Vapourware Thoughts on optional quest structure and journals?

[SniperHF]

So I'm working on my next Divinity mod and I'm not sure how to handle something.

I've got a scenario that's a bit of a Temple of Elemental Evil style situation where the party starts off in town before heading into a dungeon type place for most of the game. In the town there are 5 quests you can do and only 1 must be completed.

However you can still do the other 4 if you want. But I want the player to know that they can just hop skip and jump to the next area if they want after completing just the 1 quest.


My current plan is:
Each quest has an individual journal entry, and the journal entry closes once you complete that individual quest.

In addition to the 5 entries there is an overarching journal entry about moving on to the next area.

Once you complete a single quest, the other 4 quest logs will simply close despite being able to do those quests if you want. The rewards are minimal so there are no progression issues if you skip them. Then the overarching goal will update saying you can now complete that objective and move on to the next area.


Is this sound? or would it piss you off if your quest log closed on a quest you could still do?
Or am I being too heavy handed and should just let the player figure out if they need to do the other 4 optional ones?

The main reason I want to clearly indicate you can move on to the next area is the early quests are on the mundane side and I don't want people to dither around on it. (Remember ToEE)

Let's assume that making them less mundane is not an option at the moment.

Any thoughts?

 

[Infinitron]

Add a minor in-game disadvantage for not immediately going into the dungeon after finishing one quest.

 

[Space Insect]

Why do people need to do one quest before entering the dungeon? Is it just to get xp or something? Also, I would be against the quests closing in the journal. I don't know how the Divinity journal works, but are you able to put them in separate sections? Like the 5 quests in a "prologue" section and whatever other quests in a different section?

 

[SniperHF]

Why do people need to do one quest before entering the dungeon? Is it just to get xp or something?

You have to earn the right to enter a building, where an event happens and you end up going to the next chapter of sorts.

Like the 5 quests in a "prologue" section and whatever other quests in a different section?

That's more or less how I have it. Once you leave the starting town you can't go back so they all close for sure at that point. But also the way it is right now, I stop tracking progress of the other 4 optional quests once you complete one of them.


Basically a tl;dr version of my main question would be: How do I tell the player they should want to skip the other quests without beating them over the head with it.

'tron's Idea is a good one but I'd have to re-write a lot of stuff to make it fit.


The other idea I had was using the D:OS dual dialog system to have player 1 and 2 talk about what to do next.

 

[Space Insect]

What are the five different quests? Is there any way you could tie them together? Or you could have the dungeon open for only a certain amount of time in accordance with some astronomical phenomenon and start the open dungeon timer once the player completes the quest in a way to try to motivate them to go in while they still have a chance.

 

[Sitra Achara]

Introduce competing adventurers that threaten to loot the place before you do. Add a dialogue check to saddle them with the shitquests.

 

[DraQ]

Once your actual quest structure becomes subservient to how the journal works you fail at quest design.

 

[SniperHF]

Once your actual quest structure becomes subservient to how the journal works you fail at quest design.

But..It's not?

There are 5 quests, you only need to do one of them to progress the story. It can be any one of them. Once you complete one of them I want to inform the player that they can proceed and the quest log can help emphasize this point along with the dialogs which are already in. I don't see how this is subservient.

But you're probably just shitposting so

 

[NotAGolfer]

So you have to do one of them to earn the trust of the owner of that building you want to enter?
What exactly is the problem? You do the quest and then the questgiver or some other NPC tells you that you now are deemed worthy.

You should also mention that fact in the journal entries for the main quest of course.
But why should the player want to skip the other quests anyway? Are they that mundane? And even if they are, is the dialogue and story for each that trite so you really want to skip them?
I mean even a quest about rescuing a cat from a tree can be fun if done right.
Sounds like you created quests with Bethesda quality level and now you want to assure the player that he can skip that shit so he isn't pissed off too much.
Don't worry, players are used to boring fetch and kill quests, after DA:I there is no way it can get any worse, expectations are at an all time low.

 

[SniperHF]

So you have to do one of them to earn the trust of the owner of that building you want to enter?
What exactly is the problem? You do the quest and then the questgiver or some other NPC tells you that you now are deemed worthy.

Basically, and that's all implemented. I'm just trying to get some extra impressions/brainstorming on the concept of being shoveled along and how it's preferred to be handled.

With a few lines I could outright block the player from doing the other 4 quests but the reason I want to simultaneously keep them active and discourage their completion is for someone who just wants to do EVERYTHING. So my thought process was, if I remove the quest log entries for the other 4 quests you don't need to do but silently keep them active the person who is a completionist can still do them.

Going back and spicing up and even outright changing the quests later is on the table but I want the whole thing playable complete from beginning to end first. I'd say of the first 5 quests 2 of them outright suck, 1 is just boring, and 2 are good.

Sounds like you created quests with Bethesda quality level and now you want to assure the player that he can skip that shit so he isn't pissed off too much.

Indeed, but I also want to avoid irritating players who don't like being pushed along too forcefully.

Maybe think of it in survey form:
1. If I give you a quest and close the quest out without it actually being completed would that annoy you?
1A. Even if you could still do the quest would it annoy you?

2. Which method of being informed is preferable, assume I can't use gameplay impact due to story reasons:
A. A forced dialog right after completing one of the quests (think Div:OS Dual dialogs)
B. Passively through the journal. (keeping in mind that you were already told what to do in the intro)
C. Passively through NPC dialog (such as "what are you still doing here" type reactions)
D. Some combination or none?

3. Would you prefer to be spared the mundane stuff and have it outright blocked once it's not necessary?

 

[Space Insect]

1. Yes
1A. Yes
2. A and C sound the best, however, I am not familiar with how the D:OS forced dialogues works, so that could negate my answer.
3. I would say that you should just cut all of the quests except the 2 good ones. Quality over quantity, especially when the player has a 3/5 chance of getting a bad quest.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Or maybe make them more difficult to obtain, like using hidden starting conditions.
Or make some of them mutually exclusive for story reasons, like helping one guy pisses off the other but you only need one of them to get into the building.

Pacing is a huge problem in CRPGs, especially in AAA ones. Too many sidequests in a row and the player might lose interest in the main quest completely. There's another discussion about the quest structure in open world CRPGs going on right now and there are a lot of good thoughts in that thread.
Not necessarily by me though, I just ranted about the status quo including most of the classics and demanded novel level of writing quality, you know, with protagonists that are actually important parts of the narrative and have their own purpose and goals and are not just Nintendo Mario like cardboard characters whose only goal is to fix a broken gameworld piece by piece.
Which can be satisfying, sure, but not if you have to do it in every single game because the creators couldn't think of anything better than another static place lying in shambles waiting for the repair guy to show up. I mean I get it, a story about fixing things is easier to implement, you only need 2 static versions for every area, one with all those helpless NPCs crying for the repairman (and pretty much ignoring each other) and one where everything is done and everyone is happy. No need to bother with dynamic developments and how NPCs would react to them, just let us fix that broken thing and pay us with XP and loot. Quick and dirty, and everyone is happy.
I'm not though, not anymore.

So my main issue with most CRPGs isn't just about quest structure and how they are presented, it's the quests themselves and their compartmentalized implementation. There have to be more interdependencies at least. You can't be friends with everyone IRL, befriending some people pisses off others. And sometimes you have to mind your own business or risk aggravating someone. Or you mean well but thanks to cultural differences you still manage to insult the other party. Or there are rules and laws preventing you from doing what you think would be right.
So it shouldn't be obvious from the start which course of action would be most beneficial. And the more punishing outcomes should still open up other interesting narrative branches and don't lead the player into a dead-end (unless he asked for it of course, there are questionalbe decisions and there are outright dumb decisions), because then everyone would just reload and curse the designer for forcing them to go through the same shit twice.

Or time-sensitive quests. Or ones where you have to choose which problem deserves more attention atm, shutting you off from the other one. Don't let NPCs stand around in stupid bars waiting for the player to interview them, let them come to the player (has the nice side effect that now you actually have to think about a plausible reason for an NPC to pester the player char with his problems) and let him decide which quest he wants to do. If he chooses one that needs immediate attention and then another NPC asks for help in a just as pressing matter then force him to make a decision.
Quest journals with a dozen open quests are cancer, one at a time should be enough, in addition to the overarching goal the player char pursuits of course. Which should always be kept in mind when creating those sidequests, would be great if the main goal would be one that has potential to conflict with a lot of possible side quest goals too.