Lots of shit going on / Sandboxes

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Beoric]

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.

All right, DP, give me an example of a use of the QO that would not piss me off.

"Nobody even notices" implies that the issue is whether you get caught or not. I have been doing this for a while, you should probably assume I am going to catch you from time to time.

 

[squeen]

Son of a gun! I am such a hypocrite!

Just finished playing, and would you believe I Quantum-Ogre'd a potion! I couldn't remember what a potion did that they found last session (forgot to write it down), so I quantum-realized an Oil of Etherealness from another stash they passed up into their hands because I thought they could seriously use it later in the Maze of the Phase Minotaur.

I feel dirty.

 

[Beoric]

I'm not sure that qualifies. I mean, you had previously established the existence of the potion, and had to improvise something on the spot, and had that potion in your head. That is different from deliberately inserting it into a hoard where no potion had been before. Improvising is kind of the opposite of the Quantum planned game element.

 

[The Heretic]

Did they know it was a potion before, and it somehow now changed into an oil? The two have different observable properties.

Better question: Will they even end up using it?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

All right, DP, give me an example of a use of the QO that would not piss me off.

Already known: There are at least four marauders. They are trap-makers. They are beating a hasty retreat; "back to da' camp!" (one shouts). The party is following their retreat along a forest trail.

DM: "The marauders' retreat proves easy enough to track, but their path diverges at a fork in the trail. To the east, the foliage thins, and there are signs of broken branches and kicked stones. To the north, a rustle in the dense shrubbery about fifty yards ahead. What do you want to do?"

 

[Beoric]

Can I assume a platonic party of figther, ranger, cleric, rogue/thief and wizard?

When you say their path diverges, do you mean the marauders have split up and gone in different directions, or are you suggesting we lost the trail when we got to the fork in the road?

What kind of traps do they make?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Standard party. When I say the path diverges, I mean the cluster of boot prints you were following arrive at a fork in the trail - some footsteps go left, some go right. The marauders are known to make crude, ewok-style traps (deadfalls, rolling logs, covered pits, etc.) - you've encountered some in their territory before.