If it's a text quest it comes across as creepy large scale cybering.

Quests of a sexual nature are pretty par for the course, so no problem there. (See: Rape Quest, Surpise Sex Quest, everything Reaver has ever made, etc.)

Text-only quests are.... enh. We're kinda divided on this one, and the above response is probably a good indicator. But being able to draw is not required for doing a good quest! You just have to pretend you can draw. (See: Kara Quest)

We've had image quests whose stated goal was, essentially, 'to fuck all the bitches'. This probably can't be much worse.

I can't recommend going on with this plan. No quest that has started with the premise of nothing but sex has ever ended well, from feedback to it's actual run.

A quest can have sex as a main mechanic but it absolutely has to have a story as well, see: Karen's Heart. Actually, Cromanticar also had sex as a recurring theme, though that was more horrifying than sexy.

Text quests are unlikely to succeed.

Sex quests are not unlikely to succeed for some period of time, but as
>>338551
indicates, they are not liable to be brought successfully through a story and to a conclusion.
However, the same is also true of quests that don't involve sex.

>>338546
Start it up. If it fails, it fails; big deal. Quests fail all the time. You won't get banned or anything. Hell, half the fanart anything gets is explicit stuff, and most of the artsy quest authors delight in sexualizing things even in quests where that's largely irrelevant or at least not the primary focus.

>>338548
I have no problem with this.

So, uh, feel free to go for it, but you're unlikely to have a huge audience and should be fairly warned that you will almost certainly draw the ire of those who dislike text quests and those who dislike sex quests.

It is generally considered that Sammy's Adventure is the only good text quest, if you want your quest to be considered good and avoid ire from the text-only thing that is what you would want to be comparable to.
There are people who dig sex quests so as long as you're a competent writer it should be fine for the most part.

>>write a Quest

YOU ARE SCENT OF TERRORIST! SPECIES OF INVERTEBRATE! SPECIES OF CRETIN!

THIS IS NOT HOW QUEST!

>>338556
Their ire? It's not like they'll come into the thread and hassle him. Worst that'll happen is some trash talk in the anon thread, along with four thousand other posts of trash talk about every other conceivable thing.

>>338556
So, Clockwork Seal? :3c

It'll depend entirely on the "with plot" element. Brom is the usual go-to example for quests with sex scenes which are still actually good, because he can also write bits which are not sex scenes. Rebirth is "suave space-tripod is pressganged into doing spec-ops for admirably bullish captain", not "space-tripod fucks this angular electric girl and it's like omg SO HOT".

There's no rules against it, though I believe it was previously said we'd prefer not to have quests of a purely sexual nature, to avoid attracting the wrong crowd. I personally probbably wouldn't read it, but it's ultimately up to you.

>>338566

Hey now.

I don't complain about text quests or porn quests unless it comes up. I certainly won't be reading this quest but that doesn't mean the dude shouldn't give it his best shot.

>>338551
I liked Karen's Heart. Whatever happened to that quest anyway? Did the author sober up?

(Sage because blatant derailment.)

>>338565
I meant more along the lines of IRC bitching than people wrecking his thread. :v

Text quests are the best.
The more and detailed the text the better.

>>338743
Bad, Bitequest, bad.

Look, over there, a female bug!

>>338566
Oh look, the counterexample has updated. :3c

>>338745
:I
And yet Brom is nowhere to be seen...

>>338746
Brom is very well among us.

>>338743
Golem Quest is pretty good but you may want to be even more descriptive. People eat that shit up.

>>338824
Yeah, I've always thought that Golem Quest was too terse. Quantity has a quality all of its own, y'know? Some wise old guy said that.

>>338826
...Joseph Stalin, I believe.

>>338851
I think it was actually Zhukov, who was speaking about the Stalin organ rocket truck thingies. They weren't very accurate. But they did fire a whole shitload of rockets and were quite cheap to make.

>>338851
I'm just going to stare at you until you twig.