Lots of shit going on / Sandboxes
- Thread starter bryce0lynch
- Start date
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Yeah, that would really annoy me, and I am positive I would catch on before long. Given that I was going through the forest, the gorilla would have been fine. But with the precautions I was taking, if I ran into a pit just randomly placed in the wilderness, not even on any animal track, I would be calling BS (and have done just that in similar circumstances). It would particularly bother me given (a) I suspected a pit exactly where you ended up saying there was one, so it was no longer really "quantum"; and (b) I took serious precautions to avoid and detect traps, including walking only where it made no sense to place a trap and using a 10' pole. That is some serious nerfing of my actions, which I would have suspected you of doing.
Ditto for the leader, unless I encountered the leader or the traps on the road or in the marauders' camp. I would expect there to be traps at the camp, and if the leader was at the camp he isn't exactly "quantum", he just beat us there, which is a natural consequence of how I responded to the initial encounter.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Here's a quote from Jason Cone's free suppliment for OD&D
Take away is that Wandering Monsters are quasi-punative for wasting time, so no-treasure is the norm.Philotomy's Musing said:
Just a thought.
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
The trap was always going to be there; it was set as soon as I said "the marauders are fond of setting traps". Your nitpicking, methodical approach found the pit - congrats, you prevented an accidental fall-in. But you seem to be thinking that your characters automatically knew there was a pit there... they didn't! All you knew was that the group you were chasing uses traps, but perhaps there wasn't enough time for them to set one, or they didn't consider it in their haste, or any other excuse that would be entirely reasonable in a real-life situation. But you fanned out and picked through an entire jungle just because they might use a trap, so the outcome changed accordingly - it wasn't agency robbing (especially since you would be seeing NONE of what I am writing out), if anything it was agency in play.
The pit was on a trail - in squeens example, he was following that very trail when his ranger fell in.
First, this should be prefaced by the fact that this guy was talking about dungeons, yet we are in wilderness. Arguments how they share a similar adventure structure aside, they are different styles of adventure. But that's not enough to dismiss the statement outright, so onward!
Wandering Monsters as a concept of one specific style of play are punitive, sure. But that's not a universal axiom. Your example is how one guy runs one part of his game, and his rationale for doing so. I understand his reasoning and sometimes adopt it myself when I run a random encounter, but not always. In Beoric's case, I included a treasure because he had essentially 4 encounters as a result of his slower approach (the pit, the log, the gorilla, and the anaconda), which is enough of a resource tax to deal with on its own.
What you failed to appreciate was that I included that treasure there because it was a convenient way for me to give Beoric a key - a sort of Quantum Ogre in itself (What does it unlock? Will it be useful in finding the marauders? I'll decide that if and when I need to! For now, it follows the group in a pocket, which puts it exactly where I'd need it to be). The treasure was there precisely because I had decided at that point that the marauder group would make an escape while Beoric combs under every fern and ficus for tripwires - I needed some other hook I could use to move the narrative along, so I went with that key in a moment of improvisation. This is also what I mean when I say that a QO is formless and thus adaptable - in this case, it changed forms from a marauder leader into a key, though either form could assist Beoric in tracking down the marauder hideout.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
My ranger is such a dumb-ass! I have been meaning to fire him for some time and get someone who actual knows woodcraft.
I mean, yeesh! A Pit Trap on a Jungle Path. How blind are you Ranger Rick? (1st levelers! Worthless!)
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Consider: There is a Zen Koan that says,
"When the student is ready, the Master speaks."
that I think applies here.
I share these things I've dug up with y'all as food-for-thought. We all (self definitely included) have room for improvement as DMs. It's not intended to be adversarial, or argument fodder (mostly!
). There are these little Pearls of Wisdom scattered all over cyberspace---left by other DMs that have bother to write down lessons learned over the decades. Like the Quantum Ogre, they are solely Cautionary Tales---not absolutes. Absorb them. Turn them over in your mind. Allow something external to penetrate your +5 Plate Mail of Invulnerability. To me, that's the true spirit of these forums --- getting better at Adventure Design (and Execution).
'Nuff Said.
mAcular
A FreshHell to Contend With
Quantum Ogre is basically just improvising, but taking a piece of content and deciding ad hoc to use it elsewhere.
Let's use the potion example.
The players open a chest inside a dungeon room, and they find treasure inside. You actually didn't think they'd get here this session, so you never actually figured out what was going to be in the treasure chest. So what do you do? You look at your notes and see that you had some treasure planned for deeper in the dungeon. You decide to put that treasure in this chest right now. The party gets the treasure, there was no difference on the player side between it being planned all along VS improvised on the spot.
In this case, the treasure was the Quantum Ogre.
Is that bad? Did it even make a difference?
I've read the discussion and it feels like there's some "talking past each other" going on here because a Quantum Ogre doesn't necessarily take away agency. It's just a form of improvisation.
If you think about it, random encounters are Quantum Ogres. You have no idea when they're going to happen, they just happen when it's the right time.
Let's use the potion example.
The players open a chest inside a dungeon room, and they find treasure inside. You actually didn't think they'd get here this session, so you never actually figured out what was going to be in the treasure chest. So what do you do? You look at your notes and see that you had some treasure planned for deeper in the dungeon. You decide to put that treasure in this chest right now. The party gets the treasure, there was no difference on the player side between it being planned all along VS improvised on the spot.
In this case, the treasure was the Quantum Ogre.
Is that bad? Did it even make a difference?
I've read the discussion and it feels like there's some "talking past each other" going on here because a Quantum Ogre doesn't necessarily take away agency. It's just a form of improvisation.
If you think about it, random encounters are Quantum Ogres. You have no idea when they're going to happen, they just happen when it's the right time.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
"Quantum Ogre" is a defined term which was coined by Courtney Campbell. It refers specifically to a game element that occurs regardless of the players' choices. It is not "quantum" in the sense that it's existence is not known, because the DM has predetermined that it does exist. It is "quantum" in the sense that it's location is not known, because in the classic example it moves to wherever the party goes. It is perhaps poorly named, and might better have been called the "Inevitable Ogre".
The classic example is where the party has a choice between two paths, but regardless of the path chosen, the DM puts the same encounter in front of them. It is defined by the fact that the party faces the same outcome regardless of its choice; if agency is not affected, then it is not a Quantum Ogre. If agency is affected, then it is a Quantum Ogre, regardless of whether the players know that their agency has been affected.
It is not improvised content, because improvised content is by definition not predetermined. It is not even the repurposing of unused content, if the content is not used in a manner to negate the original decision of the players. "I don't have treasure prepped so I will reuse a treasure parcel from another scenario" is different from "no matter what, the party will receive this treasure".
It is not random encounters. Random encounters are the opposite of Quantum Ogres, because they result directly from player choices regarding how they use their time or how much commotion they make. Random encounters result from player choices, they do not negate player choices. Moreover, they are not predetermined because they occur randomly.
mAcular
A FreshHell to Contend With
Well, I meant random encounters are "quantum" in the sense that those creatures don't really exist in the game, until you roll the random encounter, then suddenly they're upon the players. Maybe I took the name too literally.
For the treasure chest example, my intent was to show that the player's agency was removed in the sense that they could have obtained the treasure if they had gone to the other chest -- but now whatever was in the first chest has been overwritten. In a sense, they did get it "no matter what."
Hmm, but I see your point. There is definitely a difference. I sense that this "hardline" version of it is more of an academic term though, than how it's used in actual gameplay. For instance, let me outline the following scenario -- and you tell me if it counts as a QO, and if that's bad.
Let's say you're wandering around a dungeon. As the DM, you've pre-prepared an encounter with a monster. But you haven't decided where or when the encounter will occur. All you know is that at some point while the party wanders around from room to room, you WILL have them encounter it. You'll just decide on-the-spot when that time is. So in a way, you're still preparing, but the last bit of preparation is left to be determined live (improvising). This is similar to the ogre example, no? It is not nearly as limiting though.
I suppose you could even mechanize it, and just turn it into the first random encounter they get automatically, or the second, or whatever you want it to be in the order.
For the treasure chest example, my intent was to show that the player's agency was removed in the sense that they could have obtained the treasure if they had gone to the other chest -- but now whatever was in the first chest has been overwritten. In a sense, they did get it "no matter what."
Hmm, but I see your point. There is definitely a difference. I sense that this "hardline" version of it is more of an academic term though, than how it's used in actual gameplay. For instance, let me outline the following scenario -- and you tell me if it counts as a QO, and if that's bad.
Let's say you're wandering around a dungeon. As the DM, you've pre-prepared an encounter with a monster. But you haven't decided where or when the encounter will occur. All you know is that at some point while the party wanders around from room to room, you WILL have them encounter it. You'll just decide on-the-spot when that time is. So in a way, you're still preparing, but the last bit of preparation is left to be determined live (improvising). This is similar to the ogre example, no? It is not nearly as limiting though.
I suppose you could even mechanize it, and just turn it into the first random encounter they get automatically, or the second, or whatever you want it to be in the order.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I'm with Beoric
---the disturbing (to me) aspect here is that the game is going in a pre-determined direction---chosen by the DM. If you called it an Inevitable Ogre, then it's pretty clear, what you've described is an IO (a.k.a. QO).Even with some of DP's examples (above)---being slipped a key that helps you get to the bandit camp because you missed a "verbal key" that was available earlier---lend to this weird sense of inevitability that hangs over everything. If you are sensitive to that sort of thing (and I'm absolutely sure not everyone is), then the "adventure" starts to feel like a sham---no matter how interestingly scripted it might be. With the "deft-handed DM" it might take me awhile, but eventually, as a player, I am certain I would mentally check out.
At the very least, (again for me) there needs to be a very tangible chance of failure---and not just fail/death in combat, but also failure to: "chose a good path"/"find a necessary clue"/"save the princess"/"unmask the villain"/"find a lost city"/etc. Call it "The Player's Right To Be Stupid".
The burden that puts on the DM---to have real object-permanence, and have enough content so that many, many, many path lead somewhere interesting AND are independent AND can be walked away from or missed---is orders-of-magnitude greater than the Inevitable Ogre style of play. But to me, that's what makes for a great DM, and a great game.
I was incredibly fortunate to have one of those DMs way back when I was a player (late 70's/early 80's)...and that's the example I strive to live up to for my own group now.
I label that style, "The Greater D&D"---because of the sweeping scope. "Lesser D&D" lives inside just one-module-at-a-time.
I'm painfully aware that I frequently fall short of my ideal---and when I fail...that's when I'm tempted to whip out Ye' Old IO/QO. But in what I'd call a personal "good session", I resist the urge, and instead improvise new content---sometimes pleasantly surprising myself!
Others are 100% free to disagree, but this is my D&D truth. (I've been spoiled.)
Last edited:
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
Fun fact: this is an adventure writing forum, for the purposes of developing pre-written adventures.
"Pre-written" is practically synonymous with "pre-determined" - the DM is going to know ahead of time the consequences of the players choices because he has those consequences written out, sitting in his hands. That's what modules are.
Do you know what lies beyond the door in Area 11? Area 12!
TerribleSorcery
Should be playing D&D instead
What a strange thing to say. Is that really how you play this game??
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
There's a difference between a railroad and a guide. A module guides the play, a railroad dictates the play. You both take a hardline stance against railroads - understandable, and railroads are NOT what I'm advocating.
What I am advocating is modules as guidance; that may not jive with your "I want all my actions to feel like they don't have pre-ordained outcomes" attitude, but I guarantee every pre-written game you've played in has had more than a few pre-ordained elements to it, you've just likely never noticed because you aren't supposed to notice (which I also argue is indistinguishable from the feeling you get from real, concrete choice freedom).
Look, if you want to write adventures, you need to abandon the idea that it can be as freeform as you believe the game should be played, because it's just not feasible to incorporate that into a module that's less than 1,000 pages long. Even published sandbox modules have pre-determined outcomes - if the party does this, then this happens.... if they don't do this, then the situation is like this, etc. Scenario A leads to Scenario B, and though it can also lead to Scenario C or even Scenario D, the fact is that it still leads to Scenario B.
A sandbox module sets a destination, regardless of player choices. If the players want to go somewhere where something interesting is happening, then they'll need to go to the destination eventually, otherwise it's all just aimless wandering. Their understanding and accepting this is what I'm talking about when I mention the RPG social contract. That's not railroading or "inevitability" - that's how the game is expected to unfold (as per the module author), so that's how the game was designed to unfold.
Tomb of Horrors expects your party to actually visit the Tomb - it's a pretty dull adventure if the party decides not to go to the Tomb. Keep on the Borderlands expects you to visit the Caves of Chaos. Dungeon of the Mad Mage expects you to go into Undermountain. When they don't expect it to happen, you get Lareth-type situations - yes Squeen, you had fun with Lareth, but it's not the norm. Most people think that Lareth was a stupid villain, with no telegraphing of his plans nor any encounters with the party prior. He just sits in a room, hoping the party stumbles into him - not a well-written villain, yet seemingly is exactly what you're arguing for.
If modules didn't include some kind of predetermined events or outcomes, then the module industry would cease to exist. Everything would be setting sourcebooks.
Last edited:
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I don't use a lot of pre-written modules, it's true (but I do pre-write my homebrew stuff like it's a module). However, almost universally I can't say DP's statement (above) was ever true. The party decides where and how deep it wants to go.
Take B2 for example---they didn't go in every cave. Pod Caverns---they never went past the 1st level. T1/Hommlet---never went towards the Temple. They generally do some "stuff" in the dungeon...and then skee-dattle when it looks like the poop has hit-the-fan. They only go back if there is something they really want there. (They also like to return bumped-up several levels and/or with allies and clean-house.)
The Earth Temple scenario I've trying to submit for Footprints 25 played out this way too---PCs never went to 1st-level, visited 2nd-level to do something specific, went elsewhere for over a year or two, went back and finished some business with the Goblin King on the 2nd-level, figured out there was a 3rd-level, left...and then a bit later planned an exposition into the submerged 3rd (polymorphed as Merfolk). Got what they wanted from there, and then left before exploring most of that level. As DM, I wrote 80% of it in 2015 and just let is still there to be picked-at whenever the party got the itch. There are still open paths down there not explored---some written, and some to-be written (if-and-when I think they might be needed...e.g. the troll and the Night King example I once posted). This is how I am (re)writing the Temple for submission too---intended for multiple-visits/exploratory-play at a variety of levels.
That's my understanding of the Old School Play Style in a nutshell.
Lastly, I have always maintained good Adventure Design (and these forums) goes beyond the desire just to publish modules. Bryce will tell you everything written here that is not about his future Book is all rubbish. (He's right.)
Still, I am getting a whole lot of good use out of the community's collect brain. I've learned a lot. I think my DMing has improved over the last 2 years just by virtue of being able to ask questions of the seasoned DMs here what they are doing at their table. Folks like EOTB and Melan who have been majorly active in the OSR for over 20 years now are invaluable resources. Sure, I have my own goals and style (e.g. no Inevitable Ogres), but I have still picked up a lot even when we disagree. The sample of how I am writing today (over in the Illusions thread) is very different than when I started in 2013 (let alone 1988!). It's now easier FOR ME at the table, and I think a better experience for my players because I'm avoiding some common DM pitfalls. What's more, I believe they are becoming better players because of my increased adherence to the strictures of the (original) game and the things I've learned from Bryce and people like yourself. I've up my game---runs smoother, more interactive, focus on environment over plot, better resource management tracking, codifying house rules to handle DMG/PHB holes, etc. And our game's "true challenge level" (i.e. not monster HD) has increased to match the elevated real-world XP level of my players (and their characters).
(...Like Huso, I am even starting to enjoy higher/mid-level play...Well...dislike it less!...but I will always remain a stingy DM.)
Make no mistake, this job ain't easy!...but a this moment in time it feels like a win-win.
(OK,
)EDIT: But it's the meaningful challenges that keeps them coming back.
Last edited:
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Re-reading your post, I've not sure we are on the same page about this either.
You are right that a Contract exists (suspension-of-disbelief, at the very least), but I think you are suggestion that your definition of "well behaved players" (i.e. not meta-gamers) comply to a bit more than I demand of mine. (I think that came out in the example play.)
i.e. your Contract has more sub-clauses! ;P
Also disagree. I would not call that a sandbox. A sandbox just has destination(s). If players go off-map---sandbox just gets bigger.
A "sandbox module" is a bit vaguer to me. Does B2 qualify?
Last edited:
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
That sounds like a nightmare, TBH.
Your players honestly sound like they don't want to comply with anything that already exists in the game, and just want to faff around as imaginary people - OK fine for them, but I assure you this is not the norm I've seen or expect. We should not be catering adventure design to fringe groups of player weirdos.
You know what the best part of B2 is? THE FUCKING CAVE! 99% of KotB players went to the Caves of Chaos. Going to the caves is expected. It was not exactly wrong for Gary Gygax to have fleshed out the caverns at the expense of... well, wherever the hell your players ended up, because honestly who could blame him? If you can take a paragraph of peripheral worldbuilding and turn it into a fully-fleshed campaign, then kudos, but that's not why you bought B2, is it?
Your group sounds like they go to a bowling alley just to play in the arcade. If your players ever complain that they didn't like an adventure then smack them in the mouth for me, because that would be like writing a movie review for a film you watched backwards, upside-down, and in the wrong theatre.
No wonder you have a hard time grasping my point - all your module experience up to this point has just been players faffing around ignoring the adventure! Maybe you'd do well to add some extra clauses to your contract after all...
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
Still waiting for that Earth Temple adventure....it's like the sasquatch...you hear about it, but never see it....
*whistles innocently*
"I've read the discussion and it feels like there's some "talking past each other" going on here...." -- mAcular
Yep. Welcome to the group.
I'm trying hard to stay out of this argument. It has similarities to arguments that have been on all sorts of forums for eons...
I'll make the argument that if you don't want to have the quantum ogre or whatever ogre, then you should start your game like this:
"You are in a world....go!"
"Pre-written" is practically synonymous with "pre-determined" - the DM is going to know ahead of time the consequences of the players choices because he has those consequences written out, sitting in his hands. That's what modules are. " --DP
Yep. It's not a strange thing to say. It's pre-determined that kobolds are in the cave system A of Caves of Chaos. It's predetermined that if they walk down the passage in Cave A there is a pit trap there...because its written in the module.
Do you grab Ghost Tower of Inverness and start the players out at the entrance to the tower for the evening? That's all pre-determined....is it not? HOW is it NOT?
You should all be arguing about the term 'pre-determined' and how you use that term instead of talking in circles. Because DP has a point, as does the rest of you, but you all talk in circles and aren't hearing each other.
*whistles innocently*
"I've read the discussion and it feels like there's some "talking past each other" going on here...." -- mAcular
Yep. Welcome to the group.
I'm trying hard to stay out of this argument. It has similarities to arguments that have been on all sorts of forums for eons...
I'll make the argument that if you don't want to have the quantum ogre or whatever ogre, then you should start your game like this:
"You are in a world....go!"
"Pre-written" is practically synonymous with "pre-determined" - the DM is going to know ahead of time the consequences of the players choices because he has those consequences written out, sitting in his hands. That's what modules are. " --DP
Yep. It's not a strange thing to say. It's pre-determined that kobolds are in the cave system A of Caves of Chaos. It's predetermined that if they walk down the passage in Cave A there is a pit trap there...because its written in the module.
Do you grab Ghost Tower of Inverness and start the players out at the entrance to the tower for the evening? That's all pre-determined....is it not? HOW is it NOT?
You should all be arguing about the term 'pre-determined' and how you use that term instead of talking in circles. Because DP has a point, as does the rest of you, but you all talk in circles and aren't hearing each other.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I get your point. But that's not how we played "way back when", and that's not how I'm expecting my players to play now. Maybe that's the 5e norm today. Dunno.
...and to be crystal-clear---it's not a nightmare, it's a beautiful dream-come-true. D&D is an amazing game if you let it be. I cherish my players and the nutty things they come up with.
Also, B2 came with the Basic set, so I didn't buy it...or a whole lot of other modules after I started playing with my "great" DM. I think that was the norm before the 2e+ eras.
Instead, he inspired me to start writing.
(...and I was horrible at it....but "If at first you don't succeed..." )
...and to be crystal-clear---it's not a nightmare, it's a beautiful dream-come-true. D&D is an amazing game if you let it be. I cherish my players and the nutty things they come up with.
Also, B2 came with the Basic set, so I didn't buy it...or a whole lot of other modules after I started playing with my "great" DM. I think that was the norm before the 2e+ eras.
Instead, he inspired me to start writing.
(...and I was horrible at it....but "If at first you don't succeed..." )
DangerousPuhson
Should be playing D&D instead
Not B2; think more like X1 Isle of Dread, or if you prefer urban, City State of the Invincible Overlord.
To no one's surprise, Isle of Dread is going to suck if your party just decides to build a raft and float out to sea, and City-State isn't nearly as awe-inspiring when the party refuses to enter the front gates.