D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Crimson Longinus]

1) If no one is being fooled, how can you call it an illusion then?

The whole game is an illusion. An illusion that there is an expansive real fantasy world even though in reality it is just some vague ideas in people's heads.

2) Being "made up by the GM" is absolutely not the same as "constantly and secretly changing whenever the DM feels like it." With illusionism, you must be committed to denying the players the chance to see that the world is being made up on the spot. If you're open about that (which I am, in the exceedingly rare cases where "re-frame things to be where they need to be" is absolutely necessary), then it's not illusionism, because you're actually informing the players about what's going on.

I mean, come on man. You know that arbitrary ad-hoc modification of a world is not absolutely identical in all ways to ANY form of inventing an imaginary thing. You're a smart and well-read person, from what I can tell; you've interacted with media enough to be familiar with things like "canon" and the like, which explicitly fork apart arbitrary change to the world from well-grounded change to it. One of these things is okay. The other is not. Don't pretend that illusionism is precisely the same as invention. The former is explicitly, specifically, intentionally hidden from discovery. The latter, in general, is very much intended to be discovered.

Now, if what you really mean is stuff like "glossing over the 17 branches off the road they could have taken, because they're heading for the Fire Swamp and thus don't really care that they could potentially go elsewhere," okay, that's fair. I just...wouldn't call that "illusionism" anymore, you're just glossing over unimportant details and false starts so that the party can focus on the things they've already chosen to do. As far as I'm concerned, you're defending people presenting each and every one of those 17 branch points as an Actual Serious Choice that the party must think about....only for literally none of them to matter one bit, despite spending table time on making them.

Something to be changed it must exist first. And I reject the idea that things that are just some GM's musings 'exist' in this sense. You're confusing preliminary storyboards and deleted scenes to canon. Canon is what happens, canon is what's on screen. Before the players were told about the ogres, the ogres didn't exist anywhere, so they cannot have been changed.

(No, Saavik is not a half-Romulan.)

 

[TheSword]

The quantum ogre is being described like it’s a bad thing. It really isn’t.

The players need healing after a particularly bad fight (not 5e). The DM has determined that there is a roving 5th level priest in the shire who travels between the villages spreading the word of his god and healing those that need it. He’s a well detailed character with plot hooks and quests to give, personality and an interesting backstory the Pcs can learn about. Is @overgeeked honestly saying it’s better to either track a strict schedule in advance for this NPC that would likely mean they are never met. Or create multiple different priests in multiple locations to make sure the game need for for PC healing is met. How does preventing our roving priest being in the right place at the right time improve the game or player experience?

Second example. A PC wants to buy scrolls as she’s a wizard and wants to expand her repertoire. Instead of winging it on the fly the DM creates an interesting book seller character with a little shop, personality, a list of spell scrolls available with prices and some quirks and background. The DM has this NPC and location ready to drop in when the wizard player (or any one else) asks is there anyone in this town that sells scrolls. Again, is the DM required to specify the exact location of this scroll shop or design multiple scroll shops in order for there to be one in reasonable travel distance?

How does the strict location and form of scroll shops improve player choice? Or the quality of the game.

Or the exact location and personality of each City Watch patrol.
Or Rival adventuring companies
Or that stranger with the quest to give
So on, so forth.

The answer to why this is acceptable was detailed in the quantum ogre post referenced…
The Iron Triangle of choice vs effort & detail.

I would argue that providing greater agency in an rpg like D&D requires the use of quantum ogre equivalents. If you want the players to have freedom and also want the game to be interesting, detailed and more than just stat blocks and random generation tables.

 

[ReshiIRE]

But those examples don't invalid interesting player choice or character skill.

I feel this post bout the creator of the thought experiment explains it best. (warning, reddit link)

1.) DM's having encounters appear by fiat is perfectly fine! Really! There's nothing "Quantum Ogre" about that at all.

2) A Quantum Ogre is specifically only when the DM purposefully invalidates player choice or character skill in order to force an encounter to happen.

Specifically, Anti-magic zones, impassible mountains, DC's set impossibly high, any sort of magician's choice -- Fundamentally Illusionism. A Quantum Ogre can only exist if the DM took explicit action to invalidate the choice of the player.

Note: Feel free to drill down on any of the specifics mentioned! There are always instances where they can be used in a way that doesn't invalidate player choice.
In general techniques such as that exist specifically to invalidate player choice.
I was reading an old adventure in dragon magazine that did a number of points of damage equal to the spell level for any divination cast (such as detect magic or illusion or whatever) specifically to prevent players from seeing through illusions in the tomb. No way to know about it ahead of time. No way to bypass the issue. All so that a few illusion traps would work.
Now is this a Quantum Ogre? As with anything meaningful it's complicated. There are lots of ways to deal with "all divination spells just fail to work for no in-game reason" and if for some reason the DM starts to invalidate those tactics, then it's pretty clear we're in Quantum Ogre territory.
As for the argument that "How will the players know?" Well, that comes out in the campaign over time. You're not Al Pacino, players will be able to tell if they are able to make choices that have meaningful effects in the campaign. In fact, it always seems to be one of the most obvious things to me as a player.

 

[Don Durito]

Look. Here's the quantom ogre rephrased in slightly different terms.

At the end of a last corridor in the dungeon there are three doors. Behind one of the doors in the macguffin. The players don't know which door and all the doors are identical so there is no way to know. If they find the macguffin it's likely they won't need to open any remaining doors.

The DM has prepared an encounter behind each door. The players know that the macguffin is behind one of them and they have been led to believe there is a chance that they could open the right door on their first attempt.

However, whether because the DM doesn't want to waste prep or because he believes it will heighten the drama, the DM has determined that the door with the Macguffin will be the last one the PCs open no matter which door they choose. They are always going to have to go through all the encounters.

This is the illusionism! I leave it to the reader to decide if this is a railroad.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Look. Here's the quantom ogre rephrased in slightly different terms.

At the end of a last corridor in the dungeon there are three doors. Behind one of the doors in the macguffin. The players don't know which door and all the doors are identical so there is no way to know. If they find the macguffin it's likely they won't need to open any remaining doors.

The DM has prepared an encounter behind each door. The players know that the macguffin is behind one of them and they have been led to believe there is a chance that they could open the right door on their first attempt.

However, whether because the DM doesn't want to waste prep or because he believes it will heighten the drama, the DM has determined that the door with the Macguffin will be the last one the PCs open no matter which door they choose. They are always going to have to go through all the encounters.

This is the illusionism! I leave it to the reader to decide if this is a railroad.

If the door was just a blind guess to begin with, I don't think the players are robbed any real agency here. They didn't have any to begin with. (except to not open any of the doors.) Agency requires informed choices. Consider a situation where what's behind each door is determined randomly after the door is opened. There really isn't any agency there either.

Now one can reasonably ask why even have three doors, and indeed in this specific instance it would be better to have just one door. But when we are talking about open, expansive world where the characters can theoretically go anywhere, combined with a prep heavy game (though 5e can be rather light so it is easier to improvise stuff on spot than in 4e) some choices by necessity will be such illusions. The world is limitless, the GM's time and resources are not. And if the characters decide to blindly go to eastern quarter of Gloom Woods instead of western part of Ghastly Forest I would just use the same forest encounter I had planned if it makes sense there instead to have the characters wander aimlessly whilst nothing interesting happens.

 

[loverdrive]

The quantum ogre is being described like it’s a bad thing. It really isn’t.

I haven't read last 10 pages, but...

The quantum ogre isn't bad in of itself. The quantum ogre is bad when it invalidates players' choice.

If the players had a (pretty meaningless, if you ask me) choice between going left and right, and the GM then decides that they encounter an ogre -- that's OK.

But, if they had a more interesting choice between taking a shortcut through the ogre territory to the left, and taking a long way to the right -- then, if they encounter an ogre anyway, that's bad and the GM deserves to get kicked in the teeth.

How does the strict location and form of scroll shops improve player choice?

Well, requiring the wizard to take on a perilous journey in order to get to the scroll seller is better than just having it pop out of thin air wherever the wizard wants to buy some scrolls.

 

[TheSword]

But those examples don't invalid interesting player choice or character skill.

I feel this post bout the creator of the thought experiment explains it best. (warning, reddit link)

Well they are invalidating choice. The PCs chose to visit Town A over Town B. The DM has decided whichever town they visit they will find the scroll seller. Or is invalidating player choice ignored when the players are getting a benefit? There’s a level of hypocrisy in this.

The example of the quantum ogre is poorly named. The issue isn’t with the ogre being in whichever wood the players go to. It’s the fact that the mcguffin isn’t.

An ogre being the first encounter out of the village isn’t any different to the wandering priest being in whichever village the players rest in.

 

[Don Durito]

If the door was just a blind guess to begin with, I don't think the players are robbed any real agency here. They didn't have any to begin with. (except to not open any of the doors.) Agency requires informed choices. Consider a situation where what's behind each door is determined randomly after the door is opened. There really isn't any agency there either.

In a sense they are. The agency here is the possibilty of making the right choice the first time. Even if they don't know what it is.

If part of the group's understanding is that the GM will fudge these things around for a more interesting result then there's no issue.

But if the players really honestly believe that there is a chance that they could open the first door and find the macguffin and go home, then they are mistaken. (In fact, more then that, they are decieved).

If my character died in an encounter and I later decided that the GM had decided that encounter would happen no matter what, then I would not be impressed.

 

[Don Durito]

Well they are invalidating choice. The PCs chose to visit Town A over Town B. The DM has decided whichever town they visit they will find the scroll seller. Or is invalidating player choice ignored when the players are getting a benefit. There’s a level of hypocrisy in this.

The example of the quantum ogre is poorly named. The issue isn’t with the ogre being in whichever wood the players go to. It’s the fact that the mcguffin isn’t.

An ogre being the first encounter out of the village isn’t any different to the wandering priest being in whichever village the players rest in.

No. It's about the GM improvising the encounter on the spot.

Think about it this way. The GM for some reason decides to roll a random encounter before the session. He rolls a 4. He doesn't even check what that encounter is. He just rights down a 4. It so happens that 4 means an Ogre. So long as the players go somewhere and trigger a random encounter they will meet an ogre.

There is no loss of agency. The random encounter table is a part of the game and it was rolled fairly.

The Quantom Ogre requires it be considered in its original context as I outlined.

From the original Quantum Ogre post

Palette Shifting

Let's take just one moment and talk about palette shifting. There is some misunderstanding of what is meant by this term.

A palette shift is when the players become aware of an encounter, and when making a choice to avoid that encounter, the DM re-skins (changes the 'color palette') the encounter and has them encounter it anyway.

This can be as simple as the bandit encounter (Bandits to the east - we go west! ack, bandits here too!), or as complex as totally different monsters who lead you to exactly the same place. This can be used to either negate the players choice (You're going to fight my special bandits anyway!) or to negate player freedom (It doesn't matter what you do, you will meet the cultists of Bane!).

Pre-scripting 12 encounter lairs, and randomly generating which is in a hex that was unknown is not palette shifting. Having undefined "white space" in a campaign, and dynamically filling it with pre-generated content later is not palette shifting.

My italics for emphasis.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In a sense they are. The agency here is the possibilty of making the right choice the first time. Even if they don't know what it is.

If it's part of the groups understanding is that the GM will fudge these things around for a more interesting result then there's no issue.

But if the players really honestly believe that there is a chance that they could open the first door and find the macguffin and go home, then they are mistaken. (In fact, more then that, they are decieved).

If my character died in an encounter and I later decided that the GM had decided that encounter would happen no matter what, then I would not be impressed.

This seems like weird distinction. Everything happens because GM decides so. Even if the encounter that killed your character was randomly generated, it was the GM who decided to roll that random encounter, what table to use etc.