How do people feel about randomized quest outcomes? (Spoilers)

The one quest I had in mind was “Saviour” from Ashes of Malmouth, the one with the man who’s barricaded himself in a room to protect a couple kids from the Aetherials, where the game basically rolls a die to decide whether or not he goes along with you.

I looked it up afterwards and it was interesting to see the comments a lot of people made about it. A lot of people felt the game had cheated them out of something somehow, and that there should have been a way to act so as to reliably get a good outcome.

I’m in two minds about this myself. On the one hand, the game explicitly uses choice and consequence as a selling point, and a quest like this would undermine that because it gives the opposite message: that there are some things outside your control. I think that’s a valid thing for a game designer to want the player to feel, for two reasons. One, it makes the world more believable, and therefore allows for more immersion. But more importantly, if everything was completely in the player’s control, and they knew they could engineer some good outcome to every situation they come across (barring bad reading comprehension or misclicks), then it takes all the tension out. There’s no sense of relief when things go well.

I personally like the idea of quests like these, though with slightly different execution. I think one thing that annoyed people was the fact that this quest was based on pure RNG and the player’s input didn’t matter at all. I talked about believability earlier, but if you take it to this extreme then it stops feeling believable itself. I think a better way to do it would be weighted probabilities. You come into a situation, evaluate it rationally, and make your choice. If you made the safe choice, then you get maybe a 90% chance of the “good” outcome, meaning your choice mattered, but there’s always still the chance that the people you’re dealing with (who may be on edge, justifiably paranoid or even sleep deprived and not thinking clearly) won’t go along. Alternatively if you mess up or if you deliberately act like a dick, maybe there’s a 99% chance of the bad outcome (because hey every once in a while miracles do happen).

I think it’s fun, though I can understand some people getting upset when they can’t choose the “right” outcome. I’d like to see a few more in GD2 if the devs decide to make it. Not every quest of course, that would be boring. But I like little quirks like this quest in a game.

If you would like to have more roleplaying, then your earlier decisions could influence how later encounters develop. If you are very ruthless in the beginning, then you could see different dialog options as if you had been more diplomatic.

In the middle or towards the end you can add special encounters for do-gooders and bad guys. The former can betray his ideals and become cruel, and the latter would have a chance to repent and make up for their earlier mistakes.

I agree, and that’s why the actual gameplay impact of quest RNG should be minimal and mostly limited to flavour text in my opinion. The only real no-no is if players missed out on actual game content (like new areas etc) based on quest RNG, but I don’t think the guys at Crate are cruel enough to do that.

Oh, I like that. A redemption arc questline if you’ve proven to be enough of a hardass, or something that really tests your morals if you’re trying to be good. Even if it doesn’t develop into full blown questlines, even simple acknowledgement in terms of how game characters address you based on the reputation you’ve earned, that really makes the world seem alive.

While Savior makes sense in the context of the whole Malmouth scenario, i hate it. I hate when RNG starts to dictate the outcome of quests.

I’m not a fan. If many (or all) quests worked like this it might work, but this one quest now stands out from the pack which magnifies my annoyance with it.