[MUD-Dev] Reusable plots for quests

[Adam Wiggins]

[Travis:]
> Brandon J. Rickman <ashes at pc4.zennet.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:58:39 PST8PDT "Travis Casey"
> >This always implies some kind of directed activity on the part of the
> player,
> >i.e. players are obligated to go on "quests" where they must perform some
> >"action".  I think an open-entry fishing competition would be more
> >interesting.
> 
> Personally, I prefer the idea of "implicit quests."  That is, rather than
> having an old LP-style situation where there are certain known quests, and
> it's made explicitly clear that the players are expected to follow these
> quests, have a world in which things are happening and the players are free
> to choose whether or not to get involved.
> 
> That's probably not too clear, so let me put it another way.  As much as
> possible, I'd like the world to seem like it's real to the players.  Having
> quests which are created, announced, and known to exist as quests works
> against this -- it's blantantly obvious that such quests are artificial
> constructs, meant purely as hoops for the characters to jump through.
> Instead of announcing quests via out-of-game mechanisms, quests should be
> worked into the game in such a way that they appear natural.  For example,
> the characters might come into one of the mud's villages to find that it's
> been burned to the ground, then discover something (a lone survivor, runes
> scratched in the dirt, whatever) that lets them know that the Red Hand
> orc tribe was responsible.  It's then up to the players to choose what to
> do, without any "quest info" or other such things being available.

Agreed completely.  I think the key point here is to keep everything
tied into the game.  Far to often the clues, quest mechanisms, and reward
have nothing to do with each other.  Ie: the old druid tells you to bring
him the banzai tree (for no discernable reason), and when you do, he gives
you a bonus of +5 to your wisdom.  Huh?  Slightly more logical but still
in the same vein is the guild leader requiring that you complete a given
task in order to prove your worthyness to the guild.

Given the example of the raiding orcs, you need to first make the actual
mechanisms as organic as possible (you can show up *during* the raid, for
example, and become a hero by defending the town, or you can see the orcs
on the way, and alert someone else who can go save the town, or you can
see the orcs on the way back with their spoils of war and decide to 
investigate..).  Second, the reward has to be in touch with the quest.
Most people doing the quest above don't give a damn about the druid or his
silly tree.  They think that +5 wis sounds pretty good, however, so they do
it.  In the case of the orcs, your 'reward' is going to be the everlasting
gratitude of the townspeople, which may be something as little as free beer
at the tavern whenever you like, to a monetary reward, to the hand in
mariage of your choice of the town's eligable maidens and bachelors.  The
idea, of course, is that you don't just do it because 'it's a quest, there's
probably some kick-ass reward' - you knew from the begining the main thing
you'd 'get' is a functioning town and the adoration of some townspeople.
This brings the player closer to the game world, which is both the parent
and the child of good role-playing.

> This stands in contrast to an "organic" quest like the burned village I
> described above.  What is the party supposed to do?  Try to hunt down the
> orcs and avenge the village?  Are there survivors who should be rescued
> from the orcs?  Are the orcs planning other raids that need to be defended
> against?  Is it possible that someone else performed the attack and has
> left fake evidence to point to the orcs?

Best of all, there's no fixed list of 'supposed to's.  Instead there's just
a situation, and the players can do with it what they like.  Who says they
even have to 'save' anyone?  They might decide that the Red Hand is
an up-and-coming orc band, and try to join up.

> A well-built "quest" should be able to go in many different directions
> depending on the actions of the players.  However, such a "quest" is harder
> to create than a simple linear quest, and demands more from the players.
> Thus, these will probably always be less common on muds than the "go to X,
> get Y and bring it to Z" type quests.

Well, obviously this is the reason static quests have been used for so
long.  One would hope that by automating the procedure to some degree,
you'd also circumvent the weaknesses in the currently accepted model.