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

In this video Seth talks about quantum orges, or what I call Schrodinger plot point. He had a mostly positive view. So do I, in fact I wa blinded sided that some people see this thing in a bad way.

What is everyone’s view on this?

  • joel_feila@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    so thanks for the long post I enjoy the feed back. Here is something in the video that I agree that so far one has talked about. Why QO bad but not rolling an encouter? Are they not equally false choice?

    • NickKnight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you mean rolling random encounters while traveling or Rolling encounters randomly within a dungeon?

      Random encounters were originally put in to add spice to long travel and make it feel like actual long time to travel and dangerous. Nowadays with modern story telling you can continue using it if you want but if you have a story base campaign they mostly just interrupt the flow.

      If you want to use them for Additional XP and gold from time to time to adjust your players level gently and/or because you havent quite prepped the next area and you want to stall til next week then go nuts but see them for what they are, a purposeful time filler and making your players scared to go throught the forest.

      If you mean within a dungeon then go nuts if you arent planning your dungeon fight by fight and you like the challenge of your monsters being random so your players have a more even chance, go nuts.

      • joel_feila@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it would be either since the roll encounter was asking about why some see rolling as not false choice, but QO are false choice.

    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say random rolling an encounter is the opposite of choice. It’s representing the variance of the fantasy world: if there’s a 1% chance of someone traveling through a given region encountering a dragon, rolling a 100 on a d100 table emulates that.

      Imagine that a DM decided to prescript combat so that every player gets down low HP before the enemy dies in the fourth round. The DM doesn’t give the enemy HP, they pretend to roll behind the screen, and they mete out damage at predetermined intervals. This happens regardless of whether:

      • The rogue decides to use their inspiration after a miss to try for sneak attack
      • The wizard uses Fireball for damage, tries to break concentration with Magic Missile, tried to Hold Person the enemy, or just cast Firebolt
      • The Eldritch knight uses Shield to absorb a hit
      • The cleric buffs and heals the party vs. focuses on damage
      • The barbarian uses rage or saves it forever
      • Which wild shape the druid chooses

      Regardless of any of these decisions, the DM has already planned the entire thing out. Attacks hit when the DM wants them to hit, the DM makes up that the enemy is “starting to look bad” when they’re not tracking HP at all, the enemy suddenly saves against things that would be encounter-ending, etc. This is basically the quantum ogre.

      Rolling in the open, letting hits hit and misses miss, suddenly makes those decisions important, because the DM can’t just lie to meet a predetermined outcome. Rollable tables are a similar sort of randomness that discourage a DM from just forcing a predetermined outcome at the player. A random generator is not even a choice at all: other than choosing when to roll it, the DM has no influence over the result.

      I see the QO as a stepping stone to using random encounters, and to prepping enemy stats but not setting the encounter itself in stone.