GM fiat - an illustration

[Bedrockgames]

The choice of that vocabulary to describe the game would make me assume that there will be little if any player-driven play. So, if I saw that, I would assume a heavily curated/railroaded game, with a fair bit of what @Manbearcat calls "rudderless" play.

I don't know if that is what it is supposed to convey.

15% player driven. It can be put in plain English. I do think when it comes to D&D though that can be tricky because the game generally isn't run that way

 

[zakael19]

I haven't played Dolmenwood or read it so I can't really weigh in there. Again I don't object to an overview of styles with some ideas of how to make it work. As for best practices, that really depends on the particulars. I mean, if the best practices provides advice that I think is great for the styles in question, sure. But I suspect that a lot of people in this thread would disagree sharply over what best practices advice such as section should include



I find most people know what is meant by 70 percent roleplaying, 30 percent combat. Doesn't mean everyone has identical concept of RP, but I think it is sufficient for most communication. What I would certainly want to avoid is the book defining each of these terms in a way where you end up with essentially jargon. I think combat to most people in the context of D&D, means we have combat encounters. Whether those combat encounters are pre-written, or dramatic set pieces, that is a whole separate discussion than whether or not your style involves 30 percent combat



how does it define roleplaying?

In the Terminology Glossary, just after "On Role-Playing Games" on page 14 of the PLayer's Guide we're told:
"Role-playing: The act of deciding a character’s actions and speech by considering their point of view in the imagined game world."

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I have nothing against that per se. I am not saying that rules are bad or anything like that. But to me it seems that to some people they become the thing itself, instead of just an aid, and they lose the focus of what RPGs are fundamentally about.

Maybe of what you think RPGs are about. Again, there’s no one true way.

In games, rules are generally considered more than an aid. They are fundamental to the play experience and are binding. When I play any other kind of game and we play by the rules… ping-pong, chess, Axis & Allies, whatever… no one says “ugh this game is all about the rules”.

If you don’t care for rules or want them kept to a minimum, that’s cool. But your seeming surprise that others may feel differently just seems odd.

Why do you need to constrain it? A good GM will however have principles they follow to run the game fairly and consistently.

So your answer to why constrain the GM is to point out that a GM will constrain themselves?

Doesn’t this seem strange to you?

The internet is filled with all kinds of complaints though. I haven't really encountered any of these issues since high school. And I think the reason is two-fold: people get better and more mature at GMing as they get older, players grow more mature and less disruptive as they get older. I am not saying there aren't bad GMs out there, I am not saying people don't sometimes have misaligned interests at the table. But I do think the isn't the issue people make it out to be ether (and I think one of the things D&D does well is allow for many different styles of play but not leaning on any specific set of GM constraints)

So I don’t know about you, but I would have greatly appreciated clear and direct guidance of the sort that is more common in today’s rulebooks. Where things aren’t buried in the depths of unnecessary prose and instead are stated clearly and obviously. It would have saved me years of trial and error.

I think for many long time gamers, there’s this assumption that decades of experience is the only way to improve. And I’m not saying that you necessarily believe that, but your evocation of “maturity” seems very much along those lines.

I’d have preferred better advice when I was younger. It would have made things much easier for me.

I've personally experienced and seen (and honestly, exercised) arbitrary GM fiat to guide things towards "the plot" or "the way the module says" or you know all the bad GM play that's out there

100%. I’ve played in these games. I’ve purchased these games. I’ve run these games.

Improving has required that I look at play and be honest about what’s happening. It isn’t always easy to do that. But when you do it… when you look at your own play and say “wow, my game is incredibly GM driven”, it makes it much easier to see when someone else is doing it. It’s so recognizable… because they’re doing what you did, saying what you said, rationalizing how you rationalized.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The main physical format is what I call situation reports. These are working documents with notes on motivations, goals, and plans for factions and NPCs. They serve as a memory aid and a projection of what would unfold if the PCs don’t interfere.

To illustrate this I will use my Nomar campaign set in the Majestic Wilderlands that I ran back in 2012. To provide some context here is the first campaign log I posted.

GURPS Majestic Wilderlands: Campaign Update #1

Here is the first part of what happened.
A Sandbox Campaign, the Nomar Campaign Part 1

The campaign started when the players decided they wanted to be a group of mercenaries. I listed the different places in the Majestic Wilderlands where mercenaries were being employed, and they opted to play in Nomar.
Some background on Nomar if you are interested
Noble Houses of Nomar.
Regional Map of Nomar

I attached the handout the players got to this post. Campaign Starter, Mercernary.

Next I started a local map. I never finished the polished version as the players moved elsewhere before I had it finished.
View attachment 402763
As well as a map of the main settlement
View attachment 402765
Next, I made a situation map. I like do these in poetic style as the graphics helps remember things.

View attachment 402764
There are important locations highlighted there. That I have notes on including who there, what resources there are. Goals, motivations, and plans.

The main set of notes look like this.


What will happens is periodically I will update the situation report above as the campaign unfolds. In the case of Abberset my notes got a minor update when the party returned to Abberset at this.

And after they left the region it didn't matter as I had to focus on the new area they headed too.


How the "Timeline" Emerges
I don’t write out a traditional “event-by-date” timeline in advance. Instead:

The situation report functions as a latent timeline, it describes what factions and NPCs will do if nothing changes.

As players act, I update the notes. New entries are added with in-world dates (e.g., “Portly Pomp 13th, 4460 BCCC”), reflecting what happened or shifted.

When the PCs left the region, I stopped updating it, just as a historian would stop writing a chronicle once the scene moves.

Example of a situation update.


This would be note in a program I use called the Keep by nBos. Or an entry in a notebook if it is a face to face session.

These entries are not scripts. They’re branches of potential action, modified by player intervention, oracles, or rolls.

Memory & Organization
A lot of this is “in my head,” but it's supported by:

• Maps
• Character writeups
• Spatial context

I’ve always linked events to geography, which helps me recall timelines like a mental gazetteer. This technique, which is a variant of the Palace of Memory technique, associates characters and events with geography.

This is why I recommend referees develop a method of organizing info that works for them. It must track people, their motivations, and events across time and geography in a coherent way.

Why I Don’t Use Clocks
I’m not against other folks using clocks. I don’t use them because, in my experience, chains of events don’t progress in neat, measured increments. Too many interconnected factors are in play in my campaigns, and clocks don’t capture those interconnections in a way that works for me.

From what I’ve read, clocks are great when you need visible escalation—they give structure to looming threats or timed developments. But they don’t work as well for causal branching that unfolds across geography or depends on multiple actors with conflicting goals.

So yes, my timelines exist, but they’re not segmented wheels. They’re conditional flows of action—embedded in geography and narrative—updated as the PCs interact with the world. The structure is procedural, just not tied to a particular format.




As for GM fiat, while I get that you're using it to mean "the GM making authorial decisions," I think two things need to be pointed out.

First, like "railroading," GM fiat is often used as a pejorative, even if unintentionally. It implies arbitrariness or unearned authority, and that colors how people receive it, especially when comparing styles.

Second, saying "the GM makes authorial decisions" is fine as far as it goes, but it often skips over how those decisions are made. And that’s critical. There’s a big difference between a referee who decides things on a whim and one who uses structured methods, goals, constraints, causal logic, oracles, even randomness, to shape outcomes. The process behind the decision is what defines the experience at the table, not just the fact that the GM made a call.

How do you track all this? Is it by faction? By region? If you do a situation report to update things based on the last few sessions, do you just list changes and reference the appropriate game elements (nations, organizations, NPCs, etc.)?

Is this all in a spiral notebook or a word doc or what have you?

I think the key issue isn’t that the referee makes decisions, it’s how those decisions are made.

In World in Motion, I’m not inventing outcomes to shape a story. I’m resolving developments based on prior events, character goals, constraints, and, when needed, randomizers. The decisions are grounded in the setting’s internal logic, not narrative intent.

That process matters. It’s like alternate history writing, anyone can say “what if,” but a good alt-history works through consequences based on the world as it was. The value comes from disciplined plausibility, not just authorial invention.

So yes, the referee is deciding. But it’s not all the same kind of decision. The process matters, there’s a big difference between directing outcomes and adjudicating plausible consequences.

I hope I addressed every point you raised.

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two, honestly. I think they are both true.

Again… what’s plausible in most instances allows for a range of outcomes. So you narrow it down to the most plausible options… let’s say three, and then you decide which of those three it will be… you are absolutely directing the outcome.

And… you’re basing your extrapolations… your consideration of what’s plausible… based on background details and other setting information that you’ve decided in the first place. So your extrapolations are you considering what decisions to make about the decisions you’ve already made.

That’s a lot of GM control going on. Again, this may be good or bad depending on expectations and desires for play… but it seems very GM driven and focused.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So I don’t know about you, but I would have greatly appreciated clear and direct guidance of the sort that is more common in today’s rulebooks. Where things aren’t buried in the depths of unnecessary prose and instead are stated clearly and obviously. It would have saved me years of trial and error.

I think for many long time gamers, there’s this assumption that decades of experience is the only way to improve. And I’m not saying that you necessarily believe that, but your evocation of “maturity” seems very much along those lines.

I’d have preferred better advice when I was younger. It would have made things much easier for me.

I am fine with clarity but I do have concerns about over simplification or creating an overly rigid sense of how to play. And while I think solid advice in terms of what to expect, how to prepare etc is a good thing, I do think there is no replacement for skills you learn through experience at the table. Running a game isn’t going to be easy at first. What can make it easier is creating casual expectations and not putting too much pressure on anyone to have anything except fun playing a game. I think a good DMG ought to give people an overview of different approaches to running the game, but not bog people down in a whole new lexicon or theory

How do you track all this? Is it by faction? By region? If you do a situation report to update things based on the last few sessions, do you just list changes and reference the appropriate game elements (nations, organizations, NPCs, etc.)?

Is this all in a spiral notebook or a word doc or what have you?

I can't speak for Rob, but this stuff really varies from GM to GM, and even with a given GM, is going to vary depending on how their mind is operating at a given time. These are tools for managing the living world, and there are lots of other tools out there as well. I've certainly shifted methods depending on what I find I need in order to run the stuff smoothly

I don’t think there is a big difference between the two, honestly. I think they are both true.

Again… what’s plausible in most instances allows for a range of outcomes. So you narrow it down to the most plausible options… let’s say three, and then you decide which of those three it will be… you are absolutely directing the outcome.

This argument doesn't make sense. Rob is still narrowing it down to what he finds the most plausible. He is just ending up with three somewhat plausible options and then presumably taking the one he considered the most plausible. You are using the theoretical three equally valid options concept to suggest he then is just going to decide for some other arbitrary reason. This is also where dice can come into play. If the GM is genuinely uncertain, they always roll. But this is why it is also super helpful to think in terms of NPCs, instead of events. I find it very easy to know what a given NPC is going to feel about something and how they are going to act about something.

And… you’re basing your extrapolations… your consideration of what’s plausible… based on background details and other setting information that you’ve decided in the first place. So your extrapolations are you considering what decisions to make about the decisions you’ve already made.

I feel like you are imagining a chain of causality in the campaign that the players have zero input on. The GM is going to be reaction to stuff the players are going. So extrapolations aren't purely based on just stuff Rob invented. They are also based on things the players have introduced through their own actions. But even so, as long as the GM is extrapolating while also allowing players to have their freedom to do things in the game and not inventing towards some direction he wants the players to go, I don't see the problem at all

That’s a lot of GM control going on. Again, this may be good or bad depending on expectations and desires for play… but it seems very GM driven and focused.

The problem is when you say things like GM driven, it sounds like the GM has some pre planned destination in mind like in an adventure path or something. But Rob isnt' describing that kind of adventure. He is talking about an open structure where the players can do pretty much what they want, and he has to respond. So he might be riffing in reaction to them, and extrapolating, but the players pushing on the boundaries is just as important a part of the equation. To reduce this to 'gm driven and focused' misses the full equation I think

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am fine with clarity but I do have concerns about over simplification or creating an overly rigid sense of how to play. And while I think solid advice in terms of what to expect, how to prepare etc is a good thing, I do think there is no replacement for skills you learn through experience at the table. Running a game isn’t going to be easy at first. What can make it easier is creating casual expectations and not putting too much pressure on anyone to have anything except fun playing a game. I think a good DMG ought to give people an overview of different approaches to running the game, but not bog people down in a whole new lexicon or theory

I know I would have benefitted if I’d received some of the advice that I received eventually earlier. I can’t really see any reasonable argument against clear guidelines. I feel like that’s kind of the epitome of what a rulebook should strive for.

As for a nee lexicon… meh. It’s not really a concern for me. If a game explains what it means when it uses a term, then I can operate under that definition for that game. The hobby is filled with terms of art and other jargon, and we all use those bits that appeal to us.

I can't speak for Rob, but this stuff really varies from GM to GM, and even with a given GM, is going to vary depending on how their mind is operating at a given time. These are tools for managing the living world, and there are lots of other tools out there as well. I've certainly shifted methods depending on what I find I need in order to run the stuff smoothly

Sure, but I’m asking him specifically what he does. Like, if you ask me what my prep for Stonetop looks like, I can describe it. I have a notebook and I have notes. Each page is a session and I take notes during play. The next page I makes notes about what’s possible or likely to happen next session. Every now and then, I devote a page to the Impending Dooms (these are 6-stage timelines for different threats to the town).

If you asked me how I prepped for Spire, I could show you the relationship mindmap that I made to start the campaign and the handwritten notes I made during play to update things.

What do you do for your game? You mention tools… what tools do you use?

This argument doesn't make sense. Rob is still narrowing it down to what he finds the most plausible. He is just ending up with three somewhat plausible options and then presumably taking the one he considered the most plausible. You are using the theoretical three equally valid options concept to suggest he then is just going to decide for some other arbitrary reason. This is also where dice can come into play. If the GM is genuinely uncertain, they always roll. But this is why it is also super helpful to think in terms of NPCs, instead of events. I find it very easy to know what a given NPC is going to feel about something and how they are going to act about something.

The argent makes perfect sense. If I choose on a whim or if I choose based on plausibility, I am still choosing… and therefore directing play.

The dice “can” or “may” come into play is what makes this unclear to me. Things being certain enough that only one plausible option exists is, in my opinion, a pretty rare thing.

I feel like you are imagining a chain of causality in the campaign that the players have zero input on. The GM is going to be reaction to stuff the players are going. So extrapolations aren't purely based on just stuff Rob invented. They are also based on things the players have introduced through their own actions. But even so, as long as the GM is extrapolating while also allowing players to have their freedom to do things in the game and not inventing towards some direction he wants the players to go, I don't see the problem at all

Sure, the players may have input. I’m not saying they wouldn’t. I’m saying it appears to me that the GM has far more. I think when exploration of the setting is one of the primary focuses of play, that’s just the nature of the beast.

The problem is when you say things like GM driven, it sounds like the GM has some pre planned destination in mind like in an adventure path or something. But Rob isnt' describing that kind of adventure. He is talking about an open structure where the players can do pretty much what they want, and he has to respond. So he might be riffing in reaction to them, and extrapolating, but the players pushing on the boundaries is just as important a part of the equation. To reduce this to 'gm driven and focused' misses the full equation I think

I don’t know. The prep heavy aspect seem to me to imply that the major input of the players is which of the GMs creations to interact with. Sure, they’re free to go to this nation and try X… in which case all of the prep for that nation and X and all the things the GM has already decided relate to X are going to become relevant.

It’s not a bad thing at all. This describes my recent Mothership campaign to a tee.

 

[pemerton]

15% player driven. It can be put in plain English. I do think when it comes to D&D though that can be tricky because the game generally isn't run that way

15% player driven makes no sense, though, does it? All I can imagine it really meaning is Gm-driven railroad.

 

[pemerton]

In the Terminology Glossary, just after "On Role-Playing Games" on page 14 of the PLayer's Guide we're told:
"Role-playing: The act of deciding a character’s actions and speech by considering their point of view in the imagined game world."

So if I signed on to play a RPG, and there was less than (approximately) 100% of that, I'd be pretty disappointed!

 

[pemerton]

if you ask me what my prep for Stonetop looks like, I can describe it.

Just to echo this - I have many posts talking about and illustrating my prep. It doesn't seem that hard to do.

The prep heavy aspect seem to me to imply that the major input of the players is which of the GMs creations to interact with.

<snip>

It’s not a bad thing at all. This describes my recent Mothership campaign to a tee.

My Classic Traveller game had a bit of this - I posted about it at the time:

Over the past month or so my group has been able to play two sessions of Classic Traveller.

<snip>

I enjoyed both these sessions, but enjoyed yesterday's more. The pace was fairly relaxed, and it was exploration-heavy, especially for our RPGing. But the fiction that was established was very satisfying - the interaction between the players (as their PCs) and the NPCs helped build up a sense of both cooperation and rivalry, and the scientific institution and archaeological exploration dimension provides a nice change from the military/espionage cloak-and-dagger flavour that the campaign began with. And the development of the psionic aspects of the situation, a joint endeavour between referee and players, is also very interesting.

And there are still matters to be resolved: the nature of the flying creatures (this one I'll largely take from the module); their relationship, if any, to the aliens (Aliens) on the Annic Nova; the vegetable spores; the pyramid and pendulum; and why the aliens built this. The players were speculating that it might have been a construction to focus psionic power, or alternatively a defensive construction to defend the aliens against anti-psionic prejudice 2 billion years ago. And also that it may have succumbed to the Aliens in some way.

I would expect some answers to at least some of these questions to emerge in our next session.

My group played a session of Classic Traveller on Sunday.
<snip>

With the exploration all complete, I wanted to push things a bit more towards some action. So Toru von Taxiwan announced that it was now time to return to the surface.

<snip>

But now the pressure was increased, as Toru clearly meant to take action against the dangerously psionic von Jerrel.

<snip>

And I started to use a character who is a borderline PC/NPC to push things a bit. When the PCs had left Novus for Zinion, they had taken with them Lady Askol, an Imperial Navy Commander and Free Imperial Knight who was in charge of the naval base on Novus and had been leading the attempt at interdiction of the Annic Nova. Von Jerrel had seduced her (a very successful check on the Reaction table), and she had been on board the Annic Nova, beginning her inspection of it, when it jumped to Zinion.

We now rolled her reaction-to-psionics. I allowed +1 for von Jerrel's Liasion-1, and a +2 for her infatuation (love? von Jerrel's player's word, but I'm not sure it's apt yet), and the modified result was either 9 or 10: immediate deportation. If von Jerrel was psionic she certainly couldn't have anything to do with him, and would have to exile him back to Ashar, the strange world that he comes from (which in an earlier session the Imperium had invaded, perhaps to quell the world's psionic tendencies).

"Are you psionic?" she asked von Jerrel. "Of course not" he replied. Lady Askol is not the sharpest tool in the shed, at Intelligence 5, and took him at his word. So now she wanted to come up with a plan to save von Jerrel.

She discussed with Roland (which is to say, I discussed with Roland's player) whether first contact protocols would apply - because if they did then she could take control of the site as the most senior Imperial official present, and stop Toru from executing von Jerrel. She knew that he Roland had served in the navy, and even though he had never been commissioned she was confident he must have been trained in this respect (given his Education D (=13) which we characterise as a PhD in xeno-archaeology); whereas she had not been (Edu 7).

Roland (via his player) lamented the calibre of the Imperial Navy's officer class, and then expressed his opinion, which was mixed. Lady Askol then offered him Cr 11,000 (to be paid once they returned to somewhere she could get the funds) to draft a preliminary report within an hour, addressing the matter. Roland (via his player) agreed to do this.

The other players were engaged in a fair bit of discussion about whether to just kill all the Taxiwanians. But Vincenzo (via his player) was very hostile to such suggestions (this may have come at an earlier point before Vincenzo went back to the surface; and/or we may not have been fussing too much about exactly who was where or when precisely various conversations took place). He doesn't approve of needless violence or killing!

I asked Roland's player for the gist of his report (Roland has Admin-1 and so is familiar with the genre):

• The pyramid complex is an ancient but not necessarily alien site;
• There are defences including the laser, toxic gases, and possibly image-inducing/hallucinatory effects [this part of the report continued Roland's effort from the previous session to explain away von Jerrel's use of psionics to open a door];
• The skeleton in the cave-in room (which is human like but smaller than a typical human) might be a human or proto-human;
• The technology of the site is not unknown to the Imperium - hence the possibility that it is not an alien site;
• Nevertheless, the novelty of the deployment of technology at the site, and of the site's appearance, meant that first contact protocols should be considered.

Roland's player made the comment (not in character), "I've written too many reports. Should be considered is the lowest level of suggesting a course of action."

I decided that Lady Askol would seize on the recommendation to consider, and having considered would act. She announced that on the basis of the possibility of first contact she was taking control of the site on behalf of the Imperium, until it could be further investigated. None of the players had their PCs try to stop or interfere; Vincenzo's player did lament that he had wanted whatever financial rewards might flow for his homeworld (Hallucida) and now the Imperials would gobble them up.

Lady Askol further declared that she had to return to the naval base at Novus, to take the next steps; and that in the meantime she was commissioning von Jerrel as Imperial Overseer of the site. So von Jerrel (and his player) got what they wanted in this respect at least.

The session ended with the players deciding who would go where, and identifying the Novus-system gas giant moon as their rendezvous point should one be needed

<snip>

I think this is the end of our exploration-oriented sessions, at least for a little while. I think the next session should be fairly action-focused; I'm not sure quite what it will involve.

Alissa's player will certainly try to identify matter transmitter possibilities.

And here are my (sblocked) thoughts about the situation:

Spoiler

The pyramid was used to do psionic scanning/communication. The laster's main function is not defence but to carry the signal. The aliens used this "machine" to find the source of minerals on the Novus-system gas giant moon. Whether it could be used to do matter as opposed to signal transmission is up for grabs!

They used the original ecology to support the psionic attunement of their pyramid; hence why they are in the complex.

The exposure of these to the mineral on the Annic Nova is what caused xenomorph issues.

The vegetation on Zinion and on the Annic Nova somehow links to this. And to the "snake"-pods.

During the 2 billion years the power plant shut down, the electric fields containing the original ecology (animals, vapour) failed but the vapour froze and so the pods didn't "germinate". When the PCs uncovered the pyramid complex it powered up again. The power plant electric field had suffered corrosion (it had taken longer to cool down because of the plant, hence had had more exposure to vapour). With the deep level, the electric field powered up at a different rate to the melting/diffusion of the frozen vapour and so some vapour escaped (which the PCs saw), but in short order it will reach equilibrium again.

In the second of these two quotes, I've also included some bit of the original post which shows how I tried to push play away from exploration towards (what I described in the post as) action.

 

[pemerton]

@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.

I tend to disagree with you. That doesn't make me dishonestly reframing.

To me, you sound like a phlogiston theorist of combustion complaining about dishonest reframing by oxygen theorists. I mean, if you think your account of RPGing is powerful, then present it. It will stand or fall on its merits.

In Torchbearer, the mechanics resolve a situation before the relevant circumstances have been established.

This is not correct, as per the post that you replied to.

In Torchbearer, not all the relevant circumstances are established before a mechanical device - the Camp Event Roll - is used to work out some circumstances.

What is established? How dangerous the immediate area is; whether the PCs light a fire or not; whether or not the PCs are sheltered and/or concealed; and whether or not they keep watch.

What is not established? Precisely who and what is in the vicinity (this is known in general terms, which is how danger levels are established; but not precise); and thus who exactly might stumble on their camp, and exactly what the PCs might discover while camping.

This split between what is, and is not, established is not uncommon in RPGing. I've posted multiple examples upthread: classic D&D wandering monster tables; and Rolemaster's encounter/evasion system.

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.

I have not asserted that Torchbearer 2e produces a similar play experience to classic D&D. In dungeon play, it favours the rolling of tests over the bare adjudication of the fiction; and in wilderness play it is far more structured than classic D&D, in my view to quite a degree of advantage.

What I have asserted is that the use of wandering monster tables to determine precise details is an actual feature of classic D&D.

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.

This is no different in Torchbearer 2e. The Camp Events table already "assumes" that certain elements are implicit in the system. As a simple example, if we are playing a TB2e game in which there are no Dire Wolves, then I will need to rework that bit of the Wilderness Camp Events table.

And to give a concrete example for classic D&D: what is the total world population of Orcs, or Giant Rats? What is the total dungeon population of these beings? The fiction established in play, and the GM's notes, don't provide an answer. The answer is provided emergently, via Wandering Monster tables and the GM's interpretation of them. For instance, if Orcs come up as encounters, the GM is at liberty - based on their interpretation of the events of play - to decide that these are (say) surviving Orcs from the garrison the PCs have (mostly) cleared out; or alternatively, that these are Orcs from elsewhere coming to find out what has happened to the Orcs that the PCs have cleared out.

Now perhaps your "world in motion" play doesn't use encounter tables in this way. But as I said, I am posting about classic D&D.

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.

Three things:

(1) I've not made any comparison of TB2e to "world in motion" play. I've compared it to classic D&D play.

(2) Torchbearer 2e very obviously supports factions with goals, and NPCs acting independently. It has whole relationships and Circles sub-systems to assist with this. as well as the Events tables.

(3) The first substantive (ie non-introductory) chapter of the Scholar's Guide advises prospective Torchbearer 2e GM on how to draw up a regional map, with settlements and adventure sites placed on it. Upthread I posted a link to my own map (which is a direct copy of the WoGH map, although with a slight change to some settlements as per the post that I (self)quoted).

So your purported contrasts seem to me to have no force.

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:

<snip>

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.

<snip>

It’s already decided the tone and the thematic arc, regardless of where on the map the party actually is.

There is not a "predetermined kind of story". Rather, there is a setting: one in which settlements are hostile to dangerous wanderers. Thus, what you say about tone is correct: the setting is the one I just described. But what you say about thematic arc is not correct. There are a range of possible arcs that might unfold in the relationship between adventurers and any given settlement.

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.

<snip>

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.

Three further things:

(1) An event on a Town Event table in Torchbearer 2e is not an "abstract narrative beat". It's an event that arises from arriving at a specific place. Here's an example from actual play:

Golin's friend Vaccin the alchemist, and Fea-bella's mentor Jobe, each told their respective protege that they could get them a good deal on a helpful potion, to cure exhaustion in Golin's case (Ob 3 resources) and sickness in Fea-bella's caes (Ob 4 resources). This required selling the stirges. Vaccin put Golin touch with his colleague Derren, an alchemist and taxidermist known for extracting valuable components and reagents from creatures like stirges. I looked up my animal list, with obstacles for purchase, and then cross-referenced with the re-selling list, and decided that Derren offered 1D of cash per stirge. Golin, who had brought Korvin with him, wanted 2D per stirge. So they initiated a negotiation conflict.

I used the alchemist stats in the Scholar's Guide for Derren - no Haggling, but Will 6 giving 3 dice beginner's luck. And a good roll established an 8 disposition. Neither PC had Haggling, and Derren had -1D for being injured, and their starting disposition was 3. Which made things look grim, but through some lucky scripting and lucky rolling, the players pulled over a victory with compromise: when I offered 3D for both stirges they gladly accepted it!

<snip>

It was then time to leave town.

<snip>

they turned back

<snip>

I rolled for the town event and got the following:

A funeral celebration. Some old bastard is dead, and folks are celebrating in the streets. Someone offers you a cup of strange wine. Remove hungry and thirsty or if not hungry and thirsty, you wake up hungry and thirsty and hung over the next morning. In the latter case, you may remove angry or afraid if you have them.​

I told the players while the PCs were travelling and dickering with bandits, Derren had died from an unexpected stirge poisoning. This produced some laughter.

(2) As this example shows, it's not true that town always feels like a cold and dehumanising place. Often it does; sometimes it doesn't.

(3) I notice that you say "the encounter's actual content depends on the circumstances on the map and the location's established features". I'm sure you regard this as very different from the less-than-total specification of the circumstances prior to the making of a TB2e Camp Event roll; but to me the difference appears to consist mostly in the factors that the GM is expected to have regard to in fleshing out the details.

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.

These things are not in contrast. In other threads you've talked about playing a Middle Earth game: JRRT's setting is 100% intended to have a certain tone. That doesn't meant that there is no presentation of a world.

I'm certainly willing to accept that tone, and the themes that tone can support, aren't important to you in the way you present the setting to the players. In practice, I would expect that to produce play in which the PCs are largely amoral, and mostly motivated by instrumental concerns.