Lots of shit going on / Sandboxes

[DangerousPuhson]

In a nutshell: Yeah.

Then you have my pity if you end up tossing out 90% of your game materials because you adamantly stick to the idea that once you've decided something goes somewhere that it can't ever move from that spot, even if the players have no idea about what you've decided and where you've put the thing, even if the perfect chance to salvage that material comes up later in the game.

Folks here are arguing from a position of cheating players who derive fun from trying to juke the game, to crack the DM's system, or as EOTB put it: "data-collecting to understand the curve around them". That kind of mechanical play is way meta, into the realm of min-maxers and those guys who show up with homebrew classes from the DnDWiki. A far worse sin, IMO, and not really something I'm comfy spreading in my group by encouraging that style of metagame.

 

[squeen]

Look. I told you about how Lareth the Beautiful plagued my players after escaping the Moathouse encounter. He followed them back to their "home base", nearly defeated them all in the Cave of Choas Temple, and they pursued him back to his home Kingdom---where was was actually the crowned Prince (different name, long story). I had all this scripted out---how his dual identity was going to be revealed in the City, etc.

But then they caught up with him in an abandoned Watch Tower en route. He jumped out of the tower balcony with his Ring of Feather Falling to escape once again (as planned)...and then...the thief shot him with a poisoned arrow. He failed his save. Arch-nemesis dead.

Should I have fudged the save roll? I had all this cool stuff planned...

No. I let him die. I adjusted. Now 5 years later, after many other travels,---they are disguised as Prince Lareth, skulking about his old haunts, and digging into mysteries only he knew. It's been GREAT. Way better than I could have planned. In retrospective, I am SO thankful I just let it happen.

This is the lesson (or part of it). Let go of control and let yourself be pleasantly surprised.

Use the Force Luke.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Your players knew Lareth was where he was when they found him, yes? If so, once the Quantum Ogre has made it's choice as to where it is, it breaks the quantum state. You cannot, by virtue of the definition of it, fight a quantum ogre - if you fight it, you are just fighting a regular ogre. A quantum ogre begins to adhere to the rules of the world once it materializes as a normal ogre... it can escape or die in a fight or have its plans broken or whatever. But we aren't discussing normal ogres, we are talking about quantum ogres. They are immune to such things because they technically don't exist yet.

I can't tell you if you should have fudged a roll in a moment to keep a villain in the game. I don't know all the circumstances around the choice. That die roll had a chance to be noticed, and might have pissed off your players, or it might not... I don't know, I'm not a divination specialist. In this case, your adventure came out OK, but it could just has easily not have, and so really shouldn't be taken into consideration as an example that one choice was obviously superior to the other. It might not have been - maybe your players would have had more fun if they got to check out that material you made, you'll never know now, especially if you're against the idea of quantum ogres (which would have allowed for unused material to come back into play).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The Quantum Ogre: A Dialogue (credit to Reddit user u/SCVannevar)

GM: You come to a fork in the path. You can go left or right. You don't see anything remarkable about either path, and they both seem to be headed toward the Fortress of the Evil Warlock, although the left hand path looks a bit more direct.
Player: I go down the left hand path.
GM: Okay, you carry on down the left hand path. After about a mile you come around a bend in the path and you see, standing in your way, an ogre.
Player: Oh, come on!
GM: What?
Player: I thought you took this game seriously.
GM: What are you talking about?
Player: You're giving me a quantum ogre!
GM: A what?
Player: A quantum ogre. It's an encounter you had planned ahead of time, and intend to carry out no matter which way I went, thus robbing my character of agency.
GM: You're saying that if you had turned right instead of left, that ogre would still have been there?
Player: Exactly!
GM: How do you know that?
Player: Well, you're running a campaign, aren't you? You're following the text, which has foreordained the presence of an ogre at this time and place!
GM: Are you saying you've read the text of the campaign?
Player: Of course not.
GM: Then in the first place, how do you know the campaign says that there's an ogre here?
Player: Well, either that, or you're deviating from the text.
GM: How do you know I'm not deviating from the text?
Player: ...well...
GM: And in the second place, what makes you think that the ogre would be there if you had gone down the right hand path?
Player: Well, would it?
GM: I'm not telling you what's down the right hand path.
Player: Why not?
GM: Because you're a good mile from that location, you can't see or hear anything. Whatever's down there may come into play later, and your lack of knowledge about it may impact events.
Player: Sigh. Fine, I go back and go down the right hand path instead.
GM: Actually, the ogre has already noticed you, and is charging toward you, its club raised. Roll initiative.
Player: Oh, come ON!
GM: Hey, you chose to go down the left hand path.
Player: But my choice is meaningless because you put a quantum ogre there!
GM: Neither you the character nor you the player has any way of knowing it's a quantum ogre.
Player: Well... Do you give me your word that it's not a quantum ogre?
GM: Technically, I can't do that. There are gods and other powerful beings in this world, including the Evil Warlock who knows you're coming for him, and they may have decided to put the ogre in your path.
Player: Did they?
GM: You don't know. It doesn't seem likely, but you can't exclude it.
Player: Sigh. Look, can we just skip the ogre and fast forward to the Fortress of Evil Warlock?
GM: Why?
Player: Because ogre encounters are boring. I want to go straight to the Fortress; that's why I went left in the first place, remember?
GM: So you insist on absolute player agency by ruling out the possibility of any quantum ogre, but you also insist on not necessarily having to face the consequences of the exercise of your agency?
Player: No! But--
GM: Then roll initiative.
Player: But you're the one who determines those consequences!
GM: Would you rather YOU determined those consequences? You want to be the GM?
Player: I want you to set consequences in line with the exercise of my agency!
GM: In other words, you want to go from point A to point B without having to encounter any ogres.
Player: Exactly!
GM: In an area you know to be rife with ogres.
Player: Only because you say it is.
GM: It's called the Ogre Basin.
Player: That doesn't mean there have to be ogres!
(Pause.)
GM: So, do you want to move the campaign to a location without ogres?
Player: Well no, I want to go to the Fortress of the Evil Warlock so that I can kill the Evil Warlock and seduce the Well-Bosomed Wench, so I have to stay in the Ogre Basin.
GM: You just want guaranteed safety from ogres.
Player: I want to have fun! Is that too much to ask?
GM: No, but your idea of fun seems to involve the exercise of omnipotent powers in a framework where, by design, you have the power of a mere mortal.
Player: Well... a magical mortal.
GM: Do you have Vaporize All Ogres memorized?
Player: Don't be smart.
GM: Look, you're the one who wanted to go left. Facing an ogre is a consequence of going left. You want to play in a world without your actions having consequences, play with another GM. Better yet, find a god simulator on Steam.
Player: Sigh. Look, the whole point of playing a role playing game is to make free choices and see the results of those choices -- and the whole point of doing THAT is to have fun. Otherwise, we'd just live in the real world, right? So I'm asking you, just this once, can we skip the ogre?
(Pause.)
GM: Well . . . just this once. We're not making a habit of it.
Player: I understand.
GM: All right. There's no ogre, there never was. You keep walking toward the Fortress of the Evil Warlock.
Player: Awesome.
GM: A little way up the road, you see three gnomes arguing over a small, shiny trinket.
Player: Oh come on, this is just another quantum ogre in disguise.
GM: We're not having that same discussion again.
Player: Ugh. Well, can we skip this too? I hate gnomes.
(Pause.)
GM: Fine. No gnomes. Farther up the path, you see a pack of goblins.
Player: Boring. Skip.
GM: A series of fallen trees blocking the path.
Player: Skip.
GM: A leper with a mysterious pouch.
Player: Skip.
GM: A beautiful woman tied to a tree.
Player: Skip. Wait -- is she as well-proportioned as the Well-Bosomed Wench?
GM: Not even close.
Player: Okay, yeah, skip.
GM: Fine, I get the message. At the end of path, after a long journey with many dangers, adventures, and memories (snort), you finally arrive at the Fortress of the Evil Warlock.
Player: All right! See, this is what I wanted all along. This is what I call fun.
GM: I aim to please. Now, there are no obvious entrances; the whole compound is surrounded by a mile-deep chasm, and terrible shadows guard the battlements.
Player: No problem. I fly in through the window of the Wench's Tower.
GM: What? How?
Player: With my Helmet of Flight.
GM: You don't have a Helmet of Flight.
Player: (exasperated sigh) I'll go back to the village and purchase a Helmet of Flight. We can assume I got enough gold from all my adventures, right?
GM: Are you serious?
Player: Are you going to give me more boring quantum ogres?
GM: You know, just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't mean it's a quantum ogre. And as we've established, unless you're either a mind reader or cheating, you have no way of knowing any given encounter is a quantum ogre.
Player: Well, I assume it's a quantum ogre because I don't think you want me to have fun. I think you just want to railroad me.
GM: That's just not true.
Player: It must be, because I've made it clear I don't want to deal with ogres, or lepers, or goblins, or any of that! So you either respect my character's agency, or I'm out of here!
(Pause.)
GM: Fine. Your journey back to the village is uneventful. You find a Helmet of Flight without difficulty, and procure it without incident. Your journey back to the Fortress is uneventful. You don the Helmet, rise up the ground, fly over the heads of the terrible shadows and into the tower window, where the Well-Bosomed Wench is waiting with open arms and open bodice.
Player: Great! Although... look, I hate to complain, but you made that too easy. I mean, do you really understand the meaning and the spirit of a tabletop role playing game? ...hey, what are you doing with that pencil?

 

[squeen]

(sigh)

 

[EOTB]

I guess I'll just crumple that up and throw it away since the party didn't go where I had expected them to go, and because if I put him in front of the party now it'll teach my players that all their choices are meaningless, and it could be considered "managing their excitement" (which apparently is a bad thing for... reasons?).

If you're going to quantum the delivery of the plot hook, why is it that the options are to get it the way you'd like to deliver it, or not get it at all?

Why can't you contrive some reason to pair the plot hook with something the party gets into of their own accord? I.e., you're flexible enough to allow the trigger to be pretty much anything, tailoring the exact info delivery to suite? This isn't usually too difficult.

A lot of DMs are too focused on controlling the "how" because it seems like a fun way for it to occur, when that's really not necessary.

 

[EOTB]

That kind of mechanical play is way meta, into the realm of min-maxers and those guys who show up with homebrew classes from the DnDWiki.

Are you making assumptions about how things work at others' tables? It's not min/max - there's an excluded middle where people gather information and communicate that in order to make decisions based in their risk preferences. Which usually are somewhere in between 0(min) and 11(max).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Why can't you contrive some reason to pair the plot hook with something the party gets into of their own accord?

What you've suggested is literally the way I have been arguing QOs should be implemented all this time. It's not about "my way or the highway"; it's about "didn't get around to using this, maybe it'll fit in here instead".

Are you, uh, making assumptions about how things work at others' tables?

I see you trying to attack me with my own words, but no... a statement that something is akin to something else is not an indictment, nor an assumption beyond "I assume this is like this other thing"

 

[EOTB]

I'm referring directly to "The players didn't get into a battle with the marauders, but I want one to happen, and if I allow them to circumvent what I had planned, I guess I'll just crumple that up and throw it away since the party didn't go where I had expected them to go". I'm not the one talking about tossing 90% of someone's game material.

Yes, I realize what I'm saying in "QO-lite". My point is that even in the case here, the discussion presumes something other than QO-lite because the alternatives are "agree with my position or this hook doesn't get delivered". In my experience, a lot of DMs do want to map out the "how". And yes, I think your posts here are very indicative of enjoying mapping out the "how" and then seeing people experience that specific "how".

So why you might be arguing that they should be implemented this way, the examples of implementing it go further than that. Which is the point - the discussion might be couched a certain way to for discussion purposes, but when providing examples it goes back to "this how or no how".

a statement that something is akin to something else is not an indictment

I take it this approach has worked in the past.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

So why you might be arguing that they should be implemented this way, the examples of implementing it go further than that. Which is the point - the discussion might be couched a certain way to for discussion purposes, but when providing examples it goes back to "this how or no how".

Examples exist in a vacuum - they are fictitious scenarios designed to communicate a point in a way that relates better with the reader. They cover one specific instance of a thing, not all instances across all time. I didn't think this would have to be clarified, yet here I am... had I known that providing examples would be mistaken as prescribing doctrine, I wouldn't have included them.

Here's the crux of what I say: A QO is an illusion, but that really only matters if the player realizes its an illusion. If the player feels as though they are in control of, and responsible for, every outcome and doesn't know about the material the DM has planned in advance, then there's no difference between a game with a QO and one without - the player experiences the exact same thing. Heavy-handed use, overuse, or misuse of the QO can certainly break this illusion, but amateur DM mistakes shouldn't become ammunition in a blanket argument against all DMs using the QO.

The trick to Quantum Ogres is that while some choices might be a QO, not every choice is a QO. Some choices will be illusory, but most won't. To a player with no way of telling the difference, there's no feeling of stolen agency. Plus, enough of their choices will have the impact and meaning they crave, since D&D games include dozens if not hundreds of decision points, so it's not like all the players decisions become meaningless as consequence, nor would I argue that the proper use of a QO leads to a slippery slope future corrupted by railroading and tyrant DMs flouting their god-like ability to put anything anywhere.

 

[EOTB]

It's up to the champion to provide an example that illustrates their thinking. I tend to go with the example as more illuminating than the rhetoric used in an argument, which is often turned into whatever it needs to be to not concede a point. We'll go round and round about this, and I think there's more than enough ink for anyone curious and undecided (and who may possibly care) to use as they wish - so I'm done with the QO for now, I think.

 

[squeen]

Poor Bryce. We pooped all over his "Lots of shit..." book thread.

 

[Beoric]

The lesson here is in answering the question "where is the marauder leader"?

First mention of the leader having any significance, I wasn't even assuming there was one.

Before squeen hijacked the encounter, I was going to ask some follow up questions. The first was, why do I care enough to follow these guys? Assuming that there was a satisfactory reason, then I was going to ask some questions about the forest itself (amount and density of underbrush, etc.). I assumed that the disturbed area was trapped and the rustling had a 50% chance of being the marauders.

My plan was to retrace my steps for perhaps two minutes, stop and cut a 10' pole, then cut through the woods and make a wide circle around the encounter area, missing it completely. Rogue takes point and probes with pole for pits and tripwires, Ranger next keeps an eye on the trees for signs of bend sapling "springs", ropes, nets and suspended logs. We would avoid animal trails where possible (the answers to the questions about the character of the woods would have determined the exact strategy employed). Once we circled the encounter area we would have checked both roads if possible (our path would have taken us to the north one first to see it either had more traffic, with hopes of following it to the camp.

We would then have travelled in the woods, parallel to the road but 30 yards out, using the same trap detecting strategies mentioned above, but going back to the road once in a while to make sure we still had the trail. Assuming we eventually found the camp, if we had bypassed the marauders we would lay an ambush for them. If the marauders were already there, we would stake out the camp, determine guard routines, and wait for dark to attack.

If we failed to find anything along one road, we would double back and find the other. If all else failed, we would go back to the original fork, reassessed and picked a road them - probably the east trial since they appeared to have put work into trapping it. 10' poles and checking the trees would have continued to be the tactic as we went along the path.

 

[Beoric]

Folks here are arguing from a position of cheating players who derive fun from trying to juke the game, to crack the DM's system

How did you get that out of anything I said. I'm not trying to beat the DM, I'm trying to beat the in-game enemy, using in-game information.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

How did you get that out of anything I said. I'm not trying to beat the DM, I'm trying to beat the in-game enemy, using in-game information.

Not so much you, pretty much squeen and EOTB

 

[DangerousPuhson]

My plan was to retrace my steps for perhaps two minutes, stop and cut a 10' pole, then cut through the woods and make a wide circle around the encounter area, missing it completely. Rogue takes point and probes with pole for pits and tripwires, Ranger next keeps an eye on the trees for signs of bend sapling "springs", ropes, nets and suspended logs. We would avoid animal trails where possible (the answers to the questions about the character of the woods would have determined the exact strategy employed). Once we circled the encounter area we would have checked both roads if possible (our path would have taken us to the north one first to see it either had more traffic, with hopes of following it to the camp.

We would then have travelled in the woods, parallel to the road but 30 yards out, using the same trap detecting strategies mentioned above, but going back to the road once in a while to make sure we still had the trail. Assuming we eventually found the camp, if we had bypassed the marauders we would lay an ambush for them. If the marauders were already there, we would stake out the camp, determine guard routines, and wait for dark to attack.

If we failed to find anything along one road, we would double back and find the other. If all else failed, we would go back to the original fork, reassessed and picked a road them - probably the east trial since they appeared to have put work into trapping it. 10' poles and checking the trees would have continued to be the tactic as we went along the path.

I admire the tactical ingenuity of the plan, though as a DM, I would cringe at how my players turned a simple branching chase sequence into a four-hour ordeal.

 

[squeen]

Good luck Beoric! Hope you get further than I did and make it to the Ogre.

 

[Malrex]

If you publish a product, then you most likely will never see it used. That means the motivation is possibly very different than creating content for your own table. What is that alternative motive then?

Because it's fun.

 

[Beoric]

I admire the tactical ingenuity of the plan, though as a DM, I would cringe at how my players turned a simple branching chase sequence into a four-hour ordeal.

It's four hours for the PCs, but nowhere near that long for the players.

I also assume that not all of that would have worked, since various obstacles would have required adjustments to the plan. But the real question is, would I have had any encounters following that plan, and would they be identifiable as a QO?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It's four hours for the PCs, but nowhere near that long for the players.

I also assume that not all of that would have worked, since various obstacles would have required adjustments to the plan. But the real question is, would I have had any encounters following that plan, and would they be identifiable as a QO?

As the player,
If you have to ask, then you don't know.
If you don't know, then it makes no difference.

But to "unmask" the rhetoric, for curiosity sake: you would have encountered the gorilla (chance to surprise it), the pit trap (discovered easily enough), and all the footprints. I'd also have thrown in a wandering monster purely for how long the process would have taken and how much area was being combed, so you fight... *rolls die*... a giant anaconda (treasure: he swallowed a marauder carrying a satchel of dragon scales, a key, and some uncut gemstones). Also, pass a saving throw or wander into a swinging log trap I just decided to add. Meanwhile, the marauder group easily escapes pursuit - if you pursue their trail through the woods you eventually track them back out, losing them somewhere on the outskirts of the next hamlet. The trail is too cold and you have no idea where their hideout is.

The marauder leader, the one who called a retreat back to home base, is still a viable Quantum Ogre at my disposal. The party has no idea what he looks like, just that the last pillaged village described him as a towering demon-man, so he could take on whatever appearance I want. If I want him to communicate something in person, then he shows up as an interactive NPC (interrogated, changes sides, begs for life, dying words, etc.). If I want him to pass an item along to the party (key, password, magic item, will & testament, macguffin, etc.), then he can show up dead along their path, like so many others before him. If I want him to offer an interesting situation, or pose a threatening obstacle, or pull a total red herring mindfuck twist... he's tucked up my sleeve. The player's choices can limit the fields in which he can materialize, and perhaps even serve to delay or bypass an encounter with my QO, but ultimately I decide when he's out of play, not the players.

It's not like the players can't benefit too though - until a quantum ogre materializes, it is essentially formless, and therefore adaptable. Sometimes player choices can radically alter the plans that the DM had for the QO, not by throwing a wrench into them, but rather because it can give the DM time to craft a better Ogre, to dive in when it's most appropriate and tailor itself to the latest player activity.