Is it considered a bad practice to leave out undiscovered quests?

[HydraulicHydra]

I'm working on a map that will have a total of four optional quests in addition to the main quest. None of them are particularly difficult to find (approach guy with ! over head -> start quest; and they're all fairly likely to be encountered while doing the main mission objective).
Currently, I have it triggered to just create the quests when the player enters the region. My question is, is it considered unpolished/"unprofessional" to do it like that instead of making four undiscovered quests on map init then marking them as discovered as the player starts them?
Should unmarked quests just be reserved for quests that are actually secret and/or somewhat unlikely to be found without a little digging ingame?

 

[ThompZon]

Personally I think it's a design question, therefore up to you as a creator of the map.
I think that majority of cases, it should be undiscovered quests, unless you want it to be super secret for some reason.

 

[Gnuoy]

I'm kind of obsessive and just put all quests as atleast undiscovered. Just because what might seem like an easy to find quest for you could be confusing for someone who is new to your map. On the other hand, if all the quests are blatantly obvious then it's probably fine to leave them with no "undiscovered" placeholder. I agree with ThompZon tho. It depends if you want the player to have a hint that the quests exists or not. Personally I think it's good to give some hint and put all quests as at least undiscovered.

 

[raypack]

I'm kind of obsessive and just put all quests as atleast undiscovered. Just because what might seem like an easy to find quest for you could be confusing for someone who is new to your map. On the other hand, if all the quests are blatantly obvious then it's probably fine to leave them with no "undiscovered" placeholder. I agree with ThompZon tho. It depends if you want the player to have a hint that the quests exists or not. Personally I think it's good to give some hint and put all quests as at least undiscovered.

Yeah I agree.


I definitely think it's good to not let the player know when he has a 2nd main quest which is like:

Main quest 1: survive for 30 min
- Main quest 1 completed ---> play some dialogue or a mid-game cinematic and discover main quest 2
(perhaps after 30 minutes of defending, reinforcements arrive)

Main quest 2: destroy the enemy base
(with the new reinforcements, the player can finally destroy the enemy base)

As a failsafe quest 2 must always be completed if the player can somehow destroy the enemy base before main quest 1 is completed

BUT I think that generally speaking the player should know how many optional quests there are gonna be.
An exception I can think of is if there is an optional quest which activates some time (3 min, 5 min, 10 min) after the map begins.
But the optional quests will always activate (with a timer for example), without the player needing to do anything.

 

[Tristronic]

imo it's a question of style:
1. Is it a 'secret' quest?
2. Do you want all undiscovered quests to be hidden until found?
3. Is it a 'main-story' quest?

If 1, then go for it.
If 2, then go for it.
If 3, maybe hold off.

Again, just my opinion.
Maybe do side quests that are not hidden and bonus secret quests that are hidden?

I think only primary quests need hand-holding/ direct notice.

Sometimes the player should just start looking for a dog if the farmer says 'I haven't seen Rex since I let him out this morning."

 

[Chaosium]

It can be a good incentive for exploration to not let the player know that they have X Y Z quests yet to be found and let them figure out on their own instead

 

[Mashira]

First of all, four optional quests are NOT a lot. When, as you mentioned, they are hard to miss, the player will most likely approach these NPCs to see what's up. The worst that can happen to you is that they will ignore these quests and won't discover what you've had in store for them.

You should only worry about your "critical path" or main storyline for the player to follow. Only then can it be seen as unpolished when the player does not understand the narrative or gets lost. It would simply mean you created an environment with poor guidance for the player.

If you insist on the idea that the player should discover your optional quests then I would advise you to create four hidden "Undiscovered" (or whatever it was called) quest tabs in your quest log - it will vex the player to discover them himself. Everyone who plays an RPG-like map will most likely look up the log at least. In addition to that, I will leave at least a few of these quests in some hidden path, or leave a cue for a player to discover it himself, i.e. some monster might drop a note with an interesting description or some sort of a treasure map. When it feels rewarding - it feels better, on top of that think of some ideas to make optional quests fun perhaps?
That, in effect, will probably do more good instead of forcefully stuffing them into someone's mouth (like deliberately putting optional quest NPCs at spots where player won't have a chance to miss them, or won't have to search for anything - it makes it look like obligatory quests, not optional ones).

 

[HydraulicHydra]

Guys thank you for all the feedback. It is highly appreciated!