition is strong enough) or be doomed without your interference (if the invasion is strong enough, depending on the difficulty setting). In Pathologic 2 there is the disease and time (quests don't last forever). It's a strange game to be sure, but it's really well thought-out in terms of gameplay mechanics.

 

[demoman]

For me personally it depends on my current playthrough.

On my first playthrough, I try to do most things that are available that are in line with the alignment i chose for that run (like most people I typically roll a goody-two-shoes, with a flair for the chaotic, since that seems to be the most fleshed out path) I really enjoy taking in the world building even if it is some dumb fetch-quest mostly to understand the dynamics of the area I am in INCLUDING the local economy, power balance and the everyday life of the people.
Ex. Klamath is one of my favorite early Hubs for that reason - Especially with the Restoration Project
I am also quite into the lore of the games I play and doing side-content tends to flesh-out the world quite nicely

After finishing the game, if I believe that there is a good reason to re-roll a different char (to get another ending or pick a faction i enjoyed but didn't pick on my first one) I do another run like that.
If i am confident enough about my skills and there is an opportunity to role-play differently, I might avoid side-quests that don't appeal to my current run (loosing XP, Loot or "optimal choices")

If I want to do a third run (which BTW means that i REALLY like the game) i might spoil EVERYTHING to me by reading a wiki or a guide so as to get some specific ending or scene.
I know it sounds like an interactive novel but in games i enjoy, i don't mind some handholding to get a specific ending.

----

One special case is Emergent Narrative RPGs where i find myself thoroughly enjoying roleplaying something specific and maybe even dumb because my character is like that. In that case even stupid repetitive side quests are a stepping stone to the whole narrative so its ok for me. I had a LOT of fun lately on a Warband run (with diplomacy mind you) where my Trad Chad Swad fell in love with an (S)Arabian Princess and then "war were declared" between the kingdoms. Good times...