I thought it was mostly bad ass. And evil.

Now to turn him into one of the greatest affably-evil villains to ever walk the earth.

I too wonder as to why a thread like this hasn't been created till now.

So.

Plans.

Are we going to aim for a dungeon keeper playthrough and rid the world of do-gooders that way. Or are we going down the Arthas route and reclaiming our father's lost kingdom?

Dungeon keeper seems more in line with what the character wants.

Well to turn him into anything other than a gentleman villain would be an injustice.

It seems he has a fairly strong free will, though, and sometimes takes what we say as suggestions rather than commands.

Muschio said he wants to be the devil but will ascend even greater. Thus, something more chaotic evil, rather than lawful evil (gentleman villain), is what might be bound to happen.

We're part of his psyche, so we should have some sort of influence over what kind of villain he becomes.

I SAW THAT POST WEAVER YOU SAID CHAPTER ONE WHERE'S THE CHAPTER WEAVER?!

>>34d3ad

Implying that the players have any influence at all over a quest from Weaver, master of the Railroad.
Cool story, bro.

CoughMudy QuestCough

>>10
Yes, Weaver uses a ton of proxies just to make it look like he doesn't railroad. You're brilliant.

>>12

Because the only way to railroad your quest is using proxies to samefag, right?

It was already mentioned that "Main character turn evil" was preplanned the whole time. So we can safely assume a lot of events ahead of us are preplanned.

>>14

But we should at least get to influence what strain of evil we become.

>>14

Having an overarching storyline is much different from railroading.

>>16

I think the problem here, and some other quests, is that said overarching storyline is very much a linear experience. The author can easily fake a sense of depth by cherry picking different suggestions that drive the plot to whatever goal they desire - the bigger the audience the easier this becomes. Further, several distractions or side interactions can then be introduced to fake the sense of freedom in order to keep interest and reinforce the illusion of choice.

TLDR: playing a videogame

>>17

I guess there is something else I could add to the earlier argument, posted here for the sake of consistency.
Take a look at Reaver's latest threads. It is rather clear that the story is heading in a certain direction - while less so, it also seems that he slows down with his art when people suggest something out of the mundane repeatedly. While this is not evidence of causality, it is certainly interesting to observe; also, take a look at the Tarot introductions, they speak volumes of intent.
Essentially, the Quest is now a story, not a roleplaying experience; the "participant" is merely flipping the pages.

Does that conjure the experience to be less interesting? Perhaps so; less satisfying? Definitely.

Man what are you talking about, I pick those tarot cards at random and I don't plan shit.

Yeah man go to hell

>>17
>>18
If you're just going to spout more of this "Whatever happens was going to happen anyway and even when our suggestions are used it's only an illusion" argument that any Quest with a structure is nothing but a railroad then you are many months too late to the party.
The argument has already been gone over and other than the completely freeform silly "perform even the stupidest suggestions" Quests that sort of suspicion will always linger. If following a suggestion still presents this skepticism in you then you are a hopeless case and no amount of evidence that is reasonably possible to provide can ever dissuade you of that opinion.
It can be more suspicious when a thread flows smoothly, because it will be assumed by people like yourself that it must have been planned out this way. Quite the contrary, the story is built around the suggestions and the situations that arise are structured in response to the choices that have been made. It's become a dynamic and fluid medium, and without as many obvious kinks as it once had it may seem superficial in its influence.
But believe me when I say that without suggestions, a quest cannot simply move forward. Personally, I use suggestions as a means of figuring out "what comes next" a lot of the time, simply because I honestly can't figure out what sort of progression should next occur. Then someone makes a suggestion that's reasonable to the character within that situation, and I structure a progression around that.
The bottom line is that Quests take suggestions and move the plot forward based on them. There may be a number of things that are planned out -- for example, specific set pieces can be planned without a necessary resolution, general goals and intentions can be laid down, and inevitable confrontations can be scheduled. None of that means the comments are useless, ineffectual, or essentially nonexistent as far as the quest goes.


Also, and this has nothing to do with the argument, but you should know you're consistently using big words improperly.

I figured that today's Death tarot meant we were going to have some truly horrible shit happen, but instead we got a LvUp and finally got our secret off our chest, and the foxes didn't eat our soul or nothin'. The only suboptimal thing that happened was Bladetree getting pissed off, and frankly he's pissed off all the time.

...but this thread's for DiveQuest.

>>21

I think I can summarize your argument in English:
This was discussed before, with or without you presence; as such, you are invalidated from arguing this point - if you continue to do so, you are either foolish or a hopeless case.
Further, suggestions drive the quest. They serve as essential building blocks to further the goals of creating an interesting story. The Quest author merely builds a foundation and provides the means. I know this because of personal experience.


I hope that I am not misreading or misrepresenting what you wrote; I am also inclined to respond.

A Quest author is not mandated to follow suggestions; further, because individual bias affects much of what people do, said author might have a preference for a certain way of storytelling. Taking the two previous assertions in tandem, along with what I wrote earlier, I could make an argument that said author has great control over what goes on in their work. By putting together the building blocks, or suggestions, said person can create virtually any story or outcome they desire. Does this mean suggestions are ineffectual? Certainly not; what it does suggest (pun intended), is that they are meaningless because the meaning is created by whomever is actually putting the story or outcome into play.

Why am I a skeptic? Because I have experience to the contrary of what you described. However, I digress - my goal is not to tell people to stop liking quest threads. That would be silly.

>>24
I think I can summarize your argument in English: That was English.
And no, obviously you can't.
I know this because of personal experience. Oh fantastic this sounds like a good argument already.

Does this mean suggestions are ineffectual? Certainly not; what it does suggest (pun intended), is that they are meaningless This is retarded.
The suggestions are the soul of the quest. Meaning is constructed around them, not the other way around.


Why am I a skeptic? Because I have experience to the contrary of what you described. Since it's impossible for such a statement to be more vague than it is already I'll just assume you didn't get your suggestion used and now you're gonna cry about it.

Suggestions shape the story. That's what they're SUPPOSED to do.
They don't overwrite the narrative whole, but they create the overall flow of the adventure.
MudyQuest is a perfect example of huge changes to the story happening solely because of the intentions and suggestions of the players, even when they contradicted the expectations or plans of the Quest-maker.
No amount of overly-worded "RAILROOOOAAAAD" complaints will change the nature of the Quest nor the nature of the debate around it which is intrinsically unprovable to the skeptic.

tl;dr your entire argument is as vague as possible, your proofs are all undefined anecdotal references, and your point is dead in the water.

>>24
You are a silly silly person.

This entire argument is stupid.

So how bout them adorabolds, huh?

>>25

Clearly, you are a master of debate and an intellectual giant. I humbly submit to your extensive vocabulary and unparalleled reasoning ability.

However, a suggestion to you; perhaps you are better off looking for proof on your own - surely, I can provide you none. There is only so much a written word can do in convincing the blind leading the blind.

>>29
you are better off looking for proof on your own My own experiences with Quests have provided enough proof to reach the conclusions I've already voiced.

There is only so much a written word can do in convincing the blind leading the blind. You can lead a fly to water but you can't make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke.

>>14
We didn't TURN evil. We ARE evil. And so what, are only Quests that allow us to make the background of the character the only non-railroaded Quests?

>>29
>>30

Are both of you so small that you cannot engage in reasoned debate without resorting to couched insults?

Yes, a quest author has the final authorial control of a work, by dint of being it's author. She or he is God in their respective world and they are free to pick and choose suggestion and, furthermore, intepret the suggestions as they like. I will also concede the point that an authors bias will seep into their work. However simply having power does not dictate it is abused and none of these facts imply railroading is inevitable.

Firstly a quest exists, or rather should exist, to entertain. If it does not entertain, the quest will die. It just so happens that in a quest's case the entertainment value comes from the fact that we are part of the story, therefore it's author is beholden to listen to our suggestions (or at the very least create the illusion they are).

Railroading is when there is a pre-planed story, and no deviance from the story will be tolerated. As can be seen on these forums, beyond a reasonable doubt, people's suggestions as to which action to undertake are heeded, whether by consensus, the authors favourite, or simply whichever was written first.

And yes, sometimes there is a pre-planned story and certainly a quest can proseper from set-pieces and twists, but the suggestions form the framework for how the character reacts to a narrative. Ultimately, and often, this causes the story to go in a radically different direction to the one they intended, either because the author preferred a certain suggestion or because, as I said earlier, the author needs to give the audience what it wants.

But even if a suggestion does not change the ultimate destination, it can certainly change the way we get there and is so, ultimately, not meaningless.

>>32

And yes, I am well aware of my own hypocricy.

>>32

What you describe is certainly reasonable; the only problem lies in how one is to define a railroad. For example, the train analogy considers point A as the beginning and B as the destination. Whilst the train may stop to take on more passengers on the way, change the scenery surrounding the trip, or create a social environment for the passengers, the destination remains the same. Meaning, it is impossible to move in any direction other than forward by virtue of the railroad. Further, I, as the passenger, can suggest to the conductor how fast or slow the train is to move; I cannot make the train move unless I am the conductor.

However, that is a pretty rigid analogy. Basically, if I, as the conductor, can make the train move in any direction I desire based on the pre-existing rail system, the train will make its way to point B eventually; however, I can also take it to any other point, C, D, E, and such, within the context of where I would like to travel. Essentially, I can still make the train go slower, faster, or stop entirely as the conductor based on what others tell me. If I am biased, I can pick or ignore what the passengers tell me because I am the one that moves the train. If I am biased and particularly experienced, they won't even know that I am doing it. As such, the train will continue moving in the direction I desire short of someone else hijacking it.

That is basic approach I take in regard to the topic – there is a lot more to it and the above analogy probably falls short of properly explaining the concept – but I digress.

I think some degree of railroading is necessary for good narrative. Free form roleplaying is the counterpoint; because there is lack of power balance, there is also a lack of structure. Such games usually do not have a good narrative because no-one is able to control the action of the players other than the players themselves.

I think the issue with quests is that they are not well defined. They're a very new artform, and I don't believe a general consensus of what makes up a quest has been agreed upon.

First-off: Are we the 'players'? Surely we make suggestions for what the characters do, but rarely are they not their own person! DiveQuest is by far and large the most obvious example of this, but even more 'freeform' quests, such as Kara, have established personalities. Think of it this way: >/quest/ is an indirect player character!

Is this a form of railroading? Perhaps. Not having control over your character is truly the only thing that *can* be definitively defined as railroading, but are they truly /your/ characters? No! Did you go through character creation, defining their backstory, traits, personality? Even if you did, you would still have to share them with the rest of the board, thus preventing a character from ever having a specific player.

So, a quest does not have players. Likewise, it does not have a GM. It has an *Author*. That's right, someone very defined by writing the story! It's the author's role to create the world and characters of the quest, to show it to us, and to choose the suggestions that create what happens next. And of course the author needs to choose suggestions! If they didn't, we wouldn't need them at all! We could simply read the suggestions, and have them happen as fact. But that isn't what a quest is. A quest is more like a collaborative writing project than a roleplaying game. An author writes a story, shaped by the comments and suggestions of his co-writers, who are also the audience.

There, that's my interpretation of a quest, from someone who's never run, or honestly, even made a suggestion in one! Quests may be railroaded depending on your definition of it, but it's not because the the quest runner is doing a bad job. It's because that is simply what a quest *is*. (Also apologies for the crappy semiformatting. I seem to have come to rely on boldtext for my dramatic speeches.)

I was rereading Ruby Quest and in the middle of John Quest (the parody Weaver did in the middle of a discussion thread) John found the Orb of Infinite Psyche.

Why the hell does it keep popping up?
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/3354728/images/1231499725197.gif

>>1044
Because Weaver is the one who invented the orb of infinite psyche, and John Quest was done by Weaver. It was him foreshadowing Dive.

>>72
As a questrunner myself, I'd say that an overarching storyline does not make a game incredibly linear. In mine, I never expected to create Ziz or the zerkerthumpers, for instance.