GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

I don't have time to engage with @robertsconley 's response to me, nor CL's, nor FR's. One thing I will say off the bat is that I'm very much of the opinion that (a) looking at what Mouse Guard does and then (b) examining the myriad ways Torchbearer diverges from MG to produce a very novel play experience is at least as fruitful (likely more) as comparing TB to D&D.

That's probably true. But I don't know Mouse Guard very well, and nor I think do many of my interlocutors in this thread. Hence why I am comparing it to classic D&D (which is referenced in the bibliography: the original 3 books; Moldvay; and B2).

One way to think of a Camp Event is as a combination of a classic D&D encounter roll and a reaction roll bundled together: the one roll tells you whether an encounter or event occurs, who or what it is, and whether it is friendly or unfriendly.

Like Mouse Guard, the setting (events, factions, geography) of TB very much generates an "active actor (in motion)" quality to play through the synthesis of map-making, Adventure design, Events tables, test-borne Twists (particularly conflicts and their resolution), and how players interact with the map and the relevant NPCs (particularly, their relevant NPCs either character-built or accumulated).

Absolutely there is a world in motion.

This can be seen in a series of actual play posts beginning with this one: Torchbearer 2e - actual play of this AWESOME system! (+)

As GM, and drawing on my notes (themselves based on one component of T1-4, namely, Nulb), I introduce the river pirate Tolub. This follows from an earlier session where the PCs had agreed to act as agents of Lareth, getting the river pirates to tithe to Lareth's Moathouse-based cult. The PCs broker negotiations between Tolub and Lareth. Then a Tavern Event result in the Dwarf Hold, two sessions later, required me to come up with an incredible tale told by a friend - so I had the PC whose player was absent, and who was known to be sailing with the pirates, turn up and tell a tale of the pirates getting ready to assault the Moathouse, in violation of their agreement.

So later in the session, with the players back at the Moathouse, I narrated the approaching pirates (very similar to an AW soft move). The context of this pirate assault then - in the next session - fed into interactions between the established Moathouse elements of Lareth, the Bugbears and the Gnolls, which enabled the PCs to play off factions against one another and thereby escape back to Nulb. But a Town Event roll - billeted army - meant that there was nowhere to stay, due to the town being overrun by pirates. So the PCs had to sleep on the streets.

Then in the next session, more pirates served as a twist, and the PCs ended up back at Nulb where the Town Event result - bandits - meant that the pirates had completely overrun the village. And so the PCs couldn't take a town phase, but had to negotiate with the pirates to be carried downriver to Wintershiven. Helped by heavy rain, the PCs were able to leave the pirate ship close enough to Wintershiven to enter the town, but without being seen to be travelling with pirates.

The events of that and the following session have more "living world" aspects, but involving the religious authorities of the Pale rather than the river pirates, so I won't summarise them here.

As I posted upthread, the difference that I see between what I've just described, and a GM-driven "sandbox", is that my GMing decisions about the factions' plans and behaviours are made with an eye on what will connect to the players evinced priorities for their PCs. They are not planned "neutrally" or simply by extrapolation of what is "most likely".

But there is no disputing that the world is in motion.

Torchbearer isn't like PBtA or FitD in the way those two games rely upon the cascade of snowballing move resolution. Yes, TB play certainly bears out a duress-filled "spinning plates" quality of play via its interlocking parts, but it doesn't assume adversity in any given, consequential chunk of play. Of course, neither Town phase nor Camp phase features The Grind. The actual play I cited above was from many years ago. From recollection (I'm pretty much 100 % I'm right), that Camp Events table was 3d6+1 (-3 +4 = +1) which yielded an 11. An 11 on the Wilderness Camp table (I had a Bleakwood Table which used most of the Wilderness table but a few custom entries) = safe camp result. Further, the checks spent in that camp phase didn't yield any Twists. In fact, I'm pretty sure all the checks spent on Recovery were successful as well. I think it was a clean sweep of success in that Camp phase.

<snip>

I've certainly GMed my share of Town phases where a gentle Halloo (from your neighbors) or Pleasant Smells from woodsmoke and kitchens or better hit on the Town Events tables + accommodations for recovery were able to be paid for via Resources + a PC stays at their Parents Home + a few simple Lifestyle moves to Build Kit and Do Research didn't turn up any trouble + Paying Your Bills went off without a hitch when town was left.

Yes, as I posted upthread, the Camp/Town Event process does not entail, or presuppose, adversity. I posted some actual play illustrations.

The players in my game have also had some successful Town phases. Although probably more unsuccessful ones, as they suck at collecting loot and hence can never pay their bills!

 

[Campbell]

That’s a fair concern, but it doesn’t match how World in Motion play actually unfolds at my table.

First, I strongly emphasize first-person roleplaying. My players don’t interact with NPCs as abstract entities; they treat them as real people with motives, cultural beliefs, and histories. Most of the campaign’s tension and drama arise through these interactions. As a result, players naturally engage with moral and social concerns, whether through loyalty, faith, ambition, or survival, not because the system enforces them but because the world reacts to those decisions meaningfully.

Religion, culture, and personal history aren’t narrative backdrops, they shape outcomes. When players act in line with their character’s culture or faith, they often find new allies or open up opportunities they wouldn’t get through pure pragmatism. And when they violate those norms, consequences follow. So moral play does emerge, but it’s driven by circumstance, not theme.

As for Middle-earth: I didn’t want to run a campaign that felt like another Tolkien novel. I wanted to run a campaign that felt like being in Middle-earth. What made using World in Motion possible was how the Adventures in Middle-earth line handled setting detail, especially the Shadow. It’s not a narrative arc or mood dial its a supernatural corruption rooted in the metaphysics of the world, the Marring of Arda by Melkor. Like sanity in Call of Cthulhu, it emerges from how the setting works, not from narrative tone.

Likewise, their audience system, while not something I used mechanically, was invaluable as a guide to what different cultures and NPCs value. Because of that, my players' decisions in Middle-earth campaigns weren’t just tactical, they were moral and cultural. The system didn’t need to push them to act a certain way; the world made their actions matter.

Any GMs here who think their players interact with NPCs as abstract concepts? Who do not treat them as real people? Anyone here treat religion, philosophy, etc. as narrative backdrops? Giving a crap isn't a technique no matter how many not-so-subtle digs you try to throw in.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Any GMs here who think their players interact with NPCs as abstract concepts? Who do not treat them as real people? Anyone here treat religion, philosophy, etc. as narrative backdrops? Giving a crap isn't a technique no matter how many not-so-subtle digs you try to throw in.

Dude he isn't throwing digs at you. He is trying to clarify how he runs a game. And he is being generous with his time offering detailed explanations, against often rude and hostile interrogations of his ideas. No one is saying the way you run a game is bad. Or that the way Rob does it is the only way to do things. I want there to be all kinds of approaches (again, I know it isn't exactly popular with the crowd in this thread, but Hillfolk is a game that runs completely counter to what Rob is talking about and I happen to love it). But I feel like in these threads, we use the language that has long come from our school of thought, and you guys just keep undermining it for some reason. Like it is this big affront to whatever style you happen to play

 

[robertsconley]

Any GMs here who think their players interact with NPCs as abstract concepts? Who do not treat them as real people? Anyone here treat religion, philosophy, etc. as narrative backdrops? Giving a crap isn't a technique no matter how many not-so-subtle digs you try to throw in.

The post explains how moral and cultural engagement emerges in World in Motion play without theme-enforcing mechanics. It does not compare other systems or how others handle characters.

@Bedrockgames thanks.

 

[Campbell]

That’s a fair concern, but it doesn’t match how World in Motion play actually unfolds at my table.

First, I strongly emphasize first-person roleplaying. My players don’t interact with NPCs as abstract entities; they treat them as real people with motives, cultural beliefs, and histories. Most of the campaign’s tension and drama arise through these interactions. As a result, players naturally engage with moral and social concerns, whether through loyalty, faith, ambition, or survival, not because the system enforces them but because the world reacts to those decisions meaningfully.

Religion, culture, and personal history aren’t narrative backdrops, they shape outcomes. When players act in line with their character’s culture or faith, they often find new allies or open up opportunities they wouldn’t get through pure pragmatism. And when they violate those norms, consequences follow. So moral play does emerge, but it’s driven by circumstance, not theme.

As for Middle-earth: I didn’t want to run a campaign that felt like another Tolkien novel. I wanted to run a campaign that felt like being in Middle-earth. What made using World in Motion possible was how the Adventures in Middle-earth line handled setting detail, especially the Shadow. It’s not a narrative arc or mood dial its a supernatural corruption rooted in the metaphysics of the world, the Marring of Arda by Melkor. Like sanity in Call of Cthulhu, it emerges from how the setting works, not from narrative tone.

Likewise, their audience system, while not something I used mechanically, was invaluable as a guide to what different cultures and NPCs value. Because of that, my players' decisions in Middle-earth campaigns weren’t just tactical, they were moral and cultural. The system didn’t need to push them to act a certain way; the world made their actions matter.

I have bolded the parts that come across as accusations, as if laying claim to a purer form of play. If that's not meant than perhaps leave those parts out. If you want to hash it out, we can hash it out, but throwing in these jabs does us no good. You seem to be saying a whole lot more about what you are not doing than what are you doing.

 

[robertsconley]

I have bolded the parts that come across as accusations, as if laying claim to a purer form of play. If that's not meant than perhaps leave those parts out. If you want to hash it out, we can hash it out, but throwing in these jabs does us no good. You seem to be saying a whole lot more about what you are not doing than what are you doing.

That’s your interpretation. For me, the parts you bolded reflect key creative goals that shape how I run tabletop role-playing campaigns. Implementing those goals involves making choices. Some tools and mechanics fit, and others don’t. Understanding why is part of the discussion.

Game mechanics and procedures are just that, tools. Pointing out that a given mechanic isn’t suited for a purpose isn’t a value judgment and is certainly not a claim of purity.

Since I was responding to two specific points raised by @pemerton, I focused on addressing those directly. I didn’t go into the broader context of my sandbox campaign philosophy.

If you want to learn more about that, I created a page that consolidates all my posts on managing the sandbox campaign. Next month, I plan to do the same for my worldbuilding posts.

You can find it here.
Managing Sandbox Campaigns.

 

[zakael19]

That’s your interpretation. For me, the parts you bolded reflect key creative goals that shape how I run tabletop role-playing campaigns. Implementing those goals involves making choices. Some tools and mechanics fit, and others don’t. Understanding why is part of the discussion.

Game mechanics and procedures are just that, tools. Pointing out that a given mechanic isn’t suited for a purpose isn’t a value judgment and is certainly not a claim of purity.

Since I was responding to two specific points raised by @pemerton, I focused on addressing those directly. I didn’t go into the broader context of my sandbox campaign philosophy.

If you want to learn more about that, I created a page that consolidates all my posts on managing the sandbox campaign. Next month, I plan to do the same for my worldbuilding posts.

You can find it here.
Managing Sandbox Campaigns.

When you say "my players dont XYZ" in the context of a back and forth discussion, the implication is an unspoken "and I think yours do." The phrasing that would fit your stated intent would be something like "When my players interact with NPCs, I work to make them seem real by blah." Now it's a statement about how you do that goal.

For instance, a core tenant of the game I spend the most time playing is "Make the world seem real" and the way it tells me to do that with NPCs is by giving them names, motives, beliefs, and needs.

In the same game, religion, culture, and personal beliefs fundamentally drive play - up to and including being an XP trigger to act in accordance with or struggle against.

 

[robertsconley]

When you say "my players dont XYZ" in the context of a back and forth discussion, the implication is an unspoken "and I think yours do." The phrasing that would fit your stated intent would be something like "When my players interact with NPCs, I work to make them seem real by blah." Now it's a statement about how you do that goal.

I get your point. But I will be blunt, until it is shown otherwise, I assume folks are discussing matters in good faith. I do as well. When it comes to discussions, if I feel something is missing, then I will ask about it. Nicely. I am 50% deaf as a result of nerve damage, which impacted my ability to deal with language. I've been burned one too many times when I got "the unspoken assumption" wrong.

I can understand that makes me appear grumpy about this issue, but people don't know me as well here as they do in other places in the community. To spell it out, I don't do unspoken assumptions. If there something vital is unsaid is because I screwed up and didn't explain it properly. If a person feels something is missing in a discussion, all they have to do is ask.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain things. Hope my answer clarifies things.

To wrap this up I think we should talk about this specific comment.

My players don’t interact with NPCs as abstract entities

The problem with players treating NPCs as abstract entities is not because different systems have different approaches. No, the problem is that for different reasons across the decades, a small number of players will treat NPCs as playing pieces on a board, quest givers in an MMORPG, stuff to be killed for loot. These players are found mostly in folks coming into tabletop roleplaying from outside the hobby. Not folks coming from other systems.

As you can see, this is a nuanced answer that could be a topic of an entire thread on its own. So I didn't mention it in my reply. This decision was also a result of @pemerton making a point about how I handle things with sandbox campaigns and Middle Earth. So that was the focus of my answer.

For instance, a core tenant of the game I spend the most time playing is "Make the world seem real" and the way it tells me to do that with NPCs is by giving them names, motives, beliefs, and needs.

To clarify my view. The issue with players treating NPCs as abstract entities is usually found among those coming from outside the hobby and playing in my campaign for the first time. Because the vast majority of RPGs do as what you just described, it is rare I find this type of behavior among folks who played other RPGs first.

 

[pemerton]

IMO the crux of this issue is treating the gameable space of 5e D&D as having some kind of reliable, "I can hide out with commoners no matter the circumstance" ability. That's not an ability in the gameable space of 5e D&D. What 5e does offer in it's gameable space is a reliable ability to hide out with commoners provided they they don't need to risk their lives and you haven't shown yourself a danger to them.

5e D&D rules tell us exactly how to resolve the rustic hospitality ability. It's just not a very great ability in the system because the kind of fictional people that the PC's would typically be hiding out from in most campaigns wouldn't hesitate to use violence against those hiding them. I'd even go as far as saying that it's nearly approaching trap option territory, but I wouldn't call it a complete trap because I think there's a few niche use cases where it can still be useful.

The notion that a Robin Hood-type background is a trap option - if it were true - would be a sad indictment of a relatively conventional mediaeval FRPG.

It seems obvious, though, that the background can work perfectly feasibly exactly as written, and that it is only and exactly the sort of GM behind-the scenes decision-making described by @Manbearcat that undercuts its utility.

 

[zakael19]

I get your point. But I will be blunt, until it is shown otherwise, I assume folks are discussing matters in good faith. I do as well. When it comes to discussions, if I feel something is missing, then I will ask about it. Nicely. I am 50% deaf as a result of nerve damage, which impacted my ability to deal with language. I've been burned one too many times when I got "the unspoken assumption" wrong.

I can understand that makes me appear grumpy about this issue, but people don't know me as well here as they do in other places in the community. To spell it out, I don't do unspoken assumptions. If there something vital is unsaid is because I screwed up and didn't explain it properly. If a person feels something is missing in a discussion, all they have to do is ask.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain things. Hope my answer clarifies things.

To wrap this up I think we should talk about this specific comment.

The problem with players treating NPCs as abstract entities is not because different systems have different approaches. No, the problem is that for different reasons across the decades, a small number of players will treat NPCs as playing pieces on a board, quest givers in an MMORPG, stuff to be killed for loot. These players are found mostly in folks coming into tabletop roleplaying from outside the hobby. Not folks coming from other systems.

As you can see, this is a nuanced answer that could be a topic of an entire thread on its own. So I didn't mention it in my reply. This decision was also a result of @pemerton making a point about how I handle things with sandbox campaigns and Middle Earth. So that was the focus of my answer.


To clarify my view. The issue with players treating NPCs as abstract entities is usually found among those coming from outside the hobby and playing in my campaign for the first time. Because the vast majority of RPGs do as what you just described, it is rare I find this type of behavior among folks who played other RPGs first.

I’m not sure your contention here is entirely true of the culture now. I run a lot of games for folks who are new to TTRPGing (mainly zoomers these days), and their favorite thing to do is engage with NPCs and each other’s characters. I’m running a game for 4 folks who’d played a little bit of D&D before my game stating last fall, and they’re all super engaged in the details of characterization.

The benefit they got there was a system that (kinda like The One Ring, not sure if AIME does this?) asks them to put a Belief down on their character sheet they want to challenge in play and show character growth from. They also get asked details about the world and NPCs constantly, and have given me feedback on how alive and rich the world feels as a result. YMMV