Certain quest fails punish characters for RPing

[Glim]

Guys, quests that you can fail outright by just saying No or some such in the beginning punishes a character for RPing. When they could just walk away and come back and finish the quest later and instead are busy or don't want to do it right now and actually do a bit of RPing by saying No not right now, and it makes you fail the quest, it is punishing a player.

This is just a suggestion to consider this when making a quest.

There is only one right now that I know does this, but I am not sure if there are more.

[Gwain]

If there is only one, then please send in a suggestion to fix or addition to it to the builder email: fkbuilders@lists.skynet.ie

Alternatively, if it has failed you for trying to rp more and you feel it is unfair, you can submit a complaint in the forum or explain your issue in fkbuilders@lists.skynet.ie and see if you can get a reset. it never hurts to try.

[Lathlain]

I only know of two quests that do this, and I built or helped build them both (though there are probably more!). The general idea in both cases is to prevent a mob from spamming someone with the same question in the future if they have no intention of ever doing a quest - though I can see what you're saying.

Ultimately, it's generally punishing the character for an act of perceived ignorance. There are some NPCs who really don't appreciate 'no' as an answer! Given how tricky it would be to script an NPC to treat the variations of 'No, not right now' any differently from 'No, you snivelling worm', I think the key here is to watch who you turn down when dealing with quests

[Glim]

Thanks, Gwain, I will do that.

And I see where you are coming from, Lathlain, and the intentions behind giving a quest an opt-out clause to prevent spam are good, but aren't there better ways to go about it?

A couple of ways I see:

* If it's an evil NPC, they can command the player to not come back until they are ready to submit/do your bidding/etc.

* Can you not set quest bits to only ask the question once and that way they can come back and start it at their leisure without being spammed?

I actually LOVE to see actual coded responses to someone saying no to a quest. I think it's a nice bit of detail that shows the quest coder but some extra effort into it. I will often say no just to see if there is one. It got me into trouble this time, though, and I was much disappointed when I checked my qlog and saw the red qlog entry, because I actually did want to do this quest, just at a later time.

[Lathlain]

In fairness to you, one of my two quests like this allows you to say 'yes' at a later date even after saying 'no' the first time (though they won't ask for help again, they do still respond the player), but the second one does plant a nice big red 'Fail!' in your questlog and ensures you get blanked in future.

I will usually favour the first approach, because (as you rightly say!) most people really aren't that bothered if a total stranger initially refuses to help them with a mighty and frankly demanding task! "How dare you not agree to enter the cave of probable demise, overcome the being of moderate nastiness and bring me the armour of a thousand mehs! I smite you and your children's children!"

That said, there are instances when a grumpy response to a 'no' is warranted. Without giving too much away, if you walk into an evil god's temple and have better and more pressing things to do than speak to a high ranking priest about their god, be prepared to be snubbed for it

[Glim]

That said, there are instances when a grumpy response to a 'no' is warranted. Without giving too much away, if you walk into an evil god's temple and have better and more pressing things to do than speak to a high ranking priest about their god, be prepared to be snubbed for it

I shall no longer refuse quests and simply ignore them and walk away when they ask from now on if I don't want to do it. Until you start coding a fail for that too!

Is that better than actually interacting with the mob?

[Layna]

Or you could say 'not at the moment thank you'.

Thus, the word 'no' is not used and the situation is avoided. I appreciate what you're saying, but given the way quests have to be coded, it might just be better to think twice before you answer with the affirmative 'yes' or the negative 'no'

Besides, not all quest givers are noted for their patience and Lath'lain's point stands. There's nothing inherently wrong with people failing quests - and why shouldn't a questgiver react badly if you tell them you're too busy? I'd say deal with it ICly, you said no - the questgiver was unhappy about this, that's life.

[Glim]

Hey you two, no ganging up on me just because you love each other.

Yes, I could have, but then I wouldn't get to see all those cool responses that the quest makers took time to put in.

And my original point still stands. Because I didn't have to say no, I could have just walked away. Which actually would probably have gotten a worse reaction from the NPC questgiver. But then, that is simply manipulating the code because I know how it works. If you are going to put in a fail option for a No response, then you might as well code a fail option for ignoring the quest. That's the point.