Q Quest Mechanics Introduction / Discussion

[Red Flag]

So, you want to start a Quest. Great, but what is a Quest? It is a type of forum game, but forum games come in many types, in which case we might want to make a classification system for them.

Forum games differ from pure fics by the exchange and interaction between players and the GM, with each controlling some portion of the progression. Forum games can be drawn up along lines of the three general properties of "GM Determinant", "Player Agency", "Player Persistence".

- GM Determinant: GM determines outcomes of player-submitted actions. If the GM is also a player, they may arbitrate for their own actions, or there may be multiple GMs who do this for each other in order to guard against self-bias. In the absence of this, players determine the outcomes of their own actions, either independently or collectively.
- Player Agency: Players each control their own entity, and determine courses of action independently of others. In the absence of this, players collectively decide on a course of action, generally by voting.
- Player Persistence: There is a persistent list of players whose assets are independently tracked over time. In the absence of this, the player roster is a fluid pool that players may freely join, leave, or rejoin at will.

GM Determinant, Player Agency, Player Persistence = Roleplays / RPs.

GM Determinant, Player Agency, Player Persistence = Quests. <=========== We're talking 'bout this one.

GM Determinant, Player Agency, Player Persistence = Some Avatar Games, CrW Community Loops / CYOAs?
GM Determinant, Player Agency, Player Persistence = Story Debates / SDs / GM-less RPs.
GM Determinant, Player Agency, Player Persistence = What Ifs.

And thus, a Quest is a game where the GM determines outcomes, players collectively decide on actions (by voting), and players are free to come and go at any time.

Some of this stuff will become important later with regards to how mechanics interact with player psychology.

Now Quests often involve stories, but they are also games, which means they are rules-based with implicit or explicit goals that one can succeed or win at. They are an exchange between the players and the GM(s), and the realization of player input separates them from the threads that belong in CrW. This means that to a greater or lesser extent, Quests will involve mechanics. Mechanics also includes things like stats and resources.

---​

Why Mechanics Can be Good:

- Consistency: How does the GM know whether the Sword of a Thousand Clucks will be enough to kill Dark Lord EdgyMcBadass? That's where mechanics can come in. If we know that the sword deals one thousand KiloChickens of damage on a hit (it's in the name), and the Dark Lord is only tough enough to endure five hundred KiloChickens, then he best make sure he doesn't get hit or else. By laying out a clear process by which A resolves into B, mechanics provide consistency. A GM whose narrative resolutions produce wildly inconsistent results may find that having a set of mechanics to reference will serve them better.

- Communication: The player character meets up with a vendor, who offers them a choice between a Ronald Raygun and an Excalibat. How can the players figure out which one is the better choice? Well, by looking at the provided stats of these weapons, the players can see that the Ronald Raygun is highly effective at vaporizing the Giant DemoCrabs of the Horsehead Nebula, while the Excalibat requires its Avalonke duffel bag to be found before it can provide the wielder with resistance against ball-based concussions. This will help them determine which one they want, and what their future actions should be. An informed choice is more likely to be a good choice.

- Thematics: By providing consistently unequal mechanical rewards for different flavors of action, the GM can railroad **AHEM!!** politely encourage players in a perfectly fair and reasonable manner to move along certain courses of action that may be more favorable to the game's themes. A pertinent example from my own experience:

Innocent Newbie: You WotK players are horrible! Why did you kill and enslave over one quadrillion intelligent beings?
WotK Player #1: **Points to loot, bonus income, tech obtained from killing and enslaving over one quadrillion intelligent beings**
WotK Player #2: **Points to mechanical consequences that will be meted during periods of insufficient killing and enslaving** /discussion.

More on this later in the section about Evocative, Simulationist and Flexible mechanics.

---​

Why Mechanics Can be Bad:

- Work: If every time the player character attacks, you need to roll five different-sized dice, put them in order from smallest to largest, and do a backflip whenever any two consecutive digits form a two-digit prime number, that increases the amount of work needed to resolve this attack. Narrative resolution can in theory be done with no more than a thought, while mechanics create a floor / minimum on how much work needs to be done to resolve a given action.

- Work (Again): If the players need to keep track of water, essential amino acids, vaccinations, candy consistency, joy, honk levels, and joyness, this increases the amount of work that the players have to do in order to decide how many emu-powered treadmill reactors they want to build. This can drive players away, reduce the number of able participants, and generally be a drag on the game.

- Inflexibility: Arbitrary / narrative resolution is limited only by the GM's imagination. Mechanics are mechanical, i.e. rigid. Mechanics can fail to describe a situation, leaving the thread's participants high and dry. They can resolve a situation improperly, giving results that are not in line with expectations. The game setting's conditions can change, leaving the previous set of mechanics inadequate to deal with the new state of things.

---​

From this we very vaguely conclude that the correct amount of mechanics for a game is as few as possible, but as many as needed. Every time you consider adding mechanics, ask yourself if you really need this, and whether the payoff will be worth the costs.

This gets us to that if there is one takeaway from all this, it is that mechanics serve the narrative, and the needs of the narrative dictate the degree and nature of the game's mechanization. Mechanics that are standing on their own should be kicked over the cliff, because they are a waste of effort.

Crap, that was a lot more than one.

More to come later, and feel free to ask questions or drop your own insights into here. Next topic that I'll write about will be chargen.

 

[Red Flag]

Then i'm not sure what. Like what's the first thing they should do and how? Should I focus more on writing than making rolls?

Click to shrink...

So you've started a quest (or maybe you haven't). That's terrific, but what is the first thing you should be doing now?

Well, most traditional narrative act structures start with some sort of exposition act, and in a game with rules and goals and playable actors we naturally want to find out what we're playing, what we need to do to win and get shinies, and what toys we have to play with. And thus, we come to...

- CHARGEN -​

*'Chargen' will also be used to refer to games where the players control a faction. Not responsible if said faction does not contain individual characters. No purchase necessary. Use only in a well-ventilated area.

Chargen, short for character generation, is the phase in the game when the players find out who or what they are playing as, along with some basic background information. While the characters and setting will continue to be developed as the game goes on, chargen can be considered to end once the players have a basic grasp of who they are, along with some goals to pursue, whether immediate or indefinite.

Chargen isn't all sunshine and rainbows though. I would actually say it's the most dangerous phase of a budding quest, like a baby that can get hurt if it's just held a little wrong. Player attachment is tenuous, while conversely the decisions they must make are some of the most important and game-changing in the entire game. So to navigate this, I'll be writing in a mostly reductive style, laying out the various pitfalls and how to navigate them and hopefully leaving something at the end.

---​

The Problem of Attachment: As noted above in forum game categorizations, players have no individual agency in a quest. An RP has much more leeway to make players jump through hoops in making their characters / factions; this is because said character / faction is theirs, and no one else's. A quest player has to share their toy with who knows how many others, and consequently, their attachment to the quest is much weaker. It can grow stronger later, to the point where players will be waiting for resumption even after the quest has gone silent for months, but we're in chargen here so it's best not to expect too much. This can be somewhat alleviated if the quest is based on a known and / or well-liked setting, or the GM is well known; that tie to the setting or trust in that poster creates attachment. Original settings and new GMs are in the most danger from this.

A quest can lose players if chargen is too complex. Having to choose between five different sets of options in a single post is a lot of work for somebody who just doesn't care that much. This encourages marginally interested players to stay silent, and maybe check back later to see if somebody else has come up with a combination that they like. Options that don't matter, like choosing how long the main character's left big toenail is, will also encourage silence because players don't feel like putting in the effort to vote for this unimportant matter.

A quest can lose players if the options are too divisive. One may think that providing highly varied options or extremely detailed write-ups for every option is a good idea, but this is not necessarily so! Now this may seem at odds with my first statement about making players vote on things that don't matter, but just because thirst is bad, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to chug on a fire hose. Players who grow very attached to Baron Manperson von Randombum may not want to play as Demon Clown King BoogaWooga and his Legion of the Red Noses. A player whose attachment to a losing option - or disenchantment with the winning one - is greater than their attachment to the game as a whole will leave.

A quest can lose players if the options are too risky. Choices made during chargen are some of the highest impact decisions of the entire game, while the players are at their most uninformed. It is recommended to make an effort to be transparent, and to make options appear to be mostly positive. Flaws and drawbacks should be mixed with or placed alongside positive benefits, so as to seemingly dilute their impact.

And lastly, and possibly worst of all, the players may go all in with great enthusiasm... and choose an option or combination thereof that the GM doesn't want to run. This will probably result in the imminent death of the quest; either the GM loses interest, or the GM retracts and loses the tenuous trust of the players.

---​

"Red Flag," you say. "You're just constant total downer huh, waving the red flag on this and that."

There are solutions though, and we will work in reverse order because that is the easiest.

The solution to players jumping off the cliff with chargen is obvious; don't make any options that you wouldn't be happy to run. Done. This segues into number two...

Which is to soften the blow of the loss. If the players are having a hard time choosing between the Bellybutton Ring of Feather Finding and the Contact Lens of Lint Picking, the fact that the losing choice can be obtained later will somewhat placate those who didn't get what they wanted today. If Demon Clown BoogaWooga works as a jester in the court of Baron Manperson, either one winning will still allow the other to be interacted with as an NPC. Not providing too much detail will also reduce the likelihood of developing overly strong attachments to a single option.

And lastly, instead of having five blocks of choices in a single post, one can break this up into multiple posts. This comes with its own risk of experiencing a gradual shedding, but can be more easily cushioned by the use of...

A hook!



No, not that kind of hook, but a story hook. An intriguing write-up that grabs player attention and makes them want to find out what happens next will mean that fewer are likely to leave in the face of chargen disappointments. A good hook may build up some of the setting, so that the players know what to expect next; establish some characters who the players want to keep following; or show some action to dazzle players with some flash and fire. An active scene probably works better for this than narrative summary. Evoke some emotions, and give the players something to look forward to. A strong hook will also continue to gather players as the game runs, as new players come in to have a look and are seized by this amazing opening piece.

Spreading vote options over multiple posts allows one to keep feeding the players additional hooks in between votes, or even do so while structuring the chargen in such a way that it is a series of in-character decisions that set up the premise rather than arbitrary choices.

Cpl_Facehugger 's Luv & Hate is an example of a quest with a strong opening hook. It breaks the advice a bit on option multiplicity and softening losses, but by immediately establishing the setting and supplying some characters for the players to get attached to, the hook has grabbed the players so tightly that it doesn't even matter. Everyone was so eager to find out what will happen next, that no one was willing to drop the game because they were sore about the victory of Colonel Michael Steele who eez Le Tired over Colonel William Steele the Gallantly Scared of Dying to an Alien Space Bomb.

In conclusion, we go back to what the first post said about mechanics in general. Make chargen be only as long and involved as you need, but as little as possible, with an addendum to use hooks to guard it as much as possible. Anything that can be determined by the GM with little consequence, should be so.

Hmmm, what do we wanna do next...

 

[CrossyCross]

- Thematics: By providing unequal mechanical rewards for different courses of action, the GM can railroad **AHEM!!** politely encourage players in a perfectly fair and reasonable manner to move along certain courses of action that may be more favorable to the game's themes. A pertinent example from my own experience:

Bambi-Eyed Newbie: You WotK players are horrible! Why did you kill and enslave over one quadrillion intelligent beings?
WotK Players: **Points to loot, bonus income, tech obtained from killing and enslaving over one quadrillion intelligent beings** /discussion.

Click to shrink...

I'm just gonna say I really approve of this factor.

Having a set atmosphere from the get-go (and having mechanics/concepts/setting/etc. that reinforces said atmosphere) is a good thing, as it puts your players into the right frame of mind to really get into the personality of what they're playing, and that makes them invest in the quest more.

If you're playing a monster faction, make it feel like a monster faction that encourages acting like a monster. Similar if you're going with a Lawful Good paladin archetype who is truly supposed to be a paragon of virtue. Even if you make the path for the latter difficult due to an 'imperfect world', there's got to be something in place that makes the players want to go "yeah, we're gonna keep pulling this act straight".


While I don't advice monofocusing on it, some quests can get by practically on pure atmosphere due to how much their players get invested and hooked into the mindset.

A quest can lose players if chargen is too complex. Having to choose between five different sets of options in a single post is a lot of work for somebody who just doesn't care that much. This encourages marginally interested players to stay silent, and maybe check back later to see if somebody else has come up with something they like. Options that don't matter, like choosing how long the main character's left big toenail is, will also encourage silence because players don't feel like putting in the effort to vote for this unimportant matter.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this is another thing. Keep chargen simple. Unless you're a big name GM with a lot of supporters and/or making use of a major fandom with lots of fans, best to keep chargen simple.

Some people make this giant list of "pick traits you want limited by game points, make a plan!" and those things are honestly kind of terrible. Personally, I suggest that even if you do that, you should already make a bunch of pre-made combinations that people can vote for immediately, rather than wrack their brains trying to make a combination. NOt only does the premade give something to vote for with the ones who have minimal investment and effort, but it also gives an idea for the plan-makers on what kind of setup they should follow.

But otherwise, I feel it's better to keep chargen short and simple, with only the most major traits coming up in a vote. Or heck, already have the protagonist mostly made, with said major traits as votes that affect backstory or something.

It varies, but the basic idea is to keep it simple dear god, because most of your initial players will be random people just passing by. They get more invested and thus more willing to make complicated decisions that require thinking later, but not at the start.

 

[Red Flag]

Some people make this giant list of "pick traits you want limited by game points, make a plan!" and those things are honestly kind of terrible. Personally, I suggest that even if you do that, you should already make a bunch of pre-made combinations that people can vote for immediately, rather than wrack their brains trying to make a combination. NOt only does the premade give something to vote for with the ones who have minimal investment and effort, but it also gives an idea for the plan-makers on what kind of setup they should follow.

Click to shrink...

Ahh yes, pre-made vs write-ins. I'll do that in detail when we get to Elitism vs Populism.

 

[NuclearConsensus]

As a potential QM currently in the middle of writing up their first quest, this is a godsend. Mechanics is something I've been stuck on a while, since I can't decide between using or not using them. Having something like this thread to lay out all the pros and cons will be a great help, so thank you Red Flag!

As a long-time quester (sort of), I have to say that this part:

A quest can lose players if chargen is too complex. Having to choose between five different sets of options in a single post is a lot of work for somebody who just doesn't care that much. This encourages marginally interested players to stay silent, and maybe check back later to see if somebody else has come up with a combination that they like. Options that don't matter, like choosing how long the main character's left big toenail is, will also encourage silence because players don't feel like putting in the effort to vote for this unimportant matter.

A quest can lose players if the options are too divisive. One may think that providing extremely different options or highly detailed write-ups for every option is a good idea, but this is not necessarily so! Now this may seem at odds with my first statement about making players vote on things that don't matter, but the other extreme is not very good either. Players who grow very attached to Baron Manperson von Randombum may not want to play as Demon Clown King BoogaWooga and his Legion of the Red Noses. A player whose attachment to a losing option - or disenchantment with the winning one - is greater than their attachment to the game as a whole will leave.

Click to shrink...

is quite spot on. I have both witnessed and experienced these two conditions.

I'm really looking forward to the next parts!

 

[Red Flag]

I'll do a shorter part for now that gives some examples, on an easy way to hitch mechanics to the narrative.

I like to divide both mechanics and quest attention in general into three parts: action, interaction, and economy. Action refers to combat, whether personal or factional. Interaction refers to dealing with other people, whether this is politics, romance, friendship, family, whatever. Economy refers to finances, both personal and factional.

Some quests may do well to place a high emphasis on all three aspects, but I prefer to order them from most important to least. Choose one to be the primary; this gets the majority of the attention and mechanical detail. The secondary gets a moderate amount of attention and detail, but even that is generally framed around the first. The tertiary is basically tossed into the bin and given an occasional glance now and then, and always through the lens of the primary and secondary.

Now for some examples that I know:

- Facehugger's Luv & Hate referenced earlier is a Supreme Commander / Muvluv crossover where players generally control a single character (albeit with significant influence on others), who is trying to fix up a terrible situation. Its themes include forgiveness / repentance for past horrible actions, helping people out of the pit they dug themselves into, and the Power of Love! We would expect to find that this game devotes its primary slot to interactions, and this is the case, with >85% of the text dealing with that politics, romance, friendship and mentoring. Screwing up in this arena has serious consequences.

Action gets the secondary, as it is also a war story, with a clusterfuck of a military-political situation between the factions of its two settings. However, combat is always related back to interactions: how this will affect the political situation, how it will make this or that person feel, etc. Supcom nanolathing tech creates a post-scarcity economy, and as a result economy is mentioned only very occasionally, with characters coming with levels of eco-management competence that auto-resolve this. And when econ does get the occasional spotlight, it is always about things like helping refugees (interaction), or outbuilding the enemy in battle.

- War of the Krork is a game about the destruction of the Warhammer 40k galaxy. Its themes include might makes right, the impossibility of coexisting with others who are different, and the difference between people - even terrible people - and monsters. Action is the primary focus, with the majority of its time being spent in battle or planning for battle, and the greater weight of its mechanics being devoted to communicating the nuances of combat to the players. Economy is the secondary focus, but no economic activity exists to stand on its own; all economic activity is devoted to feeding the war machine. What passes for interactions in that game consist entirely of one-liners and gunboat Death Star diplomacy, with simple yes / no votes on the rare cases where player input is needed.

In general I find putting interactions last is the most out there prioritization scheme, since it results in player entities that just build up power in isolation, and then suddenly exert their influence on the setting once they have enough. But anyway, by letting the themes and story dictate which aspect gets more or less attention, this is an easy way to start pinning the mechanics to the needs of the narrative.

 

[Red Flag]

Okay, by now I'm sure you've started your quest right? You've got chargen all laid out, which paths each option will go on, and made sure to avoid or cushion against the pitfalls that can sink a game before it gets much of anywhere. But wait a minute! OP you useless git, all you've done is make some vague noises about how much or how little mechanics to make, and said nothing about what kind of mechanics would serve best!

Okay okay, stop shouting, I'm going already. In that case, that brings us to...

- Mechanical Principles -​

I like to tint mechanics along the lines of three principles: evocative, simulationist, and flexible.

---​

- Evocative: Evocative mechanics tie into / encourage / promote the game's theme. Typically this is done by automatically giving greater / unique rewards or better outcomes for actions that follow the theme, creating an 'atmosphere' where the players naturally want to follow the theme. Evocative mechanics are good at the thematic strength under reasons to have mechanics.

There is the danger of this being taken too far however. If the rewards / outcomes are too great / good, then all challenge and uncertainty can be lost. The players will cotton on to the fact that mindlessly clinging to the theme will always get them favorable results.

The ur-example of Evocative mechanics is the Honor / Renown / Fame system of A Knight's Quest by KnightErrant . The players can increase their scores in these attributes by behaving honorably / honestly, standing up for those who are unable to defend themselves, and fighting evil and corruption wherever they find it. Conversely, bad or passive behavior will lower these scores. High scores shift NPC opinions and may even provide supernatural benefits. Implementation of this system has successfully created an attitude among the players that 'honor is all, chivalry is all', which is exactly what the game's thematics were asking for.

---​

- Simulationist: Simulationist mechanics describe the world / setting of the quest in great detail. This can be character stats and relationships, military strength, economic factors, political divisions, whatever. Simulationist mechanics can be good at the consistency / communication strengths under reasons to have mechanics.

The risk inherent in this principle is the desire to add too much detail, and thus even when we want to run a simulationist game, we should always keep to the first rule of 'as much as you need, but as few as possible'.

A quintessential example of Simulationist mechanics comes from the Warhammer Dynasty quest by Gaius Marius , which has spawned countless imitators and variants across the forum. It features detailed lists of character stats such as diplomacy, stewardship, and fertility with mechanics for inheritance, alongside attributes for the state such as military might, economic income and strength, and public opinion.

---​

- Flexible: Flexible mechanics are just that, mechanics that can be applied to many types of games. Of course, even very flexible mechanics cannot be applied to everything; mechanics flexible enough to run all sorts of nation games are still useless if we want to run a murderhobo game instead. Typically being able to spread across a single control style (control single character vs control faction) or whatever is good enough to merit the flexible label, and flexibility does not in and of itself carry many traits, but is colored by which other one it combines with. Flexible mechanics tend to alleviate the problems with mechanics a bit.

An example of Flexible mechanics is the AGG system by Sage_Of_Eyes , which is run across multiple games with AGG: Eastern Rhapsody being the earliest example I can find of the system in its modern form. Skills can easily be tweaked to fit whatever a game needs, and perks and traits can then follow to almost any effect.

---​

It is probably impossible to make a mechanics set that is simultaneously evocative, simulationist, and flexible to a high degree. If such a thing did exist, it would be the perfect system for almost any kind of game, and everybody would probably know about this miracle system in short order. Since nobody knows about anything like this, I think it's safe to say that it cannot be done with our current understanding. At best, it seems only possible to have two principles at a high level, or to have some frankenstein thing where bits and pieces of the mechanics are this or that, but not the whole thing.

Evocative + Simulationist: Caters to the game's themes, and does so in great amounts of mechanical detail, making this combination capable of nailing the players to said themes very quickly. However, by attempting to be both thematic and detailed, this style is left in a state that is rather rigid, and can smash head first into a wall when it meets unplanned tone shifts. May require the GM to frequently rework it if the tone, the setting, or the scale of the situation changes.
- Forum Example: A Knight's Quest.
- Outside Example: Exalted.

Simulationist + Flexible: Provides a great amount of detail, but in a generic manner that allows it to be applied to many genres. Adaptable, yet communicative. Its generic-ness means that it does not cater to the theme, and thus a game running this style will rely on the GM to fill in for this via narrative input. The easiest style to run in my opinion, with the most readily alleviated drawback, and therefore this one comes most highly recommended for newcomers.
- Forum Example: AGG: Rise.
- Outside Example: Dungeons & Dragons 3e.

Evocative + Flexible: Caters to the game's themes, using un-detailed resolutions that do not have much in the way of underlying gears and switches. This combination is the most narrative focused, and can edge into the territory of fanfics. Can have trouble communicating outcomes and reinforcing input -> output between the GM and players. As thematic adherence must be correlated with success to some degree in evocative mechanics, this type may put more pressure on the GM's writing ability in order to successfully convey the themes without mechanical assistance.
- Forum Example: Luv & Hate.
- Outside Example: Visual Novels.

 

[KnightErrant]

I am legitimately humbled, and honoured, to have my quest be used as an example.

 

[Red Flag]

I am legitimately humbled, and honoured, to have my quest be used as an example.

Click to shrink...

I haven't forgotten you poking me five and a half years ago about how you were able to get SBers to behave honorably and chivalrously . It is also likely that Knight's Quest is the first example of an evocative quest on SB, coming in just one year after the start of the first modern-format quest on the entire forum (which is Ankoquest). There was no question who the model had to be for that one.

 

[Talkkno]

I haven't forgotten you poking me five and a half years ago about how you were able to get SBers to behave honorably and chivalrously . It is also likely that Knight's Quest is the first example of an evocative quest on SB, coming in just one year after the first modern-format quest on the entire forum (which is Ankoquest). There was no question who the model had to be for that one.

Click to shrink...

The the thing is, IMO KQ had had a thing of players acting that way even when the mechanical incentives of shinies weren't even there, it had become habituated.

 

[Red Flag]

The the thing is, IMO KQ had had a thing of players acting that way even when the mechanical incentives of shinies weren't even there, it had become habituated.

Click to shrink...

The mechanical incentives were there from the start.

 

[Talkkno]

The mechanical incentives were there from the start.

Click to shrink...

I meant it by the other way around; once it had been habituated, the mechanical shinies were no longer as necessary to compel said course of action.

 

[Red Flag]

I meant it by the other way around; once it had been habituated, the mechanical shinies were no longer as necessary to compel said course of action.

Click to shrink...

Last instance was about 2 months and 17 updates before the second and final game completed. Basically, mechanical reinforcement only went away during the final sprint to the home stretch, because there is no need to reward you with more shinies once you've won the game. So what are you getting at here?

 

[Talkkno]

Latest instance was about 2 months and 17 updates before the second and final game completed, basically meaning that evocative reinforcement only went away during the final sprint to the home stretch, because there is no need to reward you with more shinies once you've won the game. So... what are you getting at here?

Click to shrink...

Nevermind, I never read the second game, i was just throwing out my thoughts out there.

 

[Red Flag]

Nevermind, I never read the second game, i was just throwing out my thoughts out there.

Click to shrink...

Oh I see, you're trying to state that this is possible. You're right, this is definitely possible, just KQ is a bad example. In a game that's low on the simulationist element, it can be unclear for long stretches of time exactly how much benefit the mechanical reinforcement is bringing. Some games may go long periods of time where the reinforcing element is absent, perhaps for plot reasons. L&H demonstrates both.

 

[Addemup]

Is this the thread to ask for constructive criticism on ongoing quests?

If so, I was wondering if there's anything wrong with this quest I'm currently managing.

There might be nothing wrong with it at all, but I primarily fear there could be too much chargen options.

 

[Red Flag]

Is this the thread to ask for constructive criticism on ongoing quests?

If so, I was wondering if there's anything wrong with this quest I'm currently managing.

There might be nothing wrong with it at all, but I primarily fear there could be too much chargen options.

Click to shrink...

The staff gave leave for something like this too, yeah. I was gonna make another thread for it, but forget that, since we already have too many stickies and we haven't finalized the plan to condense them yet. Let's just do it here then.

By too many option sets, I'm generally talking about something like this:

Set 1:
[ ] A.
[ ] B.
[ ] C.

Set 2:
[ ] @.
[ ] #.
[ ] $.

Set 3:...

Set 4:...

And so on. Now not only do the players have to pick what they think is the best one from each, they also have to consider which one from each set combines best with the other ones. That's a lot of thinking to do all at once for a bunch of posters who have no investment. Thankfully, you do not appear to have this. Your second chargen does have a lot of options, which can be a sort of problem in that giving the players too many rabbits to chase can result in no one option winning a clear majority, only a slim plurality that might be unsatisfying to the others.

I believe you are facing potential issues with divisiveness: female being hard mode might be a point of fracture between those players who want hard mode and those who don't. Even if it is harder, you don't have to tell them that. None of your posts have any sort of hook, which can be dangerous since what you are running is a mod of a video game, i.e. smaller automatic audience than said video game itself.

You also launched your second chargen post kinda soon don't you think? It wasn't even 2 hours after your OP. This can also be a point of dissatisfaction, particularly with the divisiveness issue if players have strong feelings about the first vote, and feel like they didn't get a chance to influence it.

 

[Addemup]

I believe you are facing potential issues with divisiveness: female being hard mode might be a point of fracture between those who want hard mode and those who don't. None of your posts have any sort of hook. You also launched your second chargen post kinda soon don't you think? It wasn't even 2 hours after your OP.

Click to shrink...

Those are all very good points.

I'm not too worried about female being hard mode resulting in a deep division. I personally doubt it will happen, but I'll try and be careful about it anyways.

For the second part of chargen being very soon after the OP, that's primarily because I'm impatient.

And finally, I honestly couldn't think of a good hook for the story. I'm alright with writing, but I still have some trouble coming up with stuff.

 

[sioduskseeker]

First time poster, long time lurker here. I've got a RWBY/elements of various other fandoms quest that I've been working on for a few months, and the doc I've got for it is about 35 pages long right now (the majority of which is a test combat and enemy char sheets, though I do have a semi-complete first post).

My question is basically this: how much of the mechanics do most QMs develop for a quest before publishing it, and how much do they sort of work on on the fly? I can't decide whether what I've got down is overkill or massively less than what I need.

Also, let me know if this isn't the right place for this question.

 

[Red Flag]

My question is basically this: how much of the mechanics do most QMs develop for a quest before publishing it, and how much do they sort of work on on the fly? I can't decide whether what I've got down is overkill or massively less than what I need.

Click to shrink...

This will vary a lot, and I can't claim to speak for other QMs because everyone has preferences. But some questions we might ask are which of the principles do you intend to use? Do you plot out all the thematics / storylines / whatever ahead of time, or do you just set up a premise and run with it?

I always run Evocative + Simulationist (which is why I placed it first, favoritism!), and I plot out thematics and all the bones of the story before I begin. As a result, my planning looks like what you describe; a few months of system building, testing expected end-game interactions, and so and such. This still does not deliver perfection, because no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, so expect to do work on the fly no matter how much you prep.

On the other hand if your degree of mechanization is lighter, or your plot has more wiggle room, then so much prep could actually be counterproductive. If the mechanics are too detailed and hits a major snag, and you are forced to cut out large parts of it, this could deprive the players of their sense of accomplishment which they'd been getting from the system reports.

 

[Raguna Blade]

the correct amount of mechanics for a game is as few as possible, but as many as needed.

Click to shrink...

I realize the answer is probably it depends/you're just gonna have to try it and see since it is a game design question, but I'd kick myself for not asking if there was a legit answer...So are there any hard and fast rules for judging the correct amount of mechanics for a given game? Even if only in the sense of ballparking it so you're not way over/under shooting it?

My best guess says at most as many as you have things to actually track, and as few as you could roughly separate but that feels needlessly vague, and could vary ridiculously even within mechanical genre to say nothing of narrative.

 

[Red Flag]

I realize the answer is probably it depends/you're just gonna have to try it and see since it is a game design question, but I'd kick myself for not asking if there was a legit answer...So are there any hard and fast rules for judging the correct amount of mechanics for a given game? Even if only in the sense of ballparking it so you're not way over/under shooting it?

My best guess says at most as many as you have things to actually track, and as few as you could roughly separate but that feels needlessly vague, and could vary ridiculously even within mechanical genre to say nothing of narrative.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, if any of these exist, I have no idea what they are. Might be in the same group as the mythical mechanics that are simultaneously evocative, simulationist and flexible.

A reductionist strategy might be a way to chisel something down to the essentials. Make your mechanics, then start cutting and merging parts that are not needed.

 

[Red Flag]

By now your quest must be well underway. Chargen is done, the mechanical foundation is laid, and now we approach the actual substance of the matter. Finally! Yes, it is time to talk about...

- Vote Structure -​

Vote structure you say? Why do we need to work on vote structure? Why can't we just slap on a "[ ] Write-in" at the end of every votable post and call it a day?

Ah, but here we are with the problem of investment again. RP players are pretty much always working on the equivalent of write-ins, but in most quests players are coming with much less investment, and also much less consistency. RP players are responsible for themselves; Quest players face the judgement of their peers - and ensuing fear of shame - should they come up with a bad write-up. Since everyone shares the same toys, one person breaking said toys breaks them for everyone. Quest players have far less control over their circumstances, which creates inconsistency in plan quality if there are no guidelines. These two compound together to such a degree that I would go so far as to say that pure write-ins are never recommended.

In a quest, unlimited freedom is both risky and stifling.

As a matter of fact, write-ins are not even remotely mandatory. It is entirely feasible for the GM to simply provide a list of pre-generated options, that the players must choose from. There isn't much to go over with regard to that, so I'll continue on about how to reduce the risks of write-ins. And in the case that write-ins are used, some sort of structure must still be provided.

One way to do this is to have the write-in option appear alongside a list of pre-generated ones, none of which should be trap options. This allows risk averse players to choose a decent option, and gives the more ambitious ones some sort of foundation with which to construct a custom-build.

Another is to use a "building block" format, where the players are given several option sets, with the goal of creating a good outcome by choosing one from each. Let's have an example of the latter about the subject of choosing a balanced and nutritious breakfast:

Pastries:
- [ ] Eat a donut.
- [ ] Eat a croissant.
- [ ] Eat a cupcake.
- [ ] Eat a bowl of cereal.

Drink:
- [ ] Drink water.
- [ ] Drink milk.
- [ ] Drink orange juice.
- [ ] Drink coffee.

If the players of this breakfast game realize that milk and cereal combine to grant a +50% bonus to nuggets because the textured carbohydrates in the cereal react with the consistency of milk to produce a unique phase-space interaction, then they may decide that that is the combination they want if they know that Dark Lord McEdgyBadass can be defeated by putting nuggets in his socks.

This second method can be riskier, just as it was risky to do this in chargen, if there are many categories to select from. While it's not as bad to do this here as it is in chargen, since very few story votes will be as critical and impactful as chargen, it can still scare away players who do not want to think over large numbers of potential permutations. New GMs who want to structure votes in building-block format may be advised to put it off for a little while, or to ease players into it gradually with fewer categories at first, or to offer some pre-made options constructed from said building blocks.

Finally, what appears to be a pure write-in can in fact derive from a list of options contained somewhere else. If your civilization game asks for a [ ] Write-in Construction, but the only buildings you've unlocked are outhouses, strip clubs, and internet cafes, then naturally this isn't an actual case of scary unlimited freedom.

All this talk about vote structure will also affect another aspect of the quest, which I'll just do right here instead of making a new post for.​

- Participation Style -​

As already elaborated, the way votes are structured has an effect on players. Players want to feel like they can contribute to the progression of a game, but how that manifests will differ from player to player. Assuming we didn't bungle things completely and we've got a stable playerbase, I've identified two different participation styles that the votes (and systems) can engineer.
​

---​

- Elitist: An elitist participation style views the game as a puzzle to be solved. The goal of the players in an elitist game is to outplay the setting to reach their goals, and the goal of the mechanics is to give them the tools to do so. Elitist games come with the implicit assumption that the players can sometimes come up with ideas that are better than anything that the GM thought of.

Elitist games require systems that are consistent, to give the players the best chance of consistently identifying ideal input-output outcomes. Elitist systems should be somewhat transparent, so that the players may be able to make visual inspections of the underlying processes to decide what the best choices are. Elitist games must establish a clear understanding between the GM and the players regarding what actions will be done automatically, and what must be elaborated on by the players. Extreme cases may create setups where the GM must play the exact same system as the players, just on the opposing side, opening up the possibility that the GM may be directly outplayed by a skillful cadre.

Elitist games are more likely to have large number of options or use write-ins, the better to give the players freedom of choice to allow them to beat the game. Discussion in an elitist game carries no reward in-and-of-itself, but rather good discussion begets good action plans, begets good results. An elitist GM should be very prepared to answer questions and make clarifications relevant to the scenario presented in the update. Elitist systems may want to assemble some means of ensuring efficient construction of vote plans; such as perhaps requiring that plans be built out of a set number of blocks. This, and transparency and two-way understanding serve to ensure that the plans being made are not just overly long "shopping list" plans that attempt to cover every angle, but are actually better while remaining concise.

Elitist games have the downside of demanding relatively deeper understanding, which may be more effort than many players are willing to give to a Quest. Thus they tend to generate a small group of core players that contribute the majority of the planning (and thus content), as the transparent mechanics allow for quick identification of who knows what. Extreme cases may see the core players specializing into differing roles, as they each discover what they are best at, deferring to others in their fields of competence. In a way, this type of game can evolve somewhat toward an RP-like nature.
​

---​

- Populist: A populist participation style views the game as a story to be told. The goal of the players in a populist game is to nudge the story in the desired direction, and the goal of the mechanics is to increase player participation by lowering the bar of entry and raising accessibility, allowing a greater number of players to feel like they are contributing something measurable.

Voting is risky, and planmaking even moreso, so most methods of increasing player participation originate from outside these domains. For this to work, players must be given some way to generate a positive mechanical contribution while incurring a lower element of risk.

Offering omake bonuses with a minimum reward is one way to do this, as anyone can write an omake to earn this bonus. This also creates the possibility of some omakes being elevated to 'canon' status, nudging the story in a certain desired direction, while still managing to please the majority who are grateful to receive the bonus. Extreme cases may offer bonus for other forms of thread activity, such as discussions, posts, or even likes. Populist games are less likely to have write-ins, or at least more likely to limit write-ins to a small number of limited circumstances. It is much more acceptable to hide things from the players in a populist game, as this increases narrative surprise and non-voting inputs offer a different sort of consistency for the players to ride on.

Populist games tend to yield a high volume of discussion. Due to the vagaries introduced by non-voting bonuses, players are generally on a more equal footing, thus creating more of a tendency for the formation of voting blocs and politics. Extreme cases of populism can result in power inflation well beyond GM expectations, as this sort of thing is basically impossible to forecast ahead of time. Offering permanent bonuses / resources is more likely to result in this than temporary ones that last for one action or something.
​

---​

Elitist / Populist is not black and white, but rather a spectrum. Some games will lean more to one side, while others will tack more to the middle path. However, averages do not apply here, and it can be risky to try and run extreme cases of both in the same game. When both are run at the same time, populist tends to dominate elitist. Application of populism typically obscures the supposedly transparent elitist mechanics, making it difficult to identify optimal actions consistently when input-output gets nudged by the introduction of variable non-voting bonuses. In cases where some votes in a game are more elitist, while others are more populist, there is a strong tendency for the game's atmosphere in general to cleave toward one direction or another.

For those who really wish to blend both, it is possible, and to do so one must understand the motivations of both sides. Elitist players invest a lot of time into a game, and want to feel like their greater degree of investment is paying larger dividends. Populist players want to contribute something meaningful, but are more risk-averse, and do not want to accidentally stumble into an error that will destroy assets or cause them to be scorned by the rest of the thread.

Current theory is that a hybrid system should have the majority of its votes be accessible to the populists; low risk, pre-select, limited write-in. However, there should be regularly delivered decisions that are too in-depth for the populists to gain traction, creating a sort of "nature preserve" effect for the elitists to chew on. In particular, parts that have long-term effects, such as design or build segments, should favor the elitists. If outside factors such as fanwork bonuses are present, they must be very clear and limited in their effects, and the mechanics must be very transparent regarding what effect they have on the outcomes.

 

[MooGoesCow21]

Sounds like Paths of Civilization is a more extreme example of the Elitism style

 

[Red Flag]

Sounds like Paths of Civilization is a more extreme example of the Elitism style

Click to shrink...

Paths of Civilization manages to buck what I said and appears to be both to some degree. I'm told that while there is a tight core that eats the numbers and spits out the plans, the atmosphere of the thread is used to somewhat represent the general prevailing attitudes within their civilization, which can have effects on the narrative.

So I'd say that with PoC, elitism is stronger, but it's actually managed to incorporate some populist elements. I'm given to understand that thread noise doesn't affect the immediate outcome, but has influence on the aftermath, so it isn't a direct mechanical bonus. Quest players have somewhat limited control over the narrative anyway, so making the populist aspect narrative might be what mitigates the usual problem with combining.