Quote from: amacris;551584That is more-or-less true. It really is intended to be a seamless whole. The same thing that makes the realms, domains, treasure, experience, and everything all work together means you can't easily unglue it. That said, it's easy to hack ACKS if you start with ACKS as your base and then hack-in the parts from other games you like, rather than start with the other game and hack-out the parts from ACKS you like. I have done this now several times. I just finished a 40-session ACKS campaign where I hacked in the classes, proficiencies and honor rules from Cook's Oriental Adventures, and it played great.

So, just to be clear, one could not simply drop the domain rules into, e.g., an 1e AD&D campaign?

Quote from: Akrasia;638244So, just to be clear, one could not simply drop the domain rules into, e.g., an 1e AD&D campaign?

You probably could, but it wouldn't be quite as balanced as if you were actually doing it with ACKS.

Quote from: Claudius;558102Did you order it directly from Autarch? Or did you just buy the PDF?

Sorry for the late reply. I just got the PDF. Had it been easier to get a Hardcopy to Australia I might have considered it but as I don't intend on running a full on ACKS campaign the PDF was sufficient.

Quote from: Akrasia;638242Like the Pundit's DCCRPG review, I found this review very informative and helpful.  I also appreciate amacris's clarifications.  Unlike the DCCRPG review, I am more likely to look further into ACKS now.  (I own the PDF, but only skimmed it before.)

I agree with this observation. With both Pundit and Amacris aboard, this review is one of the best here.  

Pundit draws attention to the implementation of proficiencies. They appear in Adventurer, Conqueror, King a lot like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition's non-weapon proficiencies, which should give the majority of those reading this review a good idea what they include.  I would consider eliminating Battle Magic, Blind Fighting, Combat Reflexes, Combat Trickery, Fighting Style, Precise Shooting and Weapon Focus.  This should reduce the problem of experienced players lording over novice players that Pundit mentions.  

The domain rules combine setting elements with strategic game advice, and I find them to be a good addition to the game.  So, it is good to tout them as an asset of the game.

For a few general notes of criticism, if the designers of a game must default to a cumbersome acronym of the title, it is a sign that perhaps the title didn’t quite fit their needs.  I also find that at 273 pages this game could have been tightened to 200, with general usage editing.  Silhouettes in the monster section is an interesting choice.  They could have been implemented with a more complementary presentation.

Thought I'd respond to a few of the points you raised. I'll state up front that I've become a huge fan of ACKS, so I'm no doubt biased, but I also approached the game believing that I disliked a lot of the things it does, system-wise. Actually using the game has changed my mind in most cases. Anyway, hopefully this doesn't come off too harsh on my part.

Quote from: Kuroth;665353Pundit draws attention to the implementation of proficiencies. They appear in Adventurer, Conqueror, King a lot like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition's non-weapon proficiencies, which should give the majority of those reading this review a good idea what they include.

This isn't really meaningfully accurate. The two are similar in that they're both Proficiency systems, but that's about it. They are mechanically quite different in terms of how many you get, how they work, and what they do.

Quote from: Kuroth;665353I would consider eliminating Battle Magic, Blind Fighting, Combat Reflexes, Combat Trickery, Fighting Style, Precise Shooting and Weapon Focus.  This should reduce the problem of experienced players lording over novice players that Pundit mentions.

The idea of an "experienced" player lording it over anyone else based on the selection of one of the above proficiencies is pretty funny. Most of them provide +1 or +2 bonuses to various things, or double (the die roll only) damage on a natural 20. By 9th level (by which time you are probably wielding a small army) you could have exactly 4 of them as a Fighter. Even caring about this in the first place presupposes that combat is the most important aspect of the game. If that's the case you've probably been playing too much 3rd or 4th edition D&D. Bottom line: I suggest you actually try these in play before removing them.

Quote from: Kuroth;665353For a few general notes of criticism, if the designers of a game must default to a cumbersome acronym of the title, it is a sign that perhaps the title didn't quite fit their needs.

Meh. The full title clearly describes the game's premise, and the acronym sounds like "axe." I fail to see the problem.  

 

Quote from: Kuroth;665353I also find that at 273 pages this game could have been tightened to 200, with general usage editing.

While I agree on the general usage editing (it's not bad, but could be clearer in spots), the suggestion that you could cut 73 pages is absolutely ludicrous, and makes me think you've never actually played ACKS. The core rulebook is one of the most informationally dense RPG books I've ever used, and there is very, very little that could be cut without losing relevant game information.

This is not to say that the game is complicated (far from it), but there's enough detail to cover just about everything for a new player. While a large part of the audience for ACKS might be coming from other versions of D&D, I think that avoiding the assumption of a highly experienced reader who's going to come up with everything on their own was the right one. ACKS is a complete game in a single volume.

Quote from: Kuroth;665353Silhouettes in the monster section is an interesting choice.  They could have been implemented with a more complementary presentation.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "complementary presentation," but I would've liked to have seen more art in the monster section. The advantage of silhouettes, however, is that the creatures aren't tied to any one artist's interpretation of them. I also suspect that cost factored heavily into the original decision to go with silhouettes.

Quote from: Bobloblah;680246Thought I'd respond to a few of the points you raised. I'll state up front that I've become a huge fan of ACKS, so I'm no doubt biased, but I also approached the game believing that I disliked a lot of the things it does, system-wise. Actually using the game has changed my mind in most cases. Anyway, hopefully this doesn't come off too harsh on my part.

This isn't really meaningfully accurate. The two are similar in that they're both Proficiency systems, but that's about it. They are mechanically quite different in terms of how many you get, how they work, and what they do.


The idea of an "experienced" player lording it over anyone else based on the selection of one of the above proficiencies is pretty funny. Most of them provide +1 or +2 bonuses to various things, or double (the die roll only) damage on a natural 20. By 9th level (by which time you are probably wielding a small army) you could have exactly 4 of them as a Fighter. Even caring about this in the first place presupposes that combat is the most important aspect of the game. If that's the case you've probably been playing too much 3rd or 4th edition D&D. Bottom line: I suggest you actually try these in play before removing them.


Meh. The full title clearly describes the game's premise, and the acronym sounds like "axe." I fail to see the problem.  

 
While I agree on the general usage editing (it's not bad, but could be clearer in spots), the suggestion that you could cut 73 pages is absolutely ludicrous, and makes me think you've never actually played ACKS. The core rulebook is one of the most informationally dense RPG books I've ever used, and there is very, very little that could be cut without losing relevant game information.

This is not to say that the game is complicated (far from it), but there's enough detail to cover just about everything for a new player. While a large part of the audience for ACKS might be coming from other versions of D&D, I think that avoiding the assumption of a highly experienced reader who's going to come up with everything on their own was the right one. ACKS is a complete game in a single volume.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "complementary presentation," but I would've liked to have seen more art in the monster section. The advantage of silhouettes, however, is that the creatures aren't tied to any one artist's interpretation of them. I also suspect that cost factored heavily into the original decision to go with silhouettes.

Good to see some other perspective.  Obviously, I don't agree with all of these points. I was drawing from what Pundit was saying.  So, if one goes back to what he said, the reason I mention proficiencies in the way I did becomes clear. He describes the problem of novice players being lorded over, with the proficiencies being a piece of the issue.  They suffer the same problem as the expansion of the non-weapon proficiencies in the 2nd edition rules.  They are so similar in use and the issues they raise that it seems odd to say otherwise.  I used the 73 page number as an arbitrary value to state the amount of poor usage one finds in the book, when compared to the amount that is well done.  To state it in a different way, 27% of the paragraphs have moderate to serious flaws in usage that I would find unacceptable, if I was lead editor.  As for the silhouettes, they could have been pulled off with an overall layout that complemented the style of art, which I have seen done well in illustrated books.  So, this is what I mean by complementary presentation.