Anyone else regular reddit as well, and see this thread?
http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/2b3qsx/the_quantum_ogre_a_dialogue/
I think it brings up a lot of interesting points, and IMO shows many of the major flaws in the idea of "player empowerment".
Very interesting read, and certainly something to think about.
That being said, I think it certainly exaggerates what many people who utilize player agency more than others want out of the game.
And I say that because a role playing game can't exist without at least SOME player agency after all.
*sees Reddit link*
"You will not find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."
"What about 4chan?"
"... You will not find two more wretched hives of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."
TiaNadiezja wrote:
A game with full player agency is a story told by the player.
A game without any player agency is a story told by the DM.
And both are usually a bad fanfic.
Eh. It's not "Too much of the site is awful." I mean, that's true, but that's not the reason to avoid it.
They don't enforce their own rules. Groups use the site to coordinate death threats and active, in-the-real-world stalking of people (as far as I've seen, always women) they disagree with, and the site owners turn a blind eye.
*soapbox* We create a legal and social paradigm where site owners are held responsible for users committing copyright infringement, but refuse to hold them even morally accountable for people using the site to harass, threaten, and stalk others. That's painfully backwards.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Don't forget the site owner not banning his friend! Y'know, the friend who would post all the child pornography
But eh, its just a silly Reddit dialogue based on a situation that would never happen trying to sound vaguely smart.
Karnos wrote:
mellored wrote:
The example is an extreme and has little to do with player agency when having a meaningful discussion. You could take the same example and go overboard with DM fiat.
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Ok, it was funny. But not so realistic. Ive had a few bad players during my years as a dm and will bluntly toss anyone out who would try something like this. Having said that I have never seen anyone like that in play.
That was an entertaining vignette.
To me it empasizes how players (as do readers of fiction in general) need to give in to Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief" or there is no game.
Of course, some adventures or encounters stretch the boundaries. Meeting an ogre on a path that cuts through "The Ogre Basin" does not seem like it stretches in the least.
The player's reaction is hyperbolic and obstructionist (and humorous).
What a hilarious completely contrived story of two people being colossal jerks to one another that was. How I laughed(!)
An amusing little joke.
I think it brings up a lot of interesting points, and IMO shows many of the major flaws in the idea of "player empowerment".
The player has no proof that this is a quantum ogre. If the DM had telegraphed that one way had some big humanoid tracks or something and the player purposefully took the path without those tracks, then he could be rightfully upset that the DM took away his agency when the ogre turns up. The only thing that the DM telegraphed was that one path was apparently more direct than the other and that was the only thing the player had to go on to make a meaningful decision. Proper telegraphing is the way a DM creates meaningful decision points for players.
It may well be that the DM is engaging in illusionism in this example, but only the DM would know for certain.
Quantum ogres are fermions, with antisymmetric wavefunctions. If the player had turned right, he would have met an ergo. They are much worse than ogres because they argue and try to defeat the PC with logic. You can't defeat them except by proving they don't exist. The ergo's defence to that, is "cogito ergo sum", which means "I think I am an ergo".
Unlike ogres, ergos really exist and sometimes post in these forums.
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
Guys. The whole thing can be summarized in four words:
Pointless encounters are pointless.
Or, slightly more words:
If the overt goal is "to go to the Fortress of the Evil Warlock", random encounters on the way there don't serve a whole hell of a lot of purpose other than resource attrition and grinding. If the "fortress" is intended for level 5 and everyone's level 2, that's a hell of a lot of grinding. If the goal is attrition, don't be at all surprised if the players adopt a nova/rest/repeat cycle on the road to the fortress.
Qmark wrote:
My conclusion - Metagaming is bad, m'kay?
Qmark wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Karnos wrote:
I can't find anything in the dialogue to make me sympathetic to the player, and the DM's surrendering to the player's demands only exacerbates how absurd the player's voice is in this. So it falls flat. I was gritting my teeth the entire time. The "player" is the absolute worst player I've ever heard of. He's a caricature of a self-entitled player, and that makes the overall point of the "dialogue" difficult to digest.
That point, I can only assume, is that you can't enjoy TTRPGs if either (a) you're an entitled little ****, or (b) you think your DM is a cheating prick.
Surely, even with random encounters, the goal is to make sure they aren't pointless.
Who knows, if the player nearly defeats the ogre, and spares it's life, the PC might gain a favor from the ogre clan and that may help out in the future.
DMs should make everything count, even what seems like a random encounter.
Players have to trust and let DMs do that too.
Encounters, random or otherwise, aren't pointless though, no matter how you look at it. They serve a purpose in the game of being a challenge to be overcome by the PCs as they pursue their goals.
If you're an improv-only GM, all ogres are quantum.
I find it endlessly hilarious that my table still spends hours planning their approach to an encounter that they know I haven't actually prepared for in the slightest. Not that I mind, as it means I don't have to do any work up to the point that I think it would be interesting for their plan to blow up in their faces.
Rhenny wrote:
Well, this article seems to be just a thinly veiled playstyle war. "Are you pro D.M. fiat or pro Player empowerment"? You are doing it wrong... "Facepalm". 
The reason it was a quantum ogre was because, although the player was given a choice about which path to take, there was no information in that choice. "Left or right, and they both look the same." There's no real agency there.
Novacat wrote:
There was agency in the choice - one path was more direct than the other. That's not much to go on, but it's something. Unfortunately, that failed to telegraph the threat of an ogre along the path that was chosen. Even so, the player really has no basis to claim a quantum ogre here. The DM didn't do a great job in the example and the player jumped to some possibly erroneous conclusions.
iserith wrote:
Karnos wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
My take: fictitious player was being fictitiously jerky.
Lesson learned: A player has all the agency he wants to believe he has. If he doesn't believe his actions matter then he won't ever believe he has agency.
But this dialog wasn't real, it was set up to make a statement that players arguing about agency are really just players wanting to narrate their awesomeness without ever actually being challenged.
The lesson I'm taking away from this thread is "never go to Reddit."
I'm not sure what I just read. I think there were two jerks failing at basic communication, but I stopped reading about halfway through. I'm not positive what the point was.
I don't think it's two jerks. I think it's one jerk trying to make hash out of "player entitlement" by making up a hyperbolic skit.
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Quantum Ogre
Large Giant
Armor Class: 11 (hide)
Hit Points: 32 (5d10+5)
Speed: 40 ft.
Senses: Darkvision 60 ft.
Str: 18 Dex: 8 Con: 13
Int: 5 Wis: 7 Cha: 7
Alignment: Chaotic Evil
Languages: Common, Giant
Traits:
Uncertain. At the start of each of the quantum ogre's turns, roll 1d8 and consult the following table:
1 - The ogre teleports 1d10 squares in a random direction. If the destination square is occupied, the ogre appears in the nearest unoccupied square.
2 - The ogre's Type changes to Ooze. If it is already Humanoid, it instead changes to Giant.
3 - The ogre's Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma increase to 20. If they are already 20, they return to their original scores.
4 - The ogre's greatclub becomes a solid staff made of fire. The ogre can wield it without harm, but its damage changes to fire damage. If the club is already a staff of fire, it returns to its original form.
5 - The ogre's armor changes to Plate. Its Armor Class becomes 18. If it is already Plate, the armor reverts to Hide.
6 - The ogre explodes, dealing its current Hit Points in damage to all creatures within 10 feet (Dexterity save for half damage). One round later, on its initiative, the ogre reforms with the same hit points and quantum state it had before it exploded.
7 - The ogre's javelin ceases to exist.
8 - The ogre becomes a Quantum Troll. See the Quantum Troll entry.
Actions:
Melee Attack - Greatclub. +5 to hit (reach 5, one creature). Hit: 13 (2d8+4) bludgeoning damage.
Ranged Attack - Javelin. +5 to hit (range 30/120, one creature). Hit: 11 (2d6+4) damage.
Level 4. XP: 140
Novacat wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
kalil wrote:
kalil wrote:
The point wasn't that there was no choice in the scenario. That's just what the fictitious player believed because he couldn't tell the difference between a real choice and a non choice. The ogre wasn't quantum, it was just impossible for the player to disprove that it was, or prove that it wasn't.
bawylie wrote:
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
kalil wrote:
Speaking of quantum ogres - will the Higgs Bison be in the MM?
Zappy wrote:
thespaceinvader wrote:
This thread is a really interesting case study in confirmation bias.
People see jerks where they want to see jerks, to prove agendas they had before they even read the article.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
bawylie wrote:
35 years and NEVER encountered a player remotely like that one. ("Agents of Unusual Whininess? I don't believe they exist.")
cranebump wrote:
If anything, Quantum Ogres are a useful DM tool for moving the plot whout blatantly railroading.
"Forsooth adventurers! Savest thou my daughter from the dreaded dungeon which mayest be to the west of here"
"Hey guys, lets see what's to the east"
"You guys stumble into the entrance to a dungeon. Turns out it was actually to the east, and the evil wizard or whatever misled everyone about it somehow to misdirect any rescuers"
Joined a friend's group once, many moons ago. An hour or so into it, the DM literally threw his hand-written adventure notes in the air and huffed violently that we "ruined the whole night". No, I did say literally. You heard that correctly. And why is that, you ask? Because we took a left instead of a right at a crossroads.
Evidently, as he dourly proclaimed with caricaturish exasperation, there was a dying paladin lying on the side of the road that we were supposed to stumble across. But he was in the other direction. And the adventure involved us getting coaxed into taking on his quest for him upon his eminent demise. But because we went the wrong way there was to instead be no adventure for the evening.
I was too busy being wide-eyed and gape-jawed to speak out, but a few of the regulars suggested we could turn around and go the way if he wanted. But he insisted it was too late. The extra few minutes we spent going the wrong way meant the paladin would have expired before we could get to him. And so we wouldn’t hear what he had to say.
After much appeasement and cajoling (no, really…), the DM was eventually calmed down enough to consider other options. He decided we could find the paladin’s body and cast speak with dead to discover our quest.
Funniest part of all this? That was the best part of the night. I kid you not. It went downhill from there, if you can believe that.
Needless to say, I never went back.
True story.
EDIT: Formatting.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Qmark wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Qmark wrote:
I am now locked on Cleese as the player, and Graham (R.I.P.) as the DM, really, I can hear it.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Qmark wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Zappy wrote:
It was an attempt to prove a point in a humorous way, yes. The problem was that by using such extremes, both the GM and the Player became charactures that were complete idiots in both their respective roles. That fiasco is as much the fault of a bad "GM" as it is of a bad "player." The situations the GM provides to the player are as contrived as the excuses the player gives to the GM.
Its so far from a real game its meaningless.
BoldItalic wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Player Agency, in the form of making meaningful decisions, is important. However, it must be balanced against the needs of the plot. If a plot revolves around a few decision points (Encountering a dying paladin, confronting an enemy, or the like), then the DM should try and steer the players towards that - but should also keep in mind that there are many ways to reach and pass a decision point. In this, we find one DM tool that players like the hyperbolic fool (and yes, I read that entire thing) would be horrified at - The Insistent Plot Device: a thing that will always find a way to ensare characters in its nets, no matter where they go or what they do. All that changes is the paths they take to reach the end. Most adventurers both fear and love The Insistent Plot Device - it leads them into danger and the place where the shiny valuable things are.
I kinda feel like we should all take a page from the level design of the original Deus Ex game. Every area has its tasks, and there are multiple ways to fulfill those tasks. Each area's tasks leads to a decision point that leads to the next area and it's tasks - but every decision point also has multiple ways of getting to it, and dealing with it.
RustedKitsune wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
The real issue here is that the Player and the DM don't have a set agreement of the sort of game they want to play.
The encounters the DM has prepared are all uniteresting to the player; they thus were poorly chosen encounters, seeing as this is a cooperative game.
Karnos wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
I feel bad for those two fictitious characters. I mean, after that fictitious headbutting exchange, they have to go back to living their fictitious lives. They have to get over their fictitious frustration and return to their fictitious friends and families. I wish them fictitious luck.
Another way of putting it, Mephi, is that it makes a strawman to beat up.
It's more game theory without actual evidence. Without actual play accounts.
Lord_Ventnor wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Karnos wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Interesting. So the quantum ogre can be used as a strawman to misconstrue both sides and obscure the debate with offensive charicatures. A win for internet debate!
Edit: Mind you, I'm not saying the critique isn't fair. The quantum ogre was actually a terrible example of the kind of problem it has become emblematic of. It got taken up as a standard because it had such a catchy name, but it really was a terrible example. This post just latches onto exactly the bits about it that make it a terrible example so he can roundly defeat it. It's fair, because it was the other side's example. They sacrificed accuracy for plebeian appeal, and it bit them in the behind. But defeating the quantum ogre doesn't defeat the point its author tried (and failed, apparently) to make with it. And so the interwebz continue their shouting matches, each side convinced of its own infallibility because they are ignorant of the other's position.
powerroleplayer wrote:
Qmark wrote:
I can picture Comic Book Guy reading the player's part, and Brian Griffin reading the DM's.
Noon wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Pauper wrote:
powerroleplayer wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
I shouldn't get involved, and yet I find myself drawn to do so.
If I had just read the story and not the comments in this thread I would say there were two "real" problems.
The biggest one is the player refuses to be challenged. At every turn the player argues and brow-beats the DM until the challenge disappears, simply because (according to him) he doesn't like that sort of stuff. I agreed when the DM said "You can't know what was done the right path, and you can't trun around and leave since the ogre is attacking you." For all we know there was a dragon down the right path, not an ogre. The "maybe the warlock or the gods put it there" part comes up, I read it as the DM frustrated with arguing about it, not because he's trying to do anything on the sly, but because the player is trying to shout down a challenge for no good reason, other than that by placing the challenge in front of him the DM has somehow done him injury.
The second problem, and the nastier of the two, is that the DM just gives up. The player refuses to be reasonable, and the DM just wants to stop arguing and play the game. The problem is it leads to the cycle where the player just keeps shouting down challenges as "unfair" and makes up wild excuses to get around them. "I use my helmet of flying" "What helmet? You don't have a helmet" "Fine, then I go and buy one" This is the part where it becomes obvious, it wasn't that the player just wanted to cut to the juicy part of the "real quest" he just doesn't want to be challenged in any way by anything.
Of course, all this being said, this was a slightly amusing distraction with overblown carictatures that really doesn't seem to make any "serious" point. It just gets an eye roll and maybe a chuckle. Sort of like a David Letterman Skit (my family isn't a fan and it's playing in the background now because it always comes on after the news. No offense to anyone who enjoys his show, I just couldn't resist the dig)
Noon wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Quantum oges do not exist.
Scott Bakula ogre occupies whatever path necessity dictates.
I can't believe we're importing bad threads. Maybe next we can find a way to spread ebola via the forums.
Wuzzard wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
I think the player is completely out of line. Since the player does not know that the Ogre is a quantum Ogre there is no reason he should be surprised to meet an Ogre on the road. If the DM in fact did decide to put the Ogre in front of the group regardless of the road taken, then that DM is also completely out of line. Metagaming is metagaming.
The reason I don't have much sympathy with the player is that he has absolutely no proof that the DM is doing what he accuses.
Chaosmancer wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Absolutely, the DM could be a bad DM. But in every scenario of potential badness, so far imagined, we need to know more about the ongoing game to come to that conclusion. The player, however, is presented as being irrational and inconsolable. Remember, its not a real DM and player. The dialogue is there to illustrate the writer's point, even if exaggerated. The player has come to the conclusion that the DM is invalidating his agency by presenting a scenario the player suspects is arbitrary.
The player's plea is that he is being robbed of his agency by the action of the DM chosing to put something arbitray in his path. The player wants consistency and for his actions to affect the outcome. The DM's reponse is that it is impossible to justify the accusation, since the definition of the world, its denizens and their actions are a product of the DM's mind, and thus its not possible for the player to know if the DM was planning to put the Ogre along the other path, or for any reason for the Ogre to be or not be except for what the DM has explicitly layed out for the player.
Later, after the DM gives up and allows the player to proceed unobstructed to his goal, the player attempts to engage in an action that requires some item he does not have. The player's reaction to being confronted with this fact is to again make a plea, but this time not for his own agency. His plea is the exact opposite, as he wishes to retcon the item into existence just so he may continue on with his narrative. This behavior is exactly what the player is accusing the DM of, but in this case it is not just a suspicion. This part of the dialogue is meant to show the player didn't really want consistency or agency.
The player is presented as someone that just wants to tell a story from the player's perspective, no DM required, certainly not to put arbitrary obstacles in his path or to remind him of choices he did or did not make. His arguments for and against his own agency are just distractions to further this agenda. That is the point of the dialogue.
Karnos wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
We can prove the player is a jerk. We can't prove the DM is a jerk. That is the essential point. The player does not know that the DM is using a quantum Ogre. He is guessing. Bottom line.
I wholeheartedly agree that if the DM is offering the illusion of choice when the whole process is already mapped out then he is in the wrong. This example does not show that though.
Noon wrote: