>>97751000
>Get BTFO in another thread
>Throw a hissy fit and start another one
The world would be objectively better off without you, little shitstain

Not reading all that. Story is the only thing I care about in an RPG. You can keep playing your poorly made OSR dungeon slop all day tho.

Kill yourself

Imagine being so butthurt about being blown the fuck out in your troll thread you start a second one to keep getting asspained, lol

>>97751019
OSR are all about preparation, with maps, stat blocks, traps, etc. Op isn't your boogieman.

>>97751000
This is just sad.

>>97751000
>Planning requires effort and energy.
>Imagining things in the moment requires none.
Being incapable of remembering things or writing them down to use later isn't the flex you think it is.

>>97751000
This seems to lead to lead to the quantum bear problem which truly is unknowingly since nothing was written down before imagining it.

>>97751000
Imagine bragging about the fact that you put zero effort into your game, like that's a good thing.

>>97751000
I had a better way to post the thread, but instead we're just doing this shallow back and forth instead. greaaaat

>>97751031
Idk how you think this OP isn't the boogeyman, his notions conflict with the OP of the previous thread who was very much in favor of preparation.

>>97751000
OP is objectively gay. If you disagree, you're wrong and also gay, and you are more pozzed than OP.

>>97750105
No, Quantum Ogre is a specific story with specific circumstances, it's not just about whether the ogre is the same encounter, it's about the player thinking "I say I go here" means "I go here and you're not allowed to have anything happen in the meantime." It's a retarded example of railroading.

>>97751000
>Prep reduces the quality of your game.
Helloooooo PBTA faggot, nice of you to out yourself. "Prep is railroading" is easily the most retarded idea you've ever had.

>>97751000
You're correct.

Those who do prep and railroading would unironically find more enjoyment out of video games.

>>97753189
Got it backwards, homie. PBTA faggot doesn't want an RPG, he wants GTA, aimless and random.

>>97751000
>>97753214
Interesting how all your threads use video game images rather than anything tabletop related.

>>97753174
Continually moving an encounter in front of the players in a quantum ogre.

>>97753232
I'm the OP of the previous thread, the reason I use Zelda images is to communicate my idea of a world that feels believable and lived in, where all the locations with their encounters are precisely where they are. If you were to go off the beaten path you would find the things I had placed there on purpose.

>>97753232
>your threads
Not my thread, but this guy never fails to give himself away. He sees any form of prep as railroading.
>>97753233
There's more to the quantum ogre story than just the ogre.

There's nothing faggier than making a new thread to continue shitflinging from a previous one, end your life.

>>97753174
You keep saying that Quantum Ogre is a specific story, but everything I can find says that the term originated on the blog Hack & Slash, and it's specifically about the thing that quantum ogre is usually defined as: the GM seemingly giving the players a choice, but the choice not actually mattering. If there is "an original story" I recommend you post it, instead of citing it over and over again.

>>97753248
If you keep insisting that the players are going to encounter "the ogre" it's a quantum ogre.

>>97753243
>If you were to go off the beaten path you would find the things I had placed there on purpose.
Wouldn't that be prepping, which reduces the quality of the game?

>>97753260
I can't post a link without it getting flagged as spam (God that system is retarded) but the title is "The Quantum Ogre: A Dialogue" It's the oldest use of the term I've seen. Yes, it's from reddit. Which only lends weight to my argument that it's a shit example, frankly.

>>97753262
Prove it's the same ogre. It's "the ogre forest," why is it so incomprehensible that there's more than one? If you go swimming in the ocean do you bitch about encountering fish?

File: VHaVXY3h.jpg (119 KB, 1024x768)

119 KB JPG

>>97751000

>>97753274
Welcome to 4chan, I'm an individual.

>>97753293
>Prove it's the same ogre
If the players encounter bandits, they choose to avoid them, and then they encounter bandits as they go elsewhere, you pulled quantum ogre. It needs to be possible to choose to avoid them, and for them to be avoided.

>>97753324
>If the players encounter bandits, they choose to avoid them, and then they encounter bandits as they go elsewhere, you pulled quantum ogre. It needs to be possible to choose to avoid them, and for them to be avoided.
Not necessarily. It's more about building a realistic world rather than a series of encounters.

It's very easy to imagine a situation where players can't avoid the bandits, maybe they know the players have made a big break recently and are tracking them, ect.

Fundamentally the difference is in perspective.
Are you creating a story, or are you creating a world/setting? Since a story having 'No this thing has to happen' is perfectly legit.
Raiders of the Lost Ark would be a shit movie if Indy managed to sneak past Rene Belloq, hop into his plane and the next hour and a half was him doing paperwork and getting his salad tossed by that one student in his class.
But in a realistic world such things have happened and will happen again.

Because at the end of the day, stories have to be more realistic than real life. Some of the bullshit that happens IRL is shit you could never get away with in a TV show because watchers would call it unsatisfying. There's a place for both kinds of play in the world. But you can't ride two horses at once. It's about knowing what you want from a game and then leaning into that more than one being right or wrong.

Quantum Ogres are super based.
If I have a cool encounter I want to run, I'll put it wherever. Why would I not have some kind of encounter I want to have happen happen?
>>97753324
That's not a quantum ogre. A quantum ogre occurs when players will encounter bandits, no matter which direction they go. If they KNOW there are bandits and choose to go around them, then you have more bandits appear, that's not a quantum ogre.

Here, an example:
Players are walking down a path, and it forks. No matter which side of the oath they take, there is a goblin ambush waiting for them. There is only one ambush, and it's where the players go.
This is the quantum ogre (or in this case, goblin ambush).
Contrast this with a situation where only one path at the fork has a goblin ambush, but players never go down that path. The goblin ambush never occurs, but the players didn't choose to avoid it.
Contrast also with players who scout. If they scout a path, discover an ambush, choose the other path, and there is another ambush waiting for them, this is not a quantum ogre. This is the GM railroading them.
Do you see the difference between these scenarios? If you don't, I'll accept your unwillingness to engage in discussion along with your concession.

>says railroading is bad
>immediately tries to railroad everyone into having that opinion

File: niggerundayo.jpg (84 KB, 1090x613)

84 KB JPG

>>97751000
The best way to filter these types of faggot ass GMs is to make characters who are really good at running away. These spergs will ALWAYS overreact in their response to your escape and inevitably sour the entire table towards them.

>>97753387
i fucking wonder why the GM is getting pissed off at a character who refuses to engage with the game mechanics

ITT: People not understanding what railroading is

>>97753293
Yep, you're incorrect, the hack&slash post predates this reddit shit by 3 years.
https://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-how-illusion-can-rob-your-game-of.html?m=1

Crazy how I can just post links and it doesn't get flagged as spam. Super weird.

>>97753439
people cant even define what railroading is

>>97753376
If you want to have an encounter happen, why would you pretend to gate that encounter behind a meaningless choice? The problem isn't the encounter, the problem is weird obfuscation.

>>97753376
in my experience, no one ever actually makes the
"ogre" encounter play out the same way and they modify it to adapt to what the players did

the players encountering the dragon on the way in, the dragon is obviously at full HP and fighting at max power, since the party is also at full power
and the intent is to soften the players up for the rest of the quest
but if the players sneak past the dragon and fight it on the way out, the dragon will usually be fought outside its lair and without lair actions, making it an easier fight since you reversed the order to account for the party having been softened up by the rest of the encounter

this has been encouraged since isle of ape, really
if you dont fight oonga in his lair, where you are supposed to fight him, he instead ambushes at another room
the fight with oonga is always destined to happen, avoiding him more or less requires having played the module to completion beforehand and knowing exactly where the fights occur, but the context of the fight is different
he is harder if you snuck past him in his room since he now has surprise

>>97753514
Reusing an enemy in a different context isn't a quantum ogre though. You're talking about a totally different thing.

>>97751000
You are incredibly mentally ill.

>>97753324
Only if it's the same bandits, and if the PCs are in the place that's named after having a lot of bandits, there's no legitimate reason to complain anyway. "There's bandits" does not mean "these are the only bandits."

>>97753465
>by three years
Fair enough, but this is referencing the ogre as if it's something that had been discussed before, so it's not the original.

That dumb fucking thread finally died, and we were finally free of it. But you just had to resurrect it, for some fucking reason.

Fuck you OP.

>>97753606
>Reusing an enemy in a different context isn't a quantum ogre though
so the quantum ogre doesnt really exist then?

>You're talking about a totally different thing.
the crux behind the quantum ogre is that a certain encounter is inevitable regardless of what choices the party makes
but most DMs will put at least a bit of effort so that the re-used encounter thematically fits the different context
as long as the ogre has a different coat of paint when you meet it, it doesnt really matter

>>97751000
You're a moron.

>>97753635
Why is this so hard for people to get? It isn't the reuse of the encounter. It's the false choice that proceeds the encounter. It's the GM going "you can go north or south" but going either way leads to the exact same ogre.

>>97753626
That blog post is a response to another blog post, which is linked in the post, but as far as I can tell, this is generally accepted to be the earliest use.

>>97753691
>It's the GM going "you can go north or south" but going either way leads to the exact same ogre.
literally the only time this is ever a problem is if you describe the north and south paths differently, they take the one that doesnt look like it leads to a swamp, and they fight an ogre anyways
but this never happens because if the DM took the time to describe the two paths differently, then they obviously wrote an ogre and a troll

the exceedingly rare case of two identical doors that lead to the same ogre, the players have no idea what to expect behind either door and have no reason to believe that the door they didnt take led to the same ogre
if they decide to go back and open the door they didnt take just for fun, its trivial to insert a different encounter in that door
the players have no way of knowing they were always going to fight the ogre first nor would they particularly care

>>97753787
It obviously happens, because that is exactly what quantum orge is fucking referring to. That's the point!

>>97753630
And he'll do it again should this thread drop until everyone gets tired of calling OP the retard he is, so he's the only one left and thus he "wins" the discussion.
All while the jannies will do absolutely nothing because their modus operandi is to make /tg/ worse.

>>97753615
I will illustrate it more for you
-the DM has prepared paltry content for the session
-players are tasked with escorting a trader caravan to the next town
-they decline the offer instead choosing to explore the countryside in search of a dungeon to plunder
-they encounter bandits which is presumably what would have happened if they took the quest
-the players choose to avoid the bandits and continue their search for a dungeon
-the DM has only prepared the stat blocks for bandits
-so they encounter bandits again and this happens until the players relent and fight the bandits
-the DM storyshits about the bandit leader and their faction and the players fight bandits the whole session

This wouldn't have happened if the DM prepared a few adventure hooks, some towns, a dungeon. They leverage a railroad and quantum ogre to skirt the fact they were lazy. It's the hallmarks of poor DMing.

>>97753787
>they obviously wrote an ogre and a troll
>its trivial to insert a different encounter in that door
very poor sportsmanship, why is there no way for players to avoid the enemies? how come you are pulling the wool over your players and making their choices not matter. It should be possible for the players to determine if there's a monster behind a door, dude. You have the exact wrong attitude, with this "it's ok because players couldn't know!" crap.

>>97755202
>It should be possible for the players to determine if there's a monster behind a door, dude.
this is literally what was being argued
true quantum ogres as defined by OP is staggeringly rare, because in any situation where the path diverges, the paths themselves will be described differently
if one of them leads to a swamp and the other leads to a castle, the odds are that the DM has created 2 different encounters entirely

>with this "it's ok because players couldn't know!" crap.
literally explained in the post you were replying too, very few DMs actually create two identical paths that have no differentiation that lead to the same outcome
but as a thought experiment, you have two doors that are identical and you dont know whats behind them, the players wouldnt have any way of knowing that there was only one encounter prepared ahead of time
so even in the purely fictional strawman constructed by the OP, it still wouldnt be a problem

>>97755213
If the door leads to the same outcome you're a bad DM and should work on your craft.

>>97755273
>If the door leads to the same outcome
if the players have no way of knowing whats behind either door, then its inconsequential because they had no foreknowledge of what would have happened had they taken a different choice

but this whole thing is a strawman argument, because most DMs who actually put effort into describing how either door is different has created either two wholly separate encounters or remixed the same enemy in a different situation to reflect whatever suits the description of the door
the idea that theres two perfectly identical doors and only a single encounter is a strawman situation

File: Based chinaman.gif (1.9 MB, 320x200)

1.9 MB GIF

>>97751000
>OP is a fag and a retard.
>OP gets BTFO'd in another thread by four seperate anons for being a fag and a retard.
>OP makes a seethe thread in response.
>OP fucks up the thread title in both grammar, and in trying to pass his gay, retarded opinion off as superior.

>>97753376
The 'Quantum ogre' is a pretentious complaint made by nogames and secondaries (both the kind who don't interact with the hobby past Critical role, and the kind who only ever play and never GM) about reusing or repurposing developed material from one place you may have used it, into another where you would.

Reality is that a 'quantum ogre' is a bog standard feature of GM'ing, especially near the start of a campaign, because a GM has a mind to include some special developed feature to help/challenge the players, and is trying to get the ball rolling because they're the only authority figure at the table. But onlyplayers can't grasp not having everything in the universe planned down to a single possible time and place to encounter them.

>>97755096
It’s funny how these kind of troll threads start with the OP being ultra pissed at the very concepts, and never brings any actual instances to serve as examples. Almost like they don’t play fucking tableytop games and just troll /tg/.

>>97755280
>if the players have no way of knowing
You keep clinging to this in your awful DMing ways. Knock it off, have some pride in your world building skills. You should absolutely never have a situation where you quantum ogre.

>>97755327
Become a better DM and stop defending how awful you are at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdUQo5aGIGA

>>97753232
lol nice

>>97751000
Yes and no. In my games, there are an abundence of things to do, factions to engage with, paths to follow, threads to pick up. Players are welcome to follow any of these things, leading to more adventure, loot, and so on. However, that doesn't mean the world stops moving just because they go in a certain direction. Factions have goals and they work to these goals, regardless of player intervention or interaction. I've had villages wiped out by goblin raiders, population enslaved, etc because players favored passing over the village as they raced to another objective. When they circled back following the pathway, they found the population in the village massacred, etc. Just a small taste of how my world looks. It's not always negative mind you, only that things are progressing.

>>97755768
>You keep clinging to this in your awful DMing ways.
it was a retort to the hypothetical situation where you have two identical doors both leading to an ogre

> Knock it off, have some pride in your world building skills.
its simply following the mental exercise presumed by the quantum ogre example
why would the players presume that the door they didnt open also contained an ogre?
if the players backtracked and opened the second door, then the DM could hypothethically simply insert a not-ogre into the other door
in this example, the players will not suffer as a result of the first door being opened always being an ogre

>You should absolutely never have a situation where you quantum ogre.
and as mentioned, the hypothetical situation of a white void with two identical exists is a strawman
any DM with more than 1 session under their belt would at least paint the ogre a different color depending on which door the players took
a more typical case you might encounter with actual players is a boss monster appearing at a different point in the game
the players dont actually know where you intended to place the boss in the first place and its trivially easy to create an excuse such as "you made too much noise" that makes it feel organic

>>97755768
Name one single instance where this happened to you and ruined your experience. Cause people would bother to actually discuss the merits and demerits of “quantum ogre” shit if you had more than just the theories you stole from redditors to lean on and could back up your dislike with an actual experience.

>>97755778
>Links to YouTube video like a good little paypig instead of having his own opinions
Have some pride as a human being, anon.

>>97755778
hes still making videos? he got arrested for beating up a 11 year old at a local convention after his 40k army got wiped on turn 2

>>97755919
mad

>>97753349
>It's very easy to imagine a situation
This is the issue really. The gm has 100% omnipotence over the game world. Having prep with specific locations adds context to that realistic world building rather than letting the ability to make up why anything can happen on the spot become the entirety of the game.
>but that is the game!
Then you're already doing it wrong.

>>97755799
What you've described has nothing to do with railroading.

>>97756607
Not that anon, but it does have to do with prep, which OP is conflating with railroading. Whether this thread is worth the effort to type all that out is questionable.

>>97755811
You shouldn't go negating player's agency, it's terrible DMing.

>>97753376
Quantum ogre is a tell tale sign you're a bad DM.

>>97753349
>It's very easy to imagine a situation where players can't avoid the bandits
Higher quality work would imagine a scenario where the bandits can be dealt with in a multitude of ways, all at the player's discretion. Least not of all, choosing to just avoid them. Railroading and quantum ogre are the result of negating player agency, not allowing their choices to matter, and forcing things to happen that you the DM (a bad DM) wants to ensure happens. RPGs are at their best when they lean into sandbox play, allowing the players' (good) ideas to be used in place of your own.

>>97751000
>Owned so hard, he had to make a cope thread about it
L M A O
O
L

>>97755196
And I will make the counterpoint as clear as I can. If the purpose of the bandits was to lore drop about their faction, then yes, that's railroading. But that's not what anyone before you said. What they said was, "there's bandits." A generic encounter. And if you have nothing to show that it actually is the same encounter, and not just another example of a generic encounter, then it's NOT railroading. Again, "there are bandits" does not mean "it's the same bandits evert time."

>>97751006
you got owned, sorry.

>>97759807
You havent mentioned how it negatively impacts the player
From the players perspective, they go through a door and meet an encounter, they have no knowledge of the door not taken
In this hypothetical situation, the players had the exact same experience whether there were 2 distinct encounters behind either door, or 2 floating encounters that are always encountered in a specific order

>>97761046
Firstly, it's stupid, for no reason. If you want them to go through a door into your encounter, just put a single door in the room. But the second, bigger issue, is that the GM who is going to pull that shit is probably also going to take part in worse forms of railroading, because they're either bad at doing prep or they don't respect their players time.

>>97760471
>What about this example where its not quantum orge though!
Then it isn't quantum orge, that isn't what we're talking about.
>BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS THING THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY DIFFERENT THAN QUANTUM ORGE THO?

>>97761144
>Firstly, it's stupid, for no reason
As mentioned, the strawman 2-door ogre setup is something that is never done except by first time DMs
This is just examining why even this exaggerated setup isnt nearly as bad as OP says it is, because the players have no way of knowing what happens in the path they dont choose

>going to pull that shit is probably also going to take part in worse forms of railroading, because they're either bad at doing prep or they don't respect their players time.
Again, this kind of extreme setup is rare outside of inexperienced DMs
The players may not even realize they are being railroaded

The players in this hypothethical sitatuon did not experience any problems, they choose a door, they encounter an ogre, and they have no reason to ever ask what would have happened if they took the second door
You are basically arguing purely on principle rather than on outcomes, the players had fun regardless of what were behind the doors

>>97761144
>Firstly, it's stupid, for no reason.
It’s stupid for them to choose to open a door or not?

>If you want them to go through a door into your encounter, just put a single door in the room.
People prefer choices. Plus, having two doors lets you create side paths after the combat encounter. They can either progress along after slaying the ogre, or go back to the other room and look for the treasure they missed out on. It’d be a quantum ogre if they opened the first door, backed out, then opened the second door that outright teleports them back into the room from the first door. Otherwise, it’s just a choice.

>But the second, bigger issue, is that the GM who is going to pull that shit is probably also going to take part in worse forms of railroading, because they're either bad at doing prep or they don't respect their players time.
See, now you’re just getting into hyperbolic bad faith hypotheticals.

>>97761177
No, you don't get the issue. I understand your argument, but it's not adressing anything in particular and that's why you think it's a self evident thing.

>and they have no reason to ever ask what would have happened if they took the second door
This is the issue
Players should be allowed and encouraged to trace back. The point of a good dungeon is that the experience changes according to player choice, and that is held up by defined outcomes according to their choice. If it's just a gauntlet, a series of fights, then it doesn't matter. Just make a hallway, players might enjoy it and it's totally nice and cool and everything. But it's a different experience from the players getting to know the space and using it in their favor. You don't use the ogres you prepared, because they will trace back their steps and now the ogres will be there when they're exhausted and trying to leave with no resources left. If anything it's more exiting if they don't go that way and it's the player's fault for no checking before. Giving them control changes how the player's feel about the space, it's a more interactive experience than doing the things that were expected from them.

>>97761815
no
quatum ogre refers to adapting events so they have the intended experience no matter their actions. Anon is saying that the illusion of choice usually infects everything the GM does and erodes the player's interest, because things will just happen and they can't get ahead of things unless the GM happens.

Some modules don't specify when something happens, and the GM is supposed to do it whenever it feels cool for them. Like a roaming enemy. That's not a quantum ogre, that's a random event. The rejection of quatum ogres comes from not having defined spaces. If things are where they are players are rewarded for listening, checking, studying, or just being lucky. This makes the experience more personal and all players, including the GM, are seeing what happens in real time.

I'm sorry if my explanation isn't perfect, I realized I'm way more drunk than I though I was. I hope you can sort of get the difference between curated experiences and defined elements clashing once things get rolling.

>>97761834
you are clearly arguing something differently here
but, to repeat, in the thought experiment of two doors leading to one ogre, the players are not going to suddenly say "were we always meant to meet the ogre?" because they do not know whats behind either door before they open it

the entire argument hinges on the players feeling cheated that the ogre fight was inevitable, but the reality is that players probably did not read your DM notes ahead of time and do not know if any encounter was inevitable

this all gets silly because this setup just does not exist in actual gameplay
DMs will improvise to match the players and cover their tracks

>>97761850
To be frank, anon, I’m pretty sure the fact you used the word “infects” to describe the act of GMing says far more about this subject than your misunderstanding of the supposed quantum ogre problem. But I get it, there are players that are massively insecure about the notion they’re being strung along instead of being gods of their domain. And it’s kind of a pity, cause they basically built up this all powerful villain in their head that doesn’t exist, and it prevents them from enjoying the game because they’re thinking too hard about being “cheated” of some perfect experience rather than about what’s in front if them.

>>97762035
what a faggy way to talk

you're a railroading troglodyte

>>97762051
That’s the best you got, OP? Assumptions and grade school insults? Pathetic.

>>97753376
>Quantum Ogres are super based
Unless you're playing some kind of prewritten slop, the players will never know they've been ogred in the first place.
>inb4 le "i would be able to tell"
No you wouldnt lmfao.

>>97759818
Good GMs quantum ogre you all the time and you never know.

>>97755202
>why can i not talk to the troll, ask him his troubles

>>97755202
>it's ok because players couldn't know!
>a bad way of thinking
Obvious neverGM is an obvious neverGM.

>>97755768
>You keep clinging to this in your awful DMing ways. Knock it off, have some pride in your world building skills. You should absolutely never have a situation where you quantum ogre.
NeverGM advice is wild

>>97762161
Spoken like a shit DM.

>>97759839
>I said I dont want to play the game Mr. DM you cant make me!

>>97762161
It's ALWAYS obvious when you're railroading, players are just too polite to publicly give you shit over it.

>>97762051
>what a faggy way to talk
Nigger you're king faggot of the gaylands if you're the post he's replying to

>OP is STILL assblasted he got owned

>>97762179
Spoken like a nevergames.

>>97762190
>players are just too
Lmao. You have no idea what's happening on your character sheet half of the time.

>>97751000
retard

>>97762190
It really is, when all the paths keep leading into the narrative and it's not possible to do something else, it's so obvious.

>>97762180
Try not to prepare sessions that the players wont want to engage in.

>>97762168
Bad DMs have this poor sportsmanship mentality that quantum ogre is a tool in their back pocket, but to actually go using it is going to erode your world crafting skills. Since you've resulted to buzzwords by now, you likely have nothing of substance to add to discussion. Much like how players can sniff out a railroad, I can smell your derailment.

>>97761144
This, once you notice the railroads, the quantum ogre, it's time to find a new group.

>>97760471
Bandits and bandits are the same encounter objectively. The DM prepared bandits.

>>97762242
>poor sportsmanship
It isnt, you just think it is. The ego is fairly unbecoming.
>>97762242
>actually go using it is going to erode your world crafting skills
You cant even explain how in any meaningful capacity. You'll probably just cry about video games again trying.

>>97762234
>if the players actions have consequences on the narrative, it's railroading

>>97762238
You yourself said you make a character who runs from everything. There is no encounter you want to engage in you facetious little cunt

>>97761046
It negates the player's choices, it removes the pretense of a world that feels real. Kids learn at a very young age the concept of object permanence and it predicates their ability to fully understand the world. Imagine, being a grown ass adult that goes out of their way to destroy world building; and your sole defense is "the players will never know" wow, that's real nice chief.

>he's... he's going to DESTROY world building! Please, think of the children!!

From what I’m gathering if these threads, it seems like they’re driven by one guy’s massive distrust in their GM to deliver a satisfying experience that isn’t 100% tailored to their fantasies and whims. It’s why they complain about quantum ogres, railroading, and game preparation like they’re boogeymen without ever once giving actual scenarios where it ruined his experience.

I’ve learned over the years that preparation personally helps me a lot more than doing things entirely off the cuff. But that’s mainly because I have a good party that shows initiative and will willingly go off the beaten path to explore, so being able to give them something going down that route rather than just make shit up is much more satisfying. And I will admit, sometimes I will cheat and reuse enemies intended for the main route if it makes sense, but more often than not the change in timing and battlefield makes for very different experiences than I intended, such as forcing an enemy commander and his men to have to wage war against the local wildlife as well as the party rather than just the party alone. And I don’t do this to control the players or inhibit what they can do, I do it so I can make my game scenarios flexible enough that the players can feel comfortable in choosing to engage with anything they want or outright leave things alone knowing I can roll with whatever they choose.

>>97762542
>one guy’s massive distrust in their GM to deliver a satisfying experience that isn’t 100% tailored to their fantasies and whims
Nah, this is just the typical internet playoid, a nogames turbosnowflake who owes every thought in their head to Youtube. Fortunately they mostly stick to social media and the comments section of r/dnd text-to-speech videos, so you don't have to worry about ever actually playing with one.

You fucking retards, you keep talking about paths when it's about choices.
Is only a railroad if you offer in the game a choices that doesn't matter. Both paths can have ogres, but facing one or the other should have different outcomes. That's it. Is not about the encounter, railroading is about not taking in account the consequences of player choice, that's it.

>>97751019
Why are you playing a game if you want a story instead of reading a story?

>>97751043
Who said incapable?

>>97751093
It doesn't, obviously.

>>97762746
The act of improvisation and collective narrative with some RGN elements for spice. And you get to spend time with other real humans to have fun.

>>97751019
Then you of course agree with me that low prep is better, since it better supports player decision making, which leads to better stories being generated.

>>97762762
Depends on the game, a CoC mystery with low prep is nonsense.

>>97751033
For you, certainly.

>>97762723
The question becomes whether or not presenting the illusion of choice, in addition to presenting other choices, is considered railroading.

In my estimation, it's clearly not railroading. It's making the world feel more full without putting in unnecessary work.

>>97762268
>once you notice the railroads
If no player notices the "railroad", then there's literally no railroad to be noticed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl0z5Z8bvro

>>97763904
He doesn't understand why Quantum ogre is bad at all. This is a bad video lol.

>>97764007
No, he’s right in that it’s only an issue in that it can be used badly and can be a crutch for those who use it as purely a substitute for improvisation. If done right, nobody knows nor gives a shit how the sausage is made as long as it’s not made of people and you don’t get food poisoning from it.

>>97764007
>He doesn't understand why Quantum ogre is bad at all.
Do *you* understand it?
Can you explain it?

>>97764007
Hm, who's right?
>someone with decades of experience in playing and GM-ing, with hours and hours of videos filled with good advice
>some incoherently babbling retard from 4chan who's so butthurt he got clowned on that he remade an archived thread
That's a tough one!

>>97751000
>Planning requires effort and energy. Imagining things in the moment requires none.
Yes.
Building a stack of wooden blocks requires more effort and energy for a toddler than shitting their pants does.
One yields a mire pleasant experience though.
The relevant question is whether or not you've tried to develop tools for running the session beforehand to facilitate improvisation. Have you?
If you've actually tried it and found that the effort of organizing first and then improvising didn't add anything to your experience, then that's your experience. Good for you.
If you have never tried putting forth any effort whatsoever, I am incredibly grateful to have never played any games with you.

>>97751000
THE RAILROAD EXCUSES

Another way of thinking about this is that the more specific and unlikely the necessary outcome, the more fragile your scenario becomes: It will break if the PCs deviate even slightly from your predetermined sequence. Once the scenario breaks, you’ll have to resort to railroading in order to fix it. This is why I often refer to railroading as a broken technique seeking to fix a broken scenario.

It’s fairly typical, for example, to hear someone say, “I only railroad my players if it’s really important.” And when you delve a little deeper, you virtually always discover that “really important” is a synonym for the GM making sure their predetermined outcome happens. These are literally people saying that they need to railroad because they designed a railroad.

Another common rationalization for railroading is that GMs have to use it in order to keep problem players in line. However, if your relationship with your players is that they’re naughty children who are testing their limits and you’re a parental figure that somehow needs to keep them in line, then your relationship with your players is fundamentally broken. More generally, what you’re talking about are issues outside of the game. Attempting to handle those issues with in-game behavior modifications is simply dysfunctional. It’s no different than if a player at your table was cheating or if they poured a drink over the head of another player: These are all problems which require intercession. But none of them are going to be solved through railroading.

>>97765164
One specific example of this is often cited as an exception, however: Behavior which is deliberately disruptive through the agency of the game world. For example, the guy who tries to assassinate the king when the PCs are called in for an audience. Ultimately, however, this example only cycles back to the previous two: Either the guy involved is a jackass (which is a problem that needs to be solved outside of the game) or this is really only a “problem” insofar as it disrupts your preconceived notion of how the royal audience was supposed to play out (which means we’ve arrived back at “I need to railroad them in order to maintain my railroad”).

(Note, too, how often these “problems” can quickly be solved by having the game world respond naturally to the circumstances: Crazy McGee has just assassinated the king. What happens next? Well, the king’s guard is going to try to arrest them. If they escape, there’s going to be a manhunt. Then there’s going to be a power struggle to fill the vacuum. The other PCs need to decide whether to help hunt down their former comrade or help him escape. There may be a rebel group who concludes that the PCs are on their side because of the assassination. And so forth. That all sounds like interesting stuff.)

Nobody minds the railroad if the destination is Awesome Town!

The theory here is that if you offer a big enough carrot, nobody will mind being hit by the stick a few times.

There’s a fair amount of truth to that, but what always strikes me about this popular meme is the extraordinary amount of hubris it demonstrates. See, any time that a player chooses to do something, that implicitly means that it’s something that they want. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they should automatically succeed at everything they attempt, but if you’re artificially negating their choice in order to enforce your preconceived outcome, what you’re saying is, “I know what you want better than you do.”

>>97765170
Which might be true. But I’m willing to bet that 99 times out of 100, it isn’t.

The railroad creates specific situations. The goal is to see how the PCs react to those specific situations.

This is a more nuanced and deliberate application of railroading techniques. The idea is that the choices you’re interested in are those made in specific moments. The methods by which individual moments are reached are of less interest, and, in fact, it’s more important to create specific moments of particular effectiveness than it is to enable choice outside of those moments. You’re basically stripping out the strategic choices of the players in order to create intense tactical experiences.

In practice, however, railroads warp the decision-making process of the players. When you systematically strip meaningful choice from them, they stop making choices and instead start looking for the railroad tracks.

So railroading PCs into a situation to see what choice they’ll make doesn’t actually work: Having robbed them of free agency in order to get them there, you’ve fundamentally altered the dynamic of the situation itself. You’ll no longer see what their reaction is; you’ll only see what they think you want their reaction to be.

I suspect that GMs who habitually railroad have difficulty seeing this warping of the decision-making process because it’s the only thing they’re used to. But it becomes glaringly obvious whenever I get the players they’ve screwed up: Nothing is more incoherent than a player trying to figure out where the railroad is when there’s no railroad to be found.

>>97765178
Railroading, in the purest sense of the term, is something that happens at the gaming table: It is the precise moment at which the GM negates a player’s choice.

In practice, of course, the term has bled over into scenario prep. We talk about “railroaded adventures” all the time, by which we generally mean linear scenarios which are designed around the assumption that the PCs will make specific choices at specific points in order to reach the next part of the scenario. If the PCs don’t make those choices, then the GM has to railroad them in order to continue using the scenario as it was designed.

However, not all linear design was created equal. And it’s not really accurate to describe all linear scenario design as being a “railroad”.

Linear scenarios are built around a predetermined sequence of events and/or outcomes.

>>97765188
Consider a simple mystery:

Scene 1: The PCs come home and discover that their house has been broken into and an arcane relic stolen from their safe. They need to figure out who did it, which they can do by analyzing fingerprints, looking at their neighbor’s surveillance camera, asking questions around town to see who took the job, or casting a divination spell.

Scene 2: Having discovered that Jimmy “Fast-Fingers” Hall was responsible for the break-in, the PCs track him down. They need to figure out who hired him, which they can do by interrogating him, following him, analyzing his bank statements to figure out who paid him, or hacking his e-mail.

Scene 3: Having discovered that Bobby Churchill, a local mob boss, was the guy who hired Jimmy, the PCs need to get their relic back. They can do that by beating Bobby up, agreeing to do a job for him, or staging a covert heist to get it out of his vault.

That’s a fairly linear scenario: House to Jimmy to Bobby. But because we used the Three Clue Rule to provide a multitude of paths from one event to the next, it’s very unlikely that a GM running this scenario will need to railroad his players. The sequence of events is predetermined, but the outcome of each scene is not.

Non-linear scenarios do not require specific outcomes or events, allowing freedom of player choice.

Linear scenario design and non-linear scenario design exist on a spectrum. Generally speaking, requiring specific events (“you meet an ogre in the woods”) is less restrictive than requiring specific outcomes (“you meet an ogre in the woods and you have to fight him”). And the more specific the outcome required, the more likely it is that the GM will have to railroad the players to make it happen (“you meet an ogre in the woods and you have to fight him and the killing blow has to be delivered by the Rose Spear of Vallundria so that the ogre’s ghost can come back and serve the PC at the Black Gates of Goblin Doom”).

>>97765193
With that being said, it’s often quite trivial for an experienced GM to safely assume that a specific event or outcome is going to happen. For example, if a typical group of heroic PCs are riding along a road and they see a young boy being chased by goblins it’s probably a pretty safe bet that they’ll take action to rescue the boy. The more likely a particular outcome is, the more secure you are in simply assuming that it will happen. That doesn’t mean your scenario is railroaded, it just means you’re engaging in smart prep.

My point here is that you can’t let fear of a potential railroad make you throw away your common sense when it comes to prioritizing your prep. This, by the way, leads to one of the most potent tools in the GM’s arsenal:

What are you planning to do next session?

It’s a simple question, but the answer obviously gives you certainty. It lets you focus your prep with extreme accuracy because you can make very specific predictions about what your players are going to do and those predictions will also be incredibly likely to happen.

Where you get into trouble is when your scenario expects something which is both very specific and also very unlikely.

For example, in the Witchfire Trilogy from Privateer Press, there’s a moment where the PCs have all the information necessary to realize that a specific NPC is the bad guy they’ve been looking for. This makes it incredibly likely that the PCs will simply confront the bad guy. The author doesn’t want that, though: He wants the PCs to put her under surveillance and trail her back to her secret hideout. So he throws up a bunch of painfully contrived roadblocks in an effort to stop the PCs from doing the thing they are nevertheless overwhelmingly likely to do.

RAILROAD BY DESIGN

>>97765201
A categorical distinction is often drawn between visible railroads (where the players can see the tracks) and invisible railroads (where the mechanisms are hidden from them). Invisible railroads are sometimes referred to as illusionism (referring to the fact that the players only have the illusion of free choice), and the simplest example would be fudging a die roll behind the GM’s screen. In any case, the difference between a visible railroad and invisible railroad is more of a spectrum.

Invisible railroads are often invoked as another excuse for railroading:

It doesn’t matter if the players don’t know they’re being railroaded!

In practice, however, I would note a couple of things.

First, GMs tend to overestimate the degree to which their players don’t notice their railroads. Lots of players are polite enough not to pull back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t see his feet poking out from behind the curtain.

Second, the majority of negative effects created by a railroad exist whether the players are aware of the railroad or not.

Most of the problems that arise from railroading are the direct result of negating the primary strength of the RPG as a medium: Player choice.

Exploring the full scope of how player choice acts as the elemental ingredient of the RPG is beyond the scope of this manifesto, but the short version looks like this: For narratives with predetermined outcomes, literally every other medium is better than the RPG. For interactive narratives that tightly constrain player choice, computer games are clearly superior (including graphics and soundtracks and smoother implementation of more complicated mechanical structures). Non-interactive mediums, on the other hand, benefit from the polish of tight creative control.

>>97765228
What tabletop RPGs have going for them is the alchemy of player agency. Of presenting a situation and seeing what happens when a unique set of players make a unique set of decisions and produce a unique set of outcomes. When you railroad your players, you specifically set yourself at odds with the very thing that makes playing an RPG worthwhile in the first place.

When they’re confronted with a railroad, players will often exclaim, “Gimme a ring when you finish writing your novel! I’ll enjoy it more!” And they’re not wrong.

But that’s not the only problem with railroading. Railroading creates a whole penumbra of problems.

When a GM predetermines what’s going to happen in the game, they become solely responsible for the entire experience. And that’s a ridiculously heavy burden to bear. Are your encounters balanced? Did you include enough “cool stuff” for every player to participate in? Did you incorporate enough elements from each PC’s back story? The list goes on and on.

This is how you end up with GMs stringing together precariously balanced My Precious Encounters™ in a desperate juggling act as they try to keep all of their players happy.

When you allow the players to make their own decisions, all of the pressure and responsibility melts away: They’ll choose the fights they can win. They’ll approach situations in ways that let them do cool stuff. If there’s not enough stuff from their back story seeking them out, then they’ll go looking for it.

>>97765232
There are a couple of potential speed bumps here:

First, the players might choose to do something you, as the GM, don’t enjoy doing. I generally haven’t found this to be a problem. Partly because, even without railroading, I still wield a lot of control over what activities are available in the campaign. Mostly because any RPG campaign inherently includes parameters that everybody explicitly or implicitly agrees to before playing: “Let’s all play starfighter pilots!” simply doesn’t result in the players saying, “Okay. Let’s all buy a moisture farm on Tatooine.”

(If this implausible hypothetical were to occur, I would talk to my players about the mismatch of expectations and try to figure out what sort of game they’re looking for in their new careers as moisture farmers. If that’s a game I want to run, then we’ll go for it. If not, then we’ll play something else. Railroading, you’ll notice, wouldn’t actually solve the problem of them wanting to do one thing and me wanting to do something completely different.)

Second, the players might choose to do something that they don’t enjoy doing. This seems outrageous, but it’s also something that happens frequently with groups who are used to being railroaded. (It’s one of the problems living in the railroad’s penumbra.) They’ve been “trained” to see a plot hook and bite it (because otherwise the plot hook will bite them), so when they see a plot hook rich environment they start biting at everything.

If you let them roam free for a bit, however, they’ll work it out of their system. And then you’re liberated, too: You don’t have to try to read their minds. You can just let them do whatever they want with the expectation that they’ll do what they want to.

>>97765239
There’s been a recent memetic trend of attempting to defend the idea of railroading your PCs by, first, claiming that a bunch of stuff that isn’t railroading is a “railroad” and then using that claim to conclude that railroading isn’t bad and we should all just stop worrying about it.

It’s as if I said, “Racism isn’t all bad. After all, apple pies are totally racist. But they taste delicious, right?” It sounds perfectly reasonable until you notice that the bit about apple pies being racist is bullshit.

One thing to keep in mind is that the metaphorical use of the verb “railroad” is not a piece of terminology unique to RPGs. It’s an English word dating to 1884 that means, “To force someone into doing something by rushing or coercing them.” Whenever you see someone trying to defend railroading by claiming that it includes a bunch of techniques that don’t include forcing the players to do something they don’t want to do, they’re abusing the terminology. The term “railroading” in this context has an inherently negative connotation, and it’s simply not useful to attempt to redefine the English language so that you can use the term “railroad” to describe some completely different technique that isn’t railroading.

>>97765244
Limiting player choice, you’ll note, is distinctly different from negating their choices. While chokers can certainly be abused in order to constrain choice to the point where the GM is enforcing their preconceived outcome by default, imposing creative restraint upon a given situation creates interest and variety.

What I think is interesting about literal roads, however, is that they usually contain an incomparable choice by their very nature. For example, imagine that the PCs are going from Waterdeep to Triboar. There’s only one road, so that’s the way they have to go, right? Except, of course, they could also choose to journey cross-country. The cross-country journey would be slower, but it would also mean avoiding whatever troubles there might be on the road. (The choice between speed and avoiding the events on the road is the incomparable.)

>op absolutely getting gangbanged in the chat

Wewwww. Couldn't be me

>>97765244
>comparing racism to railroading just to ableeba loobabaooo
Dude, just fuck off at this point. I get that people hate the idea of being held hostage in someone’s shitty story where a gmpc does everything and they sit there with their thumbs up their asses, but if you’re going this far to try and dissect the very word, then you’ve put way too much thought into crusading against the concept instead of actually dealing with the execution from an actual game to know what to love and hate about it.

Maybe actually sit down at a table sometime rather than engage in this inane word vomit someday.

File: 1772963618418899.jpg (1.24 MB, 1920x1080)

1.24 MB JPG

>>97755778
>Waah wah waaaah, we players can't avoid potential combat encounters because the DM might be reacting to our actions and putting down challenges and formative encounters in our way as we go, instead of having the entire setting planned out in his head prior to session 1, and being faithful to the hypothetical model that we will never actually see and will only interact with a small bit of.

Fucking retarded premise.
Sure it's good to have a rough map of the entire setting, but these kinds of people just want a free romp sandbox because they're scared their combat-optimized characters might get into combat, and they want to be able to act out with no consequences, not realizing that'll tank the game quality and enjoyment.

So they hide that fear behind the idea that the mildly scary combat encounter or plot hook was only there, because the DM shifted it last minute to catch them and that, were the DM 'more honest' it would have been left somewhere else in the setting for someone else to find.


It's a play quality myth, like X cards or HMFS&B characters. The idea is they make the game better, but in actual fact they make it worse and cater to a specific type of shitty player.

>>97765866
>but these kinds of people just want a free romp sandbox
No, that's specifically not true. We're talking about the difference between a scenario where things happen because of the decisions the players made, vs. a situation where things happen because the GM decides that they happen. One is actual choices and consequences, one is hand holding players through your novel.

>>97762035
no, I GM like 90% of the time. I'm saying quantum ogres are an issue from the GM side. You're giving them a curated experience and assuming you know the one best way to play, and that way is having combat when you say they have it. If you let things happen naturally you'll leave a space to be surprised and get something better than your expectations, otherwise you're setting a roof that's as high as your own personal assumptions.

>>97761887
That's a part of the argument that focuses on the long run. Players eventually realize their choices don't matter and stop taking them because there's no point. That's bad.
But it's also bad for you because you're closing the door the finding out new options for the same space that might be better than your intended experience.

>>97765982
I severely doubt you do, considering that you’ve clearly never had the experience of giving the players all the opportunity to get around combat that they claim they want you to do. Only for them to come at you and bitch about the lack of good loot, experience, and magic items, and then get majorly defensive when you remind them they’re the ones choosing to never engage with the enemy, which means they don’t get as many goodies to play with, by their own choice.

Most players want their fun and games. They rarely care how it gets done unless they feel they’re being cheated out of something. That’s why they complain about shit like railroads and quantum ogres when it’s not in their favor, otherwise they couldn’t give less of a fuck. That’s why people keep saying it doesn’t matter. Not because it’s somehow inherently good or bad, but because frankly most players don’t know dick about what they want beyond being able to roll dice, kill shit, get shinies, and have fun with their friends. As long as they don’t get food poisoning, they don’t care how the sausage is made.

Prep is based. I love drawing maps and thinking about our games.

>>97766045
>I have players who are disengaged and don't seem to care.
>But this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I run my game in such a way that nothing they do actually matters.
>No, I don't think those two things are related, why do you ask?

>>97766312
I’m sorry your players are so disengaged, anon.

>>97766045
GP for XP solves this btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_g-9FZrgds

Also an interesting point of note for the thread. Why you shouldn't fudge dice rolls. (eroding player trust, and conflicting with player's freedom)

>>97766528
Eh, I just throw the occasion curveball into their way to keep things from boring them. I don’t entrap them, like if they already scouted out the enemy ahead of time. I just sometimes throw in a wild animal or enemy patrol down the alternate route so they can at least choose whether or not they want to back out or punch ahead on this obstacle compared to the original one. I find that a lot of players are fine with dealing with rough situations and twists and even the consequences of their actions, they just want to know the GM isn’t actively cheating them out of opportunities they could have taken had they known about them.

>>97766719
Please stop posting videos and actually post experiences sometimes, you no-games idiot.

>>97766045
>Only for them to come at you and bitch about the lack of good loot, experience, and magic items, and then get majorly defensive when you remind them they’re the ones choosing to never engage with the enemy, which means they don’t get as many goodies to play with, by their own choice.
I like showing them the stuff they missed and never will get and discussing what could had happened after the session. I run things that reward good play, like any of the hundreds of good dungeons out there.

If your players like gauntlets that's fine too, it's not dungeon design. Just give them the final fantasy hallway and you're gold.

>>97751000
>During session 0 create elements of your world that align with each player character
wow so hard, now I don't need to railroad. crazy this filters 60% of DMs

>>97765164
nuclear truth bomb

>>97766926
>During sessions, mention other locations in passing and give them simple flavor descriptions
>describe more prominent locations with more extravagant detail, depicting much more fascinating things to entice players
oh no, now I wont need to railroad them

>>97766972
>I give more details to the encounters and story beats I prepare to bait my players into engaging with my fanfic
nice railroad

>>97766972
>oh, this is what GM prepared, we better do that or it'll be a borefest
>did you see how shitty he described the part he didn't prep? I don't want the whole session to be like that. I better just do what he wants
just read a short story to them and be done with it

>>97767098
If the players deciding to avoid doing something (because they think it'll be boring) is railroading, the term no longer means anything.

>>97767130
if people have to acomodate you to have a decent time that's just generally pathetic

>>97765982
>That's a part of the argument that focuses on the long run. Players eventually realize their choices don't matter and stop taking them because there's no point. That's bad.
This has literally never happened to me, most dont notice, even fewer care

You are either lying or just a bad DM

>But it's also bad for you because you're closing the door the finding out new options for the same space that might be better than your intended experience.
No DM actually runs the strawman quantum ogre scenario
What happens more often is that one door leads to a combat encounter and the other door leads to a stealth encounter that both terminate at the ogre
And, usually, the players know ahead of time that they are going to fight an ogre, usually because the quest giver told themselves they had to fight an ogre, so the question is more about getting to the ogre rather than if there is an ogre in the first place

Not only is the actual strawman constructed not nearly the game breaker you claim it is, players have no knowledge of the entire session, but only the absolute newest DMs dont know how to cover their tracks and adapt to the players actions, one of the first things a DM learns is to take the players actions in stride and modulate the encounters accordingly

>>97751118
More effort than you.

>>97767228
>even fewer care
yeah, obviously, they stop caring, that's the issue.

>What happens more often is that one door leads to a combat encounter and the other door leads to a stealth encounter that both terminate at the ogre
no
most dugeons will have loops and connections that let the players exploit the space to avoid fights. Unless you're playing superhero games where the point is fighting, and in that case you should make a hallway of fights and avoid the illusion of a dungeon because it's wasting time.

>And, usually, the players know ahead of time that they are going to fight an ogre, usually because the quest giver told themselves they had to fight an ogre
Yeah, you're mixing up where the quantum ogre discussion goes. It's an issue with dungeons. Obviously if it's a WoW style game where you prepare a raid and fight a big thing the discussion is meaningless, because it's not about that. It's like saying you don't need to preheat an oven to make icecream, yeah, obviously. Quantum ogre discussion is about dungeons where the point is the dungeon, not the fighting.

>>97767609
>yeah, obviously, they stop caring, that's the issue.
They dont care about what the DM does behind the screen, thats my business and not theirs
My job is to make sure they have fun, which they do

>most dugeons will have loops and connections that let the players exploit the space to avoid fights
Thats a red herring which has nothing to do with a quantum ogre
The players being able to use stealth is one of the first things DMs do to shake encounters up
If one door leading to the ogre is combt and one door leading to the ogre is stealth, then players are very unlikely to ever notice that the ogre encounter was inevitable

>Yeah, you're mixing up where the quantum ogre discussion goes
The point is that example given does not exist in real games, barring very new DMs
Once the quantum ogre meets an actual DM and actual players, its never obvious that one is being used

>Quantum ogre discussion is about dungeons where the point is the dungeon, not the fighting.
The quantum ogre is about how two paths lead to the same encounter is bad
But its never this obvious in an actual game, where players dont know which encounters were inevitable and which ones werent
And even the newest DM knows to change the ogre encounter to match the players actions

You are arguing purely on strawmen and hypothethicals
And ignoring actual DMs with actual games telling you that the idea that players will suddenly feel betrayed and hollow when they realize that the DM had encounters pre-planned

>>97767688
>It doesn't exist!
>But if it does exist, it's good actually!

K

>>97767698
Its pointing out that your fantasy of players suddenly feeling betrayed by the GM is just that, a fantasy
Your entire argument as to why you should avoid having setpiece encounters, that the players will hate you if do it, is so rare that it can be ignored

So you are purely arguing for the principle of the thing rather than anything involving the players having fun

>>97767724
Who is arguing against set piece encounters? You're moving the goalposts around so much you're going to sprain something.

>>97765982
>Players eventually realize their choices don't matter and stop taking them because there's no point.
How?
How do they realize this?
They made a choice, went down a path, and encountered an ogre. How do they realize there's a quantum ogre?

>>97761834
>Players should be allowed and encouraged to trace back.
A quantum ogre doesn't prevent that. An uncreative or railroading GM prevents that. A quantum ogre guarantees an ogre. That's it.

>The point of a good dungeon
Quantum ogres are of very limited use in a dungeon. ....maybe as a way of putting information the players will need in their path to be discovered.
And quantum ogres aren't always battles. Sometimes they're a helpful NPC.

Anyone ever notice how anons who like to pointlessly argue on the internet also use quantum ogres? No matter what you say or what points you raise in your post, they'll find a way to be contrary and keep arguing.

>>97767743
>Who is arguing against set piece encounters
By OPs definition of quantum ogre, any event that was pre-planned to occur is one

>moving the goalposts around so much you're going to sprain something.
Its simply stating that "players all feel cheated because the DM planned certain events ahead of time" is not supported by reality
That doesnt happen, its a fantasy
Most players tend to be more impressed by a DMs ability to guide them to certain encounters rather than angry that certain encounters were not created out of nothing

>>97762234
>when all the paths keep leading into the narrative
As opposed to what?
Random unconnected acts and events leading nowhere?
I admit that hamfisted narrative shoved down the players throats is annoying. But paths leading back to the central narrative is a sign of good central narrative. Connecting plot points is a skill, not a flaw.

>>97767766
>I admit that hamfisted narrative shoved down the players throats is annoying.
Thats also just a tautological statement of "DMs are bad when they are bad"

>>97767773
>muh tautology
Well, I could rephrase it as "When the players' choices lead back to the main plot without reasonable or logical connections it can be annoying."

But seriously, as opposed to what?

>>97751000
>They have whatever capabilities I decide to assign them according to however I imagine them. This doesn't prevent players from interacting.
It does, however, make every encounter completely arbitrary because you haven't taken into account the mechanics of the game and how they're meant to be balanced. Odds are you're a sad, pathetic loser control freak who wants to "win" at a cooperative storytelling game.
>Imagining things in the moment requires none.
You get what you put into something. If you put in no effort, you get dogshit. That's probably why you don't have any games, you're a completely utter dogshit GM and player.
>Not knowing what will happen is the whole point.
No, that's not the point at all.
>if that decision space is constrained in any way, to any degree, no decisions at all are being made
Objectively incorrect.
>Prep reduces the quality of your game.
It objectively increases the quality because your players aren't fighting whatever random bullshit you throw at them and don't have to completely ignore any verisimilitude within the setting of the game because you refuse to plan encounters that make sense for their power level and the location in the game world they're in and the events that have happened prior.

TLDR, you're not playing a TTRPG. You're playing Cards Against Humanity/Mad Libs with dice.

>>97762746
Why are you playing RPGs if you don't want a story? RPGs inherently have a narrative tied to them because they require a setting for the game to take place in, and characters who have existed within that world and thus have ties to it and will react based on their pasts to determine their futures. People - and thus, TTRPG characters - are shaped by their past experiences.

You're just too retarded to understand that the narrative and mechanical aspects of TTRPGs are inherently fused together, and that you can't separate one from the other. Every choice the players make as their characters, every die they roll, every die an NPC rolls, all of those things tell new chapters in the story.

The difference between a TTRPG and a book is that in a TTRPG, the story is constantly evolving and is near-infinitely dynamic, limited only by the rules of the setting, the rules of the game, the choices of the players, and the choices of the GM.

Of course, any game you ran (you don't run or play any but if you did) would be boring as shit because it would just be a bunch of random nonsense that makes no sense and can't keep the players invested.

>>97753182
Bro, I'm in a Perfect Draw game and that shit requires even MORE planning than something like a D&D Dungeon crawl, cause with that I can just roll on tables, but Perfect Draw's advancement requires clearing baggage which requires cooperation with the players and GM to have meaningful encounters to clear that baggage which means you can't just have random bullshit go, the GM has to plan around the party's Baggage and also their characters and - in the case of Perfect Draw - their cards.

I'll tell you what happens when he doesn't, two of the players dueling that session have drawn-out epic battles where they gain and/or clear baggage to advance and get cool new cards with Draw The Perfect Card and Risk It All to scrape out epic wins while the third (me) utterly curbstomps his opponent.

If anything PBTA requires lots of planning and prep. It's not the nothingburger you seem to think it is, at least Perfect Draw isn't. Objectively the meta we have going on is better than modern YGO.

>>97767764
The op is fucking idiot, that's an entirely different point. A quantum orge isn't a planned encounter. It's been explained, over and over and over and over again at this point.

>>97767837
>The difference between a TTRPG and a book is that in a TTRPG, the story is constantly evolving and is near-infinitely dynamic, limited only by the rules of the setting, the rules of the game, the choices of the players, and the choices of the GM.
The problem is, if you're doing shit like quantum Orges, you've made it so the only one of those 4 things that matter are the gm's choices.

>>97762234
Part of the social contract of a TTRPG is that the GM is going to give a plot hook to start the game, and the players are going to make characters that are willing to go along with that plot hook.

>WAHH NO CHOICE
They have plenty of choice on how to solve the problems they are presented with, using over-the-table logic, in-character logic, and their mechanical abilities from the game itself.

I'll tell you from experience what happens when you just shit the player characters out in bumfuck nowhere without a goal, they don't get anything done. They wander around lost and aimless until you give them something to latch onto.

It's not about not having a fucking narrative, it's about getting a read on what parts of your world your players like, what characters they like, and what plot hooks you throw out they gravitate towards the most, and then you hone in on those things and use that to run a campaign that everyone enjoys. But you have to start somewhere, and the party needs a reason to be a fucking party. So you give them an inciting incident, and ask them what they do and how they handle it, and you go from there. You create a skeleton of a narrative with a starting point and a vaguely defined overarching goal and work around that as the game goes on. Sometimes you have to change stuff. Sometimes you don't. But no game is going to last if all you do is throw random, nonsensical bullshit at the players and give them nothing to consistently keep their interest.

Now if your players are retarded enough that rolling attacks and killing shit for loot is all it takes to keep them entertained like a pair of jangling keys, fine, but the rest of us aren't running for literal retards. They want substance. They want to feel like part of a greater story in a living, breathing world where their choices have actual impacts on the world itself.

>>97767856
You don't fucking understand what a quantum ogre is you midwit! You utter buffoon, a Quantum Ogre is explicitly one thing, it is taking Encounter A from Location A and moving it to Location B. That's all it is.

Having fucking consequences for the players' choices is not a fucking Quantum Ogre. If they get word that a nearby village is about to be beset by raiders, and they fuck off the other way, then that village and its people being killed or taken as slaves is on them. If they hear word of a plot to assassinate the king, and they do nothing to engage with that, then them having to deal with a tyrant that views them as criminals and has them hunted down is the consequences of their choices.

A Quantum Ogre is not just "The GM gave you a plot hook, you ignored it, and because the world isn't a static thing and shit happens whether you get involved or not bad things happened because you didn't answer the call to heroism" it's specifically "The GM takes one encounter and moves it wherever the players go to force it to happen".

If they had to stop a village from being raided either way, that's a Quantum ogre.I swear to fucking christ this website is full of people with an IQ lower than the high temperature in Alaska.

>>97767871
>You utter buffoon, a Quantum Ogre is explicitly one thing, it is taking Encounter A from Location A and moving it to Location B.
And the players are unlikely to notice it because they have no knowledge of whats in the locations ahead of time

The players are unlikely to be able to tell which room was actually meant to be the ogre room

>>97767883
That's outside the point, the point is that some fucking retard ITT doesn't know what a Quantum Ogre is which just proves they're a nogames faggot.

Why can't you have dynamic events that happen whether or not anyone even gives a shit? If the players want to stop King Dragonheart from taking over shit village #11, I'm gonna let them at least try. If they don't care, King Dragonheart takes over shit village #11. Goddamn, some of you need to come down off your fucking cross. You're not the almighty protectors of gaming. Just your game and that's it. I'm not gonna judge you for how you run your fucking games. If I don't want to play in your piss forest, I won't. I ain't gotta incessantly complain about it to God and everyone. I just keep it pushing. YOU SHOULD TOO

>>97765935
>There is a difference between your premise and mine because yours is reasonable, while I want to be mad about something.

There is no difference.
A 'Quantum ogre' is like a Rorshacks Basilisk.
It's a philosophical concept, that "I don't know what my GM is thinking or rolling behind his screen, so every decision I make could be irrelevant to the outcome of this game that he's making".

And while I acknowledge that exceptional games exist where it might be extremely likely that your actions hold no influence over events, in reality a player complaining about Quantum Ogres irl is probably a shit player who's never DM'd, doesn't know what 'GM' means, and will make up stuff to get mad about.

>>97767871
If you're using quantum orges, you're specifically ignoring player choices (or, really, creating the illusion of player choices when their are none) to force a scenario/encounter/interaction that you want to have happen. If you're just placing the thing that you wanted wherever, regardless of logic or reason, then the players choices make no difference, and you're just leading them to whatever scenario you want. It's literally a game where only the gm's choice matters.

>>97768021
The whole concept of "it doesn't matter if my prep is dogshit if no one notices," is pretty awful.

File: Ha, Gay.png (817 KB, 1050x591)

817 KB PNG

>>97768170
Getting mad at a hypothetical situation you literally just thought up, is orders more ridiculous anon.

>>97751000
I feel like these retarded railroading threads always reach too far up nogames' asses to complain about shit that doesn't fucking matter.

Fact of the matter is when you sit at a table you agree to a social contract with the GM. He has an adventure he wants to run, you're a willing participant in that adventure. You should hash out whether it's gonna be an open world romp, a purely mechanical dungeon dive, or fairly linear adventure from the get-go. You commit to that shit, especially if it's a permade.

If you don't like where things are you going, you don't get to be a disruptive asshat ruining the game for everyone. You approach the GM after a session and discuss how to make things more interesting for you. Maybe the GM can adjust. Maybe your desires are incompatible with the style of game the GM wants to run and you have to leave the table. Everything else is nogames whinging about shit that DOESN'T MATTER.

File: 1758546777006224.png (36 KB, 154x158)

36 KB PNG

Holy fucking shit why is this topic always up with a 100+ replies? How many times do you need to make the same argument over and over again you fucking retards? Thank fucking god you losers never actually play games or interact with people in general.

>>97767847
No no, PbtA faggot is the guy who tried to make storyshitting a meme, he's a retarded asshole and he always gives himself away, so I call him out. He thinks a GM should be prohibited from making decisions about the rules and should only every do anything if a player prompts him to do it. If players come to a town, and the GM< decides there's organized crime there, in his mind that's railroading. Crimson Desert must be like crack to him.

>>97768450
it's an important issue for people who play games

not that you'd know anything about that

>>97768370
the social contract is that you will run the game, not railroad me

Nobody will run a game for a worthless troll like you.

>>97765935
>One is actual choices and consequences, one is hand holding players through your novel.
No. Nice try though, Captain Hyperbole.

>things happen because of the decisions the players made
>things happen because the GM decides that they happen.
Both of these things happen all the time in *actual* games being played by actual human beings.
And the players generally have no idea how much is which or which is which.

>>97765982
>You're giving them a curated experience and assuming you know the one best way to play, and that way is having combat when you say they have it. If you let things happen naturally you'll leave a space to be surprised and get something better than your expectations, otherwise you're setting a roof that's as high as your own personal assumptions.
This is actually a fair criticism and it came up in a discussion ages ago.
It is why I shifted my opinion from "fudging rolls is sometimes okay" to "the GM should almost never fudge the rolls"
Going with the unexpected can have a better outcome than what the GM imagines.

That said, the advice has absolutely nothing to do with using a quantum ogre to ensure a prepared encounter is used by placing it the path the PCs choose.

This is giving me an idea for my own thread. Later though.

>>97768487
This is a game, not your girlfriend’s pegging session with you, OP.

>>97768487
That's right, I'm running the game, so I get to decide where it's set, what options are available to the players, what options are banned, the tone of the game, the themes of the game, the inciting incident that gets your faggot ass characters on their quest to have an adventure, and in turn you have the ability to decide how the situations I present you with are resolved within the rules of the game and whatever makes sense with the other parameters I've given you. That's how a TTRPG works, you utter midwit. The GM cannot produce a game that is both satisfying to the players and also completely randomly generated and/or made up on the spot. You're going to have inconsistencies within the game world, especially if you don't put any limitations on player options to fit the setting. If your setting doesn't have Hadozee and your dumb ass lets your players play Hadozee, then how the fuck did that fat hippo fuck get there?! WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE?!

No, the GM has to put limits on the game, specifically setting up the framing for the adventure which includes what mechanical game options are not allowed or are being introduced as homebrew. You are such a retard you probably think it's okay for the GM to spring new rules on the players at random because "IT WASNT PREPLANNED SO IT WASNT RAILROADING", you insignificant mentally retarded fuck.

Railroading is specifically the GM forcing the players to follow one linear, pre-planned series of events with zero control or choice. It's why it's called railroading you zoomer fuck, because it's like riding a fucking train. You are going from A to B with no control of how you get there! ON FUCKING RAILS! Thus, even if a game has a pre-defined starting point and a premise, it isn't a fucking railroad if the players have the agency to choose how they deal with the situations they are presented! You dense, illiterate fuck!

If you don't like the game's premise or parameters, you can fuck off and go be a pathetic nogames

>>97769876
>No, the GM has to put limits on the game
save everybody the trouble and just stick to video games

>>97769885
No, anon, you’re still not allowed to play your chaos space marine in my Call of Cthulhu game. No, I don’t care that you already made the sheet. You can either roll one up now here in front of us or go home. No, this isn’t railroading, it’s you holding up the game by being a jerk.

>>97769973
nobody's "playing" anything in your kinetic novel

>>97769982
Look, anon, I know you’re still upset how everyone laughed at you for bringing in that my little pony character to our game, but you have to understand, ponies don’t normally talk in Deadlands. Or use magic.

No, I don’t care how fuckable you think the art was, I had to put my foot down somewhere.

>>97770004
don't think you're going to cut it as a novelist either

>>97770016
We’re just trying to play a game, anon. You don’t need you to show us all the lolicon images you referenced for your new Cyberpunk character. You should probably focus on putting your pants back on first before you leave.

>>97769885
You are a fucking retard. You're the one suggesting the game be run like modded fucking skyrim where it's a clusterfuck of nonsensical bullshit and nothing of value ever happens.

>>97769982
KINETIC NOVEL?! ARE YOU JUST MAKING UP WORDS NOW?! What the fuck do you think kinetic means you braindead fuck?! IT MEANS MOTION. MOVEMENT. IT MEANS THINGS ARE HAPPENING.

AND WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK MAKES THINGS HAPPEN?! OH RIGHT, THE FUCKING PLAYER CHARACTERS, AKA THE PROTAGONISTS AKA THE FOCUS OF THE FUCKING STORY.

You are perhaps the most retarded individual I've ever seen on this website, and I've been here since 2011. YOUR OWN STUPID BUZZWORD BULLSHIT debunks your nonsensical claims. Just because you can't make bugs bunny space marine with the sharingan, a bankai, and domain expansion doesn't mean the game is a railroad you dense motherfucker. It means that the players have a solidified setting to interact with through their characters, and that their choices and actions have actual meaning and weight instead of just being what you want, which is them pissing into the void.

You want the players to have the illusion of choice where nothing they do matters. I want my players to make actual choices that actually have an impact on the game world. You are a railroading faggot because no matter what choices your players make, nothing they do matters. I am not, because everything my players do matters by virtue of there being a fucking game world to react to their choices that is internally consistent (it has verisimilitude) and isn't just random bullshit that inherently cannot have cause and effect through player choice.

>>97770038
chatGPT post

>>97770048
Actually mcfucking kill yourself you dumb yakubian ape. You subhuman spawn of a cheap whore. You actual waste of matter. You degenerate piece of shit. You are quite frankly, the most retarded human I've ever met, and that's saying something. You should fucking kill yourself because my god, are you actively a detriment to humanity as a species.

>>97770064
>Aspie is having himself a meltie old time

>>97770215
Still somehow more respectable than the No-games posting on 4chan.

>>97770267
Opinions vary

>>97770274
Considering how the no-games a liar and pedophile, it’s a pretty close race, but they inch out just ahead in the loser competition

>>97770282
Your incessant crying isn't helping

>>97770338
I don’t know why you’re crying, OP. Someone will surely sit down at your table once you remove your head from your ass. I believe in you.

>>97770369
I'm not even OP. Lol. Just an objective observer and if that bothers you, that's just too fucking bad

>>97770386
Doesn’t bother me you’re so upset. Maybe you should talk to your therapist about it.

>>97769876
>It's why it's called railroading you zoomer fuck, because it's like riding a fucking train.
What the fuck makes you think a zoomer on 4chan knows what a "train" is, let alone what riding one is like?

>>97770038
I think you've lost your place in your reply chain, little guy.

>>97770683
The comparison to a kinetic novel gave it away it was all from some lonely /v/tard troll anyways. Usually the comparison they make is to a physical book, not to light novel schlock.

>>97770520
You should try crying about it

>>97770215
>Y-you're mad!
Why shouldn't I be angry that ignorance and stupidity reign supreme while actual intellectual thought is discarded like so much trash? Why should I not be frustrated that retards like (you) are a vocal minority with too much influence, and the rest of us with actual brain cells are suffering for it?

>>97771346
A bit too late on that one, trigger. Have a nice day with your mom’s boyfriend.

>>97771499
I don't hover on 4chan like some annoying mosquito like you

>>97771431
You should try crying about it

>>97771552
If you’re going to try and get me mad at this point, the least you could do is call me a grannies or use a racial slur. As it is, you just make it clearer and clearer the “no games” appellation applies more to you, considering you’re far more steamed about this worthless topic than anyone here, OP.

>>97771716
I'm not. I don't care. Watching you get your panties in a wad is worth it. You've been crying this whole fucking thread and I've barely participated in it. But calling you out is hilarious because you turn into a huge whiney faggot each and every time, just like you're doing right now. No one likes you, your family doesn't like you, hell, even your dog doesn't like you. I know because you're a frothing at the mouth retard and that's just pathetic. You probably sleep with the lights on lol

>>97771767
You should stop talking about yourself in the third person. I’m sure your dog doesn’t hate you that much.

>>97751000
Seething lmao

>>97772100
The tactics of the weak-minded are trying to turn someone's argument against them. It's because you really don't have anything to say and nothing original to add, at any rate. Lol, but feel free to continue to get blown tf out, idc

>>97772169
Considering you made an entire thread to continue an argument that you started and lost, I think you’re the one getting btfo by yourself, OP. Especially since you keep projecting this hard about everything due to being unable to handle being a player but too lazy to be a DM, leaving you to sulk to yourself in threads like this.

>>97772205
Again, I'm not OP. I'm just someone witnessing your little temper tantrum. Hell, OP probably abandoned this thread 100 posts ago. I found some decent discussion on prep tho, if that means anything to you. I posted twice itt before I ever responded to you. Continue to have a meltdown tho. Please, at your leisure

File: Screenshot_20260325-18032(...).jpg (96 KB, 589x800)

96 KB JPG

>>97768370
>I feel like these retarded railroading threads always reach too far up nogames' asses to complain about shit that doesn't fucking matter.
You're not wrong.
It's possible to have intelligent discussions about what is and is not railroading. We've done it before.
But mostly now see idiots lying to themselves that pretending to be retarded and pointlessly arguing on the internet is just as good as playing traditional games with friends.

>>97768450
>Holy fucking shit why is this topic always up with a 100+ replies?
Mostly because nobody reads the pdf.

>>97772644
Uh, what? There's a PDF? Where?

>>97772390
>i-i-i-im not having a meltdown, you are!
If it helps you sleep at night, OP.

>>97772644
The main issue with these discussions is that there should be an agreed upon definition for what “railroading” is. Unfortunately, most people have their own and refuse to budge from it no matter what, so the discussion becomes less about what railroading is and more about what it isn’t.

>>97773038
You should try crying about it

>>97772673
Quickest way to find it is to search for the filename "Tracksinthesand" on 4plebs.
Or you can type in the url on the bottom of that pic.

Apparently, we made it nearly a decade ago.

>>97770648
My friend, look me in the metaphorical eye and tell me someone as autistic as OP doesn't know what a train is.

Alternative joke, he 100% knows what a train is, it's what all those black guys do to his sister in the next room every night.

File: Screenshot_20260325-19131(...).jpg (107 KB, 714x857)

107 KB JPG

>>97773050
>The main issue with these discussions is that there should be an agreed upon definition for what “railroading” is.
That's why we defined it in that thread.

>Unfortunately, most people have their own and refuse to budge from it no matter what
If someone insists that a potato is a broadsword, I stop engaging with them.

>>97773132
Heh
Well played.

I'm not autistic myself but I overthink enough to both be spectrum adjacent and to have anticipated a (less humorous) response like that. That's why I added the bit about riding one. You know OP doesn't leave his house.

>>97773122
Ah, ty. I really need to bookmark that site

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7kuHD71XrA

Dungeons are the focus of RPGs, not railroads.

>>97774950
Pleas tell us the last time you have personally experienced a DM trying to railroad your table against your will

>>97775564
When I played Adventure League with strangers.

>>97773050
>Railroading, in the purest sense of the term, is something that happens at the gaming table: It is the precise moment at which the GM negates a player’s choice.

>>97768854
>It is why I shifted my opinion from "fudging rolls is sometimes okay" to "the GM should almost never fudge the rolls"
Good man

>>97768370
>the social contract is to play whatever the DM has prepared
not quite, it's more productive to ask the players what they want to play at the end of the previous session, to ensure that the DM has prepared something favorable to the players

>>97768166
I really cannot wrap my head around DMs using quantum ogres. It's always the same defenses too. Like okay, you're deadset on there being an "ogre" in the next session, you prepped a really cool fight for it. You need to A. allow the players to figure out where the ogre is, and B. not be upset if the players decide to circumvent the encounter in any number of ways. It should in no way be like a movie.

>>97767949
I agree with the sentiment and not the tone. It's clear reading these threads and comments on youtube videos that there's a lot of bad faith DMs that are obsessed with shitting out their story and forcing their group to play through them. It needs to be pointed out and criticized.

>>97767883
Ironically you can tell if there's no telltale signs of the encounter. For example when I plan a bandit ambush the players are able to notice slashes on trees, blood trails and dead wild life, when they roll perception. If the bandits simply spring an attack, you just *know* the DM pulled a quantum ogre. Those bandits *weren't there* seconds prior.

>>97767860
>Part of the social contract of a TTRPG is that the GM is going to give a plot hook to start the game, and the players are going to make characters that are willing to go along with that plot hook.
Not necessarily, it's about the execution. TTRPGs should almost never ever be like "oh I see, the adventure is this direction, we need to go this direction" it should be more like "there's a lead we COULD follow up on, however maybe we should search around more, this town seems of interest too"

>>97767851
A quantum ogre is always planned? what do you think they are

>>97768450
As long as you continue to have incorrect opinions, the thread will continue to be made.

>>97768370
Railroading isn't fun for me, the GM. So I don't.

>>97767837
Why aren't you reading a book if you want a story?

>>97767766
>As opposed to what?
Doing what the players want to do? what kind of question is that. Not everything is part of an overarching narrative. Maybe the players decline the invitation of the local lord, and they hang around in town, get into tavern brawls, and a villager goes missing.

>>97765462
where?

>>97767764
A quantum ogre is the result of a DM moving an encounter before players, most likely repeatedly in order to ensure it happens. It's always premeditated.

>>97779058
Agree. It's hard for me to criticize my friend to his face about his crap DMing but I'll do it if it gets too bad

>>97779159
All over this thread

>>97767755
>How do they realize there's a quantum ogre?
If the encounter is sudden without any lead up, it's a telltale sign it's quantum. In a dungeon, was the ogre asleep when the players went through a door? I'd wager anything no, because then the players could kill it impromptu, it's much more likely it's awake and for no reason is just standing there, catching players off guard in an illogical encounter.

>>97767688
>If one door leading to the ogre is combt and one door leading to the ogre is stealth, then players are very unlikely to ever notice that the ogre encounter was inevitable
That's not the same encounter though, it's besides the point.

>>97767228
>No DM actually runs the strawman quantum ogre scenario
No but I've seen examples of DMs deadset on an ogre, and whether the players go to the swamp or around a cliff, they spring an ogre on them. Despite it not being obvious to the players it really just strikes as lazy. When you get right down to it, why not go an extra step and vary the monster you encounter. I wager most DMs have access to hundreds of different monsters. Reusing the one you prepared is a bad sign behind the screen.

>>97753214
XCOM, rimworld, and factorio are better roleplaying games than almost any roleplaying game. Because 1 - your decisions matter and 2 - for the most part, they don't tell you what to care about and 3 - they let the player set his own goals and decide how to go about accomplishing those goals. Some of them are better at 2 and 3 than others, but they are all infinitely better than almost any game ever run at a table by a person.

>>97779177
I roll for random encounters still. If the party gets ambushed, it often happens with no lead up I might give a little clue but they rarely pick up on it. "The forest suddenly goes silent. The wind picks up and starts to moan..." Me, I'm immediately drawing my weapon. Players ain't what they used to be

>>97766277
Same, the reason I like to detail so many aspects of the world is because I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT, I would never be satisfied if there was something interesting I never fleshed out.

>>97779210
You would win that wager

>>97779218
Nah. No computer game can match the organic sponginess of human interaction.

>>97765866
I would argue that D&D by default is a sandbox. The types of encounters a DM can place that exemplify that premise is a large pit in a dungeon. There's so many ways to interact and "solve" the pit, and the DM shouldn't be one to favor one solution or the other. They should be interested to see how players choose to deal with it.

>>97762291
spot on

>>97751331
No you didn't.

>>97762281
Leveraging railroads and quantum ogres skirts the need for crafting worlds that feel lived in and believable. You wind up with locations where nothing exists beyond the player's eyes, instead of conceptualizing the ongoing events off screen. Most video games cannot achieve the level of realism in TTRPG run by a DM who cares.

>>97779234
Me I would say lets turn back guys.

>>97779291
I really did, I wanted to follow up my thread with one on a slightly different subject that led back into railroading and quantum ogre, I was going to also bring up fudging dice rolls which never came up before.

>>97753248
No, prep has nothing to do with railroading.

>>97779331
Oh no! You have run into the quantum ogre's carefully laid trap!

Yeah, no I won't do that. They might chase you and even catch some of your group but if your proactive about your fate, I'm guns make some fair rolls and see what happens. You'll probably get away...7 out of 10 times, I reckon.

Smart move, anon

>>97779292
This. Exactly this. This shouldn't even be an argument

>>97779351
Just let them be mad over nothing, dude. No matter what you say here, someone is going to be the biggest fucking crybaby they can be because it's 4chan. I wouldn't explain myself to any of these faggots. I don't have to justify anything to them and you don't either.

>>97779475
I don't have to outrun the bear, senpai ..
FAST AS FUCK BOYS

>>97779661
Monk shenanigans if I've ever seen them

>>97779488
Most of the argument is because one faggot keeps trying to conflate the ideas of a quantum ogre and railroading with any level of preparation before, rather than what I’d argue is a sign of a lack of preparation due to how railroading and quantum ogres more often come from a GM that is very inflexible in how their game is run and trying to “force” it onto a path they feel they can control at the expense of the fun of the rest of the table.

Otherwise, it’s mostly just people arguing back and forth over whether “reusing” game elements and scenarios that get skipped over or never discovered by players is okay due to the time it saves and how the players wouldn’t find the difference anyways, or unacceptable because it goes against the spirit of spontaneity and can erode trust between the DM and party if discovered.

While I’m on the side that doesn’t see an issue with reusing encounters, namely in that players generally never notice or have their fun impeded, I think it’s fully credible trying to run your table with a focus entirely around purely reacting to how the table operates if that’s how your table rolls. I’ve scrapped many planned encounters and npc meetings in favor of just winging it because circumstances changed, and it’s not been that much of a detriment to me. But not every DM is comfortable with that, and not every table will run itself that way. I do think there’s be more headway in this kind of constant discussion if people would be willing to accede that there are merits to both planning shit out well in advance as well as just rolling the punches. But it’s usually just shitflinging about someone else “doing it wrong”.

>>97779351
Just fucking do it, don’t be a weenie about it.

>>97779703
Yeah I can agree with this. Improv is not my strong suit, no matter how well I've mastered the system. Thinking on the fly is easy; actually implementing what I've thought of right then and there is an actual skill. I'm not bad at it, I've ran games for a long time. But I'll roll for random encounters before the game even begins by weeks if need be. I want everything to have that "lived in" feeling that you touched on. I will visualize everything ahead of time, just to be able to answer questions quickly. I think quickly myself so I would appreciate such a gesture. ADHD is a hell of it's own. It makes for interesting games ig but it can be super tiring at the end of a session

>>97779703
I will post a thread after this one archives, considering the OP doesn't immediately post another. It's almost at bump limit, and I will continue discussions I've had here.

I prefer not to reuse encounters because of how hamfisted they will feel. If you have to change out the enemies encountered, the story beats, and the locations, then I do believe it would be easier to draft new content.

>>97780321
Sometimes I have an encounter that got skipped that I just. can't. let. go. It haunts my dreams and walking life. Like Cthulhu.

>>97780545
If the encounter fits go ahead lol, I am more speaking about DMs that strip down their work and try to jam it somewhere. Just make something new lol.

>>97780560
Yeah I agree. I'm just autistic about what I know for sure will work. I'm not throwing goblins against a group in the middle of town (unless it's being attacked by goblins) but a succubus disguised as a courtesan could be around every corner until I catch someone unaware. I need to stop doing that but idk, it feels like I can't help it at this point

>>97780253
I know the feeling. I used to try to go completely improv. But for me personally, it was tiring because I had to not only keep making shit up, I had to keep track of what I made up and somehow work that all together to seem like a cohesive series of events instead of just random bullshit. My friends don’t mind it as much, but I find it draining. I find doing at least some prep makes it a lot easier to just go improv if the rest of the table does something I didn’t plan for, since at least I have something to start with over nothing.

>>97780321
And honestly, all the power to you for that. I
Me, I just find it more satisfying to give my players something a bit more meaty than just random enemies to fight all the time. Doesn’t mean I’m so attached that I won’t dispose of events and enemy encounters if it would fit better with their decisions, but if they end up encountering the main villain number two either earlier or later than intended due to circumstances, I don’t think that’s so egregious.

>>97780658
Yeah, that's a very valid point. Unless you are actually voice recording your game, you will forget something. You WILL. Ts breaks my immersion every single time. I didn't expect players to remember everything all the time. That's what notes are for, honestly. But when I forget something, buddy, I'm *distressed*

>>97779034
There are a lot of reasons to use them.

>You need to A. allow the players to figure out where the ogre is
Sometimes the entire point of the "ogre" is a surprise. Constantly letting the players know about the challenge well in advance so that they can optimize the best way to minimize or avoid risk isn't always the only fun way to play.
Sometimes players like being surprised too.
They know where the ogre is when they encounter the ogre.

>and B. not be upset if the players decide to circumvent the encounter in any number of ways.
Agreed.
Ideally, trying to avoid the encounter or run away from it is always something the GM should accept.
If you plan an ambush in the road and the players decide to fuck off through the forest then you've got a chase encounter instead of a combat. Maybe they get away.
I once had a player try to oneshot an encounter by interrupting the goon and shooting a fire arrow into a cask of wine to make it explode. After the ensuing discussion about the relative flammable properties of alcohol, I described him shooting the barrel and it exploding dramatically, taking out half the goons and the leader calling them idiots for not realizing it was "dwarven wine". The encounter was over in a couple rounds but we had fun and dwarven wine became a thing.

Players creatively circumventing the expected way the encounter would proceed is awesome.
Players turning the opposite direction when they encounter something they imagine is prepared material is just them being annoying contrarian asshats.

>It should in no way be like a movie.
Assuming you're just talking about the scripted aspect, yeah. Literally tho, there's a lot of ways it's great for a game to be me like a movie.

>>97783268
>Sometimes the entire point of the "ogre" is a surprise.
Okay, I'm listening.
>allowing them to optimize the best way to minimize or avoid risk isn't always the only fun way to play
>Sometimes players like being surprised too.

>They know where the ogre is when they encounter the ogre.
Is there more you can divulge here, I am awaiting why you believe this so?

>If you plan an ambush in the road and the players decide to fuck off through the forest then you've got a chase encounter instead of a combat.
Not nessciarially, this seems to suggest you really are dead set on this bandit encounter you prepared. Sure it's nice you allowed some variety, and for the opportunity to avoid it should they succeed the chase.
>The encounter was over in a couple rounds but we had fun and dwarven wine became a thing.
Wonderful!

>there's a lot of ways it's great for a game to be me like a movie
Personally, the only one I accept is the emergent properties of the gameplay. Such as a player being at death's door and rolling a natural 20. That should feel cinematic, and you should play it up. Everyone loves a great dice roll in the heat of the moment.
What I mean is more aimed at perhaps the chase that your brought up, as a game, if the players notice the ambush and scram, it need not be a big chase, it can just be the players scurrying into the woods with no fanfare. Gameplay above all.

>>97779150
>Maybe the players decline the invitation of the local lord, and they hang around in town, get into tavern brawls, and a villager goes missing.
Cool.
The evil mage that the local lord wanted the party to investigate is responsible for the missing villager. Boom. Ties back into the narrative.
See how that works?
"Doing what the players want" is not mutually exclusive from the narrative.
That's why I asked.

If there isn't a central narrative to go back to, the entire game is just "then you fight these guys, then these guys, then these, numbers go up, then these guys, maybe roleplay a bit, go fight these guys". It's unsatisfying pointless meandering that nobody cares about because none of it matters to anyone for any reason. It's just faffing about.

If the players don't care about the Lord, then maybe the villager that went missing is the father of their favorite barmaid.
The GM crafts a primary narrative and then keeps the game directed towards it so that the sessions resolve with some satisfaction.
If the players decide that they prefer another objective for the main narrative than the original, the GM should adapt.
If the players of a Call of Cthulhu game decide they want to drive to Florida and kill hookers instead of investigate, which is a real example, the GM didn't sign up for that shit.

I refuse to run slice of life games and I don't understand why anyone would. I'm not running a game for the players to *only* brawl drunk villagers in taverns and fuck around.

>>97779161
>most likely repeatedly in order to ensure it happens.
That is how players notice it. When the ogre reappears elsewhere when they try to avoid it. No GM should do that and it's not an inherent aspect of a quantum ogre.

>>97779177
Unless it's an ambush, my encounters are always doing something. I had a Snorlax fat ogre sleeping in the only clear path once. The players woke it up and befriended the bastard.

>>97783382
>The evil mage that the local lord wanted the party to investigate is responsible for the missing villager. Boom. Ties back into the narrative.
Not the angle I would have gone with lol. The villager was carried into a sewer by an unrelated monster. The plot with the king can wait.
>"Doing what the players want" is not mutually exclusive from the narrative.
I consider it so, though. The villager going missing, the brawls at the tavern, those were supposed to be different experiences gauging what the players might prefer.

>If there isn't a central narrative to go back to, the entire game is just "then you fight these guys, then these guys
>to go back to
Well there might not be a "central narrative" established yet, we would still be gauging what players might like to do.
>It's just faffing about.
Yeah, but roleplaying opportunities. Premises that allow players to demonstrate their character, so I can appropriate the campaign.
>If the players don't care about the Lord, then maybe the villager that went missing is the father of their favorite barmaid.
Go on.
>The GM crafts a primary narrative and then keeps the game directed towards it
>so that the sessions resolve with some satisfaction.
You lost me.

>If the players decide that they prefer another objective for the main narrative than the original, the GM should adapt.
Precisely!
>Call of Cthulhu
I'm unfamiliar with that system.
>I refuse to run slice of life games and I don't understand why anyone would.
Well it's not a "slice of life game" I'm talking about, it's just those things are NOT mutually exclusive, and it literally brings the game world to life. It gets players interested in a town, in the named characters, the goings ons. Considering they decline the invitation to the castle, and decide to "faff around" it's best to lean into it and use some encounters to suss out what would be best moving forward.

>>97783414
>The players woke it up and befriended the bastard.
hella based

>>97783325
>Is there more you can divulge here, I am awaiting why you believe this so?
I'm not sure what you're asking here.

>Not nessciarially, this seems to suggest you really are dead set on this bandit encounter you prepared. Sure it's nice you allowed some variety, and for the opportunity to avoid it should they succeed the chase.
Well, the the bad guys planned an ambush, sprung an ambush, and then the players run away, chasing them seems more likely than them deciding to shrug and go get a pizza instead. It kinda depends on their motivations, which I didn't make for this hypothetical.
Bandits might think they're easy prey or they might just wait for the next travelers. Assassins would definitely chase.

Hard rule at my table is that whatever has already been established is real, even if it ruins my plans or theirs.

>>97783515
>I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Well you said sometimes it's better that the quantum ogre is surprising the players, rather than just being an ogre that you hand placed somewhere specifically, somewhere that it's possible for players to detect and prepare for. I'm curious why you are saying this.

>chasing them seems more likely
I see, so I ask was it even possible for the players to notice and avoid the encounter? It would be nice to see you say "yes it was possible, but they failed the dice rolls"
>they might just wait for the next travelers
For sure, considering they simply wanted to mug anyone?
>Assassins would definitely chase
I can see that, I also imagine they would choose to make the encounter in a more enclosed space, and perhaps when a player's guard is down too.

>>97783442
>>"Doing what the players want" is not mutually exclusive from the narrative.
>I consider it so, though.
You can consider them different things, but they don't have to be unless the players explicitly say that they don't want to it, like they don't want to mess with the evil mage. They get the consequences of that but then a new main narrative comes up.
And not every side quest needs to be related but it can all connect. Maybe they can discover they can use the keepsake fang from the sewer monster to help defeat the mage. Unrelated monster becomes related after the fact.

>Go on.
I said that in connection with the father being taken by the evil mage. They don't care about the mage or the Lord, but they care about the barmaid.
Fuck the Lord.
Fuck the evil mage's plan.
The party sets out to save the barmaid's smile!
Still the same core narrative, only flavored so the players enjoy it.
Quantum Narrative instead of Quantum Ogre.

>>The GM crafts a primary narrative and then keeps the game directed towards it
>>so that the sessions resolve with some satisfaction.
>You lost me.
Players feel more satisfied when they've accomplished something more than making numbers go higher or killing the Monster Of The Week. Progressing towards a goal along the narrative is a great way to accomplish that.

>those were supposed to be different experiences gauging what the players might prefer.
Fair.
I actually tend to seed my setting with proto-BBEG. Undeveloped antagonists that the players choose by which plot hooks they choose. And as the players get stronger, the antagonist develops in and out of the game. It might be a one-line idea at the start like "mage wants ninja turtles". As they get closer, he firms and affects the narrative they're choosing.

And sometimes I run a modified module and it's set up for them to plow through how they want.

>>97759839
>Higher quality work would imagine a scenario where the bandits can be dealt with in a multitude of ways, all at the player's discretion.
I disagree. I'm not talking about "The bandits always appear in front of the player, eat shit." I'm talking about "The bandits are actively hunting for the players and intend to find them."

How to deal with that is up to the players, but assuming they won't let up (They killed the bandit leaders favourite fuckboy or something) then it's legit to have NPCs be as proactive as PCs.
It's not railroading, it's believable action on the part of characters apart from them.

>>97783442
>>Call of Cthulhu
>I'm unfamiliar with that system
The point of that system is that it's Eldritch Horror investigation. It isn't GTA: Miami!
Those players were childish dicks.
Not my story though.

>>97783442
>>It's just faffing about.
>Yeah, but roleplaying opportunities.
>decide to "faff around" it's best to lean into it and use some encounters to suss out what would be best moving forward.
At my table, faffing about is reserved for a little bit of downtime and the start or end of sessions. It's not the entire session. I don't have endless free time and I don't game to describe an open world for players to mill about waiting for something to strike their fancy when it's entirely possible that nothing will.
In practice it ends up being a lot of silly joking and wasting time doing nothing and expecting me to provide the equivalent of ttrpg fidget spinners.

I offer details and lean into their interests ...as we proceed down the narrative.
They can stop and smell the flowers along the way but we need to be moving on the way towards something.
I'm not providing endless fields of flowers until they sniff the right one.

They get three Pokemon to sniff and then choose one and go pants Gary Oaks or whatever madness they want to do.
But they need a direction to proceed in.

>>97783560
>you said sometimes it's better that the quantum ogre is surprising the players, rather than just being an ogre that you hand placed somewhere specifically, somewhere that it's possible for players to detect and prepare for. I'm curious why you are saying this.
What I said was:
>Sometimes the entire point of the "ogre" is a surprise.
As in, a surprise ambush. Or discovering the statues are alive. Or it's really Christopher Walken in a box. Or literally anything.
Sometimes the entire point *is* the surprise. Letting the players know in advance where they can find the surprise negates the surprise.

>was it even possible for the players to notice and avoid the encounter?
In most cases, yeah. If they're elite assassins outclassing the players' ability to detect, than no.
Seems like an unfair encounter tho, unless it's ninjas versus underestimated tanks.
It varies.

>>97783749
>As in, a surprise ambush.
And it's worth noting that if the players encounter an ambush and spot it, they're likely close enough for the ambush to still be sprung. It'd just be radically less effective. Like, rolls with disadvantage instead of with advantage in D&D.

And the whole point of designing encounters is that they're fun to play. Most players aren't trying to outright avoid encounters. They're curious about them.
Oh, they'll push to get the upper hand and avoid risk. But they're not playing the game to avoid the game.

>>97783621
>They get the consequences of that
I don't see why they would, all things considering it probably will impact NPCs more than PCs.
>but then a new main narrative comes up
of course
>And not every side quest needs to be related
indeed
>but it can all connect
I advise against this, it can make players feel railroaded.
>Maybe they can discover they can use the keepsake fang from the sewer monster to help defeat the mage.
Perhaps, considering they do want to contend with the mage. Also, maybe there's a crafting system idk.

>I said that in connection with the father being taken by the evil mage.
If the players are going that route maybe.
>They don't care about the mage or the Lord
So they aren't.
>but they care about the barmaid
Maybe, but from my angle that's unrelated. You said yourself that things not being related would be okay.
>The party sets out to save the barmaid's smile!
If that's their choice.
>Still the same core narrative
Yeah I wouldn't go that route. The players clearly want to save the barmaid? and they do not answer the call of the lord or this evil mage. So those would be separated.
>Quantum Narrative instead of Quantum Ogre.
Huge red flag, do not use that stuff like ever, anon.

>The GM crafts a primary narrative and then keeps the game directed towards it
Yeah do not do that.
>so that the sessions resolve with some satisfaction
This is a huge assumption on your part, especially in conjunction with trying to force this meta narrative about the lord and evil mage. The players do not want it. They just wanted to save the barmaid. You lost me.
>Players feel more satisfied when they've accomplished something more than making numbers go higher or killing the Monster Of The Week.
They do feel satisfied, when they choose to rescue a barmaid they enjoyed. That's enough.

>Fair.
Thanks.
>I actually tend to seed my setting with proto-BBEG.
Similar, but I do not utilize 'the one' big bad, I like to spin a lot of plates, resolve some behind the scenes,

>>97783621
CONTINUED

and follow up on the plots the players are interested in.

>>97783696
>I disagree.
This should be interesting
>I'm not talking about "The bandits always appear in front of the player, eat shit."
ok
>I'm talking about "The bandits are actively hunting for the players and intend to find them."
I'm curious what the in-universe reason for that would be. I of course was just talking about a random bandit enounter, because the DM prepared it.
>but assuming they won't let up
>They killed the bandit leaders favourite fuckboy or something
That explains it
>it's legit to have NPCs be as proactive as PCs
Are you referring to the bandits? That's akin to what I mentioned in the previous comment about spinning a lot of plates, these bandits of yours would be one of them.
>It's not railroading, it's believable action on the part of characters apart from them.
True

>>97783700
>At my table, faffing about is reserved for a little bit of downtime and the start or end of sessions.
Interesting, I'm not sure I would reserve activities the players wish to partake in.
>I don't game to describe an open world for players to mill about waiting for something to strike their fancy
I highly recommend it, give it a try if you haven't in a while. Seasoned players might really enjoy the freedom.
>it's entirely possible that nothing will.
That speaks to a greater threat to the sessions I think. As long as you're pitching adventure hooks, eventually they will latch onto one. I don't think any players would ever decline every adventure hook you could brace them with, it wouldn't make sense.
>I offer details and lean into their interests ...as we proceed down the narrative.
Hopefully their narrative. During a session 0 it's highly advantageous to build your setting with your players in mind, implement their background lore into it. They will have motivations baked right in. Naturally they will want to pursue them.

>>97783749
>Letting the players know in advance where they can find the surprise negates the surprise.
Not sure I agree, just because you know someone has something for your birthday, doesn't remove the surprise of the gift itself.

>>97783780
From my perspective I think I'm concerned with the roleplaying opportunities. Like if you were being mugged there would be opportunities to intimidate the enemies and you could avoid a fight that way, for instance.

>troll gets another 300 posts
I'm pretty sure he's LARPing as an energy vampire and hinted that in the OP.

>>97784416
I really do not understand your motivations. You clearly aren't here discussing anything, and merely want to mouth off. I'm not even the OP, I made the previous thread, and I'm here discussing things with other participants.

Ahh! He tried to drain me!
lol he doesn't actually have any powers.

>>97751000
But what is a man?

>>97784681
A miserable pile of secrets

File: 1299637987144.jpg (92 KB, 406x480)

92 KB JPG

>>97751000

>>97779351
That's not a better way.

>>97779255
Yep, you don't get it.

>>97779703
I can't imagine why I would every need to reuse an encounter. I don't have discrete encounters. The players find stuff in the places they go depending on what's there. All I have to do is imagine it. What could be easier?

>>97780735
Are you not taking notes as you run the game or something?

>>97783268
So many reasons that you couldn't name a single one.

>>97783382
The narrative is whatever happens during the game. Stop forcing events. If your players don't find a particular event interesting, take the hint and come up with something else.

>>97783382
Wrong. You don't get to decide what the central narrative is. The players do, by the goals that they set.

>>97785678
I absolutely get it. I've had the same though-when I was 12 fucking years old. Grow up. Grow your fucking brain

>>97785692
Yes but I miss things sometimes. My games are information dense. Not always but enough that little things will get overlooked. It happens to everyone. I've had campaigns run for years at a time. That's almost a guarantee something will be forgotten. It's weird what little details a player might remember too! So it's better to just take copius amounts of notes. It kinda sucks but if rather be prepared for player questions than just be drawing blanks

>>97785688
Cool, now do this every single game for hours on end for years, making every encounter unique to said location, without ever repeating them. More importantly, do this without any notes or documentation while having a job or college shit to worry about.

“What could be easier?” Is the kind of twerp sentence made by someone who hasn’t ever actually done this shit. Or at least only run a session once or twice and thinks they’re hot shit in a champagne glass when they’re more like cold diarrhea on a Dixie cup. If you always make shit up off the cuff, sooner or later you’re going to end up repeating things or contradicting previous sessions, it’s a fact. Don’t go pretending that this stuff is so easy, it’s not. Note taking and prep was made to make life more convenient and games more exciting for the table, not to torture players. Unless your table is a bunch of weirdos who see nothing wrong with just slaying goblins every single game with no variation. I can’t help you there then.

>>97785703
>>97785709
I take to it from your posts you have never played anything more higher brained than “dungeon here, plunder dungeon” then. Players generally don’t shot out entire kingdoms full of backstory and events to subsequently explore, they expect the GM to do that. And if the best you got is nothing at all or just something made up on the spot, they’re going to see how little you actually care in turn.

>>97751000
>thread linking to an old thread
yikes

>>97786237
Yeah, that's more than sus right there.

>>97786002
No, you don't get it.

>>97786163
Done, and easily.

>>97786189
My games don't even have dungeons. You're so fucking mad that I'm better than you lol.

>>97786971
You contend that video games are more fecund in the fields of imagination for humans and I disagree with you. I get it. Sorry for your brainrot

>>97786993
You're right. You are better than me. I yield

>>97786980
Prove it right here and now, chode

>>97786993
You don’t play tabletop games by your own admission. Who would be mad at a know nothing loser like you?

>>97787223
That's not what I contended, so yeah. You don't get it.