Read on Twitter
Quest ( @questrpg) is a tabletop RPG by TC Sottek, a single person who did not expect several D&D podcasts and streams to port to Quest after the one person indie RPG creators thought COULD address D&D’s issues publicly said it’s a lost cause. #AjeyReads https://www.adventure.game/creators-license
Quest is also—on its own—a very good game.
I have sung its praises before: https://twitter.com/ajeypandey/status/1269782086480728066?s=21
It’s written to be accessible to beginners, and it’s free-form and imaginative in its gameplay.
It’s NOT written to be anyone’s only RPG.
I have sung its praises before: https://twitter.com/ajeypandey/status/1269782086480728066?s=21
It’s written to be accessible to beginners, and it’s free-form and imaginative in its gameplay.
It’s NOT written to be anyone’s only RPG.
If you’re curious as to why Quest worked for all those podcasts and streams, Levi Kornelson explained that well: https://twitter.com/levikornelsen/status/1281425344860319746?s=21
If you’re curious as to why everyone left D&D on THIS month, ask Orion Black: https://twitter.com/dungeoncommandr/status/1279208531103629312?s=21
Quest is on track to pull market share from #WotC in a way that, say, MY games will not, and some worried that the Quest team would simply usurp D&D, leaving all other indie creators to remain in squalor, or something.
The Creators’ Resource is a counterexample to that worry.
The important piece is that a significant portion of the Quest RPG is now provided FOR FREE under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
The only things that AREN’T covered by this open license are:
- The art - The specific mechanics of abilities, items, and monsters
The only things that AREN’T covered by this open license are:
- The art - The specific mechanics of abilities, items, and monsters
Great!
But open-sourcing the core rules of a game doesn’t automatically make the game a good toolbox.
(We’ve had this conversation before.)
Documentation is VITAL.
Thankfully, this Creators’ Resource is WELL-documented.
But open-sourcing the core rules of a game doesn’t automatically make the game a good toolbox.
(We’ve had this conversation before.)
Documentation is VITAL.
Thankfully, this Creators’ Resource is WELL-documented.
Documentation, in any context, exists to lay out the design goals, latent assumptions, and warnings the writers have for anyone building on or modifying the core work.
These are the comments to a code library.
This is the WHY to the game text’s WHAT.
These are the comments to a code library.
This is the WHY to the game text’s WHAT.
Here, they are pink boxes in the main rules text:
”There are no skill checks on purpose.”
”The 10 HP cap is to limit stat inflation.”
”The rules address players directly.”
I might have figured that all out by staring at the text, but now I don’t have to—the writer told me.
I might have figured that all out by staring at the text, but now I don’t have to—the writer told me.
The most interesting part is in the back, in “Additional Resources.” There are three things here:
1) What Quest thinks hacks might look like
2) How to make Quest hacks compatible with the core game
3) Design principles for writing Quest (and suggested principles for Quest hacks)
1) What Quest thinks hacks might look like
2) How to make Quest hacks compatible with the core game
3) Design principles for writing Quest (and suggested principles for Quest hacks)
This is immensely important.
This section is mechanical HONESTY in action.
“Here’s what can and cannot change without causing mechanical cascade failures.” ”Here’s how I write mechanics for abilities, items, and monsters.” ”Here’s how I set AP costs for abilities.”
This section is mechanical HONESTY in action.
“Here’s what can and cannot change without causing mechanical cascade failures.” ”Here’s how I write mechanics for abilities, items, and monsters.” ”Here’s how I set AP costs for abilities.”
Reading this last section, I now know how TC Sottek writes mechanics for Quest.
I know why he writes them that way.
If I agree with him, I can emulate his style.
If I disagree, I know why—and what to change in response.
I know why he writes them that way.
If I agree with him, I can emulate his style.
If I disagree, I know why—and what to change in response.
And because I have clarity about:
1) What I can hack or reprint of Quest
2) What I CAN’T hack or reprint
3) How to talk about compatibility with Quest
I know what I can and can’t do without lawyerly ire.
1) What I can hack or reprint of Quest
2) What I CAN’T hack or reprint
3) How to talk about compatibility with Quest
I know what I can and can’t do without lawyerly ire.
This is walking the walk.
This is Quest taking openness seriously. TC has taken the means by which he could rent-seek his work and set it on fire in public.
I’m genuinely impressed, despite even my own skepticism.
This is Quest taking openness seriously. TC has taken the means by which he could rent-seek his work and set it on fire in public.
I’m genuinely impressed, despite even my own skepticism.
But that doesn’t address the undead disc-horse in the room.
Let’s talk about “being in the community.”
TC Sottek does not have to be part of the “indie TTRPG community.”
Let’s talk about “being in the community.”
TC Sottek does not have to be part of the “indie TTRPG community.”
I don't need him to be on Discord with me.
I don't need him to stream with me. I don’t really need him to follow me on Twitter.
He has his own job, and his own friends, and I'm not entitled to his time or friendship.
And neither are you.
I don't need him to stream with me. I don’t really need him to follow me on Twitter.
He has his own job, and his own friends, and I'm not entitled to his time or friendship.
And neither are you.
I understand the worry about an “outsider to the community” swooping in, taking all the money that no longer will go to WotC, and leaving nothing for anyone else to have.
But again, Quest very publicly did the OPPOSITE of rent-seeking.
I could write a module or hack that looks, reads, and plays like Quest; put it on Itch; and not pay royalties to the Quest team.
That’s really important.
I could write a module or hack that looks, reads, and plays like Quest; put it on Itch; and not pay royalties to the Quest team.
That’s really important.
Fine, TC Sottek is a white dude with a big media job.
Fine, the Doctor has some squicky abilities, for which a patch is promised.
Fine, maybe you just don’t like Quest.
What do you want? A parasocial relationship?
Fine, the Doctor has some squicky abilities, for which a patch is promised.
Fine, maybe you just don’t like Quest.
What do you want? A parasocial relationship?
I don’t expect you to personally trust or like TC Sottek or Quest. I don’t know him, either.
But your assessments of Quest, the RPG, shouldn’t hinge on whether its writer is “part of the community.”
It should hinge on the actions the Quest team makes.
But your assessments of Quest, the RPG, shouldn’t hinge on whether its writer is “part of the community.”
It should hinge on the actions the Quest team makes.
I understand Quest Discourse is fading, but those conversations will return:
About who is or isn’t “part of the community.”
About whether it’s problematic that everyone’s playing a particular game.
And I want people to speak with clarity when that discourse rises again.
About who is or isn’t “part of the community.”
About whether it’s problematic that everyone’s playing a particular game.
And I want people to speak with clarity when that discourse rises again.
The @questrpg Creators’ License and Creators’ Resource are on the Quest RPG website: https://www.adventure.game/creators-license
It’s a solid read. If you’ve read the core book already, just read the pink boxes, then skip to Section 5: Additional Resources.
That’s where the good stuff is.
It’s a solid read. If you’ve read the core book already, just read the pink boxes, then skip to Section 5: Additional Resources.
That’s where the good stuff is.
