Quote from: Ddogwood;865961It doesn't force PCs to pursue the domain game.  It absolutely does assume that they will.

I think we're quickly going to get in to semantics and definitions here. We clearly mean different things by the word "assume." If you'll forgive me, I'll try to explain by fisking your post...

Quote from: Ddogwood;865961One of the Fighter's core abilities is to add morale bonuses to henchmen and mercenaries.

Nothing about this requires a domain, so I'm not sure how this is relevant. It works for Henchmen. It works for hired Mercenaries. Neither of those in any way require the Fighter to have a domain.

Quote from: Ddogwood;865961Mages need to build sanctums to pursue magical research.

That's incorrect. Mages need a library for research, and a workshop for creating magic items. Neither of these requires a sanctum (or a domain), and several other versions of the game have similar requirements. They can also build a dungeon to attract monsters and harvest them, but that also doesn't require a sanctum or a domain. In fact, the only thing they need a sanctum for is acquiring apprentices.

The above Mage and Fighter abilities also kick in at 5th Level, well before most characters are going to be able to manage to clear and hold a domain.

Quote from: Ddogwood;865961The section on designing a campaign setting is geared almost entirely towards creating a region where PCs will be able to establish domains.

No it isn't. It's geared towards creating a sandbox adventure setting. The setting could also be designed completely differently, and the PCs would still be able to establish domains, if desired. It's also geared towards making something demographically and economically internally self-consistent.

Quote from: Ddogwood;865961Not to mention the title of the book - I mean, it's not called "Adventurer Adventurer Adventurer".

Which is why Castles and Crusades is about medieval fortifications and religious warfare - oh, wait...

Look, I'm not trying to say that ACKS isn't good at the domain endgame - it is! - but there's no more forcing the PCs to engage with that than other editions of the game. It integrates the domain-game a lot better, fleshes it out, and provides interesting interactions, sure. But it doesn't "assume" in the way 3.x assumed characters would be decked out with magic items, or AD&D 2nd assumed characters would be heroes. Assume is a very strong word, and in the context of RPGs there are a lot of negative connotations attached to that. ACKS simply doesn't do that.

Those looking for a BECMI reference, if it'd help them out, since they seem to want one, are looking for the Dark Dungeons project, it is to BECMI what OSRIC is to 1E. Keeps the 3 column format and everything.

Quote from: Ddogwood;865961It doesn't force PCs to pursue the domain game.  It absolutely does assume that they will.

No more than 3X assumed Epic levels, or any version of the game ever assumed domain play, really. It was there as an option, it just so happens ACKS devotes more resources to developing that aspect of play, basing itself off the BX chassis which already more-or-less perfected the adventuring aspect of the game.

Quote from: Ddogwood;865961One of the Fighter's core abilities is to add morale bonuses to henchmen and mercenaries.  Mages need to build sanctums to pursue magical research.

And he implements those morale bonuses in the field or in the dungeon, and that has nothing to do with ownership of a castle until he's defending one or taking another by siege. Mages need workshops and libraries, they could set that up in a rolling wagon if they wanted to, like a Old West purveyor of snake oil.

So a group like my college group, who operated much more as a "fantasy A-Team" sort of travelling merchants of violence at all levels, would work fine in ACKS.

And they'd enjoy the additional systems of ACKS without tying themselves to a domain - the fighter could wield troops effectively, the mage could research, the cleric could proselytize (a favorite activity of our resident cleric-player, and now he'd have some structured church options), and the thief could hire out hijinks (well, theoretically anyone can do that).

They'd even paint a wagon black with a red stripe to hold the mage's library and workshop...ha!...that really would work like the A-Team. That's awesome. Roll into town, find problem, mage builds some contraption, problem solved with explosions. Plans that came together are then loved.

All of that without having to lay down a stronghold or hideout or temple or sanctum or whatever. Just fun rules options to suck gold out of pockets and keep them hungry.

Quote from: Ddogwood;865961The section on designing a campaign setting is geared almost entirely towards creating a region where PCs will be able to establish domains.  Not to mention the title of the book - I mean, it's not called "Adventurer Adventurer Adventurer".

I wouldn't establish a domain in an area defined by those rules.  Those are somewhat more meant for a starting area for a new campaign, as shown in the Sakkara adventure module they just delivered on, and they serve as a general outline of how to implement ACKS' domain rules in a useful manner.

I probably would, and the hooligans I run with certainly would, take over an existing domain established by those rules, and then I'd be able to use the expanded rules ACKS hands out without doing the whole from-scratch domain building implied.

I guess we're talking about semantics, then. Obviously the game doesn't "assume" that PCs will establish domains in the sense that it "assumes" PCs will gain experience points and levels. I'd still argue that it "assumes" that PCs will establish domains just as strongly as it assumes that PCs will hire henchmen or explore dungeons. That is, the rules support PCs doing these things, and the game can very easily be played with PCs who don't do these things - but the game is clearly designed with the assumption that establishing domains, exploring dungeons, and hiring retainers are all things that most players will want to do in most campaigns.

I don't disagree with your other points. I just have a slightly different sense of the word "assume".

Quote from: Ddogwood;866094I guess we're talking about semantics, then. Obviously the game doesn't "assume" that PCs will establish domains in the sense that it "assumes" PCs will gain experience points and levels. I'd still argue that it "assumes" that PCs will establish domains just as strongly as it assumes that PCs will hire henchmen or explore dungeons. That is, the rules support PCs doing these things, and the game can very easily be played with PCs who don't do these things - but the game is clearly designed with the assumption that establishing domains, exploring dungeons, and hiring retainers are all things that most players will want to do in most campaigns.

I don't disagree with your other points. I just have a slightly different sense of the word "assume".

We can all agree ACKS assumes you want to play something like D&D.

I interrupt this discussion with a shameless plug - the latest ACKS Kickstarter just got announced.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/lairs-and-encounters

Quote from: amacris;866178I interrupt this discussion with a shameless plug - the latest ACKS Kickstarter just got announced.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/lairs-and-encounters

You have no shame!

Good luck!

Quote from: RPGPundit;866494You have no shame!

Good luck!

None whatsoever. But you are a gentlemen for allowing the post to stand. Thank you!