Forum:What's a quest guide's guise, guys?

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Redwood Grove > What's a quest guide's guise, guys?
Replacement filing cabinet.svg
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 18 October 2021 by Jakesterwars.

Hello, everyone. This is my first time using the RG so please correct me if I'm doing something wrong. To the topic at hand; I had an interesting discussion with Andmcadams yesterday that really should be discussed by everyone interested, so Choppe (always lurking) advised me to start a thread. Here we are. The topic is quest guides and what they should and shouldn't do. For your convenience, let me just copy the discussion we had:

Hi! I appreciate the detail you're going into about the quest lore, but it might actually be better to leave that out of the guide and instead work on a lore subpage like Monkey Madness I/Lore. That way people can get the lore out of the quest if they want it, without being bogged down by all the quest steps (solving puzzles for example) and people who want to do the quest don't need to get bogged down by all the lore. What do you think?

[brief time lapse]

Actually, someone pointed out a much better place where some story/lore already exists. Quest lines has some pages like Elemental Workshop quest series linked, but it's missing quite a few quest lines and others are pretty barebones. It'd be a good place to fill in IMO.
— Andmcadams

My reply was as follows (I'm omitting a few lines on my personal situation that aren't really relevant here, but you can find the full reply on A's talk page.

First of all, cheers for the appreciation; I'm glad to help. :) Now then, prepare for something long and incoherent!

[...] Now, I recently started rewriting/reworking the guides of some quests I've been doing in-game because they... bothered me. The crux herein lies in my definition of a quest guide - and please do tell me whether this is something on which most people agree or whether I am an oddball. To me, a quest guide should provide a full description of the events of a quest, insofar as they are relevant to the overall plot (as opposed to, for example, 'local' developments in a particular area that are secondary to the main events, or NPCs' personal stories when not directly pertinent), as well as advising players on how best to play through the quest.

Examples of the latter include advising people to gather items in advance (that is, before they are told in-game that they need these items) in order to save time or to prepare for an upcoming boss fight even if there are no indications of an imminent battle in-game. In my experience, guides do this fairly well, although the actual writing itself sometimes requires work and it is often not made clear in the guide that such a step is not 'logical' from an in-game point of view. In other words, I am of the opinion that it should be clearly marked that the suggested course of action deviates from what someone using purely in-game information would do, e.g. 'To save time, you may mine some coal before heading into the dungeon, as you will need it later' rather than 'Mine some coal, then enter the dungeon.'

The former point, explicit and complete descriptions of the primary events and plot of the quest, is something that I often find lacking. Constructions such as 'Talk to X. Make sure to go through the entire dialogue, then talk to Y.' are appropriate for a quick guide, but not a regular guide, especially if e.g. the reason to talk to Y or the identity of Y are revealed precisely when talking to X. Quite a few years back, I started a discussion on the (back then only) wiki to solidify this in the quest guide policy and there was support for featuring somewhat detailed descriptions of dialogue, cutscenes, etc. in the main body of the quest guide. I should stress, of course, that the guide should not become a transcript (neither literal nor paraphrased) and I do not aim to turn it into one. While doing low- and medium-levelled quests in OS, I started browsing their wiki guides to see whether images were lacking and I might get some. Despite trying to avoid reading the text to avoid spoilers (I will not have played these quests for at least a decade and therefore have forgotten the details and exact steps), I noticed that the guides are rather lacking in this respect (in my opinion no less important than is the 'giving players helpful out-of-game tips' bit).


Anyway, back to quest guides. I would say their goal is twofold. First of all, to help players doing the quest in-game progress through the quest. But secondly, to provide a comprehensive, compact but complete description of the plot and relevant backstory/lore. That is, a reader who is playing the quest at the same time should be optimally helped through the quest's steps; but a reader who just reads the page out of interest (back in the day, when I was low-levelled and couldn't wait to play all those high-level quests, I would've very much desired to have detailed descriptions of the plot of quests like MM or WGS) should also be able to get a proper A to Z 'walkthrough' of the narrative. In my opinion, the guide should do both of these things. If I interpret your proposal correctly, you would split these functions and introduce a kind of synopsis section/subpage akin to a summary of a novel; is that correct? The guide would then mainly focus on the advice giving aspect but not describe the plot in so much detail (although, I hope, in more detail than 'Talk to X, go through all dialogue, then talk to Y.').

That's an interesting idea (and something to be discussed by everyone, not just us two), but it would mean loads of work... All quests would have to have their guides 'filtered' to migrate the narrative bits to this separate synopsis section/subpage. I'm certainly not opposed to the idea (it would probably be great, actually; the readers needing practical help with the quest and the reader curious about its narrative would both be served with more focussed, to-the-point sections), but I do stress that it would take quite some labour to accomplish. Should this become an actual project, I'd be glad to help out. But with my available free time in mind, I dunno how much help I'd be. Another thing I noticed whilst working on the desert-related pages is that I ended up describing the same events many times from slightly different perspectives. For example, Osman and the High Priest of Icthlarin pretty much have the same descriptions of the Contact! quest but, being different people as they are, not so much so that they could just be copy-pasted. And then both of those descriptions are more detailed versions of the plot descriptions in the quest guide itself. A suggestion such as yours might be a step towards more or less consolidating all that narrative information in a single place, if you know what I mean.

I warned you it'd be long and incoherent! :P I hope I've made my stance on quest guides clear, though, and explained my personal situation. Your proposal has much merit in my opinion, but I fear there's too much work involved and too few passionate editors with (importantly) too much time on their hands for it to be executed to your/our liking.

[brief time lapse]

As for your second message, yeah, that's a good idea, although it only covers quest series (and not standalone quests) and quests' descriptions on such collective series pages would probably benefit from somewhat shorter summaries than the synopsis subpage/section you suggested. But that isn't too important.
— Fusswell

Then the reply came:

Well to be fair, the consensus right now appears to be that we do not have detailed explanations of lore and cutscenes etc. on the quest pages. By adding it to those quest guide pages, it inconveniences people who have been using them for the last few years to complete quests. Generally (and unfortunately) people don't care about the lore and are just trying to do the quest. It could be argued that that's what the quick guide is for, but historically people have used the regular guides as well. It's sort of like the Optimal quest guide that isn't really optimal but because people have come to expect it to be an easy to follow guide, we can't change that without causing massive disruptions. My observation is that the difference between the quick guide and the full guide is one more of style/formatting than actual content. For example, quick guides are given as checklists while full guides are completely written prose. I'm not saying that we need to remove all lore from guides, but this doesn't seem particularly useful for people trying to complete the quest as they just watched the cutscene themselves. I don't think in general there is much overlap between people trying to complete a quest and trying to figure out the lore, so it makes sense to leave the quest guide pages as they are and put lore on those quest line pages IMO.
— Andmcadams
Hello, I'm here to break up the textwall.

I have not replied to this yet, since that's what this thread is for. There's a few points to cover here.

  • There used to be consensus for (more or less) my view on quest guides, as outlined above. Adams observes that this seems no longer to be the case. Do people agree with that? Should a quest guide only serve the reader playing the quest in-game, and not him who is curious about the plot/narrative of the quest? (I'd rather not call it 'lore', since that implies inherently less relevant backstory.)
  • If not, and Adams's observation that quick and full guides don't differ much in terms of content is correct, is there really a point in having quick guides? I have no experience with them myself so I may be missing something obvious.
  • If the conclusion of point 1 is that quest guides should, in fact, be primarily focussed on giving practical tips rather than describing the quest's plot completely, there is the proposal of making a 'Synopsis' section (or subpage if it's too long) for quests which, as the name suggests, chronicles the narrative separately from the guide. There are obvious advantages here; both types of readers mentioned above would have their "own sections" to read without being "bothered" by what they aren't interested in. And it also offers the opportunity to describe the events of quest in a more central location, rather than haphazardly throughout the guide and on the pages of the locations and NPCs involved (if someone bothered to write detailed articles for them at all). In other words, instead of writing long history sections for various NPCs multiple times that describe the same events, readers could be redirected to this synopsis thingy. The downside, of course, is that it's a lot of work, as already explained above.
  • An alternative would be to summarise the plots of quests only on the general article of the respective series, as Adams suggested, but I am not a fan of that myself. It would create inconsistencies between series and standalone quests and moreover I think a reader looking for information on a particular quest (be that practical advice for completing it or its plot or its development history or whatever) should find that on the quest's article itself. But perhaps others disagree.

The purpose of this thread, I suppose, is to establish consensus for these points. Concretely:

  1. Should a quest guide A) contain detailed descriptions of the plot as it unfolds (which I guess is the current consensus de iure if not de facto?), or B) (almost) exclusively be a practical guide?
    1. If B: what is the formal difference between full and quick guides apart from the writing style?
  2. Should there be a synopsis section or subpage summarising the plot of the quest?
    1. If no, I propose that the first point be given scenario A; the plot "has to go somewhere".
    2. If yes, would you be willing to help create these? (This is to gauge interest; if everyone thinks this is a good idea and decides on scenario B, but no-one is able to help out, then this is a pointless exercise.)
    3. If yes, should the style be from an in-game point of view (third person, 'the adventurer', formal) or similar to the guide (second person, 'you', somewhat less formal).
    4. If yes, should these appear on articles for quest series only, or on the quests' pages themselves?
      1. In the former case, what about standalone quests?

I think that's all of the pertinent points, at least for now. I'm curious as to what people think. I should stress that this synopsis business to separate guide from plot (so to speak) is a great idea but is quite the project. If we want to do this, there have to be volunteers, not just supporters. As I said in the talk page discussion, I can help out myself, but not much, as a result of my job. And, perhaps controversially (but I hope not), I'd like to exclude the possibility of scenario 1B if 2 is met with insufficient support or workforce. Fswe1 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


Comment - For completeness, I suppose, I'm in favour of 1A unless there are enough people willing to work on 2 (in which case 1B is fine). As for 2.3 I have no preference and for 2.4 I think the quest pages themselves (below the guide and rewards) are most suitable. Fswe1 (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Quest guides should be written in a way that provide the best information to the people using them. I agree with Andrew that adding 2000+ words of exposition about Monkey Madness to a quest guide that hundreds of thousands of people use to complete the not a good use of our readers' time. It's good information, but in the place you're putting it, it very much gets in the way of the reason people are actually reading it in the first place, and IMO ends up being borderline harmful to the average reader. It would be better on a separate, less heavily trafficked page (not just a section on the main article, either).

I think there is general agreement across the community on this point. I don't know that I buy that there used to be agreement with your perspective on RSW, but even so, this wiki doesn't always follow the same policies. ʞooɔ 08:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I have no opinions on this at the moment. However, my only concern right now is that you should not be making drastic changes to heavily trafficked pages in this manner. We had a few instances in the past from the community about changes made to guides, and popular pages( that editors thought was for the better) but received very negatively. Shoyrukon (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I do want to add that I wasn't aware that the changes were/are perceived as drastic; I thought I was just adding stuff to 'incomplete' (storywise) pages. Fswe1 (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Like I said on talk pages, I think it makes sense to move detailed lore/plot points off to their own page whether that be a subpage or one of the quest series pages (which Shayani initially suggested). Given standalone quests, I would probably advocate for moving the info from those pages to individual quest pages and then have the quest line pages link or transclude each quest page (or not exist at all). In my mind, the ideal situation would be to make the main page of a quest contain all the plot and then give each of those /Guide and /Quick Guide subpages, but this is not possible given how established the current guides are. The quest guides are rather popular and changing them to include copious plot discussion is generally not helpful for their main goal. By leaving the current pages alone, we leave quest guides to serve their main purpose without too much fluff, and by creating new pages, we can focus exclusively on the plot/lore/characters. I think this benefits people who care about plot as well as those who want to do the quest, while mildly inconveniencing those who want the detailed plot while doing the quest (and aren't paying attention to it in game). The inconvenienced intersection is likely very small compared to the other two.

Just to clarify a bit, I did do a bit of investigating after I claimed that, broadly speaking, quick and regular quest guides contain the same content. I'll admit that looking at quite a few guides this is not entirely true, but in many quest guides where plot is described, it is done in quick summaries to give context. This leads it to supplement the guide rather than distract from it. In a few cases I think the plot is too detailed, but it's also a personal preference and I wouldn't move that info elsewhere without asking others about their opinions. I'm fine with supplementing the text with some context, but at some point it gets out of hand. I think both quick guides and regular guides have their uses, I don't see a need to change the current schema.

However, I think you're misidentifying the current de facto consensus in your proposal. I don't think that most guides "contain detailed descriptions of the plot as it unfolds", otherwise I think your recent edits wouldn't have ruffled so many feathers. I think that the general consensus is that the plot/lore can be used to supplement the guide, but is usually summarized. While there are certainly instances of places within guides with much more detail, it appears as though these summary-like explanations dominate. For example, I think the Monkey Madness II guide has a good balance of plot compared to guide.

For what it's worth, I don't think that a current lack of enthusiasm is a reason to exclude an option. If people don't want very detailed plot points on the quest pages, it makes sense that we should decide where they should go if someone is inclined to document them. - Andmcadams (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, but if nobody would bother to actually write those story sections/pages/whatever, then that would leave us with pretty much no changes to the status quo. I definitely don't want to exclude the option (in fact, it has my preference), but unless there's any hope or prospect of that option being implemented in practice, there's very little point in deciding that the guides themselves should be light on the narrative because that can be added to its own section, if you see what I mean. Because then the information would just be absent altogether. (I can't read the MM2 page because of spoilers, but I believe you. ^_^)
On which note; I'm perfectly all right with dialling down the amount of story I add to a guide when editing it (although I'm quite biased in this regard...); I wasn't aware at all that it was ruffling any feathers. Fswe1 (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - For those (like me) that are sceptical that lore heavy quest guides were ever the status quo, the consensus was 'determined' in rsw:Forum:RS:QSG rework. To be clear though, this is comparing terse bullet points to prose, not prose to even more prose. This is of course forgetting that this never applied to this wiki. cqm talk 18:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh nice, you found it. I browsed the forum archives a bit but gave up quickly. The bullets vs. prose were one important aspect, yep, but I swear I could recall there was consensus to describe the story to some extent. Fswe1 (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - The main guides have naturally evolved/been guided to this point for the most part, I wouldn't want to change that too much because if it were an issue it would've been changed by many regular users or been requested more. I've also only ever seen praise about quest guides, not to say there isn't improvements that can be made. Regardless of whether they are functionally different or whether they should be is partially irrelevant due to the page and main content being a guide to complete the quest. That is the goal of the page first and foremost for both normal and quick guide. Quick guides are stripped of everything but necessity (a goal, but not always perfect), main guides are not. It means a lot of different things, some complex parts of quests players will need to know how to be complete (usually by having completed the quest on other accounts) or they will use the main guide. I think being able to add context around things in the main guide is good and I would like that, but it needs to be limited in scope and language.

I think having subpage or a quest line page is preferrable, things can be cited and thoroughly examined without bloating a guide and it will be easier to link as well. If someone isn't willing to write lore in one of the agreed upon sections, they'd likely never do it anyway, so status quo would be preferable in that case anyway (why expand on lore in every place but where we really really want it and where it can flourish without hinderance of instructionally guiding a wide variety of skill levels (by total level, mechanic, and game familiarity))

Ultimately following policies that are agreed upon in, with RS:UCS, I think a lot of quest guides can stand to improve their lore content. But again, it must be properly restrained with depth of detail and focus on content closely related to the quest. Fjaratalk 20:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Side note, that regardless of what happens with the thread, Fswe1's edits to other quest guides must either be reverted or must be gone through to conform to this thread's closure policy and our current policy, they are however quite extensive/large edits so it may be easier to revert and add back what is useful. Fjaratalk 20:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I've done this to some extent for the more story-heavy quests' guides I've worked on recently, keeping only the most directly relevant points. As for MM, this is something to look at. The least amount of work would be to revert the IP's revert and then trim down the unnecessary story bits, methinks. I can do that if you want. Fswe1 (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I think the best course of action for every guide, while annoying, is to revert them for the time being and do the changes in a user page sandbox for now. Specifically for the MM1 guide, an additional 12,700 bytes on a previously 36,000 byte page is a very large change, sifting through 12,000 bytes and making everything work coherently when there are things that may just be deleted does not give me faith that the end result will be the best possible outcome. This is, in general, good practice for large changes to pages so that while you figure out the final product, others are not disrupted from standard use. Fjaratalk 19:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox is a good suggestion, thanks. Will do. Looking at the total diff page for MM specifically, though, there are many formatting and syntax changes that would be quite the hassle to re-do from scratch, whereas scrapping some dialogue- or story-related sentences is much easier. :) The 13k bytes are partially dialogue description (it was pretty much "talk to A then B then C" all the way with absolutely zero detail), which can be reduced, but also just general improvements. Apart from the formatting, the guide was quite poor from a practical point of view too, if I'm honest. :/ It failed to specify certain dangers (e.g. scorpions and an archer just outside the jail, floor traps in the tunnel) and was sometimes plain wrong (e.g. saying you need a drop trick for something when you don't). To use the original version as the basis would be silly. If you want, I can edit MM in my user space and run it by you when finished before rolling it out. :)
As for the other guides, I reckon those should be fine now? Do others have an opinion? Fswe1 (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately easier for you means more difficulty for everyone else, both now and in the future. Having to look through all the revisions and THEN the deletions at any point is much more time consuming than just doing it from the ground up with how this thread decides on doing it. While there are definitely parts that are useful parts that clarify or have corrections, it will be easier overall to revert and sandbox until a decent 'final' result has been achieved - where it is agreed upon from everyone. This goes for all of the guides. This is the reason for sandboxing and communicating before doing large edits so that time and energy is not misplaced or wasted. Fjaratalk 06:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
All right, I did MM1 at User:Fswe1/Desertbin. I finished writing stuff (chapter 3 and 4) and went back over it to remove unnecessary dialogue. What remains is absolutely minimal to understand the basic plot and premise of the quest. (This thread is still open, but everyone seems to agree that that should be the limit of the description of the narrative.) Have a look if you want! :) Fswe1 (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
To be blunt, you've written it as if the quest guide is a document to be read completely separately to actually doing the quest. For example, you can trim down the following early paragraph of the guide as follows:

Go to Karamja. You should take the glider at the top of the Grand Tree to Karamja (Gandius). If you do not have monkey bones (or a monkey corpse), kill a monkey to obtain some. Enter the Shipyard (north of the glider landing site) by showing the shipyard worker your seal. None of the workers, including their foreman, have seen any gnomes and redirect you to the Gnome Liason Officer Caranock, who is located in the building in the southern area of the Shipyard, by the fence. He will act very suspiciously upon being informed of Glough's arrest and state he has not seen any Royal Guard gnomes, suggesting strong southerly winds may have blown them off course. He promises to oversee the decommission himself and advises you to return to the King.

The person following the guide is doing the quest and can infer the remainder of the plot if they're so inclined. Or they can read the transcript. cqm talk 14:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Going through sequentially here are the issues I personally have with it. The description at the top should probably not spoil the quest, it just really isn't that necessary to do. Per the rest of the quest guides and I think makes the most sense, if there is flavor to the top of the section, do it after required/recommended items. Everything should be present tense unless it is very obviously something in the past or future. "decommission the constructions" is essentially nonsense. It should say shipyard or something similar because that is directly what narnode says. Having to talk to him again to receive information should be noted somehow if you are to include it. He doesnt simply remark that they used gliders, you go back and explicity ask how they travelled. Personal preference, and while 'cool'er, listing NPCs by their in-game name is much less confusing for people who've not done the quest, GLO should stay GLO. "Daero, who is somewhere around the Grand Tree" is...silly to say. Not only does it say where at the very beginning of the next paragraph, why obfusticate it now. As cqm said, this is dense. Not every word needs to be said, not every sentence needs its own room. Treat the player like you are guiding them along, not regurgitating or forcing them to reread what they could just as easily and accurately read from the game if they wanted to do so badly. That's chapter 1 for the most part. I'll leave it there. This is not near what any of us, as far as I can tell, want from the guide.
I'm going to request that you look at the style guide thoroughly. You've admited that you haven't and with doing changes like this it is imperitive that you know at least SOME of them. I'm aware part of the original guide are also in past tense, but this is not related to just this guide. Fjaratalk 00:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice; I'll peruse the SG since I indeed haven't doen so for a few years, but obviously feel free to make changes to my sandbox draft yourself too! :) I disagree with some of Cam's strikes, though; Caranock's shiftiness directly foreshadows his rôle as antagonist and is therefore very relevant to the plot, and the strong winds return all the time. In fact, the whole reason you are sent to Crash Island with Waydar is to verify Caranock's claim about the winds. (The other two strikes I can agree with.) Given that there isn't (yet?) a separate plot section, are these withal objectionable to have in the main guide? Faulty formulations such as 'decommission the constructions' are of course my fault (and I'll go over everything to make sure I remove any and all I spot) but those are details. Not sure what you mean by wrong usage of tenses since everything is either a description of what is happening/being said (i.e., present tense unless a past event is being described) or an imperative directed at the reader, but I'll hopefully encounter the issue you mean during my cleanup. Again, though, feel free to make edits yourself(/-ves). Anyway, this is not really relevant to the thread as a whole so it might be more useful to continue the MM discussion on its talk page/my sandbox.
One thing I should remark, though, is that the quest guide is not written exclusively for the reader currently doing the quest in-game in parallel. (That is, of course, the main audience by quite a margin, but not exclusively so.) People might just want to know how the quest plays without actually playing it (I certainly used to read quest guides for that purpose, back in the day) without having to go through the entire transcript. Or, in many OS cases, without having to go to the RS3 Wiki and then through their transcript. Of course, if the consensus of this thread is that the majority of the narrative of the quest should be moved from the guide proper to a separate section/page/whatever, I suppose the target audience of quest guides should be unequivocally (re)established. Fswe1 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Add: for some reason half the thing was written in future tense. Not sure how that happened. Fswe1 (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Quest guides are at an extremely high majority of users there to do the quest, while not totally 100% of uses, it is a very large amount. To the point of this thread, make it so that users that aren't reading strictly for the guide can go somewhere to get an in-depth, fleshed out, depiction of everything that happens and that guide users will get some of it but not be hindered by it, which by looking at comments here seems to be a fairly common theme. Having your sandbox not conforming to that worries me that you will not actually follow what this thread's consensus is going to be. I'm sure there are quite a few people that want to have lore and quests laid out well, but on the quest guide isn't where a majority of it needs to be. Fjaratalk 20:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I indeed wrote it assuming this thread is going where it is going and that there will be a separate plot summary without rather than within the guide somewhere. Therefore, I did my best to only keep very minimal descriptions of the dialogue and events that are necessary to actually follow the guide. (As in, explain why the guide tells you to do something rather than just giving orders out of the blue.) I'm sure a few sentences are going to be contested, but overall, if you (or others) still think that the guide draft contains too much plot, then honestly I don't know how much more it can be toned down (even assuming there is a separate plot description elsewhere). You could revert to what guides used to do ten years ago, i.e., "Talk to X, then collect five lobsters and bring them to Y." but that's just a bad guide. Why should the reader collect five lobsters after talking to X? Did X tell him to? Did lobsters invade during the conversation? Why does Y need lobsters? And so on. I should emphasise that I am fully in favour of the proposal to migrate the full, flehsed-out narrative descriptions to outside the guide and having the guide focus on, well, guiding players doing the quest whilst reading; but the guide should still contain a minimal, barebones skeleton of the plot in order for the guide to make sense as a piece of writing. It would appear as though we might disagree on that last point? :/ Fswe1 (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Status quo w/ some contextual lore + Separate page + Use "Adventurer" + Link to lore subpage and quest series(if applicable) below rewards: Contexual lore editions are to be limited to useful, relavent lore pertaining directly to the quests or actions done by the player, lore pages can be subpages with an overaching questline lore page either linking to each individual subpage OR merging parts to show connections (i dont really care which), with lore I think adventurer works better to tell as a story. Fjaratalk 20:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I am mostly a casual user of the OSRS wiki, but mostly use it to do my OSRS quests. I think the whole point of having a quest guide is to have a guide, not a book. A guide is something that leads or directs a persons gameplay. The recent edits to the quest guides are not guides, but complete plot descriptions, more book-like. I feel that this is a bad path to go on, as they don't help in leading the way for a player. Pointing out key points of interest here and there is okay - so relevant lore, in concise sentences -, but this seems too much. People who are interested in the story itself are able to read it in the quest dialogues, as quite a few players will. If we were to write the entire wiki in this style I feel like the bakery stall part in Thieving training would becomes something along the lines of "Based on the experience of more seasoned thieves, those who are between level 5 and 25 Thieving are advised to steal from bakery stalls in East Ardougne market or in the courtyard outside Kourend Castle to be able to become more experienced thieves themselves. Stealing from bakery stalls can yield some bread, which can be used to make nice steak sandwiches, or sweet snacks like or cake or chocolate cake slices. All three may come in useful while stealing, as guards, who do not like you to steal from bakery stalls, will occassionally attack you. However, more seasoned thieves know that guards will not be able to spot you when you stand under the baker behind the bakery stall further east in East Ardougne, or a spot behind the stall in the Kourend Castle courtyard. Be aware that you will not be able to sell those back for hard cash in the first 15 minutes after stealing from a baker - they seem to have a good short term memory, but their long term memory seems quite bad. Players will only have to train here for about 20 minutes when all delicious cakes are dropped on the ground.". While it conveys the same information as the current section, it isn't a guide. I agree with Choppe that it would be best to revert and add back what is useful. --Zorak plorak - Talk Hiscores 08:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion has died somewhat, so here's a concrete proposal. There seems to be consensus towards establishing plot descriptions in a central place (akin to Camelot quest series#Storyline - which many series lack!) rather than inside the guide proper. This does create an inconsistency with standalone quests and such; should their plots go on a section of the page; a subpage? When there is barely any story to cover (e.g. Sheep Shearer) this question is moot (or is that baat? Sorry) but there are certainly relevant cases. If it's not on the main quest page (but on a subpage or a general series page), how do we refer readers to it from the main page, if at all? Fswe1 (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how I'd want to deal with things like Sheep Shearer, or mixing between quest lines vs subpages however like on Monkey Madness I, there should be at least one link to lore at the top or a lore section near rewards. It will obviously always be including the navbox at the bottom. Fjaratalk 20:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Counter Proposal

Because I'd like this to be resolved unambiguously, and I reject the alleged status quo, here's my stab at a proposal:

  • A quest guide should be instructional above all else.
    • The target audience of a quest guide is a person doing the quest and the guide should not repeat what they can plainly see in front of them in-game.
  • Extraneous story and/or lore should be relegated to a /Plot subpage of the quest.
    • The target audience of this page is someone looking to follow the story of the quest or refresh what happened during the quest.

Cheers, cqm talk 17:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Support as per my comment earlier in this thread. Means that the /Plot pages shouldn't be as wordy as the new quest guides either. More focused on an easy read to make the reader understand (again) what the quest was all about. So unnecessary details there either, I suppose. --Zorak plorak - Talk Hiscores 17:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Support Perhaps have a different page for each storyline to contain detailed quest lore instead of plot e.g. Quest Lore/Myreque, Quest Lore/Elven, Quest Lore/Kourend. While I am sure we have some players who enjoy reading the lore, I imagine the average player is not as keen and just wants to get the quest finished - should aim to be as concise and straightforward as possible. Ozank (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Support - For what it's worth, I don't think this should be used as justification to go through a bunch of guides and remove anything pertaining to the story. The guides were (for the most part) fine. I agree with the two different targets, and I don't particularly care whether we go down the /Plot subpage route or the existing questline pages. Either way, that's a minor point and we can combine/split pages as necessary in the future if we realize one is significantly better than the other. - Andmcadams (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Support - And I second Adams's points above. Moreover, I'd like to add, hopefully superfluously, that common sense should be used at all times. For instance, Sheep Shearer shouldn't get a plot subpage with nought more than the message that a local farmer asks an adventurer to shear his sheep, and the very minor plot of e.g. Goblin Diplomacy can easily go on the page itself without warranting a subpage. I suspect that most plot synopses would be sufficiently lengthy to warrant subpages, but it shouldn't be a thoughtlessly enforced rule. Fswe1 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Support - Removing lore from the quest pages makes reading through them a fair lot easier. However it shouldn't mean every sentence unrelated to quest completion should be removed, especially not short "fluff" sentences such as (Animal Magnetism) Wielding one of the [undead chickens] during the conversation will lead to some humorous dialogue. Else it would just become a quick guide. And as Fswe1 mentioned, lore pages are only useful for with more lore than "fetch some ores and you may use my anvil". JordiTK (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Closed - There is consensus with the counter proposal provided by Cqm to which that extraneous lore information should be migrated to a subpage on the QUEST/Lore pathing within common sense ruling (IE a quest like Sheep Shearer would not get one). The lore subpages should be informative of what has happened in the quest story, however it should kept to the point without a large amount of "fluff" to fill space. There should be a link to the lore subpage, if existing, to guide the user to the content as well (IE Animal Magnetism#Transcript or as a informational box like what is found to link to the quick guides).

Another idea rose from Ozank where the Quest Lore/XXX could be created as a quest line lore layout, but that is another branch that can be discussed. Jakesterwars (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)