Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions

[Odarbi]

Says who? What kind of lousy story writing sees someone kidnapping such a high profile target (heir to the throne!) and just assassinating her a.s.a.p, instead of holding out for countless blackmaling possibilities?

 

And it doesn't matter "nick of time" isn't needed for the entire quest, branches, choice, consequence and all to play out.

 

Oh, I dunno, maybe an old enemy of the king who wants to see him suffer by assassinating his daughter?

 

Regardless, you've still made no valid arguments against why timed quests should exist. That quests can be handled purely by a narrative method does not mean all have to be, or that all should be.

[Stun]

and that leads to a very unrealistic world where everything is bending to your whim. I want the possibility of siding with the king but she still gets assassinated. Not for every quest because there can't be unlimited options, but failure should be possible sometimes.

Failure can easily be incorporated during the battle itself. One of the bandits, could, if you're not alert during combat, start taking shots at the elven maiden...killing her. Or you can kill the bandits, rescue the princess, but then refuse to escort her home when she asks, thus she dies from a goblin attack on the way home. Or, you could rescue the princess, decide to escort her home, but on the way, one of your companions decides to engage her in an argument, which you fail to defuse, which turns into a fight , and she gets killed.

 

Still no timer needed.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Odarbi]

and that leads to a very unrealistic world where everything is bending to your whim. I want the possibility of siding with the king but she still gets assassinated. Not for every quest because there can't be unlimited options, but failure should be possible sometimes.

Failure can easily be incorporated during the battle itself. One of the bandits, could, if you're not alert during combat, start taking shots at the elven maiden...killing her. Or, you could side with the Bandits, and then they can outsmart you in dialogue, then double cross you, and kill the elf maiden. Or you can kill the bandits, rescue the princess, but then refuse to escort her home when she asks, thus she dies from a goblin attack on the way home. Or, you could rescue the princess, decide to escort her home, but on the way, one of your companions decides to engage her in an argument, which you fail to defuse, which turns into a fight , and she gets killed.

 

Still no timer needed.

 

You're still not facing the possibility of "failure" because you took too long screwing around, and that's still not an argument for why timed quests shouldn't exist. Try again.

[ogrezilla]

and that leads to a very unrealistic world where everything is bending to your whim. I want the possibility of siding with the king but she still gets assassinated. Not for every quest because there can't be unlimited options, but failure should be possible sometimes.

Failure can easily be incorporated during the battle itself. One of the bandits, could, if you're not alert during combat, start taking shots at the elven maiden...killing her. Or you can kill the bandits, rescue the princess, but then refuse to escort her home when she asks, thus she dies from a goblin attack on the way home. Or, you could rescue the princess, decide to escort her home, but on the way, one of your companions decides to engage her in an argument, which you fail to defuse, which turns into a fight , and she gets killed.

 

Still no timer needed.

 

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't play the game you are describing. I would and I'd like it a lot. But I would prefer the world feel more alive around me. Choosing to walk back to town instead of saving someone is a decision even if I didn't make it in a dialogue box. I still had my input into the situation. But the bandits didn't wait for me to decide what to do with their prisoner because why would they?

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Aotrs Commander]

I don't think the inclusion of timed quest should be much of a problem, unless they happen simultaneously. Or are over a particularly extended period (like the whole game plot.) If you run into the woman being dragged off, in the practical scheme of things, unless you are already on a timer, there'd be no reason not to go after and deal with that sidequest right there and then. (Well, probably.) And if you choose not to, well, that's still a deliberate a decision, and most importantly, it still puts the control of the game mostly in the hands of the player. You can choose to do it then or not (and if not suffer the consequences (which would be the "other bit of the quest" perhaps)). Now, I'll grant you, it would probably be helpful if it was laid out at the start in the manual or something that when it says "you better hurry" on your quest journey, it means it. (Even if it says "be aware that some events in your quest log may have a time limit to complete.") And so long as the game sticks to it, it'll all be golden.

 

The problems arise when you start to get to the point where there's two or more timed quests going on at once, and the player has to start actively managing their time (I have to go here, do this, then here and do this or the timer will run out) and you end up with Persona 3 Syndrome in miniature (where you just use a walkthrough) or at best, the player feels like they have to rush through the game to do it all (whether this is actually true or not), as a lot of players, myself included, just don't find being put under pressure like that very fun. (And this is leaving aside the fact people sometimes want to do a "perfect" run.)

 

So, timed quests are fine, so long as you still give the player some control, and aren't placed at silly places. (Like for example, on exiting a big dungeon/boss fight when half the party needs to be healed up back in town or by resting or something and/or the party is totally laden up with kit they need to sell before they can carry any new loot.)

Edited September 22, 2012 by Aotrs Commander

[Stun]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, (your first request) including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!" (your new request)

 

The problem with things in the world happening without your input is that the entire game can literally pass you by if you're not a fast, and driven player. And while such a game might actually be interesting, No prominent gaming company will ever make such a game, so discussing it here is pointless.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[ogrezilla]

I don't want that either. I don't want lots of pressured time situations all the time. You are describing a problem with quest design more than a problem with the mechanics of timed quests themselves. I think they should be relatively rare and they should still be decision based (help her or walk away?) as opposed to action based (I have 5 minutes to kill this gauntlet of bandits and save her.)

[Odarbi]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

And What problem is that? I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!"

 

The problem is that the whole point of this thread is ABOUT things in the world happening without the player input. That you risk failure of a quest for not dealing with it.

[ogrezilla]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

And What problem is that? I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!"

 

that the world is very transparently centered around my character. Assuming I have already had the chance to act (help her or walk back to town), the bandits shouldn't put their plans on hold while they wait for me.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Torgamous]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

And What problem is that? I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!"

The problem is that, firstly, "caving to greed" isn't failure unless you're in the habit of basing your dialog options on a coin flip, and secondly, I can still go and work my way to the top of a guild and the damsel will still be in exactly as much distress when I arrive as if I'd gone straight to her rescue. If it's reasonable to give you enough time to sleep before doing a quest then the time can be extended accordingly; pressuring you into doing a quest RIGHT THE **** NOW doesn't need to be the end result of every timer.

[Lady Evenstar]

I despise timed quests and having to be careful who I talk to in order to avoid triggering them before I'm ready. Perhaps it's because I tend to play classes that start out weak, but I see it as perfectly rational not to tackle a task until a character feels ready. It may be urgent, but if the only person in the world capable of taking care of it is still having trouble with rats and wolves, surely it's best that the hero work on their skills a bit rather than rush in and be slaughtered by opponents who are too strong.

 

I don't favor, but could tolerate, a scoring system like that used in Might & Magic that gave bragging rights to those less obsessed with getting their bearings before charging ahead, but I want an adventure I can enjoy at my own pace,

[Dermi]

I despise timed quests and having to be careful who I talk to in order to avoid triggering them before I'm ready. Perhaps it's because I tend to play classes that start out weak, but I see it as perfectly rational not to tackle a task until a character feels ready. It may be urgent, but if the only person in the world capable of taking care of it is still having trouble with rats and wolves, surely it's best that the hero work on their skills a bit rather than rush in and be slaughtered by opponents who are too strong.

What you describe is a matter of bad quest design, not quest timer. Devs should know when such quest should be placed and it should be balanced so every class should be able to accomplish it. If it's otherwise, it's design failure, simply as that.

[Stun]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

And What problem is that? I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!"

The problem is that, firstly, "caving to greed" isn't failure unless you're in the habit of basing your dialog options on a coin flip, and secondly,

It is literally quest failure, since your mission was to rescue the princess, not strike a deal with bandits and let them kill her.

 

To your second point, you assume of course, that joining a thieves guild is mutually exclusive to rescuing the princess, when the writers could easily make it NOT mutually exclusive at all, you could join the guild then recieve your very first quest: "Favors to get the king in our pocket ", which sees you....rescuing the princess....

 

Edit: my spelling skills are worsening by the second.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[ogrezilla]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

And What problem is that? I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!"

The problem is that, firstly, "caving to greed" isn't failure unless you're in the habit of basing your dialog options on a coin flip, and secondly,

It is literally quest failure, since your mission was to rescue the princess, not strike a deal with bandits and let them kill her.

its a failure to the guy who gave me the quest, but not to me. Its me changing what quest I am doing. A failure is me not getting what I want. Failure isn't something I should ever explicitly choose. The example of them killing her during the fight is a good one. That's a failure.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Torgamous]

To your second point, you assume of course, that joining a thieve's guild is mutually exclusive to resquing the princess, when the writers could easily make it NOT mutually exclusive at all, you could join the guild then recieve your very first quest: "Favors to get the king in our pocket ", which sees you....rescuing the princess....

Yes. I'm assuming that. That's usually how it works. Address the point. Change it to the Mages' Guild or Hermits United if you need a guild less likely to send a newbie to do favors for the king.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Torgamous

[incubus9]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, (your first request) including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!" (your new request)

 

The problem with things in the world happening without your input is that the entire game can literally pass you by if you're not a fast, and driven player. And while such a game might actually be interesting, No prominent gaming company will ever make such a game, so discussing it here is pointless.

 

I would like to say that there was a very successful game based around lots of deadlines. The game was Dead Rising. In no way would I advocate that this game should handle timed quests anything like that, but having a sense of urgency on some quests that make sense in terms of the plot line would be a good thing IMHO. You don't have to be a fast and driven player to enjoy quest lines that have a fast pace. Sometimes breaking the pace of the plot with a sudden and urgent quest line can be beneficial to the game. I would support timed quests that are less like "You have 10 minutes to find the princess" and are more like , "When the full moon has risen, the maiden will be sacrificed to the Demon God."

[Odarbi]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

And What problem is that? I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!"

The problem is that, firstly, "caving to greed" isn't failure unless you're in the habit of basing your dialog options on a coin flip, and secondly,

It is literally quest failure, since your mission was to rescue the princess, not strike a deal with bandits and let them kill her.

 

To your second point, you assume of course, that joining a thieves guild is mutually exclusive to rescuing the princess, when the writers could easily make it NOT mutually exclusive at all, you could join the guild then recieve your very first quest: "Favors to get the king in our pocket ", which sees you....rescuing the princess....

 

Edit: my spelling skills are worsening by the second.

 

However, his point still stands because you're now trying to change the quest example to depend on being in that guild.

 

The simple fact that you still seem unable to grasp is that the quest should not wait around for you to do whatever you want without consequence.

[Stun]

The point is it's not hard at all for writers to project a sense of urgency, without resorting to controversial, and unimaginitive game mechanics like timers.

 

And btw, what's this "waitng around" crap? Urgent, timed, quests ALREADY wait around forever for you to pick them up and accept them.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Torgamous]

The point is it's not hard at all for writers to project a sense of urgency, without resorting to controversial game mechanics like timers.

It's also not hard for writers to project a sense of danger, and yet swords still do damage.

 

And they're only unimaginative if the result of the timer going over is "YOU LOSE THE QUEST". Surely having something different happen if you wait several months to rescue the maiden is more imaginative than having the same set of events always happen?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Torgamous

[Odarbi]

And btw, what's this "waitng around" crap? Urgent, timed, quests ALREADY wait around forever for you to pick them up and accept them.

 

You're grasping at strings.

 

 

Also: Time, controversial? Hahaha. Everyone has a concept of time, it's not like it's some new horrid thing.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Odarbi

[Stun]

The point is it's not hard at all for writers to project a sense of urgency, without resorting to controversial game mechanics like timers.

It's also not hard for writers to project a sense of danger, and yet swords still do damage.

 

And they're only unimaginative if the result of the timer going over is "YOU LOSE THE QUEST". Surely having something different happen if you wait several months to rescue the maiden is more imaginative than having the same set of events always happen?

Which brings us right back to what we just got done discussing: the redundancy of the timer. Having something different happen if you don't rescue the princess".... can be done without one. So basically the only benefit of a timer is the sense of "urgency" or the illusion that the world moves on without your input, even though that elf maiden actually doesn't get kidnapped in the first place until you speak to the king and get the quest, or click on the notice board and get the quest, or overhear the town crier and get the quest....

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Odarbi]

The point is it's not hard at all for writers to project a sense of urgency, without resorting to controversial game mechanics like timers.

It's also not hard for writers to project a sense of danger, and yet swords still do damage.

 

And they're only unimaginative if the result of the timer going over is "YOU LOSE THE QUEST". Surely having something different happen if you wait several months to rescue the maiden is more imaginative than having the same set of events always happen?

Which brings us right back to what we just got done discussing: the redundancy of the timer. Having something different happen if you don't rescue the princess".... can be done without one. So basically the only benefit of a timer is the sense of "urgency" or the illusion that the world moves on without your input, even though that elf maiden actually didn't get kiddnapped in the first place unless you actually spoke to the king.

 

Try and explain how a TIME BASED SUCCESS/FAILURE might work purely through a NARRATIVE style.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Odarbi

[ogrezilla]

The point is it's not hard at all for writers to project a sense of urgency, without resorting to controversial, and unimaginitive game mechanics like timers.

 

And btw, what's this "waitng around" crap? Urgent, timed, quests ALREADY wait around forever for you to pick them up and accept them.

waiting around becomes much worse when you know its happening though. At least as far as my immersion goes. And I don't see how controversial or unimaginitive game mechanics are any worse than controversial or unimaginitive storytelling.

 

personally, I don't really want many timed quests that come from quest givers in town either. That is likely to feel like forcing the urgency. I want it to be used in situations where you stumble into a problem already in action.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Stun]

 

Which brings us right back to what we just got done discussing: the redundancy of the timer. Having something different happen if you don't rescue the princess".... can be done without one. So basically the only benefit of a timer is the sense of "urgency" or the illusion that the world moves on without your input, even though that elf maiden actually didn't get kiddnapped in the first place unless you actually spoke to the king.

 

Try and explain how a TIME BASED SUCCESS/FAILURE might work purely through a NARRATIVE style.

Why in the world would I waste my time explaining how a feature I dislike can work?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Torgamous]

Which brings us right back to what we just got done discussing: the redundancy of the timer. Having something different happen if you don't rescue the princess".... can be done without one.

That's a different something different, though. Choosing to side with bandits versus not getting to the bandits before they do their banditry are unlikely to have the same ramifications.

 

 

So basically the only benefit of a timer is the sense of "urgency" or the illusion that the world moves on without your input, even though that elf maiden actually doesn't get kiddnapped in the first place unless you actually spoke to the king and got the quest, or clicked on the notice board and got the quest, or overheard the town crier and got the quest....

There's also no one telling me that the princess is in need of urgent assistance before I talk to the quest-giver. There's no narrative urgency for the game to support.