Playthrough Planner: How Many Quests Should a Modern RPG Really Have?

Hook: If your RPG launches with 200 quests and a month of patches, you shipped the wrong bet

Players want deep, responsive quests that don't break their saves. Studios want scope that sells but doesn't bury QA. The tension between ambition and polish is the modern RPG's core design problem — and it gets worse every year as live services, cloud streaming, and social-first launch coverage cut developers less slack. In 2026, that pressure is amplified: faster feedback loops, AI-assisted testing, and streaming-native communities mean bugs are noticed and amplified within hours.

Top-line answer (most important first): How many quests should you plan?

Use Tim Cain's warning — "more of one thing means less of another" — as a rule of thumb. Below are recommended quest counts and QA budgets for three RPG scales. They balance player expectations, developer throughput, and realistic QA capacity in 2026.

Recommended target ranges (2026 planning)

• Indie RPG (small team, <$1M–$5M budget): 10–35 quests. QA budget: 8–12% of total dev budget; QA staffing 1–3 FTE equivalent. Expect 6–24 QA hours per quest in production.
• Mid-tier RPG (mid studio, $5M–$50M): 50–150 quests. QA budget: 12–18%; QA staffing 6–20 FTEs. Expect 20–80 QA hours per quest.
• AAA single-player or open-world RPG (>$50M): 250–600 quests (main + side + radiant). QA budget: 18–30%; QA staffing 40–200+ testers. Expect 60–300 QA hours per quest.

Why these ranges? Tim Cain’s warning as a framing device

Tim Cain — a co-creator of Fallout — boiled RPG quests down into nine archetypes and warned that a studio's finite dev bandwidth forces trade-offs. Cain's core point: adding quantity without proportional investment in systems, tooling, and QA shifts risk onto players. In plain terms: each additional quest is not just content; it's code, scripts, dialog states, rewards, branching outcomes, save/load interactions and networking hooks for multiplayer or cloud saves — all of which multiply testing permutations.

"More of one thing means less of another." — Tim Cain (paraphrase of recent developer commentary)

In 2026, the problem has two amplifiers:

• Expectation amplifier: players expect fewer game-breaking bugs at launch because streaming and social clip culture make errors viral instantly.
• Velocity amplifier: AI-assisted tooling and cloud CI let teams iterate faster — but faster iterations expose poor planning and shallow test harnesses sooner.

Breaking the problem down: what a quest actually costs

When you scope a quest, budget for these components explicitly; ignore them and your 'quest count' becomes wishful thinking:

• Design & writing — beats, dialog, branching outcomes.
• Scripting & systems — quest state machine, triggers, NPC AI hooks.
• Assets — VO, animations, VFX, map markers.
• QA & automation — unit tests, integration tests, automated playthroughs, manual passes.
• Telemetry & analytics — metrics to find edge cases once players touch the quest.
• Polish & iteration — bug fixes, UX tweaks, performance tuning.

QA budget: How to translate percentage into real capacity

Percentages are helpful but abstract. Below are practical conversions you can use in development planning.

Example conversions and heuristics

1. Estimate total dev hours. Example: a 2-year mid-tier title with 80 developers at 40 hours/week → ~133,000 dev-hours (80 devs × 50 weeks × 2 years).
2. Apply QA budget %. If QA is 15% of budget, allocate ~20,000 QA-hours over the project.
3. Divide by quest count. For 100 quests, that’s ~200 QA-hours per quest — includes automation and manual pass time.

This arithmetic explains why some studios stop adding quests late in production: QA-hours-per-quest becomes a limiting factor.

Expected bug load: what to plan for at launch

Instead of promising zero bugs, plan for realistic defect densities and build reserves:

• Indie: Expect 0.1–0.5 critical quest-blockers per quest at launch if QA is lean; 1–4 non-blocking bugs per quest. Reserve ~10–15% of sprint time for fixes in stabilization.
• Mid-tier: Expect 0.05–0.3 critical blockers; 0.5–2 major/minor bugs per quest with decent tooling. Reserve 15–20% of schedule for stabilization/patching.
• AAA: Expect 0.01–0.2 critical blockers (depends on QA depth); 0.2–1 major/minor bugs per quest that require post-launch hotfixes. Reserve 20–30% of budget as post-launch patch/QA contingency.

2026 trends shaping quest QA (late 2025 → early 2026)

Several technology and business shifts are changing how you should allocate quest counts and QA budgets:

• AI-assisted test generation: LLMs and behavior-modeling AIs now generate thousands of automated playthrough scenarios and test scripts. Use them to expand coverage cheaply, but validate their outputs — they find regressions fast but produce false positives if not tuned.
• Cloud-based automated playtests: Synthetic players run in parallel on cloud farms, producing telemetry at scale. This reduces manual QA hours per scenario, lowering per-quest QA cost by 10–40% when used correctly.
• Procedural and template-driven quests: Mid-2025 saw adoption of modular quest templates to scale content with predictable QA profiles. Procedural content can balloon quest count but reduces per-quest QA if templates are well-tested.
• Live service expectations: For games-as-a-service RPGs, players expect continuous additions. This shifts budget from up-front QA to continuous QA operations (QA Ops) and monitoring.

Practical, actionable planning steps (for producers & technical leads)

Here’s a step-by-step playbook you can use in pre-production and sprint planning.

1) Define ‘quest’ by cost class

• Class A (high-complexity): multi-act story quests with branching outcomes and VO — highest QA cost.
• Class B (medium): short multi-stage quests with some scripting and new assets.
• Class C (low): radiant or fetch-style quests that reuse templates and assets.

2) Budget QA per quest class (starter numbers)

• Class A: 150–400 QA hours each (manual + automation).
• Class B: 60–160 QA hours each.
• Class C: 10–40 QA hours each if templates are solid and tested.

3) Build a ‘quest test harness’ early

Create in-engine unit tests for quest state machine transitions, a mock NPC system, and automated playthrough frameworks. In 2026, integrating AI bots with your harness to generate edge-case triggers is low-hanging fruit for coverage gains.

4) Reserve a hotfix/telemetry budget

Set aside 15–30% of your QA budget and at least 10% of engineering throughput post-launch for bug triage and hotfixes. This is not optional; Tim Cain's warning becomes reality if you try to reallocate these hours to additional quests late in the schedule.

5) Gate by test-coverage, not feature-complete

Use automated coverage gates: a quest only moves to integration if its unit tests and 3 automated playthroughs pass. This forces trade-offs early — fewer, higher-quality quests beat dozens of half-broken ones.

Case studies (applied arithmetic): converting goals to staffing

Use these scenarios when pitching scope to stakeholders.

Mid-tier example: 100-quest RPG

• Plan: 25 class A, 50 class B, 25 class C.
• QA hours: (25×250) + (50×90) + (25×25) = 6,250 + 4,500 + 625 = 11,375 QA-hours.
• Staffing: Over 2 years, 11,375 hours ≈ 5.5 FTE QA (assuming 2,000 hours/FTE/year). Add 40% overhead for automation engineers and QA leads → ~8 FTEs.
• Contingency: Reserve an additional 20% (2,275 hours) for hotfixes and post-launch → +1–2 FTE worth of effort.

AAA example: 400-quest open-world RPG

• Plan: 60 class A, 140 class B, 200 class C (many radiant/template quests).
• QA hours: (60×300) + (140×100) + (200×20) = 18,000 + 14,000 + 4,000 = 36,000 QA-hours.
• Staffing: Over a 3-year development cycle, that’s ~6 QA FTEs/year per year? Convert: 36,000 hours / (2,000 hrs × 3 years) ≈ 6 FTEs sustained. But you will need peaks: staffing 40–120 QA testers depending on milestones and certification runs.
• Contingency: Reserve 25% of QA-hours (9,000 hours) for post-launch live ops and urgent hotfixing.

Risk management: what to cut first when scope is in trouble

When timelines slip, prioritize like this:

1. Cut or simplify Class C template variants — least player-impact per hour lost.
2. Postpone new Class A quests in favor of polishing existing ones (high impact, high QA cost).
3. Invest in automation and telemetry rather than adding more hand-crafted content.

Metrics & KPIs: measure the right things

Set these KPIs during production to keep quest scope honest:

• Bug density per quest (bugs per quest after first integration pass).
• Time-to-fix (median hours to hotfix a quest-blocking issue in QA).
• Automated coverage (percentage of quest states hit by automated runs).
• Post-launch churn (patch size & frequency attributable to quest fixes).

Developer tooling & hiring: build to your quest targets

Match your tech and team to your planned quest count:

• High quest counts with templates → prioritize content pipeline engineers and automation devs.
• Fewer, complex story quests → invest in narrative QA, localization testing, and VO verification.
• Live-service plan → hire QA Ops and telemetry analysts for 24/7 monitoring post-launch.

Final takeaways: the planner checklist

• Scope by class: separate quest types into A/B/C at pitch; estimate QA hours per class.
• Use the math: convert QA % into hours and FTEs early; show it to stakeholders.
• Invest in automation: in 2026, AI + cloud playtesting reduces per-quest QA cost — adopt it early.
• Reserve contingency: 15–30% of QA budget should be untouchable post-launch reserve.
• Gate by coverage: move quests forward only when automated and manual gates are met.

Why readers (and decision makers) should care now

In the current market, a game's initial reputation forms within 72 hours. That means planning your quest count and QA budget isn't bookkeeping — it's risk management for your studio's brand. Tim Cain's warning is a production law: if you want more quests, you must pay the cost in tooling, testers, or time. If you skip that payment, your players will collect the bill in the form of frustration, broken saves, and negative coverage.

Call to action

Use the numbers above to build a one-page Quest QA plan for your next sprint: list quests by class, assign QA-hour estimates, and calculate FTE needs. Want a starter spreadsheet based on these heuristics? Download our free Playthrough Planner template and adapt it to your studio's pipelines — join our newsletter for the 2026 QA tooling checklist and example CI configuration for cloud playtests.

Related Reading

• Terraform Modules for Deploying Domains and DNSSEC into AWS European Sovereign Cloud
• ’You met me at a very Chinese time’: یہ میم ہماری شناخت کے بارے میں کیا بتاتا ہے؟
• From CES to Your Roof: 8 Smart Roofing Gadgets Worth Buying Right Now
• Will Cheaper PLC SSDs Break Your RAID Array? Compatibility and Risk Checklist
• From Pitch to Podcast: How Clubs Can Use Celebrity-Led Shows (Like Ant & Dec) to Reach New Audiences