I have been reading the Adventurer, Conqueror, King rulebook and I keep stumbling across 'little' rules tweaks that I like. For instance:

• The Mortal Wounds table. I like that there is a chance for characters that get dropped to 0 hp or below to survive (albeit at a cost).
• The Tampering with Mortality table. The fact there is cost to being returned from the dead is also a cool and flavorful rules addition.
• There is an easily overlooked rule on p. 113 that allows players to funnel money to an heir that can be converted to experience to allow the heir to start at higher level in the event of the PC's death. There was a similar rule in HackMaster I think.
• Relegating 6th and 7th level spells to expensive and time consuming rituals is a brilliant idea that I would never have considered. It keeps powerful spells in the game but blunts their effect and makes them a money sink. A great idea.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;543755I have been reading the Adventurer, Conqueror, King rulebook and I keep stumbling across 'little' rules tweaks that I like. For instance:

• The Mortal Wounds table. I like that there is a chance for characters that get dropped to 0 hp or below to survive (albeit at a cost).
• The Tampering with Mortality table. The fact there is cost to being returned from the dead is also a cool and flavorful rules addition.
• There is an easily overlooked rule on p. 113 that allows players to funnel money to an heir that can be converted to experience to allow the heir to start at higher level in the event of the PC's death. There was a similar rule in HackMaster I think.
• Relegating 6th and 7th level spells to expensive and time consuming rituals is a brilliant idea that I would never have considered. It keeps powerful spells in the game but blunts their effect and makes them a money sink. A great idea.

God damn it, Anthony, stop posting about ACKS! I'm trying to run a WFRP 2e game here, stop tempting me to switch games with these constant reminders reminders of how good ACKS is!

Of these, I liked Mortal Wounds best.

Level 7+ spells as rituals is a rule I first encountered under Akrasia's house rules (now enshrined in Newt Newport's Crypts & Things OD&D/S&W hack). Like the level cap, I was initially put off, but I've since come to accept it as a very, very good idea. No casting ressurection or gate in the field. Also it gives the GM and players both a lot of leeway into creating new rituals, with the ritual's power being easily balanced by requiring exotic components (e.g. "yeah, you've discovered the Summon Cthulhu ritual. The material requirement is McGuffin's Major Artifact of Doom; good luck finding it!").

Heh Heh! Sorry about that!

I have really been digging ACKS more and more as I dig into the rules. I really wonder why there isn't more buzz about it though. Even the official forums seem pretty dead.

Yeah see I have the same reaction to ACKS that I initially had to DCC RPG. To me, it sounds like it's fixing "issues" I actually don't have with the game and don't want to see "fixed" so... I have no interest in getting it whatsoever, to be honest.

Quote from: Benoist;543844Yeah see I have the same reaction to ACKS that I initially had to DCC RPG. To me, it sounds like it's fixing "issues" I actually don't have with the game and don't want to see "fixed" so... I have no interest in getting it whatsoever, to be honest.

I don't see ACKS as trying to 'fix' anything, but to each his own certainly. I see it trying to support a very specific style of play; that being old-school sandbox with defined character tiers.

Quote from: Benoist;543844Yeah see I have the same reaction to ACKS that I initially had to DCC RPG. To me, it sounds like it's fixing "issues" I actually don't have with the game and don't want to see "fixed" so... I have no interest in getting it whatsoever, to be honest.

I don't get this at all. Explain.

My resolve to avoid buying this game is weakening month by month. These threads don't help. :rolleyes:

And for the record, I am not getting the "fixing issues that don't need to be fixed" vibe from it - it seems to be an in-depth examination of specific interesting D&D features.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;543849I don't see ACKS as trying to 'fix' anything, but to each his own certainly. I see it trying to support a very specific style of play; that being old-school sandbox with defined character tiers.

Quote from: beejazz;543850I don't get this at all. Explain.

I'm not trying to hijack the thread so please don't make this more of an issue than it needs to be. If you feel like ACKS brings something to your table that is enjoyable in its own right then by all means, have at it. I'm not trying to discourage anyone to find the games they really want to play.

It's just that ACKS does nothing for me. Stuff like making resurrection more expensive, going for tiers of play, adding mortal wounds, switching high level spells to rituals ... nothing I hear about ACKS makes me want to try it.

PS: Maybe there's one thing, back from when we discussed about ACKS and domain management, and there was something about price lists and stuff like that that sounded quite interesting, though they were said to be fairly comparable to Rules Cyclopedia, which I already have.

Ben, Melan:

I own ACK; I will never run it but I strongly recommend it for all the Traveller-esque procedural subsystems that a DM can make good use of.

Quote from: Planet Algol;543868Ben, Melan:

I own ACK; I will never run it but I strongly recommend it for all the Traveller-esque procedural subsystems that a DM can make good use of.

What kind of subsystems?

I used versions of rules 1 and 4 as house rules in a BFRPG game I ran about 2 years ago now. The other two are pretty awesome ideas too. While this does make ACK sound pretty awesome, I would rather just take those ideas and funnel it into my BFRPG house rules binder.

Quote from: Benoist;543854I'm not trying to hijack the thread so please don't make this more of an issue than it needs to be. If you feel like ACKS brings something to your table that is enjoyable in its own right then by all means, have at it. I'm not trying to discourage anyone to find the games they really want to play.

No biggie. Just haven't heard much about this game that sounds like it's supposed to be fixing anything. Was just wondering where you got that impression.

QuoteIt's just that ACKS does nothing for me. Stuff like making resurrection more expensive, going for tiers of play, adding mortal wounds, switching high level spells to rituals ... nothing I hear about ACKS makes me want to try it.

PS: Maybe there's one thing, back from when we discussed about ACKS and domain management, and there was something about price lists and stuff like that that sounded quite interesting, though they were said to be fairly comparable to Rules Cyclopedia, which I already have.

See, my understanding was that the primary selling point was the domain management and such, rather than any fiddling with the core system (which is more the byproduct of anyone designing rules and wanting to put their own spin on things). It's the selling point I've heard most cited anyway.

Recent threads have been more about that ancillary stuff, so I guess I see where you're getting the idea at least.

Quote from: Benoist;543869What kind of subsystems?

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the "things to do when you're high-level" that were the selling point of ACKS right from the start: domain management, trading, and other fun stuff (such as rules for magic-users to create monsters, and even better, dungeons to house them). ACKS is really loaded with good stuff that looks easy to port over to any TSR-era D&D or retro-clone.

Quote from: The Butcher;543884I'm pretty sure he's referring to the "things to do when you're high-level" that were the selling point of ACKS right from the start: domain management, trading, and other fun stuff (such as rules for magic-users to create monsters, and even better, dungeons to house them). ACKS is really loaded with good stuff that looks easy to port over to any TSR-era D&D or retro-clone.

WAIT. There are rules for MUs to create dungeons in this thing?

Quote from: Benoist;543886WAIT. There are rules for MUs to create dungeons in this thing?

Oh yes.

It suggests building dungeons and populating them with monsters as a "monster farm" of sorts, so the mage can get exotic ritual or magic item components, and breeding stock for new monsters, without having to "leave home", as it is.

It obviously uses stronghold construction costs and times (recommending that the dungeon be built in "monster-friendly" territory such as swamps), and goes on to detail how the dungeon lures wandering monsters who may or may not lair in it, and the obviously deleterious effects that having a dungeon in your domain will have on the peasants, and the economic impact of it (i.e. either you spend gold to improve guard patrols the better to keep the beasties in the dungeon, or population and tax income drop as people look for greener, safer pastures as monsters go out from your dungeon at night to raid the fields and towns).

I thought you'd like it.