Quantum Ogres - RPG Philosophy

[@petsdinner]

If a quantum ogre falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, is it railroading?

[@marcar9marcar972]

Probably not, can’t imagine the NPC is super important to the party so him dying off screen is probably fine

[@kdolo1887]

I see nothing wrong with the players traipsing around doing nothing while the overarching big bad you wrote up performs his evil deeds and, when the time finally comes, he lays waste to all the players' good works because they never bothered latching on to the threads of the story.

[@suburban-mech2107]

​@marcar9marcar972 Two sessions later: Player 1: Hey... didn't I pick up those two sword-shild things? Player 2: yup. But then you still wanted to go full caster, so you didn't use them. Player 1:... huh. Well, it's not on my sheet... did I sell it? Player 2: didn't give them to me. I'm still broke after that nat1 gambling check. Player 3: Vow of poverty monk. Still only have the two copper from character creation. Player 1: ... wait... didnt I give it to someone? Player 3: Tim! Right! The Barkeep who tagged along with us after the evil Litch burned down his inn. Player 2: Which was... us... Player 1: Right! We had him take the long way around the mountain, giving him the shield-swords as a means of defense. We... didn't wait for him... did we? Player 2:... Player 3: Oh... that's what we were forgetting. Player 1: I wonder what happened to him.... GM: ...About that...

[@segevstormlord3713]

The quantum ogre only falls down in the players' path, so someone is always around to hear it.

[@dealbreakerc]

Best comment I had from one of my players as I wrapped up a campaign following a big battle with the big bad was something like "I thought you said this was going to be a lot more linear or railroady than [other DM's] game." The premise of campaign had been kind of Suicide Squad where if they did not pursue the 'critical path' then the magic brand I had cinematically put on their characters prior to handing over control (basically the opening cutscene of a video game) would detonate killing them. So no matter what, they were going to make progress towards and eventually arrive at the mountain stronghold of the big bad and that is what I had meant when I had warned them that my game would be more linear than out other DM's game. So it really underscored that railroading or quantum ogres are only a problem if the players feel like they had no choice or their choices didn't matter. The perception of choice is far more important than the reality of choice (or lack there of) in d&d.

[@kelpiekit4002]

Sneaking by are the quantum shopkeepers, the set of NPCs you create that are potentially running any/every type of shop until your players decide to visit the pet shop and the top name on the list is confirmed as having run that pet shop for years. Or the quantum no ogre: A room that potentially had an ogre encounter but suddenly doesn't because the last encounter went really bad and your players need a break from combat.

[@minecraft15555]

Quantum Nogre*

[@vonBelfry]

​@@minecraft15555literally was gonna say that myself.

[@enderfire3379]

i want to create a chain of caravans, all run by very high gnomes who sell blursed magic items and call it "the gnome depot"

[@minecraft15555]

@@enderfire3379 Make them all different gnomes, except for one gnome bard that's at every one playing the theme.

[@derpfluidvariant0916]

@@enderfire3379 I went with the"Broken Depot", which was the lair of a were-house.

[@phatpat63]

"We're just going to debate it out for 3 hours until you finally break down crying and begging us to do anything." Is way too real, and hits way too close to home.

[@jeremylackey6587]

I've also had the opposite happen, where players hijack the adventure and do something so heinous that I cancel the campaign and need a break from dnd for a while.

[@saundby]

This is where the headstrong but hapless NPC comes in. If the group doesn't move, they'll pull the encounter. :D

[@0x777]

Nope. My players know that whether they act or whether they don't, the world will act. One or two times where they have to eventually catch up and work under time pressure quickly teaches players that procrastinating and waiting for the "perfect" clue to be dropped into their lap means that they will have to deal with a final battle they did NOT plan for.

[@phatpat63]

@@saundby I find that even more soul-crushing. Just thinking to my players "If I've got to send a GMPC with you just to move the game forward, why are you even here?" In a game I ran last year, the group came back from their 3rd job ever, still newbie stuff, then spent two whole sessions in the small town they were working out of doing _nothing_. They had their next job picked out and everything, they just wouldn't leave town to go do it. I send an encounter at the start of the next session, they complete the fight in 30 minutes, then spend the rest of the session rehashing what the fight meant and arguing over a piece of loot. It took them nearly two more whole sessions to actually leave town. 4 in-game days, 5 real world weeks, and nearly 20 hours of gameplay after deciding what they were going to do next.

[@phatpat63]

@@0x777 I'm glad that you have good players, but if you ever experience running for a lot of people, you will be shocked by how many who will gladly run a game into the ground before taking on time pressure as part of the game's narrative. It's a game of chicken to these people. They want to faff around, and they will torpedo the game before moving along.

[@notajesternotaclown1102]

"I am the Quantum Ogre! I am inevitable adventurers!" "So it was our destiny to fight monster?!" "No! It was our fate for me to say hello to you!" *Quantum Ogre fades away*

[@hrafnkol1404]

Well, now I want to save him from a semi-Quantum Leap experience. Damnit, now I'm invested!

[@Chipperz1]

Theorising that one could time travel within their own campaign, Shaman Sanbek'kett performed the Ritual of Quantum Leaping and vanished... He woke to find himself trapped in AD&D with statblocks that were not his own and driven by the only being in existence that cares about alignment to change modules for the better. His only guide is Al, a spirit from his own campaign who appears in the form of an illusion only Sambek'ket can see and hear. And so Sambek'ket leaps from enciunter to encounter, striving to put right what once went wrong and hoping that the next leap... Will be the leap home.

[@Bluecho4]

Ogre: "I was just an optical illusion!" * Fades away *

[@hrafnkol1404]

@@Bluecho4 Wouldn't that be a cyclops?

[@CrazyLikeUhFox]

DM’s notes: the words “ogre encounter” on an otherwise blank page Random encounter table: “a friendly NPC” DM:

[@DingusKhan42]

There are a lot of internet GMs who have never played let alone run, and only are exposed to D&D through critical role and youtube. They have these big piles of maxims like "never split the party" and "Never say no" when in reality things just don't always work that way.

[@CircumSamurai]

Yeah, a lot of players too seem to think D&D can *only* be fun if the DM runs a perfect game with amazing planning & stellar improvisation while completely avoiding certain tools & shortcuts, like quantum ogres or roll fudges. Definitely agree that in reality, things just don't always work that way.

[@cptKamina]

"never split the party" is maybe the worst "universal rule". I mean for some groups that's true, but I am currently in a campaign that has been going on for over 3 years and we are pretty much always split up, sometimes everyone goes solo. Not that's not for everyone and it requires everyone to stay invested, but it's a very special and fun way to play.

[@Entaris]

@@cptKamina i think the thing that the biggest problem with the "Never split the party" Rule is that it has become a GM maxim when it should be a player maxim. GM's should be trying to split the party all the time. the party splits when they have multiple goals that all seem important and time sensitive. Creating situations in which the party has to weigh the pro's and cons of sticking together for strength in numbers vs splitting up to accomplish more goals is the mark of a great GM. If the wizard dies because the party sent him alone to investigate the old creepy library then that sounds like a "them" problem.

[@sillyking1991]

the thing with "never split the party" as a maxim is that its meta advice as much as in character. yes, individual PC's are in more danger when they lack backup...in theory. but there's also a slew of meta problems that can be caused by splitting the party, in the first place there's the fact that prepared combats are generally going to be prepared with a full party in mind. so either the combat you run into is going to be WAY too hard. or the DM is going to be forced to improvise. which is harder, and for certain styles of DM may not work well at all. then there's gameplay. it can be hard for certain DMs/groups to stay engaged and entertained while they wait for everyone else to spend several minutes playing solo. its actually decent advice for fledgling groups, or groups of strangers, or new DM's. @@Entaris

[@jemm113]

Never split the party was a maxim from the game’s dungeon delving days. You NEVER split the party because literally every square foot of the dungeon could lead to a combat encounter and due to how things were balanced, splitting up would be guaranteed death! But if you’re in town yeah you 100% can split the party to accomplish more things, though keeping a buddy system can still be advisable based on how your DM runs things.

[@ronitabick961]

My players recently went way off the rails and were amazed when their search turned up a clue that I had pre prepared. They were amazed at how I had planned for every eventuality. Of course, they were going to find the clue somewhere, and it made plenty of sense for it to be where they were looking…

[@suddenlysarablog]

This is exactly the use-case for Quantum Ogres. Nobody wants "Session 8 of randomly wandering around hoping we find the clue you placed in a very specific place that we haven't thought to look and refuse to move so we can find it, because none of us are ACTUALLY detectives in real life." Move the damned clue, reward your player's ingenuity and initiative to search someplace that made sense, and keep the story MOVING so you can get to the GOOD part.

[@ieatbatteries7]

Maybe it is more radical but I recently changed the entire resolution of an adventure. My players in CoC followed clues to come to a completely different conclusion, and it was one more connected to their characters and the tone of how we had been playing. So instead of just telling them they were utterly wrong and having an important NPC die due to their misunderstanding, I just rolled with it and had the adventure be what they thought it was. They left none the wiser and satisfied by the game.

[@oz_jones]

We players are a simple sort.

[@davidburton9690]

@@ieatbatteries7 perfect action. I have changed whole BBEG's because some other rival NPC captured their attention much better. Players are also great at telling the story!

[@keithparker1346]

​@@ieatbatteries7sounds like excellent gm-ing

[@juliamedina3322]

I really wish more content creators did this. I'm sick of "Don't do this!" It should instead be "If you do this, then take this and that into account." Great video!

[@marcar9marcar972]

One of things that shows how great Seth is

[@oz_jones]

I mean, there are definite "don't do this" but almost all of them fall under "don't be a dillweed".

[@razenburn]

Seth is a very good content creator for TTRPGs. Been watching him for years now and I'm surprised that his audience isn't bigger.

[@Pneumanon]

A lot of youtubers favor clicks over quality.

[@solukrebut]

People like Seth and Jacob are gems in the otherwise poopy bog that is "DnD Clickbait masked as Tutorials"

[@The_Cakeminator]

Quantum Ogres are typically a video game problem, where you are given the illusion of a choice but are able to load an earlier save and try other options. In a TTRPG it's generally more enjoyable for everyone to play a well prepared encounter rather than something improvised or random. The only GM mistake would be to say "you would have encountered that no matter what you chose".

[@willguggn2]

People complaining about video games that their choices actually only affect some things here or there instead of providing the ten thousand different outcomes of a hundred meaningful decisions ist pretty much the same thing imho.

[@screamingcactus1753]

@@willguggn2 There are absolutely situations in video games where choices are completely meaningless, particularly in dialogue trees. There are countless examples of multiple options in a dialogue tree resulting in identical responses

[@willguggn2]

@@screamingcactus1753 That's why I implied the reason for that in the comment you replied to: It's not feasable to provide tens of thousands of different outcomes from hundreds of meaningful choices, of which the player will only see one, anyway. Not even for a huge triple A title team, let alone a single DM. A game where every decision leads to a fully fleshed out, unique outcome won't get finished before the end of time.

[@ultimatecalibur]

Quantum Ogres are also an issue with premade adventures. Adventures written with them can turn location explorations in to a line of set pieces scenes that can make replaying unenjoyable.

[@anadice-nemo]

“To know what would have happened, child?" said Aslan. "No. Nobody is ever told that.”

[@Orange_Pith]

"can we maintain the illusion that I am remotely competent" The ultimate informal group agreement

[@Alresu]

It's part of the social contract.^^

[@frankmikes9002]

In the old days we would refer to this as the 'Illusion of Choice'. But Seth is right, this is more a time saving tool for the DM and is only a problem if the encounter is bad.

[@bradlee7875]

Capcom's 1994 "Dungeons and Dragons: The Tower of Doom" (a video game made for the CPS Arcade Cabinet) was praised for its (at the time) unique approach to stage selection that allowed the players to choose which of two different areas they would play. It also contains a *literal* Quantum Ogre; the first boss of the game at the end of the first segment is always an encounter with an ogre that functions as the first boss. But he appears after a split path where the players choose whether to chase a group of kobold and gnoll bandits back to their hideout in the mountains, or to run to the nearby town they are invading. The entire second area of the game is different based on whether the players select the town or the cave, with the sole exception of the final boss. The only thing that's the same is the ogre. 🤣

[@thepsion2827]

The fundamental concept of a “Quantum Ogre” is built into the Gumshoe (Trail of Cthulhu, Esoterrorists, Nights Black Agent’s) system. These all being mystery/invesigation style games, Gumshoe reasons that within fiction, such like Sherlock Holmes, the focus of the story is never on how they get the clues but rather what they do with the clues they find. It doesn’t sound like a meaningful distinction but it is.

[@gothmissstress]

Well said

[@Puzzles-Pins]

Yeah, it can be abused or mishandled, but it's a good tool if used well.

[@joshuaosiris]

Every story is a quantum ogre and that’s the point and why this stupid word was created.

[@Calebgoblin]

​@@joshuaosirisor rather, every story has a varying degree of more or less quantum things

[@thor30013]

I was actually thinking about this while watching the video. I think it could be argued that the nature of the clue could matter (ex: finding a newspaper clipping vs the last dying words of an NPC), but the actual content is the important part.

[@kevinbaird6705]

I think Quantum Clues are an anti-sin. "I promise as a GM to give you an actionable clue for this mystery if you role-play (with rules, etc.) some good explanation of how you found it. I have no idea how you'll find it yet. That's the point of an RPG."

[@solukrebut]

I see it as part of the social contract. I let them set the library on fire. They won't throw a tantrum when the assistant just happend to save the one book that has vital clues for the adventure.

[@bunnygirllori4156]

@@solukrebut "I light the book on fire before the wizard can read it." - thief

[@calemr]

I've played mystery games where the GM isn't flexible on these things, and it leads to "Well, None of you made this check to find this specific clue... so we're just gonna meet up for multiple sessions of doing jack shit because you don't know what you're supposed to do."

[@kevinbaird6705]

@calemr Isn't that the worst?

[@Hdhdushzhz57743]

Literally the philosophy behind gumshoe. Mysteries are about interpreting clues, not finding them

[@samsampier7147]

2:35 You're walking in the woods There's no one around and your phone is dead Out of the corner of your eye, you spot him Shia LaBeouf! I like Quantum Ogres, too. Reddit, however, hates the idea the DM does not have unlimited free time to craft contingencies. The Alexandrian discusses this in the Don't Prep Plots. The contingencies are a product of thinking of like a video game. The ogre exists in the world. You might find him multiple places.

[@davidmc8478]

Reddit doesn’t hate the idea, reddit hates the idea if the players make a choice to avoid the ogre and the DM puts it there anyway.

[@michaelramon2411]

The Cult of Player Agency is definitely strong on Reddit. That said, it is true that negating player attempts to avoid an encounter is much more likely to be a problem.

[@blackhammer5035]

Reddit hates everything, including not doing the things it hates.

[@samsampier7147]

@@michaelramon2411 I guessed it depends why the party is trying bypass this ogre. The table needs to have out of game discussion if ogre is problematic. Likewise you really don't want to play in Ravenloft tell the DM. Don't expect the DM to prepare two or more different adventures and you pick between them.

[@sanictheheadhug3936]

@@michaelramon2411 Player agency is the entire game

[@ArcaneFuror]

It all boils down to: "The game is make-believe, smoke and mirrors, and illusions; we all know that on some level. As the GM you bear the responsibility of keeping everything feeling real, never let them see the man behind the curtain no matter how much they know it's most likely there."

[@piece4157]

This is why when a player asks “did you just make that up?” I say, “If I told you, it would ruin the magic.”

[@smurfnhat]

I say "Always" ;)

[@TheRealFacemanguy]

Well if it’s homebrew I make up everything just at different times

[@maxogge]

Once I was having fun and then the gm revealed that it was quantum fun. The evening was ruined...

[@ryanedgerton1982]

The correct answer is "all of it is made up, it's a fantasy game".

[@CrizzyEyes]

To which I would reply, "You could have just said 'yes' instead of assuming I was a moron."

[@FlameQwert]

woah I was *just* thinking about this! I've found that the real key to this is- if clues and signs and events already point to the ogre being in place A, players choosing to go B should not stumble into A. But if the signs and clues and impacts have not even existed at the table yet, feel free to shuffle things around in the "fog of reality" beyond the edge of "things that definitively existed in a previous session"

[@Octa9on]

definitely. I have a hard time philosophically with changing the world being ok just because the players don't know you're changing it. however, it's an unavoidable fact that the GM cannot actually create the world in advance. if the players head in a direction the GM didn't prepare, the only options are to end the session immediately or wing it. and if the GM decides to wing it, then quality will suffer unless the GM uses their existing preparation

[@goldenalt3166]

I think this is what the "quantum" means. Once you've observed it, the Ogre has to be in one place.

[@Merilirem]

I just think you shouldn't give players choices they can't take. If the Ogre is in a room then make all the paths physically lead to that room. Like a dungeon boss. You always end up at the ogre because there is nowhere else to go except to abandon the adventure itself. Don't make quantum choices. Just make it so that they cant miss the ogre. If you are doing clues and puzzles you need to make the players aware that they can fail and perhaps bail them out using a NPC you prepared ahead of time who is going to learn everything just slower than the party. No need for quantum anything.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@Merilirem As is mentioned in the video, it doesn't necessarily make their choice meaningless. The real world is full of choices and many are boringly dull. You don't have to capture that part of reality into your game. The point of this technique is to make the player choice into the fun choice rather than simulate reality.

[@Bluecho4]

Jaquaysing the dungeon does a lot to alleviate the problems of the Quantum Ogre. The dungeon loops in on itself, possibly many times. Just because you're going down one fork doesn't mean you won't _eventually_ loop back around to the Ogre.

[@michaelcohen8259]

I might have to create an actual "quantum ogre". Sounds like it could be an interesting monster!

[@gramfero]

Quantum ogre: It's an ogre which exists in a superposition where it's both alive and dead Immune to weapon attack and spells that target live creatures Immune to weapon attack and spells that target objects

[@rainbowmothraleo]

A tribe of Ogres that got thrown into the unknown regions of Limbo due to a wild magic surge Pure chaotic energy of the plane imbued giant-kin with paradoxical magic. Ogres attained the strange ability to be in multiple places at the same time. Not only that, their intelligence was both greatly increased and horrendously warped. Quantum Ogres attained the supreme knowledge of probability and duality, and used it to return back to Prime as entirely abberant creatures of paradox

[@Sniblet]

The party is called on to deal with an ogre problem. They would have encountered this ogre at about this point in the story regardless of their choices before now. This location is obviously the ogre's lair. It's clearly been living in this place for at least the whole campaign, the signs are all over long before they see the beast himself. During the battle, the DM watches for any action that might kick up a dust cloud or otherwise blind the party. If the party does not cause one, the ogre will. When the dust settles, the ogre is no longer there. The location now appears completely desolate. There is no sign that the ogre was ever there, or that the battle ever occurred. The imprint from where the ogre struck the ground to kick up dust does not exist. The local townsfolk do not recall being terrorized by an ogre in recent months, and their homes and livestock are just fine. While not observed, the ogre has begun to exist, and have always existed, somewhere else. The same messenger that informed them of the ogre being here, has come along to tell them that the same ogre has been causing dire problems three towns over in recent months. He is confused by the players' questions. The ogre knows what's happening and is quite enjoying himself. What exactly is happening, and how the players are allowed to remain aware of it when no one else is, doesn't really matter, as long as the reason exists when players try to observe it.

[@isaacbunsen5833]

The problem with that is that a literal quantum ogre would behave exactly like dice roll between two place the ogre. A literal quantum ogre is just a quantum ogre.

[@ryanedgerton1982]

If you do, please share the stat block!

[@kaylaa2204]

3:30 The difference is random encounters are random. Even in 5e, whether a random encounter happens is random. You roll to see if there even is one. But your thought experiment, the ogre is planned. It’s deliberate. There is no eventuality where the players do not encounter that ogre. And yes, whether or not you can choose the environment you are still forcing the player to have an unavoidable encounter, which does rob player agency The argument that “they’ll never know unless you out yourself” is weird because you’re almost implying they would be upset if they did know… which leans more towards saying it is a bad thing to do if you have to be covert about it

[@inkedvader813]

As for Quantum Orge debate, as a GM I feel like prep is creating Individual pieces that can be plugged into what choices my players make, so roads all lead to the same place, but it is often said it is the journey not the destination that is the real adventure.

[@bobthegamingtaco6073]

Almost. As I gain more experience, I'm learning to prepare the same base mechanical things (say, a weapons shop) and then focus the vast majority of my time into different flavour based on where they might be when they encounter said weapon shop, so it'll be decorated differently, there will be a small handful of flavourful weapons (like a Khopesh in the Egypt Town, or a Katana in The Mall) and which class the level 20 shopkeeper is might change (in Vatican Town it might be a cleric, in Wild West Town it might be a rogue) it's more prep than it needs to be, but I'm learning that if you put a little more effort into the illusion, it goes a long way towards maintaining player interest

[@Merilirem]

This is fine. The point is to not literally have two paths that are actually the same path. If the Ogre is in a room and both paths lead to the room but in different ways, thats fine. If you are going to railroad you should just make 1 path. Not everything needs multiple paths.

[@wilseibel556]

I really agree that the problem is overblown. A lot of what happens in a 'typical' RPG session (in my experience) is "Here is your goal, how will you accomplish it", which gives the PCs a choice, just not unlimited choice. That's fine by me; the more options you give your players, the more decision paralysis they get, so a balance is desirable.

[@roxxrafa]

Mr. Seth, I have been watching your vids for over 3 years now, and as a game master and RPG enthusiast (have been playing since I was 8), just wanted to seize the oportunity to say thank you for your great work, you are a gem in this comunity. Best regards from Brazil!

[@SSkorkowsky]

Thank you very much.

[@SergioLeRoux]

I've noticed that the kind of people that criticize this kind of GMing will generally yell in all-caps how they've been LIED TO and how it's disrespectful and are the people more likely to want to talk to the manager.

[@paytonwhipple5476]

I find having a couple of these quantum ogres helps, if you have 3-5 cool different things you can pick one that generally will fit in naturally and make for a great encounter.

[@LordReginaldMeowmont]

Quantum Ogres are fine as long as they're implemented correctly. I use them all the time and my players have no idea. I just decide "at some point, this event will happen. When and where it happens depends on what they do."

[@xdevantx5870]

The biggest problems I've had as a GM were when I DIDN'T use quantum ogres.

[@thelovepig]

I went to the comments to say this exact same thing. Not doing so makes it feel like NPCs are lockboxes and you just haven't used the right key to get the thing you need out of the. Not a good look.

[@squattingheads]

anywhere. Since an illusion of choice is not necessary to have a great game.

[@rynowatcher]

The context of this being a problem is for people trying to make a real seeming world and decrying adversarial behavior. This was a term coined when d&d encounters were not assumed you could win them all the time and that the encounter would be level appropriate. In earlier editions of the game, you got more exp for getting treasure and were incentivised to avoid fights if possible because the ogre might kill you. The thought experiment is there is a fork in the passage, one leads to the ogre the other is treasure; the players will always find the ogre first, meaning they always get the worst result and face the most hardship. Like Railroading, the term lost context because, as Seth points out, the name is catchy.

[@villiamkarl-gustavlundberg5422]

If you have a big hex map. 10,000 lil' 5 mile hexagons. You want to have a quantum shire of hobbits otherwise the players are just going to treck right on past that keyed location. You keyed the obscure little shire nobody has ever heard of. That's not obvious to thr naked eye from 3 miles away. You keyed something you shouldn't have. Now it's lost to thr players in a sea of terrain features. You bugged up. Quantum ogre is highly highly contextual.

[@rynowatcher]

@@villiamkarl-gustavlundberg5422 this is a matter of style, to your point. AD&D was made for 5-50 players; it was assumed that the one dm would be running a different party every night in the same world with no assumption that anything would happen. You do not have a quantum shire on the map because the party finding and getting to it might have died on the first session because they ran into an adult red dragon and the reaction roll came up that it is hostile. There was not a story planned, and the players might find a gold mine and try to take it instead of seeking out the seven keys of moo, and the gm just prepped a game based on this decision next game. The "quantum ogre" is from that era of play where there was not a clear "plot" so there were no assumptions of "needed clues or encounters." If you could not find enough clues, the murderer got away; heck, you can spend the whole session fabricating evidence that your political rival did it so you can have them arrested and never actually look for clues with this style.

[@sethcourtad8733]

The original quantum ogre complaint was about people having seen the ogre, leaving, and finding another ogre at the next location.

[@SSkorkowsky]

And I listed that as a thing not to do. However, like many terms in the RPG space, in the many years it has bounced around the internet it has shifted and become applied to far more than the original definition. This is like "Never Split the Party". In the context it was originally given it's good advice, but as a blanket term to all situations it isn't.

[@patrickking3124]

If you think you've never encountered a quantum ogre you have and you enjoyed it

[@I_Am_Kas]

I can assure you, I have never encountered a quantum ogre. Because the one encounter I had as a player that one time was at the end of a single path mini dungeon. I wish to be a player again.

[@greatestoldone7658]

I hate when people say things like this. Because no, you can't speak for everyone. It's the exact same with people who claim every DM fudges.

[@patrickking3124]

@greatestoldone7658 the point is that you'd never know. You've had exactly the same experience as you would have had with a quantum ogre.

[@greatestoldone7658]

@@patrickking3124 But that wasn't the point you were making. The point you were making was that it is a trick that all DMs use and therefore all players have encountered, some just not knowing it. Which isn't true.

[@jtjames79]

​@@greatestoldone7658 For perfect agency you would need a perfect simulation. So to bake that cake from scratch you first have to create the universe. So either you have used a quantum ogre (consciously or not) or you've never DMd.

[@haselni]

Everyone is so focused on the inevitable ogre, when the question really is: Why make players scratch their heads over a non-choice. For choices to be fun and meaningful, players need at least a little bit of information, and that information needs to relate in some way to the outcome of the choice. Otherwise you're just pressing F to continue the game.

[@razenburn]

I appreciate the education on new gaming terms. I've always called this Schrodinger's Monster.

[@GameMastersWorkshop]

As a forty year vetern GM, I can attest to the fact that Quauntum Ogres are bad, but so is laying out your adventure like a map. If have encounters that need to occure or clue that you need to pass to players, just mark those as floating, and not needing a paticular place to happen. Instead them become availible any time they are needed to move the plot forward, but only if they are conceivably possible. So lets say rather then placing the map the players need in a hidden chest in room 9-A. Just mark the map as floating, and pass it to the players any time they conceivibly could come across it. AKA: "You search the Goblins body, and find a crudely drawn map. It appears to be of the temple..., etc...."

[@ZekeRaiden]

Random-gen is less important than _proximity_ to the choice. Generating immediately before/after almost always means there's no way to choose besides blind luck/randomness, at which point, why even bother having two routes? Just show the one route and be done with it, because all you've done is given the _appearance_ of a choice. I asked for player feedback after a random-gen maze, rolled (by me) for each new area entered. That befits the weird location (The Gardens of Ynn, excellent book, two thumbs up), but a player noted how that killed the tension of exploration. Going left meant nothing, except for backtracking. The tense fun of exploring a dangerous space drained out. That's why I say the issue is proximity, not strictly before/after. The "all roads lead to Ravenloft, but they're all unique" is complex. It mitigates flaws, but it does so by removing the benefits. (1) If the roads really do differ, they have prepped differences, immediately killing the "less prep" angle. (2) If PCs can examine and get info to help choose, they'll pursue it and deliberate, killing the "spur the action" benefits. (3) If you have to furnish info on what each road seems like, you should be only minimally improvising, killing that benefit too. At which point, there's...not much left of the _benefits_ of the "Quantum Ogre," and you've been forced to adopt most if not all of the characteristics that make it a real choice, not a fake one. So...sure, your more-nuanced answer addresses the problems, but it does so by effectively (if not actually) ceasing to be a Quantum Ogre. RE: Ultimate Destination, the issue here is diegesis. Why are there perfectly identical ogres on both paths (or, if you prefer, an ogre that only appears on the first path chosen)? That conflicts with the idea that there's a world that exists by its own rules, and instead implies a world that simply exists at the whim of the GM. Further, while _some_ agency is preserved because their choice of destination still matters, it's still the case that some agency is lost as well--it's simply not true that "the decision and their agency are unaffected," they're just affected _less_ than if the choice had simply been Nondescript Path A vs Nondescript Path B with no particular destination in mind. We'd prefer to avoid any loss of agency, ideally; that ideal can never be truly achieved, but we should strive to get as close as we can. The "Quantum Ogre" is consciously moving away from that ideal despite not actually being _necessary_ for anything at all. Ultimately, my problem with the Quantum Ogre is that it's really a GM crutch. It's cutting corners, with the justification (as you say) that, if well-executed, the players will never know. The problem is, if you use it more than _very rarely,_ the players will know. They're smarter than many GMs give them credit for. Why use a volatile tool, that causes bad reactions if discovered, and which is more and more likely to _be_ discovered the more you use it, when you could just...not? The benefits, dubious or not, simply aren't worth the risks.

[@BalbazaktheGreat]

I don't agree. Lets say there is an Ogre down path Nondescript Path A and nothing at all down Nondescript path B. Which path the players chose will likely make a significant difference in the player's game experience - one has a significant obstacle to overcome, with potential to effect how the rest of the game plays out, and one has no obstacle at all. So the choice between A and B is significant to the players, but since there is no information given to distinguish the two paths from each other, we can hardly call choosing between them "player agency." In other words, while the choice is significant in one sense, from the player's perspective at the time of choosing it's effectively meaningless; they might have as well flipped a coin to decide on which path to go down. There is a lot of "idealization" going on here, and most of it seems oddly misdirected. You talk about loss of player agency without stopping to ask whether the loss is significant or meaningful in any way. You talk about "the idea that there's a world that exists by its own rules" but then completely misapply the concept. Creating a believable, living fantasy world is all about setting expectations and consistency such that players can make meaningful projections as to the effect their actions will have. Quantum Ogres do not invalidate this unless they run counter to the established logic of the setting. The players in the example given have no reason to expect or not expect an ogre on either path provided, so how does encountering an ogre down either path disrupt the illusion of a consistent world? What "rules" do you imagine are being broken here? None of this is to say the Quantum Ogre can't be abused - if players were to, say, take steps specifically to avoid the ogre and showed up anyway, especially in a place where it doesn't make sense, that would be a genuine example of players being robbed of actual agency. There is no reason the Quantum Ogre need be used in that manner or that it is damaging per se simply by existing. There is a lot more to criticize here: I think you vastly underestimate the value of Quantum Ogre to the DM, and vastly over-estimate the value to the players of the so-called "loss of agency." Your ideal concept of maximum player agency feels like a fallacy - as if every decision one made in life was significant and meaningful. Your conception of a "world outside the whim of the GM' sounds dangerously close to what I call a "rule-as-physics" approach to running RPGs - an approach that, in my opinion, is severely flawed. I don't want to make this into an essay, however, so let me just leave you with this: The example given of Nondescript Path A and Nondescript Path B is a flawed example. While it might illustrate the concept of a Quantum Ogre well, presenting this sort of choice in an actual game would be a failure of GMing. If a decision is going to have significant consequences, context should be provided to the players so that they can make a meaningful decision (or the opportunity to acquire said context, by scouting, observation, magic, etc.) The fact that there is no context (and no way to obtain it) in the example is a FAR worse sin than employing a Quantum Ogre could ever be. Now, I don't believe that you are at all implying that this example was a realistic or desirable example of actual play - you were clearly using it as a hypothetical to illustrate your point about Quantum Ogres. What I am trying to get at here is that replacing the Quantum Ogre with a concrete, pre-planned Ogre on path A and, say, a pre-planned Troll on path B doesn't solve any of your problems: it doesn't give the players any more agency in any reasonable sense, and it doesn't do anything to make the world feel more concrete or believable to the players. (Replace the troll with a pack of goblins, bandits, friendly NPCs, a magical treasure, a random encounter, or even nothing at all if you like. The central problem doesn't change.) What would make the decision meaningful would be to give the players a basis on which to make a decision, and then following through on the logical implication. EG, if there is a sign at the crossing that indicates path A leads to "The Ogre Highlands" while path B leads to "The Trollfens" then PCs have an actual reason to choose one path over the other. Having the Ogre show up in the Trollfens, then would be rather shitty regardless if it was a quantum ogre, a preplanned encounter, or the result of a random die roll. Just as an aside, Random Encounters are meaningful not because they take the "whims of the GM" out of the equation - they don't really, as somebody need to come up with the encounter frequencies, tables, and their contents, which is to say, the GM. Random Encounters are meaningful because they serve, at least in their traditional role, as a calculable risk factor: the longer you spend crawling the dungeon, the more noise and disturbance you make, the more backtracking you do, etc., the more likely you are to have to roll more encounters, and the more encounters you roll the more likely that the dice are eventually going to cause trouble for the party. They are a way to make the expenditure of time (among other things) meaningful. If the players are told by an NPC that the highway is frequented by bandits and they choose to travel down it anyway, even if they don't actually encounter any bandits that still will have been a meaningful decision as long as they had a chance to do so. RPGs, at their heart, are about the overcoming of obstacles, and risk management is a meaningful part of the game. The problem with removing risk management from the game using a device like a Quantum Ogre (aka, an inevitable encounter that you can't avoid) is that it decreases player agency, as you will no doubt agree. But players don't need maximum agency over every single aspect of the game - at that point, you wouldn't need a GM or even dice, as the players would make the story themselves and the only conflict would come in the friction between player's desires. As long as players are given enough agency for their major decisions to have a significant impact on the game world, I think that is sufficient. I think the "fighting the ogre on the cliff side" vs "fighting the ogre in the swamp" example given is good illustration of this: it allows players to make a meaningful decision with the information that they are given: ie, the choice of terrain. In contrast, players are not given information about the ogre, so there is no opportunity to make a meaningful decision in that regard.

[@boneiy]

The core thing that likely bothers a lot of people about Quantum Ogres isn't the notion of lost agency in what overall path they took or who'd be the Big Baddie in the end, but more about the loss of agency in that they often imply they never could have avoided the Quantum Ogres or approached them differently. Something that you phrased perfectly is "if it's used well, there's no way for them to know this was a planned event", and I think that if you take a quantum ogres situation, roll for what's there beforehand or place a predetermined enemy beforehand, and then the players can use tools or good rolls to notice them early, that it would ease most "philosophical" discomforts with it -- which you nailed perfectly in the Once Discovered section. In fact, it shows that if it's a perfect un-discernably quantum ogre it's only really infringing on "fate" in some broader sense that's similarly being infringed on just by a game having a specific plot meant to be explored as opposed to just simulating life and thousands or millions of different characters all at once, which isn't really feasible yet. Unexpectedly thought-provoking vid!

[@SpectralTime]

I think an important consideration is whether or not the player characters could find tracks or other traces to try to determine what is waiting for them ahead and prepare accordingly, and it is something that I haven’t really seen discussed in the video so far. But then, I suppose that would be a problem with Random Encounters generally.

[@0ceanking]

Yeah the basic premise hinges on the fact that the players have no meaningful information whatsoever to base their choice of path on. That is why there is no agency, even if there were different things to be found on both paths already decided in advance. Making choices completely at random =/= agency or roleplaying, regardless of whether the choices all lead to the same thing. And that's why adding tracks and signs you could use to deduce what lies ahead, or making it a choice between mountains and swamp or dungeon rooms with differing features that the players are able to discern before making a choice adds some agency back, even if the ogre itself is still quantum. While they may not be able to make a choice about *what* they would fight, at least they can make an informed decision about what arena they would prefer in case *something* attacks. Giving intel to the players in advance gives them agency but also forces you reduce the quantumness of the ensuing ogres. Or in other words, ya gotta telegraph now and then.

[@Merilirem]

@@0ceanking Even with no clues the choice between going left or right should impact them. If you don't want them to avoid the ogre just have the left path be a dead end or have all paths lead to the same common room. They still got to go left after all, it was just a storage shed with some items instead of a path forward. Deciding in advance lets the players explore. They don't have to avoid the path not chosen after all. Finding out you avoided an ogre is also amazing. As well as finding out you didn't.

[@TalonBrush]

A random encounter with Shia LeBeof truly is a quantum experience... Seriously, though, this could probably tie into a wider discussion on GM preparation, game pacing and player disappointment.

[@freezeburn9875]

I feel that the game master is like a playwright, you don't need to use all the props in your closet, just the ones that people need to see

[@Bluecho4]

Agreed. A GM is, first and foremost, curating the experience of the players. Did the players come to the table for a perfect simulation of a fictional reality? Or did they come to the table to fight some monsters?

[@nixit11g34]

@@Bluecho4 🤔 most of the conflicting views could/should be addressed before a campaign begins. I like to give an overview of my ideas as DM before we start. Players by all means can say meh & nope out. No hard feelings. For example, if I tell my friends I’m wanting to run Ravenloft should a player be able to say no horror themes once we get rolling? Some players love combat central games over heavy RP.. as a DM I should tell them which way it will lean. I don’t want anyone playing to be dissatisfied, but if they know it’s combat oriented should they nope out on the game when presented with it? I’m not trying to argue, just throw out questions for discussion

[@AndrewLenox]

When a playwright writes a play, the characters in the play always do what the playwright says. If I tried to run a game like a playwright, my players would hop off the stage and go see what’s happening in the parking lot.

[@nixit11g34]

@@AndrewLenox 🤔a playwright does produce a play.. but for a different angle.. DM’s set the scene.. it’s up to the “actors” in this analogy to improv, providing the culmination and finale (with dice) to set its conclusion & outcomes. I’m not a “playwright” I simply set the scene & “conflicts”.. ie adversaries, clues, traps or social interactions. My players respond to them & it’s my turn to be an improv player. DM’s are players but with a higher level of tasks

[@dealbreakerc]

@@nixit11g34 The analogy you were looking for isn't a playwright then. A DM is much more like the host of an improve comedy show where they have interesting prompts but don't know what exactly the players will do with that prompt.

[@albusvoltavern4500]

I mix it up. There are times when choices matter, and then there are things that the players will always find out, though I will make two or three scenarios for them so there is still a little agency, and it keeps me on my toes as a DM. If I didn’t do this then the players very often wouldn’t see the plot unwinding until they accidentally save the world. Ex. 1) the players will always meet the Devil disguised as a merchant. The information they get out of him will depend on the conversation and what info they get from locals 2) the players will always meet the blue dragon who terrorized the sea. Now if it’s in his dragon form, with his pirate ship, or him storming out of a nasty nesting with another dragon depends on if the party goes to the governors house, charters a boat, or decides to quest along the coast 3) the party will always fight Og the Bonk, Ork chief. Now the terrain, Allies and context will change because that encounter can happen in a 1000sq mile area. Quantum Ogres are useful, and at the end of the day, if your players hate them, they can try and build a huge interconnected world and relevant plot.

[@ericjarvis5280]

This video made me realize something. As a teacher I use quantum ogres with my students.

[@bobthegamingtaco6073]

It's important for anyone who has to make an enjoyable experience. Yes, you could avoid using quantum ogres and let the children fail because they didn't choose the material that's on the test, but that would suck for them and for you. Alternatively you could take the choice out of the student's hands and end up with a class of hopeless, bitter children because nothing they say or do has an impact on their lives.

[@Nmber1Fan]

"It is just a tool that they should just learn how to use well" - I think you hit the nail on the head there. Really though, the Quantom Ogre Problem actually focuses on the wrong thing in my opinion. The issue that often leads to a Quantum Ogre situation is when players aren't given the information they need to make an informed choice. In the white room scenario with two identical paths, both with an ogre, it doesn't really matter what the players pick because their choice is arbitrary. The dungeon might as well be linear in that case, as the gamemaster is giving the illusion of a choice where there really isn't anything meaningful to pick between. And I believe that is what people are really having a problem with most of the time, even if they can't articulate it.

[@FlameQwert]

this. The experience of games is a sequence of interesting choices. With zero data, there might as well be no real choice and no actual play

[@BF-up5xw]

I imagine that people who have a problem with this device are thinking of the game in simulationist terms, rather than as collaborative storytelling. I'm thinking of the simulationist approach as involving a set of rules (including the adventure as written) that are applied in much the same way as the rules of a sport. I tend to like a blend of the two. Give the players plenty of room for their decisions to make a difference; but also try to keep them entertained, immersed and enjoying themselves. This includes improvising changes to events around the players decisions. One such change is to move the location of some item, event or character so the players don't miss out on it.

[@colbyboucher6391]

Pretty much. I think where "quantum ogres" _are_ damaging is in honest to god dungeons, but the thing is, D&D 5e players (and GMs) kinda don't know what an honest-to-god dungeon is. Like, specific dungeon movement rules on a ten-foot grid, time ticking with each "turn" which actually causes stuff to happen. In that environment, you might not want to go exploring the entire dungeon, deciding where to go and where _not_ to go is kind of a skill both in terms of how dangerous a place is, and in terms of not spending more time than you need to spend in a place that's gonna drain your resources until you escape or die. In that environment, "quantum ogres" are specifically an encounter you "need" to happen (which you shouldn't there), not something you roll for but something that'll inevitably show up regardless of where the players go. That sucks, because it usually feels kinda obvious.

[@willguggn2]

Inevitable encounters like that are only "kinda obvious" If they're heavily overused. Like with overused tropes in film and TV they break suspension of disbelief, which makes them feel kind of 'meh'. The tool in itself isn't bad.

[@bobon123]

The point of Quantum Ogres is not that the players will know: of course if the players will found out it is terrible, but the issue happens also if they will never find out, because Quantum Ogres are not an issue per se, but they are the footprint of a larger issue in the adventure. Let me further clarify: of course there is absolutely no problem if you roll all the random encounters before the players' choice. However let's go on a bit on this example you make. If you can roll before the choice, it means that there is the same random table on both roads. If everything is the same on the two roads, the players' agency is already negated, both if you roll before or after. If the players spend half an hour deciding if going along the king's road or taking a boat, but whatever they do they will have the same structure (3 rolls on the same random encounter table) it is _not_ a choice. It is like asking if they want the envelope A or B, but there is the same content in both envelops. And this is the issue with Quantum Ogres: if behind both doors there are ogres, they are not making a choice because there is no way of making an informed choice. Why there are two equal roads to reach the same point, if they are the same? What is the game theory purpose of the choice? Notice that _even without Quantum Ogres_ the situation would have been as bad: if there are two roads and the players want to avoid the ogres, if there is no way of understanding before where the ogres are it is a useless choice. Even if you have Classical Ogres, ogres only on one of the two roads, it would not solve the issue: the fact that you _could_ have Quantum Ogres is already the issue - it means that the choice is irrelevant, that the players are choosing randomly.

[@hr329085]

That requires a level of unhealthy metagaming. Players would have no ways of knowing everything. Saying that every choice needs to be 100% informed of all outcomes is just ludicrous if you want any semblance of realism in your stories.

[@UnbeltedSundew]

I've never heard that term before. In any case as a DM who hasen't been using such mechanisms in the game I'm running I can tell you that the players can find it very frustrating when their actions or failures to meet a goal cause the story to stall. Real life can be similarly frustrating, but that doesn't mean it's going to make for a fun game.

[@Oddmanoutre]

The people who decry the Quantum Ogre are likely the same ones that benefit from Schrodinger's Displacer Beast: when the GM realizes that the encounter is too tough, and decides to let the PCs kill it with a few good hits, rather than letting the players struggle to come up with a plan that might or might not save their skins.

[@SquirrelGamez]

I never heard the term "Quantum Ogre" before... I always just called that encounter recycling. Like if the players avoid an encounter, you just reuse it later. Would never just put an encounter in the left corridor and swap it when the party goes right, but that's mostly because I don't DO random encounters. My encounters always have a reason to be there. That might be semantics, though? Anyways, great video as usual, and I like the cute tokens.

[@cidlunius1076]

This just means that despite having different experiences you arrived at the same conclusion and had little issue with it.

[@kevingriffith6011]

I do think you're misinterpreting what's being said a little, yeah. I'll give you a good example. Say the party is travelling along a stretch of road between Waterdeep and Red Larch. Some time along the way they are attacked by bandits. I would wager you didn't make a detailed battlemap of the entire long winding road, perfectly measured to the 5 foot space... you very likely just had a stretch of road as a map and put that specific piece in front of the players with the bandits on it... but if the party decided to take a detour about 5 miles out to go to some unrelated town you could use the same group of bandits and the same stretch of road. Quantum encounters exist specifically to save the game master prep time by taking advantage in the gaps in the players' information: Once the players have gathered the information then the quantum encounter needs to become real and commit to one of the locations that you could have put it, even if the players decide to go somewhere else... and as someone who spends over 4x as much time prepping as he does actually playing, I need to save all the time I can.

[@andruloni]

in your example the encounter didn't choose one of the few paths that just so happened to be the one chosen by players. they avoided it, and the encounter stayed where it had reason to be. down the line, the ogre had a reason to be somewhere else, the rest of the prep got recycled. so your name fits what you described, but you didn't go: encounter has a reason to be on all paths, so it will be on the chosen path.

[@SquirrelGamez]

Makes sense. Only time I really move encounters to wherever the party goes is if the encounter is necessary for story progression.

[@AcidReignFL]

The D&D played today by the majority is a more narrative style of play in which the quantum ogre is a useful tool. Those which espoused its use more likely come from an older style of play that despised its railroading usage while seeking out an emergant story in a sandboxed environment where player agency was king.

[@nutherefurlong]

There's some setting practice that's about leaving clues that suggest what may be down a certain route. If the routes are functionally identical then there's not much of a choice unless the party tends to stick to one direction to make sure they don't get turned around and miss something. If that's true it's maybe on the GM to make the dungeon more interesting, so if they're paying attention their choices actually matter in the sense that they're using the clues presented to make decisions. It could then be up to the GM to decide whether the clues always point to things or only suggest the presence of things that may not be in the exact room suggested when the party arrives.

[@colbyboucher6391]

In the context of a D&D 5e dungeon "crawl" that isn't really a dungeon crawl at all, absolutely. Places that literally didn't matter are a bit more interesting in the context of actual dungeon exploration rules, where wasting time can cause genuine problems and there's a bit of tension in the act of just choosing to check a room out.

[@normative]

I think one way to encapsulate the principle Seth’s getting at is that Quantum Ogre’s aren’t in tension with player agency unless they invalidate player effort and investment. If the party just picks the quickest or easiest road to the capital, you can decide they encounter bandits on either road. If they spend time asking around to see which is safest, or take pains to travel undetected, or go by sea because they’ve heard about bandits, then it should at least no longer be a predetermined certainty that happens, unless they’re specifically being trailed for good story reasons. It should matter which road they take if the PLAYERS treated it as a decision that mattered.

[@kmoustakas]

If I roll the random encounters before the game session, does that make them planned encounters? Quantum ogre is indeed an amazing name.

[@chadsmith8966]

I have to say yes, however planned encounters are not necessarily a bad thing in of themselves. If you’re rolling Random Encounters to populate a dungeon are fine so long as the players still have agency. We all as GMs, myself included, gotta remember these are tools in our arsenal and there no such thing as a bad tool only bad GMs. I for one wouldn’t want to use hammer when I could’ve used a screwdriver instead

[@hallavast]

You can use a random encounter table to design a pattern of encounters. So... maybe. It's up to you.

[@Syaniiti]

I've never ever used a random encounter table or rolled on/for one. But I figured unless the encounter moves then it's not a quantum encounter and therefore pre-rolled random encounters are planned encounters.

[@originaluddite]

As a GM I've decided, sometimes years in advance, the location of major population centres, by the act of drawing a map. Is that hundreds of thousands of potential planned encounters? ;)

[@Merilirem]

Its not about when you decided or how. Its about where the encounter is. How the players reach it. You can roll random encounters for every room ahead of time. What makes it quantum is if you tell them the encounter when they enter the room because you put them in an ordered list that they will go through regardless of which path they choose.

[@dreamcanvas5321]

I honestly subscribe to the philosophy that it's only "railroading / quantum ogreing" if you aggressively force events and encounters that your players dislike or aren't narratively / organically sensical given their choices.

[@eladhen2]

I found that the moment I let go of maintaining the fiction that I prepped everything in advance things got a lot easier.

[@Syaniiti]

Embrace the dark side, avoid all prep you can.

[@CuriousKey]

There's no quantum ogre when you don't prep an ogre in the first place.

[@Syaniiti]

@@CuriousKey You don't need to prep an ogre to have a quantum ogre, therefore don't prep at all to avoid creating a quantum ogre.

[@eladhen2]

My players know that I don't prep because we talk things through around the table. I like making things up with friends. That's part of the reason to roleplay. Prep feels like homework where not prepping leaves the stage open for fun in the session (YMMV) @@Syaniiti

[@Syaniiti]

@@eladhen2 So instead of "Not preparing everything in advance" you "prepare nothing in advance". I'm not quite that far in yet I still make maps etc.

[@freefall945]

In a perfect world, a GM for a group of players who want maximum agency would have a computer for a brain and have a constant working knowledge of what creatures and situations occupy every variation of journey they might take. But we're not computers. An RPG, even a very narratively open one, isn't a fully realized world - it's the illusion of a perfectly realized world manifested as it is discovered. RPG's are GENUINELY quantum story telling, but the illusion of the fully realized world is as important as the secret economy we use as gamerunners to supply it.

[@citcoin-official2681]

Quantum Ogres are like Fudging in my opinion. Never tell your players you did it. Never do it to 'punish' them. And Don't overuse it.

[@luketfer]

The same with 'dramatic healthbars' if you *ever* tell your player you're using it it will destroy the illusion immediately and certain players will just lose interest in fights at all.

[@andrewgreeb916]

Only use it when necessary, or use it to recycle skipped encounters

[@jamesrizza2640]

Your description and answer to the quantum Ogre equation is spot on. 1. Never telegraph or tell the PC's what your doing. 2. Once an area is discovered the quantum state is answered in either a yes or no state. 3. If you do use a quantum ogre, make it make sense to the areas in question to keep verisimilitude. Great Job Seth!

[@BobWorldBuilder]

Never here this early, so I just want to say hey Seth!

[@SSkorkowsky]

Heya, Bob!

[@shelteredchild8008]

When are we getting a colab with Bob and Seth? That would be awesome!

[@joshprice4855]

You know, no matter how many times I see creators connect, it will always surprise me. This one is in my top 5 for sure.

[@EvilMastermind]

1. Time variable The moment a choice becomes completely meaningless. In the case you presented, the moment you decided "Both rooms are gonna be the same, regardless of which way the party goes." it became a quantum ogre because the choice of the path no longer matters. If the GM were to roll once for the top room and once for the bottom room beforehand then that's not a quantum ogre because the choice is different. Even if you roll the same encounter by chance, you could change up the location or something but that's still a 1/6 chance of happening. (And you can always roll again if you don't want to alter an existing encounter or prepare a multi-column encounter table where you use the first and then the second if you roll the same on the second or third or god knows which die.) 2. Location variable I don't think you understand what a quantum ogre is... A quantum ogre is quite literally the exact same thing in either choice. An ogre fight in a swamp vs an ogre fight on a narrow mountain path is absolutely NOT the same thing. In this case it would be if the fight took place in a tower which you just ploped down in a swamp or mountain respectively. The inside would be identical, the combat would be identical, the choice of the environment would be irrelevant. If you keep it within a different environment it makes a big difference for the dynamic of the fight itself and it is not a quantum ogre. 3. Destination variable In the typical issue of quantum ogres, the ogre is understood as the destination. Your example of the players going from port to place A or B and encountering the same monster along the way isn't a quantum ogre. They never had a choice that would affect the encounter in any way in the first place as both locations would probably be open sea as a battleground anyway. It's more of a "Go by sea? Sea monster attacks." kind of condition rather than a quantum ogre. A quantum ogre would be if both destinations A and B were the same city with just the name different. 4. Are they a problem? Of course they are. If it's irrelevant for me to make a choice, why put the choice there in the first place? And if I find out about it, I just don't really care about being clever with my actions and planning and such because I know that regardless of what I choose I'll be in the exact same shit. So in the end, pondering a choice of path turns into "Whichever one. Doesn't matter." and that's disheartening. 5. Once discovered Your example with the Specter isn't really a quantum ogre because they have a choice which actually makes a difference. If I have a choice of corridor A or B, I sneak into A and see a Specter in there, it'd be a quantum ogre if I sneak down the other way only to find a pretty much identical Specter too. Having one place have an encounter and the other not having it makes the choice of path relevant and it is therefor not a quantum ogre. (Especially if the players can completely bypass the encounter like you said.) 6. Needs to make sense Yes. This is pretty much what I pointed at in point 4. It's a quantum ogre if you face the exact same thing regardless of your choice which is pretty much exactly what you threw out in your example. That is why it's a bad thing and shouldn't be used. People want to see their choices matter. If the choice doesn't matter, we can just skip the middle parts between the string you're eventually gonna lead us to anyway regardless of our choice and we can end the session an hour or two early. 7. Closing thoughts If you're using them extremely sparingly like you (2 in 2 years) then it doesn't really matter because in the extremely rare case of you not giving the players a choice is an overwhelming flood of meaningful choices. It's an exception, not a rule and that's how it's supposed to be. If every dungeon has quantum ogres galore then that's a problem. - I don't know which idiot saw Illusion of choice and decided to call it "Quantum Ogre" of all things... Such a bloody stupid thing to call it... But this part is just personal banter and I'm glad to know that it's just some snowflake somewhere coming up with new names for old things.

[@craftsmenMC]

Now I just want to make an actual quantum ogre monster that just shows up wherever it wants

[@saundby]

Don't forget to make it truly quantum. It only has specific power levels (hit dice) and will only lose power if a successful strike hits with exactly the right amount of damage.

[@craftsmenMC]

@@saundby that would actually be really cool. Imma steal this if ya don’t mind.

[@someone4650]

You're not railroading, you're just moving the tracks so they're in front of wherever the party is going at all times.

[@Calebgoblin]

The really simple answer imo is keep the quantum ogre and add plenty of other unique stuff that is obviously specific/consequential to the player's choice. E.g. they took the right path so it leads to a swamp with swampy things, or the left path leads to a snowy mountain with snow related stuff. But the ogre is there with a quick snow/swamp paint job.

[@FugueNation]

“Mortals, mere playthings of destiny! You think you can tread the paths of quantum probability and escape unscathed? I am the guardian of these crossroads, the keeper of infinite outcomes! Whichever path you chose, it was always leading to me. Your fate is not your own; it is mine to manipulate. Now, bear witness to the power of the Quantum Ogre and face the inevitability of your doom!”

[@TheGreegles]

Dread it. Run from it. Quantum Ogre arrives all the same.

[@misterdonwaters]

“My character want’s to become 20th level and the most celebrated hero on the entire world.” - “That seems to be everyone’s goal. First you may have to venture into many dungeons and probably kill an ancient red dragon.” - “You’re taking away my agency!”

[@Syaniiti]

I once GMed a campaign where the PCs could become literal gods if they reached the 20th level and had a big enough following (of people that believed in them, whether that was belief that they were a hero or belief that there was a mysterious murderer around or whatever), admittedly they were concerned about the lack of high level characters. The campaign ended due to inattendance before the players got around to figuring out why there weren't any other high level characters around (or any at all, the players were only level 5 when we ended). But it would've turned out the gods don't want to share their worshippers with these newfangled herogods and did everything they could to smite anyone high enough level to be a threat. I've also GMed a game where a character became essentially Dr. Manhattan due to a magical wish gone slightly wrong, sure it happened at the penultimate session but in the epilogue the character eventually left Earth to make his own galaxy (a few thousand years after the end date of the campaign and a failed attempt to end himself by flying into the sun).

[@gregconen]

Right! Some restrictions on player agency are necessary for running a game. As with many things, how much agency to give the players trades off against other objectives, so it's possible to have too much or too little (and how much is optimal depends on the style of game).

[@Merilirem]

Requirements aren't agency impacting. Agency only comes into player when what they choose to do isn't affecting the results. Like a scripted loss.

[@MrDuncanBelfast]

Reminds me of a quote from The Matrix Reloaded: "Nobody can see past a choice they don't understand."

[@Kaljuun13]

Meh, I have no problem with this player or gm side. So long as it's used sparringly. Likely just folks with super bad experiences throwing a fit. I like eating the hook of the game, and sometimes you just need a quantum ogre to show up and give you a kiss of encouragement.

[@saintjst7]

Agreed. Every complaint I've heard about this is because the encounter was very poorly structured. If this tool is implemented properly the players should never even know they encountered a "quantum Ogre."

[@swordbreaker9741]

IMO, I don't think you quite described what the quantum ogre problem is. In your example of the two hallways and two random encounter, those were planned ahead of time; it could just as easily be an ogre down one path and a trap down the other, it just so happened that there were two possible random encounters. If the party decided to split up, you would have to roll a second encounter and that would possibly be two different encounters. In the quantum ogre, though, the GM simply decides that "in the next room, the PCs will find an ogre" without knowing *what* the next room will actually be. It fundamentally doesn't matter what path the players decide on, because "in the next room, the PCs will find an ogre." The problem is now: why give your players the impression that their choice will lead to different outcomes, when "in the next room, the PCs will find an ogre"? Just my take on the issue.

[@Rogstin]

A Quantum Ogre is better than a Boltzmann Ogre. You don't know where the Ogre encounter will end up being, but that Ogre better have a reason for being there. EDIT: Well, I just had to wait a minute before making this comment.

[@elhoteldeloserrantes5056]

XD

[@brenorocha6687]

What's a Boltzmann Ogre? An ogre that exists in a vacuum but have memories of a whole universe around it?

[@FrostSpike]

@@brenorocha6687 If such a universe even exists outside of the Ogre's own thoughts. Or is that the Solipsist Ogre?

[@Belgand]

I prefer Heisenberg's Ogre. You can't know exactly where he is, but you know exactly how quickly he's approaching you.

[@FrostSpike]

Or Schrödinger's Ogre that may, or may not, be alive when you make your Open Door or Pick Lock roll.

[@jeremyglebe4050]

Regarding the dilemma at around 3:30 or so (two paths, both lead to random encounters, rolling the encounter first): I think that if you have two directions a group of players can go, and both lead to a random encounter, you could just have one room to go to instead of a false choice. I call this "collapsing" a dungeon. I do it frequently to official modules that have dungeons with 4-5 paths that all don't really lead to anything unique. It might cause one room to have lots of doorways. However, one room with lots of doors is also easier to remember for players and to map. I also narratively skip hallways unless there is something noteworthy to the players in them. (If something is hidden I'll just have a passive perception or whatever equivalent within the system determine if they notice) So it's like "you go north through a hallway and in the next room..." I've received a lot of positive feedback when using this to run notoriously scattered dungeons. (Looking at you, 5e Mad Mage)

[@Incrediblefatslug]

Never forget that the quantum ogre has infinite hit points until the DM has decided that everyone has done enough damage. Because why would you give a Quantum ogre a finite number

[@albusvoltavern4500]

I’m going to have my players fight the same ogre every session now, the ogre will retain all memories and slowly adapt.

[@MalloonTarka]

Before I watch, I'll give my uninfluenced take on the subject, just to see how well it meshes with what is said: I think the most important thing when using quantum ogres is to not invalidate players' choices. If they made specific decisions, used resources and took time in order to avoid the ogres, just putting them in their path anyway without a good in-story reason is a dick move. But if either choice players make could just as easily lead to an ogre (even if the surroundings change and possibly influence the fight) and you have an ogre prepared anyway, using them if fine. You may want to still take some care in order to keep your world consistent or your story beats less trite and predictable, but nothing the GM prepares is set in stone until it's brought up at the table. Edit: I think I hit most of the important parts. :) Nice.

[@DanJMW]

"There's no way for the players to know..." That is a problem in itself. Absence of intel is another method of robbing players decisions of meaning. It also means that encounters in your world each exist in a vacuum and their reality does not extend beyond the battlefield and the moment they are encountered in. A lot of the time there should be some method for the PCs to gather clues about what might lie ahead, and those clues come about because the monster or enemy has existed for some time and has been affecting the world around it. This doesn't need to be the case every single time, but it is a good approach to keep in mind in general. Especially in Old School play, gathering rumours, information, intel and scouting are all important strategies. Yes you discuss this in the second half of the video, but the DM should probably be placing these clues at the design stage, thus the location of the ogre is no longer quantum.

[@cadenceclearwater4340]

I now want to make a creature called _The Quantum Ogre._ A deadly fae assassin with a % chance of being behind any door you open. 👹

[@NerdyCatCoffeeee]

You're describing a cloker from Payday 2. Does it have a wulululululu sound when it runs at you as well?

[@ColonelEviscerator]

An ogre that can traverse the Astral Plane?

[@blshouse]

60% of the time, it attacks every time!

[@theeverchosen1504]

I've always loved the idea of an Ogre Ninja

[@41217beingbored]

Or an orge assassin that works for a chronurgy wizard to go after the party.

[@MoeMoeKyun206]

My position is that the quantum ogre isn't the problem, it's the false choice before the ogre that is the problem. If you're a DM and you're making a dungeon and you offer two pathways, but they're both gonna lead to the exact same ogre encounter because that's what you prepped, why did you offer the choice? Say there was one passage, and describe ogre sounds down the passage. Just saying "there's gonna be an ogre at some point this session" isn't a quantum ogre; The quantum ogre is defined by the false choice, which is what makes it bad. If I as DM offer the players two passageways, they want to know what they hear or smell down them; If there's an ogre, they might hear deep growling humming or snoring if he's asleep. If it's goblins playing dice, they might hear shrieks and curses and clattering noises. If there are spiders, they might notice a bunch of cobwebs on the ceiling or dead rats and beetles littering the floor. This is what makes the choice of passageway actually interesting, instead of just a coin flip "guess we'll go left, I dunno." If there's only one encounter that you've designed, then don't make two passages. Just make one passage that leads to the one encounter.

[@billunderbridge3500]

I am curious what my method falls on. I build random tables for encounters. I also build planned encounters. Most sessions have players doing things rolling on the tables 3-6 times. The thing is one of the encounters will be the scripted encounter that pushes the plot forward. It is going to happen that session. The question is when not if?

[@DaxterL]

the crux of any issue like this is that NO idea is ever bad, no technique, tool, theory, trope is EVER bad. It is all about the execution, placement, relevance and how "hidden" it is. Don't let the mice know they're in a maze.

[@willguggn2]

One magician may perform a certain magic trick poorly, while another one strings the same trick skillfully into a captivating routine.

[@bohort]

looks like this is a great reason to never communicate with your players other than in game, never tell them whats preped and you aren't railroading them. :P or tell them you thought it would be cool and they might even tell you that it was

[@LagiacrusHunter]

I'm completely up front with my players that I don't plan more than 1 session at a time. If I do pre-plan anything, I prepare modular adventures and encounters I think everyone will enjoy, and then plop them into the story wherever they make sense. My favorite tip, always remember to include a line at the top of the adventure stating, "This is what happens if the Heroes don't intervene", and then use that for future worldbuilding. NO PREP LEFT BEHIND!

[@lordshell]

I use this trick regularly, but usually with clues. Because if I didn't, my group would constantly go in circles. I did used to use it in Ravenloft, but I'd let the Tarokka deck reading decide where things were.

[@kayosiiii]

rather than the quantum ogre, I like the concept of the par-baked dinner roll. I have mixed the dough - let it rise, then put it in the oven and baked it until 5 minutes from perfection. During the session I make a few alterations then pop the roll in the oven for 5 minutes - and hey presto fresh bread.

[@ADiceySituation]

Never heard of Quantum Ogres, but two things. 1. I've learned something today. 2. It's a great name for a band.

[@Syaniiti]

But in which venue will the band play of the two listed?

[@keithparker1346]

​@@Syaniitiboth venues with the same set 😊

[@brenorocha6687]

The thought experiment discussing what are the implications of when the wave function collapses made it even more quantum.

[@cadenceclearwater4340]

Skyrim's the example for this. Where encounters are tied to either: location, time, level, item, or plot. It's how you use it.

[@meatguyf1375]

Yup. It's a tool like any other in the DM's arsenal.

[@cptKamina]

Using Skyrim as a reference is not a good idea tbh

[@thelaughingman4791]

@@cptKamina Why not?

[@cadenceclearwater4340]

@@cptKamina How so? A lot of people know it, and in this instance, I think it holds water.

[@cptKamina]

@@cadenceclearwater4340 Because it is not at all structured like a tabletop game.

[@obsidian-dice]

The missing piece here is that you shouldn't present the players with an informed choice and then negate that choice. If the players choose between the swamp path and mountain path and are going to be ambushed by bandits in either terrain, that's fine. But if the players had heard rumors of bandits in the mountains and choose the swamp instead, it would be bad form to just throw the same encounter at them and reskin the bandits as goblins. Similarly, if the players are choosing between traveling to the small farming village to look for the macguffin or the big city gather allies, it's fine to have an ogre on the road to either location. But it's crappy if the players are secretly going to find the same dungeon/adventure at either location, and their choice between the two paths didn't actually matter.

[@richardleatherman5075]

Also some NPCs have agency themselves. A pack of wolves may have caught the party's scent or a group of goblins may have skilled scouts that looking for potential trespassers throughout some woods and will almost certainly be encountered at some point. And there are also enterprising brigands, rival adventurers and party nemeses that may actively be searching for encounters with the heroes.

[@Merilirem]

Another good comment. In the case of the ogre you can just have it smell or hear them and follow them down the path it wasn't on.

[@andrewrockwell1282]

I am aiming in my games to provide players with enough information to make informed decisions and risk reward analysis.

[@jakubjanicki3989]

I personally consider a "quantum ogre" to be a specific plot that the players WILL step into regardless of trying to avoid it or find something else. If the players just decide "Meh, let's go east" and step into an ogre the GM planned to have somewhere or an ogre from a random table, that's A-OK. My issue is specifically with situations like players going "We want to avoid the ogre, so we'll go to XYZ area to avoid the ogre" and the GM goes, "lol, you encounter an ogre" - that's a hard no from me.

[@brendancoulter5761]

That makes some degree of sense, but what if the Ogre is hunting the party for story reasons? If thats the case I think its reasonable to say he will eventually catch up to the party unless they go out of there way to lose him. Point being the line between railroading and simply having NPCs with their own agendas the players can not completely control is a thin one.

[@persephoneunderground845]

Yeah, had that. We had planned a stealth mission to break into an official's house and steal some evidence. We staked the place out to get staff and routine details, sourced uniforms identical to what his household staff wore, and drove in the staff entrance like we were going to work, with stolen credentials. It was all going well. Then he randomly had an "I was waiting for you the whole time." ... cutscene where we were unavoidably caught. The thin justification was "you're really bad at stakeouts." But we never actually rolled for how well we did on that! So that felt reeeeaally bad and arbitrary. I think the GM just wanted us to talk to this npc she was excited about introducing, but completely blowing up our fun, solid plan to do it really ticked us off. This was a pretty inexperienced GM, so it's a really understandable mistake. But we all learned what everyone means about player agency being important after that session!

[@pyra4eva]

I think the big issue is how it feels. Does it feel like there was no actual choice? Like if there are two paths and someone scouts and finds the ogre, can they actually go the other path? If not, then people are going to feel like there was no actual choice and that's when I feel people will have an issue with it. It's like forcing an NPC into interactions that the players just have no interest in and the NPC has no reason to be there but they are there any way because the GM planned on them being there since they want the players to be friends with this NPC. I don't think anyone has an issue with the fact that a module says that the end goal is going to Ravenloft. If you agreed to play the Ravenloft module, the players should have the intent on playing the game with the knowledge that they will eventually end up at Ravenloft. If not, that's bad table etiquette. You don't agree to play a Ravenloft game and then decide to not play the game, attempting to drag everyone away kicking and screaming. If all the players decide to do that, the DM has the right to say that they aren't running a game then. It's about respect. Anything that happens on the way to Ravenloft should be the players' choices but in a reasonable way. An NPC has a clue, then you might have to deal with them to get the clue. If the DM is constantly throwing things at the players and forcing them to progress in a certain way, then the players have the right to back out of the game. I feel like the idea of the quantum ogre circles back to what people mean by railroading. Having absolutely no choice in the matter and feel like all you're doing is going through the motions.

[@2023skidoo]

What the players never realized, was that they were the real Quantum Ogres all along...

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

The Quantum Ogres were just the friends we made along the way.

[@hagoryopi2101]

I think leaving the storyline flexible so all the necessary components are established regardless of the player's choices is acceptable. I think false choices, like those dialogue boxes in video games where the only responses available are different flavors of one singular choice, are not. Maybe the latter is was what the more critical people thought you were suggesting.

[@jesperpetersen6105]

Tastefully done Seth, I was pretty sceptical at first, but your bit about the importance of player actions, and that you can't move an encounter ilogically when discovered, really intrigued me.

[@Darth_Insidious]

I think the point of Quantum Ogres is to highlight that the player's aren't really making a choice there. Which is fine, players don't get to make choices about a lot of the session they play. But if a quantum ogre is the only "choice" you offer then you aren't really giving the players any choice at all.

[@ARedMongoose]

Gotta admit, I'm one of those GMs who has a gut reaction against Quantum Ogres mostly because of how poorly I've seen them implemented. That being said, it's possible I've been Quantum Orge'd without even realizing it. For games I run, I generally use encounter tables instead. It serves much the same purpose, but having some variance makes it more exciting for me.

[@SSkorkowsky]

There was some debate going on Twitter a day or two back with people saying how Encounter Tables stole player agency and all the same arguments I hear about Quantum Ogres. Turns out the whole thing started with a case of the PCs listened at a door, the GM said they didn't hear anything, and once they opened the door the GM then rolled the random encounter. Players were understandably pissed about it. It's the exact criticism I gave of if the players research or listen first, then the Quantum Encounter needs to be locked in. It's either there or it isn't. But people blaming the means (whether Random Tables or planned Quantum Ogres) is silly when the real criticism should be about them being employed badly.

[@ARedMongoose]

Yeah, at the end of the day it all comes down to implementation.

[@Ifrit8054]

I can see that. I use them for general encounters. However I have a party that royally pissed off a doppelgänger by ruining his assassination attempt. He escaped and has been following and harassing them over and over for months. No matter where they go he WILL be there when I decide. Quantum assassin. But nothing is taken from the pcs. They didn’t lose choice by his appearance. They just got stabbed in this city instead of that town.

[@Ifrit8054]

@@SSkorkowskynothing like people thinking they HAVE to use that ancient red dragon against the lvl 1 party because that’s what they rolled so guess adventures over.

[@gagrin1565]

​@@SSkorkowsky I was about to say that this method is just encounter checks writ small. Every previously unknown detail you come up with in your game follows the same set of requirements - you have to make a judgement call that fits the current facts, and you need to keep this new call in mind as true for the rest of the game. If you're doing THAT - then you're doing it right.

[@Freekymoho]

The quantum ogre is only railroading if its executed so poorly the players notice

[@TheAirborneKite]

I think QOs are not a problem, but they can be a bit of a "warning smell" that there's a problem in the writing. If you have a pure quantum ogre - a fork in the road where the players must pick left or right, and their choice doesn't affect anything - it's not necessarily a bad gameplay experience, it's just a sign that you can cut that fork in the road from your script. Spend your time on something that mayters instead

[@Mondoboneable]

Exaclty this. If the players are making a choice, the choice needs to matter and have impact, and also they need to know that it mattered and had impact. And in reverse, if it doesn't matter or have impact, don't bother with having any choice. If the party *must* encounter the Ogre, then don't put it in the road and wait for them to walk into it, just attack them with the ogre. There's no reason it can't be located at the metaphorical signpost. If "All roads lead to Ravenloft." then maybe the campaign should just start at Ravenloft. We didn't need to waste time looking at all of the roads.

[@Merilirem]

THIS is what I have been saying. Why are we making multiple paths that lead different places if they all have the same result? Just make them all lead to the same room and the same ogre. If thats too much hassle just have a single path. Don't make fake paths for the players.

[@Merilirem]

@@Mondoboneable Also if its an actual ogre then just have it move around. It doesn't need to hang out in its room. If they go the other pathway have it take them from behind. I hear ogres have good senses of smell.

[@sillyking1991]

information is exactly the thing. if the players see 2 identical passages, and have no ideas about what might be down one as opposed to the other, then their choice isn't agency...its an entirely arbitrary choice. you don't have agency over random chance. whatever is down that passage doesn't have to be set until the party does something that would give them knowledge. and that knowledge can then give them agency. using your example: if the encounter was identical regardless of if they'd chosen swamp vs mountain. say on a generic plain with a wide open battlefield. then *that* could remove their agency. because they specifically chose, lets say the mountain. But so long as they're making what is basically a random choice between 2 options they know nothing about, then they aren't exercising any agency. one way i've adjudicated this in the past is, rather than giving the party multiple directions and letting them choose. i instead just..roll a dice. had this happen recently ish when my party was going through a nest for some bug like monsters. i told them there were 5 paths that they could reach from here. but since they didn't know anything about where the paths led, i just had them roll a die to see which one they crept down.

[@dreamwanderer5791]

Honestly it's just frustrating to see quantum ogres decried and hated by people who also champion changing the answer of puzzles to whatever the PCs guess after X time. These are the exact same thing, one is just (slightly) more in favor of the DM/GM/Keeper of Lore/What Have You.

[@Tasfarel]

There will always be people who will complain about the fact that you gave them a vital clue via a quantum Oger (did not know that term till now myself). The same people will likely complain to you that you slowed the game down because you withhold that information because they did not find it in the well hidden spot you have prepared

[@crimfan]

I think some folks take the "agency theory" to a reductio ad absurdum. They seem to want the world to exist out there all over, just waiting for them to explore it. I get the desire but the reality is that if you want to let players have agency and have the GM not die from prep work, it's absolutely necessary to use Quantum Ogres, "Sourcing the Table", and so on. But you're right, you shouldn't just undermine them by doing too much railroad and make sure there are meaningful choices to be made with any encounter.

[@padmewan]

I love how you went deep into the metaphor and had the players peek into the box to see if the cat was dead or alive

[@stephenmurray7495]

I totally agree, Seth. I feel this is the difference between us coming together to tell a shared story and us coming together to play some Texas Hold'em. Both fun, but narrative isn't blind in storytelling.

[@willgraham9867]

Another great post, Seth. I have been gaming for 35+ years and I’ve never heard of quantum ogres either. But I use them all the time. I agree with everything you have said.