ID:154433
 
Are quest that are built into games better then ones hosted by GMs? Like the quest will be repetitive yes, and there is more you can do with a GM orgnaized quest, but a built in quest will always be avalible (as long as you program it in for a one timer, each time it loads) and also a built in one wont ever be cut short by the gm leaving. So what is better? maybe a mix of the 2?
WildBlood wrote:
Are quest that are built into games better then ones hosted by GMs? Like the quest will be repetitive yes, and there is more you can do with a GM orgnaized quest, but a built in quest will always be avalible (as long as you program it in for a one timer, each time it loads) and also a built in one wont ever be cut short by the gm leaving. So what is better? maybe a mix of the 2?

I'd say both. In my game there will be anyways. It wont relaly be tagged as quests, just storyline advancements, like the Orcish raiders raiding the local farming community, the Kingdom of Ashkev'Idor declaring war on this and that place, get secret documents, u know.
I also run quests like "Catch them Squirrels", "Eat the cheese" and stuff like that for fun.

Alathon
In response to Alathon
Eat the squirrel and caught the cheese? Pretty cool sounding ... actually squirrels give me a nutty idea for my game
I'd say you're limiting your thinking by thinking only in terms of black and white, and things that you have seen done before. Why would a GM hosted quest have to end because the GM left? Why would a soft-coded, run-time initiated quest have to be GM hosted? I've got a system that continuously generates new quests, complete with villains, goals, clues , and rewards ("Granzar the Ork King has stolen the Holy Rod of Heimlen"). The game this system is attached to isn't stable or playable, but the system works.
In response to LexyBitch
THE REASON I ask was to find OUT, doesnt mean thats what ILL limit myself to. Asking questions like that helps me see what OTHERS want, sure i could make a whole quest system, doesnt mean others will like it, thats why im asking first.
If you have a game with powerleveling, do both. If you have a game focused on roleplaying, let the players make up the quests.
In response to LexyBitch
LexyBitch wrote:
I'd say you're limiting your thinking by thinking only in terms of black and white,

Or in terms of Black & White?

and things that you have seen done before. Why would a GM hosted quest have to end because the GM left? Why would a soft-coded, run-time initiated quest have to be GM hosted? I've got a system that continuously generates new quests, complete with villains, goals, clues , and rewards ("Granzar the Ork King has stolen the Holy Rod of Heimlen"). The game this system is attached to isn't stable or playable, but the system works.

Yep, Haven also has something similar (or at least, will have... right now it's rather rudimentary). Except mine is oriented from people -- if you talk to people, there's always odd things that they need done.

But here's an interesting tidbit! The game my system is attached to isn't stable or playable either! Fancy that.
In response to Spuzzum
Another thing to think about with quests, is not to limit yourself to one user - many time quests.

Why not set up the game so it has a whole bunch of -really- hard quests, that once thier done, cannot be repeated, unless certain terms are met.

With a high enough complexity of quests like that, you could probably set up a system which will allow the players to direct the story of the world by thier own actions, something which is rather lacking in todays games, online and off.

Just a thought ^^ I still havent gotten -my- puter, so Im not doing much coding anymore.. but my designer skills are still in full swing ^_~

Elorien