Back in the days when I played pen and paper D&D (prior NWN on the computer), the players adventure took place within a campaign and you played various scenarios designed by the DM (Dungeon Master) in which you defeated monsters and won treasures to pay for your PCs advancement. The campaign was the world or universe in which the different scenarios were set. At the advent of the computer RPG, we soon became familiar with the common term quest, representing all those adventures we love to play, be they representing the main quest or a secondary (or sub) quest. In this month's blog, I am going to take a look back at the way we have defined our game from this perspective... and how I like to use the terms in The Scroll! Yes, it's just semantics, I guess, but it's still exciting to talk about if you like your D&D! However, if my thoughts and musings about such do not interest you, then scroll to the end of the blog entry where I will bring you up to date of where we are at with Predestinated Days, my second module for The Scroll.
The Scenario
One of the words I like to use when writing or describing quests for The Scroll is scenario. Why, you may ask? Well, I believe it conjures a broader sense of the potential goals for the adventure that lays ahead for the players rather than when using the term quest alone. In other words, I like to refer to a scenario as something that contains a collection of "main" quests (and potential sub-quests), rather than something that just has a single goal in mind. For myself, and possibly old school players of D&D, the reference to a scenario also satisfies the idea of an adventure that is going to be of a reasonable depth, while not necessarily being the main goal/story of the campaign.
Alright, I know the distinction may be a subtle one, but let me try to give an example of the kind of thing I mean from my first module. (I don't want to give away any scenario details of the second module.) So, in the first module, one such scenario is that the PCs find themselves trapped within the village by a barrier of unknown origin. (Such scenarios may or may not be given an actual "quest" name status, subject to the specific design.) It is important to note, however, that this is not the Main Quest for the campaign, but "escaping the village" might be considered one of a few "main" quests for the module (*). Therefore, it may be possible to argue that scenarios simply translates as journal Main Quests within a computer RPG. However, I have to stress that this is not The Main Quest of the campaign, and that distinction will become important as I try to describe what I mean in more detail. I would also like to clarify that as a Main Quest for the campaign does exist (even if not fully realised by the player from the start), it means the module is not (as some may conclude) an open-world design. The story to be found and played is determined by the scenario paths the player decides to take.
(*) Note, when referring to "module" here, I am speaking of the completed game and not the individual "modules" that may make up a complete game.
Layered Quests
The important distinction when considering a scenario versus a quest is that, objectively, the "main" quest in a scenario event ends up being the most important story arc that the player wishes to explore at the time of their playing. It is important to note that any quest can effectively become the "main" quest in the player's eyes. When this happens, it allows the builder to play one quest off against another (within a given scenario) with respect to its importance or dominance. At this point, a journal quest leading in one direction may "pass through" or "interact" with another journal quest, and the player may decide to change tact or quest direction because of events they have played up to that point. Actual "quests" (as recorded in the journal) now become more closely described as "objectives", and if done well, may change a quest direction subject to which "quest objectives" the player prioritises. At that point, the game begins to feel more dynamic and like a D&D scenario, rather than a computer "tick box" exercise of completing "quests".
Multiple Scenarios
Hopefully, from the example above, it can also be recognised that scenarios are not always clearly stated, although strongly implied. However, every scenario the player perceives, or becomes involved in within the game, now becomes their choice of their current "main" quest. So, continuing the example above, the player may take their party about the village asking about the barrier, or, alternatively, simply go off exploring. Let's say they decide to go exploring their local area rather that start asking about the barrier. As they do so, they find a cave in the next Shoreline Road area and decide to explore this instead. Before they know it, they find some bloody rags of someone who has obviously been here recently. Continuing on, they suddenly discover the cavern system has been infiltrated by more than just the wolves they had recently killed... but also by a foreign human cult who attacked the heroes on sight! What is going on here?
The game is now on! By now, the journal will have updated regarding the encounter and the player must decide what they intend to do about it, as a new scenario they find themselves in. If they survived the encounter, do they report back to the authorities, or try to find out what is going on by themselves? Is this related to the barrier problem or not? The new journal entries suggest paths to follow, and include "objectives", but ultimately, the quest they take will be based upon the scenario the player wishes to play out. They can either pursue a current objective that their current path has taken them to, or turn about and try going somewhere else. Now, the player is playing D&D and not simply following a determined path. Couple that with their choice of play affecting future scenarios (or journal quests) and the game becomes interesting to know how it will all end.
The drawback to working to a multiple scenario design, is that it takes a lot of time to consider the many permutations that a player may like to consider playing from any given point. This is why most computer RPGs do follow a simpler "Quest" (main or sub) design, as it compartmentalises events that are self-contained and do not rely on one another for interaction. Don't misunderstand me, however, as these can be very well designed to have an impact later in a game, as many computer RPGs already do, but the difference is the timing of when such choices make a difference. We are not just talking about how decisions impact the game later, but possibly within the next scenario the heroes find themselves in, which may happen just around the corner.
Sadly, my time is limited to just how many permutations I can account for and I have to be firm with myself and draw a line as to when a path cannot be taken. Normally, these are the more obscure paths that players are less likely to find anyway, but I do sometimes regret not being able to accommodate a certain path, especially when I have a handful of other repercussions bubbling away in my mind should the path have been made available. In the end, I just hope the number of permutations that I do manage to include will keep players interested for at least a second play through. The good news is that, in my opinion, the second module, Predestinated Days, benefits from the multiple scenario support better than the first module even, as I have learned new ways of how to handle such things as the years have passed.
Considering Tasks
Now, scenarios (or quests), subject to how you want to perceive them, come with clear objectives to keep the player moving forward in the current scenario or main story. However, there are some objectives that can, and should, as I understand the gameplay, be considered "tasks" rather than "quests". In this situation, the term "sub-quests" (or secondary quests) has, in the past, been used to describe what I would consider calling "tasks". Note, I am aware that some games do separate these smaller gameplay steps into their own descriptors, but with respect to the NWN game, they mostly get amalgamated into a single "quest" step or are demoted to a sub-quest when using the journal, or possibly not mentioned in the journal at all. The problem is that "tasks", when implemented fully, can be either "essential" or "non-essential" and so being able to separate them out according to any journal entry they work alongside with can be helpful to the player, so that a "task" (if added as a quest) is not lost among the quest list already available to the player.
So, as an example, a task may be to collect a number of items for someone. As I said previously, such collected items may or may not be essential for the main quest or scenario currently being played. However, if the task for a scenario (or quest) is clearly recorded, then once again, it can make it easier for the player to decide what they wish to prioritise as their current objective. To this end, I have been able to help separate and distinguish the various tasks available when playing The Scroll, which I hope adds a new and useful aid for the player.
Predestinated Days
Although it has been a long month, I did not quite hit my target. Don't misunderstand me, I managed to get a lot done, but I also had to put some time aside to fix one or two logical flow issues that came to light related to conversations that had been written way back earlier in the year. So, when taking these additional alterations into account, I am probably just three to four days behind where I wanted to be by now.
The Bloodstone College scenario is nearing completion with only a handful of conversations outstanding. I do still need to add the encounters and finish placing a few final items required throughout the areas, but most of the essential items have now been created and placed. During this time, I also managed to add some puzzle elements, a couple being new, one of which is scenario specific. That is, the puzzle is not used as a generic interface, like combination chests, but is a single purpose puzzle just for the task at hand.
I am optimistic about being able to finalise this scenario in the coming days to the point of being able to allow my wife to alpha test this section of the code. Once she has played through and I have fixed any bugs found, I will then offer it to my other alpha tester if they have the time to test it too. I am very keen to see how this second stage plays out, and while I still have some sections of the second stage to complete after the Bloodstone College scenario, I am hoping these will be completed in the next month or so, and at which point the second stage will be fully completed. Then I will move to the third and final stage of the second module!
Latest Campaign
I released the latest v1.29 of the campaign folder today, alongside the April release of the module. The module updates are minor and affect the storage chest and some oil flasks. The campaign update, however, is worth grabbing, especially if you enjoy crafting, as I have fixed the broken official section of code that was preventing an upgrade when improving the enhancement of a weapon. Other than that, there were a few other updates and minor fixes (check out the download page), but all in all, the code is pretty stable since v1.28 anyway. Its stability and lack of needing to make further fixes or alterations is why I have been able to make better progress on the second module. On that note, I will leave you with a couple of screenshots, that I hope will whet the appetite to want to play the second module when it becomes available.
 |
| A Beautiful Garden! |
 |
| Did I hear Something Up Ahead? |
