>>>/tg/47844386
>>>/tg/47842975
>>>/tg/47842885
>>>/tg/47846122
>>>/tg/47846380
>>>/tg/47841823
>>>/tg/47846556
>>>/tg/47845689
>>>/tg/47844530
>>>/tg/47842322
>>>/tg/47838985
>>>/tg/47828268
>>>/tg/47828274
Thirteen. There are currently thirteen quest threads on /tg/, about six weeks after /qst/ was made.
I understand that /qst/ is still a trial board, and as a result quests moving to /qst/ has not been strictly enforced. However, it has been so long since /qst/'s creation, with so many quests still on /tg/, that not enforcing this rule at least to a minor extent is actively hurting /qst/ and likely causing more people not to adopt it.
/qst/ cannot be tested fully as a board with so many big-name quests remaining on /tg/. If it were only 2-3 quests in total the impact wouldn't be so big, but a sizeable chunk of traffic still refuses to try /qst/, as if they're doing it under protest.
In the interest of /qst/'s future, quest threads must unify. I propose mods force /tg/ quests on /qst/ for a short period of time, such as a week, to compare the change in traffic and better judge whether the board can stay afloat. By this point it's apparent that if nobody does this, /tg/ quest threads will never, ever move willingly.
Discuss.
>>565009
Take away the 3-day autosage and move the threads, like on /trash/.
Maybe give it a bigger catalog or archive, too.
I agree and hope that people who matter see this.
Why won't they leave?
>they seem to be protest posting
/qst/ was a mistake.
>>565137
no it wasn't
>>565009
You don't actually care about /qst/'s future beyond removing the thing you consider badwrong fun from /tg/, and as such, your opinion on the matter can be easily disregarded.
Quests were never a large part of the board, and making a board just for them made about as much sense as making a whole new board just for GURPS. /tg/ is plenty big enough for quests, it always was, and at no point in the board's history has it been "clogged" with quests, as people so often put it.
When the new board showed up, all the questers scratched their head and wondered why it was in any way needed. Some, including myself, tried it out and found it lacking. Most simply shrugged and continued their quests that they had already made for /tg/ posters on /tg/ that already has /tg/ posters invested, while various short, silly, and nonsensical quests dominated the new, and painfully slow board as migrants from off-site showed up to try things out, mostly from tgchan from the looks of it.
As someone who likes /tg/ and enjoys tg things, my quest, and its general themes and content are intended for and is mostly enjoyed by other posters on /tg/. It gains new players by having people stumble in and say "hey, this looks cool, what's going on" and having us show them the archives as they catch up.
I honestly cannot for the life of me think of a reason for you to be annoyed at quests that doesn't make you look like a massive asshole, much like the shitposters who spammed /qst/ when it was made screaming about how it was a quest containment board despite every sign to the contrary.
13 more threads on /qst/ would still only be a drop in the mostly empty bucket.
>>565192
how is it lacking? There must be something stopping the questers from using the quest board.
I bet it's something really fucking simple too.
If it's muh comfy board is comfy then mods should be a little more active in pruning
>>565264
If you assume that questers are entirely different group from the general /tg/ population, then there's literally nothing stopping them.
But they're not a different group. The vast majority of people who participate in quests only do it incidentally. Relatively few people actually go looking for quests, so putting them on their own board leaves quests with very, very few players.
Quests do not need their own board because they are not a large, distinct group. Most questers quest because it's something similar to other /tg/ activities, not because they're looking for quests specifically.
>>565274
And because of this, quests are not monolithic and don't have much player crossover. I haven't actually participated in a quest in years, but when I did, I only ever did one or two per week and ignored the rest. Some of them I even actively disliked after looking at them.
You could force the most popular quests over and they'd lose more than half their player count due to incidentals not following and no other quest on /qst/ would even notice a difference because the people who moved only moved for their one quest.
>>565278
it's all making sense now, it needs tougher moderation imo.
There is a link in the 2nd sticky but after all this time it's not worked.
I hope the team see it.
>>565192
I think you guys should move to /qst/ for the extra features, but can see why you stay.
Would you move if they changed the thread bump limit?
Or just enforced the rules more? Or both?
The simple fact of the matter is, that, while /qst/ isn't needed, it's still a good idea for a board with extra features and more space for long quests.
Too many people think it's an unnecessary containment board, when it's not a containment board at all.
>>565297
>It's all making sense now
>Proceeds to have the point soar over his head
While I already considered it obvious you didn't actually care about quests and are just assmad about badwrong fun, thanks for opening your mouth and confirming it for everyone.
>>565935
He's not OP, I am.
>>566284
Are you any less retarded?
>>565935
The problem is traffic. Quest's get less participants on qst.
why don't you have some bum fun and find out if you really are a homo, I assume thats where your repressed rage is from
>have a nice day
Bumping a thread with discussion due to the flooding happening right now. kl
bumperino
It is finally over.
>>565192
>>565274
>questniggers are so butthurt that people don't appreciate their shitposting that they have to make up blatant lies
Overlord quest: 36 unique posters
Adventure city medieval: 32 unique posters
Legacy quest: 27 unique posters
Pokemon civ evolution: 25 unique posters
And I'm not even halfway through the first page. /qst/ is perfectly fine you fucking crybaby. Face it: the only reason you refuse to move there is as an act of protest against the fact that the vast majority of /tg/ wants you off their board because you're so incredibly narcissistic that you can't fathom the possibility that a normal, rational person could dislike you.
>>567280
>the vast majority of /tg/ wants you off their board because you're so incredibly narcissistic
I mean, at least you didn't use "we", but you have to see the irony in this post, right?
>>567280
The vast majority that never, ever shows up in any way? That vast majority?
I don't know why you keep claiming that they've got your back when they've never shown that they agree with you.
>>565009
What fucking rule are you talking about, yoy illiterate cretin?
>>567965
Good morning sleepy head *hugs* I see your still pushing the cretin gimmick, gl with that.
>new qst board for quests haven't stopped threads being made on /tg/ because of low participation on the quest board
Starting a thread on /s4s/ might be an idea, I mean if your on s4s you must be pretty damn board any way, am I right?
>>565264
Thread IDs; AKA mandatory tripcodes, are an issue.
>>565192
>I honestly cannot for the life of me think of a reason for you to be annoyed at quests that doesn't make you look like a massive asshole
I can only come up with two reasons for why anyone would take offence to the presence of quests on /tg/, you must either be a stickler for rules, or you must just not like quests.
If the first case, then it should be noted that
>/qst/ is still a trial board; no rules have been announced or enforced by mods that all quests now must move to /qst/
>It is not your job to moderate
If the later then it should be noted that "I don't like thing" is not a valid argument.
A common thing shown in these once a month threads that complain about weekend /tg/ is that about 1/4-1/2 of the quests being linked to are dead and waiting to fall off the board and at least a couple of the listed threads are civ management and skirmish games rather than quests. That OP was able to post only one non-quest and a batch of about 10-11 live quests is an achievement in and of itself.
>>568025
Which means he's crying over having to deal with a dozen threads in a board with 10 pages, which can hold 15 threads each. In other words, the entire bitching going in this thread is less than 1 out of every 10 threads on /tg/.
Is like... wow... I would say being thin skinned, but this is on the next level.
>>568029
>but this is on the next level.
No, it's par for the course for these people. Usually they use the front page argument, though, rather than a total number of threads argument.
>>568029
>in a board with 10 pages
The reason I took the time to make this thread is because I like using the front page sometimes, and it was covered in quest threads.
>>568390
Pictures please.
>>568406
I can't give you pictures, since all the quests in the OP are archived now. Usually /tg/ isn't as bad as the state it was in when I made this thread.
>>568390
I just looked at the front page and I see a single Civ game. No quests in sight.
If /qst/ was reworked into a general /fg/ - Forum Games board, would it get some actual activity and identity?
This is not /q/.
>>568427
Then you should have made one back on Saturday night to back up your argument. Print Screen is not that difficult.
>>568478
If I make another thread about this in the future I'll remember to do so, then.
>>568427
Wow then I guess your argument holds no water because the thing you are complaining about is not even real!
>>568887
It was real when I made the thread. I'm sure it'll get just as bad in the future.
>>568887
I just went and checked myself, and there were no quest threads on the front page. OP is so full of shit it's coming out of his eyes and making him see, well, shit.
>>568889
This is a thread about what weekend 4chan is like you tit, most quests run during that time. If you looked at the OP timestamps for each of the threads that were linked to you would know this.
>>568031
>front page argument
Who could be so idiotic to use pages when we have the catalogue?
>>568390
Nevermind.
>>569009
Threads on 4chan often derail. /tg/ threads are even more likely. I like seeing what the threads are currently like before clicking them, if a thread with an interesting OP devolves into political shitflinging or something similar I'll ignore it. The catalog is great but it doesn't completely obsolete the front page.
>>565278
It's very easy to use multiple boards. Thanks to the built-in native extensions thread watcher, active crossboarding is that much easier. The concern about traffic is silly.
>>569117
It's also very easy to ignore a handful of threads you don't like.
Splitting boards because someone doesn't like a thing is never a good idea.
>>565009
Rad! I like quests on /tg/ so that's a really great reminder, OP! Thanks for letting me know that /tg/ has thirteen quest threads!
/tg/ existing has NOTHING TO DO with /qst/ existing, by the way. tgchan.org existing has nothing to do with 4chan.org/qst/ as well. Nor would 8gag's quest board, or MSPaintAdventure Forums.
/qst/ is its own thing.
But hey, as long as this is a thread talking about /qst/ then I'll just throw out again that I think the 72 hour rule is fucking stupid and it removes slow, deliberate, well orchestrated longstanding quests like the kind I like running. I don't consider entertaining people on 4chan a full time job, so the idea of having to spend an entire day drawing pictures for Anons as opposed to a nice two hour chunk of time after work every day is really fucking dumb, and that the 72 hour rule singlehandedly means that the only kind of drawfag quests that can work on /qst/ are the kind where the artist spends a very small amount of time on each post.
>>569332
You really want /qst/ to become like the graveyards you mentioned? At least the forced autosage keeps the shitposts from hogging much boardspace.
>>569371
No it doesn't. It just means that every new post is a shitpost because NON-shitposting isn't viable!
Let's use me as an example. Here are two quest threads I've done, one on a "fast" board, and one here on /qa/.
http://old.newrem.com/savedthreads/threadThree.htm
http://old.newrem.com/adventures/heatherQuest/0001-heatherQuest.html
Now let's compare two active quest communities. 4chan's /qst/ and TGChan.
>>>/qst/
http://tgchan.org/kusaba/quest/catalog.html
>>569403
Oh, forgot to mention in this post, /qst/ as it stands is the worst of both worlds. It's a slow board with a small community AND an ARTIFICIAL time limit (that you don't need on fast boards because the board will bump your thread off on its own) so you're abandoning all of the benefit having a slow board might give you.
>>565009
>all of them are retarded anime quests
How surprising that weeb morons are the ones too stubborn to move. Report this shit now.
>>569429
4 / 13 is all.
Come on, Anon. One of those is fucking Legos. Stop exaggerating.
>>569407
>>>/qst/273059
>>>/qst/276271
>>>/qst/277574
>/qst/279447
These are petty much the most low quality of the shitposts on /qst/ right now. Most of the rest of the low quality drawings are average /b/-crap that never were going to last long anyway so it's best just to keep them from overstaying their welcome. That they'll stay for an extra 3.5-4.5 days anyway is just a consequence of the board's speed.
>>569435
Hi, hello, I have outside knowledge. I am a person who does quests on other websites. I know Weaver (Rubyquest), I know MT (The person who started that "Newt Adventure" thing you see on /trash/ sometimes), I know Chigui (BubbleBucket), I am a person who does quests myself. Hi how are you doing.
I'm telling you that we don't use /qst/ *because of that 72 hour rule*.
You can't look at the CURRENT state of /qst/ and say that /qst/ is good for having a rule that keeps quest creators who actually take pride in their work AWAY.
>>569432
Post Apocalypse Megacorp is actually civilization management so it's really 5/12 (another naruto quest, yet another dragonball quest, another kancolle quest, an asagi quest, and a katawa shojo quest).
>>569439
Most QMs don't take a full fucking day just to churn out a single update like you mentioned you like to do here>>569332. They are fine running those two hours to get as much content out because they only get that much time set aside out of their own schedules and want to see how far they can get.
>>569444
>Most QMs don't take a full fucking day just to churn out a single update
Correct. I agree with you. Most don't. And certainly NONE of the ones on /qst/ do.
But I guess what I don't agree with you on is that that's a good thing. You seem to prefer quantity and speed over... you know... effort...? I guess that's a fine position to have, but it isn't the position that I have. We CAN put out bullshit that we shit out as fast as we can, disregarding detail, with stress inducing speed, but... I mean... Why? When we could be making something we're proud of, why?
>>569447
Because your audience is anonymous posters on a Chinese girl cartoon image board.
>>569447
I enjoy effort, don't get me wrong, it's just finding someone that can combine quality with speed is what most drawquests can't really do. It's why a lot of the current, well received long-runners in the archives are all writefags.
>>569461
Combining quality with speed just isn't something you do for free! Quality and speed together is stressful as fuck.
Hell, those writefags aren't revising either. They're just shitting out their rough drafts.
>>569464
Of course the writefags are churning out rough drafts, though it sometimes doesn't seem like it. QMs work alone in herding cats towards what they want to write while trying to minimize the mistakes in what they present, you can bet there is a build up of stress.
>>569474
And I guess it will have to stay that way forever because of some incomprehensible bias for leaving rules the way they are.
>>569447
>...
Please stop.
Frankly, it sounds to me like you need to get speedier with your drawskills. After all, you aren't Renoir and your audience isn't a Fine Arts Conservatory.
>>568478
>>568887
I love how OP gave a full list of quest threads, and said that the front page was covered with them. But because he didn't screenshot to show people 3 days later, obviously it was a duplicitous lie and those threads were never there at all.
I don't really give a shit one way or another about quests, but questfags are by far the worst posters. At least the /pol/ shitposters getting angry about wimmins in teegee are blinded by ideology and not just reckless faggotry.
>>569504
I love how idiots like you don't understand that people like OP like to blow everything out of proportion. It's not a problem like OP says because it is NOT CONSISTENT.
Basically, OP said "there are a lot of things on /tg/ that I don't like right now!" and then the response was "well... it's not always like that, so maybe you're blowing things out of proportion like the cunt you are since we've had this discussion every week since 2010 and it has never gotten as bad as you actually claim?" and then you come in and say "wow why don't you believe OP's shitty rhetoric?"
Because most of the time it's not substantiated, that's why.
>>569512
You're right, it's not a consistent problem. That's why there's not consistent threads on /qa/ pointing out how many quests are on /tg/. That's why there's not the ability to look at timestamps on posts and see how many are on the board at a given time.
It's entirely within proportion. OP didn't say, "Every second thread on /tg/ is a quest, they need to be banned, blargh!" He said, "There's still a bunch of quests on /tg/, here's enough to cover the front page. Quests should be encouraged more forcibly to move to /qst/, because they're not moving voluntarily and it's doing no good for /qst/ to have them split. At this rate, /qst/ will never get a full workout and people can't judge if /qst/ is a success or failure, because quests aren't moving voluntarily." It's not shit rhetoric, it's describing the situation based on facts, and offering a solution.
Stay mad, faggot. This is why people get angry at questfags; you take any kind of criticism or suggestion as an attempt to line you against the wall. Go to /qst/ and try your quests there for 6 months. If the board still has troubles, then the mods shutter it and you come back to /tg/ with the knowledge that now is not the time for /qst/. If it does work, then you get a custom-made board (that has some dumb things like the autosage which ought to be addressed). This is a win-win.
>>569521
How is
>they need to be banned
any different from
>Quests should be encouraged more forcibly to move to /qst/
besides phrasing?
>>569501
However fast I might get at drawing, there is always going to be a difference between drawing fast and drawing well. If I draw well, quickly, then I can use that extra saved time to revise and polish.
>After all, you aren't Renoir and your audience isn't a Fine Arts Conservatory.
"It's SUPPOSED to be shit! This is FOUR CHAN!!"
Why are you like this?
>>569527
Aaaaugh I'm so fucking #triggered right now.
When I said "Why are you like this?" I meant to say that I understand why you'd think that it's ok for something TO be shit because it's 4chan, but I don't understand why you would be AGAINST somebody posting NOT shit because it's 4chan.
>>569526
Because, and this is important, he's not telling you to fuck off and die in a hole.
He's pointing out that, in the best interest of /qst/, there needs to be quest threads there. Because the most popular quests stay on /tg/, /qst/ isn't being given a fair shot. If quests aren't moved forcibly (which, yes, means a ban on /tg/ and relocating currently running quests to /qst/ like they do with /trash/ threads), and the current quest community refuses to move out of sheer stubbornness, then /qst/ will continue to languish.
By not moving to /qst/, it just perpetuates this shitty situation and split. If /qst/ succeeds, then that's all to the good. If /qst/ fails, then every 'ban quests on /tg/' thread is ended in one post with, "/qst/ was tried, it didn't work, the mods have said that quests belong on /tg/".
/tg/ is kill anyway. Remove the shitty quests and all that is left is generals.
>>569527
>>569532
You're trying to impose your own ideas of how quests should be run on an existing community that runs them differently.
The whole "post once a day, take a long time to write an update" is not something that 4chan quests do. This is more the realm of forum quests like SpaceBattles or tgchan. 4chan quests run much like how one would run a TRPG session: block of a few hours and run a session for your players. If it sucks, then it sucks, and you can't go back and edit what you had your NPCs say as a GM because you already said it and frequent retconning brings a ton of issues. It makes sense for /tg/ quests to be run like this, because it's something that quests have with tabletop games.
While I understand the benefits to being able to edit your work before submitting it, you're treating quests more like webcomics or serialized fiction. This is not the model /tg/ quests have ever used, so it's something new, and you're going to need to sell it better if you want it to catch on.
>>569537
Okay. That makes sense.
I do wish to note that I'm not condoning driving out the writefags, or the fast draw quests, but rather to just make it actually *possible* to have this third kind, but having reread over my posts, you're right and my frustrations have lead to me speaking out of turn. Sorry. Thank you for your analysis.
>>569533
That's exactly why I won't support it.
It was created out of whining, and the people who cry about quests will not take "/qst/ was tried, it didn't work, the mods have said that quests belong on /tg/", especially now that they can just say "But nobody even tried it because you're all stubborn trolls!" regardless of what actually happens. The mods said quests belonged on /tg/ for literally YEARS and it didn't matter to those people. Nobody wanted /qst/, and you can't force people to want it. Its creation was argued against every single time it ever came up, all the way until it was opened and beyond.
>>569521
>>569533
>OP didn't say, "Every second thread on /tg/ is a quest, they need to be banned, blargh!" He said, "There's still a bunch of quests on /tg/, here's enough to cover the front page.
No Op said, "Here's a bunch of quests still on /tg/ right now," then another guy claiming to be OP claimed he made the thread because they were clogging up the front page. This is the discussion chain you decided to pipe in on to add your views. Quests were never a high traffic thing on /tg/ and adding a number that won't update and just lay there because the actual number of QMs (especially on /tg/) is small and potential QMs usually drop after realizing that there is a lot more work involved in non-drawquests after a few sessions. /qst/'s major selling point was that it was originally designed for making drawquests more easily accessible to get into, combined with the incidental quest-goer argument means that the QMs that run on /tg/ won't really bring any new traffic to the board, even though two high traffic quests have already moved to /qst/. And if /qst/'s rules were inforced and all of the non-quests were removed, 60%-80% of the traffic would be bound up in at the most 5-7 threads each week.
>>569535
Come now, we still have 40k lore threads to work with.
>>569558
The high traffic quests that moved lost most of their traffic and became middling-low traffic quests.
>>569533
/qst/ will never be removed because it has its own community separate from /tg/. /qst/ will ESPECIALLY never be removed once you start forcibly moving /tg/ quests there. Do you know the shitstorm that will happen if a forced move actually goes through? Then magnify that shitstorm by three when everyone is forced to move BACK, along with all the /qst/-original users! Besides, if you think anything can actually stop people from saying "i don't like quests on /tg/, ban them" then you are delusional. Nothing will ever stop them, except actually banning quests from /tg/.
>>569539
>speaking out of turn
>4chan
Oh please. Anyway, that's just kind of how it is here. Also, I don't see the problem with making new threads after 72 hours, or after the quest sinks to page 8 (you can still posts in threads once they are in autosage), and the 1-week long internal archive ensures anyone can see your "new thread" link if you're the kind who posts once every two days. I don't really think the 72 hour bump limit prevents a "serial fiction" type of quest from happening, but I don't think it's been tried. As far as I know, nobody's threads have been deleted because they wanted to have several threads over the course of a few days. In any case, while I am not against it, I think it might be difficult to find and keep a constant audience in the current "trpg session" quest ecosystem.
>>569554
I know you're going to dismiss this post, but I have to disagree.
> Nobody wanted /qst/
People obviously wanted /qst/, otherwise it wouldn't be there. I know questfags who said that it might be nice to get some decent tools instead of the shitty diceroller and that's it, and I know anti-questfags who said it should exist to get quests off of /tg/. It was not a universally reviled idea, it's just that people dug in about whether or not quests belong on /tg/ and now neither group will back down.
I still think that /qst/ would do well if it got a fair shake, but that won't happen until some mod picks up a knife and carves every quest out of /tg/ (though the resulting 'Sneak Quests Back Into /tg/ Quest Part 157' might be entertaining).
>>569564
You could take every quest out of /tg/ and put them into /qst/ and it literally wouldn't matter to anyone except the anti-questers on /tg/. Quests are insular, and this was been shown when all quests on the site were moved to /tg/ and when a few /tg/ quests moved to /qst/. The people who were following the /a/ quests that got moved to /tg/ that one time stayed in their /a/ quests and then fucked off back to /a/ when those quests were done. They didn't stick around, and they didn't go to other quests.
>>569564
>It was not a universally reviled idea, it's just that people dug in about whether or not quests belong on /tg/ and now neither group will back down.
It was an almost universally reviled idea. Read through the /tg/ sticky that happened right before /qst/ was launched. The overwhelming majority of users were confused why /qst/ was going to be a thing since they didn't ask for it. Then everybody gave up because it became obvious that /qst/ was going to happen regardless of what users said.
Also, the "do quests belong on /tg/?" argument is silly. Of course they do. They've been on /tg/ for seven years, and with a few exceptions, no quests have been deleted off /tg/ during that time. It that isn't enough of a signal for someone, I'm sure Jesus Christ himself saying so wouldn't be more convincing. In fact, despite /qst/ being a thing, quests STILL belong on /tg/! Why? Because they haven't been moved or deleted.
>>569564
When /qst/ was announced, the only people who posted positive responses were anti-questers doing victory laps about quests being kicked out of /tg/.
The "manager" who made that thread showed that he had no idea how quests actually worked or what anyone on the board wanted (Because he didn't respond well to the haters either.). /qst/ was either someone's pet project that they nearly immediately abandoned or a complete misstep based on imaginary demand.
I'm fine with /qst/ existing as long as they can also be posted on /tg/. It'll even itself out eventually if left to the users.
>>569561
And they are still some of /qst/'s higher traffic threads.
>>569576
Go read OP again.
The whole point is that we've 'evened out' and it's the worst of both worlds.
>>569585
Those quests being force moved to /qst/ wouldn't help /qst/. All it would do is make some hateful backseat mods happy.
>>569587
>make some hateful backseat mods happy
Things these guys don't like may include quests, generals, non-quest writefagging, drawfagging, non-/tg/ related lore discussion, /tg/ related lore discussion, miniature painting, and any of the shitposts common to /tg/.
>>565009
There is also an infinite number of people who DON'T GIVE A SHIT.
>>569602
How can there be an infinite number of people with an opinion if there are only seven billion people total?
>>569603
>7 billion people total
Prove it. Prove we're the only planet with people on it mate.
>>569603
Most of them are microbes or live off planet 4 star systems over.
>>569607
>implying aliens are people
>>569643
Foreigners confirmed for not being human.
>>565009
/qst/ is not a containment board.
>>569603
Okay pedantic fuck. Millions of people. Whatever.
>>569527
Nice job at reinterpreting what I said, Mr. Artiste. You aren't Renoir, doesn't mean you shouldn't put effort in, but nobody (as this isn't a FA Conservatory) is gonna give you shit for your art not being up to tippity top shape. That's not to say people won't give you shit (whether the art is shit or not), but that's "because this is 4chan."
>>569571
They haven't been moved or deleted because it's a trial board. It will happen though.
I'll be there to drink your tears. This too will happen.
>>569795
If the statement about Renoir and the Fine Arts Conservatory wasn't meant to imply that I should make my art speedier (and thus put less effort into it) then why exactly did you say it at all? Was it just a non sequitur?
Bampu
>>570133
No. My point was that you're not being held to a high standard. If time is of such the essence as you purport it to be, then well, speed up. The people that appreciate your questrunning, won't fail you or anything. And it's not as if you were going to produce masterworks in the first place.
So, not put less effort, but temper the effort you do.
>>571707
This is essentially correct, but I can see where the other guy is coming from. The point people need to understand, both player and QM, that also seems taboo to accept, is that you cannot be perfect. You will always have a typo, an awkwardly worded sentence, a poor choice of words muddying the meaning of an update. These things happen, and you can't stop them. Even professional books don't pretend to be perfect and simply have a minimum acceptable rate of typos for the final draft, but they still expect there to be typos.
Perfection is not a destination, it is a vector. Time is also a quality in itself, and so for every QM you must balance rate of updates with quality of updates, but realize that you will never reach perfect quality in either criteria. The player will always need to wait for some time, and there will always be the occasional mistake. It is up to the QM to find the balance that fits for them, and work to always improve themselves with what they have to work with.
>>568439
probably, but then the questfags would get mad cause of the metafags being all meta instead of literary and narrative.
>>573275
>being all meta instead of literary and narrative
Proof that he's never really followed a quest.
