How does this strike people generally- what sorts of quests should the ACR Persistent Quest System support, and how should they handle solo/group/party PCs?<AcadiusLost|work> what happens if you take a quest, then join a party- what happens to the other party members when it's completed- when they are still in party or not
<AcadiusLost|work> there are a lot of permutations, and they tend to come up IC
<Cipher> yes, by awarding XP during the conversation, anyone could piggy back on another player's quest
<Cipher> my solution was to award the XP to members of the party at the time the quest was solved
<AcadiusLost|work> We want to allow players to do quests as a party, without making it easily exploitable, or making it penalize/break the system for the quest assising PC(s)
<Cipher> so if the quest is to kill the bad guy, you earn the quest XP when he falls dead
<AcadiusLost|work> So long as it's logically/internally consistent, should be fine
<AcadiusLost|work> before we were getting things like joining a PC on a quest meant it would be treated as already done for you without giving you any reward, or breaking the quest progression etc
<Cipher> that's interesting
<AcadiusLost|work> adding the quest to PCs who join the party is arguable, might end up with OOC added statics (like lockpicking for a cleric)
<Cipher> I can't test those permutations alone obviously but hopefully we'll bang away on indio's server and fix the bugs
<AcadiusLost|work> We could pass the quest collectively to all PCs in party at time of taking the quest theoretically, but that's not ideal either
<AcadiusLost|work> Also, if a PC has done a quest before, you don't want to break the system if he helps a new player do the quest later
<Cipher> currently, it does just that. anyone in party earns the quest along with the pc speaker
<AcadiusLost|work> ideally we'd want it all to make sense IC- no one gets XP for a quest they've already done, but reward is always given when a quest is completed
<Cipher> I think that's fine ... it's more realistic certainly than talking to the guy 6 times
<Cipher> right, exactly
<AcadiusLost|work> Rusty seemed to want to use quest CR for statics as well, though he seemed to give on that a bit when we got to details
<Cipher> along the same vein, if someone joins the party *after* the quest is given and they're there when the quest is solved, they should earn the quest XP as well and the quest should be closed to them htereafter
<AcadiusLost|work> But statics in groups almost inevitably lead to some level of out-of-game thinking
<AcadiusLost|work> right- but the system has to actually treat them as having done that quest as well, so they can do followups if appropriate
<AcadiusLost|work> Would a flag for whether a quest should be collectively completable be appropriate? A scouting mission for example, shouldn't require the tank fighter getting up close to the camp if there are scouts in party
<AcadiusLost|work> but the same fighter probably shouldn't get quest XP from standing near the mage while she does an alchemy static
<Cipher> yes, right. it just won't matter that they weren't there when the quest was given. that might lead to a logical break for the player (ie they don't really know what's going on)
<Cipher> so I don't know how it will feel
<Cipher> in game
<AcadiusLost|work> would be nice if it was something the player who had the quest could control
<Cipher> hmmm like through a GUI?
<AcadiusLost|work> could work it into a PC tools button I guess "extend quest" or the like
<AcadiusLost|work> though would amount to pressganging your party if there was no yes/no option for them
<Cipher> heh
<Leareth|work> heheh
<Cipher> apart from that, I think it's a good idea though
<AcadiusLost|work> Do you think the collective / solo quest type is worthwhile to code in?
<Cipher> and it's no more intrusive than scripts doing it
<Cipher> automagically
<Cipher> I like the idea
<AcadiusLost|work> quests could default to one or the other- not sure which is preferable
<Cipher> (although maybe it will become a useless burden for players in actuality if they always click that button)
<AcadiusLost|work> but it would be good to give builders the flexibility to choose
<Leareth|work> well it would also flaq quests so you knew which ones you should do alone
<AcadiusLost|work> I'm imagining responsible use- PC A accepts Orc Chief Assasination Quest, goes and recruits a party
<Leareth|work> yep
<AcadiusLost|work> once they've got the details explained IC, leader hits the "extend quest" button, and they're off
<Leareth|work> share quest... maybe make that for group only
<AcadiusLost|work> it just wouldn't have any effect on solo-flagged quests
<Cipher> I like it
<AcadiusLost|work> no journal update, no quest variable updates, no reward for others
<AcadiusLost|work> Should group be the default for quests, or solo? I kind of like group, since it encourages RP and teamwork
<Leareth|work> well delivery should be solo only
<Leareth|work> but yeah most can be flaged for group
<Cipher> yeah me too
<Cipher> I think solo quests should be the exception
<Cipher> maybe for things like faction recruitment
<Leareth|work> like scouting can go either way
<Cipher> where individual skill is very relevant
<AcadiusLost|work> Builder's preference at least- but I like the idea of PCs being able to extend the quest out
<AcadiusLost|work> what happens if the party disbands before the objective is complete, though?
<Cipher> for repeatable quests, they'll still get the chance to do it
<AcadiusLost|work> does the quest "stay with" the original PC and get dropped for the helpers? If they may end up doing it independently, that changes conditions for some of the quests, like ones that need specific spawns
<Cipher> for one shot deals, they snooze they lose
<Cipher> that will have to be a part of the quest setup
<AcadiusLost|work> so, if the quested PC logs for coffee, the party rogue could departy, sneak ahead, bag the quest and turn it in for the reward?
<AcadiusLost|work> If so, the question goes to the rest of the party- should there a "quest failed" or "quest completed by someone else" state?
<AcadiusLost|work> most systems seem to work on booleans- Has Quest? Finished Quest?
<Cipher> how would we use that state?
<Leareth|work> well can't journal progression be used?
<Cipher> would it be effectively the same as unfinished?
<Leareth|work> if jounal is at stage three then the NPC rewards them
<AcadiusLost|work> Journal progression is tough, it's not branched
<Leareth|work> hrmmmm does it have to be?
<AcadiusLost|work> you can kind of fake it to seem branched, but it's not built for that
<Leareth|work> I mean once they make a choice one way or another can't that be marked?
<Leareth|work> alot of games use that
<Leareth|work> oblivion is like that... they don't use branched journaling
<Leareth|work> but complete a step it sets the journal to something that the next step recognises
<Cipher> every quest would need a "completed by someone else" journal entry
<Cipher> is that really worth it?
<Leareth|work> no it wouldn't since this would only happen to one PC with the quest
<AcadiusLost|work> Depends how often we think it would be used
<Leareth|work> but yeah complete by someone else might not be a distinction worth while
<AcadiusLost|work> all of this can be done by the quest designer, but would be best if we could take some of the guesswork out with the core system
<Cipher> we could figure out a way to support that
<AcadiusLost|work> Maybe as it's own class of statics: competative
<AcadiusLost|work> where a single completion goal is out there, quest gets offered freely, but only one party (or individual) can complete it
<AcadiusLost|work> I did something like this with a static on NC
<AcadiusLost|work> every so often the tavern would run out of something- replacement could be in any one of 4 places across the serer
<AcadiusLost|work> *server
<AcadiusLost|work> while it was broken, anyone could take the quest to retrieve it, but the one who actually brought the item got the reward
<AcadiusLost|work> and then a random time while later it would open up again
<AcadiusLost|work> (also added a chance for it to get fixed offcamera by NPCs after a generous window, to make sure it's not always "ON")
<Leareth|work> that would be cool
<AcadiusLost|work> could throw it in Collective Discussion to get some builder input
<AcadiusLost|work> I've not written many statics to draw from- all of mine have been fairly involved and took a ton of time
<Leareth|work> it might not hurt
<Leareth|work> I had an interesting idea for a random RP quest I might throw down if anyone implements herbs
<AcadiusLost|work> unless you're volunteering, I suspect herbs are still a good ways off
<Leareth|work> *chuckles* we'll see
<AcadiusLost|work> for now though, the thought is to decide how to make the quest sytem work flexibly to make statics easier and more reliable
<AcadiusLost|work> should a group static give a set amount of XP, divided across the party (so fewer PCs, more each?)
<AcadiusLost|work> seems to me the money should be fixed, doesn't make sense for them to pay more just because you brought friends along
<AcadiusLost|work> that can be given to the quest reporting PC to subdivide (or not) as IC
<Leareth|work> hrmmmm is there a cap on the number in a party?
<AcadiusLost|work> I believe the whole server can be partied, so it would be by max # of players
<Leareth|work> then it might be worth dividing the xp just as an incentive not to mob the quests
<AcadiusLost|work> on the flip side though, that rewards avoiding other PC and soloing quests
<AcadiusLost|work> so perhaps a balance between the two
<Rusty|afk> quest xp should be by CR, divided by CPs, just liek combat XP
<Rusty|afk> i can't see why we'd bother inventing a seperate system for it
<Rusty|afk> *by PCs
<AcadiusLost|work> what is the CR for finding a keg tap? Could take 4 hours ingame
<Rusty|afk> What's 4 hrs got to do with it?
<AcadiusLost|work> or the CR for delivering a letter on time?
<Rusty|afk> Depends how difficult it is.
<Rusty|afk> Walk across town at leisurely pace: CR 1.
<AcadiusLost|work> well, the time is about all you can use to gauge challenge
<Rusty|afk> Run through siege lines and sewers dodging fireballs: CR 10
<Rusty|afk> Time isn't relevant; time is dealt with by scripted RP XP.
<AcadiusLost|work> if that's the intent, then it's not worth scripting low-risk statics at all
<AcadiusLost|work> as they'd be worth at best 20 xp to a solo 1st level, more often they'd be worth 0-5 xp
<AcadiusLost|work> Do you intend to map out a qualitative range of noncombat quest CRs of builders to use as a guideline?
<Rusty|afk> Sure, I could do if that would help.
<AcadiusLost|work> I just don't see how one can assign a quanitative CR value to something subjective- especially since a good static should have more than one path to completion
<Rusty|afk> So how are you assigning XP?
<Rusty|afk> There has to be a quantitative value at some point in order to award.
<AcadiusLost|work> Harder it is, the more time it is likely to take, therefore more XP
<Rusty|afk> If it's CR then we can use our scaling by PC level to adjust it.
<AcadiusLost|work> using the DMed RP XP guidelines as a high ceiling to go conservative under
<Rusty|afk> Then we're double rewarding.
<AcadiusLost|work> I've set gold rewards a little below the XP amount
<AcadiusLost|work> I'm talking NWN1 here in terms of my experience
<AcadiusLost|work> the RP XP isn't always awarded, and the NWN scripts subtact any scripted award from the banked XP for that session anyway
<AcadiusLost|work> so in that case, we're not double rewarding.
<AcadiusLost|work> Frankly, all my XP awards as a DM in ALFA have been time-based, with a push up or down based on RP quality and quest progress
<Rusty|afk> Still doesn't explain why a 'guesstimate' of time taken is preferable to a CR value for awarding frmo static quests
<Rusty|afk> plenty of easy straightforward level 1 walk around fedexes might take longer than a tougher combat based static
<AcadiusLost|work> CR is meaningful for monster vs party
<Rusty|afk> heh, well the problem of no-one ever awarding XP properly is pretty well known
<AcadiusLost|work> CR is not meaningful for party vs. riddle
<Rusty|afk> sur eit is
<Rusty|afk> how hard is the riddle?
<AcadiusLost|work> on what kind of scale?
<AcadiusLost|work> I might think it's really hard, but someone else might find it easy
<Cipher> AcadiusLost: a log of the discussion would be great, yes thanks. please PM when you have a moment.
<Rusty|afk> and pc A finds combat situation X easy; PC B finds it nigh on impossible
<Rusty|afk> the CR is the same
<AcadiusLost|work> Well, you've got formulas for combat, perfect or imperfect
<AcadiusLost|work> there are no formulas for "challenge" of a noncombat quest
<AcadiusLost|work> If you scale out a qualitative chart, people can try to assign them, but without an official continuum to point at, we can't even start
<Cipher> I'm sure people could but it wouldn't be consistent.
<Cipher> anywho, I've got to run get dinner
<Cipher> bbl
* Quits: Cipher (Guest@6ca5f042.6ca5f0bc.216.159.imsk) (Quit: See you later ALFA!)
<Rusty|afk> eh, well the DMG talks about non-combat awards
<Rusty|afk> not in particular detail, but it's not the hardest thing in the world to do
<Rusty|afk> it is at least some attempt to systematise
<Rusty|afk> anyways, bedtime for me.
Is a CR-based system desirable to standardize reward across servers somewhat?
Should XP for completing a static as a group be evenly divided, divided by level, given only to the reporter, or some kind of additive balance?
