These seem very similar - perhaps identical - to what I posted upthread. Are there any differences that you see?
GM fiat - an illustration
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Can you see how what you say here is - minus the ironic tone - rather similar to this, which you say you are disagreeing with:
See, this is another of those occasions where you appear to be implying that RPGs that don't rely on GM fiat in the way some D&D play does are not boundless.
The obstacles in a Torchbearer adventure are obstacles for the players to overcome, via the play of their PCs.
If the GM decided that a NPC had warded their camp/home with Aetherial Premonition, that would factor into the difficulty of a Scout roll to approach them (the default increase in difficulty for this sort of "evil GM factor" is +1 Ob), and/or would inform any narration of failure.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
It isn't. I am not saying the whole game is fiat. And I am not saying the GM has to 'git good'. I don't think you even have to be a good GM to make this work (you just need to be a reasonable person who gets along with people at the table, and same goes for players). Par too maturing as a gamer, is realizing not every game you play in is going to be run exactly how you want it in your head. You are going to have to adapt to the GM and to the players, and if you can't, the best solution is to find a group that fits. I've done this myself. I've been in groups for example that weren't playing the kinds of games i wanted to explore. But because I was the only one who wanted to explore these games, it wouldn't have been a good thing for me to turn it into a point of contention. Instead I found groups that shared my interest in said games.
You are putting that on what I said. I am saying in D&D and games like it (I first encountered this in a game that wasn't D&D actually because my first campaign in the 80s was with a group playing a weird home-brew variation on MechWarrior): this is the thing that makes them boundless. It is the ability of the GM to take whatever it is the players say, even if it isn't covered in the books, and expand into new territory that makes it boundless. I never said "This is the only way for RPGs to be boundless". You keep attributing that to me when I make claims about the style and games I am into. But I don't see it as a zero sum game. For example, I also find Hillfolk to be boundless. It is one of the reasons I like it. And it doesn't rely on GM fiat for its boundless play at all
In that case, surely you can appreciate why someone might ask questions like, what is the relationship between (i) GM-adjudicated boundless play and (ii) player agency? Which is question that @Manbearcat posed upthread.
To give a simple example: adjudicating the pushing over of a statue using muscles and pry bars might be reasonably well-suited to GM fiat. (And this sort of GM adjudication of the fiction is core to classic D&D play. But determining the instigation and resolution of a peasant uprising using the same approach - the GM extrapolating as the fiction makes sense to them - perhaps not so much.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I think we all need to be constrained (players and GMs) to a certain extent. We are engaged in a shared activity and as such establishing a set of clear expectations with each other about what play will look like and that we can use to keep each other accountable and to make sure we're rowing in the same direction.
I don't think it needs to come from a game text, but for instance, I don't believe it's good for the hobby to have to play a game for a couple months to see what it's like only to find out it will not provide what you are looking for or for us to be rowing in different directions because expectations were never set.
But I think part of this comes from establishing actual commitments about what a game will about rather than saying it's all unbounded and then walking on eggshells around each other with unspoken expectations.
robertsconley
Adventurer
@pemerton You objected to my use of the word “dishonest.” I’m not accusing you of lying in bad faith. I’m describing how your rhetorical approach consistently reframes or redirects the conversation away from the distinction I’ve been trying to discuss. That’s what I referred to as a dishonest technique. You are being rhetorically dishonest, not lying about facts. If that offends, so be it, but I stand by my analysis.
For those who want to review the post I am responding too, it’s available here..
Returning to the issue.
You wrote
That statement confirms the very distinction I’ve been making. In Torchbearer, the mechanics resolve a situation before the relevant circumstances have been established. That’s not a minor implementation detail, it reflects a fundamental difference in what drives the unfolding of events at the table.
One of the underlying assumptions in this discussion seems to be that if two systems use similar mechanical structures—say, random tables or pre-circumstance resolution, then they must produce similar play experiences. But I don’t think that holds. The context, intent, and structure surrounding those mechanics matter just as much as the dice or procedures themselves. Torchbearer may use mechanics that resemble early D&D, but it puts them to very different use, and produces a correspondingly different kind of game.
In World in Motion play, circumstances exist prior to resolution. There’s a timeline, factions with goals, NPCs acting independently, and a geography that exists whether the players go there or not. When I roll, it’s not to create a threat from whole cloth, it’s to determine whether a threat that’s already moving in the world intersects with the party.
You’ve pointed to surprise rolls, attack rolls, wandering monster checks, and Rolemaster’s stealth/evasion mechanics as evidence that Torchbearer's approach is nothing new. I suspect you’ll continue to press that point. But that line of reasoning misses the heart of the issue.
Yes, traditional D&D makes use of random procedures. But those rolls are grounded in specific in-game circumstances. A surprise roll assumes two groups are already present. A wandering monster check presumes monsters exist in the area—the table reflects what’s likely to be nearby. Even when random tables are used to determine which threat emerges, they operate within a frame already defined by the setting. The randomness determines which element enters, not whether anything exists to begin with.
To highlight the distinction, let's compare two tools: one from Torchbearer 2e, and one from my How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox. Both address in-town encounters, but from very different philosophies.
In Torchbearer 2e, town is not a neutral setting, it is framed as hostile, alienating, and oppressive to adventurers. This tone is made explicit in the Scholar’s Guide:
This isn’t just flavor text. It’s reinforced procedurally through the “At the Gates” sequence, where town events are rolled from a table based on the type of settlement (Bustling Metropolis, Dwarven Halls, Religious Bastion, etc.). These events help tell a predetermined kind of story, one where town is inherently unfriendly and the adventurer's life is always precarious.
This is a fiction-first, story-shaped framework, and it works well for what Torchbearer is trying to do. But it is not neutral. It’s already decided the tone and the thematic arc, regardless of where on the map the party actually is.
In contrast, my Travel system in How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox is designed to handle movement, by land, water, or through a city. It doesn’t assume anything about the type of story being told. It doesn’t prescribe a theme. Its sole purpose is to help the referee determine what happens when characters move through a living setting.
Within towns and cities, travel generates broad encounter prompts: “An unexpected meeting,” “A buried past,” “A place to shop.” These aren’t abstract narrative beats, they’re events that arise from walking through a specific place. The encounter’s actual content depends on the circumstances on the map and the location’s established features.
To quote directly from my text:
In Torchbearer, the outcome is predetermined in structure. Town will always feel like a cold and dehumanizing place, no matter where you are. In my approach, the town might feel that way, or it might not. It depends on the campaign, the setting, the factions, and the history leading up to that moment.
In short, Torchbearer cares about depicting a theme. I care about depicting a world. That’s the distinction, and that’s why adjudication based on circumstance, not abstraction, matters with World in Motion.
While I’m only quoting a portion of your post here, I’ve read the rest carefully and have addressed the broader themes, especially your framing of these procedures as equivalent to early D&D mechanics, and your continued position that this is simply a matter of technique rather than adjudication structure.
You're welcome to argue that these differences don't matter to you. But downplaying them, or redefining them as mere variations in technique, doesn’t address the actual argument: that these structures produce fundamentally different play experiences.
For those who want to review the post I am responding too, it’s available here..
Returning to the issue.
You wrote
That statement confirms the very distinction I’ve been making. In Torchbearer, the mechanics resolve a situation before the relevant circumstances have been established. That’s not a minor implementation detail, it reflects a fundamental difference in what drives the unfolding of events at the table.
One of the underlying assumptions in this discussion seems to be that if two systems use similar mechanical structures—say, random tables or pre-circumstance resolution, then they must produce similar play experiences. But I don’t think that holds. The context, intent, and structure surrounding those mechanics matter just as much as the dice or procedures themselves. Torchbearer may use mechanics that resemble early D&D, but it puts them to very different use, and produces a correspondingly different kind of game.
In World in Motion play, circumstances exist prior to resolution. There’s a timeline, factions with goals, NPCs acting independently, and a geography that exists whether the players go there or not. When I roll, it’s not to create a threat from whole cloth, it’s to determine whether a threat that’s already moving in the world intersects with the party.
You’ve pointed to surprise rolls, attack rolls, wandering monster checks, and Rolemaster’s stealth/evasion mechanics as evidence that Torchbearer's approach is nothing new. I suspect you’ll continue to press that point. But that line of reasoning misses the heart of the issue.
Yes, traditional D&D makes use of random procedures. But those rolls are grounded in specific in-game circumstances. A surprise roll assumes two groups are already present. A wandering monster check presumes monsters exist in the area—the table reflects what’s likely to be nearby. Even when random tables are used to determine which threat emerges, they operate within a frame already defined by the setting. The randomness determines which element enters, not whether anything exists to begin with.
To highlight the distinction, let's compare two tools: one from Torchbearer 2e, and one from my How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox. Both address in-town encounters, but from very different philosophies.
In Torchbearer 2e, town is not a neutral setting, it is framed as hostile, alienating, and oppressive to adventurers. This tone is made explicit in the Scholar’s Guide:
This isn’t just flavor text. It’s reinforced procedurally through the “At the Gates” sequence, where town events are rolled from a table based on the type of settlement (Bustling Metropolis, Dwarven Halls, Religious Bastion, etc.). These events help tell a predetermined kind of story, one where town is inherently unfriendly and the adventurer's life is always precarious.
This is a fiction-first, story-shaped framework, and it works well for what Torchbearer is trying to do. But it is not neutral. It’s already decided the tone and the thematic arc, regardless of where on the map the party actually is.
In contrast, my Travel system in How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox is designed to handle movement, by land, water, or through a city. It doesn’t assume anything about the type of story being told. It doesn’t prescribe a theme. Its sole purpose is to help the referee determine what happens when characters move through a living setting.
Within towns and cities, travel generates broad encounter prompts: “An unexpected meeting,” “A buried past,” “A place to shop.” These aren’t abstract narrative beats, they’re events that arise from walking through a specific place. The encounter’s actual content depends on the circumstances on the map and the location’s established features.
To quote directly from my text:
That last point—“where the party is on the map”—is the crux of the difference.
In Torchbearer, the outcome is predetermined in structure. Town will always feel like a cold and dehumanizing place, no matter where you are. In my approach, the town might feel that way, or it might not. It depends on the campaign, the setting, the factions, and the history leading up to that moment.
In short, Torchbearer cares about depicting a theme. I care about depicting a world. That’s the distinction, and that’s why adjudication based on circumstance, not abstraction, matters with World in Motion.
While I’m only quoting a portion of your post here, I’ve read the rest carefully and have addressed the broader themes, especially your framing of these procedures as equivalent to early D&D mechanics, and your continued position that this is simply a matter of technique rather than adjudication structure.
You're welcome to argue that these differences don't matter to you. But downplaying them, or redefining them as mere variations in technique, doesn’t address the actual argument: that these structures produce fundamentally different play experiences.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
But you make it sound like we are all emotionally wrestling with one another here. I think what happens with most people is they tend to find gamers whose personalities fit their own. When I game with a new GM, I am curious about that GMs style, I am not interested in imposing my preferences on them. And what matters most to me is the personalities at the table. After that comes play style. And for play style I can be pretty flexible. I am not going to ruin a session because someone wants to run Torchbearer for example, If that is what they are running, that is what I'll play. And if it is D&D, I'll go with whatever style the GM is comfortable running (I wouldn't for example tell a GM who is clearly more comfortable running a game around scenes or based around a clear adventure path, that they should run it like a living world sandbox). What I find is I tend to gravitate towards groups with a bunch of people who are willing to run games occasionally in different ways. And people are generally pretty accommodating to different GM styles. And when I run a game, I tend to be very flexible depending on the kinds of players I have (I will shift my style to fit the players I have at the table). And I am happy to do that. But I am not happy to play with either problem GMs or problem players (people who make their preferences an issues for everyone else at the table)
But this is something you hash out with your group. It is the same as anything involving a group of people. Whether its a game, going to the movies or a restaurant, people hash out and navigate expectations (and generally if your with a group whose expectations are making you frustrated, you find another group: I am not going to go watch 6 movies I can't stand because I hang out with people who insist on watching them).
No one is telling you to walk around on eggshells. In fact I am saying that is something I am not going to do. If people have personalities where I feel like I am walking around on eggshells when I game with them, I won't play with them
robertsconley
Adventurer
First off, there are camp tables for Ancient Ruins, Dungeons, Natural Caves, Outside of or near town, Squatting in Town, and Wilderness.
The procedure
Some entries from the Dungeon Camp Events
Do you think it would be good to have a common, facilitated lexicon so people could talk about these expectations by pointing towards at least somewhat defined possibility space? Or are things like "My game is 70% roleplaying/30% combat, and I love taking player's backstories into account" clear enough to roll the dice (pun intended) on using up some of your life?
When I started up a Dolmenwood campaign, I could take the clear "here's how you should engage with teh world as a player; and here's how I as the DM will facilitate that" the campaign and player guide gives us. It's stuff that baseline D&D could easily incorporate under a "rigorous prep sandbox" play style. And then they could have a set of "Player and GM Guidelines for Epic Storyline" play and be like "written by Matt Mercer!"
Edit: and it could include things like "how to handle things when you need to make a ruling so that it feels non-arbitrary."
