Choo-Choo yes? Is railroading REALLY that bad?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Put me on the side that linear adventures are different from railroading, and that railroading is inherently bad and comes from a lack of communication between DM/Players. It's also something you should try to fix it with an out of game conversation. Something as simple as the DM saying, "I made this haunted house I want to show off can you guys just do that quest instead of wandering off in the nearby woods?", even "Look I'm not really good/comfortable coming up with interesting stuff on the fly, let's do this haunted house this session and I'll prepare something next session for you where you can explore the woods".

What I've tried to do, which seems to work, is structure choices so that they happen at the end of a session. Players can commit to A or B... or C, but they go away then come back and I've spent more time prepping whatever choice they made. Doesn't always work out timing wise, but as much as possible getting info from your players when you have time to prep is easier to deal with than on the fly.

[ciopo]

To me, it depends a lot on already established motive for my character.

I'm generally easy to buy in, I want plot to happen and I dislike open world.

But the plot has to make sense.

Example : recently in one of my games my party had a teleportation mishap when leaving one of the hells, and found ourselves in a completely different continent than our usual haunts. Party being 7th level, we don't have easy access to teleportation, so this make an easy and nice hook for a coming home adventure with maybe ship/pirate related shenanigans, I'm all for it.
But in this other continent there is a war brewing between empire this and kingdom that, and I feel the gm is kind of pushing us to go partecipate in that in some major way, and I'm like "I don't give a rat ass about this conflict, my priority is getting back home before rent is due and the owlbear cub starve after our servants leave". I will be kind of bummed if we end up conscripted. I'm 100% ready to derail ala "ok we go hunt for dangerous prey in the jungle" aka grind xp until our wizard learns teleportation circle

[kingcheesepants]

I don't mind an only solution situation, so long as I, as a player, am able to find said solution. Clearly the DM has a solution in mind, and clearly he thinks that there are clues enough to find it, and clearly he is incorrect. There are four very experienced mature players and a fifth of moderate experience with a variety of PCs mostly with very good Int and Wis scores, but we are clueless. And in the name of NOT railroading, the DM will not just give it up. To me, the game is at an impasse.

I'm confused as to how only allowing one pre-set solution to work and not allowing any of the players plans or ideas to reveal info (especially as the things that you mentioned seem pretty plausible, to the point that not letting any of them work seems like an artificial constraint to keep players on the DMs pre-set track) is in any way conducive to not railroading. This sounds exactly like railroading to the point that If you repeated your statement and removed the word NOT from before railroading it would make more sense to me.

Basically not railroading means allowing player freedom and respecting player choice and working with players to take the narrative in unexpected directions. This DM is giving players freedom (they can talk to whoever or go wherever and do whatever) but he isn't working with the players choices to forward the narrative since everything they try to do in order to get info leads to a brick wall and only the DMs planned ideas will result in a conclusion.

[elros]

If you define railroading as "A linear adventure" then it's fine, provided everyone at the table is chill with it.

The definition I see most commonly used, though, is railroading is when the DM forces the players along a certain path. That's a problem.

I agree with that definition, and would add that the worst railroading forced the players in a way that is inconsistent with the adventure. If I want my players to go to a location, I may use the “carrot and stick” method to get them to move there, but I would not magically transport them or kidnap a party member (which I have seen happen, BTW).
The goal is to move players somewhere that will be more fun, and not make the players feel like game pieces. And if the players won’t move? Figure out why and go with it.

[Sorinth]

What I've tried to do, which seems to work, is structure choices so that they happen at the end of a session. Players can commit to A or B... or C, but they go away then come back and I've spent more time prepping whatever choice they made. Doesn't always work out timing wise, but as much as possible getting info from your players when you have time to prep is easier to deal with than on the fly.

Yeah that's good advice, and even as a player you should want to give the DM some idea of what your planning because it's only going to help make whatever comes next more interesting/fun/immersive.

[The Glyphstone]

The only time I've ever 'railroaded', it was as much tongue in cheek as anything - we were playing through an extremely linear module, and the bits where it pulled a But Thou Must were gleefully lampshaded by everyone.

[Sorinth]

To me, it depends a lot on already established motive for my character.

I'm generally easy to buy in, I want plot to happen and I dislike open world.

But the plot has to make sense.

Example : recently in one of my games my party had a teleportation mishap when leaving one of the hells, and found ourselves in a completely different continent than our usual haunts. Party being 7th level, we don't have easy access to teleportation, so this make an easy and nice hook for a coming home adventure with maybe ship/pirate related shenanigans, I'm all for it.
But in this other continent there is a war brewing between empire this and kingdom that, and I feel the gm is kind of pushing us to go partecipate in that in some major way, and I'm like "I don't give a rat ass about this conflict, my priority is getting back home before rent is due and the owlbear cub starve after our servants leave". I will be kind of bummed if we end up conscripted. I'm 100% ready to derail ala "ok we go hunt for dangerous prey in the jungle" aka grind xp until our wizard learns teleportation circle

I totally get how you might want one direction and the DM is planning for another direction. But rather then sit there ready to derail the game why not talk to the DM about your concerns and see if there isn't a way to get the two of you (And the other players) on the same page so that the game doesn't get derailed and everyone has fun?

As a DM I would much rather a player come to me and say they aren't feeling the storyline for reasons X, Y, Z as it will allow me to adjust things to either address the concerns, or develop a different/divergent storyline that will. In your example there might be a way to actually get your character to care about the empire/kingdom, did you have a little sister that just went missing one day, what if she turns up married to the King. Now not only do you have an investment in one side over the other, but there's a mystery to be solved of what actually happened to your sister.

[ciopo]

Oh, I've had the out of session talk, I was illustrating a point. Sorry if I've made you worry about bratty player behavior.

(Funnily enough, we're jungling for dragons anyway because bounty on problematic poison over yonder brings honorary citizenship therefore access to the mercantile guilds on the richer side of nearest port city)

(We totally have the squirrel GM and we are equally squirrely)

[Sorinth]

Oh, I've had the out of session talk, I was illustrating a point. Sorry if I've made you worry about bratty player behavior.

(Funnily enough, we're jungling for dragons anyway because bounty on problematic poison over yonder brings honorary citizenship therefore access to the mercantile guilds on the richer side of nearest port city)

(We totally have the squirrel GM and we are equally squirrely)

Good to hear. Those out of game talks really go a long way to making sure everyone at the table is having fun and is the best way of handling pretty much everything.

[RedMage125]

Outside of that context, the "quantum ogre" is indistinguishable from the player perspective from any other means of determining what random encounter happens.

This is exactly what I mentioned in my first post. An example of what I call "soft railroading". So, like as you put it, when it's indistinguishable. Which means the players don't "see the rails".

And it's really only that because some encounters/events have been predetermined by the DM, but as things that the players' agency doesn't factor in to.

However, the reason I'm still willing to call it any for of "railroading" is only because some purists out there seem to believe that if there weren't different possible outcomes from each decision point (for example, players could go west, north, or east), then their agency has somehow been "infringed upon".

[Cheesegear]

But they're not. Sometimes players don't have all the information because it wasn't available.

I've had people on this forum call me a bad DM because I don't give my players all the information they need. Or, if I'm not a bad DM, at least they wouldn't want to play at my table(s).

'Choices must be informed choices, or they are not choices.' - Someone on this forum, probably. I don't know if that person or those people have been seen in this specific thread. But it's definitely been said to me.

...I can't count the number of times my players have spent at least 10 minutes or more, deciding on what to do about a closed door. If you want to find out what's on the other side, if you want to find out whether it's trapped and you just didn't find one...Just open the damn door. But I can't open the door because I don't know what's on the other side.

Players are not necessarily entitled to "all of the information".

Correct.

Not a railroad at all. Player missed the DC.

But it was the DM's choice to set the DC.
It was the DM's choice to place the Galeb Duhr where it was.

Players need to roll dice, players need to ask the DM's permission. What DM ever asks their players' permission to do something? A DM places something in the world, sets the DC, and tells the players to deal with it...Sometimes, the players don't deal with it and disengage. Sometimes, the players engage and can't deal with it and maybe a character dies.

There's an inherent power imbalance. New (and/or bad) players wont see that as part of the game. They'll see that as the DM 'cheating.' Anything the players don't get a say on, anything that happens outside the players' control, anything that happens without the players' foreknowledge...Must be railroading. Because railroading is where you take away player agency, and player agency is the most important thing in the whole wide world.

Sometimes the players just forget that they definitely have the solution and they just don't use it:

DM: You know you could've cast Detect Thoughts to find the Galeb Duhr, maybe even interacted with it on some level using the same spell.
Player: Wait, I have that?
DM: You have a Helm of Telepathy. I remember 'cause I keep track of who has what magic items.
Player: *Stares blankly*
DM: You forgot what it does, didn't you?

[Pex]

A quantum ogre is not a bad railroad. It's only bad when it's no longer quantum. It's no longer quantum once the ogre is placed. If the party knows the ogre is at some location or direction and they choose to go in another direction to avoid it, encountering the ogre anyway is bad form.

It might be a bad railroad if because the party went in another direction they encounter a troll instead even if they didn't know a troll was there. The troll could have Honest True been there, but a repeated pattern of PCs avoiding something only to encounter it anyway with a different label of identification exposes the train tracks.

[Cheesegear]

A quantum ogre is not a bad railroad. It's only bad when it's no longer quantum. It's no longer quantum once the ogre is placed.

I've said this numerous times; If the players don't know where the Ogre is, then the Ogre is anywhere the DM wants it to be, until the players find it.

If they go right, Ogre.
If they go left, Ogre.

But the issue that I've been presented - in other threads - is:

Their choices are meaningless! But how can players trust the DM, if either way they go, they face an Ogre?

Given that earlier I totally supported DMs outright lying to players when they fail Insight checks (per the rules), I totally support making a distinction between 'You find no traps', and 'there are no traps', and in multiple threads - including this one - I stated my predilection for using creatures with False Appearance.

I don't really think that trust should be an issue when playing D&D. Or, at least you should expect your DM to try and trick and double-think you.

I don't really think that the issue with Quantum Ogre'ing is the railroad. As per several times in the thread; If players know they're on a railroad (e.g; a published module), they can choose to engage or disengage at will. That's fine.

The problem with Quantum Ogre'ing is that it's a hidden railroad, and that if players found out they were on a railroad that they didn't know that they were on, they'd be mad. Which again, ties back to 'trust' - as though it matters. The issue with Quantum Ogre'ing is that players don't know that they're on the railroad, and that makes people mad. They weren't told. They weren't given the information. They were lied to. But then what's the difference between a DM who plans an encounter ahead of time, and a published module? I dunno.

But unfortunately the only alterative to Quantum Ogre'ing isn't actually that much better:

You go left; Ogre.
You go right; Minotaur Skeleton.

Ahh...Now the players should feel so much better, because it's totally different now! Is that really want people want? Is this meaningful?

[Unoriginal]

I've said this numerous times; If the players don't know where the Ogre is, then the Ogre is anywhere the DM wants it to be, until the players find it.

If they go right, Ogre.
If they go left, Ogre.

But the issue that I've been presented - in other threads - is:

Their choices are meaningless! But how can players trust the DM, if either way they go, they face an Ogre?

Given that earlier I totally supported DMs outright lying to players when they fail Insight checks (per the rules), I totally support making a distinction between 'You find no traps', and 'there are no traps', and in multiple threads - including this one - I stated my predilection for using creatures with False Appearance.

I don't really think that trust should be an issue when playing D&D. Or, at least you should expect your DM to try and trick and double-think you.

I don't really think that the issue with Quantum Ogre'ing is the railroad. As per several times in the thread; If players know they're on a railroad (e.g; a published module), they can choose to engage or disengage at will. That's fine.

The problem with Quantum Ogre'ing is that it's a hidden railroad, and that if players found out they were on a railroad that they didn't know that they were on, they'd be mad. Which again, ties back to 'trust' - as though it matters. The issue with Quantum Ogre'ing is that players don't know that they're on the railroad, and that makes people mad. They weren't told. They weren't given the information. They were lied to. But then what's the difference between a DM who plans an encounter ahead of time, and a published module? I dunno.

But unfortunately the only alterative to Quantum Ogre'ing isn't actually that much better:

You go left; Ogre.
You go right; Minotaur Skeleton.

Ahh...Now the players should feel so much better, because it's totally different now! Is that really want people want? Is this meaningful?

1) There is a world of difference between "player character learns false information" and "DM lie to player".

2) The alternative to Quantum Ogre is to NOT give the players a choice if you're not willing to respect it. As simple as that.

If you're giving your players a choice between left and right, there must be a difference. Be it in the end result (ex: you arrive at somewhere different) or in the other consequences (ex: you arrive at the same place, but on the left you had a chance to find someone's lost bag, which may be relevant later).

If there is no difference between A and B, then the DM should stop wasting the players' and their own time and just go "there is A, you go through there".

Quantum Ogre is bad because you're wasting time presenting false choices. There is nothing wrong with an adventure where the PCs must travel west to the city of Zamora. But if you've opened the possibility to go either west to Zamora, or east to the city of Tricobalt, then making both choice end up identical (as in, PCs end up in (basically) the same tavern talking to the same NPC who will give the same quest) is a waste of effort, time, brainpower, and also trust if your players realize it.

Heck, there is nothing wrong with the east road to Tricobalt and the west road to Zamora both having an Ogre attack encounter. That shows the region has an Ogre banditry problem, which can be a plot point in itself. But it doesn't take any serious effort to make the encounters different depending on the road taken. On the east road the Ogre's weapon is an Ogre-sized torch, while on the west road the Ogre and two goblins are attacking a merchant and their bodyguard. Boom, meaningfully no longer the same, for two seconds of thoughts.

Also, once again: a published module isn't a railroad. Some published modules do contain instances of railroad (notably the infamous "if the PCs manages to steal the McGuffin from the bad guys at this point, a imp disguised as a bird grabs it from their hand and drop it in the sewer, continue the adventure as planned" bit), but not most of the time and not most of them.

[da newt]

I don't mind a railroad / obvious linear path as long as I (the Player / PC) have the option to get off and do something that I'm motivated to do, and I hate it when there is only one way to achieve objective X even if there are several perfectly logical other approaches that 'should' work just as well if not better. I like to chose my own adventure, but find it best when there are a few well place bread crumbs to follow. Completely open sand lots can be detrimental - if there is nothing more interesting than finding a cheap bar and getting drunk, you might as well start farming. Give me something worth caring about.

[Boci]

But unfortunately the only alterative to Quantum Ogre'ing isn't actually that much better:

You go left; Ogre.
You go right; Minotaur Skeleton.

Ahh...Now the players should feel so much better, because it's totally different now! Is that really want people want? Is this meaningful?

Yes?

Those are two different opponent, not the biggest difference, they're both largely melee bruisers, but one is an undead, who a divine heavy party may favour that, whilst the others is living, so if a party member favours poison, they might prefer the ogre, or maybe they want to try and bribe the ogre, which wouldn't work against a skeleton. As the players trust the DM, and the DM allows them to interact with the world through scouting, appropriate skill checks and other abilities, that is good dungeon design. Basic, but good.

[Cheesegear]

If you're giving your players a choice between left and right, there must be a difference.

Partial disagree.

If there is no difference between A and B, then the DM should stop wasting the players' and their own time [...] Quantum Ogre is bad because you're wasting time presenting false choices.

Again, partial disagree. It's only a false choice if the players backtrack and realise that there's nothing there in the alternate path. And from one DM to all the others...I sincerely hope you're faster than your players, and can backfill once they start going backwards.

There's a series of adventure/survival video games, which started famously started with Until Dawn, and then began their own Dark Pictures games which have gotten worse and worse with each release. Which present the player with a series of choices. Infamously, it is known that some of those 'choices' give you the same result either way, including when you choose the 'Do Nothing' choice (probably why they keep getting worse). How is this known?
- The internet exists, you can look it up.
- You can replay the game for yourself, make different choices, and see the same result for yourself.

D&D, isn't a video game, it is very rarely replayable, and it's almost impossible to look up your DM's homebrew unless you know where your DM hangs out, or you're somehow able to hack their cloud. Or you're silly, and drop your notes and one of your players picks up a sheet of paper and squints and says 'Heeey...? This piece of paper just says 'OGRE!!!' The DM is a phoney! Phoooneeey!'

If the players go right, and encounter an Ogre, they are going to think that encountering the Ogre, is a result of them going right. During the fight, the Ogre can make a mistake and cause a cave-in. You can present another door in the Ogre room. You can entice - or straight up pressure - the players into going forwards after they've already made the decision to go right. Whatever happens after that, is a consequence of them choosing the right path.

IME, players are unlikely to backtrack to a place they've already been, if you subtly - or overtly - tell them that there's nothing back the way they came (e.g; 'I can't believe you chose the right door! The other door leads to a kitchen with nothing in it. It's fine we can keep going.').

If you're homebrewing, players can't look up what they missed. Everything you have, is either in your head, or on your hard drive, or wherever you want your notes to be. If you are telling your players that you're Quantum Ogre'ing them, that's on you.

Player: We go right.
DM: Cool, Ogre.
Player: I guess we picked the wrong door? Roll Initiative?

Player: We go right.
DM: Cool, Ogre.
Player: Damn. Wrong door. Roll Initiative?
DM: No matter which way you chose you would've ran into an Ogre.
Player: That's a false choice...Booo...

The second isn't even a bad DM. That's a stupid DM.

There is nothing wrong with an adventure where the PCs must travel west to the city of Zamora. But if you've opened the possibility to go either west to Zamora, or east to the city of Tricobalt, then making both choice end up identical (as in, PCs end up in (basically) the same tavern talking to the same NPC who will give the same quest) is a waste of effort, time, brainpower, and also trust if your players realize it.

I mean, my players would have several questions about both cities that I would be forced to differentiate between the two. Scouting Asking the DM questions is a hard-counter to Quantum. If you know what's ahead, you can choose to avoid it. If you know what's ahead, you can choose how, when or even if you want to interact with it.

Quantum Ogre'ing can only work if the players either don't scout ask questions, or get wrong answers by asking the wrong questions - and/or failing any number of dice rolls. Once something is placed in the world, it's really, really, really difficult to unplace it without being glaringly obvious what you're doing.

As the players trust the DM, and the DM allows them to interact with the world through scouting, appropriate skill checks and other abilities, that is good dungeon design. Basic, but good.

See above. If the players are scouting and using abilities and doing what they're supposed to in any environment, Quantum Ogre'ing is more or less off the table. However, and here's the tricky part, even if the players do everything they're supposed to, if they fail dice rolls, you can Quantum Ogre and you can justify it as the players just didn't spot the Ogre.

[Boci]

ee above. If the players are scouting and using abilities and doing what they're supposed to in any environment, Quantum Ogre'ing is more or less off the table. However, and here's the tricky part, even if the players do everything they're supposed to, if they fail dice rolls, you can Quantum Ogre and you can justify it as the players just didn't spot the Ogre.

Yeah sure, a s****y DM can do several things like that. But you asked if Ogre vs. Minotaur Skeleton was that much better than quantum ogre, and the answer is yes. Ogre vs. Minotaur skeleton is basic, but good, dungeon design, whilst quantum ogre is just bad.

[RedMage125]

2) The alternative to Quantum Ogre is to NOT give the players a choice if you're not willing to respect it. As simple as that.

If you're giving your players a choice between left and right, there must be a difference. Be it in the end result (ex: you arrive at somewhere different) or in the other consequences (ex: you arrive at the same place, but on the left you had a chance to find someone's lost bag, which may be relevant later).

I think people are beginning to talk past each other. And it may be because of some assumptions along the way.

The first assumption from the "Quantum Ogre is bad" crowd seems to be that "ogre" is somehow the destination.

What I am advocating for is a certain level of prepared things that can happen anywhere irrespective of player choice, but the players have no reason to ever know that.

Example:
DM: if you take the west road, you'll reach the city of Tel Ranar, and further past that, the foothills of the Silver Mountains. The east road will take you to the small town of Leetah, beyond which is the vast Sylvanwood.
Players: We go [x direction]
DM: Okay. About 6 hours on the road, you encounter an Ogre.

In this example, the PC's choice does matter, because where they eventually get to will be different. But the DM prepared an Ogre encounter for the "travel encounter", and that's going to happen no matter what road the players took. They still have agency, but there was a plot-inconsequential Ogre that was going to happen, regardless.

THAT is what I am saying is okay.

[Boci]

I think people are beginning to talk past each other. And it may be because of some assumptions along the way.

The first assumption from the "Quantum Ogre is bad" crowd seems to be that "ogre" is somehow the destination.

But is that even quantum ogre, if its just a random encounter? Doesn't the set up of quantum ogre strongly imply that is it a choice of the passage taken?

[RedMage125]

But is that even quantum ogre, if its just a random encounter? Doesn't the set up of quantum ogre strongly imply that is it a choice of the passage taken?

That's the point. It doesn't have to be. If the players never know that the other choice would have also had an Ogre, then they never see any "rails". They still have agency in which road to take, their destination will be different.

Why does it matter of different inconsequential encounters were set up for each route?

[Boci]

That's the point. It doesn't have to be. If the players never know that the other choice would have also had an Ogre, then they never see any "rails". They still have agency in which road to take, their destination will be different.

Why does it matter of different inconsequential encounters were set up for each route?

Of course these kind of questions can often be flipped back round: if its inconsequential, why is the DM insisting the players much meet an ogre, and nothing else, for their random encounter on the road?

But fine, let's say the DM didn't have time to make one of six to randomly generate and just choose ogre. I would still say there is a minor difference, between portraying it as a random encounter (i.e. a wondering ogre), and a fixed encounter directly resulting from the path the players chose to take.

[JNAProductions]

That's the point. It doesn't have to be. If the players never know that the other choice would have also had an Ogre, then they never see any "rails". They still have agency in which road to take, their destination will be different.

Why does it matter of different inconsequential encounters were set up for each route?

I would, as a matter of principle, prefer the DM have different encounters for different paths.

As a matter of practicality, I'm okay with encountering the same random encounter no matter which path is taken, assuming it makes sense in context. DM's have limited time, so I get it.

But if steps are taken to avoid the ogre (the DM tells you that giants are rumoured to roam the northern passage and ogres have been spotted to the east, so you go southwest) and you encounter an ogre arbitrarily anyway... That's an issue.

Basically, the main issue of a railroad is NEGATION. It's not about linearity, it's about listening to the players say "We don't want this," and responding with "Have it anyway." That is NOT the same as players simply failing a check or something-if the players fall into a pit trap because they flubbed a Perception check, or get ambushed, or fail at negotiations to make peace, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Let me put a concrete example down. The players are trying to negotiate peace between two warring city-states.
If the players try to intimidate both sides to stand down, the check is incredibly tough (because while the PCs in this case are competent, they aren't gods or anything) and will make other avenues impossible, since you just tried scaring them off the bat. The players fail the check, negotiations break down, and war starts. That's fine-if the players had tried using logical arguments, appeals to their better nature, and more good-natured Charisma checks, they could've made peace.
But, if the players try all that, roll well, make good arguments, all that... But the DM wanted war to break out anyway, so they just say that everything fails, and war breaks out, that's a problem.

If the adventure is about the warring city-states, then either start with them already at war, or if you DO want to start with negotiations, tell the players "This is basically an intro scene. No matter what you do, negotiations aren't gonna be enough to avoid war. You can try to make allies, find info, stuff like that-but you aren't stopping the war here." And get them to buy into it!

[animorte]

I think people are beginning to talk past each other.

I tend to remedy this by keeping open 2 tabs of the same thread, one I'm typing my reply in. The other to refresh the page so I can keep up with what has been added while I've been forming my (likely unnecessarily detailed) response. Sometimes even setting up another reply so I can copy/paste the additional quote I intend to respond to. Rinse/repeat.

[RedMage125]

I would, as a matter of principle, prefer the DM have different encounters for different paths.

As a matter of practicality, I'm okay with encountering the same random encounter no matter which path is taken, assuming it makes sense in context. DM's have limited time, so I get it.

Well, in my case, it's a mater of quality. Things like having terrain, or other interesting factors besides "here's a flat plain with an ogre...maybe a few trees"...they require me to plan in advance. So the quality of the encounter, and how interesting it might be, will be much better if I plan it advance. And I don't adhere to an invisible "authority of principle" in regards to randomness and other "behind-the-screen" factors my PCs are not aware of. Or at, least, I should say that I do adhere to an invisible "authority of aesthetics", which informs my decision to have the "random" encounters for the party planned out in advance.

And again. I do believe in maintaining player agency. I just believe that in matters where the agency is not really a factor, it's not really a violation of said agency to have things planned in advance.

This is part of what I call "soft railroading". Where the players do not see the "rails"

But if steps are taken to avoid the ogre (the DM tells you that giants are rumoured to roam the northern passage and ogres have been spotted to the east, so you go southwest) and you encounter an ogre arbitrarily anyway... That's an issue.

Well, they're "seeing the rails" then, aren't they?

I actually specifically covered this a few pages ago, but the thread is getting long. But yes, I agree. If the players have taken steps to avoid that specific ogre, and (barring some kind of actual failure, like blowing a Stealth check) they get one anyway, then agency has been violated, and that's not the kind of thing I support.

I tend to remedy this by keeping open 2 tabs of the same thread, one I'm typing my reply in. The other to refresh the page so I can keep up with what has been added while I've been forming my (likely unnecessarily detailed) response. Sometimes even setting up another reply so I can copy/paste the additional quote I intend to respond to. Rinse/repeat.

I actually meant "talking past each other" in terms of subject. One group of people is discussing oranges, another is discussing tangerines. Similar...related, even. But not quite on the same page. So I don't think the people arguing necessarily disagree, but they seem to, because of a miscommunication somewhere.

[Boci]

Well, in my case, it's a mater of quality. Things like having terrain, or other interesting factors besides "here's a flat plain with an ogre...maybe a few trees"...they require me to plan in advance. So the quality of the encounter, and how interesting it might be, will be much better if I plan it advance. And I don't adhere to an invisible "authority of principle" in regards to randomness and other "behind-the-screen" factors my PCs are not aware of. Or at, least, I should say that I do adhere to an invisible "authority of aesthetics", which informs my decision to have the "random" encounters for the party planned out in advance.

I find that boring when I DM. Plus, its a random encounter, so I don't plan those in advance like that, I have a list of 6-12 to randomly choose from, unless the story and setting makes sense to have a specific encounter. For example when my players where near a mountain range which was patrolled by alchemist monstrosities. Between their flight and the lack of cover, they were going to fight one unless they took extremely paranoid levels of pre-cuation, which they didn't.

[Cheesegear]

DM: You're walking down the path.
Player: Cool. I'd like to sent my Owl Familiar above the treeline and have a look around. Do I need the Owl to make a Perception check?
DM: Not really. It's broad daylight, and the woods aren't that dense. Off in the distance your Owl says it can see smoke, likely from some kind of fire.
Player: Okay. I want to warg my Owl, and I tell it to fly closer to the fire. Roll Stealth now?
DM: You see an Ogre having a fire, cooking what appears to be a Large animal.
Player: Okay Owl, come back. We don't really want to fight the Ogre, so let's get off the path - about 500 ft. - and continue in the direction we're heading. Group Stealth?
DM: Nah. Don't worry about it. While you're walking through the woods, an Ogre comes barreling towards you.
Player: The one from the fire? That we specifically tried to avoid? That you told us not to roll Stealth for?
DM: ...Uhh...Yes.

If this is what you think Quantum Ogre'ing is... No it isn't. What the players did actually counters Quantum Ogre, and the DM is terrible for railroading his players, because the players can obviously see the tracks, that they specifically tried to avoid. This above is a case of straight up railroading. Not a Quantum Ogre.

The DM could, however, make it so that there are two Ogres, one is hunting, whilst the other is cooking. But that would depend on the party's level and Stealth and Perception rolls would likely have to be enforced. That becomes a planned encounter, then, where the DM has anticipated that the players might want to go 'round, and has already taken that into account as part of the planned encounter. If you go 'round, you still fight an Ogre, but also a different Ogre - that can potentially call for the other one.

However, what if the party goes 500 ft. left? Do they still fight the roving Ogre?
What if the party goes 500 ft. right? Do they still fight the roving Ogre?

If the party doesn't know about the roving Ogre (failed Perception and/or Survival checks), and fights the Ogre in the woods - but it's a different Ogre to the one at the fire - no matter which direction they go. That's Quantum.

Ogre 1. Can't be a Quantum Ogre, because the party knows of its existence. The party has 'opened the box' and seen whether the Ogre is there or not there.
Ogre 2. Can be a Quantum Ogre, because the party doesn't know of its existence. If the party makes Perception rolls, Survival rolls, whatever, they can discern the second, sure. But what if they don't and/or fail? If they don't look - or fail the look - then Ogre 2 is anywhere the DM decides that it is.

There. Everyone understands?

Finally, we get to what really seems to be the problem with Quantum Ogre'ing:

Players would be angry if they found out their choices weren't meaningful.
...How would they find out?

[strangebloke]

Players would be angry if they found out their choices weren't meaningful.
...How would they find out?

This is where the posters go "oh I always know" based off one time where they did figure it out. But in reality every DM does this and players almost never notice because... Geez, it's a game! Conservation of detail is a thing! I'm not a DND computer who has active grids showing where the hunting ogre is. That's a lot of work that accomplishes very little in terms of everyone's actual enjoyment. And as far as that goes, pretty much everyone accepts this kind of thing as a matter of course. If you bump into a random NPC you met five months ago in the next city, nobody seriously thinks the DM has been careful tracking that NPC up to this point. The DM clearly just decided it'd be fun to bring them back, and saw a way to justify it.

What's really taking, I think, is that not even video games take this absurd simulator approach, at least not most of the time.

[OldTrees1]

Players would be angry if they found out their choices weren't meaningful.
...How would they find out?

This is where the posters go "oh I always know" based off one time where they did figure it out.

I disagree. This is where posters go

"If you know the players would be angry 'IF' they found out, then why try to hide behind that 'IF'? Different players have different playstyle preferences. It is better to respect those preferences than to try to get away with something you know they would be angry about if they found out."

Now for some cases you will find the players preference similar to "I prefer if ___ was not quantum but I understand if DM logistics make it necessary." but for other cases the preference is much stronger and similar to "I would be angry if a significant plot piece was made quantum.". Instead of hiding behind Illusionism, just respect your players have preferences and don't try to excuse behavior with "but if nobody finds out then it never happened bwahaha".

This holds true the other way too. If the players prefer more linear games and would be angry if I tricked them into playing a sandbox, it does not matter if I get away with the deception. That would have been disrespectful and bad GMing.

[Cheesegear]

This is where the posters go "oh I always know" based off one time where they did figure it out.

I have a feeling that players figure it out by way of their DM just ****ing up, or badly telling a story, or not having a contingency for when things go wrong. If you make it obvious you have no backup plan, then things might get awkward.

This is what I meant earlier when the party can fight an Ogre, or Minotaur Skeleton. The difference is not that meaningful. It's a combat vs. a single Large target either way. But it does help you go that little extra step further to tricking convincing your players that you definitely are not railroading them into encounters. No you don't understand, it's different, because, umm...Undead?

When it's 'Ogre, or different Ogre', some players might smell a rat - whether one is there or not.

Also, think a lot of people in this thread are confusing a Quantum Ogre with a Teleporting Ogre. Similar. But they are not the same.