Lots of shit going on / Sandboxes

[DangerousPuhson]

I was making a slight change of context here.

What role would you expect a QO to play solely in a pre-written/published Adventure?

I can answer that best by pointing out a well-implemented, critically-acclaimed Quantum Ogre in an OSR adventure: The Giant from Deep Carbon Observatory.

Little guidance is provided in the adventure as to when and how specifically the DM is meant to use the Giant, but it becomes this amazingly potent foe precisely because it's location is kept in a quantum state, able to drop in anywhere it would add a crazy amount of excitement. If you're going through the dungeon and some beast is stalking you, with the ability to go anywhere it wants in the dungeon (leaving him free to put them behind whatever door the party opens), it becomes crazy scary - that's the point of it. A Quantum Ogre with an unfixed/unknown position whose encounter-whenever-good-for-drama appearances are used purposefully as a tool to make the game fun.

The Crows from the same adventure are another good QO example. The module lays out exactly what The Crows are like in a fight, and what kind of ambush/snare tactics they use against the party (i.e. when you want to kick off a fight or broadcast their presence), but their actual location and usage is up to the DM, free to inject them into the game where it suits his purposes best. Any sense of moving behind the scenes (what a QO does) is entirely intentional; these are a floating, stalking presence that threaten to jump the player at the most surprising of times.

 

[The Heretic]

I can see now why usability at the table is a Very Big Deal. If you want to have a sandbox campaign where the PCs can go anywhere they want (like Bryce's Dungeonland concept) then damn straight this pre-written adventure better be usable at the table with a moment's notice.

 

[The Heretic]

What role would you expect a QO to play solely in a pre-written/published Adventure?

I'd say that Bryce's complaint about skill check logjams would be itself a kind of quantum ogre. If you require a DC 20 skill check to continue the adventure and oh-look-no-one-put-points-into-that-skill-and-they-rolled-low, you're going to have to fudge things to keep the adventure going as written.

 

[EOTB]

When you let the players drive you (as a DM) are constantly on the back-foot---forced to be inventive and reactive. It is a very different kind of creation process than when you first create the world. More demanding in many ways. After you let players loose in it, there's a ying-yang, or ping-pong'ing between Unbridled Creativity and Reactive Creativity.

You're only on the back foot if you create a scenario as opposed to a situation. A scenario is usually a single action tree detailed in-process; it may have more than one branch but they're still connecting into something that narrows down like a river system reaching the sea. Most adventures are written as scenarios. The writing is now sticky, because if the scenario is disrupted prior to the written conclusion, there wasn't much point to the 2nd half of the book.

Drop the detail on a scenario back and write situations. This is where the two styles comes into difference. If a DM is trying to write dramatic conclusions then stopping the writing at the situation level makes the conclusion "quantum" and the pieces certain - the exact opposite approach to their end creative goal. Situations are broad instead of narrow; shallow instead of deep. Information is created that may apply, and so a framework is created around many pieces to set what their purposes and interactions with the location are. It is a sitution in media res, and the DM knows what the end state(s) are if the PCs do nothing. The question becomes: what is the end state if the PCs do something? And all of those possible end states are left to be determined.

If you know that broad, shallow framework then all you have to do is decide how it is modified by what the players decide to do. I don't find this to be reactive creativity; it's just folding more creativity not-from-you into the setup and seeing what the final product is.

 

[Beoric]

You're only on the back foot if you create a scenario as opposed to a situation.

Exactly. This is what Justin Alexander is talking about when he says, "Don't prep plots, prep situations."

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I'd say that Bryce's complaint about skill check logjams would be itself a kind of quantum ogre. If you require a DC 20 skill check to continue the adventure and oh-look-no-one-put-points-into-that-skill-and-they-rolled-low, you're going to have to fudge things to keep the adventure going as written.

The situation is bad practice/design. Game-critical chokepoints are like insta-death traps, except instead of killing a single character, they wipe out your whole adventure in the most boring way possible.

That solution though is a straight-up fudged dice roll... which I'd say is more of a cousin to the quantum ogre, rather than a quantum ogre itself. A quantum ogre is content in the game - a person, place, situation, monster, etc.... though a quantum ogre can often be used as a substitute solution in lieu of a fudged dice roll. In your example, this could be as straightforward as having whatever was going to be on the other side of that logjam show up elsewhere in the adventure, on the other side of some other door that does't require a skill check.

Not something you want to do often, nor come to rely on, but still serves a purpose as a plot tool.

 

[squeen]

Seems like I hit a nerve with that "back-foot" comment, but before I go on to clarify it a bit, I want to acknowledge some of the excellent points that have been raised by y'all. Why I feel compelled to do this, I'm not sure. It's what I believe non-nerds call "Having a conversation", which it a bit different from an argument, and supposedly better than just shouting your opinion into the cyber-void.

So, in order:

Beoric makes an excellent point about 1e content creation. That so many of the original tools for procedural content (as written) are really hooks to inspire further content. Very insightful, and I totally agree. It got me thinking to the state of the hobby in those early days. No one played "Dungeonland" because there were so very few pre-written products available. It was certainly the case with my original group---we snottily turned our noses up at "modules". It was all about originality (this was, after-all, post-60's when individualism and non-conformity was king). Beoric is almost certainly right that those tables were just intended to be a spark and not taken just at face value.

Also, @Beoric, I didn't think you post was long. This isn't Twitter after all.

I was taken aback by DP excellent examples for Deep Carbon Observatory. I was all set to acknowledge the QO's rightful place in adventure design, but then reconsidered. I think the practice of making NPCs/monsters move dynamically in the environment (as oppose to just waiting behind a door to attack), is another kettle of fish, and not quite the Quantum Ogre. The dynamic pieces are more constrained, I think, but both involve that DM "reactive creativity" I'm trying to highlight.

EOTB, as usual, brings heavy thoughts to my mind. He too bristles with the notion of a DM on "the back-foot". Design scenarios, not situations. (or in "Alexanderian-ese", Situations, not Plots). More on that now.

I do fancy myself the kind of DM that does design scenarios. I hope my earlier posts made that clear---and I hope I am not dilusional or blind to a short-coming along those lines. I think the "back-foot" label was seen as pejorative---somehow condemning the "scenario"-style of prep. It was not. I am a true believer. BUT, I'll even quote Alexander to make my point

But you’re not programming a computer game. You’re prepping a scenario for a roleplaying game. When the PCs choose to do X or Y or Z (or A or B or C), you don’t need a pre-programmed reaction. You’re sitting right there at the table with them. You can just react.

It from the section entitled, "DON’T PLAN SPECIFIC CONTINGENCIES", and the bolded emphasis is mine.

What I was trying to say is that:

• prep scenarios == good (plots == bad)
• messing with those scenarios on-the-fly (e.g. Quantum-Ogreing) feels like a (bad) cheet---even if your motives are to serve the Greater Good of Group Fun
• moving the elements of those scenarios dynamically, often means DM-ing re-actively (a.k.a. on the back-foot), which is a very different skill-set and style of creativity from the fedora-you-wore creating the scenario initially (off-line)
• dynamic creativity is not Quantum Ogre-ing, because you allow things to constantly go off-the-rails. (Well, there really are no rails to begin with, when you design plot-less situations.)

That's it.
(And a nod to Heretic who brought up a good point to about bottle-necks, but I have nothing to add on that topic.)

Happy Sunday all. Stay healthy & safe.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I think the practice of making NPCs/monsters move dynamically in the environment (as oppose to just waiting behind a door to attack), is another kettle of fish, and not quite the Quantum Ogre.

The chief difference is that quantum ogres dwell as floating situations in the meta-nether of the game, waiting to drop in, whereas enemies moving dynamically already exist in the game with movements tracked by the DM (they flank and ambush and patrol and whatnot, but the DM can point to the map and say "they are here right now, moving to here"). Not so much the case with QOs, who materialize whenever and wherever needed. Other than that, pretty similar though.

 

[squeen]

The Crows would then be QO's until a first appearance. Perhaps...I forget if DCO has any guidance as to when that first interaction occurs. I think you are right, that it's vague in that area.

EDIT: It's your choice of words, i.e. "whenever and wherever needed", that implies the DM is more than just looking for a logical insertion point, but instead has a plot intent, that rubs me the wrong way. Whatever.

EDIT #2: If I was the author of DCO (heh), I would assign probabilities for their initial appearance at certain per-determined locations. I guess I am a simulationist at heart.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I forget if DCO has any guidance as to when that first interaction occurs. I think you are right, that it's vague in that area.

Yeah it's basically "Here's some enemies competing against you. Use them whenever it would be awesome to do so".

 

[squeen]

Stewart's raw creativity is genius-level stunning. I am less enamored with parts of his game-design.

Could have just made them a Random Wandering Monster. Takes the Deus out of the Machina.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Could have just made them a Random Wandering Monster. Takes the Deus out of the Machina.

Why though? Why hamstring their utility like that?

 

[squeen]

Not really hamstrung. The DM is free to just grab 'em and go.

But leaving it solely up to fiat breaks a bit of the trust between player and DM, IMO. By-passes a sound mechanism. I don't kown how to convey to you the importance of striving for impartiality to my way of thinking. It's EOTB's neutral environment, and maybe even something more. Perhaps without mechanics fed by the seeds of chance, something grows stale...or is missing.

Sorry. It's vague to me right now too. Done posting for a bit, need to prep for today's game.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

But leaving it solely up to fiat breaks a bit of the trust between player and DM, IMO

You guys have some weird trust-issue dynamics at your tables. The only thing my players need to trust me to do is arbitrate the rules competently, and make the evening fun. So long as I deliver on that front, they don't give a shit about how the sausage gets made. The only exceptions that come to mind were the few times I had meta-gamers in my group... but fuck player metagaming, it needs to be discouraged anyway.

 

[EOTB]

Seems like I hit a nerve with that "back-foot" comment

Not in my case, no. Just a chance to mentally reframe the point to a collaborative one.

You guys have some weird trust-issue dynamics at your tables. The only thing my players need to trust me to do is arbitrate the rules competently, and make the evening fun. So long as I deliver on that front, they don't give a shit about how the sausage gets made. The only exceptions that come to mind were the few times I had meta-gamers in my group... but fuck player metagaming, it needs to be discouraged anyway.

It isn't a trust issue; it's a basic approach difference. The bolded is the difference. There are two underlying approaches to D&D - one is where the DM is at the center during the play session, and the other is where the players are.

In the approach I use the DM doesn't make the evening fun. The DM makes cool game content pieces that the players use, in ways the DM often does not anticipate (which is why the DM does not bother trying), to make the evening fun. The DM is the emcee, the straight-man; a much more passive element than the players are. Indeed, if the players are passive then everything falls apart - their role is to provide decisiveness and energy, and if they don't then a risky environment will simply destroy them efficiently as opposed to dramatically.

The DM provides the beginning, the players provide the middle, and the DM steps in again at the end to provide the fair resolution of how the players' middle decisions reset the present. When the DM isn't trying to make the middle and resolution fun in a predetermined way, then both parties (DM and players) have the thrill of surprise. The players work from the unknown/surprise to known, the DM moves from known to unknown/surprise. Both join again at the resolution to a state of known or mostly-known. The DM reassesses in-between sessions, and the cycle begins anew.

The only way there is a trust issue is if a DM says the players have this agency when they don't. There is no trust issue if a DM can clearly convey that they see their role as you describe it. I've played in those sorts of games and can play along very easily; I just need to know that's what the DM is looking for. I stop trying to minimize the environment's effects on me, and instead try to maximize "dramatic situations" - I'm still the emcee, it's just an emcee-player helping the DM set up the situation they're trying to bring about.

I'm just not interested in that sort of game long-term because I get a lot more player-enjoyment out of games where surprise is in play for both sides; temporary states of chaos where the decisive can determine exactly what resolution looks like. As opposed to being impressed with the DM's creative and exciting resolution.

EDIT - And there's nothing wrong with metagaming...except it very efficiently allows players to knock on the wood and determine the village is, in fact, Potemkin. I really don't care if players communicate using game lexicon between themselves at the table. That's part of the process - communicating new information in technical terms familiar to all - of moving from unknown to known which I'm hoping to encourage. That's necessary for decisive player action.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

In the approach I use the DM doesn't make the evening fun.

I think you are digging too much into semantics here.

When I say my players trust me to make the evening fun, I mean to say that they trust me to run an enjoyable game, be it through organic and emergent player actions, or through creative and interesting DM-generated scenarios... one does not preclude nor exclude the other.

Throwing a Quantum Ogre situation at the party when it would make the game more interesting doesn't mean that there aren't a million other situations in the game where the Quantum Ogre doesn't come into play. The dynamic is still the same - DM set-up, player roll-through, DM resolution... that is the fundamental structure of P&P RPGs. The Quantum Ogre is a tool that can exist within that structure, and I argue that when used competently, does not detract from that structure.

The only way there is a trust issue is if a DM says the players have this agency when they don't. There is no trust issue if a DM can clearly convey that they see their role as you describe it.

So we are in agreement then.

And there's nothing wrong with metagaming...

Controversial statement, to say the least.

 

[EOTB]

The dynamic is still the same - DM set-up, player roll-through, DM resolution... that is the fundamental structure of P&P RPGs.

I present the umpteen million RPG scenarios where the default is for the DM to detail specific beginnings, middles, and ends as Exhibit A that the fundamental structures between the two approaches are not the same.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I present the umpteen million RPG scenarios where the default is for the DM to detail specific beginnings, middles, and ends as Exhibit A that the fundamental structures between the two approaches are not the same.

While there's no shortage of those railroad-y Dragonlance or Ed Greenwood adventures, that isn't usually the case by what gets outlined in the formal rules of most games. The DM/GM has almost always held the role of rules arbitrator and world interface. A game in which they control beginning, middle, and end is just a DM telling a story to an audience, not proper D&D gameplay.

I also can't see the connection to a Quantum Ogre here, which is simply a prescriptive tool, not the basis for the entire game.

 

[Beoric]

You guys have some weird trust-issue dynamics at your tables. The only thing my players need to trust me to do is arbitrate the rules competently, and make the evening fun. So long as I deliver on that front, they don't give a shit about how the sausage gets made. The only exceptions that come to mind were the few times I had meta-gamers in my group... but fuck player metagaming, it needs to be discouraged anyway.

Maybe "trust" isn't the right word. When I'm a player I want to do what I want to do. If the DM makes me do something else, or makes my choices not matter, it pisses me off. I don't play the game to have less freedom than I have in RL.

When I notice this going on, I don't not trust my DM in the sense that I think he is going to steal from me or hit on my girlfriend. But I do lose faith in his ability to adjudicate in a neutral fashion, and I do start to feel like my choices don't matter. Because the DM has taught me that my choices don't matter. Which incentivizes me not to try those creative solutions, because I realize I am unable to have an impact on the game world. At which point I have to ask myself why am I even playing? If I want to enjoy someone else's plot, I can read a book instead.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Maybe "trust" isn't the right word. When I'm a player I want to do what I want to do. If the DM makes me do something else, or makes my choices not matter, it pisses me off. I don't play the game to have less freedom than I have in RL.

That's an abuse of the Quantum Ogre, not so much something inherent to its being. It's like vowing never to watch a movie again because someone talked in a movie theatre once - your problem is not with movies, but rather with someone just being a dick.

Light touch, deft hand, nobody even notices.