CF: Re: Preventing players from repeating quests

[David Andrew Michael Noelle <>]

Raphael Quinet wrote:

[... Re: alternative ways to keep players from abusing the ability to repeat
quests they've already solved...]

> - By making powerful artifacts incompatible with each other, so that
>   even if you manage to get more than one, you would not be able to
>   use all of them.

    That's the type of solution I'd prefer.  There are already limits on how
much equipment can be used simultaneously (one per object type, two for
rings) and how much can be carried around to be switched for each different
situation, but there appears to be a consensus that more restrictions are in
order.
    I like the idea of artifacts having "races" or "religions" that make
some combinations work particularly well together and others cause varying
degrees of incompatability.  This fits well with the object "alignments" I
suggested a while back, which would cause objects to have different
attributes depending on the race and/or religion of their user.  I believe
that was filed under "wait for the 0.96 objects."


> - By linking quests to each other.  Solving one quest would allow you
>   to enter another one, and at the same time would prevent you from
>   repeating the one that you just solved.  The quests would be
>   increasingly difficult, with increasingly great rewards.  In order
>   to enter the most interesting quests, it would be necessary to prove
>   that you are worthy by having solved some simpler quests.  This
>   would effectively prevent a freshly created character from entering
>   a high-level quest just after it has been cleared by the high-level
>   player(s), because the new character would not have the mark of the
>   previous quests (and chances are that most maps in the previous
>   quests would have been reset in the meantime).

    I don't like the idea of actually *preventing* a quest from being
attempted again after it's been solved.  For one thing, what if your
high-level character dies once, loses 10-20 levels, and is no longer capable
of completing any of the quests he hasn't already finished?  If you can't go
back and work your way back up to where you died, non-permanent death
becomes automatic retirement.
    Linking quests in terms of requiring them to be attempted in order is
fine, but once a quest has been completed, it's boring to have to complete
that quest and EVERY quest leading up to it, EACH time you want to attempt
the next one.  Example: the temple in Brest with the nine keys to nine
"Hells" ranging from kobolds to Jessy.
    I suggest that linked quests should be implemented by MARKs or some
other re-usable "key", and current linked quests should be modified to be
consistent with that implementation.  That way, a player who needs to try
Jessy's Castle (for example) repeatedly in order to complete it, must
complete Dol-Guldur and Khazad/Moria at least once, but wouldn't be required
to start over from the beginning of the whole series in order to re-try the
last part.


> - By making the poweful artifacts instantly attuned to the player who
>   picks them up first. [...]

    Yuck.  I don't like the combination of pick-up effects and automatic
pick-up mode.  Especially if it's something the player might reasonably not
be aware of.  I do, however, like the idea of attuning an artifact to
whoever applies it first.  Some magical suit of armour might automatically
reshape itself to fit one wearer, but then not be usable by anyone else.  A
sword with a particularly strong ego might decide that it likes the way its
owner swings it, and simply refuse to behave for anyone else.  This wouldn't
do much to change the opportunities for abuse of powerful artifacts, but it
would add a neat twist that I haven't seen in other games of this type.  In
fact, the only game I know of that has artifacts that bond to their users
that way is ShadowRun.  That nameless TSR game that we're trying not to copy
does have "ego items", but they tend to bond to whoever they want to, not
necessarily the player who wants to bond to them.


> > Personally, I like the idea that once you finish a quest, you won't
> > be able to go back and re-play the quest. However, I also think that
> > it should OK for my character to visit a place where monsters will
> > always be replenished (like a Troll island or something), just for
> > the fun of bashing some monsters. Such maps, of course, shouldn't
> > have any significant rewards (just the regular randomly-generated
> > stuff). Any map with significant rewards should probably be playable
> > only once.
> 
> Yes, I share the same opinion.  This is something that should be
> mentioned somewhere in the Crossfire docs, so that the mapmakers can
> keep this in mind.

    Rather than making quests playable only once, I'd prefer to make the
rewards valuable only once, since quests are generally the best places to go
for experience.  The first step there is making the rewards less random, so
that returning to the same quest will not generate a new artifact each time
you try it.  Random minor treasure, like wealth, food, scrolls, wands, and
the like, are fine, but any artifact rewards should be fixed and
specifically to the quest.  This also requires that such artifact rewards
are not cumulative, so that it's not particularly useful to keep going back
to collect more copies of the same item.  (See Glowing Crystal discussions)


-- 
            -Dave Noelle,                 
            -the Villa Straylight,  http://www.straylight.org
Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email  ==  http://www.cauce.com

Disclaimer: Any similarities to the opinions of any real or fictional 
persons, living, dead, or undead, are clearly the reader's own delusion.

Quote of the Day:
"There is no such thing as 'social gambling'.  Either you are there to cut
the other bloke's heart out and eat it, or you're a sucker.  If you don't
like this choice, don't gamble." - Lazarus Long
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]