Quests and filler combat is what kills RPGs

[Bester]

So let's say you're making your dream RPG.

How do you fill your game with content? Quests are almost always:
- a chore you don't want to bother with
- as a roleplayer, your character would almost always be like "why me? you go fucking do it, I don't wanna", so there's no reason why he'd do random shit for random strangers
- have a mundane, boring premise, and you doing the quest in-game is usually mind numbingly easy, and if you don't stimulate the player, he'll just quit

Possibilities to fix them?
- Make the quest a puzzle. Ok, but you can't do it often, and puzzles are either too easy to solve, or you can't solve it at all. So that's a bad choice.
- Make it an assassination quest. That's fun, but you can't do it too many times.
- Anything else?

So the conclusion I must draw is that quests must go.

But what do you fill the game with, then? Filler combat is even more boring than quests. And there's nothing else.

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

I think complexity and open-endedness is what solves the quest problem. Complexity in the way where you will be completely left out of chunks of the quest depending on your build or the path you choose to take.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Bester]

AoD style, force players to do quests to get those precious xp to be able to tackle real challenge

On the one hand, it worked for Fallout 1/2.

On another, that sounds like World of Warcraft - "quest until level 60 so you can start playing the real game". I think it's problematic.

I'm confused.

 

[barghwata]

simple, C&C can solve the boring quests issue however the quests have to be important in deciding your own character's fate, the stakes have to be high at all times, where wrong decisions can really fuck you up; this way you get really invested into whatever it is you're doing in the quest even if the quest in question isn't that fun, good examples of this are expeditions: viking and AoD (even though i dislike AoD but i admit it does this well).

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[V_K]

Make quests emergent/implicit. I've written about it in another thread:

It's about presentation and player agency for me. The same sequence of event can be presented in very different ways. For example:

1) A shady tavern patron asks you to steal a mcguffin from the local merchant giving you the directions to the warehouse. You go to the warehouse and encounter a guard who tells you he'd turn a blind eye if you bring him a bottle of expensive liquor. You buy the liquor at the store, bring it to the guard, get the mcguffin and turn the quest to the shady man for a meager reward.

2) While visiting a tavern you overhear two shade men dicussing a plan to steal a powerful mcguffin. From a rumor, you learn that a local merchant has drastically increased the security on one of his warehouses. You scout the warehouse and learn that the only entrance is guarded by a half-giant. You ask around city about the half-giant and learn that he's impartial to expensive alcohol. You buy a bottle of rare liquor and bribe him with it, getting the mcguffin for yourself. Now you can keep it or sell to the local fence.

In principle, it's the same setup - buy liquor, bribe guard, get the mcguffin and turn it in for money. But while in the first case, you are told what to do and just have to follow the scrip without much thinking, the second option is made much more interesting by you having to investigate and come up with the solution on your own.

 

[Jacob]

The solution is to give player agency to the side quests, simple as that. Make it personal.

Example 1. Start by having a bunch of cool horses/cars in one of the towns. As you approach that town, you stumble upon a stable/garage and found a nice horse/car and you want it. The owner gives you a quest before letting you have it (Or just asks a load of money)
Example 2. In a bar, some shady guy offers you an exciting reward if you do something that he wants. Unsurprisingly, turns out he's manipulating you and now you want revenge.

 

[Bester]

Make quests emergent/implicit. I've written about it in another thread:

It's about presentation and player agency for me. The same sequence of event can be presented in very different ways. For example:

1) A shady tavern patron asks you to steal a mcguffin from the local merchant giving you the directions to the warehouse. You go to the warehouse and encounter a guard who tells you he'd turn a blind eye if you bring him a bottle of expensive liquor. You buy the liquor at the store, bring it to the guard, get the mcguffin and turn the quest to the shady man for a meager reward.

2) While visiting a tavern you overhear two shade men dicussing a plan to steal a powerful mcguffin. From a rumor, you learn that a local merchant has drastically increased the security on one of his warehouses. You scout the warehouse and learn that the only entrance is guarded by a half-giant. You ask around city about the half-giant and learn that he's impartial to expensive alcohol. You buy a bottle of rare liquor and bribe him with it, getting the mcguffin for yourself. Now you can keep it or sell to the local fence.

In principle, it's the same setup - buy liquor, bribe guard, get the mcguffin and turn it in for money. But while in the first case, you are told what to do and just have to follow the scrip without much thinking, the second option is made much more interesting by you having to investigate and come up with the solution on your own.

This sounds exactly like the kind of stuff I don't want to do, and my character doesn't want to do, and the entire quest is cliched and boring.

And what is my character's motivation to even speak to a tavern patron? Just cause I pressed TAB and saw that he's a NAMED CHARACTER doesn't mean I should rush towards him.

 

[DraQ]

The main problem with most quests is that they are discrete and self contained.

 

[smaug]

It seems a lot of RPGs have too many quests and should lessen them, to focus them more around C&C.

 

[Goromorg]

If we are talking about realistic RPGs, then quests should be designed like contracts. You have you goal, your personal interest that drives the main story, but you also need cash and info and allies.
You have a city with security agencies, information dealers, black market, mafia, triads.
You ask for a job, haggle over payment and then go protect someone during negotiations or assassinate someone, or steal something, or hack something, etc.
Then you go for your compensation or backstab your contractor or both.

 

[Curratum]

What is this thing I keep reading here about BEING A ROLL PLAYA?

AS A ROLL PLAYA, my character would do this or do that. Are you all still twelve that you get so genuinely invested in the roleplaying aspect of videogames? If no, why the hell are you playing CRPGs and not bringing out your inner autist in full, in a tabletop group of like-minded individuals who like to "stay in character"?

I am sorry if this sounds jaded and cynical but after 30 years of playing games, I expect most everyone to be pretty fucking jaded about it all.

 

[deama]

In fallout 3 there's a quest in the vault that butch asks you to kill rad roaches to save his mum. What you can do instead, even if you're persuassion isn't the best, is just persuade him to do his own quest, so he'll actually go and kill the roaches himself.

 

[Curratum]

In fallout 3 there's a quest in the vault that butch asks you to kill rad roaches to save his mum. What you can do instead, even if you're persuassion isn't the best, is just persuade him to do his own quest, so he'll actually go and kill the roaches himself.

And people keep telling you FO3 is a bad game! :D

 

[V_K]

Make quests emergent/implicit. I've written about it in another thread:

It's about presentation and player agency for me. The same sequence of event can be presented in very different ways. For example:

1) A shady tavern patron asks you to steal a mcguffin from the local merchant giving you the directions to the warehouse. You go to the warehouse and encounter a guard who tells you he'd turn a blind eye if you bring him a bottle of expensive liquor. You buy the liquor at the store, bring it to the guard, get the mcguffin and turn the quest to the shady man for a meager reward.

2) While visiting a tavern you overhear two shade men dicussing a plan to steal a powerful mcguffin. From a rumor, you learn that a local merchant has drastically increased the security on one of his warehouses. You scout the warehouse and learn that the only entrance is guarded by a half-giant. You ask around city about the half-giant and learn that he's impartial to expensive alcohol. You buy a bottle of rare liquor and bribe him with it, getting the mcguffin for yourself. Now you can keep it or sell to the local fence.

In principle, it's the same setup - buy liquor, bribe guard, get the mcguffin and turn it in for money. But while in the first case, you are told what to do and just have to follow the scrip without much thinking, the second option is made much more interesting by you having to investigate and come up with the solution on your own.

This sounds exactly like the kind of stuff I don't want to do, and my character doesn't want to do, and the entire quest is cliched and boring.

And what is my character's motivation to even speak to a tavern patron? Just cause I pressed TAB and saw that he's a NAMED CHARACTER doesn't mean I should rush towards him.

The first snippet was intended as an example of what not to do...
And in the second example, no one is asking you to do anything. You don't even talk to a specific NPC - you overhear a rumor, and are absolutely free not to follow up on it if it doesn't excite you.

 

[Bad Sector]

2) While visiting a tavern you overhear two shade men dicussing a plan to steal a powerful mcguffin. From a rumor, you learn that a local merchant has drastically increased the security on one of his warehouses. You scout the warehouse and learn that the only entrance is guarded by a half-giant. You ask around city about the half-giant and learn that he's impartial to expensive alcohol. You buy a bottle of rare liquor and bribe him with it, getting the mcguffin for yourself. Now you can keep it or sell to the local fence.

In theory that is what i'd like to play, but from experience in practice what will happen is that i'd go for the most straightforward approach: after overhearing the discussion i'll go to the warehouse, notice the half-giant (i'd already have ignored the "from a rumor" part) and try to attack him, many many *many* times, with little variations to my attack patterns as if i was a genetic programming algorithm, until either the half-giant dies or i get bored trying. The former case would validate my straightforward approach which i will apply for pretty much every encounter after that, whereas the latter case will most likely make me think that i'm simply not strong enough yet and go to try and do some other quest until much later.

That is assuming i wont miss the whole discussion in the tavern in the first place :-P.

In general this whole "playing detective" approach always sounds nice when discussing games but when i'm actually playing the game itself it pretty much never crosses my mind to do that as there are always alternative simpler approaches (even if they are more "boring" or harder/time waste-y) that look like they'll work.

One the solution to this would be to require such approaches for the majority (if not all) of the game's quests, but i think that at that point the game becomes more of an adventure game and less of an RPG.

 

[barghwata]

What is this thing I keep reading here about BEING A ROLL PLAYA?

AS A ROLL PLAYA, my character would do this or do that. Are you all still twelve that you get so genuinely invested in the roleplaying aspect of videogames? If no, why the hell are you playing CRPGs and not bringing out your inner autist in full, in a tabletop group of like-minded individuals who like to "stay in character"?

i agree that tabletop does allow you unleash your full autism but here are a couple reasons why some people who like to roleplay might prefer crpgs:

1- assembling a groupe of friends who take the game seriously and are good at playing is already difficult and annoying by itself.
2- crpgs have the big advantage of having graphics and music and actual atmosphere, just sitting in a table with a bunch of your friends playing pretend feels kinda silly for some people and hard to take seriously, but i understand that some people enjoy it and there's nothing wrong with that.
3- videogame rpgs have actual gameplay, whether that be a tactical rpg, an Arpg, a roguelike....etc there is actual gameplay too keep you entertained, roleplaying just for the sake of it isn't really enough if there isn't good gameplay accompanying that in my opinion.

Are you all still twelve that you get so genuinely invested in the roleplaying aspect of videogames?

also i must say this is quite condesending, almost as condesending as people saying that videogames in general are only for kids, it's a very short sighted way of looking at things.

 

[V_K]

until either the half-giant dies or i get bored trying. The former case would validate my straightforward approach which i will apply for pretty much every encounter after that, whereas the latter case will most likely make me think that i'm simply not strong enough yet and go to try and do some other quest until much later.

Well, in this particular example, we're talking about a city quest, so attacking the giant would trigger whatever crime-and-punishment system the game has - making the whole town hostile, sending guards after you, whatever. So at the very least this will have to be a stealth kill - which will arguably involve about the same amount of legwork as the "normal" run of the quest. In principle, I think, it's not that hard to come up with ways of disencentivizing a "just kill everything" approach.

 

[ScrotumBroth]

I think any sort of open world-ness ruins RPG quests. It invariably becomes 50 shades of fetch quests like most of Witcher 3.

I think Fallout 1, 2 and AoD got it right, large map but each area is a world of its own.

And another thing, each quest has to be unique and handcrafted, if two look alike devs have failed.

 

[Nano]

- as a roleplayer, your character would almost always be like "why me? you go fucking do it, I don't wanna", so there's no reason why he'd do random shit for random strangers

This is a huge pet peeve of mine. The way characters in the world, companions and strangers alike, unload all of their problems and tasks on the player makes no fucking sense, and this has been a staple of CRPGs since forever.

 

[Chippy]

What makes an RPG: An RPG is the cleavage between two ideas. Usually powergaming and story.

While I agree that the cleavage shound not be filled, showered, nor impressed upon or within - neither do I believe that if it's ideas are old and decrepit, should the cleavage be too much of a void lost in the player's forlorn gaze.

In a nutshell: some cleavages are just perfect; they are inspired. Irrespective of their dimensions, supporting structures, or fiddling upon by well meaning players and developers.

 

[Bad Sector]

Fallout 1 and 2 are open world games though, they're just not seamless open worlds (which thanks to GTA3 became synonymous with all open world games) meaning that you can do stuff in any order, go anywhere you like (see that pixel? you can go there), etc you're just spared the empty filler between the interesting areas. Fallout New Vegas uses pretty much the same approach, just with the mandatory in-between bits.

V_K: that could be a solution, but it is hard to get right and not get all "stop right there criminal scum" and - assuming a single character game - not penalize non-stealth oriented characters (meaning that it'll either have to be an optional side quest instead of something required to progress the game, or one of several alternative quests that each focus on different character builds and all meet at the same eventual outcome - e.g. that mcguffin might be an alternative to another mcguffin that is pretty much only obtained by a guns blazing approach not suitable to stealthy or talky characters).

 

[Egosphere]

A lot of rpgs start off with your character being a complete nobody. You pick the stats and skills, perhaps even your background, but your role is a vacuum, which is filled up with the drudgery of completing menial tasks for random strangers. That could be avoided if the story had you playing a specific role. Suppose you're playing as an undercover agent of a secret police tasked with rooting out dissent. You overhear a conversation that might implicate a certain somebody in a conspiracy against the state. You then chose to proceed against said person accordingly, with choice and consequences arising from your actions. You might arrest that person, or choose to spy on them, or disregard the info as false etc. You could argue that this nullifies the 'r' in 'rpg', but 99% of rpgs already give you a cookie cutter role of stopping some great evil.

 

[barghwata]

- as a roleplayer, your character would almost always be like "why me? you go fucking do it, I don't wanna", so there's no reason why he'd do random shit for random strangers

one way to go about incentivising the player to do secondary quests while simultaneously explaining why the character would do them is to make money a very important resource in the game, in most CRPGS money is either worthless or just way too easy to come by, eliminating the need to do quests for money all together, by making money more important and scarce in the game quests will feel more like contracts then doing random shit for random strangers for no reason.