I'm about to pull the trigger on this, but I'm not entirely sure.  It looks cool, and it sounds like it has a decent progression system, but at the same time, I have some players that wouldn't want to be 'King' of anything, rather stay wandering heroes for the entirety of the campaign, others would like to emulate Conan from the short stories, where they can lose said 'kingdom'.

What's the game like?

https://bundleofholding.com/presents/OSR2015

It's in this bundle of holding for a little over $13. There's some other really cool items that come with it. Just a, y'know, FYI.

It's a lot like classic D&D, for the most part.  There's a bit more complexity in the combat system, due to having rules for various maneuvers (knockdown, disarming, etc.), but most of them come down to "roll to hit at -4; if you hit, the opponent gets a save vs. paralysis to resist; if you have the appropriate proficiency, there's no penalty to hit and the save is at -2".

The domain management system is very crunchy, but also very well integrated into the rest of the system.  The ACKS game I ran focused on a group of level 3-4 characters founding a colony on a hostile island, using the domain rules to manage the town and its fortifications.  The rules worked well for that, at least until I got Domains at War and recalculated construction rates based on the actual population, which slowed things to a crawl.  (The core rules' default construction rates assume 3000 workers on the project.  Our total population was only around 500, and only something like 80 available for construction work...)

Even if you don't set out to conquer territory, the domain rules also cover things like running thieves guilds, building wizards' towers, or managing trade caravans, so the players can still get good use out of them without becoming feudal lords as such.

The other thing that stands out about ACKS is the Player's Companion, which contains rules for creating custom classes (also usable for customizing existing classes, of course) and custom spells.  If you want to be able to do that sort of thing and have a system in place to give it a degree of balance, I highly recommend it.

Overall, if you already have another D&D retro-/neo-clone that you like, you probably don't need ACKS unless you expect to use the domain or class creation systems.  If you don't already have a favorite clone, then ACKS would be my first pick for the clone to recommend.

The players don't have to explicitly use the domain system to get all they want out of ACKS.

What ACKS does well is that the authors thought out how treasure, money, society, and economics work together. Then exposed it. So the treasure system for monster is consistent with the prices for items which is consistent with how trade works which is consistent how domains are organized.

And it is defined with a moderate level of detail. Not totally abstract but neither it is at the Harn level of detail.

So if the players are not interested in establishing domains and becoming King of the Hill then it will function as a world building tool for you. And likely there will be one player in your group that will notice the consistency and try to take advantage of one of the options.

I really like ACKS - it's crunchier than I usually like, but in a fractal way. That is, most of the subsystems can be ignored until you need them.

I really like the class creation/customization tools, and the custom spell stuff. There are a lot of little tweaks that I enjoy - spell repertoires instead of standard spell preparation (basically 5e's "spell slots"), simple two-weapon fighting, thief skills on a d20 roll (with Hear Noise/Find Traps rolls for all), slightly expanded B/X style morale rules, and a ton of others.

Most of the rules are written with the idea of supporting emergent play instead of restricting possibilities. nDervish already mentioned the combat maneuvers stuff, which explains how to do the 'standard' combat maneuvers but makes it obvious how to apply the weirder things PCs will inevitably try. The "equipment availability by market" table is another brilliant one - it fits into the detailed economic system, but doesn't require any special understanding of that system. It simply tells you a % chance that a given bit of gear, or hireling, will be available where the PCs are, which tends to drive them both into bigger centers of civilization and farther into the wilderness.

It's the bits and pieces that are there when you need them that I like the most, though. When your Mage character decides to create a magical hybrid between a goat and a hippopotamus and an ogre, there's a simple system to support that. The domain rules are straightforward but comprehensive, and make running a kingdom feel different than an assassin's guild or a Wizard's enclave.

My main criticism of the system is that the "attack throw" system combines the worst bits of ascending AC and THAC0 - it's both unfamiliar and unintuitive. Fortunately, it's very easy to convert it to a 3/4/5e attack bonus or to a THAC0 system.

A friend gave it to me some time ago.

If you have BX/BECMI or Cyclopedia then ACKS will look very familliar in places.

In fact they flat out steal tables from BX and BECMI.

What they do though is embellish and add onto BECMI. Technically ACKS copies BECM and leaves out the Immortals part. Some additions are proficiencies, tweaks to some tables. Like Thieves having a slightly better chance to thieve, and so on.

When I got it it was more than a little annoying to see so much flat out copied/stolen. But it also has some original ideas that might interest. Really a YMMV thing here.

So the question might be how familliar are you with BX, BECM(I) and the Cyclopedia?

Quote from: Omega;864059So the question might be how familliar are you with BX, BECM(I) and the Cyclopedia?

Not very, to be honest.

Quote from: Ddogwood;864052My main criticism of the system is that the "attack throw" system combines the worst bits of ascending AC and THAC0 - it's both unfamiliar and unintuitive. Fortunately, it's very easy to convert it to a 3/4/5e attack bonus or to a THAC0 system.

On the other hand, the notion that AC 0 = "unarmored" strikes me as a very intuitive starting point. But it does take some getting used to for those more familiar with the traditional or d20 methods.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;864063Not very, to be honest.

That could be a good thing or a bad thing.

For me I kept getting irk moments at all the stuff directly lifted from BX/BECMI/RC. Moving past that though its a freaking big book! Nearly the same page count as the Rules Cyclopedia. Around 270 to the pedias nearly 300.

The other off point for me was the mix in of 3e rules elements. In a way it would have been better if they had stuck to one or the other. The mish-mash doesnt quite mesh.

The game is a refined version of classic D&D. Classes are specific to race, with humans having the most variety. The concept of feats and skills are incorporated, but in a very modular manner that is easy to ignore if you don't want that level of complexity. I have removed them (mostly) myself, and do not notice any lack of individualization or capability.

The economics are a shining part of the game. As mentioned, there has been some effort in balancing the domain level economics with treasure tables and the common and exotic economies. If you are interested in having a hands on approach, that is well supported. If not, you appoint a trusted henchman to run your affairs while you smite that Neutral lord that insulted you last month.

Character level approximates temporal as well as personal power. Dukes tend to be higher level than Barons who are greater than Knights. It is safe to assume that if you want to take out that foreign king, he's a bad-ass and you have to prepare. It's not necessarily true, hereditary positions are possible. If that's the case, however, their retainers are probably going to be the bad-asses in the equation.

In the first supplement, whose name I forget, included are some tables and processes where you can build campaign specific classes, with examples. As race is (nearly) class in ACKS, this is very handy.

Ddogwood makes the comment that the complexity is "fractal" in nature, and I agree. I have been able to incorporate, ignore, or alter the aspects beyond the base B/X D&D fairly easily and have been able to reasonably anticipate the effects.

I've made a few changes to some combat aspects to fit my campaign style (attack bonus, cleave rules). Also, I've adopted the Specialist class and a variant of the minimal skill system from Legend of the Flame Princess. Feats are subsumed into either training or benefits for guild memberships. I do appreciate how skills are presented in ACKS, and would be content with them if I didn't prefer LotFP's more minimal method.

It is a very well made product, and I am very pleased with my purchase. I have no need to consult my RC Cyclopedia, nor do I want to.

As an aside, I really like the idea of feats, but not the execution. Having them be a codified advantage or exception-based rule acquirable outside the class structure is working best for me at the moment.

Quote from: Omega;864070The other off point for me was the mix in of 3e rules elements. In a way it would have been better if they had stuck to one or the other. The mish-mash doesnt quite mesh.

Sometimes it seems like you just can't win with the OSR. If you make changes, people complain that the mix of old and new just complicates things. If you don't make changes, people complain that's it's just a rehash of what's already been done, so just play the old thing.

Quote from: aspiringlich;864078Sometimes it seems like you just can't win with the OSR. If you make changes, people complain that the mix of old and new just complicates things. If you don't make changes, people complain that's it's just a rehash of what's already been done, so just play the old thing.

In a way you are right, but that is kind of the whole purpose of OSR rules. The acknowledgement that everyone's sweet spot is different. Speaking as someone who cannot keep track of what is what version, I think part of the issue relates to why someone is interested in OSR type games and where their personal line of too complex/too many rules gets crossed.

I like OSR rules when they're really simple. Otherwise, I'd rather go with a more skills-based system like BareBones Fantasy.

I like Swords and Wizardry White Box 1st Printing.
S&W WB 3rd printing adds too much rules/complexity for what I want.
S&W WB Core has way too much.
S&W WB Complete has way, way too much.

Someone who remembers which parts of the rules belong where would knowledgeably talk about which version of rules is being added and describe the complexity in those terms.

Also, other people have, IMO accurately, described 1e&2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e as entirely different games with the same name, rather than really as different versions. So, mixing different philosophies (editions) could end up with them not meshing.

Hands down my favorite version of classic/TSR D&D. I have a review here.

TL;DR versions. It's a B/X hack with:

(1) some BECMI/RC material injected, mostly aiming at a high-level game; stronghold building and domain management get the lion's share of attention, but you're also offered a chance to run a game of criminal kingpins, merchant princes (or pirate lords -- yay for naval combat rules) and mad wizards who cross-breed monsters (complete with an in-game reason for them to build dungeons, and random rolls to stock these dungeons with a chance they'll get raided by enterprising adventurers).

(2) a few tweaks that generally line up with more modern design principles, e.g. fighters get a flat damage bonus that scales with level. Proficiencies cover both non-class-specific "general" or "secondary" skills as well as a few feat-like abilities; though there's no "feat tree" to speak of and the whole idea is easily ignored.

(3) a kick-ass Late Antiquity/Dark Ages sort of setting that's unfortunately only hinted at in the books, at least up until the recently-released adventure, The Sinister Stone of Sakkara, which goes into some detail.

Other than that, not a lot to add to what's already been said.

Quote from: Baron Opal;864073The economics are a shining part of the game. As mentioned, there has been some effort in balancing the domain level economics with treasure tables and the common and exotic economies. If you are interested in having a hands on approach, that is well supported. If not, you appoint a trusted henchman to run your affairs while you smite that Neutral lord that insulted you last month.

Yes. This part of the book was really interesting and part of what I mentioned as fleshing out certain aspects of BECMI/RC.

Quote from: aspiringlich;864078Sometimes it seems like you just can't win with the OSR. If you make changes, people complain that the mix of old and new just complicates things. If you don't make changes, people complain that's it's just a rehash of what's already been done, so just play the old thing.

For me it was the re-hash of not one, but two separate systems. Instead of picking one and doing new things with that. This was where the rules dont quite feel as well intigrated.