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

[EzekielRaiden]

How exactly do you plan to force an end to the "invisible railroad"?

I'm not the one claiming that the players have power so great it overwhelms anything the GM might do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@SableWyvern

I think where many of us bristle is with the idea that the GM having exclusive ownership of the setting and players having exclusive ownership of their individual characters is foundational to roleplaying games rather than just a subset of them and that it's an inherently more freeing experience for the GM. Many of us have experienced having felt very constrained by that model of play in the past (as both players and GMs). For me personally, a shared ownership model of both setting and character were fundamental parts of my play basically from jump - definitely after the first time I played Vampire and got into games like Legend of the Five Rings that allowed me to dictate a lot of setting through its 20 questions with the idea that the GM would make those answers matter.

It was also a large part of my experience with Mind's Eye Theater LARPs where working with Storytellers on stuff we wanted to see and conversations on the stuff we wanted to do moving forward was a big part of play.

Theater kids like me, who approach the hobby, as a sort of extension of our experience in theater, can often feel like the stuff, we consider fundamental to our engagement is treated like its intrusive. Like the way we play isn't worthy of the same respect. Like even after 20+ years we're still treated like visitors and not valued practitioners of the craft.

Part of that comes from talking about a single approach or a related set of approaches as if they defined roleplaying games as a whole.

Who here has claimed that traditional play is the only gaming worthy of the name?

 

[Micah Sweet]

And yet nobody has actually given me one thing to indicate that the GM doesn't control those inputs and outputs. At this point, I have now had people tell me that in fact yes, the GM DOES control those things, and they're just agreeing not to control it in the wrong ways.

As I've said, the limitations we accept on GM decision-making don't count for you, so you will never get the answer you want. From your perspective, everything you claim is true.

 

[Maxperson]

....all of which is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not the conflict occurs.

First, context is context and it makes a difference in the scene and how it goes. For instance, if they had not made camp and just kept walking, there would have been no goblin encounter at all. They had been in the same spot for long enough to set up camp, light a fire, and cook dinner. That time, as well as the firelight in the darkness is what brought the goblin to them.

Second, I disagree. Conflict is not guaranteed and the context of making camp and having dinner ready means that if the group chooses, they can share the prepared food with the goblin if they want to go that way, which would make it far more likely to avoid a conflict. If they had just been walking, fully armed and armored, it sets a very different tone for the encounter.

It could've happened anywhere. At the inn. On the trail. At dawn's first light.

No it couldn't. Not with a good faith DM.

Good Lord, are we really trying to claim now that "See! See! The players ARE making meaningful choices! They have a CAMPFIRE!!!"???

See above. That campfire is probably why they had that encounter at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. I don't believe pemerton claimed otherwise.

But is that an aggressive assault by a foreign invader?

Or is it in response to the hostility already present here, or at least that has been seen over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and over...and.............

You want to show me who fired first? Go for it. I don't see how it matters at this point.

 

[Guest 85555]

So, if I'm understanding correctly...

Your answer to "what power does the player have when on an invisible railroad?"...

Is "None, except to leave."

Which is what I already said. So...why are we arguing about this point?

No. That isn't my answer. You asked for the power a player is given for a specific problem. I think players have a great deal of power in the game to act. But it does matter how the GM runs things. If a GM isn't honoring your choices, and is railroading you, the game isn't going to stop that. It is a problem of the social dynamic at the table. Like I said, there is no rule preventing a GM from hitting a player in the face or vice versa. There also isn't a rule in chess to stop you from flipping over the board. But these are all understood to go against the spirit of play. A GM who railroads is doing it wrong. And there is usually GM advice discouraging them from doing that

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes, because so many people simply refuse to discuss those principles in any way, shape, or form, other than in the most abstract and uninformative terms like "realism". I've gotten, I believe, two people to actually engage on that. And with at least one of those two, guess what, we made some progress! It wasn't all smiles and glad-handing, but both of us walked away having learned a little and having gained some understanding.

People have given you hundreds of pages of posts and gone into great detail on their principles, on how sandbox works, on how they feel it enhances agency. Not sure what else to tell you here

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For the third time in this thread now I have gone to some effort to give you explanations you seem to be seeking, taking my time to try and understand and respond to your specific concerns. I did this even after I had decided not to bother engaging with you any further.

Because the bulk of it simply seemed to be in agreement with what I'd said all along: you do what you do because you feel like doing it, and you avoid what you avoid because you feel like avoiding it. In other words, there are no actual limits. If ever you felt like railroading in a game would add something to it, you'd do it, no? The only limit is "I don't feel like crossing that line right now."

And, every time, after initially engaging me, you completely ignore the final, most important response. But you do go immediately back to this pointless bickering over stuff that is getting you nowhere.

Mostly? I'll be honest: I didn't fully read the final part of the post, because I'd gotten 3/4 through it and found nothing meriting a response. That is harsh, I admit, but...it's how I felt. I skimmed over the last bit which, unfortunately, really was the meat and potatoes and is what I should have read. So I apologize for not fully reading everything you wrote. That was a bad choice. If I may correct that error now:

So, to be clear, you don't need a powerful GM with limited constraints to run a sandbox with a persistent world but you do need a powerful GM with limited constraints to run a sandbox with a persistent world in the style that some of us gain the greatest enjoyment from.

I would suggest that a number of posters, quite possibly including me, have, at times, suggested that a persistent sandbox requires an unconstrained GM. If we've done this, it's most likely just because that's the way we've found works for us, because of fundamental assumptions we make based on the sorts of games we enjoy. And that slightly tinted version of the truth, perhaps, has been the entirety of the reason you've been frustrated. Or, perhaps it's not.

That has certainly been one component of it, yes. And thus, in the spirit of the above apology, I accept yours as well, even if it was only implied.

But there is a bigger component, which is not mentioned among the things you've said here. That component is that you--and others--have not only insisted that this is a way to do sandbox-y play. Rather, that it is the best way to do so, and that other systems not only are not as good, they actually interfere with or prevent sandbox-y play. Back when the discussion was about prep stuff, regarding comments from Hussar, that very much was what several people directly and explicitly claimed. Not just that collaborative creation, or GM-less games, or games with rules that apply to the GM as well as to players, are a different kind of sandbox-y play (which would be objectively correct, they are!); not just that there are differences (again, objectively correct); but that this is the highest form of sandbox-y play.

The things you keep calling "bickering" or trivialities etc. aren't trivialities to me. They're extremely important. So when someone tells me there are restrictions on the GM's freedom, restrictions beyond what the GM feels like doing, I want to know what those are. Those are of nearly indescribable importance, because they shape nearly everything about the play-experience. They set boundaries. They mark what cannot be touched--e.g. the bit a fair ways upthread where some folks almost seemed taken aback to consider that "The GM must respect what the player rolls" is a binding GM restriction. When someone says they are guided by "principles", I want to know what those principles are, because that's how they and I get on the same page. When someone says they have "guidelines", I need to know what those guidelines are so I can know where I'm being guided to. Etc.

Hence I've pressed--for clarity, for specificity, against vagueness, against passing-the-buck. And it seems that now, at last...we've ended up where I started from the beginning. As argued above, the restriction is, "Because the DM feels like it would make a better experience." Nothing more, nothing less. And I don't take that very seriously as a "restriction".

I ask you, again, what is it that you are seeking to achieve here? What is that anyone here could possibly do to satisfy you? My efforts have clearly failed you. What do you think @Bedrockgames can say to you or do for you that will resolve this issue for you? Do you honestly believe anything he can be expected to say will help you in any way?

What would satisfy me would be either...

(A) When one says one has "principles" or "guidelines" etc., talking about what they are, rather than just using a single high-abstraction word. Even if you can't bring to mind any specific words, talk about what you do! Give me an actual-play example with or without the details filed off (I respect your players' privacy) that walks through your reasoning and where important principles applied, or invent one. (Both things I have personally done in this thread.)

...or...

(B) Recognize that the "principle" is literally just gut feeling. If that's actually all it is, just say that, rather than throwing up words like "realism" and "consistency" and "plausibility" etc. as though it truly did have a structured, philosophical underpinning that is somehow ineffable. It's perfectly fine to just say "I do what feels right", if that is in fact what you do. That recognizes that there really isn't any particular pattern or rubric or principle or guideline etc., it's just following gut instinct where it leads. Nothing wrong with using intuition in a leisure-time exercise....if we recognize it as intuition, and not as a procedure or principle that can be discussed. (Not something I personally have done in this thread, since...that's not what I do. But if it were, I'd say so; e.g. if the conversation were about how I balance custom moves in DW, I really do kinda just do that by intuition, on the basis of the loose statistical spread of results I've seen in play, and then tweak it later if it falls short in one way or another.)

 

[robertsconley]

Well, in my case, it's because I ask about what things are removed from that power.

Context? Context is determined by the GM. Things that the GM doesn't consider relevant context won't be included in the decision. Things they do, will. Hence, what counts as "context" in the first place is wholly under the GM's purview. The context cannot be separate from the GM if the GM is the one and only person who gets to decide what counts as context and what doesn't. And unless you're actively speaking your decision-making process out loud--which I have been under the distinct impression is not true of the folks speaking in this thread--then the players don't get any say in what the GM considers to be context or not-context, unless they dispute the decision itself and then get a (partial) expanation--if they're lucky, and the decision wasn't based on context they aren't allowed to know.

This is well-thought-out post. However, it is not a fair evaluation, and because of both its complexity and the nature of this thread, I feel it’s important to break it down into its components so each can be addressed concisely.

The core of your argument is this:

I'm looking for something that is genuinely, wholly independent of the GM...

This is clear, strong, and consistent theme throughout your post. You’re asking: Where is the actual constraint on the GM? Not just in theory, but something that the GM can’t undo, rewrite, or discard at will.

While that a good point to discuss, the way you've framed the rest of your post doesn’t deal fairly with how sandbox or traditional refereeing actually works.

Strong Points
You make some compelling points.

1. The “Black Box” Metaphor
You state that the world lives inside a "black box" only the referee can see is useful. This point gets at the asymmetry of information in many RPGs, especially traditional ones and how I run my living world sandbox. Players don’t see the whole world, so they can’t verify what the referee is doing behind the curtain.

2. Plausibility
You point out that “plausibility” isn't a hard constraint if it's something the referee defines moment to moment. Because it rests on judgment call made by the referee it could become a series of arbitrary decisions with all the issues that entails.

3. Anticipating Common Responses
You’re clearly familiar with the typical counterpoints.

The players shape context
You argue that if the GM can override or alter unseen context, player influence is limited.

The GM doesn’t control player responses
You make the point that if the GM controls the menu of choices, they shape outcomes indirectly.

Trust the GM
That’s not a mechanical constraint, just a social expectation.

All of these are points of discussion that any proponents of sandbox or traditional play styles need to address.

The Problems
Where your argument breaks down is in a few key places.

1. Conflating Hidden Information with Total Control
You treat the referee having more knowledge as the same thing as the referee having unlimited power. However, that was not reflected in actual play.

A referee could ignore previous events, established facts, and world logic. But in a Living World sandbox, they don’t, because the goal is consistency over time. If goblins weren’t in the High Forest last session, and now they are, the reason why matters. The referee might roll on a table. They might follow an NPC’s goal from three sessions ago. They might reference a timeline the players triggered indirectly.

That’s not omnipotence. That’s extrapolation from prior events. The players might not see all of it right away, but that doesn’t mean it’s arbitrary.

To put it plainly: Just because you don’t see the dice roll or the note saying “goblin raiding party en route,” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

2. No Acknowledgment of Procedural Constraint
A key feature of sandbox refereeing is its procedural framework, which includes calendars, encounter tables, NPC goals, faction timelines, openness to discussion, and domain-level consequences. These are not written in stone, but they are put into practice session after session. They’re what creates inertia, accountability, and consequences.

If the players don't go to the goblin-infested hills, the goblins raid a nearby village. The referee doesn't make that up for dramatic effect; they follow the consequences of the player's choices.

You don’t address this at all, and it’s a serious omission. It’s like judging a chess game without acknowledging the rulebook, just assuming the player is moving pieces however they want because you can’t see the rules.

3. Strawmanning the referee’s Role
The way you describe the referee’s authority as “black-box-controller” who curates plausible options feels more like a caricature than what actually happens during actual play.

Players don’t just react to referee-fed situations. In my campaigns, they choose where to go, who to talk to, what problems to solve, and even which rumors to ignore. The referee doesn’t hand them a list of “acceptable choices”, the players create direction. The GM responds with consequences based on the circumstances.

It’s not “the referee decides what happens.” It’s “the referee shows what happens because of what you did.”

The Framing Issue
The bigger issue is how your post frames traditional and sandbox play style.

You’re not just criticizing a few weak arguments. You’re implying that sandbox refereeing is inherently untrustworthy, opaque, and based entirely on social dynamics rather than game structure. That’s not a critique, that’s a dismissal. It invalidates an entire tradition of play by assuming that any non-visible constraint is no constraint at all.

And that’s simply not fair.

There’s room to ask for clarity and consistency. But to suggest that Living World referees are just cloaking fiat in jargon is uncharitable, and it undermines genuine differences in play philosophy.

Wrapping it up
If your goal is to build understanding between playstyles, the question shouldn’t be “Where are the mechanical handcuffs?” It should be, “How does this referee create continuity and earn trust without visible mechanics?”

Because that’s what I do with my Living World sandbox campaigns. Working from extrapolated logic, built-up consequences, and player-driven momentum, not narrative control or spontaneous authorship. @Brendanbedrock and others use similar techniques and ideas to do the same with their campaigns.

That may not satisfy the kind of systemic transparency you’re looking for. But it is a form of structure. Just not the kind that fits neatly into a rulebook.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. That isn't my answer. You asked for the power a player is given for a specific problem. I think players have a great deal of power in the game to act. But it does matter how the GM runs things. If a GM isn't honoring your choices, and is railroading you, the game isn't going to stop that. It is a problem of the social dynamic at the table. Like I said, there is no rule preventing a GM from hitting a player in the face or vice versa. There also isn't a rule in chess to stop you from flipping over the board. But these are all understood to go against the spirit of play. A GM who railroads is doing it wrong. And there is usually GM advice discouraging them from doing that

I must beg your forgiveness for being rather annoyed at your phrasing here, when you took me to task for saying literally exactly that only a few posts ago...

As for the actual response to what you're saying here?

No, unfortunately, there isn't GM advice discouraging people from doing this. In fact, there's a hell of a lot of advice out there for exactly the opposite. Like when Matt Colville, a GM whose overall technique I generally find quite good, explicitly talked about how he fudges dice frequently to force specific outcomes--to the point that he will even pre-roll dice so that he can lift his GM screen and "prove" that he really did roll what he claimed to have rolled, even though he did not. He explicitly described this in a Youtube video.

There's a lot of GM advice out there. A lot of it encourages GMs to railroad. In my experience, very little discourages railroading--and none of it ever asserts that railroading is in any way poor technique. Indeed, it's very much the reverse, that railroading is good technique, if and only if you never allow your players to find out that you're doing it.

Even the 5.0 DMG hinted in that direction. I no longer have the page citation, but there's a bit where it straight-up says that you don't really need to pay any attention to the rules of the roll. If it's in the bottom third-ish (e.g. 1-7), it fails. If it's in the top third-ish (e.g. 14-20), it succeeds. And if it's somewhere in the middle, go with your gut. I believe the original version of this, as printed in the "D&D Next" playtest, literally said "your players will never know".

So...yeah. Railroading really isn't advised against, or at the very least, not nearly as much as advising that people do it but hide it.