Urgency: Please Have It

[Stun]

Finally. Someone gets it ^^

[ogrezilla]

There doesn't need to be any sort of clock.

 

 

The game could be programmed so that as long as I am at the burning farm, all is well.

 

No timers needed.

In other words, coming up with a more creative way to project urgency - one that doesn't involve quest timers.

 

Yeah, I've been arguing for this since... Idk, page 4?

 

good deal. I think a rigid timer in the form of a clock in the corner would be bad design for a game like this as well. But I also think the ability to fail or even miss a quest because you chose to do something else instead would be very interesting and would add to the immersion of the game. Letting the farm burn should be the consequence of a decision, not of a clock. I think we agree.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Odarbi]

Finally. Someone gets it ^^

 

So you're perfectly fine with some sort of arbitrary limitation on what you can do within a set period, rather than being limited by time and being able to potentially complete everything if you play smart and manage your time?

[ogrezilla]

Finally. Someone gets it ^^

 

So you're perfectly fine with some sort of arbitrary limitation on what you can do within a set period, rather than being limited by time and being able to potentially complete everything if you play smart and manage your time?

 

It should be possible to do something that gives you more "time" then. Someone mentioned a shortcut through a hideout or something. I think you could get the same outcome you want without every having to use a rigid clock timer. Completing this guys quest takes time. Walking away from the burning farm takes time. But reading through my conversation options carefully doesn't take away time.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Delterius]

Aah, the realism argument, is it?

 

No, the roleplaying argument.

[NerdBoner]

wait, did i read correctly when someone said time based quests are against the spirit of roleplaying?

 

...I-I don't want to live in this world anymore...

 

My hero should just stay home. That way the forces of evil will be frozen in time, unable to perform their evil deeds in the name of evildom. I'll just write a letter to the king and explain my situation (that I'm master of time and space) and he will bring food and women to my home where i can live happily ever after knowing that if I just don't show up, nothing will ever happen! yay!

[Odarbi]

Finally. Someone gets it ^^

 

So you're perfectly fine with some sort of arbitrary limitation on what you can do within a set period, rather than being limited by time and being able to potentially complete everything if you play smart and manage your time?

 

It should be possible to do something that gives you more "time" then. Someone mentioned a shortcut through a hideout or something. I think you could get the same outcome you want without every having to use a rigid clock timer. Completing this guys quest takes time. Walking away from the burning farm takes time. But reading through my conversation options carefully doesn't take away time.

 

To clarify, in case people getting the wrong idea: I'm not, and I don't think anyone that wants timed quests are, talking about the concept of "I've only got 1 hour of REAL time to do this quest". I'm talking about the idea of giving people days or weeks of GAME time to do these things. Game time would pause any time it would normally pause, such as during conversations, map transitions, while the game is naturally paused, etc.

[evdk]

 

 

No, the roleplaying argument.

I am baffled by the rather nonsensical notion that realism has no place in a fantasy world and would like to know where it is coming from. All these world largely operate on real world logic and physics except where it touches magic or the divine. And nobody is even arguing magical explanations in this thread, it's just "realism? pshh, it's fantasy, old timer, what realism?". Well then **** gravity, it's too realistic.

[Delterius]

It appears that modern design comprehends players as these vulnerable people, whose self-esteem breaks down at the slight inconvenience. The results of this pandering are many, but 2, I believe, is prevalent in the RPG community: one belongs to all gamers, that inconvenience isn't fun - which is ludicrous by itself to any gamer that likes the words tactical, strategical, deep and so on; the second is unique to us - roleplaying has become the player cherry picking the story.

 

Those are the reasons why so many people, even in these supposedly 'old school' forums, are opposed to everything that isn't the player's agency evolving into Godmode.

 

And that's terrible.

 

Ideally, if a given quest has some degree of urgency in it, that urgency will impose itself on you. That's roleplaying. To deny that experience is like asking for a Silent Hill game without drama or suspense (just look at some of the more recent Silent Hills - hah).

 

No, the roleplaying argument.

I am baffled by the rather nonsensical notion that realism has no place in a fantasy world and would like to know where it is coming from. All these world largely operate on real world logic and physics except where it touches magic or the divine. And nobody is even arguing magical explanations in this thread, it's just "realism? pshh, it's fantasy, old timer, what realism?". Well then **** gravity, it's too realistic.

Key concept:

 

Realism =/= internal consistency. A lot of people don't get this.

 

Obsessive realism or simulationism gets us Hearthfire DLC. Internal consistency gets us the best roleplaying experience possible.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Delterius

[ogrezilla]

Finally. Someone gets it ^^

 

So you're perfectly fine with some sort of arbitrary limitation on what you can do within a set period, rather than being limited by time and being able to potentially complete everything if you play smart and manage your time?

 

It should be possible to do something that gives you more "time" then. Someone mentioned a shortcut through a hideout or something. I think you could get the same outcome you want without every having to use a rigid clock timer. Completing this guys quest takes time. Walking away from the burning farm takes time. But reading through my conversation options carefully doesn't take away time.

 

To clarify, in case people getting the wrong idea: I'm not, and I don't think anyone that wants timed quests are, talking about the concept of "I've only got 1 hour of REAL time to do this quest". I'm talking about the idea of giving people days or weeks of GAME time to do these things. Game time would pause any time it would normally pause, such as during conversations, map transitions, while the game is naturally paused, etc.

 

It really depends on how its implemented. It would have to be very skillfully done and preferably not too often. I don't want them to tell me I have 60 game days to complete the game. Put me in a town with an impending barbarian raid, and I'm ok with having a few game hours or days to get some stuff done. I don't want to come to a burning house and be told I have five minutes to fight through these fire demons, get to the top of the house and save a little girl. But I'd be perfectly fine being told this girl needs saved right now. Then I can go save her or not. If I leave to go to the shop for some fire resist potions, its too late. Basically, I want the urgency to influence my decisions but I don't want timed action sequences.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[ogrezilla]

really, I just want the mechanics to match the story. Don't set up a scenario where a dragon is about to destroy the village and then give me as long as I want to get to it. My preference would be to only use that style of threat occasionally and not as the grand overarching story, but if it is used I want to see the urgency that should come along with it.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Odarbi]

I don't want them to tell me I have 60 game days to complete the game. Put me in a town with an impending barbarian raid, and I'm ok with having a few game hours or days to get some stuff done. I don't want to come to a burning house and be told I have five minutes to fight through these fire demons, get to the top of the house and save a little girl. But I'd be perfectly fine being told this girl needs saved right now. Then I can go save her or not. If I leave to go to the shop for some fire resist potions, its too late. Basically, I want the urgency to influence my decisions but I don't want timed action sequences.

 

I definitely don't want there to be a 60 game day cap on the game either, but I'd like for quests that are implied to be urgent to actually enforce their urgency. Too often have games said something like "If you delay, it might be too late!" only for you to show up in the nick of time, regardless of how long you take to get there. I prefer the idea of "timers" for the urgency because it allows you to make the choice instead of being an arbitrary win/lose. In the case of your "Little girl needs saved right now", Having 5 minutes of game time could make for a very interesting choice right then and there. What if you have some sort of spell that allows you to make it back to the town, grab some fire resist stuff, and get back in time to save her? or Maybe you've got a druid type caster with a rainstorm spell that he can use to slow down the fire (increase the timer), or maybe even put it out entirely.

 

really, I just want the mechanics to match the story. Don't set up a scenario where a dragon is about to destroy the village and then give me as long as I want to get to it. My preference would be to only use that style of threat occasionally and not as the grand overarching story, but if it is used I want to see the urgency that should come along with it.

That's basically all we want too. Implied urgency should not only be implied, there should be some chance of failure. In some quests, this failure could even lead into a whole new quest chain.

[Badmojo]

Time/urgency quests suck. It is just not fun to me. Hey, we have this awesome world for you to explore...oh wait, you have to do this quest or else you fail the mission. Ok, you rushed through, saved the town great, to bad you missed all that awesome side quests and cool places, but at least you saved the town. Oh, we have ANOTHER time quest, sure, you could chat and find out important information, or explore that cave, or just try of few other side quests... I mean, I am sure the plague will wait...oops, no it wont, you took too long trying to find the cure, that is hidden in some old journals, in the cave of death, on the other side of the map. What? you wanted stop for a minute and got on another quest to save an orphange, well too bad, you should have stayed on the path...oh, there is ANOTHER time quest..

 

*turns off computer and never plays again*

[ogrezilla]

Time/urgency quests suck. It is just not fun to me. Hey, we have this awesome world for you to explore...oh wait, you have to do this quest or else you fail the mission. Ok, you rushed through, saved the town great, to bad you missed all that awesome side quests and cool places, but at least you saved the town. Oh, we have ANOTHER time quest, sure, you could chat and find out important information, or explore that cave, or just try of few other side quests... I mean, I am sure the plague will wait...oops, no it wont, you took too long trying to find the cure, that is hidden in some old journals, in the cave of death, on the other side of the map. What? you wanted stop for a minute and got on another quest to save an orphange, well too bad, you should have stayed on the path...oh, there is ANOTHER time quest..

 

*turns off computer and never plays again*

 

this is why I don't think they should be the norm. Occasionally having timed quests is cool. Having one after another feels like you are being forced though. It's a case of bad quest design more than bad mechanics imo.

[Zombra]

@Stun:

 

Sorry I haven't been to the thread in a while. You make some good points and others have made some good counterarguments.

 

Let me approach your objections from another angle.

 

I don't have a problem with realism, but it's definitely not my agenda. Gameplay to me is more important than anything. Urgency and consequences are a part of good gameplay, in my opinion.

 

You talk about player agency, which I respect, but there are times when game rules should trump player agency. Mario certainly doesn't want to be killed when struck by a Koopa shell, yet if we give him the option to simply ignore them, then suddenly Koopa shells lose their "bite". There's no real point in Koopas even existing at that point. (Ever play a platformer or shooter in God Mode? Spoiler: it's extremely boring.)

 

The same thing applies to RPG quests. When the world tells you that something bad is going to happen, but nothing bad ever happens unless the player deliberately chooses it, then all threats in the game world are actually meaningless. When the player knows this, interest is lost.

 

Compare the childhood game of "Cowboys & Indians" to competitive paintball. In one game, you never get shot unless you want to; you can always just yell, "You missed me!" This is an extreme version of the "player agency" that you advocate, and it leads to meaninglessness. In the other game, there are paint marks on your helmet - you can't deny that you've been shot. You don't have the option to ignore the consequences of your poor play. The winners of a paintball match "really" won with tactics and skill - they weren't just the most stubborn guys, yelling "You missed!" until the other team finally went home.

 

The point is that giving the player the blatant choice to win or lose (sometimes known as the "I Win Button") does not always make the most compelling game. Making a player actually try to achieve something makes the achievement more meaningful, more "real". Consequences that the player can't ignore are more satisfying to circumvent. Although I am not an advocate of straight up quest timers, it is more thrilling to disarm a bomb that will go off in 30 seconds, rather than one that's just sitting there forever.

 

---------------------

 

On an related note, I just want to mention that I like failing quests sometimes. I don't need to "beat" every single quest in the game, or achieve the optimum outcome to every scenario. Hello? Replay value? In good RPGs, whether on the computer or on the tabletop, failing a skill roll doesn't just mean you need to reload or give up. It opens up more interesting story or challenges. Failed to pick the lock? Now you have to find another way into the castle. Failed to fast talk the guard? Now you're under arrest and you have to escape from prison or plead your case to the Consluate. Failed to rescue the princess? Now the Elf King is dying of grief ... how can you save him?

Edited September 23, 2012 by Zombra

[Zombra]

Time/urgency quests suck. It is just not fun to me. Hey, we have this awesome world for you to explore...oh wait, you have to do this quest or else you fail the mission. Oh, we have ANOTHER time quest... I mean, I am sure the plague will wait...oops, no it wont, you took too long trying to find the cure, you should have stayed on the path...oh, there is ANOTHER time quest.. *turns off computer and never plays again*

 

this is why I don't think they should be the norm. Occasionally having timed quests is cool. Having one after another feels like you are being forced though. It's a case of bad quest design more than bad mechanics imo.

Yes. I completely agree that an entire design predicated on forcing the player relentlessly down the rails is an awful idea. In fact it is just as bad as a design that lets a character sit on his ass for 20 years without any consequences.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Zombra

[Goran]

Not a fan of time-based quests. "Urgency" could work with some side-quests, but not with main questline. It's just too restrictive.

[Krios]

I did not like the way the main event (for example in FO2) had timers. I can appreciate wanting this looming sense of impending doom. Our hero has to save the World and do it soon, before the evil forces which had been encroaching on civilization totally engulfs it.

 

That makes for great background, a justification for why the hero exist. But as a player I want to not just have a good plot but I want it to allow me to approach the events my way, in my own time. The main plot events can be scripted to trigger once the player gets to certain locations, once they have found specific items of power for example. This will not only give the player freedom to play, it will ensure that players will be not under powered when the main event starts when the timer reaches zero, unless it be by their own choice. The main plot is referenced to throughout the game, to maintain and build on the sense of urgency, but it does not force you to make a choice. There will still be a sense of urgency, it just need not stop you in your tracks.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Krios

[pipboy2000]

I've said it in a few different threads, and I'll say it again here.

 

Make quests that are time sensitive. They don't all have to be, but there should be a number of important decisions/quests that need to be made by the player that also have a limited time to be completed and have a very impactful presence on gameplay and/or story. Players who fail to deal with an evil necromancer early on should have to deal with additional minions later, or potentially even risk finding out that a city was destroyed because they ignored him. Players who fail to meet up with a high ranking official could find out that he was assassinated during the time they were to meet him, and also end up being wanted by the faction the official was representing because people think he was in on the assassination or something.

 

It really takes away from the overall story of the game, in my opinion, when the entirety of the game just waits around for the player to take their time and do everything. If the whole point of taking your time is to just explore the world and find out about the lore, that can be done on subsequent playthroughs or potentially even after the story portion has been completed. A sense of urgency within the story makes it feel like the world is an actual living breathing thing, and may discourage a lot of playstyles certain players take throughout games. Having time sensitive quests in the game may in it self act as a deterrant to the idea of sleeping to recover to full strength after every battle.

 

Not being able to complete everything in one playthrough adds to re-playability, and having time sensitive quests that change the game based on whether they were completed on time or not adds to the number of different permutations possible for each playthrough. The inclusion of something like this would not only benefit the world on an immersive level, but also on a re-playability level.

 

This describes exactly how I feel about this. Not ALL the quests should be time sensitive, but the obviously ones should!

In many RPGs situations like this occur:

 

NPC: "My daddy/children/mother went down into this creepy cellar/dungeon/forest and didn't come back, but I heard really scary sounds five seconds ago and somebody desperately screamed for help. Please, PLEASE help me!"

 

And you are like: "Fear not! I shall look into that incident!" (...as soon as possible, of course! I have to sell some loot first and maybe I will go to that other city 200 miles away to buy that magnificent sword I saw in that shop window and of course I have to brew some potions first, only a madman would go down there without some decent potions on him... speaking of that, I need to get me some mandrake roots first and you know that the prices for those are outrageous so I have to find some on my own in the forest of faraway... sooo, what about in, uuhhmm... let's say five weeks? Would that be okay?)

 

On the other hand, I don't want the main story to have a time limit. I want to have time to explore because that is, for me, one major reason to play RPGs: I want to descent into a rich, interesting, different world. And I think that would not be possible, if I had to hurry from one place to another all the time...

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Time/urgency quests suck. It is just not fun to me. Hey, we have this awesome world for you to explore...oh wait, you have to do this quest or else you fail the mission. Oh, we have ANOTHER time quest... I mean, I am sure the plague will wait...oops, no it wont, you took too long trying to find the cure, you should have stayed on the path...oh, there is ANOTHER time quest.. *turns off computer and never plays again*

 

this is why I don't think they should be the norm. Occasionally having timed quests is cool. Having one after another feels like you are being forced though. It's a case of bad quest design more than bad mechanics imo.

Yes. I completely agree that an entire design predicated on forcing the player relentlessly down the rails is an awful idea. In fact it is just as bad as a design that lets a character sit on his ass for 20 years without any consequences.

 

This is what I'm concerned about I don't want to be forced through the main quest at the speed of light

 

I think something like a note on the quest saying 'must be completed by [date]' would be fine by me. As long as I am warned about it I can deal.

[Slice0fLife]

One of my fondest memories is my first playthrough of BGII where I thought

I had to rush to spell hold to save Imoen before too many bad things happened to her.

Scraped together the 20000 required and shipped off ASAP only to find myself drastically under levelled but satisfied I had done my best.

 

I think timed quests (of some sort) are a good tool for adding dramatic tension.

 

Yes, that is one of the fondest of my memories as well ^^

Failing really horribly in the Asylum because I rushed story too much in first walkthrough.

 

Zombra is totally correct, there has to be some sense of urgency. However having time limiters is a bad choice, since every one likes to play at their own pace, for example I like to go explore some dungeon when I feel under levelled, however doing it while I just heard: "she will die if you do not save her soon", feels rather off.

 

It would be great to consider in game time(like do it in 2 days) a limiter, not real life time (not in 20 mins).