Interesting. Funny, I was just thinking about quest givers and how to make them better, more dynamic and make it seem as a part of the world.

I'd love to see the NPC quest givers be more dynamic too. I think if the end game (end boss, foozle, etc.) was dynamically updated depending on how well you did on a quest (or even finished it successfully) it would make the game world seem more alive and dynamic. If you are doing well then it would appear as if the foozle was adjusting his plans for your foolish meddling. And, if you were doing poorly it might feel more as an epic struggle as the foozle gets more powerful. Be interesting to see NPC's quest change depending on how well you are doing and what the foozle is doing.

Interesting points and ideas that are easy to come by but implementing them is another story.
 

About the 'NPCs being quest dispensers' issue, I wonder, have you played Emily Short's IF games "Galatea" and the later (and much better-realized) "Alabaster"? I not, I would heartily recommend both... you're certain to get a huge kick out of them. Both easily google-able.

Now obviously I'd never pretend such a thing could ever be realistically incorporated fully into a CRPG's NPCs, but it's amazing to see what is possible, in theory.

Would be interesting to see an article on your thoughts about the viability for something like that in an actual game.
 

@Otto - I was gonna say that I'm not gonna tackle anything like this in Frayed Knights, but on a very small scale I have. I guess part of it comes down to a mentality - if you are designing a "quest" (and in a mainstream RPG, you have designers who are very specifically assigned to do just that), you handle things differently than if you are handling a mission / story that is fully integrated with the entire game. You start to think of a quest as being self-contained, and anything that is carried over into the rest of the game is usually in the form of a single token (item) or flag that is used only one other time as part of a "key" to progress further. Not all that exciting.

But if you think of it in terms of events - like, "Oh, man, I pissed off old lady Williams - now everything I do involving her from here on out is gonna get uncomfortable," then that changes things. It can potentially get a lot more complicated. But interesting.


@Harry - Yep, played them both. They were both very cool, but also very experimental. I haven't yet sussed out in my own brain how best to take advantage of that kind of thing for RPG NPCs. Those were very focused experiences, with a one-on-one dialog, and very little else you could interact with beyond a handful of props. Once you get a whole dynamic world all interacting with itself, what happens? Yeesh. I dunno!
 

I've considered how to do quests in my vintage CRPG... of course, I can always plead the excuse that I only have 32k of code space, so of COURSE it's not going to be super complex...

I got some ideas, though. I'd like to have actual consequences in game. For example, one quest would eventually lead to the destruction of one of the towns you were in. It's not a case of good or evil either...

I'm also, at this point, planning on having dynamic alteration of data while you play, which means on a vintage system, there is no going back and redoing things... I'm sure I'll hear some screaming about that, but frankly, I don't have the means to really backlog things, and I'll make sure there's nothing you can do that makes the game unplayable.

I think it fits for a vintage game too... whiny crybabies who want their saves! Can't roll with the punches, eh, wimp? This is old school gaming! :)
 

I'm too lazy to read through all the comments, so I don't know if this idea has been mentioned, but it occurred to me that if the game "branching" is done in multiple-choice dialogue format, one way to give variety to the player would be to mark which options they tried on a previous playthrough. So you finish the game once with a particular set of responses in dialogues, and the next time through, you can see which answers you've given in previous playthroughs. I'm sure I'll never get around to making a game that uses this, but I think it's an interesting idea.
 

Quest Dispenser Machines: Neverwinter Nights 2
NPCs done right: Oblivion

Besides of what you already stated, NPCs not providing any more interesting dialog after their quest is finished, I also dislike it of NPCs are nailed to the ground. This is why I like the AI engine in Oblivion/Fallout 3. NPCs all have their agenda. I think this is a great thing, puts a lot more life into a game.
 

I want consequences from my actions, but not subtle, long-term, unpredictable consequences. No, I want to make choices with a reasonable understanding of the likely results.

If I save a family from disaster, I want to return and see them rebuilding their home and business. I want to SEE that my heroic actions actually helped these people, and therefore helped their town,... and perhaps had other ramifications. (And if I joined in to murder them and steal their possessions, I want to see the results of that, too, in their more-fearful, less-prosperous community.)

But I don't want to discover, later on, that because I saved this family, their son grew up to become a serial killer. There's no way I could know or even guess that, so in such a game, where the consequences of my actions are completely unpredictable, I might as well just flip a coin to decide what to do. That would ruin the whole point of consequences.

Much as I enjoyed The Witcher, it was designed to be grim, no matter what you did. You couldn't make a really good decision, because all choices gave equally poor results. That was supposed to make the game "gritty," I guess. But to me, it meant that my decisions were meaningless.

If I want to play the good guy, as I usually do, then I want to have the opportunity to improve things in the gameworld (and to SEE the better results). And if I want to play more selfishly, or even evilly, then I want to see the results of that, too. (In general, I think that playing as an evil character should be MUCH harder, as the society becomes poorer, more fearful, more guarded, and with much less commerce. So, for example, the shops would have less to offer at higher prices, which is pretty much what you'd expect, don't you think? Playing as an evil character should be a real challenge in a game, not just an optional choice with no consequences whatsoever.)
 

In the VN/datesim world, one thing Jack and I have been making use of is to trade a bit of realism for clearer game mechanics, and putting in Reputation/Relationship displays so that the player can *see* when they've adjusted their status with a character and therefore get the idea that this changed status might mean something later.

In most such games you had to flail around a bit by feel (and Fatal Hearts still does this) - you can kind of tell from dialog that someone's mad at you or pleased with you but you can't see for sure if a variable has changed anywhere. This is realistic, but it makes people a bit more confused because they can't tell what choices 'matter' if they can't see the 'score', and so if they get stuck, they waste a lot of time poking at options that don't do anything. People seem to feel happier with visible results.
 

And yet there's a drive by many modern RPG designers to "hide the stats" to make the game more "immersive."
 

Quote: "...This is realistic, but it makes people a bit more confused because they can't tell what choices 'matter' if they can't see the 'score', and so if they get stuck, they waste a lot of time poking at options that don't do anything..."

Whether using "scores" or some other type of feedback, we can place the blame squarely on the game designer if the player gets confused. A well designed interface and gameplay should eliminate most if not all confusion.

For example, Fallout 3 doesn't display any discrete reputation value, but generally you know where you stand with NPCs by the way they respond. (Much like in real life, I might add.) I mean, if I'm running around killing everyone and stealing their stuff, I'm not like, "Why doesn't anyone like me? I'm so confused!" =)

And claiming that "scores" inherently reduce confusion, I disagree. I think perhaps there's some bias on your part, most likely created from past experience playing RPGs, i.e. you've played RPGs with numbers and that's what you expect to see. To an "RPG noob" showing scores may very well be just as confusing (or more so) as any other feedback mechanism.

And for those of us who prefer to put the emphasis on role playing rather than on game mechanics -- we may not be confused from seeing numbers everywhere, but we may likely be annoyed. =P


Regarding quest dispensers -- certainly they can be far more creative! I've become rather tired of how quests are handled in the current crop of RPGs. Here are a few concepts I've considered (particularly with MMOs in mind). None are terribly complex from a design or programming point of view:

* Multiple dynamic quests from a single NPC; specifically, quests aren't a one-time thing (or a "daily"); they should change based on outside influences. For example, it makes more sense for a cook to give the "Bring me 42 buzzard asses" quest each and every time he actually needs buzzard asses, e.g. he's sold out of Buzzard Crispies again, and is going to be out of business if he can't make more... But when he's full-up on Buzzard Crispies, he doesn't give the quest. (Or he gives a different quest instead.)

* Varying quest conditions. Nothing crazy here, just mix it up -- different quantities, different items, different locations, etc. I mean, why would a quest giver always require X? For example. maybe today he wants 15 pieces of Chudwood, but tomorrow he'll need 30 Lacca carapaces, and the day after he'll want someone to find his lost sanding block.

* Varying quest rewards. It's a no-brainer really. E.g. it doesn't make much sense that Gorgonzola gives his prize Only-Slightly-Dull Sword of the Muskrat to each-and-every druid, paladin, warlock or rogue that does his bidding.

* Multiple quest givers, which give the same or similar quests. E.g. yesterday Granjero Jose wanted someone to clear the javelinas from his orchards. Today, he's on death's door after a run-in with one of the boars, so his wife gives the quest instead. (And of course, if the javelinas have truly been cleared from the orchards, then that quest would no longer be available, unless the javelinas return.)
 

And claiming that "scores" inherently reduce confusion, I disagree. I think perhaps there's some bias on your part, most likely created from past experience playing RPGs, i.e. you've played RPGs with numbers and that's what you expect to see. To an "RPG noob" showing scores may very well be just as confusing (or more so) as any other feedback mechanism.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I wasn't directly talking about RPGs at all, although it can be extrapolated to them.

Obviously in a game where your only relationship settings are 'deadly enemy' 'neutral' and 'best buddy', your status should be obvious from even the simplest interaction. When things are more involved, more detailed feedback is helpful. It doesn't have to be numerical - I said 'score' not because I think numbers are important but because scores are a sort of meta thing, they're outside the game world but they help the player track achievement.

Many dating sims, even the kind with tons of stats for the player, don't directly display the status of different relationships anywhere the player can see.
This leads to confusion. I see a lot of people posting on forums about some games trying to figure out why they're unable to unlock certain endings or other optional content - baffled why the prince who is hanging out with their character and giving her presents and taking her on dates is failing to propose to her.

Watching people who are new to the genre, they seem to be less confused if there is clear feedback for which choices actually change the relationship and a way to check on what the relationship status is.

If you can see that you're only at 90% love instead of 100%, or whatever, you know you have to do more.

If you can tell which choices have an effect, this can help you attempt to pursue a particular goal and keep track of your progress.

If, in an RPG, you insult an NPC and immediately see some sign of obvious game mechanic reaction (not just a dialog response, since those often are throwaway and have no lasting consequence), the idea is immediately suggested that NPC relationships have some effect on the game. If you can see it's being tracked, you understand that it may matter.
 

@ Whiner: Ah, okay... That I agree with. Thanks for clarifying! =)