D&D General The Quantum Ogre Dilemma

[Some Dude]

Many predators return to areas where prey is plentiful. The road with the castle is probably more well-traveled.

 

[prabe]

Many predators return to areas where prey is plentiful. The road with the castle is probably more well-traveled.

All of this is true. If you have reasonably routine trade in your setting, it seems like a reasonable expectation that the road to the castle will be as predator-free as the people at the castle can manage.

 

[Mort]

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.

The not actually even giving the choice of killing or not, that would have been difficult for me to take!

At least you were in a position to express your frustration. Too often, thanks to social norms, shyness, politeness, whatever - things remain unsaid and behaviors are solidified.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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 disagree that just because the players don't know what's going to be down either path that their choice was not going to be aa meaningful one, there should be distinction between the paths (else what's even the point of there being multiple paths) even if the difference is merely the chance of encounter, if the GM forces the ogre encounter regardless of their choice of path yes that was railroading.

 

[Mort]

i disagree that just because the players don't know what's going to be down either path that their choice was not going to be aa meaningful one, there should be distinction between the paths (else what's even the point of there being multiple paths) even if the difference is merely the chance of encounter, if the GM forces the ogre encounter regardless of their choice of path yes that was railroading.

My point IS that there probably shouldn't be multiple paths, or it shouldn't be presented as a real choice.

But also, in the above example, there actually ARE 2 ogres, since there is an ogre on each path. Having 2 ogres is heavy handed, but it's not railroading.

if the DM is silly enough to actually say "it's the same ogre" (without a good explanation) and the PCs were meant to encounter him - well that is railroading, and quite odd.

If the PCs investigate and determine (supposedly correctly) that there isn't an ogre on one of the paths, pick that one, and there IS an ogre - that's railroading.

 

[Shiroiken]

It's hard for players to know if a DM uses a Quantum Ogre, because some DMs like myself design different encounters based on the decision. My party recently chose to take a sea voyage, rather than make the trek through dangerous hills and mountains. They encountered some challenges at the various ports they stopped at, but it was a relatively safe trip. They avoided Deadly encounters with bandits, goblins, a pair of griffons, and a troll. However, the players didn't know what they missed until I mentioned it (one player was concerned about "losing out on xp").

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I think we run the risk of redefining railroading so broadly that it becomes meaningless.

In the case of the quantum ogre, the term railroading is oddly placed. If the players never scout the two paths they can't ever know. They can't know if it was a quantum ogre. If it was planned at all. If it was improv. If it came off a table. Nothing can be known.

Calling it railroading under these conditions is chasing ghosts. We simply invented a reason to be outraged over something hypothetical. Something that we can't see or touch or prove. We all of a sudden turn the term railroading into a feeling the player has, independent of reality instead of something a DM does. It becomes about the perception of the DM's actions. And that perception is built on baseless assumptions.

This approach opens the door to calling railroading anytime a fork in the road is followed by an encounter. The word shifts from describing DM choices to just expressing player dissatisfaction with outcomes. The word becomes meaningless.

 

[bloodtide]

I think when players think they should have ultimate freedom to do whatever they want in a game is bad.

Just to show why it is bad...just reverse it. The players really want their characters to kill an ogre. And the DM is just like "nope no ogre's around anywhere". So is this great DM Agency? Is it okay for the DM do this?

Somehow, I'd think many will have a problem with it.

But, if the DM makes and encounter.....and the players say "nahh, we don't want to do that", everyone cheers the wonderful players. What is the difference?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t view the stereotypical quantum ogre as railroading. I think it’s more coherent and precise to note that quantum ogres aren’t a simulationist technique, which is a different thing that also bothers many people.

IMO. The DMs #1 job is to frame scenes. One cannot frame a scene without introducing new information and new situations to the players. Players have little to no agency in what is framed. They can put some limited constraints, ogres probably shouldn’t be introduced in the castle walls without a lot more explanation. So players can avoid ogres by intentionally going to the castle.

IMO. The real ‘magic’ of rpging happens in how the dm responds to the players interactions to that which they framed.

Absent some serious context, going left or right, north or south just isn’t the kind of decision that’s going to limit the location of a generic ogre or even a named ogre.

 

[Bae'zel]

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?

If players do what they can to neutralize a premade encounter that is important to me, I’ll transplant it elsewhere or save it for another session.

Or, while they sit around waiting for their familiars, the Ogre smashes through the wall and attacks them at the T-Junction.

It may bother some, but to me the dungeon is a “mythic underworld” where things don’t really make sense, as in a dream, or nightmare.