D&D General The Quantum Ogre Dilemma

[Totalpartykillproductions]

The Quantum Ogre stands as one of the most fascinating concepts that has come across my feed. At its core, it highlights the difference between player agency or the illusion of choice presented by the Dungeon Master.

I recently did a unpacking the true ideals of this dilemma, giving my own clarification on the idea. From a Player perspective it is hard to denounce the idea without metagaming, and vice versa with a Dungeon Master. How do you prevent railroading and if you do it, why?

 

[DragonLancer]

It depends how and how often you do it. I have used it in rare instances but I don't consider it a bad thing. Sometimes you want them to encounter the town guard on patrol or that ogre walking down the corridor. It's how you let the players handle the scene that is important. If you do it to drop an unavoidable fight then that's bad form, but if the players can come up with a plan, a scheme or just sneak past, it's fine. I think this is one of those areas when it's part of the DM's toolbox and player agency can take a but of a back seat for a few minutes if necessary. Really, how any different is it from writing an encounter for them on the road anyway?

There is also the concept of the Quantum Dungeon which comes up on rare occasions. The idea is a small dungeon, tomb/crypt or similar concept. The corridor layout exists but what is behind each door isn't. Instead the DM has a series of rooms prepared and the players encounter those rooms in order, regardless of which doors they open in which sequence. I've never used this personally but I've heard it used in training games with new players and in those games where the DM wants the players to encounter or learn/investigate in the right order.

 

[GMMichael]

For those who don't want to click:

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.

@Totalpartykillproductions, is this your clarification?

From a Player perspective it is hard to denounce the idea without metagaming, and vice versa with a Dungeon Master.

If not, may we have it?

Me, I'd probably fire the above player, because he/she A) wants to avoid encounters, B) seems to think the campaign world is an objective place, or worst of all C) is questioning mah authoritah!

 

[Mort]

For me, this classic example isn't really railroading.

Because the players made no meaningful choice. They may as well have rolled a die, odd go left, even go right. for all they know there is an ogre on both paths - why not?

Now, if the players had done some scouting (say sent a familiar to survey each road) and with some investigation determined the right road had an Ogre, and the left didn't. But when they went left, there's the ogre? then you're getting closer. But even there, easy for the DM to justify.

If it happens a lot, the PCs do gather information, but no matter what choice they make after the gathering, the same thing happens. Then you likely have railroading.

At which point, for this kind of scenario, my advice to the DM - don't present a choice. Linear is ok, no need to obfuscate.

 

[prabe]

The "quantum ogre" at this point tends to generate much more heat than light, causes more arguments than it resolves or even clarifies. My take on the idea, at this point, is that the ogre is a problem if and only if the players were making decisions based on the possibility of encountering it--that includes trying to avoid it, and/or trying to find it. If the ogre wasn't in their thought process--or, to Mort's point, if there isn't really a decision--then there's no illusionism.

 

[payn]

How do you prevent railroading

By creating nuanced expansive situations in which the players are able to make a number of decisions that lead to a satisfying adventure. If the players dont go down the ogres path, and the ogre is important, sooner or later they will meet. Either the ogre will search them out, or they will search out the ogre. Though, its never predetermined when that will happen.

and if you do it, why?

Some players are there to go along for a ride. They want to react! They dont want plan, they dont want to explore, they just want to experience a curated adventure.

While player agency is very important to some folks, its really not to others. They may be deliberate or illuionism on the railroad scale, but the kicker is some people dont care.

 

[Bae'zel]

I handle it like this:

• GM really really wants the players to fight an Ogre, regardless of their choice of path in the Dungeon of the Mad Ogre King.
• Players come to a t-junction.
• The left path looks like it goes through the lava caves.
• The right path looks like it goes through the ice caves.
• Regardless of player choice, they will meet the ogre, however, the encounter will be very different depending on their choice. Will they fight the ogre in a hellish room full of blackened chains, catwalks and random lava geysers? Or will they fight it in a cavern full of razor sharp icy stalagmites and stalactites and slippery terrain?

The players will never know, unless they had “detect ogre through dungeon walls” abilities or spells.

Soft railroading.

 

[Stormonu]

Last night, I had the very same thing happen to me as a player and it upset me.

It wasn't an Ogre, but a Werebear. Our group was traveling from the Healer's Hall to the town of Kingshold. As had happened for the past few sessions, our first encounter on the road was with a patrol known as Gray Walkers - warforged minions of the Horned King who were looking for dragons and spellcasters among travelers (both of which we just happened to have with us, I being the sorcerer and an NPC faerie dragon ally was with us).

After we got past that interaction (for the 10th time or so), two days later out of nowhere a giant bear (with "glowing red eyes") suddenly charged out of the underbrush and attacked us. It of course, turned out to be a werebear. No forewarning. No chance to evade or detect its presence. Our initial attempts by our cat druid to parley with it failed (despite an amazing Animal Handling roll to try and calm it first). We had to fight. Yet, even as we did, the NPC dragon rang out that it recognized the werebear and begged us not to kill it. So, when I dropped it to 0 hp (with silver daggers, no less) rather than the DM asking the usual "how do you want to do this?", she automatically narrated that I had merely knocked it out.

I was quite irate at the whole episode. I've discussed it with her (the DM is my wife...), and hopefully she'll be more mindful the next time around. I am a bit disgusted though with the constant railroading. It rarely feels like we have a meaningful choice to decide where to go/what to do and it's just a string of preplanned encounters we have to tackle in order to get where she wants us to go. I'm trying to get her to give us a bit more leeway in choices (other than in combat), but it's an uphill battle.

 

[Mort]

I handle it like this:

• GM really really wants the players to fight an Ogre, regardless of their choice of path in the Dungeon of the Mad Ogre King.
• Players come to a t-junction.
• The left path looks like it goes through the lava caves.
• The right path looks like it goes through the ice caves.
• Regardless of player choice, they will meet the ogre, however, the encounter will be very different depending on their choice. Will they fight the ogre in a hellish room full of blackened chains, catwalks and random lava geysers? Or will they fight it in a cavern full of razor sharp icy stalagmites and stalactites and slippery terrain?

The players will never know, unless they had “detect ogre through dungeon walls” abilities or spells.

Soft railroading.

Not that I have a big problem with the above, but I think you underestimate many groups desire for information.

What if they send a familiar to scout both paths, or by mid-level arcane eye (those are pretty hard to keep out)?

Isn't it easy to just have 2 ogres at that point?

 

[Charlaquin]

For me, this classic example isn't really railroading.

Because the players made no meaningful choice. They may as well have rolled a die, odd go left, even go right. for all they know there is an ogre on both paths - why not?

Now, if the players had done some scouting (say sent a familiar to survey each road) and with some investigation determined the right road had an Ogre, and the left didn't. But when they went left, there's the ogre? then you're getting closer. But even there, easy for the DM to justify.

If it happens a lot, the PCs do gather information, but no matter what choice they make after the gathering, the same thing happens. Then you likely have railroading.

At which point, for this kind of scenario, my advice to the DM - don't present a choice. Linear is ok, no need to obfuscate.

I like this a lot. I’ve struggled in the past to find the right words to explain why the classic quantum ogre doesn’t strike me as limiting player agency in any way that really matters, despite the fact that I fundamentally agree that if the same outcome occurs no matter what the players do, that would indicate a lack of agency. But this hits the nail on the head, I think. If the choice made isn’t meaningful in the first place, then no agency is lost by having both options lead to the same result. If the players make an informed decision to try to avoid an ogre they know about, and still encounter the ogre because the DM insists on that outcome, then yes, that’s an illusion of choice. If the players choose a route based on whim, or factors having nothing to do with the presence or lack of presence of an ogre, then there being an ogre down either path is no less meaningful than the choice was in the first place.