how do you approach side quests

[eli]

what do you think when you take on a quest. most of them in most RPGs are given by some random dude in the middle of the street/ forest/ certain location. why should I, a certain protagonist, should care about 95% of side quests when I have some dramatic MQ to do?

 

[Tavernking]

The universe literally revolves around you and you can spend hundreds of hours installing sex mods and banging the entire population of Skyrim before saving the world from Alduin. You have enough time for some sidequests too. Hell if you install the impregnation mods you have enough time to raise a family.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

If it doesn't lead to a big dragon and a sword that smites all evil then fuck off, Noober.

 

[V_K]

I like side quests that are not presented as such - like stumbling on a sealed tower in the middle of the forest or overhearing a rumor at a tavern. NPCs in dire need someone to solve their problems for them can fuck right off. So can factions.

 

[Tavernking]

I like side quests that are not presented as such - like stumbling on a sealed tower in the middle of the forest or overhearing a rumor at a tavern. NPCs in dire need someone to solve their problems for them can fuck right off. So can factions.

What if you stumble upon NPCs in dire need in the middle of a forest? Also, what if this occurs and they're wounded and would be left for dead if you didn't help?

 

[Alphons]

I always ask about the payment first.
If NPC starts whining, I bid them farewell (or tell them to fuck off if possible).
If I lose any Karma/ GoodBoyPoints, I kill quest giver and other members of their cursed bloodline.

 

[V_K]

I like side quests that are not presented as such - like stumbling on a sealed tower in the middle of the forest or overhearing a rumor at a tavern. NPCs in dire need someone to solve their problems for them can fuck right off. So can factions.

What if you stumble upon NPCs in dire need in the middle of a forest? Also, what if this occurs and they're wounded and would be left for dead if you didn't help?

Depends. If it's only done once or twice and the NPC's circumstances are interesting enough - yes. But if the whole forest is littered with them - no, thanks, bye.

 

[Gargaune]

why should I, a certain protagonist, should care about 95% of side quests when I have some dramatic MQ to do?

This is a bit of a bugbear of mine, too many games play fast and loose with their main narrative drive and saddle you up with irrelevant sidequests as you go, and it's a serious conflict that ends up undermining their fiction.

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. An excellent example of this problem is Fallout 4 (though most open-world titles are guilty of it), where you're theoretically on a desperate quest to find Shaun, but in practice you keep taking detours to help some fucknut dirt farmer with his bloatfly problem.

Ideally, when making a plot-driven RPG, you'd want to pace your story progression with natural downtime periods, when maybe you're chasing leads that might further your urgent goals or you're trying to earn your keep while you're waiting for a previously-concluded thread to bear fruit, thus introducing both the opportunity and excuse to engage with side-content. For instance, Baldur's Gate 2 made a perfunctory attempt at this with demanding you raise a "large" sum in Chapter 2 before you could progress your pursuit of Imoen or Irenicus. It wasn't great, but at least it tried something.

For developers, in a nutshell - pace your narrative urgency and contextualise players' objectives appropriately.

 

[V_K]

it's quite common practice for RPG developers to write a strong main plot

And that's precisely where they go wrong.

 

[Ghulgothas]

Because of the raw power I can derive by depriving the weak and impotent of the struggles that would've made them stronger.

 

[Mark Richard]

I always ask about the payment first.
If NPC starts whining, I bid them farewell (or tell them to fuck off if possible).
If I lose any Karma/ GoodBoyPoints, I kill quest giver and other members of their cursed bloodline.

Specifics are almost never mentioned though. The wording is along the lines of 'I'll give you a big reward for doing X', leaving you at the mercy of some stranger's definition of big. It's like every RPG world is run on an honor system, and talking an exact sum would cause onlookers to gasp in astonishment at the flagrant breach of social etiquette on display. I think quest rewards are glossed over because it doesn't matter what the reward is - it's all pure profit. Our in-game characters generally don't have to worry about lunch, medical bills, or time investment (though there are a couple of RPGs with time limits), and developers don't want to encourage people to turn down entire questlines for roleplaying reasons.

 

[Kalin]

From the side.

 

[Lacrymas]

With extreme prejudice.

 

[NJClaw]

what do you think when you take on a quest. most of them in most RPGs are given by some random dude in the middle of the street/ forest/ certain location. why should I, a certain protagonist, should care about 95% of side quests when I have some dramatic MQ to do?

After going through an escort mission where you have to keep safe a goat from the attacks of wolves and bears, my standards are so low that, frankly, I'm down to do anything.

 

[sser]

They make my quest log a cluttered simulation of my IRL email accounts.

 

[JarlFrank]

I do all of them cause I wanna see all the content.

 

[Abu Antar]

Try to do them all, for the same reason as above, but also for exp and loot.

 

[Darth Canoli]

What if you stumble upon NPCs in dire need in the middle of a forest? Also, what if this occurs and they're wounded and would be left for dead if you didn't help?

Depends. If it's only done once or twice and the NPC's circumstances are interesting enough - yes. But if the whole forest is littered with them - no, thanks, bye.

And what if a NPC is really hungry, there's no food around except for rats in his basement, would you hunt 10 rats for him?
As a reward, he would give you some rat's brochette.

 

[V_K]

What if you stumble upon NPCs in dire need in the middle of a forest? Also, what if this occurs and they're wounded and would be left for dead if you didn't help?

Depends. If it's only done once or twice and the NPC's circumstances are interesting enough - yes. But if the whole forest is littered with them - no, thanks, bye.

And what if a NPC is really hungry, there's no food around except for rats in his basement, would you hunt 10 rats for him?
As a reward, he would give you some rat's brochette.

You missed the part about NPC circumstances being interesting.

 

[Nortar]

what do you think when you take on a quest.

I think if I should have updated my journal.

 

[Carrion]

Incompatible main and sidequests are definitely one of my pet peeves with cRPGs, and for the life of me I can't figure out why writers keep falling into the same traps over and over again. Sure, it's more dramatic when the end of the world is just around the corner and you have to hurry the fuck up to prevent it from happening, but surely anyone who knows anything about games can immediately see past that. In the end it just becomes an exercise in metagaming, like using the first available bit of downtime to finish every sidequest in an area because you know that the main quest will surely send you somewhere else very quickly. Either that, or you just ignore the fake urgency and therefore pretty much the whole narrative since you know it's just bullshit.

Ideally, when making a plot-driven RPG, you'd want to pace your story progression with natural downtime periods, when maybe you're chasing leads that might further your urgent goals or you're trying to earn your keep while you're waiting for a previously-concluded thread to bear fruit, thus introducing both the opportunity and excuse to engage with side-content. For instance, Baldur's Gate 2 made a perfunctory attempt at this with demanding you raise a "large" sum in Chapter 2 before you could progress your pursuit of Imoen or Irenicus. It wasn't great, but at least it tried something.

The problem with BG2 is that you acquire enough money to go rescue Imoen very quickly, yet you still keep on doing all those big sidequests since it's the best part of the game. Then again, I wouldn't be in a hurry to rescue Imoen either...

The game that got this absolutely fucking right was Morrowind, which very rarely tells you to hurry (and when it does, it's always for a good reason) and in many places even actively encourages you to go look for adventures and gain some experience. After all, no one wants you to fuck up your most important quest because you went in unprepared.

 

[Nano]

So what do you guys think of games like Mass Effect 2 where the side quests *are* the main quests?

 

[Silverfish]

It varies wildly based on the game. Like in the above mentioned Mass Effect 2, where the side content is integral to the main plot, I try to go for 100%. In something that's designed to be a time-sink like the more recent Bethesda games, picking and choosing seems more prudent. If a game is incredibly boring like Greedfall, I ignore everything else and gun the main quest.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The game isn't ultimately about your MC though. It's about the player. You do that peasants quests for the same reason you're campaigning in the realm. If side content offends you, then don't take the quest, obviously.

 

[DalekFlay]

Real answer is it's just a video game thing you have to wave away in your mind. For roleplaying purposes though I usually play a ruthless merc with a heat of gold deep down, so it makes plenty of sense for me to take a bunch of odd jobs. I always ask for money when the game lets me, though.