I'm curious as to how people handle their player's requests for side-quests. Personally, so long as they request it and have a general idea of what they'd like to accomplish I'll come up with something appropriate to the time and setting and meet them during the week. So far I've done three and it's allowed me to explore whole new levels of intrigue to the setting. My players' characters suddenly have personal motivations as opposed to group motivation, which when combined with keeping the secrecy of the side-quest events completely up to the player, is interesting to watch them interact. Not to mention all the possabilities I'm finding from these new story elements. Not to mention the players who might miss out on experience or miss a session being able to keep up with everyone else through rewards in the side-quests.

I was wondering how other game masters handle side-quests, or if they even allow them. I know it's working well for my group, how about everyone else?

My group has never ever asked for one, nor do I think that they know they exist. All they ever ask is simply mono'ing their weapons, getting more weapons, and armour...

Milova said:

Not to mention bad grammer...

I usually allow my players a few side quests as long as it doesn't conflict with the main one.As most of the players can stay pretty focus, I don't see a problem with giving them a break and letting them develop plot seeds themself.

side quests are standard in my games. Invariably, each PC has a main 'side quest' exploring their background and character development.

eg, in my current game I have 3 players; a gunmetallican noble, a bloodsworn bounty hunter and a mind-wiped assassin.

So the main side quests I have:

• Who was I? the assassin searches for his former Identity.
• What is family? The bloodsworn explores the history of her family and deals with her wayward brother.
• The Machinations of Nobilty. The noble is dragged into the politics of nobilty, can his allegence to the Inquisition be kept secret?

I also ensure that most Side quests lead back into the main plot, so they never deviate too far.

Yes, I would normally do the same with exploring their backgrounds (still gave them experience for writing them out for me) but since I kind of up rooted everyone to another sub-sector, I couldn't really play off of their backgrounds (with exception to one). So this time, I've been working with adding intrigue. One player has entered into a dark pack with a Slann which he believes to be a daemon, another has joinned a secret society dedicated to a bloodsport in which he's become a player (Blood Bowl 40k), and the third is working in cooperation with another inquisitor to infiltrate a troublesome order of the Adeptus Mechanicus. I have a fourth one coming up where the player, a self-styled sniper will gain himself an on-going rival from the ruinous powers. All presenting themselves as persisting side-quests for the players and group at large. Which as I said earlier, keeping the events a secret from the group adds to motivations and the quality of character interaction.

Why I would normally allow for it, in this system the idea is not so appealing to me

The group is normally acting together only on the behalf of the =I=. Since my playgroup does not start as "senior acolythes", I do not expect them to be "with their master at all times". In fact, I do not even expect them to be in the same place at all if they are not on a mission.

Their quarters are only on the same planet, perhaps only in the same solar system. From time to time, they will be "rounded up" for some special training or a routine check for corruption. But all in all, they will be allowed to life their lives and go about their "personal duties"...whatever these might be!

If a player wants "something done", I will handle it "off-time".

I think the key to side quests is to do it such a way that it doesn't bore the rest of the group. With large play groups, that often means having a session with just the few players that have a stake in the sidetrack.

They can be a fun thing to do on nights where the entire group can't make it.

Otherwise things tend to bog down as the rest of the players become bored.

schoon said:

I definitely agree. The ideal side quests for me are done on other nights of the week from the main session. However, though these are fun and can really enhance the game, they should be done sparingly, if not for the fact that the player is getting extra rewards from the main campaign, then for the fact that it requires a lot of time from the game master. If you have a ton of free time then by all means have regular side-quests but if you're like me with school, a job, and other responsibilities to boot, they can really bog down your free-time.

How have you guys encouraged your players to do side quests? And did you let them come to you with the ideas, or did you do the work and offer them to the players? I would love to do more sidequests with my own group, but am not sure what the best way to get the ball rolling is.

I've dropped hints, in normal conversation. "You could try a side-quest for that..." General things like that. Albeit, I've never actually said it completely flat out, so that may be why, seeing with my group. You know what I mean Aethel.

As well, since you've asked Aethel, I'll answer my opinion. Personally, I think with Magnus, he wouldn't really do one unless requested. As well, I'm not sure how we'd do one, I don't want you to be going back and forth between myself and the others.

aethel said:

Well in my experience there are two ways of doing a side-quest (in either case it ultimately depends on the players whether they want to do them or not.) At any rate the first way is that the player has an idea he would like to puruse in the setting his or her character is in.

For example, perhaps in the main game they are investigating a cult, but the player, we'll say a scum, would like to head up to the upper spire to attempt to steal and or con some nobles out of their nice things. Alternatively, the player would like to contact the cult directly as to join and make a dark pact. In either of these cases, the way the sidequest is operated is that the player has his or her ideas, so their character tries to persue them while the GM passively describes what occurs as the character explores the setting.

The other way is that up front, the play asks for a sidequest and informs the GM of what they're looking to do, or what sort of reward they'd like to get. In such a case, if the GM deems it appropriate he or she then takes the time to craft a situation that would arise from the campaign setting for the player to go on (a mini-adventure if you will.)

Both passive and active sidequests have advantages and disadvantages. The passive though random and fun, can ultimately lead nowhere as the GM may discover the player's motivations and decide that their desires are not possible. The active way will be just as fullfilling for player and GM as the main adventure as the same care is dedicated to it. The downside is the fact that active side quests take a lot more time on the GM's part as they have to work on the individual adventure.

I usually do the active side-quest, but in a persisting setting such as a planet or solar system that the players are in for an extended amount of time, a passive side-quest can work just fine.

In my games:

Side quests are something players can choose to do, at any time, with the downtime they have been given. Downtime in my games is as valuable as xp or throne gelt. You can use it to heal, acquire rare stuff, make some extra cash, do some research, or build stuff, like in the standard rules of course. However, the Inquisitor has roughly zero free time, and there are things he'd like taken care of, and if he likes a given Acolyte or set of Acolytes he might let them pursue these things for him (do some research, track down something he can't or won't get from the =][=, build up some contacts somewhere, etc.). This can be a fantastic boost for one's career, and sometimes carries other rewards as well. In addition, there's special training. I allow Elite advances to be picked up during downtime if you can get training for the skill (career skills can be purchased freely, as normal), and the xp cost is based on 1) How close or far from your career the advance is (Pistol:Bolt costs more for an adept than for a cleric, for example), 2) How good the training you acquire is, and 3) how much field experience they've already had relating to the skill (so if you've been frequently making concealment checks for the past couple sessions, it'll cost less xp to actually learn the skill from a pro).

Then, of course, there is the side quest option. Maybe they want to go after a "grey contract", or hunt down someone who got away. Maybe they want to track their own lead and do some unofficial investigations. Risky sure, but if they're right and come back with something the Inquisitor thought wasn't there, they stand to gain a great deal. Clearly, any plans for this need to be told to me before the game, so I can prepare a proper scenario, but I actually prefer it when my players are self-motivated and not just waiting for the next mission while they relentlessly power up.

I have never thought nor run my games in terms of "side quests". The formula there seems too rigid and video-gamish. I think more in terms of story arcs and sub-plots. But regardless of the terminological framework in my games there's just the story and what the characters decide to do. Sometimes this results in many sidtracks and subplots others not as much. I never restrict things by saying "no you can't pursue that because it's not part of the main plot."

In any ongoing campaign of any length as the characters develop interests and quirks I find sub-plots develop naturally.

Say for example, NPC Bob the drug dealer may have been planned as a throw-away show up once for flavor NPC, but then a PC takes interest and tries to investigate his organization and take-over/take him down/hire him for something else, and viola a more indepth sub-plot is born in an organic manner.

Right now in my campaign, I have one character with 1) an insane, possibly corrupted, and potentially psychic adoptive daughter and newly acquired house-maid, as well as 2) a developing blood fued and 3) building sector-wide business influence. Another has 1) a daemonic pact, 2) an artificial eye through which he is recieving transmissions of assassination and espionage orders from an unknown group that will kill him if he defies them, 3) without realizing it is part of a conspiracy involving a navigator trade war, and 4) is inflitrating a major imperial adeptus. My third pc has 1) a assassin stalking him who seeks to repay him for saving her life, 2) the potential to be recruited as an agent for a renegade astartes chapter, or in the alternative may 3) be recruited by the Temple Tendency. All of these things are separate from the current main adventure plot, and all grew naturally from the actions of the characters.