An Analysis of Original Quests on SV (Draft, under discussion and revision)

Reader mode
Swordomatic said:
Nothing says that your first quest has to be an original quest. :V

Start your 'brand' with a fanfic quest and have consistent, quality updates. Then slowly get more and more obscure.

Suddenly you'rd in original quest territory and you don't know how you got there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'd like to point out that my very first quest, which averaged 20 or so votes every update at minimum, is about 60-70% original, simply by virtue of exploring a part of the universe that was barely touched upon in any canon materials and throwing in every wikipedia article about mythology I read in between them, essentially building up an original universe upon the skeleton and vague rules set down by its canon work.

(I exaggerate. I did not use just wikipedia ;p)

Of course, since then none of my quests, whether original or fanbased, have garnered as much popularity, which I feel may have discouraged me and stopped me from really growing. Which is a shame, because I very much prefer to write original works.

(Yes, yes, Jem, I'll update... one day, okay, I'll update one day... I'll even tag you straightaway.)
 
So, for what it is worth, I'll chime in with my experiences; I have recently started writing my first quest ever, which, apparently, committed all of the cardinal sins of original setting quests, that is being purely narrative with no mechanics, having no established writer brand and generally following most of the failings outlined previously in the discussion (albeit I did manage a brisk daily update pace).

Currently, the quest is 14 pages long (after around three weeks) and maintains a steady ~10 votes per update, although it sometimes dips as low as 4-5. Which I suppose makes it a bit above-average where such things are concerned? Perhaps the fact that the original setting is basically medieval Europe with serial number filed off is the reason.
 
Swordomatic said:
Nothing says that your first quest has to be an original quest. :V

Start your 'brand' with a fanfic quest and have consistent, quality updates. Then slowly get more and more obscure.

Suddenly you'rd in original quest territory and you don't know how you got there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
... My first quest?

I've run like 50 quests between here and SB :V

I stopped writing quests for about a year because most (Over half) of my stuff was original and got little to no interest, and died pretty quickly.
 
Gargulec said:
I have recently started writing my first quest ever, which, apparently, committed all of the cardinal sins of original setting quests, that is being purely narrative with no mechanics, having no established writer brand and generally following most of the failings outlined previously in the discussion (albeit I did manage a brisk daily update pace).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Failings, eh? What failings do you think there are?

I am following your quest rather intently, and I'll say that you are in the process of creating your brand. I'll probably drop the name in the Quest Recomendation thread because it does quite a few things right. Meaningful choices, quality writing, interesting enough plot to create a natural discussion and engagement with the players on behalf of the author. Can't think of many things to fault it with.

...hmmm, now that I think of it, it definitely reminds me of Snowflake in several aspects. I wonder what it is exactly that Omicron's advised... ;)

It is also a quest that does 'exploration' right, by dropping us into a vast world with a certain firm goal to serve as a guide on our way through it. We are free in our actions, but never lost.

I wanted to contrast it with another quest that I also like, but which is on a verge of dying because it does exploration by throwing people in an unfamiliar environment like a bunch of blind kittens without explicitly saying what to do and offering them to find their own goals instead. While I like the approach and making sense of things personally, I am afraid veekie is right and that confusion repulses people. You seem to have managed to avoid that, despite our character knowing little of the world around her.
 
Last edited:
Nevill said:
I wonder what it is exactly that Omicron's advised... ;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Maybe it's hanging long enough near him that made some talent rub off? I'll go with that.

As for failings, I was referring mostly to the fact that at a glance, I appear to have come up with a low-mechanics, original content setting, which as the opening analysis in this thread would suggest is something that often ends in failure. And also it is perhaps a failing of mine to maniacally talk about my quest with everyone, ever; probably too much interest in my own work is kind of like vanity.
 
Last edited:
Nevill said:
...hmmm, now that I think of it, it definitely reminds me of Snowflake in several aspects. I wonder what it is exactly that Omicron's advised... ;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You don't want to know what Garg thought of SV before I advertised it to him as a medium for Questing :V

All this reminds me of how far behind I am on my own Quests, but I really don't want to start updating again until I actually have a computer. Urgh.
 
Gargulec said:
I appear to have come up with a low-mechanics, original content setting, which as the opening analysis in this thread would suggest is something that often ends in failure.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Regarding mechanics, I think you might have gotten the wrong impression. At least in the more recent pages of this thread, I think people have been saying that the progress of the story, interestingness of the story, QM-player interaction, meaningful voting options, etc. all matter more than the mechanics.

Most players aren't there for the mechanics, though well-crafted mechanics can help to augment the experience. Overly-blunt or complicated mechanics can even deter participation.
 
Last edited:
Oh I am slain! said:
Most players aren't there for the mechanics, though well-crafted mechanics can help to augment the experience. Overly-blunt or complicated mechanics can even deter participation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This. Mechanics are first and foremost a burden, because they set a floor on the minimum amount of work required to resolve or understand an issue. While they can potentially help with framing an issue, consistent resolution, and communication of properties, whether that offsets the burden has to be determined on an individual basis.
 
Last edited:
Now I feel awkward about stopping my Evil Overlord civ quest, for an Original Quest it had truly decent numbers, especially when you account for the fact all the voting was done on surveymonkey.

But civ quests are burdensome, and people will cheat on surveymonkey. >:E
 
The very first quest that actually got me to engage in it was one called Silapod Quest by @TripleMRed.
Red can explain it better than I can but the quest itself was pretty light on the mechanics and such.
For the most part it was 4-5 people max actively engaged in the quest.
In larger quests I never bothered doing write ins when I felt like it would be overlooked or dismissed due to bandwagons.
A great GM, a small player base and a fun story made that quest what it is.
I think the quest ended at 300+ pages then Red went on to do 2 more in a similar vein.

Mechanics weren't a big focus of those quests which kept my interest.
Mechanics heavy quests kill my interest more often than not.
 
Namer said:
(On the other hand, Ive seen too many people use the write in option to combine multiple other given options, cheating just a bit and then that one gets bandwagoned on while I'm asleep. That is a pain.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How is it "cheating"? For one thing, the GM is free to declare that it doesn't work, or results in disadvantages as everything is done in a rushed half-assed way, or you run out of time and only get to do the first one anyway.

Fundamentally, if people use a write-in option to combine two given options, it's because you as GM have not explained why, or even explicitly said that they are mutually exclusive. And if you can't just have them eat the consequences, did you even have a reason in mind?

It's impossible to cheat at a quest because the players have no responsibilities, not even the traditional paper RPG responsibilities of maintaining their character sheet and reporting dice results. If they ask for something you're not willing to give them, just say no.
 
Last edited:
Random832 said:
How is it "cheating"? For one thing, the GM is free to declare that it doesn't work, or results in disadvantages as everything is done in a rushed half-assed way, or you run out of time and only get to do the first one anyway.

Fundamentally, if people use a write-in option to combine two given options, it's because you as GM have not explained why - or even explicitly said that they are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Or it could be because voters can often be eager to try to push the limits. I mean, never underestimate the fact that a lot of Quest voters are distracted by a ton of things and just sorta absently stumble around. I mean, you'll also see moments where the exact opposite happens, and sometimes as a QM when I see a write-in I'm like, "Wow...I would never have thought about that."
 
Random832 said:
How is it "cheating"? For one thing, the GM is free to declare that it doesn't work, or results in disadvantages as everything is done in a rushed half-assed way, or you run out of time and only get to do the first one anyway.

Fundamentally, if people use a write-in option to combine two given options, it's because you as GM have not explained why, or even explicitly said that they are mutually exclusive. And if you can't just have them eat the consequences, did you even have a reason in mind?

It's impossible to cheat at a quest because the players have no responsibilities, not even the traditional paper RPG responsibilities of maintaining their character sheet and reporting dice results. If they ask for something you're not willing to give them, just say no.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Its not exactly cheating, per se, I used the word because it was close enough to what I wanted to mean.

If your voters just use the write in option to cobble together two pregiven votes, just lazily joining it with an 'and' or a -[X] subvote, it goes against what I believe to be the spirit of the write-in option: an option that allows you to express your creativity to come up with a vote that is distinct enough from the other votes.

Eh, its a pretty subjective matter. Some QMs are okay with it in most cases, some QMs let it slide only rarely, other QMs say 'absolutely not'.
 
You can sort threads by starting date, then it becomes really easy to count.

About 120 quests were started in the last month (since September 11), and there were 30 with the Original tag among them.

Of those, only half (15-16) are still actively updated, counting those that started last week. They are arguably doing better than before, though.
 
I think- And I haven't kept close track of this sort of thing, but just based on the games I remember seeing when I was more active in quests- about 1/4 games being "Original Setting" might be slightly higher than it has been before, but not that much.

It's also worth noting that a lot of crossover games are more like original setting works than anything, it's just that instead of using the different works as loose inspirations and changing the names, the QM uses the different works as slightly tighter inspirations and keeps the names.

Also, something interesting from the writing advice thread (Where I finally stuck my head in) - What do you all think about including a stronger 'Hook' as the opening post for a quest? I've been pre-occupied with debates, so wasn't able to write a new quest OP, but it seems like something that could help. I know I usually try to give some background on the setting and the choices in the OP, rather than charging straight into the story, but it seems like the quest where I did charge straight into the story- Usually fanfiction quests where I knew from the start who I wanted the MC to be and what I wanted them doing- have done a lot better than the ones that had more background.

I had written that off as mostly being the difference between Original and Fanfic quests, but thinking about it, it could be part of what causes that difference too.
 
Vindictus said:
It's also worth noting that a lot of crossover games are more like original setting works than anything, it's just that instead of using the different works as loose inspirations and changing the names, the QM uses the different works as slightly tighter inspirations and keeps the names.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I think a lot of fandom quests are like this, not just crossover ones. Many fandoms do not have anywhere near enough canon world-building for fandom quests to take place. A good chunk of fandom quests barely even include any characters or popular locations from the canon work, and heavily augment the canon magical system too. But they still use some elements from the canon work, so I guess they are still classified as fandom quests.
Vindictus said:
I had written that off as mostly being the difference between Original and Fanfic quests, but thinking about it, it could be part of what causes that difference too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Perhaps, but there may already be larger factors at play. In a way, for fandom quests, the fandom listed in the title is the hook.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Is it just confirmation bias or has there been a surge in Original quests in the last few weeks to months? I'm seeing more than ever on the front pages of Quests.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can't speak for others, but I launched my second quest specifically as a result of this whole 'original quest' discussion. So yes, I think the survey and this thread did have some form of influence.

Oh I am slain! said:
Perhaps, but there may already be larger factors at play. In a way, for fandom quests, the fandom listed in the title is the hook.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty much. The main advantage Fandom has over Original (at least in terms of drawing new players) is that people generally know what they're getting before they walk in. With an Original Quest, you have to work a lot harder to establish the setting and tone as you're basically starting from scratch.


Oh I am slain! said:
Regarding mechanics, I think you might have gotten the wrong impression. At least in the more recent pages of this thread, I think people have been saying that the progress of the story, interestingness of the story, QM-player interaction, meaningful voting options, etc. all matter more than the mechanics.

Most players aren't there for the mechanics, though well-crafted mechanics can help to augment the experience. Overly-blunt or complicated mechanics can even deter participation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. I recently received several extremely flattering compliments for my Host Quest specifically because it doesn't have any mechanics and works more like interactive fiction than anything else. Well-crafted mechanics can be extremely useful, especially when determining success or failure for high-stakes games, but they aren't really required and can be a serious detriment if they get too complex.

Plus they can rapidly lead to QM fatigue if you need whole spreadsheets just to track all the stats.
 
Vindictus said:
What do you all think about including a stronger 'Hook' as the opening post for a quest?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, as said earlier one of the advantages of "fanfiction" is the fact that you don't need as strong as a hook as you need for an original story because their interest in the fandom does this job for you. In my opinion the first few posts are perhaps the most important in regards of attracting (new) players (or readers in case of a book/story) so you need to capture their interest and convince them you are worth their time which often means a strong narrative and less a focus on worldbuilding (though you should still drop enough information that the reader can get a feel for the world/setting). There is a reason why many fantasy books start with an action-rich prologue before the real, often slower story.
 
Last edited:
HarakoniWarhawk said:
The very first quest that actually got me to engage in it was one called Silapod Quest by @TripleMRed.
Red can explain it better than I can but the quest itself was pretty light on the mechanics and such.
For the most part it was 4-5 people max actively engaged in the quest.
In larger quests I never bothered doing write ins when I felt like it would be overlooked or dismissed due to bandwagons.
A great GM, a small player base and a fun story made that quest what it is.
I think the quest ended at 300+ pages then Red went on to do 2 more in a similar vein.

Mechanics weren't a big focus of those quests which kept my interest.
Mechanics heavy quests kill my interest more often than not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Huh, someone who speaks fondly of my work? I'm touched Warhawk, you old goat. Also, it was only around 100+ pages. Short but sweet.
 
SynchronizedWritersBlock said:
Is it just confirmation bias or has there been a surge in Original quests in the last few weeks to months? I'm seeing more than ever on the front pages of Quests.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As the legendary DDP once said: "That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing."

It's a lot better IMO then having the same number of ASOIAF and WORM Quests. There's a lot more variety now instead of seeing the same stuff. Shout out to Kavorka especially for starting the election quests, along with Vesvius and his wrestling quest.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top