D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[robertsconley]

(i) I'm not criticising anything; I'm describing it;

(ii) I don't suggest that a heavily GM driven sandbox leads to players' goals being subordinated to the referee's goals. My point is about who controls the shared fiction.

I don't accept that your sort of "living world" game is the only approach to sandbox RPGing.

So what you describe as "omission of crucial details" is, in fact, deliberate generality that allows for multiple approaches to sandboxing, not all of which involve "impartial refereeing".

You say you're not criticizing, only describing, but when you describe the sandbox approach as "reducing player capacity," leading to "less knowability," and being "more railroad-y," that is an evaluation. These are judgments about how play operates and how agency is preserved. Describing something as reducing agency or increasing GM control over outcomes is not neutral. It's a critique, and that's fine, but it should be acknowledged as such if we’re going to have a discussion.

As for whether Torchbearer is a sandbox system: by your definition, yes. You wrote that a sandbox game is one that focuses on place, the locations of the world, and journeying, the act of traveling from place to place and making choices about where to go.

But that definition is incomplete. Yes, my Living World style isn’t the only form of sandbox campaign, but reducing sandbox play to "travel between locations" misses a lot of the tradition. As discussed on this forum and elsewhere, going back to at least 2007, sandbox campaigns (especially those inspired by the Wilderlands or early OD&D) also emphasize the referee’s impartiality, the players' freedom to interact with or ignore any situation, and the importance of a world that has a life of its own.

Torchbearer 2e doesn’t meet that standard. While your players may choose where to go, they can’t choose whether or not to engage in conflict, because the system mandates it. As you’ve pointed out, the entire structure of Torchbearer (and BW) revolves around tension, pressure, and dramatic stakes, conflict as a system focus. That’s not how sandbox campaigns traditionally work. In sandbox campaigns, conflict is emergent. It happens only if the players choose to engage with situations that produce it. And sometimes, it doesn’t happen at all.

Now, let’s return to your point:

(ii) I don't suggest that a heavily GM driven sandbox leads to players' goals being subordinated to the referee's goals. My point is about who controls the shared fiction.

But the impact of control is exactly that: whoever holds it has their goals prioritized. The two are inextricably linked. That directly contradicts your earlier statement to @The Firebird:

The essence of a railroad, in my view, is GM control over the fiction. Total GM control means a total railroad. [snip] So understanding whether or not RPG play is a railroad requires understanding how scenes are framed and how consequences are established.

You consistently frame your preference for Torchbearer 2e and similar systems around how they share narrative control more evenly between player and GM, whereas you argue that traditional play is "more railroad-y" because it places more fiction-shaping authority in the referee’s hands. That is, you argue that referee-controlled outcomes inherently risk subordinating player intent, and yet now you’re denying that connection.

This brings us to the larger issue: control over the shared fiction. What's often overlooked is the role of the system itself and the goals of the game's designer. When we talk about who controls the fiction, we also have to acknowledge that Torchbearer’s system as a RPG imposes its own priorities on the campaign. It sets the tone, the expectations, and the loop of play, all centered on resource scarcity, interpersonal friction, and moral tension.

Here’s what the text says:

"Adventurer is a dirty word... You’re a third child or worse... Without title, letters of recommendation or enough lucre to drown in, we’re treated little better than chattel."

"Here is a grim land. Summers are short. Winters are long... This land is wild, untamable, and in it we struggle to survive."

"Town is noisy, crowded and, worst of all, expensive... it’s no place for the likes of us."

These are not flavor-only elements. Torchbearer bakes this worldview into the gameplay loop. The players and referee have no real control over this part of the fiction. That’s a clear example of system-prioritized authorship, where the designer's goals shape the story more than either player or referee intent.

Burning Wheel has similar mechanics, but is more flexible in terms of setting and genre, and thus doesn't lock down tone and structure in the same way.

Now let me bring this back to sandbox campaigns, not just my Living World model, but sandbox play more broadly.

In sandbox campaigns, the referee’s job is to respect the players’ decisions as their characters. If they choose to go left instead of right, the referee describes what’s to the left. This is a baseline for most TTRPGs, but it matters here, because it contradicts the idea that sandbox referees exercise total control over the shared fiction.

But what happens after that choice is what sets sandbox campaigns apart. The referee doesn’t look for what conflict arises; they simply describe the result. If it’s a guard who refuses to let them through the gate, the players might not care, they might turn around. Or they might bribe him. Or wait for a shift change. Or find a hole in the fence. Whether that moment becomes a dramatic conflict or a passing scene depends entirely on what the players choose to pursue.

The system’s role in a sandbox campaign is threefold:

• To describe game-world elements (creatures, items, spells, etc.),
• To support campaign management tools (random encounters, reaction tables, etc.),
• And to adjudicate actions based on the game world’s logic.

What ignored or omitted for sandbox campaigns is anything that dictates what the players or referee must focus on. As a result system used for the campaign doesn’t insist that every situation escalate into conflict or drama. That’s the essential difference.

So yes, this is a critique of Torchbearer and BW, but not to dismiss them. It’s to point out why they function fundamentally differently from sandbox campaigns, and why describing both with the same terminology glosses over real and important distinctions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The dismissive context shows up in comments here and across this site over and over on this subject, particularly the belaboring of "wow what you just described sounds terrible" that @pemerton noted.

Genuinely curious question: what is it about thinking that a GM is looking at notes about a world / setting / upcoming occurrence that makes it feel like it has more weight to you? Like, when I ran D&D 5e I was making stuff up on the fly all the time because of the relative minimalistic context most WOTC stuff gives you (or if it gives details it's often contradictory or deeply railroady). So I was extemporizing stuff out to, as the 2024 DMG puts it now "maximize fun for all involved." Primarily by poking back at things players had expressed interest about (eg: my Critical Role fan players had NPCs highlighted back that they were like "WHOA, HIM??" even thought I had no context), or background elements.

So is it the mild deception of "GM looks at paper and says stuff" that makes it feel like, concrete? Rolling on a random table feels consistent? Knowing that to your best understanding things are planned for? Never feeling like "quantum ogres" are a step away?

Yes, in a way. I want the setting to feel like it exists as a construct independent of the players, so it can be interacted with through their PCs in a way that doesn't require the players to make stuff up that is outside the power of their PCs. Because I like it better. It feels more real to me.

I have said this so many times.

 

[AlViking]

Yes, in a way. I want the setting to feel like it exists as a construct independent of the players, so it can be interacted with through their PCs in a way that doesn't require the players to make stuff up that is outside the power of their PCs. Because I like it better. It feels more real to me.

I have said this so many times.

Seems like we're all just retreading the same arguments. Agency expressed solely through our characters is more engaging and fun for me. The response is "it's pretty much a railroad because it doesn't work like X where the players have more direct control". Rinse and repeat.

 

[robertsconley]

Genuinely curious question: what is it about thinking that a GM is looking at notes about a world / setting / upcoming occurrence that makes it feel like it has more weight to you? Like, when I ran D&D 5e I was making stuff up on the fly all the time because of the relative minimalistic context most WOTC stuff gives you (or if it gives details it's often contradictory or deeply railroady). So I was extemporizing stuff out to, as the 2024 DMG puts it now "maximize fun for all involved." Primarily by poking back at things players had expressed interest about (eg: my Critical Role fan players had NPCs highlighted back that they were like "WHOA, HIM??" even thought I had no context), or background elements.

From what my players have told me is that when they see me looking at notes, it makes the world feel real to them. They say it gives their choices more meaning, because they know I’m not just making things up based on what they’re doing. The world was already had things going on before they stepped in.

They’ve said that uncovering things that were already there, makes the results of their actions feel earned. That it is not just tailored to their decisions; it’s something their characters actually discovered. That feeling comes from knowing the world doesn’t conform to them, it reacts to them.

That is what they find fun, figuring things out, seeing patterns, and making decisions in the setting.

 

[zakael19]

Yes, in a way. I want the setting to feel like it exists as a construct independent of the players, so it can be interacted with through their PCs in a way that doesn't require the players to make stuff up that is outside the power of their PCs. Because I like it better. It feels more real to me.

I have said this so many times.

Ok, but even if you're ceding all control/authority over teh setting to the GM; does that pre-suppose that the GM is doing maximum prep, or do you just feel best when the world is being steadily narrated to you regardless of what it looks like on the GM side? EG: the GM is free to extrapolate world details and events, but so long as it feels relatively "right" from your side of the screen and your mental image of the world as the GM unfolds it isn't bothered, everything is ok?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I understand the premise of the OP. I get it. But I also get why we often are conservative.

Imagine someone trying to change baseball not incrementally but in spurts. Not just infield fly rules or DH for the national league; but big things. Caught dropped balls always mean they are caught…foul tips never yield a strike. Ever. Reduce player on the field by half. 10 instead of 3 strikes. Whatever.

4e did not past muster because people wanted a coke and not a Pepsi. They were conservative in how they defined the game.

In defense of conservatism, I play D&D because I want to play D&D. I don’t think that is bad. There are times of variations and tons of other games. It is not sin to want consistency in product.

 

[robertsconley]

Genuinely curious question: what is it about thinking that a GM is looking at notes about a world / setting / upcoming occurrence that makes it feel like it has more weight to you? Like, when I ran D&D 5e I was making stuff up on the fly all the time because of the relative minimalistic context most WOTC stuff gives you (or if it gives details it's often contradictory or deeply railroady). So I was extemporizing stuff out to, as the 2024 DMG puts it now "maximize fun for all involved." Primarily by poking back at things players had expressed interest about (eg: my Critical Role fan players had NPCs highlighted back that they were like "WHOA, HIM??" even thought I had no context), or background elements.

To show an example here is a post made by one of my player two week in a campaign using D&D 5e in my Majestic Fantasy Realms.

Note the rumor they got was a result of the group stopping in the tavern in the village of Hawksleigh and asking around for news. The scribbles are notes by the players due to scouting the terrain. Yonk's Place is the location of the hill giant steading.

So Rob sets this up… gives us a rumor that some hill giants are running a toll racket in a location we are heading. We're like 8th level and fairly "ambush" focused, so we're thinking we can fix this problem for the locals and build some street cred. Point of note though, this is NOT what we're here for—it's a "side quest."

We scout out their hideout and it's a large complex, with support, and the wife is a druid that talks to wargs… hm… there are four of them, this might hurt. We toss some ideas about. I have to miss next week, so the group goes back to report, musters some troops, then heads over to say hi to the elves.

Apparently, everyone has considered this and just been paying them for years. There is a larger contingent of hill giants in the mountains that don't like what this one is doing, but isn't stopping him. We get back, tell the local what we learned, then head back up, catch the female out. Instead of ambushing, we send a warning, because we don't want the hill giants descending to get revenge.

Turns out she's the chieftain's daughter… and an Appalachian redneck. We let her go. Leaving that discussion, we realize that killing them will likely result in a blood feud. So… this simple encounter, had we gone through with it as originally intended, likely would have resulted in the local towns being wiped out by a marauding band of hill giants.

Actions, consequences—great gaming moment. I've been on vacation, and solving this problem has been something I'm trying to work through.

 

[zakael19]

From what my players have told me is that when they see me looking at notes, it makes the world feel real to them. They say it gives their choices more meaning, because they know I’m not just making things up based on what they’re doing. The world was already had things going on before they stepped in.

They’ve said that uncovering things that were already there, makes the results of their actions feel earned. That it is not just tailored to their decisions; it’s something their characters actually discovered. That feeling comes from knowing the world doesn’t conform to them, it reacts to them.

That is what they find fun, figuring things out, seeing patterns, and making decisions in the setting.

Cool!

Can you also accept that for many players, satisfying "uncovering of setting mysteries" and "earned actions" do not require detailed notes and sole-GM authority? That it feels as real to them without any of that? That they love being asked to either establish or embellish parts of their POV ("Painting the Scene" is a technique I rely on a lot to draw character's perceptions of the world out), and this shared ownership is a highlight of our play?

Like, at the end of almost every session of Stonetop my two-lore focused players register that they loved digging in and finding new details about the world or uncovering mysteries (or are frustrated that they just haven't quite gotten there yet, so that's a wish for next time!) - but it's all extrapolation with some occasional exploiting of the setting prep. Often with provocative questions, or a cross-cultural check ("Zel, what did your church down in Lygos teach you about X? Oh ok, cool! Hey Naren, what have you read in books up here in the North about the same thing that's very different?"), and some GM adjudication. And always addressed to the characters, grounding it in their experiences and background and perceptions etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok, but even if you're ceding all control/authority over teh setting to the GM; does that pre-suppose that the GM is doing maximum prep, or do you just feel best when the world is being steadily narrated to you regardless of what it looks like on the GM side? EG: the GM is free to extrapolate world details and events, but so long as it feels relatively "right" from your side of the screen and your mental image of the world as the GM unfolds it isn't bothered, everything is ok?

I prefer more prep to less, certainly (or at least a well-curated procedural system, often used in tandem with GM prep), but a sense of setting independence is important to my enjoyment regardless.

 

[zakael19]

I prefer more prep to less, certainly (or at least a well-curated procedural system, often used in tandem with GM prep), but a sense of setting independence is important to my enjoyment regardless.

When you say "setting independence" do you mean like, avoiding the sort of computer role playing game/module feel of "this situation was static until we walked up" sort of thing? Would a high-GM authority over descriptions version of Blades in the Dark work for you, if you're familiar with the setting descriptions and GM tools therein?