reading this is making me think i need toi buy a copy of acks
cuz who ever cooked it up seems to build worlds the way i do from the ground up

I've never played it as written, but used it (heavily modified) for a straight historical game I called Tyche's Favourites. Ran for eight sessions podcasted on our site as usual.

Highlights included a skirmish with a hundred participants all told, which was done in under two hours (it would take that long to do a basic scrap with 10 participants in D&D4e).

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.

Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.

The other thing that really gets up my goat is the healing system, especially when a character goes to negative HP. You have to stop all play and step through all the parameters trying to work out the total DM. Some of the rules are quite ambiguous which doesn't help. It really gets in the road of the flow. Although it reads as a really inspiring and nifty set of rules, in practice it turgid and laborious.

The last thing that is annoying is the poor organisation of the book. Not always intuitive where to find information. I've had to stick in yellow stickies at frequently consulted places (such as the monster XP table) which are in unexpected/illogical places.

I've not yet played the domain rules so can't comment.

Overall, it reads as an interesting game and I suspect many of the rave reviews about it come from people who haven't actually played it. It's a good plan that doesn't really survive contact with the enemy. In hind-sight I wish I hadn't used it but something simpler like BFRPG or the new FAGE. Overall I think I'd give it a 5/10.

Quote from: Tod13;864079I 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.

For me the sweet spot is S&W WB Core with the stuff I use for my Majestic Wilderlands (classes, monsters, magic items, etc).

In my view the key element of the OSR is it's diversity. For any gamer interested in classic D&D, there probably somebody in the OSR who has done something that lose to what you like and thus save you some time and work as well as serve as inspiration.

Quote from: Stainless;864175Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.

While I strong supportly a diversity of approaches, I personally don't get why wouldn't anybody use anything other than ascending AC especially when it generates the same odds as the original tables or formula.

The only exceptions I know where Ascending AC won't replicate the odds is AD&D 1st because of the repeating 20s baked in the to-hit chart.

I got the PDF for this from a previous Bundle of Holding (actually, it's up again). It looked interesting enough. I liked the artwork and implied setting.

The folks at TBP seem to really dislike the author though. Enough to boycott the publisher because of his views. Yikes.

BTW, I got ACKS from the current bundle too. Actually, two of the bundles are OSR bundles currently. IMO, they're well worth the money.

I didn't care for the initial chapter of ACKS. Liking or not liking fiction is subjective, and the mixing of the prose with system presentation in the first chapter put me off.

The next chapter is much nicer. Good explanations followed by examples, without extra prose fluff. All the terms are bolded and explained, much like a better textbook does. This is very well done. In a lot of games, the meaning or mechanics behind "saving throws" and whatnot are often badly presented, as the target audience is already familiar with the terms. ACKS does not have this problem.

Classes are clearly laid out and they have a good selection of classes.

They use a "class proficiency" system which makes sense. I prefer a more lightweight Barbarians of Lemuria style "does this fit your class/career" type setup as I don't want to track all the different proficiency rules. But for people that want more distinct skills selection, this is nice.

ACKS does not use Vancian magic. Spellcasters can pick any of their spells at any time and cast up to the number of spells they are allowed each day, before having to rest for 8 hours to recharge. (I prefer this method or something very similar for spells.) Again, this is explained very well in the spell chapter, something that a lot of OSR products hiccup on, since they are explaining something the audience already knows.

Lots of neat rules and tables. (More rules than I prefer actually--this isn't to say is it excessive. Just more than I prefer. No worse than SW Core maybe, the extra skills and domain stuff aside.) The Mortal Wounds "Permanent Wounds Suffered" table is pretty cool. More combat situational rules.

As the title suggests, lots of rules and table for followers and domains. Pretty nice.

Lots and lots of monsters.

Note, the margin includes a one word chapter title, and the bottom corner has the page number and a more complete section and subsection description. This is nice and lets you know where you are right away.

GM rules too.

Index is linked. And has a separate monster index. Table of Contents is linked.

Heck--getting both Bundles for a total of around $32 will give you days of just reading the stuff.

Quote from: estar;864177For me the sweet spot is S&W WB Core with the stuff I use for my Majestic Wilderlands (classes, monsters, magic items, etc).

In my view the key element of the OSR is it's diversity. For any gamer interested in classic D&D, there probably somebody in the OSR who has done something that lose to what you like and thus save you some time and work as well as serve as inspiration.

I agree with you on the variety of system variances. Just the differences in Swords and Wizardry editions are incredible. I added some of the Barrel Rider Games extras to what I'm going to use. What I like is I can get all the rule summaries and all the equipment and hiring lists on three pages, without crowding and with a one paragraph minimal "skill system". That doesn't include random tables or monster lists, since that's more a GM thing. And character sheets take 1 - 3 pages (three pages includes spell descriptions).

So, I can give my players 4-6 pages, depending on what class they want to play, and that's all they have to read.

I'm going to be starting my group on the 1st ed White Box soonish. (My wife has a paper to submit to Nature first.) So, we'll see how much that impacts which one I like.

Quote from: Stainless;864175Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.
...

I understand having to look up situational die mods, but for base to-hit, can't you just write it down?

Quote from: Stainless;864175Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.

Okay, I promise to be way more respectful of the rest of your post, but this? That's just laughable. Yes, the way Attack Throw and AC is set up differs from other editions of the game (as those other editions differ from each other). I can understand it being jarring at first simply because of prior experience, but laborious in play? It's the same kind of simple addition and subtraction as every other edition of D&D. I'll lay it out below, and those reading the thread can judge for themselves...

AC starts at 0 and ascends. Leather is AC 2, Chain is AC 4, Plate is AC 6, you get the idea. Every PC (or NPC, Monster, etc.) has an Attack Throw. PCs all start with an Attack Throw of 10+ at 1st Level. That means a roll of 10 or more on 1d20 will hit AC 0 to inflict damage. If trying to hit a Goblin with AC 3 a 1st Level Character needs to roll 13 or more on 1d20 [Attack Throw 10 + Armor Class 3 = 13]. But what if the Character is a 2nd Level Fighter with 15 Strength, a +1 sword, fighting with sword and dagger? Then on their character sheet they're going to write something like the following: Sword+1 & Dagger 6+ 1d6+3; they hit AC 0 on a 6 or more on 1d20. In actual play you can ask them what AC they hit, and they get that by subtracting their Attack Throw from the roll (e.g., they roll a 17, 17-6=11, they hit AC 11), or, and this is why the system is set up the way it is, the DM can keep it behind the screen, so to speak. A player rolls, the Judge looks at their Attack Throw and adds the AC and any modifiers, telling them if they hit. Keeping it in the Judge's hands is marginally simpler (addition only), but it's not really complicated the other way, either. As with other editions of classic D&D, there really aren't that many modifiers, and most of them are semi-permanent and written on the character sheet.

Quote from: Stainless;864175The other thing that really gets up my goat is the healing system, especially when a character goes to negative HP. You have to stop all play and step through all the parameters trying to work out the total DM. Some of the rules are quite ambiguous which doesn't help. It really gets in the road of the flow. Although it reads as a really inspiring and nifty set of rules, in practice it turgid and laborious.

Interesting that you don't like this. I believe you're referring to the Mortal Wounds table? It's a high point of our sessions due to its results. Once again, I'll explain for those unfamiliar...

Unlike B/X D&D (upon which ACKS is based), where at 0 hit points you're just dead, ACKS waits to see if you'll survive. Once someone goes to aid you, a d6 and a d20 are rolled, and the results checked against a table. The d6 roll is unmodified, and determines rather generally where you were hit. The d20 roll, on the other hand, is modified based on a number of factors, and determines your current condition. Some of the modifiers are how far below 0 relative to your total HP you were, whether or not you were killed instantly (e.g., poisoned, coup-de-Gras, etc.), how long it's been since you were dropped, and the healing abilities of the person tending to you. The results range from being stone dead, to merely in shock, with the in-between results being a little more interesting. Those intermediate rolls can result in permanent injury, as well as requirements for additional healing (e.g., healed to 1 HP within 1 Turn or die), and recuperation time (e.g., you need 1 week's bed rest).

While it might seem cumbersome, how often does hitting 0 HP come up in a single session, or on average? Moreover, unlike earlier versions where 0 HP = dead, the results are often (remember, you can still be just plain old dead) far more interesting. Harry the Henchman is alive, but needs 1 week of bed rest; do we withdraw? Camp here? Carry him on a litter? Carry the Cleric's arm was lamed, and she can no longer hold a shield or climb; should the player keep playing her? Retire her? Attempt to get it restored? These kinds of effects create emergent gameplay considerations, and drive interesting choices in-game. Recovery from wounds also provides a natural tempo to a campaign, during which Characters can engage in other activities (e.g., Magical Research, Hijinks, Commissioning equipment, etc.) that are well-supported by ACKS.

All of this is not to say everyone should like Mortal Wounds, but if one really dislikes it, it can be ignored, going back to 0 HP means dead, just like B/X. Personally, I find that would be a loss, as Mortal Wounds capture a lot of the fun of the Critical Tables in Rolemaster without anywhere near the overhead, as well providing interesting decision for the players to navigate. One of my own pet peeves with it as a system was the apparent quantum nature of someone's injuries when they went down; you didn't roll on the table until someone else tended to them, only then learning the extent of their injuries. The simple solution to that was rolling the D6 for the Mortal Wounds table when someone drops. The D6 roll is what decides where an injury generally is (e.g., head, torso, arms, etc.), so making that D6 roll when someone is reduced to 0 HP allows the description to match.

Quote from: Stainless;864175The last thing that is annoying is the poor organisation of the book. Not always intuitive where to find information. I've had to stick in yellow stickies at frequently consulted places (such as the monster XP table) which are in unexpected/illogical places.

It's definitely an informationally dense rulebook. While the index and table of contents are pretty good, some information for resolving certain kinds of situations in regular play can require flipping around. For example, encountering wandering monsters while traveling overland might require flipping between four different spots if you need to look up everything. Obviously, this goes away as you play more. I also downloaded a PDF Judge's screen from the Autarch site that helped a great deal. I think this sort of thing is very often a problem with RPGs. Should the book be a textbook? A reference book? It's particularly a problem with D&D and clones, as they have numerous disparate systems, and in many common in-game situations multiple rules systems come into play. But I digress...

Quote from: Stainless;864175Overall, it reads as an interesting game and I suspect many of the rave reviews about it come from people who haven't actually played it. It's a good plan that doesn't really survive contact with the enemy. In hind-sight I wish I hadn't used it but something simpler like BFRPG or the new FAGE. Overall I think I'd give it a 5/10.

There are definitely quite a few reviews where the reviewer hasn't actually played the game, but that's true of reviews for every single RPG product, and is simply the nature of reviews. Personally, I've found the opposite of you, both in terms of reviewers being negative about ACKS because they clearly haven't played it, and the game being far, far better in actual play than it reads. It's too bad you didn't like it, but there's certainly no dearth of other options in the OSR these days.

As for the original question of the thread, I've run a lot of ACKS, and I'll post a response to the OP's question later today.

Quote from: Stainless;864175Agreed. I've been running it in a campaign for nearly 2 years and I still have to crib off a to-hit sheet that I made and ask time and again what my player's base to-hit score is. Combat is lots of stopping, consulting a table, adding up DMs, etc. before making a role. It doesn't flow very quickly.

Converting to D&D3-style "attack bonus" and increasing all ACs by 10 is a trivial one-time adjustment.

Quote from: Stainless;864175The other thing that really gets up my goat is the healing system, especially when a character goes to negative HP. You have to stop all play and step through all the parameters trying to work out the total DM.

You're not actually supposed to stop and check the Mortal Wounds table immediately.  You don't roll on it until someone spends their action checking on the downed combatant (or at the end of the fight).  I don't recall whether the rules explicitly state this, but it seems fairly clear to me, given that the modifiers to the d20 roll include things like the medical skills of the person checking on them, whether healing magic is applied, and how long they were down before being checked on.

When the time comes that someone takes their turn to triage the wounded, it doesn't, in my experience, take noticeably longer than working out the modifiers would have if they'd instead spent that turn making an attack.

Quote from: estar;864178While I strong supportly a diversity of approaches, I personally don't get why wouldn't anybody use anything other than ascending AC especially when it generates the same odds as the original tables or formula.

ACKS divides all use of dice into two broad categories:  "Rolls" are for when the actual numbers on the dice matter, such as damage rolls.  "Throws" are for pass/fail results.  "Throws" are generalized from the traditional saving throw mechanic, so they have a fixed target number determined solely by your class and level.  In order to wedge attack [strike]rolls[/strike] throws into that framework, you need to treat AC as a penalty to the die roll rather than a modifier to the target number.

I don't like the attack throw mechanic.  It was one of the hardest parts of the game for me to wrap my head around initially because it comes at things from a completely different direction from how earlier D&D-type games have done it.  But I do see the logic behind it.  I see how it's consistent with the rest of the system.  And I am reminded that "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Quote from: Necrozius;864179The folks at TBP seem to really dislike the author though. Enough to boycott the publisher because of his views. Yikes.

What's that all about?  I do recall there was a rpg author who's name or company was close in name to another company that had views they didn't like, but it wasn't the guy.

Quote from: RunningLaser;864199What's that all about?  I do recall there was a rpg author who's name or company was close in name to another company that had views they didn't like, but it wasn't the guy.

Not sufficiently critical of Gamergate and I think he knows someone involved in the "controversy".

I've no idea, I like the guy based on the interactions we've had, mostly talking about classical history and ways to tinker with ACKS.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;864018I'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?

I was going to get all specific and detailed, quoting rules and stuff, but I take it that's really not what you're looking for... instead, I'll try and explain where the game is good, and what the feel is like.

First off, it's less lethal than early or Basic D&D. Mortal Wounds (specific, non-death effects for hitting 0 HP) ensure this. It makes low-level play a bit more forgiving.

Fighters rock. They hold their own as a Class, and shine as a specialist in combat. Combined with some changes to spellcasters, you won't feel inferior as a Fighter or other martial Class, and become an integral part of the team, not just a speed bump.

In spite of the power-curve of spellcasters being toned down, spellcasters feel more useful, particularly at lower levels compared to early versions of the game. The ability to freecast from their Repertoire means Mages will actually cast utility spells that almost never saw use during an adventure. They also don't break the setting at high level (Feature? Bug? You decide!) while still feeling powerful.

Thieves are more effective and fun to play at low levels. The game realises where their abilities overlap with things everyone can attempt, and makes sure that Thief abilities are on top of that. Plus they get to run criminal empires at higher levels.

Combat is fast (which beats modern versions of the game), lethal, and highly entertaining. It can take on an epic tenor in mid- to higher-level play as PCs (or sometime Monsters!) slice through multiple opponents. Very satisfying, and I have yet to see a combat turn into a slog (which Basic D&D was prone to). It also sports some real-world tactics as an emergent property of how the combat rules interact, and seriously encourages team-work.

A whole bunch of campaign activities are also covered, such as building stuff, making stuff, crossbreeding stuff, buying and selling stuff, and researching stuff. Even just hiring stuff. Moreover, it all ties into the game's underlying economics and XP. This gives players tons of stuff to do, and some of the reasons to do it. It gives them stuff to do between adventures. It gives them tons of stuff to do to solve problems. It also gives them tons of ways to meaningfully spend their ill-gotten gains, although they can spend it frivolously, too (and get Reserve XP from it to be used by replacement Characters; brilliant!).

Players can build a kingdom, raise an army, or conquer the world. Sure, you can do that in any edition, but ACKS bakes it into the game. It doesn't forget other Classes, either, and building border forts, criminal syndicates, new religions, or magical towers on top of dank dungeons is also considered.  You can still go the wandering hero route, or play the absent King, if that's your thing. Still, ACKS does a better job of managing the dynamics of high-level play than any other version of the game I've played (i.e., most of them). And the stuff players can do ends up driving emergent gameplay, and I can think of no higher praise for RPG rules.

For a great example of these dynamics in play, I'll point you to here on the Bridge to Cynidicea Blog, and  here, here, and here on the Autarch site. It's a long read, but these campaign write-ups will illustrate more far more clearly than dry rules discussions why this stuff creates interesting gameplay.

That sounds like a useful description of what ACKS does. Integrating economics into the design is a very attractive feature.

Quote from: Bobloblah;864258It also gives them tons of ways to meaningfully spend their ill-gotten gains, although they can spend it frivolously, too (and get Reserve XP from it to be used by replacement Characters; brilliant!).

Reserve XP for replacement characters sounds intriguing. Can you say more about what this is and how it works? I'd might like do some adaptation of this for other games that we play (specifically Honor+Intrigue and Star Wars D6).

So, how hard it would be to include ACKS's domain acquiring and upkeeping system to an existing, say, Castles & Crusades or Dungeon Crawl Classics game? What subsystems would need special attention, if any?