What is Player Agency?

[Darth Ultron]

1) DM narrates a situation.
2) Players decide what their character attempts. Players and DM resolve the attempt.
3) GOTO 1 (updating the situation with the changes due to the attempt).



1) High OOC, low IC agency: The participants set initial parameters (build a setting, choose a system, design characters, etc) and feed that information into a glorified version of Conway's Game of Life (a zero-external-input simulation engine). Their only input was at the configuration stage, but those actions mattered.

2) Low OOC, high IC agency: They randomly (as in, using a randomizer) pick a system and a setting with pre-built characters (including personality and goals). They then play a game where each player strives to follow the pre-built personalities and goals in whatever way they feel best fits the character. Their decisions shape the outcome.

3) Low OOC, low IC agency: An external DM arrives with a pre-generated, highly-railroaded module. Their only choice is to play the pre-generated characters through the scripted plot, or not play at all. They can make choices, but they don't change anything significant.

4) High OOC, high IC agency: They play a free-form, DM-less (high narrative control) game in a self-defined setting. The only rules are consensus. Actions both OOC and IC matter strongly at every step.

Of course, most TTRPGs are not at any of these extremes (except maybe DU's games).

Look, my name is mentioned.

So...your examples are all over the place and don't mention the same things.

1) High OOC, low IC agency: So this is the players have lots of say at the Game Zero part, but then they just sit down and play the game like normal players? Ok.

2) Low OOC, high IC agency: A game is picked randomly? Characters are pre generated? But then it is just a mess of a random player controlled game? Ok.

3) Low OOC, low IC agency: So the classic Jerk Railroad DM game here.

4) High OOC, high IC agency: The Free Form Game.

Bit odd you only mention having a plot for the railroad game.

Let me flip that around. Playing Quertus, or Armus, or any other character I'd care to play, they have a personality. Role-playing that personality, and their non-omniscient perspective on reality, greatly curtails my options. Yet I don't feel a loss of Agency. Why not? (I don't have an answer for this. Have I lost Agency without realizing it? Or should Player Agency be defined in some way such that options curtailed by role-playing do not result in a loss of Agency?)

Well, my answer would be: Player Agency does not matter and is in fact just an illusion. If you can give up something and not notice you even lost it, then it does not matter much at all.

High, or Pure, Player Agency is Free Form: a player can have a character do anything on a whim and no one can say anything about it ever. Then you start to chip away at that for other RPGs. First you have the game, game setting, game rules and game concept. Then you have the social contract, common sense, and social norms. Then you have the other players and the DM. Then you have any self imposed things from yourself. And finally you have the story, plot or whatever you want to call whatever the game has that makes it not just a random free form mess.

Just look at that list, it is huge. It is going from having it all, to nothing...or so little that it is next to nothing.

Because I am even more biased than you in believing that Player Agency is the bestest thing ever, and essential to a good RPG.

Is it? Or do you just think it is? Is it just as you have been told it is the best? Do you just think it sounds good?

[OldTrees1]

I'd absolutely say it does. Without any information about the situation (as in the two hallways) this is effectively akin to someone telling you to make a cointoss. Are you exercising your agency by doing it? Maybe a bit, you could refuse.
But are you exercising your agency by whether you get heads or tails? Not in a million years.

You did not answer the question. I did not ask if the blind choice had player agency (we both know blind choices are not meaningful choices). I asked if the meaningful choice they had later was hurt by the DM not revealing the hidden information about the blind choice not taken. This was a specific question to Quertus addressing subtle differences between their definition of meaningful choices ("all information must be learnable") vs my definition of meaningful choices ("to be a meaningful choice, the PCs know the relevant details").

So:
A) Did the meaningful choice to "engage or slink away from the creature" get hurt by the information of the other path of the blind choice before not being revealed OOC?
B) Did the meaningful choice of "go right to follow the slime or left to avoid the slime" get hurt by the information of the other path of the entangled blind choice of (unknown to the players, there is a lab to the right and a library to the left) not being revealed OOC.

PS: Previously, and especially now that Darth Ultron has dropped in, I will stick to discussing actual rather than perceived agency.

.

I see you are starting off just as intellectually dishonest as you were/are in the other thread. We might as well just talk around you until you learn some honesty.

[Max_Killjoy]

I can't wait for Darth Ultron to crash his way into this thread like Kool-aid man and then ramble his way through a subject he has no comprehension of.

/S

There was always the chance that the king of threadcrapping might not have noticed it and we could have had an actual a grown-up discussion...

[Darth Ultron]

PS: Previously, and especially now that Darth Ultron has dropped in, I will stick to discussing actual rather than perceived agency.

Hey you had a whole week to hug and talk about how great player agency was without a single other diverse viewpoint.

I see you are starting off just as intellectually dishonest as you were/are in the other thread. We might as well just talk around you until you learn some honesty.

Just as you don't like something, does not make it wrong....and that is One To Grow On.

There was always the chance that the king of threadcrapping might not have noticed it and we could have had an actual a grown-up discussion...

King of Threadcapping?

[Talakeal]

A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

[oxybe]

A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

Quantum ogre is fine... sometimes. It's a tool to be used.

If that ogre is just that, a simple ogre, then there's no real issue on whether you use it as an encounter if the players leave town via the north or south.

If it is a specific ogre though, especially one the players are aware of, that's when you run into issues.

Let's say the Ogre works for the Evil Baron Von Hackenslash. unbeknownst to the players, the Ogre is just passing through the territory while carrying a note that is meant for one of the Baron's top men.

Players, aware that the Ogre is trekking through the northern part of the territory, decide to go leave town via the south. At this point our GM has a problem.

He was hoping the PCs would grab and decipher that note, interrupting the information going to the Baron & hopefully handing it to the local charter of The Knights in Really Nice Armour Who Also Build Orphanariums and Puppy Hotels.

Does an Improv GM toss our Ogre fight vs the PCs who, realistically, went the opposite direction to avoid the Ogre? What if our PCs in question are double paranoid and also keep on the look out, noting that they still continue to be on their guard and try to avoid potential southern Ogre crossings, in case their information is wrong.

In short, the Quantum Ogre's successful use relies on the Quantum mechanics: that it's current state is not defined until the players themselves, or by proxy of an NPC, observe the ogre.

It falls back to Shroedinger's tongue-in-cheek cat, which until we observe it, cannot be said to be dead or alive: the Ogre is neither here nor there until someone sees and mentions it.

If our ogre is used in a different location (ie state of being, to bring it back to the cat) then one that was observed, it causes jank, potentially breaking a player's suspension of disbelief and immersion by betraying their understanding of the world.

However, if the players have no recollection of seeing or hearing about an ogre being talked about, ie: it hasn't been observed, then bumping into our plot ogre in their foray south is not so much "quantum ogre" and more "i have an ogre prepared for tonight & I a note I want to plot dump on you". It's pretty obvious from a player side, that we just happen to bump into the right ogre, but it doesn't so much as break the suspension of disbelief as cause a few groans for how transparent it is.

[OldTrees1]

A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

I do not know if this qualifies as strongly opposed:
I accept Quantum Ogre as being acceptable BUT I want verisimilitude and thus I strongly prefer the DM not use things like Quantum Ogre which undermine the verisimilitude of the world. So let's go through your list with that position in mind.

Yes, improv DMing is perfectly acceptable. I personally use derived improv as a DMing style to preserve verisimilitude by deriving the answers to unexpected questions so that I give the same answer as if I had prepared it in advanced.

So why do I not like Quantum Ogres but do like improv DMing:
Quantum Ogres require betraying the verisimilitude of the campaign world by moving an encounter in a manner it did not have the power to move. In contrast, creating or deriving what encounter would have been there does not contradict previously planned facts about the world*. Additionally there is the detail that Quantum Ogre retcons the details of a PC choice thus weakening or negating its meaning. In contrast Improv DMing does not necessitate doing such.

So Quantum Ogres are acceptable, but I strongly prefer the DM never ever use them. Improvising a new but actually reasonable encounter results in a much more real world for the PCs to interact with.

*Even if you introduce the Quantum Ogre in a superposition rather than as having a discrete location that you move, you still are moving it when you collapse the wavefunction into the location "in front of the PCs".

Or in other words: I can do improv DMing in a manner without either of the negatives that people dislike about Quantum Ogres (can retcon away some agency & harms verisimilitude of the world). Therefore I like improv DMing but strongly prefer Quantum Ogres never ever be used when I am a Player.

[Cozzer]

I'm going to repeat myself: it's one thing to use quantum ogres to introduce new plot hooks or setting elements, it's another thing to use them to advance an existing plot.

Like, let's say the current adventure is about finding a serial killer. You could decide that in the next city the PCs will stumble upon his latest victim, whatever this next city might be. That's an acceptable use of the quantum ogre, in my opinion. But if you say "in the next city the PCs, who are already looking for the serial killer, will stumble upon an hint to find him", then that's bad. That goes for "the PCs will stumble upon an henchman of an estabilished villain" too. If the only way the PCs can make the plot go on is through sheer coincidence, then I think you should rethink the structure of your adventure.

The point is not that you shouldn't use quantum ogres, the point is that if the structure of your adventure is solid, you won't find yourself needing them. (Well, sometimes you will anyway, nobody is perfect, but the point is minimizing their use, not refusing them altogether). Each time you find yourself thinking "...and then the main characters just happen to X the Y" while describing how you expect the plot to continue, it's a sign of a potential weakness in your adventure (again, except for the very first thing that happens, or maybe the first two or three, depending on how many new setting elements you need to introduce).

[jayem]

A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town?
If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

Partially
Generally most things in real life are more tied down to place than time. And time moves for us all.

If you lock an encounter to a place, you probably automatically get what he was doing before and after, and get to make the place consistent. Monday-Jayem is in his house, Tuesday-jayem is in his house ... is a bit boring, not entirely accurate or believable but close. And saying, "well when you weren't there he did go to the shops" is a fairly tiny QO.

If you lock an encounter to a time, you don't get that. Monday-Jayem is nowhere, Tuesday-Jayem is anywhere and everywhere, Wednesday-Jayem is nowhere. Here the game description is more or less unbelievable for people, and though it can be corrected it obviously requires more work and massive applications of QO.
To be silly about it, say the encounter was with a bad guys castle. What if the players walked 2 day then turned back. Did they miss it on the first day?

This is not universally true, something like an eclipse, would work the opposite way.

Further many things fit into neither camp simply, a pursuing army clearly isn't waiting for you. But though the time encounter is closer, if I don't move it should catch up quicker, in theory (but again the QOing is small).
A merchant on the road likewise. but for this either work well (ish, if you double back or wait then some fun happens with either method, you shouldn't overtake a merchant on the way back that you didn't pass on the way there)

[Frozen_Feet]

A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

*sigh*

This isn't the first time I've seen this awkward transition happen from this topic. It's one of the prime reasons I hold that "Inevitable Ogre" is the better name.

So let's instead answer the more sensical, implied question: "can a GM improvize in a way which nullifies player agency?" The answer is trivially yes. The follow-up is "should GM improvize in a way that nullifies player agency?" The answer is trivially no.

Note the use of verb "nullify" instead of "lessen" or "restrict". If a GM improvizes in a way which restricts number of possible responses to one hundred, or in a way which lessens the number of possible moves to one hundred from one thousand, that's usually not a problem. Exception goes for the cases where a player's pet tactic happens to be one of the eliminated choices. Again: a typical playgroup only goes through an adventure once. In any robust scenario, they can explore only a fraction of available move space. Thus, restricted agency only starts hindering the game when there are very few, or no choices at all.

So the answer to your specific question, "Am I ok with improvized GMing?", is "yes if it's implemented in a way that does not nullify player agency".

In any case, any similariy between the Inevitable Ogre, that is, a GM stubbornly using an encounter regardless of in-game events, and improvization, is completely superficial. Even when they both screw players over. Improvization sits on the opposite end of the spectrum from the Ogre, and if the word "Quantum" made you think otherwise, you're focusing on the wrong thing.

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

Spontaneous pre-planned encounters aren't. The closest you get is Honest-to-God random encounters, where a GM has prepared a selection of possible encounters and uses some random process to choose between them.

Like I said before, random encounters too can be implemented in a way that nullifies player agency. But in other respects, they too are far removed from the Ogre.

Like with improvization, I'm fine with random encounters when they are implemented in a way which does not nullify player agency.

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

It's not really about realism. The difference is that in a game, as well as real world, players typically have power over where they or their play pieces are, and next to no control over when they are. Hence it makes more intuitive sense to tie encounters to space, or space and time, rather than just time. Encounters tied to just time also create "teleporting ogre" problem. That is, if no attention is paid to where the encounter will take place, it may become hard to justify why the encounter takes place where it does.

Now, in fantastic games, you may have genuine teleporting enemies. But what sets those apart from the Inevitable Ogre is that the encounter's specifics will be altered by the environment. Once you start adapting your Ogre to the battleground the players chose, it no longer has that problematic element of stubborn preplanning.

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

It's not really any more time-consuming than crafting other pre-planned content, such as random tables or maps. Just less reusable.

As for it being boring to the players, that depends on event frequency and event quality. If the scenario space is small enough, the players will stumble on one or more event sequences eventually. For a non-table-top example of how this works, play Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask or Star Control 2: Ur-Quan Masters.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm going to repeat myself: it's one thing to use quantum ogres to introduce new plot hooks or setting elements, it's another thing to use them to advance an existing plot.

So quantum ogers are only bad if they advance the plot(and I'd even go as far to say the oger here is Railroading)? Interesting take.

Like, let's say the current adventure is about finding a serial killer. You could decide that in the next city the PCs will stumble upon his latest victim, whatever this next city might be. That's an acceptable use of the quantum ogre, in my opinion. But if you say "in the next city the PCs, who are already looking for the serial killer, will stumble upon an hint to find him", then that's bad. That goes for "the PCs will stumble upon an henchman of an estabilished villain" too. If the only way the PCs can make the plot go on is through sheer coincidence, then I think you should rethink the structure of your adventure.

Well, you might need to be more clear here. How is finding a latest victim NOT advancing the plot? Is finding a clue All Ways advancing a plot?

The point is not that you shouldn't use quantum ogres, the point is that if the structure of your adventure is solid, you won't find yourself needing them. (Well, sometimes you will anyway, nobody is perfect, but the point is minimizing their use, not refusing them altogether). Each time you find yourself thinking "...and then the main characters just happen to X the Y" while describing how you expect the plot to continue, it's a sign of a potential weakness in your adventure (again, except for the very first thing that happens, or maybe the first two or three, depending on how many new setting elements you need to introduce).

Well, you can have a ''solid'' adventure...whatever that is with no coincidence(and I guess no plot too?), but, as everyone will all ways say *what do you do when the players do something unexpected*. You really only have tow choices: Stop the game or improve some quantum ogers.

And it is not bad or wrong to think or expect a plot to go in direction A, that is kind of common sense.

[Cozzer]

Ultron, I'm honestly sorry to say this but my willingness to assume you're approaching these discussions with anything even remotely resembling good faith has run over several topics ago. I'm never going to engage in discussion with you, so replying specifically to my posts is probably going to be an utter waste of time for you.

[georgie_leech]

I'm going to repeat myself: it's one thing to use quantum ogres to introduce new plot hooks or setting elements, it's another thing to use them to advance an existing plot.

Like, let's say the current adventure is about finding a serial killer. You could decide that in the next city the PCs will stumble upon his latest victim, whatever this next city might be. That's an acceptable use of the quantum ogre, in my opinion. But if you say "in the next city the PCs, who are already looking for the serial killer, will stumble upon an hint to find him", then that's bad. That goes for "the PCs will stumble upon an henchman of an estabilished villain" too. If the only way the PCs can make the plot go on is through sheer coincidence, then I think you should rethink the structure of your adventure.

The point is not that you shouldn't use quantum ogres, the point is that if the structure of your adventure is solid, you won't find yourself needing them. (Well, sometimes you will anyway, nobody is perfect, but the point is minimizing their use, not refusing them altogether). Each time you find yourself thinking "...and then the main characters just happen to X the Y" while describing how you expect the plot to continue, it's a sign of a potential weakness in your adventure (again, except for the very first thing that happens, or maybe the first two or three, depending on how many new setting elements you need to introduce).

How do you feel about, say, the established villain having a henchman in each potential town, abeit different henchmen for each?

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's not really any more time-consuming than crafting other pre-planned content, such as random tables or maps. Just less reusable.

And thus much more time-consuming because it's not reusable. That's the inevitable (rimshot) trade-off.

I'm not much for inevitable ogres, but I use other ways of making sure the party has the information they need. I'm a strong believer in avoiding single points of failure for quests. There are clues/hints/plot tokens spread all over. They need some of them, but which ones are up to them. Some require intentional research, some require luck, some are pretty inevitable (they come from the quest giver).

[Pleh]

*sigh*

This isn't the first time I've seen this awkward transition happen from this topic. It's one of the prime reasons I hold that "Inevitable Ogre" is the better name.

So let's instead answer the more sensical, implied question: "can a GM improvize in a way which nullifies player agency?" The answer is trivially yes. The follow-up is "should GM improvize in a way that nullifies player agency?" The answer is trivially no.

This does make me see a neat distinction between a Quantum Ogre and an Inevitable Ogre.

A Quantum Ogre operates on lack of player knowledge. They don't know about the Ogre, so it can be introduced at any appropriate point. Player agency is not harmed because players know to expect some amount of random variables.

An Inevitable Ogre shows up even if the players learn about the Ogre, take steps to avoid it, and they encounter it anyway for no reason other than the DM's insistence.

[BRC]

How do you feel about, say, the established villain having a henchman in each potential town, abeit different henchmen for each?

This gets into the idea of an Informed Decision.

I hold that, from the player's perspective there is no practical difference between presenting a single option, Presenting multiple options with the same result (The Quantum Ogre), and presenting multiple, indistinguishable options.

Sure, in the last case the Players are technically making a decision that influences how things go, without information they don't really own that decision.

Consider

There is One Door, behind it is an Ogre. From the player's perspective, there was no way to avoid the Ogre.

There are Three Doors. Whichever one the Player's open, there will be an Ogre. From the player's perspective, there was no way to avoid the Ogre.

There are three Identical Doors. Door #1 has some goblins, Door #2 has an Ogre, Door #3 has Zombies. The players, have no way to inform their decision, open Door #2. From their perspective, they had no choice but to face the Ogre since they did everything they could do (Picked a Door), and still fought the Ogre.

[OldTrees1]

This does make me see a neat distinction between a Quantum Ogre and an Inevitable Ogre.

A Quantum Ogre operates on lack of player knowledge. They don't know about the Ogre, so it can be introduced at any appropriate point. Player agency is not harmed because players know to expect some amount of random variables.

An Inevitable Ogre shows up even if the players learn about the Ogre, take steps to avoid it, and they encounter it anyway for no reason other than the DM's insistence.

That definition fails to define Quantum Ogre (old and current usage) and might grant a false negative to some Inevitable Ogres (replacement term for Quantum Ogre).

The PCs are in a city. There is an Ogre waiting to ambush them on the road. The PCs leave the city on the ___ road --> The Ogre is now on that road because the PCs are on that road BUT without a justification for that causal relationship. I did not need to specify if the PCs did or did not know about where the Ogre was before, nor did I specify if the Ogre had a specific location or if the DM placed them in a superposition prior to the PC choice of direction. In all those cases the PCs made their decision in a choice, and then the DM used that decision to change the nature of the initial choice to make an outcome inevitable without justification for that causal relationship.

[Segev]

A couple of questions for people who are strongly opposed to the Quantum Ogre:

First, are you ok with improv GMing?

If so, why do you find it acceptable for a GM to spontaneously invent an encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate, but not to spontaneously decide to use a pre-planned encounter in the middle of the game when they feel it is appropriate?

If you do oppose improv GMing, do you insist that all encounter be tied to a specific time as well as a specific place? For example, you hate the idea of an ogre always encountering the party three days after they leave town, but would you be ok with them always encountering an ogre the first time they enter the forest three hexes north of town? If yes, why do you feel an encounter that is locked to a specific space but not a specific time to be more enjoyable and / or realistic than one that is tied to a specific time but not a specific place?

If no, how do you actually ever find adventure? I would imagine a game where encounters must be planned in advance and be locked to both a specific time and place to be incredibly time consuming for the DM, and incredibly boring for the players as I would imagine they spend most of their time just wandering around doing mundane tasks hoping to be in just the right place at just the right time to actually find the encounters.

The quantum/inevitable ogre isn't a problem for player agency unless the inevitability of it is in spite of player efforts to the contrary.

If the party is in town, and had four roads (N, S, E, W) leading out of town, and the DM had planned that there's an ogre on the East road, the party can do a few things.

If they just decide to head out a random direction, doing no particular research, seeking to "see what's there," then the DM - who in our example thinks the ogre is his coolest encounter - can decide their "random" direction was East. If they still are just going in a random direction, but proclaim they're going North (still having done no research to know what lies on any particular path), the DM could move the ogre - the now-inevitable ogre - to the N path.

Both of those are fine. The party has not exercised (or never had) any agency regarding the encounter. To them, there's no difference between if the ogre really was always on the N path, if they had chosen the E path arbitrarily or the DM chose it for them arbitrarily, etc.

The inevitable ogre is only a problem when the DM has placed him on the E path, and the party actually does some investigation to learn that there is an ogre on the East Road, and the party chooses to go any other direction. Now, they have agency: seek or avoid the ogre of which they know. If the DM drops the ogre on them "because he decided to move, and is now here," that's a problem. That's the kind of agency-killing railroading people are griping about.

It comes down to whether it interferes with player agency. If the players and their characters had no agency to begin with, it's not a problem (unless the lack of agency is, itself, problematic; this is best avoided by having it be an information lack rather than a lack of choices).

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, there's a matter of context and specifics.

Does the "head villain" know about the PCs, and where they are? Does he have motive and means to intercept them? Then it's perfectly reasonable for him to have henchmen waiting along each road away from the city the PCs are in. Maybe the PCs learn about this, however, and decide to sneak cross-country or spend a pile of ducats to have a mage teleport them to their next destination or whatever. Or maybe they don't, and they're going to have to fight one of these groups of henchmen and mooks.

However, if the villain has no reason to have henchmen along all the roads waiting specifically to interecept the PCs, then there's a much higher potential that having the PCs intercepted no matter which way they go will involve shenanigans on the part of the GM.

And if the GM comes up with on-the-fly excuses as to why nothing else the PCs try but going down one particular road is possible, or moves the villain's lackies around so that they hit the PCs no matter what they do, then you're probably seeing straight-up railroading.

[OldTrees1]

The quantum/inevitable ogre isn't a problem for player agency unless the inevitability of it is in spite of player efforts to the contrary.

If the party is in town, and had four roads (N, S, E, W) leading out of town, and the DM had planned that there's an ogre on the East road, the party can do a few things.

If they just decide to head out a random direction, doing no particular research, seeking to "see what's there," then the DM - who in our example thinks the ogre is his coolest encounter - can decide their "random" direction was East. If they still are just going in a random direction, but proclaim they're going North (still having done no research to know what lies on any particular path), the DM could move the ogre - the now-inevitable ogre - to the N path.

Both of those are fine. The party has not exercised (or never had) any agency regarding the encounter. To them, there's no difference between if the ogre really was always on the N path, if they had chosen the E path arbitrarily or the DM chose it for them arbitrarily, etc.

The inevitable ogre is only a problem when the DM has placed him on the E path, and the party actually does some investigation to learn that there is an ogre on the East Road, and the party chooses to go any other direction. Now, they have agency: seek or avoid the ogre of which they know. If the DM drops the ogre on them "because he decided to move, and is now here," that's a problem. That's the kind of agency-killing railroading people are griping about.

It comes down to whether it interferes with player agency. If the players and their characters had no agency to begin with, it's not a problem (unless the lack of agency is, itself, problematic; this is best avoided by having it be an information lack rather than a lack of choices).

Well said.

Even if someone does have a preference in the case of inevitable ogres that the party did not know about when making their choice, such a preference is not about player agency.

[Cozzer]

How do you feel about, say, the established villain having a henchman in each potential town, abeit different henchmen for each?

Well, that's not a quantum ogre, that's several ogres. Unless all the other henchmen magically disappear out of existence as soon as the PCs meet the first one. In which case yes, just use a quantum ogre at that point.

But it would be way more satisfying if the PCs could find out about all these various henchmen beforehand, so they can choose which one they want to confront first. Again, my problem is not with the quantum ogre in itself, it's "why is your main plot depending on the PCs randomly stumbling on an henchman"? Even if you manage to get them to the main villain without exposing the quantumness of your henchmen, it would still be less satisfying than if they actively chased down the henchman.

I mean, I'm not trying to argue "quantum ogre is bad and you should feel bad". It's a tool, and has its uses. But in my opinion it's a "worst case scenario" tool, like "oh crap, I made a few mistakes while planning my adventure, so I have to fall back on the quantum ogre strategy because the alternatives are worse". It's not something you include in your plans, it's something you keep in reserve if your plans fail.

Since I love sports metaphors, I'm going to shoehorn one here: it's like taking a contested shot in basketball. Sometimes you have to do it, because you're out of other options, and there's nothing bad about it. But if it happens too often, it's a sign you should improve your offensive strategies. And if you do it when you're not out of other options, then you're making a bad call. Also, if you're good enough at shooting, you might even win a game while shooting a lot of contested shots! But even in that case, you're not playing at your full potential and would become way better if you learned ways to avoid contested shots.

[Thinker]

And thus much more time-consuming because it's not reusable. That's the inevitable (rimshot) trade-off.

I'm not much for inevitable ogres, but I use other ways of making sure the party has the information they need. I'm a strong believer in avoiding single points of failure for quests. There are clues/hints/plot tokens spread all over. They need some of them, but which ones are up to them. Some require intentional research, some require luck, some are pretty inevitable (they come from the quest giver).

I'm agreeable with this. I suppose you could call them Inevitable Clues the way that I use them. The party will be able to find out pieces of information without necessarily being at the exact spot I had expected (though the clues themselves may be different). I'm a bit influenced by Monster World in this regard, but I like to have the investigate roll be used to allow the players to ask questions when they're in an appropriate location such as a crime scene, when interviewing a witness, at an abandoned goblin encampment, while researching a local legend or the specific monster etc. Basically, it's applicable whenever it would be reasonable to find clues about the information. There is a list of questions I will always allow:

• What did the monster(s)/person(s) look like?
• What kind of abilities did the monster(s)/person(s) use?
• Did anything appear to hurt the monster(s)/person(s)?
• Where did the monster(s)/person(s) go afterward?
• What did the monster(s)/person(s) seem to be after?

Depending on the reliability of the witness, integrity of the crime-scene, or the like, I'll tell them how reliable the information is. I will also describe the clue that answered the question - "The footprints of the giant beast headed east toward the churchyard." If they're doing research, they can ask additional questions like, "What kind of monster looks like X?" or "What are known weaknesses of Y?" I also encourage them to come up with additional questions that might be relevant. They get three questions on a full success, 1 on a partial, and none on a failure.

This allows me to provide the information to the players based on their characters' skill without requiring them to be in a specific place to get the information. If it is unlikely that the information would be available based on the circumstances, I'll suggest that they ask another question.

[Pleh]

The quantum/inevitable ogre isn't a problem for player agency unless the inevitability of it is in spite of player efforts to the contrary.

If the party is in town, and had four roads (N, S, E, W) leading out of town, and the DM had planned that there's an ogre on the East road, the party can do a few things.

If they just decide to head out a random direction, doing no particular research, seeking to "see what's there," then the DM - who in our example thinks the ogre is his coolest encounter - can decide their "random" direction was East. If they still are just going in a random direction, but proclaim they're going North (still having done no research to know what lies on any particular path), the DM could move the ogre - the now-inevitable ogre - to the N path.

Both of those are fine. The party has not exercised (or never had) any agency regarding the encounter. To them, there's no difference between if the ogre really was always on the N path, if they had chosen the E path arbitrarily or the DM chose it for them arbitrarily, etc.

The inevitable ogre is only a problem when the DM has placed him on the E path, and the party actually does some investigation to learn that there is an ogre on the East Road, and the party chooses to go any other direction. Now, they have agency: seek or avoid the ogre of which they know. If the DM drops the ogre on them "because he decided to move, and is now here," that's a problem. That's the kind of agency-killing railroading people are griping about.

It comes down to whether it interferes with player agency. If the players and their characters had no agency to begin with, it's not a problem (unless the lack of agency is, itself, problematic; this is best avoided by having it be an information lack rather than a lack of choices).

This sounds like what I was trying to say.

OldTrees. Help me understand the nuances I am missing, will you?

[OldTrees1]

This sounds like what I was trying to say.

OldTrees. Help me understand the nuances I am missing, will you?

Nuance 1: Your post was trying to split Quantum Ogre and Inevitable Ogre into two different concepts. They are the old/current and new names for the same concept.

This does make me see a neat distinction between a Quantum Ogre and an Inevitable Ogre.

However since Inevitable Ogre merely exists as a proposed new name for the perceived misnomer "Quantum" Ogre, there is no distinction to be found between Quantum Ogre and Quantum Ogre (Axiom: Everything is the same as itself).

Segev's post did not try to force a differentiation between Quantum/Inevitable Ogre and Inevitable/Quantum Ogre. Instead it detailed some of the implementations/uses of the Quantum Ogre and discussed how they did or did not impact Player Agency:

• Players decide not to have a choice ("Hey DM, you choose which way we went") & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: No agency lost because not a choice is not a meaningful choice.
• Players make an uninformed choice (a Blind Choice to go North without knowing the encounter was East) & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: No agency lost because a blind choice is not a meaningful choice. Still an Inevitable/Quantum Ogre, just not in an agency harming way.
• Players make an informed choice to avoid the encounter & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: Agency was lost* because the choice to avoid was a meaningful choice before the DM moved the encounter.

*Assuming it is still a Quantum Ogre rather than an encounter with an in game reason for being able to move in reaction to the PC's choice of direction.

Nuance 2:
While your split definition (once we move past the nuance that Quantum Ogre = Inevitable Ogre) does have a good definition for Segev's case 3, the other definition does not map to case 1 & 2.

Nuance 3: I don't think you are missing this one but it is a nuance to mention.
Case 1 and Case 2 have only 1 difference, that being the Players giving up their blind choice to the DM vs making the blind choice. This difference has no impact on the topic of Player Agency, but can impact verisimilitude. One could argue case 1 is not a quantum/inevitable ogre at all. But that nuance is off topic with regards to this thread's topic of Player Agency.

[Segev]

For the record, despite "inevitable ogre" perhaps being a more fitting term, I am liable to go back to using "quantum ogre" in the future just because I like the term more.

[BRC]

I wonder, is the Quantum Ogre less a problem from a "Player Agency" Standpoint, or from a "don't waste the Player's time" standpoint.

Because, as it seems, the problem isn't the Ogre itself. Sometimes the PC's encounter Ogres. The problem is that the PC's spend some time/effort to specifically AVOID the Ogre, but encounter it anyway.


Technically, they have just as much Agency as if they had never heard of the Ogre, or if it was the result of a random encounter the DM rolled 30 seconds before the fight starts. In all three cases, the Players had no way of avoiding the Ogre.

The problem seems to come up when the players are Presented with an opportunity to exercise agency (Avoiding the Ogre), exercise that Agency, and then have their agency ignored.

It both produces that feeling of "our choices don't matter" that extended Railroading leads to, and turns whatever they did to avoid the ogre into a waste of time.

[Segev]

I wonder, is the Quantum Ogre less a problem from a "Player Agency" Standpoint, or from a "don't waste the Player's time" standpoint.

Because, as it seems, the problem isn't the Ogre itself. Sometimes the PC's encounter Ogres. The problem is that the PC's spend some time/effort to specifically AVOID the Ogre, but encounter it anyway.


Technically, they have just as much Agency as if they had never heard of the Ogre, or if it was the result of a random encounter the DM rolled 30 seconds before the fight starts. In all three cases, the Players had no way of avoiding the Ogre.

The problem seems to come up when the players are Presented with an opportunity to exercise agency (Avoiding the Ogre), exercise that Agency, and then have their agency ignored.

It both produces that feeling of "our choices don't matter" that extended Railroading leads to, and turns whatever they did to avoid the ogre into a waste of time.

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I would quibble that it really is about the agency, though.

Players want their actions to have meaning. It's one thing to try and fail because the dice were against you, or you made a poor tactical or strategic decision. It's another when it didn't matter what choices you made, the result was inevitable. The inevitable ogre is a problem when, despite the players deliberately working to avoid it, it shows up. No matter how well they did.

"Ogres are known to haunt these forests, exacting tolls in coin and blood from those who pass through." "Okay, we'll take the long way around the forest."

The DM may not have intended that, and really wants them to encounter these ogres. "The forest is too wide. You, um, can't." "Okay, we'll fly over it; ogres aren't known for flying, and if we prep spells just for this we can get everyone aloft for long enough to cross the forest. You said it was a two-day hike through it, so if we fly over, that should be doable in one day." "Er, um, the ogres have nets and drag you down into the forest for the encounter." "They can hurl nets hundreds of feet into the air, through a canopy of trees?" "They have special net-launching ballistae in the clearings."

Or, "As you skirt the outside of the forest, you come across an ogre who is tromping around out here, too." That's a more classic variation of the quantum ogre.

The trouble with each of these is, again, the violation of player agency. No matter what they try, they WILL encounter the ogre.

[BRC]

I suppose that's one way to look at it. I would quibble that it really is about the agency, though.

Players want their actions to have meaning. It's one thing to try and fail because the dice were against you, or you made a poor tactical or strategic decision. It's another when it didn't matter what choices you made, the result was inevitable. The inevitable ogre is a problem when, despite the players deliberately working to avoid it, it shows up. No matter how well they did.

"Ogres are known to haunt these forests, exacting tolls in coin and blood from those who pass through." "Okay, we'll take the long way around the forest."

The DM may not have intended that, and really wants them to encounter these ogres. "The forest is too wide. You, um, can't." "Okay, we'll fly over it; ogres aren't known for flying, and if we prep spells just for this we can get everyone aloft for long enough to cross the forest. You said it was a two-day hike through it, so if we fly over, that should be doable in one day." "Er, um, the ogres have nets and drag you down into the forest for the encounter." "They can hurl nets hundreds of feet into the air, through a canopy of trees?" "They have special net-launching ballistae in the clearings."

Or, "As you skirt the outside of the forest, you come across an ogre who is tromping around out here, too." That's a more classic variation of the quantum ogre.

The trouble with each of these is, again, the violation of player agency. No matter what they try, they WILL encounter the ogre.

But is Violating Player Agency worse than Denying Player Agency.

"There is one path, and it's full of Ogres" is denying the players any agency in the situation, as is "There is one path, you take it, SURPRISE! OGRES!".


The Quantum Ogre is Violating their agency. It's not just that they have no agency in this situation, but they were led to believe that they did.

[Segev]

But is Violating Player Agency worse than Denying Player Agency.

"There is one path, and it's full of Ogres" is denying the players any agency in the situation, as is "There is one path, you take it, SURPRISE! OGRES!".


The Quantum Ogre is Violating their agency. It's not just that they have no agency in this situation, but they were led to believe that they did.

I would say the latter is only worse sometimes, and those times are when it's done deliberately to fool players who object to the first one.

Players can buy into a railroad if they know it's there.

But if the players didn't want the rails, it doesn't matter if they're visible or hidden by quantum ogres; they're equally bad.

[Pleh]

Nuance 1: Your post was trying to split Quantum Ogre and Inevitable Ogre into two different concepts. They are the old/current and new names for the same concept.

However since Inevitable Ogre merely exists as a proposed new name for the perceived misnomer "Quantum" Ogre, there is no distinction to be found between Quantum Ogre and Quantum Ogre (Axiom: Everything is the same as itself).

Segev's post did not try to force a differentiation between Quantum/Inevitable Ogre and Inevitable/Quantum Ogre. Instead it detailed some of the implementations/uses of the Quantum Ogre and discussed how they did or did not impact Player Agency:

• Players decide not to have a choice ("Hey DM, you choose which way we went") & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: No agency lost because not a choice is not a meaningful choice.
• Players make an uninformed choice (a Blind Choice to go North without knowing the encounter was East) & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: No agency lost because a blind choice is not a meaningful choice. Still an Inevitable/Quantum Ogre, just not in an agency harming way.
• Players make an informed choice to avoid the encounter & the DM moves the encounter to in front of them: Agency was lost* because the choice to avoid was a meaningful choice before the DM moved the encounter.

*Assuming it is still a Quantum Ogre rather than an encounter with an in game reason for being able to move in reaction to the PC's choice of direction.

Nuance 2:
While your split definition (once we move past the nuance that Quantum Ogre = Inevitable Ogre) does have a good definition for Segev's case 3, the other definition does not map to case 1 & 2.

Nuance 3: I don't think you are missing this one but it is a nuance to mention.
Case 1 and Case 2 have only 1 difference, that being the Players giving up their blind choice to the DM vs making the blind choice. This difference has no impact on the topic of Player Agency, but can impact verisimilitude. One could argue case 1 is not a quantum/inevitable ogre at all. But that nuance is off topic with regards to this thread's topic of Player Agency.

Thank you. I think that clarifies my problem somewhat.

I still feel my split definitions could be applicable, though.

I've run out of time for the moment. I'll post again soon to elaborate on my thoughts.