Background
I'm creating a layered .net core application to handle tracking campaigns for a board game. Because of this there is a lot of data that comes from the game itself, for example:
Characters
Weapons
Equipment
Missions
Objectives that belong to a mission
Rewards that belong to objectives
Etc
The application is not to manipulate this data. This data is typically printed on cards that come with the board game so it won't change. The only changes it may have are when I manually add new characters or something due to a new expansion being released.
As far as the app is concerned, these are similar to how you might have a lookup table of States in the US. The app needs to list them so you can select them, entities in the domain hold references to them, but their actual data is irrelevant to the application itself. It's just lookup data.
Except there is a lot of this data and some of it is related. For example an objective belongs to a specific mission and a reward belongs to a specific objective.
The Problem
If my application was being designed to manage this data there would be no problem. However this is not the case. It is designed to manage "Campaigns", which are 2-5 players sitting down to play a game with these cards. It is managing "instances" of this data that have additional properties.
For example a new campaign is created and a row is added to the Campaign table. Now a mission must be added to it.
I can't just add a reference to the Mission data because I also need to store the outcome of the mission specific to this campaign. So I create a CampaignMission entity that references the mission data, the campaign id, and has a column for the mission outcome.
But that Mission data had related Objective data. The data just holds things like objective name, description, rewards etc, but in the campaign I also need to store the outcome of this objective specific to this CampaignMission. So again I create a CampaignObjective that references the Objective data, the CampaignMission, and has a column for the objective outcome.
Before you know it I am doing this for everything. CampaignCharacter, CampaignWeapon, CampaignReward. I feel like I'm just replicating the structure of the game data, relationships included.
Where the game data has relationships, my Campaign entities feel like they're mirroring the relationships to the point where, from the same object, you can access the same piece of game data by following two separate paths, the original game data relationship or the Campaign entity "replica" relationship.
For example if I want the name of the first reward for the first objective in the first campaign mission, you can access it in two ways:
Campaign.CampaignMissions[0].Mission.Objectives[0].Rewards[0].Name
Campaign.CampaignMissions[0].CampaignObjectives[0].CampaignRewards[0].Reward.Name
Both of these point to the same piece of game data. I really feel like there should only be one path:
Campaign.Missions[0].Objectives[0].Rewards[0].Name
Where I'm Stuck
I'm not sure if this is normal but it all just feels wrong. Almost as though the game data shouldn't even be part of the application. I mean the game data could be hosted on some 3rd party API and it wouldn't make any difference to my actual application. It's just data I need to read but I feel it's impacting my app structure in ways it shouldn't be.
My application doesn't really need to know the difference between Mission game data and a Mission in a campaign. All it needs to care about is that a campaign can have missions, and those missions have a name etc and an outcome. It doesn't feel like the Mission game data itself needs to be an entity in my domain.
What I've Tried
I tried keeping single entities in my domain and keeping them separate in my database. So for example a Mission in the domain would include both the game data fields like mission name, the mission outcome and a list of domain Objectives.
When a domain Mission for a campaign is requested from the data layer, the entry is retrieved from the CampaignMission table, along with its game data from the Mission table, then flattened via AutoMapper and returned to the domain as a single Mission entity containing everything.
This just caused a bit of a nightmare with Entity Framework and handling the mappings back and forth between data layer and domain because the CampaignMission in the database also had CampaignObjectives which linked to Objectives that also had to be flattened etc, and I had to keep track of the primary keys for all of these throughout my domain so everything could be unflattened and mapped back again when I want to persist something. It just didn't make sense, in terms of tracking primary keys/identity, for a single domain entity to be represented by entries in multiple tables.
What I'm Now Considering
I'm considering just moving all of the game data into a totally separate project, completely unrelated to my application. My application could then query project as though it was some third party API or something and get any data it needs and I can keep it all out of my solution.
Since the game data would no longer have IDs in my application, when I add a mission to a campaign it would simply have a column for "name" which would hold the mission name. When I want to use that mission I would grab it from the db and map it to a domain entity, so at this point it contains the campaign-specific data such as mission outcome, and also the name. Then I'd query the game data project using the mission name and map all the returned data back on to the entity as well, leaving me with a complete entity.
This is essentially replicating the behaviour of what I already tried but removing the need to track identity for the game data by simply using a name that I can query. It removes the concept of backing game data from my domain and leaves me with a single entity, Mission.
The Question
I've wasted a lot of time on this so far and I'm sure it must be a common problem in similar types of applications. I was wondering if anyone had a better solution for dealing with this kind of situation before I go ahead and try completely separating the data.
I have to admit, typing out the "What I'm Now Considering" section has clarified a few things for myself but I would still love to hear if there is a better way.
Thank you in advance if anyone reads all of this.
Here's what you should be doing. First, add the game data entities to the DbContext as DbQuery<T>:
public DbQuery<Campaign> Campaigns { get; set; }
This will allow you to query it, but will not allow changes. Then, since the game data is static, you might want to actually just persist it on a singleton, which you can then inject where you need it.
In either case, on the actual campaign data that's being persisted, you should only store the id of the game data concept. For example, MissionId, not CampaginMission.Mission. When you need the actual Mission info, just look it up based on the MissionId, either directly from your DbQuery<Mission> property on your context or your singleton class.
I'm creating a text-based browser game and need some advice for django model structure. All the examples are from the same project, therefore I will not repeat the same information assuming you've read all the questions from the top to the bottom.
First question
I have an auth app which contains user profile (Player model), alliance app which holds information about all the unions players join and medals app which represents rewards for both players and alliances.
Both users and alliances can have medals assigned so one of the options is to create a M2M field in Player and Alliance models linking to Medal.
Another option would make medals app usable in any other project of mine. This approach includes the use of generic relations in Medal model which links to either Player or Alliance.
Which solution is more django-like or can I do however I want to?
Second question
There will be tasks for players to accomplish. The scenarios of tasks vary greatly, therefore I need some kind of approach to write unique task progress checking code for each task.
Tasks are held in the database containing information about rewards (which are pretty much the same). Where should I write unique code for each task? Maybe I should add some fields and eval() them later? Then all the information will be held in the DB.
Moreover, tasks demand some tracking, for example, imagine a simple task of going to the manual section (just to make sure the player knows where it is). Then I need to register somewhere whether the player has visited manual page or not. I think about creating another model TaskTrackers in task app. Then another question arises. If I should add OneToOne field from Player to TaskTrackers or vice versa?
To sum up, the main question is whether should I add OneToOneFields/M2M fields to user profile model or add OneToOneFields/Foreigneys from target models to User model? The latter would make my apps more reusable, but the first approach may be more logical.
Waiting for answers.
One your first question, you could do either an M2M to Medal, or use a generic foreign key. You'll end up with a couple of join tables with M2M. With the generic foreign key, you won't have any join tables, but you will have the extra query for the content type. So, you may need to set up both ways and see which is going to impact performance more
On your second question, I might take the approach of using a "Task" model with one or more "Step" models that can be set up as an inline formset. Then you'll need a table like "CompletedPlayerTasks" or something like that, which contains the Player ID, Task ID and Step ID. If a Step ID exists in that table, the task has been completed.
It sounds like you need to be able to create custom fields and forms for the Steps of each Task, which isn't terribly hard to do in Django. There are some off the shelf solutions to do this, but you might need to write your own.
Lastly, I wouldn't name the app that holds your user profiles "auth", which could cause a namespace problem with Django's contrib.auth app. I would name it "profiles", just so it's more obvious what that app does and contains.
Hope that gives you some ideas.
Using AppEngine datastore, but this might be agnostic, no idea.
Assume a database entity called Comment. Each Comment belongs to a User. Every Comment has a date property, pretty standard so far.
I want something that will let me: specify a User and get back a dictionary-ish (coming from a Python background, pardon. Hash table, map, however it should be called in this context) data structure where:
keys: every date appearing in the User's comment
values: Comments that were made on date.
I guess I could just iterate over a range of dates an build a map like this myself, but I seriously doubt I need to "invent" my own solution here.
Is there a way/tool/technique to do this?
Datastore supports both references and list properties. This let's you build one-to-many relationships in two ways:
Parent (User) has a list property containing keys of Child entities (Comment).
Child has a key property pointing to Parent.
Since you need to limit Comments by date, you'd best go with option two. Then you could query Comments which have date=somedate (or date range) and where user=someuserkey.
There is no native grouping functionality in Datastore, so to also "group" by date, you can add a sort on date to the query. Than when you iterate over the result, when the date changes you can use/store it as a grouping key.
Update
Designing no-sql databases should be access-oriented (versus datamodel oriented in sql): for often-used operations you should be getting data out as cheaply (= as few operations) as possible.
So, as a rule of thumb you should, in one operation, only get data that is needed at that moment (= shown on that page to user). I'm not sure about your app's design, but I doubt you need all user's full comments (with text and everything) at one time.
I'd start by saying you shouldn't apologize for having a Python background. App Engine started supporting only Python. Using the db module, you could have a User entity as the parent of several DailyCommentBatch entities each a parent of a couple Comment entities. IIRC, this will keep all related entities stored together (or close).
If you are using the NDB (I love it) you may have employ a StructuredProperty either at the User or DailyCommentBatch levels.
Original Question:
Hello,
I am creating very simple hobby project - browser based multiplayer game. I am stuck at designing tables for storing information about quest / skill requirements.
For now, I designed my tables in following way:
table user (basic information about users)
table stat (variety of stats)
table user_stats (connecting each user with stats)
Another example:
table monsters (basic information about npc enemies)
table monster_stats (connecting monsters with stats, using the same stat table from above)
Those were the simple cases. I must admit, that I am stuck while designing requirements for different things, e.g quests. Sample quest A might have only minimum character level requirement (and that is easy to implement) - but another one, quest B has multitude of other reqs (finished quests, gained skills, possessing specific items, etc) - what is a good way of designing tables for storing this kind of information?
In a similar manner - what is an efficient way of storing information about skill requirements? (specific character class, min level, etc).
I would be grateful for any help or information about creating database driven games.
Edit:
Thank You for the answers, yet I would like to receive more. As I am having some problems designing an rather complicated database layout for craftable items, I am starting a max bounty for this question.
I would like to receive links to articles / code snippets / anything connected with best practices of designing databases for storing game data (an good example of this kind of information is availibe on buildingbrowsergames.com).
I would be grateful for any help.
I'll edit this to add as many other pertinent issues as I can, although I wish the OP would address my comment above. I speak from several years as a professional online game developer and many more years as a hobbyist online game developer, for what it's worth.
Online games imply some sort of persistence, which means that you have broadly two types of data - one is designed by you, the other is created by the players in the course of play. Most likely you are going to store both in your database. Make sure you have different tables for these and cross-reference them properly via the usual database normalisation rules. (eg. If your player crafts a broadsword, you don't create an entire new row with all the properties of a sword. You create a new row in the player_items table with the per-instance properties, and refer to the broadsword row in the item_types table which holds the per-itemtype properties.) If you find a row of data is holding some things that you designed and some things that the player is changing during play, you need to normalise it out into two tables.
This is really the typical class/instance separation issue, and applies to many things in such games: a goblin instance doesn't need to store all the details of what it means to be a goblin (eg. green skin), only things pertinent to that instance (eg. location, current health). Some times there is a subtlety to the act of construction, in that instance data needs to be created based on class data. (Eg. setting a goblin instance's starting health based upon a goblin type's max health.) My advice is to hard-code these into your code that creates the instances and inserts the row for it. This information only changes rarely since there are few such values in practice. (Initial scores of depletable resources like health, stamina, mana... that's about it.)
Try and find a consistent terminology to separate instance data from type data - this will make life easier later when you're patching a live game and trying not to trash the hard work of your players by editing the wrong tables. This also makes caching a lot easier - you can typically cache your class/type data with impunity because it only ever changes when you, the designer, pushes new data up there. You can run it through memcached, or consider loading it all at start up time if your game has a continuous process (ie. is not PHP/ASP/CGI/etc), etc.
Remember that deleting anything from your design-side data is risky once you go live, since player-generated data may refer back to it. Test everything thoroughly locally before deploying to the live server because once it's up there, it's hard to take it down. Consider ways to be able to mark rows of such data as removed in a safe fashion - maybe a boolean 'live' column which, if set to false, means it just won't show up in the typical query. Think about the impact on players if you disable items they earned (and doubly if these are items they paid for).
The actual crafting side can't really be answered without knowing how you want to design your game. The database design must follow the game design. But I'll run through a trivial idea. Maybe you will want to be able to create a basic object and then augment it with runes or crystals or whatever. For that, you just need a one-to-many relationship between item instance and augmentation instance. (Remember, you might have item type and augmentation type tables too.) Each augmentation can specify a property of an item (eg. durability, max damage done in combat, weight) and a modifier (typically as a multiplier, eg. 1.1 to add a 10% bonus). You can see my explanation for how to implement these modifying effects here and here - the same principles apply for temporary skill and spell effects as apply for permanent item modification.
For character stats in a database driven game, I would generally advise to stick with the naïve approach of one column (integer or float) per statistic. Adding columns later is not a difficult operation and since you're going to be reading these values a lot, you might not want to be performing joins on them all the time. However, if you really do need the flexibility, then your method is fine. This strongly resembles the skill level table I suggest below: lots of game data can be modelled in this way - map a class or instance of one thing to a class or instance of other things, often with some additional data to describe the mapping (in this case, the value of the statistic).
Once you have these basic joins set up - and indeed any other complex queries that result from the separation of class/instance data in a way that may not be convenient for your code - consider creating a view or a stored procedure to perform them behind the scenes so that your application code doesn't have to worry about it any more.
Other good database practices apply, of course - use transactions when you need to ensure multiple actions happen atomically (eg. trading), put indices on the fields you search most often, use VACUUM/OPTIMIZE TABLE/whatever during quiet periods to keep performance up, etc.
(Original answer below this point.)
To be honest I wouldn't store the quest requirement information in the relational database, but in some sort of script. Ultimately your idea of a 'requirement' takes on several varying forms which could draw on different sorts of data (eg. level, class, prior quests completed, item possession) and operators (a level might be a minimum or a maximum, some quests may require an item whereas others may require its absence, etc) not to mention a combination of conjunctions and disjunctions (some quests require all requirements to be met, whereas others may only require 1 of several to be met). This sort of thing is much more easily specified in an imperative language. That's not to say you don't have a quest table in the DB, just that you don't try and encode the sometimes arbitrary requirements into the schema. I'd have a requirement_script_id column to reference an external script. I suppose you could put the actual script into the DB as a text field if it suits, too.
Skill requirements are suited to the DB though, and quite trivial given the typical game system of learning skills as you progress through levels in a certain class:
table skill_levels
{
int skill_id FOREIGN KEY;
int class_id FOREIGN KEY;
int min_level;
}
myPotentialSkillList = SELECT * FROM skill_levels INNER JOIN
skill ON skill_levels.skill_id = skill.id
WHERE class_id = my_skill
ORDER BY skill_levels.min_level ASC;
Need a skill tree? Add a column prerequisite_skill_id. And so on.
Update:
Judging by the comments, it looks like a lot of people have a problem with XML. I know it's cool to bash it now and it does have its problems, but in this case I think it works. One of the other reasons that I chose it is that there are a ton of libraries for parsing it, so that can make life easier.
The other key concept is that the information is really non-relational. So yes, you could store the data in any particular example in a bunch of different tables with lots of joins, but that's a pain. But if I kept giving you a slightly different examples I bet you'd have to modify your design ad infinitum. I don't think adding tables and modifying complicated SQL statements is very much fun. So it's a little frustrating that #scheibk's comment has been voted up.
Original Post:
I think the problem you might have with storing quest information in the database is that it isn't really relational (that is, it doesn't really fit easily into a table). That might be why you're having trouble designing tables for the data.
On the other hand, if you put your quest information directly into code, that means you'll have to edit the code and recompile each time you want to add a quest. Lame.
So if I was you I might consider storing my quest information in an XML file or something similar. I know that's the generic solution for just about anything, but in this case it sounds right to me. XML is really made for storing non-relation and/or hierarchical data, just like the stuff you need to store for your quest.
Summary: You could come up with your own schema, create your XML file, and then load it at run time somehow (or even store the XML in the database).
Example XML:
<quests>
<quest name="Return Ring to Mordor">
<characterReqs>
<level>60</level>
<finishedQuests>
<quest name="Get Double Cheeseburger" />
<quest name="Go to Vegas for the Weekend" />
</finishedQuests>
<skills>
<skill name="nunchuks" />
<skill name="plundering" />
</skills>
<items>
<item name="genie's lamp" />
<item name="noise cancelling headphones for robin williams' voice />
</items>
</characterReqs>
<steps>
<step number="1">Get to Mordor</step>
<step number="2">Throw Ring into Lava</step>
<step number="3">...</step>
<step number="4">Profit</step>
</steps>
</quest>
</quests>
It sounds like you're ready for general object oriented design (OOD) principles. I'm going to purposefully ignore the context (gaming, MMO, etc) because that really doesn't matter to how you do a design process. And me giving you links is less useful than explaining what terms will be most helpful to look up yourself, IMO; I'll put those in bold.
In OOD, the database schema comes directly from your system design, not the other way around. Your design will tell you what your base object classes are and which properties can live in the same table (the ones in 1:1 relationship with the object) versus which to make mapping tables for (anything with 1:n or n:m relationships - for exmaple, one user has multiple stats, so it's 1:n). In fact, if you do the OOD correctly, you will have zero decisions to make regarding the final DB layout.
The "correct" way to do any OO mapping is learned as a multi-step process called "Database Normalization". The basics of which is just as I described: find the "arity" of the object relationships (1:1, 1:n,...) and make mapping tables for the 1:n's and n:m's. For 1:n's you end up with two tables, the "base" table and a "base_subobjects" table (eg. your "users" and "user_stats" is a good example) with the "foreign key" (the Id of the base object) as a column in the subobject mapping table. For n:m's, you end up with three tables: "base", "subobjects", and "base_subobjects_map" where the map has one column for the base Id and one for the subobject Id. This might be necessary in your example for N quests that can each have M requirements (so the requirement conditions can be shared among quests).
That's 85% of what you need to know. The rest is how to handle inheritance, which I advise you to just skip unless you're masochistic. Now just go figure out how you want it to work before you start coding stuff up and the rest is cake.
The thread in #Shea Daniel's answer is on the right track: the specification for a quest is non-relational, and also includes logic as well as data.
Using XML or Lua are examples, but the more general idea is to develop your own Domain-Specific Language to encode quests. Here are a few articles about this concept, related to game design:
The Whimsy Of Domain-Specific Languages
Using a Domain Specific Language for Behaviors
Using Domain-Specific Modeling towards Computer Games Development Industrialization
You can store the block of code for a given quest into a TEXT field in your database, but you won't have much flexibility to use SQL to query specific parts of it. For instance, given the skills a character currently has, which quests are open to him? This won't be easy to query in SQL, if the quest prerequisites are encoded in your DSL in a TEXT field.
You can try to encode individual prerequisites in a relational manner, but it quickly gets out of hand. Relational and object-oriented just don't go well together. You can try to model it this way:
Chars <--- CharAttributes --> AllAttributes <-- QuestPrereqs --> Quests
And then do a LEFT JOIN looking for any quests for which no prereqs are missing in the character's attributes. Here's pseudo-code:
SELECT quest_id
FROM QuestPrereqs
JOIN AllAttributes
LEFT JOIN CharAttributes
GROUP BY quest_id
HAVING COUNT(AllAttributes) = COUNT(CharAttributes);
But the problem with this is that now you have to model every aspect of your character that could be a prerequisite (stats, skills, level, possessions, quests completed) as some kind of abstract "Attribute" that fits into this structure.
This solves this problem of tracking quest prerequisites, but it leaves you with another problem: the character is modeled in a non-relational way, essentially an Entity-Attribute-Value architecture which breaks a bunch of relational rules and makes other types of queries incredibly difficult.
Not directly related to the design of your database, but a similar question was asked a few weeks back about class diagram examples for an RPG
I'm sure you can find something useful in there :)
Regarding your basic structure, you may (depending on the nature of your game) want to consider driving toward convergence of representation between player character and non-player characters, so that code that would naturally operate the same on either doesn't have to worry about the distinction. This would suggest, instead of having user and monster tables, having a character table that represents everything PCs and NPCs have in common, and then a user table for information unique to PCs and/or user accounts. The user table would have a character_id foreign key, and you could tell a player character row by the fact that a user row exists corresponding to it.
For representing quests in a model like yours, the way I would do it would look like:
quest_model
===============
id
name ['Quest for the Holy Grail', 'You Killed My Father', etc.]
etc.
quest_model_req_type
===============
id
name ['Minimum Level', 'Skill', 'Equipment', etc.]
etc.
quest_model_req
===============
id
quest_id
quest_model_req_type_id
value [10 (for Minimum Level), 'Horseback Riding' (for Skill), etc.]
quest
===============
id
quest_model_id
user_id
status
etc.
So a quest_model is the core definition of the quest structure; each quest_model can have 0..n associated quest_model_req rows, which are requirements specific to that quest model. Every quest_model_req is associated with a quest_model_req_type, which defines the general type of requirement: achieving a Minimum Level, having a Skill, possessing a piece of Equipment, and so on. The quest_model_req also has a value, which configures the requirement for this specific quest; for example, a Minimum Level type requirement might have a value of 20, meaning you must be at least level 20.
The quest table, then, is individual instances of quests that players are undertaking or have undertaken. The quest is associated with a quest_model and a user (or perhaps character, if you ever want NPCs to be able to do quests!), and has a status indicating where the progress of the quest stands, and whatever other tracking turns out useful.
This is a bare-bones structure that would, of course, have to be built out to accomodate the needs of particular games, but it should illustrate the direction I'd recommend.
Oh, and since someone else threw around their credentials, mine are that I've been a hobbyist game developer on live, public-facing projects for 16 years now.
I'd be extremely careful of what you actually store in a DB, especially for an MMORPG. Keep in mind, these things are designed to be MASSIVE with thousands of users, and game code has to execute excessively quickly and send a crap-ton of data over the network, not only to the players on their home connections but also between servers on the back-end. You're also going to have to scale out eventually and databases and scaling out are not two things that I feel mix particularly well, particularly when you start sharding into different regions and then adding instance servers to your shards and so on. You end up with a whole lot of servers talking to databases and passing a lot of data, some of which isn't even relevant to the game at all (SQL text going to a SQL server is useless network traffic that you should cut down on).
Here's a suggestion: Limit your SQL database to storing only things that will change as players play the game. Monsters and monster stats will not change. Items and item stats will not change. Quest goals will not change. Don't store these things in a SQL database, instead store them in the code somewhere.
Doing this means that every server that ever lives will always know all of this information without ever having to query a database. Now, you don't store quests at all, you just store accomplishments of the player and the game programatically determines the affects of those quests being completed. You don't waste data transferring information between servers because you're only sending event ID's or something of that nature (you can optimize the data you pass by only using just enough bits to represent all the event ID's and this will cut down on network traffic. May seem insignificant but nothing is insignificant in massive network apps).
Do the same thing for monster stats and item stats. These things don't change during gameplay so there's no need to keep them in a DB at all and therefore this information NEVER needs to travel over the network. The only thing you store is the ID of the items or monster kills or anything like that which is non-deterministic (i.e. it can change during gameplay in a way which you can't predict). You can have dedicated item servers or monster stat servers or something like that and you can add those to your shards if you end up having huge numbers of these things that occupy too much memory, then just pass the data that's necessary for a particular quest or area to the instance server that is handling that thing to cut down further on space, but keep in mind that this will up the amount of data you need to pass down the network to spool up a new instance server so it's a trade-off. As long as you're aware of the consequences of this trade-off, you can use good judgement and decide what you want to do. Another possibility is to limit instance servers to a particular quest/region/event/whatever and only equip it with enough information to the thing it's responsible for, but this is more complex and potentially limits your scaling out since resource allocation will become static instead of dynamic (if you have 50 servers of each quest and suddenly everyone goes on the same quest, you'll have 49 idle servers and one really swamped server). Again, it's a trade-off so be sure you understand it and make good choices for your application.
Once you've identified exactly what information in your game is non-deterministic, then you can design a database around that information. That becomes a bit easier: players have stats, players have items, players have skills, players have accomplishments, etc, all fairly easy to map out. You don't need descriptions for things like skills, accomplishments, items, etc, or even their effects or names or anything since the server can determine all that stuff for you from the ID's of those things at runtime without needing a database query.
Now, a lot of this probably sounds like overkill to you. After all, a good database can do queries very rapidly. However, your bandwidth is extremely precious, even in the data center, so you need to limit your use of it to only what is absolutely necessary to send and only send that data when it's absolutely necessary that it be sent.
Now, for representing quests in code, I would consider the specification pattern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_pattern). This will allow you to easily build up quest goals in terms of what events are needed to ensure that the specification for completing that quest is met. You can then use LUA (or something) to define your quests as you build the game so that you don't have to make massive code changes and rebuild the whole damn thing to make it so that you have to kill 11 monsters instead of 10 to get the Sword of 1000 truths in a particular quest. How to actually do something like that I think is beyond the scope of this answer and starts to hit the edge of my knowledge of game programming so maybe someone else on here can help you out if you choose to go that route.
Also, I know I used a lot of terms in this answer, please ask if there are any that you are unfamiliar with and I can explain them.
Edit: didn't notice your addition about craftable items. I'm going to assume that these are things that a player can create specifically in the game, like custom items. If a player can continually change these items, then you can just combine the attributes of what they're crafted as at runtime but you'll need to store the ID of each attribute in the DB somewhere. If you make a finite number of things you can add on (like gems in Diablo II) then you can eliminate a join by just adding that number of columns to the table. If there are a finite number of items that can be crafted and a finite number of ways that differnet things can be joined together into new items, then when certain items are combined, you needn't store the combined attributes; it just becomes a new item which has been defined at some point by you already. Then, they just have that item instead of its components. If you clarify the behavior your game is to have I can add additional suggestions if that would be useful.
I would approach this from an Object Oriented point of view, rather than a Data Centric point of view. It looks like you might have quite a lot of (poss complex) objects - I would recommend getting them modeled (with their relationships) first, and relying on an ORM for persistence.
When you have a data-centric problem, the database is your friend. What you have done so far seems to be quite right.
On the other hand, the other problems you mention seem to be behaviour-centric. In this case, an object-oriented analisys and solution will work better.
For example:
Create a quest class with specificQuest child classes. Each child should implement a bool HasRequirements(Player player) method.
Another option is some sort of rules engine (Drools, for example if you are using Java).
If i was designing a database for such a situation, i might do something like this:
Quest
[quest properties like name and description]
reqItemsID
reqSkillsID
reqPlayerTypesID
RequiredItems
ID
item
RequiredSkills
ID
skill
RequiredPlayerTypes
ID
type
In this, the ID's map to the respective tables then you retrieve all entries under that ID to get the list of required items, skills, what have you. If you allow dynamic creation of items then you should have a mapping to another table that contains all possible items.
Another thing to keep in mind is normalization. There's a long article here but i've condensed the first three levels into the following more or less:
first normal form means that there are no database entries where a specific field has more than one item in it
second normal form means that if you have a composite primary key all other fields are fully dependent on the entire key not just parts of it in each table
third normal is where you have no non-key fields that are dependent on other non-key fields in any table
[Disclaimer: i have very little experience with SQL databases, and am new to this field. I just hope i'm of help.]
I've done something sort of similar and my general solution was to use a lot of meta data. I'm using the term loosely to mean that any time I needed new data to make a given decision(allow a quest, allow using an item etc.) I would create a new attribute. This was basically just a table with an arbitrary number of values and descriptions. Then each character would have a list of these types of attributes.
Ex: List of Kills, Level, Regions visited, etc.
The two things this does to your dev process are:
1) Every time there's an event in the game you need to have a big old switch block that checks all these attribute types to see if something needs updating
2) Everytime you need some data, check all your attribute tables BEFORE you add a new one.
I found this to be a good rapid development strategy for a game that grows organically(not completely planned out on paper ahead of time) - but it's one big limitation is that your past/current content(levels/events etc) will not be compatible with future attributes - i.e. that map won't give you a region badge because there were no region badges when you coded it. This of course requires you to update past content when new attributes are added to the system.
just some little points for your consideration :
1) Always Try to make your "get quest" requirements simple.. and "Finish quest" requirements complicated..
Part1 can be done by "trying to make your quests in a Hierarchical order":
example :
QuestA : (Kill Raven the demon) (quest req: Lvl1)
QuestA.1 : Save "unkown" in the forest to obtain some info.. (quest req : QuestA)
QuestA.2 : Craft the sword of Crystal ... etc.. (quest req : QuestA.1 == Done)
QuestA.3 : ... etc.. (quest req : QuestA.2 == Done)
QuestA.4 : ... etc.. (quest req : QuestA.3 == Done)
etc...
QuestB (Find the lost tomb) (quest req : ( QuestA.statues == Done) )
QuestC (Go To the demons Hypermarket) ( Quest req: ( QuestA.statues == Done && player.level== 10)
etc....
Doing this would save you lots of data fields/table joints.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
if you use the above system, u can add an extra Reward field to ur quest table called "enableQuests" and add the name of the quests that needs to be enabled..
Logically.. you'd have an "enabled" field assigned to each quest..
2) A minor solution for Your crafting problem, create crafting recipes, Items that contains To-be-Crafted-item crafting requirements stored in them..
so when a player tries to craft an item.. he needs to buy a recipe 1st.. then try crafting..
a simple example of such item Desc would be:
ItemName: "Legendary Sword of the dead"
Craftevel req. : 75
Items required:
Item_1 : Blade of the dead
Item_2 : A cursed seal
item_3 : Holy Gemstone of the dead
etc...
and when he presses the "craft" Action, you can parse it and compare against his inventory/craft box...
so Your Crafting DB will have only 1 field (or 2 if u want to add a crafting LvL req. , though it will already be included in the recipe.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
Such items, can be stored in xml format in the table .. which would make it much easier to parse...
3) A similar XML System can be applied to Your quest system.. to implement quest-ending requirements..