Kaznath

A late American goblin wizard's thoughts on table-top games of diversion.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

The Almanacs of Old Adventures

The same freedom I believe is good to exercise in Setting Guides is the same sort of freedom I think is appropriate in the almanacs of old adventures kept and sold by publication houses. Adventures like Ravenloft with the wicked Count Strahd or the Temple of Elemental Evil in Dungeons & Dragons, need not be stringently held to in our fiction. They are guidelines for play. Adventure fuel. But they don’t need to be the whole car. 

Some who hold rather tightly to these source texts stifle their game and the creativity of the other co-creatives at the table. The book becomes the creative and the players must simply make decisions within its constraints. Instead, I think we should be liberal with these texts. We should build OUR ADVENTURES out from the ones the books are handing us. Because, once again, we own the book now - not the publisher - and we can do with it what we please. 

Now, I think Ravenloft is a well made adventure with enough twists and turns to make every play through unique and strange in its own right - as well as deadly. So I may not need to change much for my own enjoyment. Perhaps my players will though. And why should they not? They are free to play. We are liberated creatives, not constrained slaves to the systems we play. The Temple of Elemental Evil however, needs a better ending, to put it mildly, and I feel liberated to do so as many others before me have. Perhaps it is the punk in me, but I see no reason to let a book be Authoritarian, especially when I don’t think people should be.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Changing the Lore of Old Worlds

My Thought is simple - do not be so stringent.

Ownership is often a grey area for players of TTRPGs when they begin playing in a built setting. Settings like those I described last time, whether Dark Sun’s Athas or Planescape’s City of Doors, we hold rather tightly onto the book’s descriptions; sometimes at the expense of fun. 

But we also don’t own that world - right? Someone else has crafted it and handed it down to us. But that is the thing - they handed it to us. Goblin, elves, halflings, trolls and ogres alike, they have handed it to us and now - IT IS OURS. As soon as the cash register closes and the proof of purchase is passed, the world does not belong to Wizards of the Coast nor to the authors and writers of whatever ttrpg - it now belongs to you.

Being loose with the Lore is an important step, in my Thought, to making a place your own place. And so I think we should feel liberated to make it a home for our adventures. Whether it is the Athas of Dark Sun or the DragonLance canonical universe, Storytellers and their companions should feel liberated to explore, reshape, and mold the world they play in; including its history, lore, and cultures; in a manner that is fun and contributes to the co-creative nature of Role Playing Games. I am thankful for Athas, which I am currently Hermiting, because its game guides are open and loose with its Lore, admitting that its histories are vague and somewhat conjecture, freeing up players like myself to craft out the events that happened in that past at our own table with the freedom to do it as we please. Some will hold their source books for Greyhawk tightly as Science texts or Fantasy Bibles, but I recommend leaning into the grey in your Greyhawk and building out YOUR table’s Lore of Greyhawk. 

But then again, you do you. If Greyhawk as it is suits you and your players and your stories, that is quite alright as well. But please, play liberated not constrained.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Playing Old Worlds

The great thing about the day we all live in now is that there is so much good content out there that you can adapt to the games you like to play. I have a few recommendations of worlds from Dungeons & Dragons which have fascinating mechanical additions, class work, and can be found free online that I felt like should be shared for anyone looking to play with friends or in Hermit mode like I usually do. So, here they are:

Dark Sun: A post-apocalyptic world of mad-max esque adventure with dungeon technologies; Dark Sun is a survivalist campaign space in which the world is desert, water is precious, and everyone you meet could kill you. It includes features like accumulating followers as you adventure [leading to a chaotic sort of Domain play that is more like gang leadership], fun extra classes like Gladiator or Defiler, as well as interesting philosophic commentary to puzzle through in roleplay like the silence of the gods, science and its relationship to environmental destruction, and social darwinism. 

Ghostwalk: In a city at the end of the world, in one sense, adventurers travel to get in contact with the undead spirits who live there. The city there, Manifest, sits on the fault between the afterlife and the present reality, where ghosts linger until they are called to the other side. You can play as a ghost or as a human, with special mechanics for when you die - continuing to play thereafter as a disembodied spirit. Ghostwalk is fascinating as an expansion on the afterlife home of the Elves from Tolkien, encompassing all fantasy races and exploring concepts like desire, mourning, and obsession, as they relate to morality; as well as the moral ambiguity of lingering specters. 

Planescape: In the City of Doors, the city that unites the whole of the multiverse, planers are in a search for meaning in a multiverse full of adventure and death. Planescpae was the first to connect the D&D multiverse and TECHNICALLY still functions as the default location for every D&D campaign since it is the glew holding them all together. Planescape doesn’t have much new to offer in the form of mechanics, but has fun new races to play and a faction system that is gushing with role-playability. Philosophically it also has the most meat of D&D worlds - what does life look like when you can talk to God whenever you want? How does that make you think about evil? Or yourself? Or the universe? What does progress look like in life at the center of all worlds? How do you morally come to terms with primal plains where few living things can survive? Why would they exist? How do you come to terms with heavens and the hells, when you can visit? And so on.

These are great worlds for playing with friends and family as their worlds are interesting but also intellectually invasive. It prods hard decisions, good questions, and lots of stellar roleplaying scenarios - as well as pretty crazy combat. And they are great for Hermit mode as well - forcing you to think through complex ideas and how your character would rationalize the worlds they happen to live within.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Muntan Mine: An Abbreviated Sword & Backpack Setting Guide

Muntan Mine is a beautiful mine home to Dwarves, Gnomes, Goblins, a few scattered orcs, and Dark Elves. Dwarves and Goblins do not get along too well and tend to stay separated (it is not a stereotype, it is an attempt to be true to life). Gnomes play much of the middle and the Dark Elves tend to come and go from the under dark to us, as a sort of tradesman. 

Brunehilde is the local dwarven librarian. She guards the tomes preciously and adventurers looking for consistent spell materials will find her reluctant to let you write down anything they have or take it away from the sacred walls of that place. Her cat, seven feet in height and five hundred pounds, is also reluctant to let you do so. 

Morik Skullthank is the Tavern keeper, a lovely Goblin with a kind heart and a brutish smile. He enjoys singing the classics and making apple cider. He may send you out into the outside for supplies, but be careful because there are wild beasts out there - from small dragons to large bears, perhaps even a Kobold tribe here or there to watch out for. 

Most people in town dig in the mines or fashion materials into useful things. Hunters are those in charge of leaving the mines to forage for food and catch game; a good group to join if you want to explore the Mountainside. But the constant mining also means there are many abandon mines that may need to be cleared out - the Cranks handle that. They are named for Huberis Crank, a Gnome Lord, who started the Guild and takes payment to clear out pesky mines. They are profitable, but pay a wage rather than letting you keep treasures you may find. May be best to go out alone, but it is far more dangerous and the Cranks don’t take well to doing so. 

Most of the frustrations of the town surface between conflicts related to the two most socially powerful families, the Orinrigs [Dwarves] and the Stenak [Goblins]. The Stenak are in charge of the Mine Guard, like a police of sorts, but also in charge of keeping dangerous things away. And the Orinrigs are the counters, the ones who disperse the food and other sorts of resources, and keep track of them. The two hate one another, and I dare say things even get violent if they can find someone to do their malicious dirty work. 

Oh, and don’t mind Sal - he just trades things and, sometimes when he is low on cash, he may steal something. But he is a nice man and worthy of your time in conversation. He comes and goes. Don’t drink anything he gives you, it will give you dark vision but take your day vision! He  has the best things to sell otherwise; as Dark Elves often do. 

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Sword & Backpack: Empathy as Essential to Heroism

I’ve discussed at some length how Sword & Backpack aims at a particular kind of hero. Every other RPG system also does this, but being that Sword & Backpack is a philosophy and not a system, it is easier to see it. Dungeons & Dragons 5e cultivates a powerful hero, someone becoming more and more skilled, strong, and influential. That is why Gygax rightly placed Domain play as the next step - it made sense for the system. Sword & Backpack, as discussed, is aiming at a wise or, in the more mythic sense, a clever hero - think Odysseus or Perseus, succeeding through use of wit more than wielding great power. Sword & Backpack is also shooting for a caring hero, someone who is doing what they are doing to help others, not just for personal gain. That is why the Ephemeral Quest makes sense for the Experienced Adventurer.

But there is one last quality to a Sword & Backpack hero that I think can often be overlooked. It involves both qualities of wisdom and compassion, and that is the quality of empathy. From a Punk standpoint, cleverness and compassion highlight the D.I.Y and accessibility/equality aspects of S&B heroism. Empathy is the curious merger of the two. Empathy attempts to understand where someone else is coming from by application of wisdom in order to then impart a level of compassion. And through the manner by which Rothbard and Gazpus address villainy, but also basic interactions with others, they are looking to stoke up an empathetic hero. 

Often we don’t think of Empathy as a trait for a hero to have. We think of power, certainly; the ability to overcome perhaps; and we may lump in compassion or wisdom - but rarely do we consider empathy. Empathy is a form of understanding which examines the experiences of others to bring about understanding of their situation, in order that interaction and reaction can be more caring. The organic philosophy of Sword & Backpack makes this necessary, because without Empathy, our heroes cannot know the difference between allies and enemies, good and evil, sinner and villain. Without Empathy, you may even end up becoming a villain.

Empathy is, of course, a form of wisdom; which the Ephemeral Quest is aiming toward; but it is distinct from being “clever” and in its own right is a goal of the philosophy to play. I think it is good to have a game shooting for making us a bit more empathetic in fiction, it is practice for real life and important when interacting with fiction at all. It may even be the goal of fiction, just as it is the goal of historical studies; why not let it become a goal of our playing as well, if it can be?

[kaznaths-thoughts]

The Ephemeral Quest

One day, I hope to run an Ephemeral Quest. 

This idea presented by Rothbard and Gazpus has me enraptured. I quote them thusly: 

“The point of an Ephemeral Quest is quite simple: Adventure with negative monetary gain. You begin as a wealthy and successful adventurer and, if all goes properly awry, you end as a poor, unencumbered and hopefully enlightened one, having spent your time giving away treasure to those who need it instead of acquiring treasure for those who don’t care about it, seeing new vistas for the sake of appreciating them rather than looting them, and fighting battles because they are battles worth fighting and not simply means to an economic end.” - from Chapter 8, the Adventurer’s Almanac [Fifth Edition].

What do you do when you have everything?  At that point, many RPGs have had different answers. Old D&D and some OSRs would offer the shift to Domain Play, when you become a ruler or baron of one kind or another. Others offer more complex quests, perhaps to become deities. Most people though just stop playing altogether. Their character has reached the end of its arch, there is nothing left to explore or hack to pieces, and all the gold has been collected. Game finished.

It is that exact kind of emptiness and feeling of loss at the end of the Quest for which Gazpus and Rothbard offer a new kind of Quest to us - one which has all of the trappings and passion of our former vagabond travels, but now with the goal of a new kind of heroism and exploration! 

In the Ephemeral Quest, the goal is generosity and understanding. The player emulates heroism by caring for the poor, helping the weak, and spending time in the world around them for its own sake. In the Ephemeral Quest, the adventurer is seeking understanding of true value - for without the need of constant financial gain, the adventurer can now clear mindedly and wholeheartedly pursue understanding Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. By the end, the money they have spent, what they fought for, and where they went forms a corpus of adventurers that matter because they are important, not because they are financially viable. And through that process, they come to understand true value and virtue. 

Sure, it is a little high minded. But there is something brutally beautiful about an entire line of quest and adventure dedicated to using what you now have to help, just as you may have before, but needing and expecting nothing in return. And it is a solid course of action that can pour into any system philosophically - whether that is S&B, D&D5e, or a Hermit system. 

My Thought being, Rothbard and Gazpus lay out an interesting quest line for the experienced adventurer beyond the entanglements of rulership or rat-race for further gain; a quest which remains firmly heroic in nature, not 50 percent heroic and 50 percent essential for financial survival. The goal of heroism then becomes, instead of domain or claim, furthering good heroism. 

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Adventure is Normal - Rothbard & Gazpus Chapter 15

Do you view your life as an adventure? 

I am in a book club where this question came up. The other participants had already had several conversations of this kind, but it was quite new to me. I do not tend to think of trips to the store as Quests. Nor do I tend to think of helping strangers as a form of heroism or side-Questing. Long trips frequently just feel like long trips. But Rothbard and Gazpus encourage us to think this very way about life.

Adventures are not about Chosen Ones, prophecies of an ancient variety, and swashbuckling day-in and day-out. Adventuring involves exploration, being kind, and having empathy for others, even the “villains” we meet along the way. For this reason, I have quite enjoyed running Sword & Backpack campaigns, because they seem so entirely normal; with some magic or swords here and there. But just people in a strange place, talking to their neighbors, hearing a weird story, and leaving to check it out for yourself. Then HIJINKS!

Here are a few adventures I have been on in the real life. Please have an adventure yourself this week, if you can manage it. I am going to try my best as well.

Went driving to find every library in a 20 minute radius. Met strange librarians, saw an underground library even, and found some old tomes around; but hardly a plush seat. Then, I found a library at the bottom of an old, run down factory - but inside was a quiet little paradise, full of nice chairs, a strangely hipster mystique and librarians who encouraged loud talking and drink swigging. It was also quite beautiful outside, next to a river, though spooky being surrounded by the rundown, broken windows of the old factory. 

Drove in a direction with two friends. No idea where we were going. We found a box of free books on the side of the road which included treasures like Garfield, a 1600s New England Cookbook Guide, and most oddly the Westminster Confession [?]. Then we kept driving and found an old Civil War Graveyard in the woods that we poked around for a bit. Then, atop a hill, we found a beautifully golden field surrounded by pine trees from which we could watch the sunset. Quite extraordinary.

Went to the beach during a rainstorm. As it turns out, that is when all the dogs go for their walks there. No people around so no one to bother, but it meant I got to see a bunch of dogs and their yellow- raincoat owners. A simple adventure, but a good one with a solid twist, good characters, and a strong reward. 

[kaznaths-thoughts]

A Philosophy of Evil and Dealing with Evil in Rothbard & Gazpus

There is a hard fought balance in our world as well as in the world of games. It is the gap between “Genuine Evil” which exists and “Consequential Evil” which is more understandable to us. Genuine Evil is that defiled, completely irreconciliatory evil that exists in the world and is typified by characters like Sauron, Asmodeaus or Arawan. It is the kind of evil that “never sleeps” and seeks only to “devour”. The other kind of evil is more “consequential” - it is the evil of Thanos, of Squidward, and of Saturday Morning Cartoon misunderstandings. It is an evil which is either misunderstood in its intentions and actions, or which takes on evil actions as the consequence of more understandable intentions. Rothbard and Gazpus use both, but intentionally so. 

More often than not, adventures proposed by Rothbard and Gazpus involve the latter form of evil which is more consequential. This kind of evil involves people desiring something, being unable to gain it, and then committing acts of evil in an attempt to achieve it. The ratking of the Adventure Supplement is one such example. It is not that these evils are “not actually evil”, rather, overcoming their evil may not involve destroying them. Rather, such “villains” present characters with delicate scenarios in which often kindness, generosity, and empathy serve as more powerful weapons to dispel evil and redeem people than the Sword itself. In this way, Gazpus and Rothbard encourage traits of adventuring heroes we often do not think of - like kindness, understanding, goodwill, gentleness, and self-control. It also gives us an interesting view into certain villains who parallel such villains in life - those who are “sinners” who desire and then take because they cannot have and are capable therefore of repentance and redemption; rather than “Dark Lords” who are cruel because it suits them.

Genuine Evil is presented in the form of outright attempts at cultivating evil, like the Order of Vile Magicians of the Grey Mountains. While Rothbard and Gazpus craft many of their adventures in favor of the latter, they do employ Genuine Evil within their world buildings - and rightly so. Some people are malevolent - some creatures do just mean to harm for the fun of it - and sometimes the villain really is a villain after all. 

But how do you know how to handle evil if it can vary so much? Why not slay the ratking? And what if I try to redeem Sauron? How do I know what to do or when to do it? When to be just or merciful? This prods Rothbard and Gazpus’  sentiment in their chapter on the subject: think. This is a trait of the adventurer often lost in our Table Top adventures which should be natural - a hero must be clever in order to be just as well as kind. Wisdom is the key to either one. To quote Rothbard and Gazpus: “Don’t be lazy. Use your brain. Observe. Never Assume.” This we must remember, the opposite of Wisdom is laziness. Wisdom leads to just and merciful heroes; laziness leads to just killing when it is convenient or fun - and that, my friends, is villainy. Pursuing Wisdom is what leads to heroism - the kind of heroism that can feed a starving thief with empathy just as much as slay a foul dragon lord.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Black Hack Backpack?

Can you Black Hack “Sword & Backpack”?  After writing about one player, Hermit systems of play, I began to consider how one might use the Black Hack’s best traits to modify a game of Sword & Backpack in the same way that Black Hack modifies Basic. I came up with the following Thoughts:

The Black Hack does well to place combat agency in the player’s hand only by making the player roll whether or not they are struck by an enemy. This could modify a game of Sword & Backpack, as Rothbard and Gazpus are not specific on this point of enemy rolls within their philosophy. It may make it easier for the Storyteller to play convincingly on the side of the players. It would have the consequence of removing agency from other persons who are non-playable however, perhaps relegating them narratively to non-person. This should be weighed carefully in the philosophy. It may be beneficial as an addition to Hermit play however. 

Other features of the Black Hack are hard to bring over as they are so systematic, not very philosophic; so how they modify Sword & Backpack would somewhat undermine its nature. How armor acts and interacts within the game however, might be worth considering. Your players will, after all, eventually pick up armor - and using Black Hack’s harm reduction idea may prove worthwhile; perhaps turning a strong strike from an enemy into a lesser wound through the use of armor. I am hesitant to statistically play this out as Black Hack does though.

The Black Hack’s table for dealing with a player K.O. is quite valuable as a contribution to any game though. Often, systems in general do not account for how harm plays into more lasting consequences. Having players roll for their recovery and possible injuries sustained after being damaged, even determining whether or not they die from the damage or not. After all, most people struck with a sword or other medieval weapon do not die instantly except in a few instances, therefore there would be time to roll this harm. It also may provide stronger justification to the players for losing a limb, becoming ill, or other ramifications - as opposed to the current manner of play in which an enemy tries to cut off your arm and simply succeeds in doing so. The drawback being the consequential lack of narrative depth during combat, as any such injuries or wounds would be doled out afterward instead of during the battle. Storytellers should weigh this carefully. 

[kaznaths-thoughts]

What is 5th Edition For?

I do not want anyone to hear me saying that I hate Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition. 5e is a fantastic system to play, with a strong history, and accessibility of a kind which is refreshing as someone who started into D&D in 4e. But it is a system that has its place, which is not everywhere all of the time. 

I play a lot of Sword & Backpack because my players are busy and so am I. And while I love the game’s philosophy, and pull it over into other games when I can, I don’t play simply because it is the “best” or something. It is the best for what I have. My players don’t have time for a lot of preparation and neither do I. My players and I don’t like a lot of math and statistics; and even if they did, we play so late at night, it would be dizzying to keep track of. Sword & Backpack is simple and fun and intentionally story-driven, and so that is what we use for our late-night, no time in a day, busy-this-weekend life. 

But that doesn’t mean 5e doesn’t have its place. D&D is great for when you do have time to plan, time to dream, and time to nail down specifics. It is a lovely game that evokes strong emotions, has a good deal to say about morality and fate, and I do play as often as I can. Typically on my free day of the week, I play Dungeons & Dragons 5e with friends. Admittedly, I am doing a lot of editing at the table before we start, but it is worthwhile because the game is quite good once you get the hang of it and it is a great way to practice more empathy, more math, and get to know your friends as they make decisions in complex scenarios that the game demands. It is a system about characters and their growth, and that player-centric model has something beautiful to it. But it takes time. 5e mechanically is the best Dungeons & Dragons I have played so far, balancing story and mechanics into an easy machine to ride once you get your driving time in. There is a good reason other games must be compared to it in primacy. But it is not for everyone nor is it for always - which is why there are other systems.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Who is playing?

From my understanding, a controversial take - the DM or whatever you call them, is also a player. They are playing. They are playing the role of DM in the role-playing game. But they are a player. They are not supposed to be a facilitator, everyone is supposed to facilitate the story and the fun together.

Players should care about whether or not their DM is having fun too. DMs are also not supposed to be world-gods. Every player is supposed to help build the world and contribute to the setting. In different ways, sure; but the world doesn't belong to the DM and it continues to be created by all of the players as they play.

DMs play the role of the enemies, the NPC's, the creatures; and they set difficulties - but they are also supposed to participate in and enjoy a story they do not know the ending to - and they are supposed to discover just as much as everyone else. The other way just leads to burn out, disillusionment, or being really full of it. That's my Thought anyway.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Race & Class vs. Experience

Some complain that Sword & Backpack provides little instruction by way of racial features and class traits. My Thought is that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Sword & Backpack’s philosophy, both with regard to people and with regard to class.

Firstly, Sword & Backpack pointedly avoids racial features. Certain races having certain special features is counter intuitive to the accessibility and equality driven spirit of Sword & Backpack. S&B is a game where anyone can play, where everyone should feel welcome to the table, and where we can explore a world as diverse as each other. Racial feats do not reflect a world in which all people are equal though ethnically distinct. Furthermore, being that Sword & Backpack is specifically exclusionary toward “races are evil” tropes, it is understandable that it is similarly disposed against “some races are better at _________ or have advantage doing ___________” sentiment. This perspective is born in a social-darwinistic philosophy which is not compatible with Sword & Backpack’s Dungeon-Punk sensibility. And as a Goblin myself, I am happy it is so. 

Now, some may say - what about culture? What about upbringing? And what about a natural disposition to doing certain things as an individual? That is precisely what Sword & Backpack accomplishes through backstory and prior experiences as the main source of skill. Through providing a backstory, these sorts of details about cultural advantage, upbringing, and skills gained through common interest emerge without lumping them in with whether you are an Orc or an Elf. 

Class exists within a similar paradigmatic difference. A class is essentially a summation of training toward a certain end; Wizards studied spells to work as a Wizard, Barbarians studied barbarism to become barbaric. Sword & Backpack has little in way of class dynamics in order to provide a broad range and spectrum of difference within a career field. You may be a soldier, but your parents were wizards, so you know some magic and are quite capable in a fight. You may be a ranger today, but you used to be a sailor, and so you are quite good at gutting fish and sailing on a boat. Sword & Backpack, in this sense, is not WITHOUT features, it is simply without restriction based on class. 

More and more, it seems to my Thinking, those encountering Sword & Backpack want more and more of a system - and that is fine, you may pull systems over from other games you enjoy - but it is not without consequence to the world you are playing in nor is without consequence to the philosophy of the game. Sword & Backpack is a philosophy to play, not a systematic toolkit. It breathes far too much for that sort of robotic restriction.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Sword & Backpack: Adventure No. 1

PLOT: The cliffs of Ramble Down have long gone unsearched since the death of farmer Lawrence, who owned the property on the hill there. Now, people think something odd is going on in the Mine at the down of the Down. Some think Lawrence hid something there, but no one knows for sure. 

CHARACTERS: Willow the Bartender and gossip, Rangbert the Guard who wants no one near the Down, Martha the Witch who wanders the Marsh looking for mushrooms, Donald the Dwarf

TWIST: The mine is now inhabited by Dwarves who are trying to turn it into a functional mine again. But they are dealing with a squatting, bridge-less Troll who is slowing down production.

WIN CONDITIONS: Get the Troll to leave or otherwise dispatch him/remove the Dwarves from the mine by one means or another. REWARD: 100 gold and 80 silvers guarded by the Troll and a magic cloak of invisibility.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

Hermits: Playing RPGs Alone

I personally enjoy one-player RPGs. They can be a little weird for some, certainly, but as a Goblin in a world of elves and men, it is nice to sit down now and again, flex my creative storytelling muscles, and match them against fate in a game of singular minded striving. 

Now, you can play Sword & Backpack as a singular player. It is quite easy. You split your D20 into 10 and 10, rolling 11 or above as a success and 10-below as a failure. You have to create your own setting and your own obstacles, but that is all part of the freedom of it. 

But as a RPG Hermit, I have played a few other systems I would like to recommend. Each has its benefits and drawbacks, and depending on what you want in your Hermit games, each might suit your desires. The ones I find most helpful are “the Basic Fantasy RPG 3rd Ed,” and “The Black Hack” - “Stormbringer” and “Ironsworn”. 

“The Basic Fantasy RPG” is an Old School Renaissance game, emulating the mechanics of older Dungeons & Dragons editions. It is free online, which is fantastic, and has a number of online adventures to run in various settings [it is also easy to run Old D&D adventures that are often free online as well]. It has the simple four iconic classes and races, spells to use for spellcasting in its Vancian system, and a series of tables to create random encounters. Mechanically, you roll your six D&D stats, then when you perform a check, you roll under the number on the stat to succeed; while maintaining the combat mechanic from D&D of overcoming an Armor Class to hit an enemy. Its clearly defined numerical lines make it possible to play alone, with its drawback being rolling for the monster and tending to have more of a mechanical “video game” feel than a “story crafting” feel. I recommend for anyone who wants to have a quick adventure all to themselves with minimal hassle and maximum “huzzah!”.

For those uncomfortable with rolling for the enemy, I recommend “The Black Hack”, which is also free online. The Black Hack was put together by David Black and has the same “roll under” mechanic as the Basic Fantasy RPG; but replaces the combat mechanic of D&D with its own Black-Hack Roll-Under system. The mechanics become more uniform in the Black Hack and make it easier to arbiter your own games. The Black Hack also comes with its own miniature bestiary, spells, and mechanics for various classes; and for the most part, it can be easily run with the supplements and adventures of the Basic Fantasy RPG and older D&D adventures. 

“Stormbringer” is a little bit more complicated than Basic and the Black Hack, but for those looking for a more Dungeons & Dragons sort of experience, it is a good choice. It runs off of the Basic Role Playing System, currently in use by Runequest. Character creation is a bit complicated, dedicated to dolling out various statistics for various feats - but those who want something more D&D adjacent won’t feel out of place. Each stat falls within a percentage scale - essentially denoting the odds of success on a one-hundred point scale. The player then rolls a d100 to try to roll under the necessary stats for a particular action. Stormbringer is easy to convert over other old adventures and even Basic adventures, simply taking the 20 point stats of D&D or Basic and multiplying them by 5 to get the percentile. Once again, the roll-under mechanic enables single player play, and with a little Black Hack mixed in, one need not even roll for villains. Its drawback is its statistically heavy nature and the need to prepare materials ahead of time; even with short cuts, character creation took me 2 hours my first try. The benefit of Stormbringer though is in its setting, which comes pre-stocked with content and challenges based on the Stormbringer Novels; with adventures online for free. I recommend this for those looking for a more comparable game to that of Dungeons & Dragons in statistical heft, intentionality, and long term play. 

Lastly, there is Ironsworn. Ironsworn is truly unique in that it involves its own mechanics, its own world, and its own special tables for generating an adventure. It even comes with instructions on single player. Ironsworn has taken the hermit community by storm, and rightly so. It is the most comparable experience to the feelings, thought processes, and striving of playing Dungeons & Dragons with a group. It has a three dice system, in which two d10s are rolled against a d12 - how many of the dice roll above whatever the D12 rolled determines a full success, a partial success with consequences, and a complete failure. Its character stats are used to boost the d10 rolls when completing a task related to a stat. It is used for all actions, including combat - paired with an interesting combat mechanic involving momentum, allowing a player to continue striking so long as they succeed. I recommend Ironsworn for anyone who is looking to have a genuinely holistic “one-player” RPG experience, with all the detail and intense thought that comes with that. 

Hermit play can be very fun. We are lucky to live in an age when the internet transports free adventure content right into our homes and creative people craft ways for us to enjoy ourselves when we are apart from the adventure team we love. And for those of us struggling to find a group to play with, Hermit play offers a lot of opportunities to continue honing our storytelling and game playing. Lastly, to all of my Hermits out there, please know you are not alone in playing alone - and so in that sense, we are playing together. 

[kaznaths-thoughts]

"NAT 20!" - Concerning Co-Creativity

How do you handle Natural 20s? Some think Nat. 20’s are overpowered. Some people think Nat. 20’s have laws and you should hold to those laws. I think Nat. 20’s are sacred and present the opportunity to be open as a Storyteller to submit to a player’s unmitigated control. 

If someone rolls a Nat. 20 at my table, they can do anything they want. If they are looking for something, they can have anything they want of whatever quality. If they are in combat, they kill and kill however they want, as cool as they want and in whatever detail they want. If they Nat. 20 eating a bagel, anything can happen, they need only speak it into existence.

Philosophically, my Thought is that a Natural 20 is a moment in which Chance has determined that this player is no longer in a position of “striving”. Striving is anything that could be classed as an “attempt”; and success is only the end of striving, therefore included in it. A Natural 20 removes a player from any form of “striving” into a place of control. The story is now theirs - the events within, its ramifications, its consequences - the player is now in complete control of the space. For that one move, the Storyteller, the other players, and the physics of the world of our game, submits to the Natural 20 empowered player. 

A Nat 20 is just another way that I try to incorporate co-creativity at the table. In general, the Storyteller tends to push the majority of the non-player world. It is their role in the role playing game. Players create within the boundaries of what makes sense in the world they occupy and the Storyteller does the same. To me, a Nat 20 should heighten this and empower the co-creativity at the table. With a Nat 20, anyone - and that does include the Storyteller - becomes the unmitigated, unlimited, and primary authority in the game space. They can do anything, even the impossible, with the justification that the gaming universe itself - via the Nat. 20 - has empowered them as such. Nat. 20’s are a sacred piece of the game space; it is one part the achievement of agency, one part luck, and one part destiny; it is a piece of real-world magic touching for a brief moment our fiction and we should respect it.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

DM/Storyteller's Role in "Sword & Backpack."

I think of the Storyteller as another player in a different role, not as a rules’ court or a world-definer. I am just as much at the mercy of the game as everyone else when I am the Storyteller. My job is to play out the NPCs natural interactions with the players, explain the consequences of bad rolls, and help my fellow players meet obstacles. In a sense, the Storyteller is playing as the world and the NPCs, while on the side of the players trying to win.

What I am saying here, again, is not a system, it's a philosophy. 

The role of the Storyteller is to play as the world. The dice will decide if a player lives or dies, succeeds or fails, and so on. The Storyteller decides what the other characters do and how the world interacts with their failures, or their successes. The role of the Storyteller is only different from every other player in one regard - imparting experiences rather than trying to gain them. The Storyteller is the player who tries to build the other players up with experiences both fun and dangerous, admittedly with the chance that things could go south very quickly. But the goal is not south or even the challenge itself, but the experiences of the players and the development of the story, their characters, and the world the players shape. 

World shaping, in particular, should not be the lone relic of the Storyteller. Other players also define the world. They do so through their backstories, through their assumptions about the world, and then through actions they choose to take in the course of the game. I played Storyteller to a game in which a female character was searching for aid in their escape - and when she rolled a 20, I as storyteller simply asked - “What would be the best thing for you right now?” And she told me: “Six tiny dragons.” And so, now, six tiny dragons existed in our world - it was fantastic. And I would not have wanted it any other way. This is OUR world after all, not mine; and we all are making it with the decisions we make. And I think that is a more beautiful game to be playing when all things are said and done. 

[kaznaths-thoughts]

A Backpack Encumberance

Reading Rothbard & Gazpys really made me put away my “Encumbrance” questions once and for all. Once again, though not systematic in its usage, Rothbard and Gazpus’ backpack and toolbelt suggestion is a sensible philosophy for dealing with encumbrance. 

No one likes encumbrance. Most Dungeon Masters and Storytellers do not use it. They allow their players any weight to carry and as many items as they want. This is because, in Dungeons & Dragons, encumbrance calculations, even for the math disposed, are too encumbering in and of themselves to justify. Rothbard and Gazpus come to our rescue by the mandatory backpack usage and the suggested toolbelt. 

The Backpack is a simple way of tracking encumbrance and having too many items. How much can you fit in your character backpack? Characters are charged with drawing a literal backpack and sorting their things to scale into it or otherwise creating slots for the backpack within the Almanac. Players must DIY their backpack to fit all of their junk and get good at packing it up to fit all of their junk. When there is too much, they chuck it. It is that simple. But is it really? What about the player who hoards junk? How do we know how much things weigh? 

These questions highlight that the problem of encumbrance is not really a problem with the mechanic of encumbrance or how much a character can manage to carry; but with jerk players. The rule of simple reason that Gazpus and Rothbard employ gives a physical and simple way of managing supplies - and for those players who want more, they supply the tool belt, which can carry smaller items as necessary. The question of "how much is too much" is a space question, rather than a weight question - and people pushing those barriers is an honest conversation to have with a player, not a feature requiring mechanics. 

It IS just a game, the people and their feelings are the important thing; and other players should respect each other enough to respect the fiction.