I’ve recently come across a couple new discussions of quantum ogres in the TTRPG community. Obviously there are differences of opinion around what exactly a quantum ogre is and whether or not it’s ever an appropriate to for a GM to employ. Allow me to define my current position: I believe GMs should prep for players and play the world.
What I mean is that outside of a play session the GM is a game designer. They design scenarios, plan how they’ll run the game, and even hack the rules of the game, with the experience of the players (and themselves) in mind. A GM’s goal during prep should be to help everyone have fun during play.
During a play session the GM is a simulator of the imaginary world. They are the interface through which players control their characters and interact with the game world. The GM makes rulings on the outcomes of actions based on what is reasonable in the game world. Of course, they may use rules and procedures to help them accomplish this lofty goal.
The problem arises when a GM begins to mix up their roles. If a GM attempts to simulate the game world during prep, playing out the potential consequences of PC actions without the PC’s input, they’re likely to railroad during play. If a GM makes rulings during play based on player experience (fun), they’re likely to make quantum ogres.
What’s important to me, is that the greatest potential for a positive experience in a TTRPG comes from player agency. Although satisfying stories are fun, they’re best left to less interactive media. Books and movies sacrifice player (viewer) agency in favor of a satisfying story. That’s great for books and movies, but that’s a different type of medium than TTRPGs. TTRPGs should emphasize their best qualities that are unique to their medium, namely, player agency.
The problem with railroading and quantum ogres comes when they remove player agency. However, let me be clear that I have less of an issue with other potential problems with those things than other people do. For instance, let’s talk about Sly Flourish’s secrets and clues, as first explained in Return of the Lazy Dungeon Master.
In Lazy DM,Sly Flourish suggests that when preparing and play session, you should create 10 secrets or clues that explain little bits of the game world. He emphasizes that those pieces of information should not be placed in specific locations or with specific NPCs, instead they should remain abstract from the game world until one is revealed at a reasonable time during play. I don’t have a problem with this, so long as the appearance of a secret is based on a reasonable simulation of the game world, and not based on the current experience of the players at the table. In that way, they are almost identical to wandering monsters.
In theory, the specific creatures that make up wandering monsters exist within the game world at all times. We use wandering monsters to simulate the fact that these monsters are wandering around the adventure area and present a probability of appearing in an appropriate location. The reason wandering monsters are great as a GM tool is because it supports a positive play experience (not making the GM keep up with the location of each creature in the game world at all times) while preserving player agency and verisimilitude in the game world. It’s not reasonable for players to know the location of a monster they haven’t met yet. They only need to know that there is a certain likelihood that a monster may wander into the party here and now.
Wandering monsters should not appear at times or places that don’t make sense in the game world. Ideally, that issue should be prevented through good prep and game design. But if an inappropriate wandering monster were to be rolled during play, the GM should adjust the result to accurately simulate the game world (since that’s what the tool of wandering monsters is supposed to be doing anyway). The appearance of wandering monsters should not depend on the current experience of the players at the table. I don’t believe in not having wandering monsters appear because the PCs have already been through some rough fights this session. I also don’t believe in forcing a random encounter because the session needs to be spiced up with some action.
As long as secrets and clues abide by these rules for wandering monsters, I think they can be a good way for GMs to simulate this part of the game world. Secrets and clues represent pieces of information that definitely exist in appropriate places the game world. But instead of keeping track of all of those pieces at all times, it’s ok for them to manifest when an appropriate situation arises. The only way “wandering secrets and clues” become a problem, is the same way wandering monsters may be a problem. That is to say, if the GM is relying on the PCs to encounter a wandering monster (or secret) in order to propel a predetermined narrative. The problem isn’t with the wandering monster (or secret), it’s with the predetermined narrative.
However, there are some GM tips promoted by Sly Flourish that I wouldn’t include in the type of game I want to play. For example, Sly Flourish suggests that the GM should adjust encounter difficulty dials during play, like how many hit points monsters have, based on the current experience of the players at the table. I believe that encounter difficulty design is a GM prep activity, not a game simulation activity. It’s fine to plan a combat encounter to be easy or difficult before play begins, but once play starts, those encounters should only be adjusted based on the simulation of the game world (not the player’s experience).
You may be asking, “But what happens when the encounter is too easy or too difficult?” The problem, like with wandering monsters, isn’t with the encounter. It’s with the predetermined narrative that the GM (and players) feel bound to fulfill. It’s ok for encounters to not turn out to be climactic battles, because preserving player agency can produce more fun than preserving satisfying narratives. I expect that occasionally players will have a play session that just doesn’t produce a satisfying narrative. In which case, they should all go watch a good movie to scratch that itch, and then come back next week ready to have their choices during play impact the game world without being overshadowed by the GM’s narrative preferences.
As long as GMs keep their player’s fun in mind during prep, but keep reasonable simulation of the game world in mind during play, both the GM and the players can enjoy the uniquely wonderful aspect of a TTRPG of players making choices and experiencing consequences in a simulated imaginary world.
Bryce Holland 