Quote:

People would react to the package not being delivered, shun you socially, and the authorities might seek you out, depending on the laws of the land and how they feel about you. Being 'outlawed' would just be a label for your position, and your position would really be a dynamic set of variables.

The flip side of the coin is that the player may end up being shunned or labeled an outlaw if he successfully delivers the package to the designated person, since for all he knows it could be a kilo of smack that a crimelord wants. So the possibility of opening the package, throwing it away, delivering it to someone else, etc. opens up.

I'm more in favor of a progressive scripted story system, where the story will advance without the players interaction over a set period of time to its conclusion. This makes any form of quest optional for the player, though he can choose to get involved (or not involved) to potentially produce a more favorable outcome. Sneaking, hacking/slashing, constructing/conjuring, and negotiating would all help provide a means to an end with variable solutions.

This thread is long and confusing. I had a big long suggestion about a Sims-style desire system, but when I perused the other posts, I saw that my ideas were all either redundant, ruled out, or hopelessly tangled. So I'll just wish you guys good luck.

I think in many senses that in goal oriented gameplay - the mission or quest aids in the play skill development, something that is a value for the player in the sense that whether the game has an educational content goal or not, players in a game environment find learning fun, so that has a value that is not really progress oriented in terms of concrete progressive value, its just the satisfaction a player feels from learning how to become a better player, whether it was just better mastery of mechanics, how to overcome a particular challenge design, whatever. At a certain point, I surmise, that if one were an amazing fragger, it would not matter what kind of level one was presented with as long at the opportunity to frag zenifically (which involves in the zen context always learning/knowing) was included. Its kinda like the all around baseball player who doesn't care who the team is playing, just throw out the first ball, I'm ready to play.

Also, in a complex goal, several steps of mini goals or stairstepped interaction and progress might be needed because of the periodicity of the players need to do what dramatic environs, linear or interactive, which is to rest after peaks, pause a reflect, catch their breath, any number of the array of human stimuli response reactions. This is why I think levels exist as a function of exposition players need to grasp, and might be hard to get rid of. As far as quests, this is just an archetypally higher order of symbologic value for a level. Go get the grail, Lancelot, its still only a stepping stone on the way to transcendence with god. That sort of thing.

I've been working along the order of developing goals of a high personal value nature, something not possible in the surrogacy role of Role playing. I designe the archetype as you, not a knight or wizard or warrior, or something you'd want to play at being. There are drawbacks to this approach that have to be dealt with on a user experience level, but the payoff is that the player take away value is greater because they bring something back into their life away from the game that is valuable irl, while still not having to go the route of being a serious game, which we all see taking a more and more predominate role in society and the marketplace, because a, studios can make money there that is less possible in the pure play type of title market competition, and b, its evidence of the educational role games have always had even in prehistoric and early childhood educational applications.


What a game would need to offer for them to be dropped is tough. In one way, you could say the answer was a short playing time or a small skillset and I/O mastery. Arcade games such as asteroids and Pac-Man were the best examples I could draw with respect to those angles. See how this is all dependent on what the player can comprehend and process at once or incrementally in a sustained playtime? competing in this market would be tough, though I believe the games for women market sector has plenty of room left to explore both creatively and profitably. But testosteronics belie much interest in this, and women game developers haven't got the marketing aspects worked out yet to make games for women barbie class market successes, which I believe they can be.

NPC's as progress I think evolved from the "NPC's a virtual playmates in a game you play alone all the time on the computer" origin at first and then as an actual game design component which allows wonderful aspects to interaction, and will be hard to get rid of unless imo, you have a game that lacks sufficient complexity for the player to be able to carry all relevant victory condition and control concept suppositions (they don't know how to win the game just yet, they just have some idea and some skills if the gameplay is balanced in terms of response design and challenge complexity) around in immediate or short term recall memory, and we are talking such short recall times that it almost appears immediate, but its cognitively not.

Freeplay options I cannot comment upon unless you give me some example approaches and techniques.

HTH,
Adventuredesign

I see if I can steer this back on-topic, since it's an interesting question...

The problem I see with not having any quests at all is that in game terms the "quest" really mean a "clearly stated objective". That's why almost every single game has them, with the notable exception of the simulations (SimCity etc.). A lot of the games listed above by the previous posted as examples of quest-less games still have quests, just either implicit ones, variable ones, or one that can modified by the player. For example, Pac-man does have a "quest" of sorts; munch all the dots without getting caught by a ghost.

In RPGs, the quest is usally of a more traditional format, but it's purpose is to point the player in the right direction. In linear RPGs, it's also usually the only direction. In more freeform RPGs, the player has the option of wandering off to do something else, but often gets nudged back into doing the quests.

The main drawback of removing quests then, in my opinion, is that player will not know what they should be doing, and hence be lost for things to do.

However, it certainly is possible to replace explicitly coded quests with implict quests; things that can be achieved in a number of different ways. Lets say that the player has just appeared (by means unknown) on a beach in an unfamiliar world, and is unsure what to do. Lets also imaging there's a helpful old man on the beach as well. In the traditional quest structure, he'd say something like "Go meet the Commander of the fort up ahead and he'll tell you what to do". Instead, you could have him say something like this:

"A new guy, huh? Not sure what to do? Well, first things first. You need to eat, sonny, so you'll have to find some grub. A bit hard to buy food with no coin, though eh? There's bound to be some work at the village; I hear the innkeeper and the foundry master are hiring. But if you aren't interested in work the back door of the castle kitchen is usually unlocked."

"Now once you're fed, you'll need a safe place to sleep. No problem if you can afford the inn, but that's coin you don't have. The innkeeper has a spare bed for employees, but there's always the hayloft in the barn if you're desparate."

"If you want to make your way up in this world, sonny, then you'll have to think about impressing the locals. Heroes are always welcome. Thieves are not, though, so you'd better watch those fingers."

And so on. Note that none of those things are necessary for the player, but it implies the things that they should be doing. That's still a "quest", of sorts, but not a hard pre-defined quest that you have to follow.

Quote:

Original post by Mezz The trouble is that games should have some direction, it's fine to talk about open-endedness and choices and so forth, but if you don't take the player on an enjoyable journey, what has the game achieved? I can't think of a game I would like to play where you just started, and didn't know what to do, where to go, who to talk to or what the point of my existance was. Thus, there should be a central story, which the player advances through - there have to be goals (quests) or the player doesn't have that direction, and the game doesn't really go anywhere.

Alright, let me first say that I fully realize that there's a big "pie in the sky" in-your-dreams element to what I'll next propose. However, before I get to it, let me first say that just getting near what I have in mind might be enough.

You say you'd have a problem because you wouldn't know what to do. So this needs not only to be obvious, but to be built right into the gameplay. What I mean is that if a game started with you on a sinking ship, I wager you'd know what to do, right? So let's assume that there are mechanisms built right into the gameplay and world that clarify your focus. Further, imagine that its simple in the beginning, but gets more intricate as you succeed, with new doors and options becoming available. One reason you play is to see how well you'll do, and another is to see where the heck this world is going.

Now for the atmospheric pie: Imagine that the gameplay available to you increases as a function of the game world naturally expanding and changing. Rather than Fedex Knight quests to deliver X for NPC A, the world expands and presents new gameplay/vignette/puzzle/looting/etc. opportunities. Maybe there was just one town, but you breach barriers and now there's two. Maybe the two like or hate each other, and that opens up a whole new realm of gameplay. Now maybe this keeps going on and on to an extent appropriate to the game. At each phase, you the player aren't told what to do, you do what makes sense given the evolving stories and situations.

When you rip out quests/main quests, I think what you're left with is having to provide meaning and motivation for activities. And I think that meaning and motivation needs to be built right into the rules!

Quote:

Original post by Steven Hansen "The world is there and you do what you want" isn't a formula for success - or failure. Whatever the game is, players want/need/expect: 1. Something fun / interesting to do. 2. Something that matters. 3. Adequate reward.

Bingo. I think you hit the most important things to keep in mind. I often note that I personally don't need someone to tell me to do something, I need to know where in the game world I can get something I want and measure myself against something in a way that I care about.

When we quest what do we want? We often want things to matter, and to be different, and to convey a sense of progress.

How do you make something matter? You can tell the player explicitly, as with story revelation, or implicitly, as when new gameplay emerges (often via items or enemies in an RPG-like game, but that's not the only way).

So what exactly is different? Well, it's a variation on the previous concerns I've had. Less or more resources, greater or lesser influence (as in killing an enemy in 1 hit rather than 2), more or less interactions of a particular type, etc.

And what exactly is progress? Resolution toward some goal? Drilling down, this is getting closer and closer to either some expected and anticipated state change in the world or story ("the king is dead", "they'll be war now", "we're out of water, we're going to die now.").

There's an emotional component to all of this, btw, but I won't get into that just now.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid The problem I see with not having any quests at all is that in game terms the "quest" really mean a "clearly stated objective".

I posted before I read this, but I think we're getting closer to aligning here. I certainly don't mean "no objective." I mean "no character walking around as reward pinata, dispensing cash/armor/keys/etc. after you go to location X and trigger flag A." (Note that I have no problem going to location X and triggering flag A, I'm not saying its somehow inferior, this is for the sake of brainstorming).

Quote:

"A new guy, huh?

Okay, let me rework your example somewhat. You wash up on the beach. After appropirate stage setting drama ("oh my head! wtf? where am I??") you notice something obvious that begins to act as an implicit driver: Could by your health declining, could be evil crab men marching onto the shore, could be the part of the island you're on sinking.

You get to the old man. You (in my preference) act as the driver to find out what's going on, what you need to solve the state you're in, but it's your observational skills that give you what to ask for. Sure, there might be a back door open, but it's not a given that he's going to tell you that or even know. The game mechanics reward you for finding that out yourself.

Quote:

Original post by ahw I don't think quests should be removed, though. I think they are a valuable thing, in that they cater to a given part of the players population, but I feel trying to reach a wider audience is perhaps more important than trying to get rid of quests, as a goal.

I don't want to say that I'm advocating this, but rather I want to understand more about design of RPG-like games themselves if such and such were so.

So, just for the record, this isn't my new plot to take over the world... That's still secret. [grin]

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Okay, let me rework your example somewhat. You wash up on the beach. After appropirate stage setting drama ("oh my head! wtf? where am I??") you notice something obvious that begins to act as an implicit driver: Could by your health declining, could be evil crab men marching onto the shore, could be the part of the island you're on sinking. You get to the old man. You (in my preference) act as the driver to find out what's going on, what you need to solve the state you're in, but it's your observational skills that give you what to ask for. Sure, there might be a back door open, but it's not a given that he's going to tell you that or even know. The game mechanics reward you for finding that out yourself.

Yes, I agree with that. I was being a bit overly dramatic with the old man metaphor there, in order to make the point stand out. Making the environment act as the "old man" is more appropirate.

However, I think that in order to avoid having the player to wandering around lost for what they should do, the environment will have to not be too subtle about showing the player possible options. I'm thinking something analagous to those games where the avatar gets a new tool, and they see someone else in the world using the tool correctly to show them what to do. Or seeing an NPC shoot a red barrel to show that they explode.

So in this case, if the player's avatar is starving, they might not realise that the back door to the kitchen is even an option. However, if they hear a cook obviously baking something, who occasionally goes out the back door to throw out something into the compost heap (maybe muttering something about how the damn back door keeps sticking open), then the choice becomes more obvious.

Of course, you should also show what happens to thieves who get caught as well, so they know the penalty of stealing. If you "show" instead of "tell", then I think that gameplay dynamic will be really strong.

Quote:

Original post by adventuredesign Its kinda like the all around baseball player who doesn't care who the team is playing, just throw out the first ball, I'm ready to play.

Or the leader who wept when there were no more worlds left to conquer. Right, I agree. Levels are a formal way of structuring this so that it can happen in a more reliable way for more people, but open-ended games show that this process can be internalized. It can be driven into the character itself (as with skill progression); it can be reflected in changes in the open world; or it can be reflected right down into the meta of the rules, interactions and rewards. I've seen designers use statistical timing, for instance, in placing traps and jumps on an open world to try to bring about the right level of tension, frustration, triumph and mastery in the widest number of players possible.

Quote:

Go get the grail, Lancelot, its still only a stepping stone on the way to transcendence with god. That sort of thing.

This underlying psychological aspect is what I find most interesting. Take the crudest, most viceral example: The player says, "I kicked some a##!" Whether he knows it or not, the designer is trying to bring about this emotional resolution (a catharsis? I'm not exactly sure.) Now a quest as formally stated goal can officially set up whatever this big emotional payoff is (or should be called): Be it mastery, or recognition, or brotherhood, or transcendence, or whatever deep human craving lies in the soul.

So how do you get this without the formal goal? One way, I think (very tenuous here) is to actualize it, the more dramatic the better. If you come to a building and you see people being slaughtered, men, women and children, and the game world has set any kind of heroic identity in you, that deep, soul seated need to avenge injustice I believe will naturally come to the fore. "Dammit, get off of her!" you might yell at the screen as you draw your sword, or pistol or whatever-- provided you're immersed, your belief is suspended, and the game has (at a low psychological level through gameplay mechanics) twinned your fate with the fate of the realm.

Quote:

There are drawbacks to this approach that have to be dealt with on a user experience level, but the payoff is that the player take away value is greater because they bring something back into their life away from the game ...

OT, but I think this is the secret sauce of The Sims and why so many hardcore gamers can't relate.

Quote:

What a game would need to offer for them to be dropped is tough. In one way, you could say the answer was a short playing time or a small skillset and I/O mastery. Arcade games such as asteroids and Pac-Man were the best examples I could draw with respect to those angles.

[grin] Okay, my Zen question to you of the day: What are these things, these games? Not what they do or you do, but what are they as interactions and experiences?

Quote:

Freeplay options I cannot comment upon unless you give me some example approaches and techniques.

I'm going to hold off on exact specifics for just a bit given that a couple of examples are already flying about in the thread. But a good framework for this would be goals that are already extant in the game world, or can be made to arise organically out of interactions whose rules the player can observe and (eventually) understand.