How often do you say "no" to quest givers?

[Goldenroad]

Obviously this isn't a blanket concept for every game type, but most Western RPG's I've played, (right now I'm bouncing between Outer Worlds, Disco Elysium and Yakuza 6 (not a WRPG I know)), you approach someone who wants you to do something and you can normally accept the quest or reject it. I probably don't need to explain this. I've been sitting here thinking, and I don't know if I've ever said no to any quest I've been offered.

I like to try to role play most of these games within some kind of parameters, which normally consists of, "What do I think this character would do?" And I honestly believe that, in some disservice of this role playing, I accept anything anyone asks me to do. Like I named my character Hank Williams in the Outer Worlds, (watched that Ken Burns doc and man, I love Hank), and I'm trying to respond to NPC's in a way that's like "How would Hank deal with this?", but as I'm getting offered more and more quests I keep thinking "Hank would probably just be like 'Nah, good luck with that', and mosey on down the road". So I'm starting to consider turning down quests, but then there is this part of my lizard brain where I feel like I'm then missing out on part of the game, because I literally am.

There is also obviously the other gameplay issue of, "If I don't do any of these sidequests I'll be under leveled and not able to make any progress in the main story".

So, how often do you turn down quests in the name of role playing, or for whatever reason? Have you ever played a game and turned down every sidequest? How'd that work out for you?

 

[CHC]

This was the only way I survived Mass Effect 1

Also, in Baldur's Gate I and II, I played an evil wizard that was so horrible and abusive towards anyone asking him for help that in quite a few cases, the NPCs themselves retracted their requests or wound up fighting me and dying. Those games are really special....

 

[Kalentan]

Sometimes. But more often then not I'll accept. I guess it depends if it's a side quest that will negatively effect the story. Like Megaton.

 

[Goldenroad]

This was the only way I survived Mass Effect 1

Also, in Baldur's Gate I and II, I played an evil wizard that was so horrible and abusive towards anyone asking him for help that in quite a few cases, the NPCs retracted their requests or wound up fighting me and dying. Those games are really special....

Click to shrink...

I feel sad you never experienced the comfort of the consort on the Citadel.

 

[JuicyPlayer]

Never because if it's a game that has a minimap with tons of exclamations it bothers the shit out of me and I have to complete them all.

 

[Le Dude]

Pretty much always. Just to add them to my quest log.

Maybe this already exists, but it would be neat to see an RPG where you had a limited quest log, so you could only accept certain quests, and you were only given limited time/number of options to start a quest. Something where you really had to pick and choose what you wanted to do, because the things that you missed are gone. Bonus points if finishing/failing/declining the quests alters the game world.

 

[Kevers]

And give up potential rewards? Never.

 

[sredgrin]

I'm a big fan of the "accept the quest but work against the obviously scummy questgiver" approach.

 

[Radrigal]

Never. Some of the best dialogue, world building, and rewards are found in unassuming side-quests.

 

[Jamie]

Never. NEVER. Want me to headbutt a squirrel on my way to saving the world? Point me at the right direction.

Seriously though, not giving up experience and quest rewards.

 

[Nax]

You're literally missing game content by denying a quest giver. I have no idea why you would ever do that. I guess if they are repeatable fetch quests like Skyrim's radiant system. But otherwise it doesn't make sense.

 

[TechnoDisaster]

I always accept quests, even if the mere act of accepting them would go against my character's personality. I'm not about to miss out on experience and rewards.

Unless they're randomly generated quests. Fuck those.

 

[Rhaknar]

Never

 

[Goldenroad]

Pretty much always. Just to add them to my quest log.

Maybe this already exists, but it would be neat to see an RPG where you had a limited quest log, so you could only accept certain quests, and you were only given limited time/number of options to start a quest. Something where you really had to pick and choose what you wanted to do, because the things that you missed are gone. Bonus points if finishing/failing/declining the quests alters the game world.

Click to shrink...

I mean RPG's definitely close off quests based on decisions you make, like the Witcher 2 was a great example, but I like the idea of only being able to deal with so many quests at one time and the ones you choose limiting the ones you can choose from. It seems like it would at the very least encourage replayability....assuming the game is good.

 

[DarkFlame92]

Rarely. Must be really a slog to deny a quest

 

[Tohsaka]

I always do them all unless I'm not enjoying the game very much.

 

[Mediking]

Witcher 3 says hi

 

[Tetrinski]

I wish I did it more often, I don't even do most of them.

You can look at saying no as game content that you'd miss if you did the quest. Maybe the other character will beg, or offer more money, or tell you that you're an asshole, or be like "it was worth a try, you know? But since you are actually trying to save the world, I'll reward you anyways".

Maybe the problem is that developers often fail to make the NO an interesting option. Maybe down the line you can see the consequences of not doing it. Maybe you will meet the person who took the job, who's now rich and in prison as a consequence, or someone died because you didn't go get medicine, I don't know, but I say no all the time to humans and in person, I should be saying it all the time to NPCs.

Games should have time as a factor more often. Say, you're on a journey to get somewhere, like in so many games. You reach a town and decide; we'll stop here for two days to rest. In that time, since you are a legendary warrior, many people ask for help, and you have to decide whom to help, because you don't have plenty of time and you should also get some actual rest.

In other words, we don't do it because it's not interesting, and that is hard to fix because it's ingrained in the nature of the genre, which gives you infinite time.

 

[Teggy]

I decided not to help that guy fake his death on Outer Worlds. It takes a really low life character to make me ignore a quest.

 

[Venatio]

I accept them all, because I'm a people pleaser.

 

[Devilgunman]

If you play DQXI and don't say "no" any given chance, you're missing out. Big time.

 

[Goldenroad]

I wish I did it more often, I don't even do most of them.

You can look at saying no as game content that you'd miss if you did the quest. Maybe the other character will beg, or offer more money, or tell you that you're an asshole, or be like "it was worth a try, you know? But since you are actually trying to save the world, I'll reward you anyways".

Maybe the problem is that developers often fail to make the NO an interesting option. Maybe down the line you can see the consequences of not doing it. Maybe you will meet the person who took the job, who's now rich and in prison as a consequence, or someone died because you didn't go get medicine, I don't know, but I say no all the time to humans and in person, I should be saying it all the time to NPCs.

Games should have time as a factor more often. Say, you're on a journey to get somewhere, like in so many games. You reach a town and decide; we'll stop here for two days to rest. In that time, since you are a legendary warrior, many people ask for help, and you have to decide whom to help, because you don't have plenty of time and you should also get some actual rest.

In other words, we don't do it because it's not interesting, and that is hard to fix because it's ingrained in the nature of the genre, which gives you infinite time.

Click to shrink...

I think the point about 'no' not being an interesting option is it. I don't do any table top role playing, but listening to show's like the Adventure Zone, or Critical Role, you get the sense of how completely dynamic it is because there is almost always the option for 'no' and when that happens the DM has to adjust. Video games maybe just can't possibly deliver on that.

I understand how maybe timed quests somewhat addresses it, but then I'm worrying about timers, which again, generally isn't a concern in actual role playing. There are no hidden dynamics at play generally for saying no to a quest, and that's a drag, because it hinders my ability to role play and then really what kind of game am I playing at the end of the day? I just want a game that's gonna let me be like Hank.

 

[Le Dude]

I mean RPG's definitely close off quests based on decisions you make, like the Witcher 2 was a great example, but I like the idea of only being able to deal with so many quests at one time and the ones you choose limiting the ones you can choose from. It seems like it would at the very least encourage replayability....assuming the game is good.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I've definitely played a few where there's quests only available at a certain point in the game, or where you have an option between two quests that are conflicting. Sometimes you can kill quest NPCs and the fail a quest or block out the option.

It would just be cool to have something where it wasn't designed for you to be able to take all quests. Something where you really had to pick and choose. That would be especially cool if the quests had meaningful rewards. Or maybe quests could be timed so they auto-fail after a certain number of day/night cycles, or if you complete too many other quests in the meantime, wander too far from the quest area, etc . . . Managing quests instead of just accepting >90% of them

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

Normally never but I did so a couple of times in Outer Worlds just because I was so powerful already I didn't need more XP and it didn't seem that interesting.

I feel like it's something I might start doing more often in future to try and break myself out of that obsession with getting every last bit of XP.

EDIT: I think I did it a few times in Disco Elysium because my character was just such a total fuck up that it felt right. It didn't feel like the game was going to screw me for not trying to do everything as well, which is part of what makes it so fantastic.

 

[SirNinja]

Only if I'm completely out of room in my quest log, if the game has such a limit.

 

[Pokemaniac]

I basically always accept them, but there's no guarantee I'm going to do anything about it any time soon.

 

[Zolbrod]

Never, UNLESS it's a recurring optional sidequest, or a randomized quest.
Basically anything that I can take on a virtually infinite number of times gets a No.

 

[Green Mario]

If I don't have any limits to how many quests I can take on, I'll just accept it and get to it whenever.
Or never.

 

[Owlowiscious]

it's less that i don't turn down side quests: i pick up and eventually do all side quests in a game

it's more that I dont' play the whole game altogether, or quit a game before beating it, sidequests included

edit: thinking about it, I also drop everything as soon as I beat a game sometimes, so in those cases I also wouldn't complete some sidequests

 

[Teeth]

I understand how maybe timed quests somewhat addresses it, but then I'm worrying about timers, which again, generally isn't a concern in actual role playing. There are no hidden dynamics at play generally for saying no to a quest, and that's a drag, because it hinders my ability to role play and then really what kind of game am I playing at the end of the day? I just want a game that's gonna let me be like Hank.

Click to shrink...

The timers could be eliminated by making quests have absolute times in the game's fiction, but not the real world.

For instance, you could have 3 days until the evil demon comes to town.
Completing side quest A moves time ahead 6 hours
Completing side quest B moves time ahead 24 hours
Completing side quest C moves time ahead 3 hours
Completing side quest D moves time ahead 36 hours
Completing side quest E moves time ahead 18 hours
Completing side quest F moves time ahead 20 hours
and so on...

Then you pick which ones you both have time for, fit your character, give the rewards you want and the people you want to help. The game could then resolve the combination of quests you did, with the ones you didn't, and after the big demon comes to town, the things you did AND the things you didn't do affect the world state.

That's not too different from Persona's calendar system, but I think it could work great in a Dragon Age or something that doesn't have a true day-night cycle.

Beyond that, a Skyrim/New Vegas style game could probably have refusing a quest have an alternate path, BUT, and this is key because it would take training the player out of a lifetime of habitual quest taking, they would have to early on CLEARLY demonstrate negative consequences for just taking a quest (not completing it). Like..."You talked to the Stormcloaks! You are a traitor to the country!" then some stuff goes down.

If they played the long game on consequences for taking quests right out of the gate, I think most players would feel cheated because they didn't realize the scope of what they were being asked. So tutorializing something like that early, then having a mid-length result next, then finally having a couple long-game consequences for taking quests and not saying no would be interesting, yeah.

 

[Officer Beefsteak]

Did the same in Outer Worlds, there were quests on Byzantium my character would not give a damn about, i broke down and did them anyway

 

[Deleted member 8468]

I always agree and then maybe ghost them later.

 

[Coinspinner]

Accepting a sidequest usually comes down to "play the game" or "don't play the game".

There's usually no upshot to not accepting it.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I feel like most RPGs are built expecting you to always take every quest, so I do.

I'd love to see one with a more in-depth variety of options where taking/finishing quests played a major role in how things shake out. A shorter game, with lots of replayability.

But so long as it's clearly intended that I "do everything", I'm gonna.

 

[FlintSpace]

I accept everything.
I just don't do it then.

 

[Mudo]

I'm broken.
I just can't say no to Quest givers :(
Sometimes I'll accept one, not like the sound of it and cancel it lol, but I'll always say yes to the person giving it.

I play mostly RPGs and like to do most all the content so I'm usually fine doing all the piddly little requests while i am already out getting other things accomplished.

 

[Goldenroad]

I

Beyond that, a Skyrim/New Vegas style game could probably have refusing a quest have an alternate path, BUT, and this is key because it would take training the player out of a lifetime of habitual quest taking, they would have to early on CLEARLY demonstrate negative consequences for just taking a quest (not completing it). Like..."You talked to the Stormcloaks! You are a traitor to the country!" then some stuff goes down.

If they played the long game on consequences for taking quests right out of the gate, I think most players would feel cheated because they didn't realize the scope of what they were being asked. So tutorializing something like that early, then having a mid-length result next, then finally having a couple long-game consequences for taking quests and not saying no would be interesting, yeah.

Click to shrink...

This is the thing though. If we're all conditioned to just accept any quest we're offered, which based on this poll, seems to be mostly the case, then why even have the option to turn down the quests, if you're not going to put in some meaningful reason/payoff behind doing so? Like I say, I don't think I've ever chosen the "refuse quest" option, so why include it? It breaks the immersion of role playing to some degree. I would like to see more games attempt a new approach at this, like you're describing.

I still don't like the timer idea, because what if I choose like I'm going to accept quests A, B and C, thinking I'll have time to do them all, and then I only have time to do quest B, whereas if I would have chose C and D, I may have been able to complete them both, and that just seems like it leads to a lot of frustration and even more content I'm missing out on.

It's a tricky thing and I'm not sure I've ever seen a game deal with the notion of refusing quests in a totally satisfactory manner.

 

[CognitiveAtrophy]

Practically never. In fact, in games that allow it, I'll exhaust opposing faction quests likely invalidating all of my previous actions in the process.

My only allegiance is to a clean and complete quest log.

 

[psilocybe]

Always, go find your frying pan yourself, lazy NPC.

Seriously though, I got burned from the game if I start doing side quests, so I avoid them.

 

[Nameless]

I like to role play in any WRPG or Immersive Sim worth its salt, so often. I'll deny or even purposely fail quests that aren't in line with my character's personality, allegiances, etc... if I can't come up with a valid reason why they'd be doing said tasks under false pretenses.

 

[Shining Star]

I have never said no. Doesn't mean I'm going to do the quest though.

 

[Gelf]

Depends how the game handles them. Most have no consequences for just accepting everything at once so that's what I tend to do. Doesn't mean I actually get around to completing half of them though.

 

[cooldawn]

I'm not a fan of 'filler' content so I say nah, I'll pass.

 

[Datajoy]

I usually just say yes and then never get around to it :/

Sorry bro I guess your daughter is gonna be lost in the wilderness forever.

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

Never. I want the experience so I can be above level requirements for quests.

 

[AudioEppa]

In the few games that I've played with that shit in it, as often as possible. I only do it for a little downtime from the story. I really try not to stay on SP games past 35-40 hours.

 

[Teeth]

This is the thing though. If we're all conditioned to just accept any quest we're offered, which based on this poll, seems to be mostly the case, then why even have the option to turn down the quests, if you're not going to put in some meaningful reason/payoff behind doing so? Like I say, I don't think I've ever chosen the "refuse quest" option, so why include it? It breaks the immersion of role playing to some degree. I would like to see more games attempt a new approach at this, like you're describing.

I still don't like the timer idea, because what if I choose like I'm going to accept quests A, B and C, thinking I'll have time to do them all, and then I only have time to do quest B, whereas if I would have chose C and D, I may have been able to complete them both, and that just seems like it leads to a lot of frustration and even more content I'm missing out on.

It's a tricky thing and I'm not sure I've ever seen a game deal with the notion of refusing quests in a totally satisfactory manner.

Click to shrink...

The choosing quests A/B/C thing would have to be done with all the foreknowledge of how much time passes for each quest. The entire game would have to be structured around it with some in-fiction reason for knowing how long each thing would take. So it would be more like picking quests the way one might pick armor in an RPG -> you know how much each piece weighs, so you pick the stuff you want to give you the stats/look/abilities that suit your character.

Again, it wouldn't be something you could just drop into a game and have it all work, it'd have to be designed around such a system, but I feel like it would be interesting. Experienced professionals in most contexts have a decent idea how long stuff takes to complete, and your adventurers wouldn't be too different. You could even spice it up by having core quests with some "time" variance based on completed tasks. Or you could simplify it by just having each task take '1 day'. Then all of them would be equally weighted in progression towards the climax/chapter end point, so it'd just be about making the tough decisions on who to help with the number of days available, then seeing how that results when the shit hits the fan.

 

[Deleted member 10726]

I'll tell them I'll look into it as soon as I can and then beat the game without ever doing a single step in the sidequest.

 

[Dog]

Depends if their voice and face is annoying, if it is... I kill them and steal any coin/loot they drop.

 

[Pankratous]

Never.

I do every single quest in every game.

Exceptions:
* One quest locks me out of another one because of some story reason, then I'll do the story I want.
* Repeatable questions I'll do once and never again.