Quote from: amacris;911109ACKS implicitly assumes you don't want to answer questions for story/dramatic reasons but instead are creating a world-in-motion that exists objectively apart from the PCs. I've written elsewhere (on the Escapist) at length as to why that's my default philosophy of GMing and world-building. If you prefer a more story-focused style in your game, then ACKS is both over- and under-designed for your needs. It really has nothing to say about story at all!

I don't disagree with your philosophy in the least.  I practice it myself most of the time, but I don't feel that I need a rigid structure/formula to tell me what level a the town guild master is.  I can eyeball and tailor such information to suit my needs.  Sometimes, I will make adjustment to make the game flow better and I guess this could be seen as "story-focused," but more often I determine such details about an NPC based on what makes sense for the setting.

QuoteA thieves' guild could be run by a non-thief, but only thieves automatically attract thieves into a guild. Other characters have to conquer a guild, hire ruffians one at a time, etc.

ACKS *generally* assumes that the highest level characters rise to the top, but it provides mechanics for the exceptions. For instance, you *can* seize a kingdom at 5th level - but it's harder to retain your vassals' loyalty. You could be head of the thieves' guild at 6th level instead of 9th - but you're more likely to be betrayed. Etc.

It also provides mechanics explaining why lords will tend to be at a level appropriate to their domain. The system works as follows: As a lord, you earn XP per month equal to your domain's income, less your XP threshold. Your XP threshold is based on your level. At 1st level, the XP Threshold is 25GP/month. At 7th level, the XP threshold is 2,500GP/month; at 8th level, it's 5,000GP per month. If a 1st level character ends up with a domain that yields 2,500GP per month in income (a relatively powerful domain), he is going to earn a lot of XP very quickly. He'll advance quite quickly, until eventually he plateaus, unable to advance past 7th from his domain. Since XP per level and XP threshold per level roughly double each level, it forms a nice curve that accelerates quickly then levels off. That in turn incentivizes the ruler to either go adventuring or to conquer other domains so he can grow. An emergent property of the system is that the "equilibrium" level ruler of a 2,500GP per month domain is 7th level.  

Question: with ACKS do you ever feel that your players have unreasonable knowledge/expectations about the class/level of NPCs, that these explanations make the world predictable?

QuoteI personally prefer the term "verisimilitude" but it always comes off as pompous!

I appreciate the restraint!

However, I have a really hard time with the term "verisimilitude" when applied to D&D.  It is just such a gonzo, kitchen-sink kind of game with everything fantastical thrown into a blender, layered with rules structures like classes, levels, experience based on gold, wizards that can't wear armor, ever, because they just can't, alignments that are real, magic items for sale, fuzzy abstract HP that scale to the point where higher level characters no longer fear a short sword lodged in the belly, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of D&D, but rationalizing it all with economic and demographic formulas and then calling it "truth-like" is just a lot to swallow.  

The way it appears to me, and I am no expert, is that ACKs creates some internal consistency out of the mass of rules, conventions, and conceits that manage the D&D kitchen-sink fantasy. I don't mean to be splitting hairs over terminology, and I don't think ACKs approach is wrong in any way, but I do think you have to internalize and accept all of the strangeness of D&D before the explanations of ACKs becomes - or feels like - verisimilitude.

ACKs is one approach to making sense out of D&D, and it's probably a good one, but I am not sure that D&D needs to make sense, and for some, I think the practice of rationalization takes some of the mystery and wonder out of it.  Take DCC as an example, or Matt Finch's advice to "imagine the hell out of it." Are these more "story-focused" approaches than ACKs "world in-motion"?  Maybe they are?

On the other hand the discussion is not only about *D&D.

Other games are much more down to earth and with somewhat more focus on the setting than the action.

Quote from: Maarzan;911243On the other hand the discussion is not only about *D&D.

Other games are much more down to earth and with somewhat more focus on the setting than the action.

True, but I was interested in learning some things about ACKS, and its approach to D&D "economics."  I didn't mean to exclude other conversations, but I think it would be a mistake to inject real-world economics, historical, modern or theoretical, into that conversation.

Quote from: Madprofessor;911238I don't disagree with your philosophy in the least.  I practice it myself most of the time, but I don't feel that I need a rigid structure/formula to tell me what level a the town guild master is.  I can eyeball and tailor such information to suit my needs.  Sometimes, I will make adjustment to make the game flow better and I guess this could be seen as "story-focused," but more often I determine such details about an NPC based on what makes sense for the setting.

Sure. But that assumes you already know what makes sense for the setting. Many people do not know what makes sense for a setting, and disagreements are rife. Just look at the constant debate about what level Gandalf ought to be in Lord of the Rings! Or look at how sharply simple things like the level of experience of a small-town tavern keeper can be in various published D&D settings.

You obviously have a set of assumptions for your settings, too, presumably an unwritten or implied mental model. ACKS is the written version of my mental model; it offers a consistent world with those assumptions built in so the GM always has a framework available to work from.

QuoteQuestion: with ACKS do you ever feel that your players have unreasonable knowledge/expectations about the class/level of NPCs, that these explanations make the world predictable?

I typically count myself fortunate if my players have even read the rules, let alone memorized the demographic tables. That said, players who do have such knowledge are actually helpful in a sandbox-style campaign.  (That is, I have more challenges with gamers who expect that the world's difficulty will cater to their personal level than with gamers who know that the local duke must be at least 7th level and is out of their league. The former tend to bite off more than they can chew and then complain that they suffered the consequences.)

QuoteThe way it appears to me, and I am no expert, is that ACKs creates some internal consistency out of the mass of rules, conventions, and conceits that manage the D&D kitchen-sink fantasy. I don't mean to be splitting hairs over terminology, and I don't think ACKs approach is wrong in any way, but I do think you have to internalize and accept all of the strangeness of D&D before the explanations of ACKs becomes - or feels like - verisimilitude.  

I actually think that's a fair characterization, yes. If I had started from scratch from a pure goal of verisimilitude I would have made some different design decisions, for sure. It's verisimilitude for D&D.

QuoteACKs is one approach to making sense out of D&D, and it's probably a good one, but I am not sure that D&D needs to make sense, and for some, I think the practice of rationalization takes some of the mystery and wonder out of it.  Take DCC as an example, or Matt Finch's advice to "imagine the hell out of it." Are these more "story-focused" approaches than ACKs "world in-motion"?  Maybe they are?

I think that if what you want out of your D&D-like game is to enjoy traditional dungeon-delving/adventuring from first to max level, then many of the issues that ACKS deals with are irrelevant to your play experience. Such a game can be tuned to focus *just* on what matters to adventuring and hand wave everything else. By design intent, we wanted ACKS to be a game wherein as you advanced from first to max level, your play experience evolved from traditional adventuring into domain rule and mass combat. That, in turn, lead to questions like...
- "How much is a dragon's treasure hoard worth compared to a duke's treasure vault?"
- "How many pegasi riders might the king's legions have?"
- "How many militia and mercenaries can I must to fight off the skeleton dark lord, how long will it take to raise them, and how much will it cost?"
- "Can the prince's court sorcerer repair his besieged fortress with Wall of Stone?"
Etc.
All of the above *can* be hand-waved (and I ran my first such campaign that way) but I found it quickly became a morass of inconsistency.

It can also be useful to retain some consistent cause & effect for PCs who start to get powerful and to do bad things to society. Like if they're pretty dangerous, and start breaking into and out of places like palaces and guild halls, it's pretty interesting if you have some actual idea what stuff those places have, how many members and guards and what their abilities are like, and who may end up trying to put an end to the PC rampages and what their abilities are like - that is, to make an actual campaign game of that level of play, not just a game for battles and a GM improvising the world and what's in it.

Quote from: Skarg;911298It can also be useful to retain some consistent cause & effect for PCs who start to get powerful and to do bad things to society. Like if they're pretty dangerous, and start breaking into and out of places like palaces and guild halls, it's pretty interesting if you have some actual idea what stuff those places have, how many members and guards and what their abilities are like, and who may end up trying to put an end to the PC rampages and what their abilities are like - that is, to make an actual campaign game of that level of play, not just a game for battles and a GM improvising the world and what's in it.

This here is extremely important.  Cause and Effect.  There's a reason D&D PCs get labeled as murder hobos.  It's because there is a lack of actual numbers to describe what effect PCs have moving through a world.

Most of the time, when everything goes pear-shaped, D&D characters will Resolve the Situation immediately.  They kill the opposition.  They escape (usually by partially killing the opposition).  They get themselves Free and Clear.  Then they deal with repercussions.  If a misunderstanding with the King led to the death of some King's Guards then the PCs might just leave the kingdom or they might attempt to make it up to the King later, on their terms.  What usually doesn't get included is the idea that with the King's Guard diminished, Evil Count Fuckery now has a superior personal guard and can physically take the palace.  One carefully placed fireball could leave a town essentially defenseless for months.

The historical wargaming roots of the hobby (where logistics and supply were frequently included) meant the original players kinda knew all this, it was part of the Zeitgeist.  They were mostly college educated history nerds of one kind or another.  This stuff is obvious to them.

As D&D expanded into the general populace, this general body of assumed knowledge was not there.  AD&D attempted to introduce "campaign rules" to allow the DM to have enough information and guidance to deal with the PCs movement through a world, but something like Harnmanor or ACKS goes even further.

Yeah it's not going to work for PhD-level sim of the Lindesfarne sociopoliticaleconomy pre and post raid, but for helping a GM figure out "What the hell is going to happen in the kingdom after this latest cluster?" it can be invaluable.

Harnmanor and ACKs are especially useful in any sort of pirate or viking campaign where the ebb and flow of economy and trade is arguably much more important then normal.

I need to finally get around to reading ACKS. I do all this stuff already, but I'm a sucker for a good system that does it for me.

Quote from: tenbones;911385I need to finally get around to reading ACKS. I do all this stuff already, but I'm a sucker for a good system that does it for me.

I get the impression that ACKS doesn't do it for you, but that it gives you guidelines and formulas that you can somewhat modify to fit and use to guide how you do the work. Of course providing formulas may have been what you meant doing the work for you.

Quote from: amacris;911252...that assumes you already know what makes sense for the setting. Many people do not know what makes sense for a setting, and disagreements are rife. Just look at the constant debate about what level Gandalf ought to be in Lord of the Rings! Or look at how sharply simple things like the level of experience of a small-town tavern keeper can be in various published D&D settings.

You obviously have a set of assumptions for your settings, too, presumably an unwritten or implied mental model. ACKS is the written version of my mental model; it offers a consistent world with those assumptions built in so the GM always has a framework available to work from.

I actually think that's a fair characterization, yes. If I had started from scratch from a pure goal of verisimilitude I would have made some different design decisions, for sure. It's verisimilitude for D&D.

I think that if what you want out of your D&D-like game is to enjoy traditional dungeon-delving/adventuring from first to max level, then many of the issues that ACKS deals with are irrelevant to your play experience. Such a game can be tuned to focus *just* on what matters to adventuring and hand wave everything else. By design intent, we wanted ACKS to be a game wherein as you advanced from first to max level, your play experience evolved from traditional adventuring into domain rule and mass combat. That, in turn, lead to questions like...
- "How much is a dragon's treasure hoard worth compared to a duke's treasure vault?"
- "How many pegasi riders might the king's legions have?"
- "How many militia and mercenaries can I must to fight off the skeleton dark lord, how long will it take to raise them, and how much will it cost?"
- "Can the prince's court sorcerer repair his besieged fortress with Wall of Stone?"
Etc.
All of the above *can* be hand-waved (and I ran my first such campaign that way) but I found it quickly became a morass of inconsistency.

Awesome response.  It answers my somewhat challenging questions with clarity and humility.  I think you just sold a game!  

Long ago I labored to answer these kinds of questions (and did so successfully I think, if not as systematically as ACKS), and filled many notebooks full of NPCs, army lists, economics, populations for my campaigns. I even ran an "end game" D&D campaign where the players were lords, movers and shakers, for several years.  I have gotten away from it in my D&D as I had wanted to get back to some of the "simple fun."  DCC has filled that bill pretty well.  I don't think I need ACKs because interpreting a setting in the terms you describe is pretty much second nature to me.  However, I think it might inspire me to go back to the "world-in-motion" style of sandbox play that used to feature prominently in my D&D games.  Besides, I am a systems junky, and anybody who can take the disparate craziness of D&D, make it click together into an internally consistent and coherent whole, which smacks of obsession and a little lunacy (meant as a compliment), is certainly worthy of my dollar.

I certainly think it makes more sense then trying to import real world or historical economics and fit all the D&Disms into that complicated puzzle.  

QuoteI typically count myself fortunate if my players have even read the rules, let alone memorized the demographic tables.  

Absolutely.

QuoteThat said, players who do have such knowledge are actually helpful in a sandbox-style campaign.  (That is, I have more challenges with gamers who expect that the world's difficulty will cater to their personal level than with gamers who know that the local duke must be at least 7th level and is out of their league. The former tend to bite off more than they can chew and then complain that they suffered the consequences.)

Yes! The Challenge rating expectations of some of my players has turned into Disney Princess Movie syndrome, where they expect to win simply because they are the protagonists.  It conflicts with my war-gaming roots and sense of impartiality as a GM.

I don't own it. Heard many of you mugs around here talk about it. It interests me quite a bit.

Yeah - I'm interested in the formula as much as the system. I gather it's pretty OSR-ish so system light? I'm probably going to pick it up this week after my wallet gets doused with water after my latest TREAT YO'SELF weekend.

I always end up keeping the economic stuff in the background, mainly because I haven't found a group of players who want it in the foreground.

I played in a game one time where the GM tried to present a lot of economics-related challenges.  I enjoyed them, but the rest of the players revolted until he stopped doing that.

Glad my response gave you the answers you were looking for. If you end up checking out ACKS, there is a patreon associated with it that goes more in-depth on a lot of game mechanics, especially economic ones. The fans joke that it's the Dwarf Fortress version of ACKS.