Adventuerer, Conquerer, King: Opinions?

[SiuiS]

Hi Playground.

I'm looking around, trying to grab things which connect to old neuropaths, and think ACKS might just do. But, I can't find anything on it but the website and a lot of hyperbole. So has anyone played it? Reviewed it? Even just given it a brief read? What do you think?

Some of my fondest memories come from the old BECMI sets, sans the I, a bunch of other booklets throughout my life, and poring over the rules for founding your own kingdom and suchlike. ACKS is supposed to handle that, but I am also considering trying to just find a copy of the old rules, somewhere. Assuming I have to pay, and assuming they are eequivalently priced, is Adventurer Conqueror King worth getting first/instead?

generic opinons and blurbs also welcome, of course.

[Rhynn]

It's great, the end.

Grognardia "review" (http://grognardia.blogspot.fi/2012/02/adventurer-conqueror-king-now-available.html).

RPG.net review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15505.phtml) (their databases appear to be screwed up so that's the only one I can pull up).

Also, list of reviews (http://www.autarch.co/blog/adventurer-conqueror-king-reviews).

Edit: Extra info in RPG.net thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?612973-Adventurer-Conqueror-King-how-is-it).

[SiuiS]

Well! That is thoroughly convincing. I kind of want to find a bad review just to see if it exists and what it says.

Anyway, thanks! I'll scoop this up ASAP.

[Rhynn]

I do think thoroughly bad reviews of (most) OSR products are going to be pretty rare, just because most people who pick them up and especially people who bother to review them are likely already into OSR and/or old-style D&D.

I think, objectively, ACKS is plain good at what it does - being a ground-up domain-oriented rebuild of B/X and BECMI D&D - and any dislike of it would be based in personal tastes, which is a perfectly valid reason not to like something. (I think D&D 4E is great at what it does, but it's not what I want a game to do, generally.)

Also, Domains at War (http://www.autarch.co/file-categories/domains-war)!

[Scowling Dragon]

I like 2e, and think it has allot of good stuff in the system. But the Retroclone I like more is myths and monsters. It updates the system with the better stuff from 3e.

Well I personally think Acks takes the WORST aspect of AD&D for no reason except because it was like that before.

Thats how to summarize allot of my complaints: Just SO much stuff is using the backwards terrible parts of 1e/2e because: Thats how it was before.

Why 5 reduntant saves? Cause thats how it was before!
Why the even more banal Alignment system? Cause thats how it was before!
Why the level limits? Cause thats how it was before!
Rules that feel like fantastical racism? Cause thats how it was before!


I especially dislike the focus on the internal rolling, as in you carry your own target number, instead of pitting it against a challenge.

I think the system is clunky, and the idea of "Adventuerer, Conquerer, King" is good, but attaching it to the system MOST ingrained in "Go kill stuff" is just kinda laughable.

[Rhynn]

Thats how to summarize allot of my complaints: Just SO much stuff is using the backwards terrible parts of 1e/2e because: Thats how it was before.

Hey, now, ACKS is B/X, maybe BECMI, not AD&D. Doesn't make a difference for your points, but a matter of pedigree, if you will.


Why 5 reduntant saves? Cause thats how it was before!
Why the even more banal Alignment system? Cause thats how it was before!
Why the level limits? Cause thats how it was before!
Rules that feel like fantastical racism? Cause thats how it was before!

All true (except the value judgements). In the OSR, it's very much about picking the right retroclone for yourself - the one that keeps what you like and drops what you don't like.


I think the system is clunky, and the idea of "Adventuerer, Conquerer, King" is good, but attaching it to the system MOST ingrained in "Go kill stuff" is just kinda laughable.

Well, technically, ACKS is just running with an idea that was present in OD&D and B/X and poorly implemented in BECMI. I wouldn't say those systems were entirely "go kill stuff" - certainly not to the degree that 3E and 4E are.

[Scowling Dragon]

Id disagree. Whilst 3e had more OPTIONS of ways of killing stuff, this was to mainly entertain people who wanted to play martial characters.

3e was designed in less of a way that assumed that you would be plundering dungeons. Detecting stone based traps and secret doors was changed into perception check if you get what I mean.

But yeah. System not for me.

[SiuiS]

.
Thats how to summarize allot of my complaints: Just SO much stuff is using the backwards terrible parts of 1e/2e because: Thats how it was before.

Why 5 reduntant saves? Cause thats how it was before!
Why the even more banal Alignment system? Cause thats how it was before!
Why the level limits? Cause thats how it was before!
Rules that feel like fantastical racism? Cause thats how it was before!


Alright. I don't have the rules yet, so I can't comment on the saves. I also don't have a problem with fantastical racism, oddly enough. If the setting is built on a race being objectively inferior, I find that it's okay to explore that so long as it doesn't break the rails and become an issue. One of my favorite tactics with 3.X is to have scholar characters with access to ancient libraries so they still use out of date information; a psychopomp priest who pitied elves because they dot have souls, for example, or a classical wizard who believes that on a taxonomical scale goblins and orcs aren't people, but monsters.


I especially dislike the focus on the internal rolling, as in you carry your own target number, instead of pitting it against a challenge.

I think the system is clunky, and the idea of "Adventuerer, Conquerer, King" is good, but attaching it to the system MOST ingrained in "Go kill stuff" is just kinda laughable.

A mathematical reason for disliking throws, or just personal dissatisfaction? Not to belittle satisfaction, since it is the result of the product if all goes well.

Thanks for the response :smallsmile:


Id disagree. Whilst 3e had more OPTIONS of ways of killing stuff, this was to mainly entertain people who wanted to play martial characters.

3e was designed in less of a way that assumed that you would be plundering dungeons. Detecting stone based traps and secret doors was changed into perception check if you get what I mean.

But yeah. System not for me.

Agree I the 3.5 stuff. It felt more whole, complete, at rendering a world. That has value to me.

Still, I will get this if only to plunder it. Thanks all.

[Scowling Dragon]

I meant not fantastic racism, but the SYSTEM itself was racist against fantasy creatures.

Like why can Elves only advance a certain amount whilst humans have a higher level of advancement.

There is no good fluff reason for it. It just mechanicaly enforces this.

I dont like internal numbers because you always know them. I get always consustent numbers (for certain occasions).

But its different if the result is something just pointlessly obtuse:

Like climbing a wall no matter the difficulty is 10+.

If you want to make it more difficult you eother cant, or you have to enforce a penalty.

And if you enforce a penalty then thats just redunrant and you may as well go with the simpler option of just a set dc.

[Water_Bear]

With the racial level limits, there are some things to remember.

Firstly, you will never have an Elf Mage or an Elf Fighter or even an Elf Explorer. Ever. Elves get their own classes; Spellsword (think Lightning Warrior) and Nightblade (if 3.5's assassin had a Bard spell progression of the wizard list) in the core book plus Courtier (Bard) Enchanter (badass illusionist) and Ranger (inexplicably without spells) which only go up to ~10-12th level at a much slower XP progression. The same goes for other Demihuman races.

Plus, ACK classes are very front-loaded; most of the cool abilities either come immediately at level 1 or pop up at 9th level when the Stronghold/Domain game starts. And Demihuman classes get all their racial traits as class features, which means that on top of their more powerful classes means they start at a distinct advantage.

Essentially, Demihumans get more power up front which you pay off by leveling slowly and capping at a lower level (human classes are still capped at 14). Personally, I like it as a balancer and as a way of explaining the reason why humans, despite being generally wimpier than other races, are ultimately the top dogs. Obviously others don't

[SiuiS]

With the racial level limits, there are some things to remember.

Firstly, you will never have an Elf Mage or an Elf Fighter or even an Elf Explorer. Ever. Elves get their own classes; Spellsword (think Lightning Warrior) and Nightblade (if 3.5's assassin had a Bard spell progression of the wizard list) in the core book plus Courtier (Bard) Enchanter (badass illusionist) and Ranger (inexplicably without spells) which only go up to ~10-12th level at a much slower XP progression. The same goes for other Demihuman races.

Plus, ACK classes are very front-loaded; most of the cool abilities either come immediately at level 1 or pop up at 9th level when the Stronghold/Domain game starts. And Demihuman classes get all their racial traits as class features, which means that on top of their more powerful classes means they start at a distinct advantage.

Essentially, Demihumans get more power up front which you pay off by leveling slowly and capping at a lower level (human classes are still capped at 14). Personally, I like it as a balancer and as a way of explaining the reason why humans, despite being generally wimpier than other races, are ultimately the top dogs. Obviously others don't

Aye, that's how everything pre-third worked, as I recall. And honestly, I'm all for trying it; the one thing that has destroyed more games than anything else I've witnessed is uncapping the elves and such. Coupled with the also-but-less egregious "Hand out levels instead of XP" thing, and you end up with human rogues actually falling behind! Ridiculous. Every dM I've ever played with has given some version of "you've played regular [dunfeons and dragons], so now we play MY version!" And so I've never played a straight game of D&D :smallfrown:

[Rhynn]

BTW SiuiS, if you haven't opened it yet, my signature's spoiler conceals a host of D&D OSR retroclones. There's also a thread discussing them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283857). Most are free, and thus automatically worth checking out!

[Scowling Dragon]

Personally, I like it as a balancer and as a way of explaining the reason why humans, despite being generally wimpier than other races, are ultimately the top dogs. Obviously others don't

Yeah. I don't. I find it a lazy and nonsensical way.


One thing I REALY don't like about the five saves is that I have NO bloody clue what they represent:

Save against spells. What does this mean? Im better at....Dodging spells? Hows that different then Save against breath weapons and blasts?

And what in the name of bananas is save against Staves and Wands?

Poison and Death, and the Save against Paralysis......So what if its a poison that induces paralysis.

[Rhynn]

Poison and Death, and the Save against Paralysis......So what if its a poison that induces paralysis.

:smallbiggrin:

There's a rule for that. (At least in AD&D 2E.) You start on the left (or at the top) and use the first save that fits. Yes, the order they're recorded in matters.

In 2E, the order is:
Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic (PPD)
Rod, Staff, or Wand (RSW)
Petrification or Polymorph (PP or P/P)
Breath Weapon (BW)
Spell (Sp)

So, a wand of paralyzation is saved against with PPD. A wand of petrification is saved against with RSW. Et cetera. As for the order, who knows why it is what it is?

It is a very different approach from 3E's Fort/Ref/Will (I'd probably go with something similar, like Health, Mind, Quickness, whatever, if building a D&D-like system), but I've never seen it as problematic. Incidentally, you don't save against physical traps, like pits - those require some other form of resolution. What that is is up to the DM - the back in D&D you go, the more that is true. (OD&D requires the DM to decide how attacks are resolved. :smallbiggrin: )

[SiuiS]

BTW SiuiS, if you haven't opened it yet, my signature's spoiler conceals a host of D&D OSR retroclones. There's also a thread discussing them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283857). Most are free, and thus automatically worth checking out!

That's where I saw it actually! I went through and remember a lot of good things about ACKS, so I looked harder. And here we are - as soon as I cash my check I'm getting the PDF.


Yeah. I don't. I find it a lazy and nonsensical way.

There's actually a quote bloc floating around somewhere from I believe Gygax, who says they chose to cap the demihumans because they wanted to make sure that people played humans most of all. They considered it personally and objectively offensive that players would pick 'elf' because elves were more powerful than humans, but would eventually resort to playing them as humans with pointy ears instead of an honest to god-machine alien species.



One thing I REALY don't like about the five saves is that I have NO bloody clue what they represent:

Save against spells. What does this mean? Im better at....Dodging spells? Hows that different then Save against breath weapons and blasts?

And what in the name of bananas is save against Staves and Wands?

Poison and Death, and the Save against Paralysis......So what if its a poison that induces paralysis.

That's not so bad. Blasts and breath is reflex, poison is fort, along with paralyzation and death magic, the items are usually will, and 'spell' is a catch all that was supposed to represent magic resistance for mundanes, that was too low to be measured in actual % magic resistance.

Okay, yeah that is bad. I recalled poison, petrification and polymorph being one save, and death magic being another, which would have split better into Fort and Will respectively...

[Scowling Dragon]

There's actually a quote bloc floating around somewhere from I believe Gygax, who says they chose to cap the demihumans because they wanted to make sure that people played humans most of all. They considered it personally and objectively offensive that players would pick 'elf' because elves were more powerful than humans, but would eventually resort to playing them as humans with pointy ears instead of an honest to god-machine alien species.


So yeah. Lazy fix.


Okay, yeah that is bad. I recalled poison, petrification and polymorph being one save, and death magic being another, which would have split better into Fort and Will respectively...

The issues continued to get worse when stuff like Spelljammer was released and you needed to "Save against death" to avoid crashing into stuff on your ship.

Seriously. Unless your game has ALLOT of petrification, there is no reason to split it off like that. Fort, Reflex, and Will are one of the best things to come out of 3e.

If you want a static target number just say that the target save number for ALL spells is 20 (Thats how myths and monsters did it)

[Machpants]

I am quite a convert to Swords and Wizardries only one save system. So much easier, just make a save. Dwarves get a +2 vs poison and MU's a +2 vs magic effects etc. That is the way I would run it in any OS game.

ACKS does the Conqueror (even better soon with Domains at War, free starter wargame rules are available) and King stuff better than any other game I have seen. It is still a version of B/X so if that is going to annoy you either don't go there or house rule the annoyances out. The level limits are much less of a thing in ACKS as the top level for humans is only 14, so 12 is not that far off!

[Water_Bear]

So yeah. Lazy fix.

Lazy or elegant? Depends on the perspective.

Luckily, since this isn't a big brand name in which anyone has invested a lot of money or emotions, "Don't Like, Don't Play" applies. No-one is forcing you to run ACK, and those of us who are playing it enjoy it.


The issues continued to get worse when stuff like Spelljammer was released and you needed to "Save against death" to avoid crashing into stuff on your ship.

Seriously. Unless your game has ALLOT of petrification, there is no reason to split it off like that. Fort, Reflex, and Will are one of the best things to come out of 3e.

If you want a static target number just say that the target save number for ALL spells is 20 (Thats how myths and monsters did it)

I also prefer the Fortitude/Reflex/Will setup (if nothing else, because it was the system I cut my teeth on), but there is a hidden advantage to the clunkier 5 Save system; backwards compatibility.

One of the great things about ACK is how trivial it is to pull in pre-made material designed for D&D; B/X BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia are already virtually identical to it, AD&D is close enough to easily port in, and I'm guessing the same can be said about OD&D. This is all because of how fundamentally similar the game's rules are; as you said, there are already tons of rules from older editions which rely on the 5-Save setup that would otherwise have to be redesigned every time they were brought in.

[Scowling Dragon]

Lazy or elegant? Depends on the perspective.


Well that I can agree on. Its not subtle, but its simple. :smalltongue:

[Kiero]

I'm loving ACKS. I'm using it for a historical game set in 300BC Mediterranean, which in my head I'm calling Mistophoroi, Strategos, Basileus.

I love that it took B/X and the first thing it did was to clean up the format and layout. You can actually read the thing now, everything is properly organised, and it's the best PDF I've ever seen. Chock-filled with working hyper-links, which includes the index at the back and the table index too.

It also helps that the writer is a big fan of antiquity, lots of stuff is already done, and I've had chats with him about other elements which has helped.

Domains at War is brilliant. I've never really been into wargames before, and most RPGs mass combat systems are awful. But this is really good, and I can't wait to give it a try.


I like 2e, and think it has allot of good stuff in the system. But the Retroclone I like more is myths and monsters. It updates the system with the better stuff from 3e.

Well I personally think Acks takes the WORST aspect of AD&D for no reason except because it was like that before.

Thats how to summarize allot of my complaints: Just SO much stuff is using the backwards terrible parts of 1e/2e because: Thats how it was before.

Firstly, it's got nothing to do with AD&D, it's based on the Expert set. I'd suggest you go check it out (http://www.scribd.com/doc/32031997/D-D-Boxed-Set-02-Expert-Rules-the-Isle-of-Dread-X1) and then you'll have a much better picture of what it's drawing inspiration from.


Why 5 reduntant saves? Cause thats how it was before!

Easily fixed, I did that for my game:
Paralysis & Petrification becomes Reflex.
Death & Poison becomes Fortitude.
Staffs & Wands becomes Will.


Why the even more banal Alignment system? Cause thats how it was before!

I don't have much time for Alignment, but three alignments is a good deal less restrictive and annoying to deal with than nine.

In any case, easily ignored in the main.


Why the level limits? Cause thats how it was before!

It's merely a different way of balancing humans and non-humans.


Rules that feel like fantastical racism? Cause thats how it was before!

Nothing stopping you using the Player's Companion to come up with some classes of your own, if you don't like what's there.


I especially dislike the focus on the internal rolling, as in you carry your own target number, instead of pitting it against a challenge.

Trivial and meaningless as objections go, I'm afraid. It's merely presentation and a rather silly reason to dislike something. It certainly works a lot better than the THAC0 it replaced.


I think the system is clunky, and the idea of "Adventuerer, Conquerer, King" is good, but attaching it to the system MOST ingrained in "Go kill stuff" is just kinda laughable.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. The bulk of the book deals with all the stuff that goes on beyond "go kill stuff" including a lot on economy, domain management and so on.

[Scowling Dragon]

Firstly, it's got nothing to do with AD&D, it's based on the Expert set. I'd suggest you go check it out (http://www.scribd.com/doc/32031997/D-D-Boxed-Set-02-Expert-Rules-the-Isle-of-Dread-X1) and then you'll have a much better picture of what it's drawing inspiration from.

Right. Expert set. Sometimes it gets confusing what the Retro-clone wants too clone.


Easily fixed, I did that for my game:
Paralysis & Petrification becomes Reflex.
Death & Poison becomes Fortitude.
Staffs & Wands becomes Will.

So where do "Spells" and "Breath Weapon" go?

Also it doesn't work that way as you would need to convert each individual spell / ability to that system on its own or else it equally doesn't make sense.



I don't have much time for Alignment, but three alignments is a good deal less restrictive and annoying to deal with than nine.

Its indeed MUCH more restrictive saying that you are either LG, N, or CE but your right. Can be ignored.


Trivial and meaningless as objections go, I'm afraid. It's merely presentation and a rather silly reason to dislike something.

I mentioned why it wasn't. Its pointless at best, confusing at worst. Its not merely presentation as it changes the workings of the game.


It certainly works a lot better than the THAC0 it replaced.

Not a very difficult too doo.


Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. The bulk of the book deals with all the stuff that goes on beyond "go kill stuff" including a lot on economy, domain management and so on.

The economy rules have a clear disconnect from the rest of the "Original" expert rules which where more designed as dungeon plundering rules, rather then based on a more broad perspective.

The economy rules are OK on their own, but they have a rapid disconnect from the rules for character builds and can easily be attached to any other system.

[Water_Bear]

The economy rules are a good world-building tool as a Judge, but are really important for Domain management which comes up in the Conquerer and King stages.

And it's based on the Basic Expert and Companion sets (it is called Adventurer Conqueror King after all) of BECMI, although I can see a lot of little changes made in Rules Cyclopedia in there as well. Not just Expert, or even B/X, because otherwise it would lose the end-game which makes it so rewarding.

[SiuiS]

I'm loving ACKS. I'm using it for a historical game set in 300BC Mediterranean, which in my head I'm calling Mistophoroi, Strategos, Basileus.

Heh.



I love that it took B/X and the first thing it did was to clean up the format and layout. You can actually read the thing now, everything is properly organised, and it's the best PDF I've ever seen. Chock-filled with working hyper-links, which includes the index at the back and the table index too.

It also helps that the writer is a big fan of antiquity, lots of stuff is already done, and I've had chats with him about other elements which has helped.

Domains at War is brilliant. I've never really been into wargames before, and most RPGs mass combat systems are awful. But this is really good, and I can't wait to give it a try.

Good to know. I'm kind of burnt out on war games, but hell. This sounds like a lot of fun.



I don't have much time for Alignment, but three alignments is a good deal less restrictive and annoying to deal with than nine.

In any case, easily ignored in the main.


I always found that odd, myself. Although alignment is less of a generic rule and more of a subtly impact full setting detail in 1e, so I suppose I just haven't thought about it enough.



Trivial and meaningless as objections go, I'm afraid. It's merely presentation and a rather silly reason to dislike something. It certainly works a lot better than the THAC0 it replaced.

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. The bulk of the book deals with all the stuff that goes on beyond "go kill stuff" including a lot on economy, domain management and so on.

To be fair, this came up in another thread and I asked Scowling Dragon to come here to give details. I'm pretty certain he has played it an didn't enjoy it. The attack throw mechanism has a sort of solipsistic ring to it, and truly if you're going to allow enemies to impose penalties to the roll, adding back in DM fiat, then you may as well just stick to a roll mechanic for simplicity.



The economy rules have a clear disconnect from the rest of the "Original" expert rules which where more designed as dungeon plundering rules, rather then based on a more broad perspective.

The economy rules are OK on their own, but they have a rapid disconnect from the rules for character builds and can easily be attached to any other system.

I view this as a plus, myself. Mileage and variance and all, but a working system that can be ported around is a good thing. That disconnect will exist across the spectrum though, as a factor of being stapled on rather than anything about the system itself. As such, I have to call it a nonissue.

[Slipperychicken]

Reading through it while creating a character, there are some places where the rules seem incomplete, unclear, or heavily reliant on GM/Judge adjudication.

The Beast Friendship proficiency allows you to recruit animals as Henchmen, but doesn't clarify anything about how this works. Do you still have to give the animal-henchmen shares of the loot? Do you need to pay wages? What kind of animal can you get? Is the animal's hit dice treated as its Henchman class level? If not, can I recruit a T-Rex at first level or am I limited to horses and wolves? All those questions are not answered clearly. RAW suggests animals don't have class levels (and thus all are considered 0th level characters, so you can take any animal at any level) and you still have to pay them both shares and wages... but that's laughably, cartoonishly silly. How could an animal even perceive the value of the items and currency plundered from a dungeon? Additionally, the game recommends using PC character-generation methods for henchmen, so how would that process apply to an animal?

Divine spell progression, at least in the version I'm looking at, is completely pants-on-head insane. Most divine spellcasters only start casting at 2nd level, and gain both 3rd and 4th level spells on the same level. I'd write the latter off as a typo, but it's the same for every divine spellcasting class in both the core book and Player's Companion.

Items don't seem to have different prices for buying and selling. If you normally sell items at full value (although it seems logical that merchants would have Bargaining), it seems like you could abuse it by taking Bargaining once or twice, get good at reaction rolls, buy items at 90% list price and resell them across the street at 100-110% list price.

Some abilities like Magical Engineering seem nice, but give the player absolutely no confidence that the GM won't just screw him out of it's intended benefit. What constitutes a common magical item? Can any magic item, given the excessive difficulty with which they're constructed (preposterously expensive, take forever to create, require things like the eyes of 75 ogres for a +1 sword), really be considered common in any meaningful way?

[Rhynn]

Reading through it while creating a character, there are some places where the rules seem incomplete, unclear, or heavily reliant on GM/Judge adjudication.

Given that it's an OSR D&D retroclone, I'd say that's completely intentional. Seriously, the OSR generally consider OD&D's "the DM has to decide how X works" approach a feature, and a good one.


Divine spell progression, at least in the version I'm looking at, is completely pants-on-head insane. Most divine spellcasters only start casting at 2nd level, and gain both 3rd and 4th level spells on the same level. I'd write the latter off as a typo, but it's the same for every divine spellcasting class in both the core book and Player's Companion.

That's pretty much straight out of old D&D. 1st-level clerics do not cast spells in BECMI.

[SiuiS]

For the book, but unfortunately the PDF is too big to carry on my phone for free, and too secure ropy sections of for later reading. A quick glance looks fun, though I haven't hit the meat, yet. Having acclimated to more recent environments, the classes were exciting but underwhelming, though I haven't looked at proficiencies yet. Stat gen frankly blows, but hay it's part of the charm, right? Especially since chargen is "make five, give the weakest to the DM, and use two as backup".

The one class I don't grok is the Explorer. Mechanically it's a ranger, but is described in a way that makes me think Druid or thief. Weird.

I don't regret my purchase, but in slightly worried this may not sail with any of my groups. None of them have an old school background, and the best Sony really care for the micromanagement factor. Will see.

[Rhynn]

the PDF is too big to carry on my phone for free

ropy

but in slightly worried

Sony really care for the micromanagement factor.

*gigglesnort*

Ahem, sorry.


Stat gen frankly blows, but hay it's part of the charm, right? Especially since chargen is "make five, give the weakest to the DM, and use two as backup".

Do you mean the "3d6" part or the "in order" part? I can understand disliking the second one (I like it), although given that you only need a 9 in the prime requisite to choose a class, it's not exactly a big deal.

The first one, though, is a matter of misconception and different exceptations. Simply put, it doesn't matter. High ability scores are not a requirement or a necessity. They're nice, and it's cool to have one, but that's it. It's just getting a bit lucky and being somewhat stronger in some aspect. You can play anything with just six 9s.

This is true of OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1E, and AD&D 2E (although 1E and Unearthed Arcana especially went in a horrible direction with ability scores). High ability scores are not necessary.

[SiuiS]

*gigglesnort*

Ahem, sorry.

Nah, those are bad. I'm usually more on the ball, or have been since the DDOS. Need to quit slackin'.



Do you mean the "3d6" part or the "in order" part? I can understand disliking the second one (I like it), although given that you only need a 9 in the prime requisite to choose a class, it's not exactly a big deal.


The combination. I could handle any one, but together they give me a vibe of subtle suctitude. I don't know why; I know logically that the scale isn't what I'm used to and that a 16, 17 or 18 are ovaries-to-the-wall insanely rare (or like, one in 256, whatever), but viscerally it fills me with... Dissatisfaction. I'm going to have to make a character and see what I get from that. Considering doing a Let's Read, actually.



The first one, though, is a matter of misconception and different exceptations. Simply put, it doesn't matter. High ability scores are not a requirement or a necessity. They're nice, and it's cool to have one, but that's it. It's just getting a bit lucky and being somewhat stronger in some aspect. You can play anything with just six 9s.

This is true of OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1E, and AD&D 2E (although 1E and Unearthed Arcana especially went in a horrible direction with ability scores). High ability scores are not necessary.

Yeah, I had my teeth cut on 1e, with some alternate method or other. I dislike, I think, that you can't exactly pick a class and be noteworthy at it. Mayb I'm just bitter? Even using the alternate rules, where you roll 9d6b3 for your prime requisite, and descend from there, I still have never qualified to play a gosh-darned bard gorramit.

Little bitter over that :smallannoyed:

[Kiero]

Do you mean the "3d6" part or the "in order" part? I can understand disliking the second one (I like it), although given that you only need a 9 in the prime requisite to choose a class, it's not exactly a big deal.

The first one, though, is a matter of misconception and different exceptations. Simply put, it doesn't matter. High ability scores are not a requirement or a necessity. They're nice, and it's cool to have one, but that's it. It's just getting a bit lucky and being somewhat stronger in some aspect. You can play anything with just six 9s.

This is true of OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1E, and AD&D 2E (although 1E and Unearthed Arcana especially went in a horrible direction with ability scores). High ability scores are not necessary.

I'd call not only getting bonus XP, but also being better every single time you're called upon to use that attribute mattering. I've never bought this argument about random attributes in older editions of D&D, which is why in my game I'm going to offer a range of chargen choices, none of which are "3d6 in order".

There's "assign 7 points of bonuses as you see fit, dropping nothing below -3". There's also roll seven stats thus, dropping the lowest: 1d6+12, 2d6+6 (twice) and 3d6 (four times), and assigning as you please. In the latter case, we'll treat each player's rolls as an array which any other player can take in place of their own.

I'm not going to waste everyone's time with the rigmarole of making five characters each, either. They'll make their one PC, they might roll up a couple of their henchmen to spare me the trouble.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, I had my teeth cut on 1e, with some alternate method or other. I dislike, I think, that you can't exactly pick a class and be noteworthy at it. Mayb I'm just bitter?

That's not really true, though. Especially pre-AD&D, your attribute scores do not make you noteworthy at your class. Playing skillfully and some luck do - if you survive to 4th level or so, you have pretty a good chance to stay alive for a long time and keep gaining levels. So what makes you noteworthy is what you do. You're noteworthy because you've solved the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, triumphed in the Palace of the Silver Princess, and looted the Temple of the Frog! A fighter with Str 9 is not crippled, even in AD&D. A 12th-level fighter with Str 9 is one noteworthy fighter.

It is a different way of thinking, though. If you're used to thinking that fighters need Str 18/XX (the only point where it starts making a big difference), that's you having ideas about the game that don't line up with the reality of the dice. I understand this thinking, because I thought that way, right up until I switched from D&D 3.X back to AD&D 2E. (This meant that either you had to use alternative ways to roll ability scores, or else players would cheat.) In my new Dragonlance original module campaign, only one of ~6 warriors has Str 18/XX (and that one used 4d6 keep 3, arrange), and everyone's perfectly happy.

[SiuiS]

I'd call not only getting bonus XP, but also being better every single time you're called upon to use that attribute mattering. I've never bought this argument about random attributes in older editions of D&D, which is why in my game I'm going to offer a range of chargen choices, none of which are "3d6 in order".

There's "assign 7 points of bonuses as you see fit, dropping nothing below -3". There's also roll seven stats thus, dropping the lowest: 1d6+12, 2d6+6 (twice) and 3d6 (four times), and assigning as you please. In the latter case, we'll treat each player's rolls as an array which any other player can take in place of their own.

I'm not going to waste everyone's time with the rigmarole of making five characters each, either. They'll make their one PC, they might roll up a couple of their henchmen to spare me the trouble.

Aye, it is a huge difference in preconceptions. The idea that you are common, normal, mundane, unless you win this lottery, is an interesting one. it is also so very far away from where gaming culture has moved in the last few decades, that it is startling. I don't think it is hogwash, because it makes sense coming from the wargame scene, but it is still weird.

The bonus experience though, yeah. That hurts, a lot.

Oh, and I actually like the five characters mechanic - it has a certain charme desuet to it. Frankly, it speaks to the same sort of thinking as not giving a child a name until they are five; You live to a certain level, then you get to be primary protagonist. Until then, we have replacements waiting in the wings. Low level is brutal, and as much about the DM weeding out slow thinkers and unlucky chaps as it is about you, the player. The two cast offs becoming NPCs is a bonus, and I'm thinking of pulling that up for other games, too.


That's not really true, though. Especially pre-AD&D, your attribute scores do not make you noteworthy at your class. Playing skillfully and some luck do - if you survive to 4th level or so, you have pretty a good chance to stay alive for a long time and keep gaining levels. So what makes you noteworthy is what you do. You're noteworthy because you've solved the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, triumphed in the Palace of the Silver Princess, and looted the Temple of the Frog! A fighter with Str 9 is not crippled, even in AD&D. A 12th-level fighter with Str 9 is one noteworthy fighter.

It is a different way of thinking, though. If you're used to thinking that fighters need Str 18/XX (the only point where it starts making a big difference), that's you having ideas about the game that don't line up with the reality of the dice. I understand this thinking, because I thought that way, right up until I switched from D&D 3.X back to AD&D 2E. (This meant that either you had to use alternative ways to roll ability scores, or else players would cheat.) In my new Dragonlance original module campaign, only one of ~6 warriors has Str 18/XX (and that one used 4d6 keep 3, arrange), and everyone's perfectly happy.

Aye, I had phenomenal luck as a filly though, so I'm biased. And seriously, I would probably be fine except in twenty years I've been unable to roll a gosh darned bard for 1e. It's like, my holy grail, at this point XD

[Rhynn]

The bonus experience though, yeah. That hurts, a lot.

I don't quite agree there, either. Bonus experience just staggers level progression. If you're getting +10%, then your fighter is at level 2 (2000 XP) when the other fighter is at 1818 XP. Once the other guy is at 100,000 XP, you're at 110,000 XP; in ACKS, that's 7th level, no difference. When you make 8th at 130,000 XP, the other guy is at 118,181 XP. I don't think a one-level difference is "hurts a lot," generally.

I think these are mostly differences of taste. OSR games specifically cater to people who like most of the old-school rules; that's why most of them only change some things (like switching to ascending AC). If you don't like the old-school rules, you should can change them or play a game that has all the rules you want - there's plenty out there. I make houserules all over the place, and don't like, for instance, the fairly iconic leather/scale/chain/banded/plate armor types.


Oh, and I actually like the five characters mechanic - it has a certain charme desuet to it.

That's like 75% of the point of the OSR, after all. Dungeon Crawl Classics takes it even further - you play those 5 characters all at once, and the ones that survive the first adventure make it to level 1, get to choose a character class, and go on to have adventuring careers.


Aye, I had phenomenal luck as a filly though, so I'm biased. And seriously, I would probably be fine except in twenty years I've been unable to roll a gosh darned bard for 1e. It's like, my holy grail, at this point XD

Well, first edition bards need Str 15+, Dex 17+, and Int 17+, yeah? That's pretty dang demanding - even with Unearthed Arcana, since you have to start as a fighter, your Int is 3d6! :smalleek: (And 17+ is by far not guaranteed on 7d6-keep-3.)

[Kiero]

Aye, it is a huge difference in preconceptions. The idea that you are common, normal, mundane, unless you win this lottery, is an interesting one. it is also so very far away from where gaming culture has moved in the last few decades, that it is startling. I don't think it is hogwash, because it makes sense coming from the wargame scene, but it is still weird.

The bonus experience though, yeah. That hurts, a lot.

I like ACKS because it cleans up B/X and fundamentally is a simple system that's easy to tweak. I haven't published my houserules document yet, but it is a new game entirely in some respects, at least as far as the ways I've altered things (even money is different!). I also love the domain management and mass combat aspects.

Funny thing is, that's entirely in keeping with old school games, as I'm given to understand things, which makes it even more bizarre when you get purists decrying that you do that.


Oh, and I actually like the five characters mechanic - it has a certain charme desuet to it. Frankly, it speaks to the same sort of thinking as not giving a child a name until they are five; You live to a certain level, then you get to be primary protagonist. Until then, we have replacements waiting in the wings. Low level is brutal, and as much about the DM weeding out slow thinkers and unlucky chaps as it is about you, the player. The two cast offs becoming NPCs is a bonus, and I'm thinking of pulling that up for other games, too.

Well, I'm starting my game at 5th level, so that winnowing process is a lot less relevant than it might be with a starting-1st game. I'll still intending the PCs all have hirelings, though, because it not only means a pool of backups, but makes a lot of sense. Four notable personages would not be wandering about without shield-bearers, servants, camp followers and so on; no one would take them seriously if they moved about like bandits.

[Rhynn]

Thinking of and discussing ACKS has made me think I should switch my Dark Sun campaign hack over into it, instead of AD&D 2E. I already thought I needed to rewrite 2E psionics, so I might as well write a simple system that fits into ACKS (unless there is one?). Maybe my Undermountain campaign, too - who knows? Both campaigns are basically about reducing the setting to the basics and rewriting it to fit my ideas of how the game works best, anyway...


Funny thing is, that's entirely in keeping with old school games, as I'm given to understand things, which makes it even more bizarre when you get purists decrying that you do that.

Thoroughly agreed. Old-school D&D is, to me, all about creating your own game from the toolbox you are provided. It's why OD&D is so vague and requires interpretation - it was never even intended to be a single, clear set of rules. Of course, once AD&D 1E came along, Gary Gygax had turned into the Dark Lord with One Rule to... uh, Rule Them All, and condemned changing the rules as heresy. (Which only makes sense from the point-of-view of con games, etc.)


Well, I'm starting my game at 5th level, so that winnowing process is a lot less relevant than it might be with a starting-1st game. I'll still intending the PCs all have hirelings, though, because it not only means a pool of backups, but makes a lot of sense. Four notable personages would not be wandering about without shield-bearers, servants, camp followers and so on; no one would take them seriously if they moved about like bandits.

I like hirelings and henchmen so much (I think they're an essential part of PC survivability, especially with save-or-die enemies) that I ported a hack of AD&D 1E henchman rules into my 2E games. (NPCs controlled by player of the PC unless I countermand, subject to Morale and Loyalty checks, half XP, treated as full party members and usually expecting a full share of treasure, can be upgraded into PCs if PC dies.)

[Water_Bear]

On ability scores; remember there are several factors which people aren't taking into account. Firstly, the ACK rules give -2:+1 stat swaping into Prime Requisites. Secondly, rolling five characters and using three means your average on any given PC is much better than a random set. Thirdly, PC attrition at low levels is high, so those who do survive will be the ones with higher stats (both due to sheer competence, increased speed of leveling, and the Player being more careful).

For example; my little brother just rolled up an 18 Str 18 Int Elven Spellsword with natural rolls, used the Stat-Swap rules to make a 18 Wis 9 Cha (:smallsigh:) Witch and a 16 Cha Venturer out of two sets of mediocre rolls. I fully expect that of the three only Smarticus the Elf will ever make it out of the Caves of Chaos, if only due to his 6 HP (my brother is waaay too good at rolling).

[Rhynn]

Ah, right. BECMI has stat-swapping at a ratio too, doesn't it? Not familiar enough with B/X to say about that.

I also just finally connected the dots and perhaps understood the weird bit in OD&D about how each class can "use" certain attributes for their prime requisite at a specific ratio - I think it means that stat-swapping at a ratio? I couldn't make head or tails of it the way it's written in Men & Magic.

[Kiero]

Thinking of and discussing ACKS has made me think I should switch my Dark Sun campaign hack over into it, instead of AD&D 2E. I already thought I needed to rewrite 2E psionics, so I might as well write a simple system that fits into ACKS (unless there is one?). Maybe my Undermountain campaign, too - who knows? Both campaigns are basically about reducing the setting to the basics and rewriting it to fit my ideas of how the game works best, anyway...

It doesn't already have psionics, but I don't imagine it would be all that hard to retrofit whatever system from 1e or 2e you like into it.

I should say, unless your games are intended to reach domain-management and army-leading levels, you'll miss out on a lot that makes ACKS really awesome. The personal-scale stuff is fine, much what you'd expect in a D&D-derived game, but it's the bigger-than-personal stuff that's really awesome.


Thoroughly agreed. Old-school D&D is, to me, all about creating your own game from the toolbox you are provided. It's why OD&D is so vague and requires interpretation - it was never even intended to be a single, clear set of rules. Of course, once AD&D 1E came along, Gary Gygax had turned into the Dark Lord with One Rule to... uh, Rule Them All, and condemned changing the rules as heresy. (Which only makes sense from the point-of-view of con games, etc.)

I'm only really starting to appreciate this since hacking ACKS. See I played Red Box, Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D2e back in the early- to mid-90s, but I haven't even looked at any of them since. I certainly never thought I'd be trying to run my holy grail - a magic-free historical game - with a D&D-derived game.


I like hirelings and henchmen so much (I think they're an essential part of PC survivability, especially with save-or-die enemies) that I ported a hack of AD&D 1E henchman rules into my 2E games. (NPCs controlled by player of the PC unless I countermand, subject to Morale and Loyalty checks, half XP, treated as full party members and usually expecting a full share of treasure, can be upgraded into PCs if PC dies.)

I love hirelings and henchmen, in any non-fantasy setting (and quite a few fantasy ones) the notion of the party as just the PCs doesn't really make sense.

I intend that the players manage at least one of their important henchmen, especially in combat. Plus it will be nice to have some meaningful small unit tactics applied to the party-unit.

I won't be tracking XP for anyone, though. I'll just have the henchmen level up every other level that the PCs do.


On ability scores; remember there are several factors which people aren't taking into account. Firstly, the ACK rules give -2:+1 stat swaping into Prime Requisites. Secondly, rolling five characters and using three means your average on any given PC is much better than a random set. Thirdly, PC attrition at low levels is high, so those who do survive will be the ones with higher stats (both due to sheer competence, increased speed of leveling, and the Player being more careful).

For example; my little brother just rolled up an 18 Str 18 Int Elven Spellsword with natural rolls, used the Stat-Swap rules to make a 18 Wis 9 Cha (:smallsigh:) Witch and a 16 Cha Venturer out of two sets of mediocre rolls. I fully expect that of the three only Smarticus the Elf will ever make it out of the Caves of Chaos, if only due to his 6 HP (my brother is waaay too good at rolling).

To be honest, I don't see the point when I can just use any number of alternative chargen methods that fit my goals more closely. Mine isn't a dungeon-crawling meatgrinder with a random selection of hapless bods intended to sort out the wheat from the chaff, it's an empire-building chronicle in a time of strife where a small group of people with ambition and ideas can become kings. Each PC is only part of the game because they've already proven themselves worthy of note and a player in the game.

[SiuiS]

I don't quite agree there, either. Bonus experience just staggers level progression. If you're getting +10%, then your fighter is at level 2 (2000 XP) when the other fighter is at 1818 XP. Once the other guy is at 100,000 XP, you're at 110,000 XP; in ACKS, that's 7th level, no difference. When you make 8th at 130,000 XP, the other guy is at 118,181 XP. I don't think a one-level difference is "hurts a lot," generally.

You're right, and I'll benefit from having it spelled out. It is just a visceral reaction, I've always felt a sort of pain when I can't operate to maximum capacity. I need to re-integrate the idea of acceptable plateaus.


I think these are mostly differences of taste. OSR games specifically cater to people who like most of the old-school rules; that's why most of them only change some things (like switching to ascending AC). If you don't like the old-school rules, you should can change them or play a game that has all the rules you want - there's plenty out there. I make houserules all over the place, and don't like, for instance, the fairly iconic leather/scale/chain/banded/plate armor types.

Oh? What do you use instead? For armor, I mean.



That's like 75% of the point of the OSR, after all. Dungeon Crawl Classics takes it even further - you play those 5 characters all at once, and the ones that survive the first adventure make it to level 1, get to choose a character class, and go on to have adventuring careers.


Ah, Bangerang. I'd lost the name of that one but loved the concept~!



Well, first edition bards need Str 15+, Dex 17+, and Int 17+, yeah? That's pretty dang demanding - even with Unearthed Arcana, since you have to start as a fighter, your Int is 3d6! :smalleek: (And 17+ is by far not guaranteed on 7d6-keep-3.)

Aye. It was possible to start out intending to go for Bard, which gave you... Better odds, but still. I think I rolled 18s and a 16 in the attributes not worth having.

And I've not seen a game of old school since... I need to lurk the PbP section of the forums more.


I like ACKS because it cleans up B/X and fundamentally is a simple system that's easy to tweak. I haven't published my houserules document yet, but it is a new game entirely in some respects, at least as far as the ways I've altered things (even money is different!). I also love the domain management and mass combat aspects.

Funny thing is, that's entirely in keeping with old school games, as I'm given to understand things, which makes it even more bizarre when you get purists decrying that you do that.

The decrying comes from a special place of hazing. Everyone modded but no one copped to it. And with the D&D/AD&D split, the writers flat told you, repeatedly, sure you could change something, maybe call copper pieces bronze pieces, but them you're not playing AD&D anymore, get out of my house.

In reading a bit more now. I like the idea behind the campaign classes, but don't feel comfortable enough with the rules to try and make one yet. I'm also looking at proficiencies and surprised to see the best of late 1/2e and none of the chaff so far. Very nice.


Well, I'm starting my game at 5th level, so that winnowing process is a lot less relevant than it might be with a starting-1st game. I'll still intending the PCs all have hirelings, though, because it not only means a pool of backups, but makes a lot of sense. Four notable personages would not be wandering about without shield-bearers, servants, camp followers and so on; no one would take them seriously if they moved about like bandits.

Aye, it's the suggested range for folks who don't need training wheels.

I like that, it makes a lot of sense. Too bad in every game I've played thus far a retinue is just a target that gets expensive to keep replacing...

And you're right, Water Bear. It's just bias on my part i need to work past.

Looking at a 15/15/9/15/10/13 right now, going to be an elf of some sort, recreate an old character with similar stats. :smallbiggrin:

Poor 8/7/8/9/9/6, though. Nobody loves him :(

[Rhynn]

I should say, unless your games are intended to reach domain-management and army-leading levels, you'll miss out on a lot that makes ACKS really awesome. The personal-scale stuff is fine, much what you'd expect in a D&D-derived game, but it's the bigger-than-personal stuff that's really awesome.

Oh, absolutely. 2E Dark Sun already assumes use of Battlesystem (in the pre-revision supplements), and to me, actually becoming powerful enough to overthrow the Sorcerer-Kings (or at least founding and leading your own slave tribe in the wastes) is an integral part of the charm of Dark Sun.

Likewise, I want my Undermountain game to span the entire Savage Frontier (I've already made the hexmap), and I intend to emphasize the frontier aspect - high-level PCs are supposed to carve out their own baronies.


I'm only really starting to appreciate this since hacking ACKS. See I played Red Box, Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D2e back in the early- to mid-90s, but I haven't even looked at any of them since. I certainly never thought I'd be trying to run my holy grail - a magic-free historical game - with a D&D-derived game.

I'm pretty much in the same situation. I started with (translated) Red Box (BECMI; I still have the ragged Finnish books for B, E, C, & M), then went AD&D 2E. From 2000 to last year, my edition was 3.X (with one test session of 4E after it came out), but then reading countless OSR blogs and articles (starting, IIRC, with Philotomy's OD&D Musings) made me switch to AD&D 2E. (I pretty much picked it because it was the old D&D game that I played the most.)


I love hirelings and henchmen, in any non-fantasy setting (and quite a few fantasy ones) the notion of the party as just the PCs doesn't really make sense.

I feel the same way. In many medieval fantasy settings, I find it most natural to make PCs some sort of nobility or otherwise in a leadership position, so they have resources, freedom, and can decide where to go. That usually means retainers and other hangers-on. (And when I don't start them out with any, they seem to intentionally accumulate them anyway.)


I won't be tracking XP for anyone, though. I'll just have the henchmen level up every other level that the PCs do.

I chose half XP for two specific reasons: it creates a management decision ("do we bring all these henchmen on this expedition and get less XP but risk dying?"), and it keeps them one level behind the PCs until they pass the level (after 9th) where the next level always requires the same "+XYZ,000 XP"... so when a PC dies and a henchman graduates to PC, the henchman is probably only one level the rest of the party, and that gap will grow smaller as they earn full XP.


To be honest, I don't see the point when I can just use any number of alternative chargen methods that fit my goals more closely. Mine isn't a dungeon-crawling meatgrinder with a random selection of hapless bods intended to sort out the wheat from the chaff, it's an empire-building chronicle in a time of strife where a small group of people with ambition and ideas can become kings. Each PC is only part of the game because they've already proven themselves worthy of note and a player in the game.

Different campaign intentions obviously require different styles of play. In my RuneQuest campaigns (usually focused on becoming movers and shakers in a specific community, becoming involved in the issues of larger communities, and becoming HeroQuesters), I find it much preferrable for the PCs to not die very often at all. The games largely hang on the relationships the PCs have formed during play, and it's very hard to bring in new PCs. But for D&D, I generally prefer a "adventuring company with a charter" (in the style of 17th and 18th-century Caribbean pirates) with a changing, rotating cast, where the company is the heart of it, rather than the individual characters.


Oh? What do you use instead? For armor, I mean.

It's not mechanically significantly different (well, it is a bit, since I've redone costs and weights). I don't divide armor by name and what it's made of - my only distinction is AC. (A bit of a Chainmail approach I guess.) I give a general definition and some examples for each AC. It's also a bit of arms-and-armor geek snobbery at notions like "leather armor" and "hide armor." It's based on the AD&D 2E armors, which are completely borked (AC 5 chainmail is 40 lbs. 75 gp, AC 4 splint is 40 lbs. 80 gp, AC 4 banded is 35 lbs. 200 gp, AC 6 brigandine is 35 lbs. 120 gp???), so it's also intended to fix the fact of completely useless warrior/cleric only armor.

My alternative armor system:
Armor
AC 10: No armor (naked, clothed, etc.)
AC 9: Helmet; 5 gp 5 lbs.
AC 9: Heavy clothing (leather, reinforced); 10 lbs. 5 gp
AC 8: Quilted armor (linen corslet, gambeson); 25 lbs. 20 gp
AC 7: Corslet/cuirass, Lamellar, Scale (made of boiled leather; corslet & greaves, panoply); 30 lbs. 30 gp
AC 6: Coat of plate, Corslet/cuirass, Lamellar, Laminar, Scale (made of metal; corslet & greaves, mail byrnie, panoply); 35 lbs. 50 gp
AC 5: Mail (hauberk, jazerant); 45 lbs. 75 gp
AC 4: Reinforced mail (brigandine, lamellar over mail, plated, scale over mail, splinted); 50 lbs. 150 gp
AC 3: Half-harness; 40 lbs. 200 gp
AC 2: Three-quarter harness; 55 lbs. 500 gp
AC 1: Field/full harness (fluted armor, white armor); 60 lbs. 1,000+ gp
AC 0: Jousting harness; 90 lbs. 2,000+ gp

All AC 8 and better assume a helmet is worn (included in price); lack of helmet worsens AC by 1.

Shields: 10 lbs., 10 gp, improve AC by 1.


Ah, Bangerang. I'd lost the name of that one but loved the concept~!

I love almost everything about Dungeon Crawl Classics, except the weird dice and the number of pages the spells take: I love the idea of having to roll when you cast spells, spells going wrong or working better, etc., but I think in practice it's too complicated. I want simplicity and speed from my D&D.

Everything else, from alignments, starting at level 0, Chaotic arcane magic and corruption, and the arcane patrons to the implied setting and the cauldron-born orcs is awesome. (Not for everything, it's a very specific kind of game, but it's awesome.)


The decrying comes from a special place of hazing. Everyone modded but no one copped to it. And with the D&D/AD&D split, the writers flat told you, repeatedly, sure you could change something, maybe call copper pieces bronze pieces, but them you're not playing AD&D anymore, get out of my house.

Yeah, including Gygax himself. (I don't hold it against him, he was trying to be a businessman, and AFAIK regretted the attitude later.)

Of course, they then publish, say, the Dragonlance modules, which change how coins work in a way that makes no sense (including changes from place to place - gold is standard here, worthless here, etc.!). Why are steel coins valuable? Do people melt them down to re-forge? But that's going to get you useless mixed-and-unknown-quality steel. And they will rust if left in a ruin. And so on and so on... some gimmick!


In reading a bit more now. I like the idea behind the campaign classes, but don't feel comfortable enough with the rules to try and make one yet. I'm also looking at proficiencies and surprised to see the best of late 1/2e and none of the chaff so far. Very nice.

I freaking love the proficiencies! "Adventuring" is perfect. The writers were clearly on the same wavelength as I was when I set the houserules for my AD&D campaigns: I disliked forcing players to buy proficiencies for things like swimming, mountaineering, riding, hunting, fire-building, tracking, animal care, etc., that I considered "standard adventurer stuff." (Obviously, a player could elect to be incompetent at something, but could then also learn it for free during play from his fellow adventurers.) So I just decided everyone's proficient at that stuff, and proficiencies are optional - and if you have, say, Swimming, it doesn't just mean you can swim, it means you can swim heroic distances and fight sea serpents in the water during a storm with a dagger, etc.

[Water_Bear]

To be honest, I don't see the point when I can just use any number of alternative chargen methods that fit my goals more closely. Mine isn't a dungeon-crawling meatgrinder with a random selection of hapless bods intended to sort out the wheat from the chaff, it's an empire-building chronicle in a time of strife where a small group of people with ambition and ideas can become kings. Each PC is only part of the game because they've already proven themselves worthy of note and a player in the game.

That's fair, although I do have to warn you; the rules for making PCs above 1st level are awful. If it were me, I would completely rebuild them from the ground up.

Like, take the xp for starting level * .8 (4/5th of XP is supposed to come from treasure) * .5 (to simulate consumables / other purchases) and give that as starting wealth, with which they can buy Magic Items okay'd by the DM at 2x price. Then maybe use a 3e style 24pt buy or the Elite Array for stats. Or something, that's just a spitball.

[Rhynn]

(4/5th of XP is supposed to come from treasure)

ACKS really is perfection.

[Kiero]

Talking of houserules for equipment, I've left armour alone; there's some translating done anyway, but shields needed a more detailed treatment here.

Shields are amended as follows:

Cloak-wrapped forearm +1 AC vs one-handed melee
Buckler – Cost: 5dr +1 AC vs melee and thrown Enc: Item
Small shield – Cost: 10dr +1 AC vs melee and thrown, +2 AC vs missiles Enc: 1 stone
Medium shield – Cost: 50dr +2 AC vs melee and thrown, +3 AC vs missiles Enc: 2 stone
Large shield – Cost: 100dr +3 AC vs melee and thrown, +5 AC vs missiles Enc: 3 stone


*dr=silver drachmae, to convert from the list prices, multiply by 5.


The decrying comes from a special place of hazing. Everyone modded but no one copped to it. And with the D&D/AD&D split, the writers flat told you, repeatedly, sure you could change something, maybe call copper pieces bronze pieces, but them you're not playing AD&D anymore, get out of my house.

In reading a bit more now. I like the idea behind the campaign classes, but don't feel comfortable enough with the rules to try and make one yet. I'm also looking at proficiencies and surprised to see the best of late 1/2e and none of the chaff so far. Very nice.

That's probably another reason why it annoys me, I've never had much truck with the whole "you must earn the right to have fun" sentiment that runs through certain circles.

Just an aside on money, my game is set in antiquity (300BC or thereabouts) and everything is run on the silver standard. Fortunately, prices are pretty close, halve them, make them silver rather than gold and you're pretty much there. It's also long enough after Alexander the Great looted the treasuries of Persepolis and Babylon for the value of gold to fall to around 10:1 against silver.

Yes, Proficiencies are brilliant. I couldn't do a game without some means of differentiating skills, and that's managed it without trying to rehash Feats as well.


Aye, it's the suggested range for folks who don't need training wheels.

I like that, it makes a lot of sense. Too bad in every game I've played thus far a retinue is just a target that gets expensive to keep replacing...

It does take a different mindset; that's why I'm hoping the players creating their starting hirelings will foster a sense of attachment to them. Especially when they start running them in combats, acting in concert with their PCs.


Oh, absolutely. 2E Dark Sun already assumes use of Battlesystem (in the pre-revision supplements), and to me, actually becoming powerful enough to overthrow the Sorcerer-Kings (or at least founding and leading your own slave tribe in the wastes) is an integral part of the charm of Dark Sun.

Likewise, I want my Undermountain game to span the entire Savage Frontier (I've already made the hexmap), and I intend to emphasize the frontier aspect - high-level PCs are supposed to carve out their own baronies.

Cool, in which case you definitely will get the best value out of it. Worth noting that Domains at War, the mass combat system will easily plug into your AD&D2e game, even if you don't go the whole hog and convert to ACKS.


I'm pretty much in the same situation. I started with (translated) Red Box (BECMI; I still have the ragged Finnish books for B, E, C, & M), then went AD&D 2E. From 2000 to last year, my edition was 3.X (with one test session of 4E after it came out), but then reading countless OSR blogs and articles (starting, IIRC, with Philotomy's OD&D Musings) made me switch to AD&D 2E. (I pretty much picked it because it was the old D&D game that I played the most.)

Outside of NWN2, I've never played 3.x, but my group has. They're thoroughly burned out on it, and similarity to that was a possible stumbling block with ACKS that I think we've now cleared. Because it really isn't like 3.x.


I feel the same way. In many medieval fantasy settings, I find it most natural to make PCs some sort of nobility or otherwise in a leadership position, so they have resources, freedom, and can decide where to go. That usually means retainers and other hangers-on. (And when I don't start them out with any, they seem to intentionally accumulate them anyway.)

In this setting, the early Wars of the Diadochi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Diadochi), having loyal bannermen at your back is a necessary component of playing the great game. One of the PCs is likely to be a "warrior princess" (in this setting, a very apt concept) which implies she'll have some sworn retainers, maybe an old tutor, that sort of thing.


I chose half XP for two specific reasons: it creates a management decision ("do we bring all these henchmen on this expedition and get less XP but risk dying?"), and it keeps them one level behind the PCs until they pass the level (after 9th) where the next level always requires the same "+XYZ,000 XP"... so when a PC dies and a henchman graduates to PC, the henchman is probably only one level the rest of the party, and that gap will grow smaller as they earn full XP.

Which is fair enough. Me, I can't be bothered with tracking it, especially when I'll be keeping an eye on their money. We usually handwave wealth, but it matters to know what it is here.


Different campaign intentions obviously require different styles of play. In my RuneQuest campaigns (usually focused on becoming movers and shakers in a specific community, becoming involved in the issues of larger communities, and becoming HeroQuesters), I find it much preferrable for the PCs to not die very often at all. The games largely hang on the relationships the PCs have formed during play, and it's very hard to bring in new PCs. But for D&D, I generally prefer a "adventuring company with a charter" (in the style of 17th and 18th-century Caribbean pirates) with a changing, rotating cast, where the company is the heart of it, rather than the individual characters.

Indeed.


I freaking love the proficiencies! "Adventuring" is perfect. The writers were clearly on the same wavelength as I was when I set the houserules for my AD&D campaigns: I disliked forcing players to buy proficiencies for things like swimming, mountaineering, riding, hunting, fire-building, tracking, animal care, etc., that I considered "standard adventurer stuff." (Obviously, a player could elect to be incompetent at something, but could then also learn it for free during play from his fellow adventurers.) So I just decided everyone's proficient at that stuff, and proficiencies are optional - and if you have, say, Swimming, it doesn't just mean you can swim, it means you can swim heroic distances and fight sea serpents in the water during a storm with a dagger, etc.

I renamed Adventuring to "Seasoned Campaigner", which is more fitting here. All or most of the PCs are likely to have mercenary, or at least military backgrounds. I like that they are highlights of particular and exceptional ability, rather than required.

[Kiero]

That's fair, although I do have to warn you; the rules for making PCs above 1st level are awful. If it were me, I would completely rebuild them from the ground up.

Like, take the xp for starting level * .8 (4/5th of XP is supposed to come from treasure) * .5 (to simulate consumables / other purchases) and give that as starting wealth, with which they can buy Magic Items okay'd by the DM at 2x price. Then maybe use a 3e style 24pt buy or the Elite Array for stats. Or something, that's just a spitball.

The only thing that really matters for me here is starting wealth. I've posted elsewhere about a reasonable exchange for investing in order to get a monthly return. Because prominent people have expenses and a lifestyle to maintain, they're not roving vagabonds. I might use the lifestyles table to work out a monthly income they can rely upon, then give them a lump sump for equipment and retainers (along with mounts and other things).

Critical thing for this game: there's no magic. So no magic items. There are exceptional items, though. Current thinking goes thus:

Masterwork armour and weapons.

There are two better-than-normal qualities for weapons and armour (but not shields or ammunition), good and exceptional. Good items cost four times the listed price, have one special property and give +2 against Sunder manuevers. Exceptional items cost ten times the listed price, have two properties, and give +4 against being Sundered.

The other mechanical impacts are as follows:


Good weapons: +1 initiative or +1 damage.
Exceptional weapons: +1 to hit and with either +1 initiative or +1 damage.
Good armour: Reduce Encumbrance by one stone.
Exceptional armour: Reduce Encumbrance by one stone and +1AC.

[Water_Bear]

The only thing that really matters for me here is starting wealth. I've posted elsewhere about a reasonable exchange for investing in order to get a monthly return. Because prominent people have expenses and a lifestyle to maintain, they're not roving vagabonds. I might use the lifestyles table to work out a monthly income they can rely upon, then give them a lump sump for equipment and retainers (along with mounts and other things).

Have you considered using their GP Threshold From Mercantile Income (p.146) to figure out their monthly income? That looks a lot easier math-wise, and it's pretty explicit that that's the amount of money which doesn't "rock the boat" as it were.

Either that or just kick them up to 9th level at the start and give them a Domain to manage sponge off.


Critical thing for this game: there's no magic. So no magic items.

That simplifies matters enormously.

[Kiero]

Have you considered using their GP Threshold From Mercantile Income (p.146) to figure out their monthly income? That looks a lot easier math-wise, and it's pretty explicit that that's the amount of money which doesn't "rock the boat" as it were.

Either that or just kick them up to 9th level at the start and give them a Domain to manage sponge off.

The "training wheels" in this game is taking hold of some space, then defending your spear-won territory. That's why the 5th level start, rather than 9th level start (which I did consider).

I think they'd appreciate having some freedom to explore the setting first, before being tied to somewhere and all the attendant worries of being in charge. Plus I think they might treat their fief more seriously if they went through the trouble of getting it in the first place.

It's also a slightly more open scope. They can be the small band hiring themselves out to solve problems, maybe steal themselves a ship from pirates and build their own crew and get some wealth playing sea-wolves for a bit. Then when that wealth is burning a hole in their pockets, time to risk it all for a throne-grab somewhere.


That simplifies matters enormously.

It certainly does. :smallsmile:

[SiuiS]

I'm only really starting to appreciate this since hacking ACKS. See I played Red Box, Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D2e back in the early- to mid-90s, but I haven't even looked at any of them since. I certainly never thought I'd be trying to run my holy grail - a magic-free historical game - with a D&D-derived game.

That is surprising. I would have thought it would revolve around d20, to be honest.

I also would think that, with magic gone, skills would be even more important and so you would want granularity. But proficiency covers this, does it not? I actually... Still have to mull that over. Percolate and integrate.



To be honest, I don't see the point when I can just use any number of alternative chargen methods that fit my goals more closely. Mine isn't a dungeon-crawling meatgrinder with a random selection of hapless bods intended to sort out the wheat from the chaff, it's an empire-building chronicle in a time of strife where a small group of people with ambition and ideas can become kings. Each PC is only part of the game because they've already proven themselves worthy of note and a player in the game.

Two thoughts, here.

The first is that this is dangerous, because it risks giving the players the same false sense of entitlement to high attributes that I have. It could skew the perception such that perfectly good characters are seen as not worth having, because not enough bonuses.

The second is that it's a good idea to ensure that the characters are meaningful, that they matter.

Some line between the two should be found. I have not yet.



Different campaign intentions obviously require different styles of play. In my RuneQuest campaigns (usually focused on becoming movers and shakers in a specific community, becoming involved in the issues of larger communities, and becoming HeroQuesters), I find it much preferrable for the PCs to not die very often at all. The games largely hang on the relationships the PCs have formed during play, and it's very hard to bring in new PCs. But for D&D, I generally prefer a "adventuring company with a charter" (in the style of 17th and 18th-century Caribbean pirates) with a changing, rotating cast, where the company is the heart of it, rather than the individual characters.


I've found that establishing these sorts of companies is often really hard unless everyone buys into the concept. I'm thinking of instituting a soft rule, for a while; up to a certain point, characters are freelancers, but hear about the exploits of these bands, companies and brotherhoods. Maybe the party ends up working with or for a famous company's spokesman. After a certain point though, you start runnin into resistance unless you're reputable, and that requires company backing.

I think it would start to hedge my players more towards the feeling spoken of, of the troupe being more important than any individual member.



It's not mechanically significantly different (well, it is a bit, since I've redone costs and weights). I don't divide armor by name and what it's made of - my only distinction is AC. (A bit of a Chainmail approach I guess.) I give a general definition and some examples for each AC. It's also a bit of arms-and-armor geek snobbery at notions like "leather armor" and "hide armor." It's based on the AD&D 2E armors, which are completely borked (AC 5 chainmail is 40 lbs. 75 gp, AC 4 splint is 40 lbs. 80 gp, AC 4 banded is 35 lbs. 200 gp, AC 6 brigandine is 35 lbs. 120 gp???), so it's also intended to fix the fact of completely useless warrior/cleric only armor.

That all makes sense to me as an abstraction though. D&D armor was to protect against everything from clubs and fists to spears and axes equally (which is already silly), so Leather armor wasn't innacurate so much as homogenized (I'd take leather over nothing in a knife fight any day). The weights were, likewise, a way to encourage improving; you had to balance your gear versus how much you could truck with you from a dungeon. I always imagined the beefiest fighter guy straining as everyone else plunked down a few more coins, waiting to see the breaking point.


My alternative armor system:
Armor
AC 10: No armor (naked, clothed, etc.)
AC 9: Helmet; 5 gp 5 lbs.
AC 9: Heavy clothing (leather, reinforced); 10 lbs. 5 gp
AC 8: Quilted armor (linen corslet, gambeson); 25 lbs. 20 gp
AC 7: Corslet/cuirass, Lamellar, Scale (made of boiled leather; corslet & greaves, panoply); 30 lbs. 30 gp
AC 6: Coat of plate, Corslet/cuirass, Lamellar, Laminar, Scale (made of metal; corslet & greaves, mail byrnie, panoply); 35 lbs. 50 gp
AC 5: Mail (hauberk, jazerant); 45 lbs. 75 gp
AC 4: Reinforced mail (brigandine, lamellar over mail, plated, scale over mail, splinted); 50 lbs. 150 gp
AC 3: Half-harness; 40 lbs. 200 gp
AC 2: Three-quarter harness; 55 lbs. 500 gp
AC 1: Field/full harness (fluted armor, white armor); 60 lbs. 1,000+ gp
AC 0: Jousting harness; 90 lbs. 2,000+ gp

All AC 8 and better assume a helmet is worn (included in price); lack of helmet worsens AC by 1.

Shields: 10 lbs., 10 gp, improve AC by 1.


Stored for later use. Love helmets, by the by. Worked out how to use them in e6, with helmets improving your AC against confirmation rolls. Not sure how well it worked out, though.



Everything else, from alignments, starting at level 0, Chaotic arcane magic and corruption, and the arcane patrons to the implied setting and the cauldron-born orcs is awesome. (Not for everything, it's a very specific kind of game, but it's awesome.)

Will look into, but it's behind GMC and Strix Chronicles as far as purchase goes.



I freaking love the proficiencies! "Adventuring" is perfect. The writers were clearly on the same wavelength as I was when I set the houserules for my AD&D campaigns: I disliked forcing players to buy proficiencies for things like swimming, mountaineering, riding, hunting, fire-building, tracking, animal care, etc., that I considered "standard adventurer stuff." (Obviously, a player could elect to be incompetent at something, but could then also learn it for free during play from his fellow adventurers.) So I just decided everyone's proficient at that stuff, and proficiencies are optional - and if you have, say, Swimming, it doesn't just mean you can swim, it means you can swim heroic distances and fight sea serpents in the water during a storm with a dagger, etc.

Aye. And with luck, this will be the way Next leans too. Seems to be desired fan consensus.


That's fair, although I do have to warn you; the rules for making PCs above 1st level are awful. If it were me, I would completely rebuild them from the ground up.

Like, take the xp for starting level * .8 (4/5th of XP is supposed to come from treasure) * .5 (to simulate consumables / other purchases) and give that as starting wealth, with which they can buy Magic Items okay'd by the DM at 2x price. Then maybe use a 3e style 24pt buy or the Elite Array for stats. Or something, that's just a spitball.

Hmm hmm. Alright. Will keep. Have an unused setting specifically totes and promote frontier building in 3.5, but never got the PCs interested. Making some mid levels and throwing them there might help.


Talking of houserules for equipment, I've left armour alone; there's some translating done anyway, but shields needed a more detailed treatment here.

Shields are amended as follows:

Cloak-wrapped forearm +1 AC vs one-handed melee
Buckler – Cost: 5dr +1 AC vs melee and thrown Enc: Item
Small shield – Cost: 10dr +1 AC vs melee and thrown, +2 AC vs missiles Enc: 1 stone
Medium shield – Cost: 50dr +2 AC vs melee and thrown, +3 AC vs missiles Enc: 2 stone
Large shield – Cost: 100dr +3 AC vs melee and thrown, +5 AC vs missiles Enc: 3 stone


*dr=silver drachmae, to convert from the list prices, multiply by 5.


Not sure if I'll look to this, since it would seem to drastically skew stack and defense ratios, but I do like the drachma standard. I really need to find a slew of books on history that aren't dry, Wikipedia-article quality fact lists. Antiquity and the like are fascinating but hard to get into from the street...



Outside of NWN2, I've never played 3.x, but my group has. They're thoroughly burned out on it, and similarity to that was a possible stumbling block with ACKS that I think we've now cleared. Because it really isn't like 3.x.


That's where I'm sitting. I've only managed a playtest group because learning new rules is fun. But most of my friends have gone from not getting what they want out of fantasy Roleplay to not wanting fantasy Roleplay anymore, while I'm still chasing a dream. :smallfrown:


The only thing that really matters for me here is starting wealth. I've posted elsewhere about a reasonable exchange for investing in order to get a monthly return. Because prominent people have expenses and a lifestyle to maintain, they're not roving vagabonds. I might use the lifestyles table to work out a monthly income they can rely upon, then give them a lump sump for equipment and retainers (along with mounts and other things).

Politics should cover that nicely, non?


Critical thing for this game: there's no magic. So no magic items. There are exceptional items, though. Current thinking goes thus:

Masterwork armour and weapons.

There are two better-than-normal qualities for weapons and armour (but not shields or ammunition), good and exceptional. Good items cost four times the listed price, have one special property and give +2 against Sunder manuevers. Exceptional items cost ten times the listed price, have two properties, and give +4 against being Sundered.

The other mechanical impacts are as follows:


Good weapons: +1 initiative or +1 damage.
Exceptional weapons: +1 to hit and with either +1 initiative or +1 damage.
Good armour: Reduce Encumbrance by one stone.
Exceptional armour: Reduce Encumbrance by one stone and +1AC.



Interesting. Will examine.

[Rhynn]

I've found that establishing these sorts of companies is often really hard unless everyone buys into the concept. I'm thinking of instituting a soft rule, for a while; up to a certain point, characters are freelancers, but hear about the exploits of these bands, companies and brotherhoods. Maybe the party ends up working with or for a famous company's spokesman. After a certain point though, you start runnin into resistance unless you're reputable, and that requires company backing.

Oh, my system is kinda simple. 90% of henchmen refuse to join up unless they're presented with a charter/contract that outlines rights, responsibilities, and compensation. Along the lines of this 1721 code for Bartholomew Roberts, the greatest pirate of the Golden Age of Piracy:

ARTICLE I - Every man shall have an equal vote in affairs of moment. He shall have an equal title to the fresh provisions or strong liquors at any time seized, and shall use them at pleasure unless a scarcity may make it necessary for the common good that a retrenchment may be voted.
ARTICLE II - Every man shall be called fairly in turn by the list on board of prizes, because over and above their proper share, they are allowed a shift of clothes. But if they defraud the company to the value of even one dollar in plate, jewels or money, they shall be marooned. If any man rob another he shall have his nose and ears slit, and be put ashore where he shall be sure to encounter hardships.
ARTICLE III - None shall game for money either with dice or cards.
ARTICLE IV - The lights and candles should be put out at eight at night, and if any of the crew desire to drink after that hour they shall sit upon the open deck without lights.
ARTICLE V - Each man shall keep his piece, cutlass and pistols at all times clean and ready for action.
ARTICLE VI - No boy or woman to be allowed amongst them. If any man shall be found seducing any of the latter sex and carrying her to sea in disguise he shall suffer death.
ARTICLE VII - He that shall desert the ship or his quarters in time of battle shall be punished by death or marooning.
ARTICLE VIII - None shall strike another on board the ship, but every man's quarrel shall be ended on shore by sword or pistol in this manner. At the word of command from the quartermaster, each man being previously placed back to back, shall turn and fire immediately. If any man do not, the quartermaster shall knock the piece out of his hand. If both miss their aim they shall take to their cutlasses, and he that draweth first blood shall be declared the victor.
ARTICLE IX - No man shall talk of breaking up their way of living till each has a share of 1,000. Every man who shall become a cripple or lose a limb in the service shall have 800 pieces of eight from the common stock and for lesser hurts proportionately.
ARTICLE X - The captain and the quartermaster shall each receive two shares of a prize, the master gunner and boatswain, one and one half shares, all other officers one and one quarter, and private gentlemen of fortune one share each.
ARTICLE XI - The musicians shall have rest on the Sabbath Day only by right. On all other days by favour only.

And, of course, I tell the players up-front that this is the common approach taken by adventurers into the Undermountain, that they've heard of specific famous bands (some of whom might be encountered in the dungeon), and that they should draft up their own charter.

The feeling of the company being the focus of the campaign comes from rotating characters: players get to have multiple PCs if they want. Each PC has their own pool of henchmen. Henchmen can be graduated into PCs. It's obviously a better idea to bring some henchmen along on expeditions rather than multiple PCs, as that means you get more XP, since henchmen only get ½ shares; treasure XP is split this way, separately from the split of the treasure, since everyone gets an equal share of that anyway.

This party-splitting and rotating will also be encouraged by weeks-long level-up training times, spell research (PC wizards can't go around buying spells, they have to find them or research them; priests have to research any spells from outside of the PHB that they want), and weapon and non-weapon proficiency training (basically, money + time = extra proficiency slots).

This is all mainly for the Undermountain game, but I think a lot of it will apply to the Dark Sun game.

Of course, a lot of this may change if/when I start converting to ACKS.


Also, Kiero, thanks for the silver-standard conversion explanation! I'm going to do that myself, I think - I've been wanting to switch to a silver standard since I got into AD&D again (to my sense, the base coin should be the silver "shilling" equivalent, not the gold "pound/guinea/florin" equivalent), and switching to ACKS is a great opportunity.

Well, except Dark Sun will stay in the ceramic piece system. I'm still puzzling over how to work that, exactly... for instance, magic item costs don't quite work out (should they be divided by 100 or not!?), and I'm not sure if XP should be 1 per 1 cp, or 1 per 1 gp value.

Naturally, I'm probably going to replace Conan d20 with ACKS for my Hyborian adventuring, too. And I might even use it in some version for my own setting, if I ever get it off the ground... I've been looking for "my" retroclone since I got into them, and ACKS may be it. It really helps that almost every part of it feels familiar, thanks to my BECM experience from way back.

[Kiero]

That is surprising. I would have thought it would revolve around d20, to be honest.

I also would think that, with magic gone, skills would be even more important and so you would want granularity. But proficiency covers this, does it not? I actually... Still have to mull that over. Percolate and integrate.

For my group, it would have been an nWoD hack, had I not discovered ACKS (which I did initially via it's Domains at War mass combat system). Closest thing to D20 I've played with them in the five years since I joined was Star Wars Saga Edition, and we couldn't stomach that for long before switching the game's engine to FATE.

Proficiencies do indeed cover the skill-differentiation factor; that they are much simpler than Feats, and involve a lot less accounting than Skills makes them perfect.


Two thoughts, here.

The first is that this is dangerous, because it risks giving the players the same false sense of entitlement to high attributes that I have. It could skew the perception such that perfectly good characters are seen as not worth having, because not enough bonuses.

The second is that it's a good idea to ensure that the characters are meaningful, that they matter.

Some line between the two should be found. I have not yet.

Valid concerns in general, but the first one isn't a worry with my group. They don't behave like they're special just because they're PCs.


Not sure if I'll look to this, since it would seem to drastically skew stack and defense ratios, but I do like the drachma standard. I really need to find a slew of books on history that aren't dry, Wikipedia-article quality fact lists. Antiquity and the like are fascinating but hard to get into from the street...

I wouldn't recommend it as a general rule, necessarily, but the shield was much more important in antiquity than armour. There were plenty of warriors who depended on their shield as their primary, or even only defensive equipment. If you had an aspis, you were completely covered from eyes to knees by a bronze-faced slab of wood which also gave some protection to the guy to your left. It was heavy, but it was also like carrying a bit of wall around with you.

I should also note that with the rather simple, but effective Encumbrance rules in ACKS, wearing full hoplite panoply (equivalent to banded mail AC5, plus spear, aspis) would immediately drop you down a movement category.

I can't claim credit for the drachma standard, it was the creator of ACKS who pointed out if you halve prices they're pretty close to Hellenistic values (if you went earlier than that, gold was worth much more relative to silver).

As to accessibility, there's some really good historical fiction set in the period written by Christian Cameron I've been reading. His Tyrant series starts in 318BC and runs down to 300BC. For something earlier, but still extremely entertaining, his Long War series goes from 490BC to 470BC. He's also written one of the many fictionalised biographies of Alexander the Great, told from the viewpoint of Ptolemy.


That's where I'm sitting. I've only managed a playtest group because learning new rules is fun. But most of my friends have gone from not getting what they want out of fantasy Roleplay to not wanting fantasy Roleplay anymore, while I'm still chasing a dream.

That's a shame, but it happens. I had a long drought from 1998-2008, including university where I got no more than a handful of sessions. Then I found my current group after moving to a new city, and we've played all sorts.


Politics should cover that nicely, non?

In ACKS, money matters. Everything in the domain management system (and thus everything else that plugs into it) is driven by money. So it does need some consideration.


Interesting. Will examine.

I should note, that's my own house rule, like the shields.


Also, Kiero, thanks for the silver-standard conversion explanation! I'm going to do that myself, I think - I've been wanting to switch to a silver standard since I got into AD&D again (to my sense, the base coin should be the silver "shilling" equivalent, not the gold "pound/guinea/florin" equivalent), and switching to ACKS is a great opportunity.

Well, except Dark Sun will stay in the ceramic piece system. I'm still puzzling over how to work that, exactly... for instance, magic item costs don't quite work out (should they be divided by 100 or not!?), and I'm not sure if XP should be 1 per 1 cp, or 1 per 1 gp value.

Naturally, I'm probably going to replace Conan d20 with ACKS for my Hyborian adventuring, too. And I might even use it in some version for my own setting, if I ever get it off the ground... I've been looking for "my" retroclone since I got into them, and ACKS may be it. It really helps that almost every part of it feels familiar, thanks to my BECM experience from way back.

In the era I'm dealing with, gold is worth ten times what silver was, which is uncannily apt. Prior to Alexander's conquests, it was in the region of 27 times silver's value.

Even so, it only exists in three forms: gold artwork/jewelry, gold ingots, Persian gold darics, each of which are 4gp (because they're four times the size of a silver drachma). I don't think anyone else has struck their own gold coins yet.

[Water_Bear]

Oh, my system is kinda simple. 90% of henchmen refuse to join up unless they're presented with a charter/contract that outlines rights, responsibilities, and compensation. Along the lines of this 1721 code for Bartholomew Roberts, the greatest pirate of the Golden Age of Piracy:

ARTICLE I - Every man shall have an equal vote in affairs of moment. He shall have an equal title to the fresh provisions or strong liquors at any time seized, and shall use them at pleasure unless a scarcity may make it necessary for the common good that a retrenchment may be voted.
ARTICLE II - Every man shall be called fairly in turn by the list on board of prizes, because over and above their proper share, they are allowed a shift of clothes. But if they defraud the company to the value of even one dollar in plate, jewels or money, they shall be marooned. If any man rob another he shall have his nose and ears slit, and be put ashore where he shall be sure to encounter hardships.
ARTICLE III - None shall game for money either with dice or cards.
ARTICLE IV - The lights and candles should be put out at eight at night, and if any of the crew desire to drink after that hour they shall sit upon the open deck without lights.
ARTICLE V - Each man shall keep his piece, cutlass and pistols at all times clean and ready for action.
ARTICLE VI - No boy or woman to be allowed amongst them. If any man shall be found seducing any of the latter sex and carrying her to sea in disguise he shall suffer death.
ARTICLE VII - He that shall desert the ship or his quarters in time of battle shall be punished by death or marooning.
ARTICLE VIII - None shall strike another on board the ship, but every man's quarrel shall be ended on shore by sword or pistol in this manner. At the word of command from the quartermaster, each man being previously placed back to back, shall turn and fire immediately. If any man do not, the quartermaster shall knock the piece out of his hand. If both miss their aim they shall take to their cutlasses, and he that draweth first blood shall be declared the victor.
ARTICLE IX - No man shall talk of breaking up their way of living till each has a share of 1,000. Every man who shall become a cripple or lose a limb in the service shall have 800 pieces of eight from the common stock and for lesser hurts proportionately.
ARTICLE X - The captain and the quartermaster shall each receive two shares of a prize, the master gunner and boatswain, one and one half shares, all other officers one and one quarter, and private gentlemen of fortune one share each.
ARTICLE XI - The musicians shall have rest on the Sabbath Day only by right. On all other days by favour only.

And, of course, I tell the players up-front that this is the common approach taken by adventurers into the Undermountain, that they've heard of specific famous bands (some of whom might be encountered in the dungeon), and that they should draft up their own charter.

I've read a few Pirate Charters, but this is easily the funniest. Musicians playing six days a week? Quartermasters slapping guns out of people's hands mid-duel? Specific rules against bringing women disguised as men on board? It sounds more like Animal House than a gang of marauders.

I only wish my Players could come up with this kind of stuff.


The feeling of the company being the focus of the campaign comes from rotating characters: players get to have multiple PCs if they want. Each PC has their own pool of henchmen. Henchmen can be graduated into PCs. It's obviously a better idea to bring some henchmen along on expeditions rather than multiple PCs, as that means you get more XP, since henchmen only get ½ shares; treasure XP is split this way, separately from the split of the treasure, since everyone gets an equal share of that anyway.

This party-splitting and rotating will also be encouraged by weeks-long level-up training times, spell research (PC wizards can't go around buying spells, they have to find them or research them; priests have to research any spells from outside of the PHB that they want), and weapon and non-weapon proficiency training (basically, money + time = extra proficiency slots).

This is all mainly for the Undermountain game, but I think a lot of it will apply to the Dark Sun game.

Of course, a lot of this may change if/when I start converting to ACKS

Less than you might imagine;

Henchman loyalty is a huge issue for any party; if you stiff Nodwick on his share of the treasure, or give him reason to think you're planning to, you'll be lucky if he doesn't try to kill you before he runs off with half of your goodies. And if you think he's going to walk down that possibly-trapped hallway first, you're crazy.

Heck, even hardened mercenaries will explicitly never go into a dungeon for love or money; you need to find people with enough of a death wish to walk in the door, then talk compensation.

With the training times, the game sort of covers it already; experience from treasure (~80% of all XP) is only calculated when all goodies are brought back to civilization and converted to coin. Not to mention that both healing and changing Spells in a Mage's Repertoire take days or weeks of non-dungeony conditions. Plus, if the characters want to establish an "XP Reserve" for making sure their next characters don't have to be former henchmen or 1st level losers they have to spend extravagantly and pointlessly, which usually requires a town.

[Rhynn]

Pirate aside:

I've read a few Pirate Charters, but this is easily the funniest. Musicians playing six days a week? Quartermasters slapping guns out of people's hands mid-duel? Specific rules against bringing women disguised as men on board? It sounds more like Animal House than a gang of marauders.

History is awesome. Many pirate charters actually had provisions for the treatment of women. (Including in at least one case severe punishments for abusing or molesting women.) Pirates are wildly mythologicized - most by far preferred to take their loot without a fight, did not harm anyone who surrendered, and many did not rob the crew's personal effects. Where the rules got harsh was the treatment of traitors and thieves and mutineers among the crew (a pirate could on mutiny during battle, essentially, because outside of battle, the captain and officers were elected by the crew).

Obviously, most pirates loved to have a terrifying reputation, but if your civilian targets knew that they'd get away with their ship and their lives (and their personal possessions!) if they gave up their employer's cargo, they were pretty apt to surrender.

Bart Roberts, incidentally, was a completely amazing pirate. He only operated from 1719 to 1722, but in that time he single-handedly ruined Caribbean shipping so that he actually had to seek new prey on the West African coast. He famously attacked, with one ship, a fleet of 42 Portuguese ships (with 140 guns between two men-of-war, and plenty of guns on the rest), boarded two of them, and took off with his booty.


Henchman loyalty is a huge issue for any party; if you stiff Nodwick on his share of the treasure, or give him reason to think you're planning to, you'll be lucky if he doesn't try to kill you before he runs off with half of your goodies. And if you think he's going to walk down that possibly-trapped hallway first, you're crazy.

Heck, even hardened mercenaries will explicitly never go into a dungeon for love or money; you need to find people with enough of a death wish to walk in the door, then talk compensation.

With the training times, the game sort of covers it already; experience from treasure (~80% of all XP) is only calculated when all goodies are brought back to civilization and converted to coin. Not to mention that both healing and changing Spells in a Mage's Repertoire take days or weeks of non-dungeony conditions. Plus, if the characters want to establish an "XP Reserve" for making sure their next characters don't have to be former henchmen or 1st level losers they have to spend extravagantly and pointlessly, which usually requires a town.

Awesome. That - like most of ACKS! - seems to be straight out of the OSR blogs I've been reading and that have informed my game. I basically do all of that already; only leveled henchmen will go into dungeons (0-level mercs won't), treasure has to be brought to civilization, etc.

Where are the rules for the XP reserve and extravagant spending? I love carousing for XP -rules, but the "Carousing" in ACKS appears to be something different. (I sorta want something more sophisticated then Conan d20's "you spend 50% of your cash-on-hand per week until you're down to double digits" or whatever it was.)

[Water_Bear]

Where are the rules for the XP reserve and extravagant spending? I love carousing for XP -rules, but the "Carousing" in ACKS appears to be something different. (I sorta want something more sophisticated then Conan d20's "you spend 50% of your cash-on-hand per week until you're down to double digits" or whatever it was.)

Like most of the best rules in ACK, it's buried unlabeled in a barely related part of the rules (p. 115, third and fourth paragraphs of "Character Death").

Technically it isn't like most carousing/orgy rules I've seen, because it isn't limited to carousing and orgying. Out of the three examples they give one fits that mold ("wine, women and song"), one which is a bit more traditionally honorable ("elaborate funeral pyres for deceased henchmen"), and one fits a more modern kind of heroism ("anonymous tithes to churches"). I like it because as fun as bacchanals are it can be a little hard for your pious Cleric or honorable knight to fit that into their character.

[Rhynn]

So I'm giving the rules a combination of a thorough read and an enthusiastic skimming-ahead, and I am loving all the little details. PC mages creating dungeons to harvest monster parts - finally dungeons make (some) sense! I also love the capacity and support for a long, long campaign: PCs retiring or semi-retiring into their domains and strongholds, new PCs adventuring in dungeons created by older PCs (living or dead). I fully expected that both my Undermountain and my Dark Sun campaigns would require adaptation, but a lot of stuff just jumps out as fitting perfectly in both: mages creating sanctums and dungeons is just perfect. My very first idea for the AD&D Dark Sun was that King Kalak's ziggurat would serve as a centerpiece dungeon; so the White-Gold Tower is his sanctum, the ziggurat is his dungeon. The Sorcerer-Kings will either be 14th-level mages or some psychic-sorcerer campaign class.

[SiuiS]

I'm in the odd and awkward position of finding the rules somewhat bland as i read, because the PDF cannot be transferred to my phone and I have to read it piecemeal. I'm ambivalent to the individual bits.

However, the specifics, the combinations and the system that emerges from te combination, I love it, conceptually. This means i need a hard copy (and am seriously thinking of typing it all out on like, Microsoft word and emailing it to myself for printing at work), and it must be played at a table, play by post would require so much that a lot would be lost of the original charm.



Also, to the previous question about why some people are purists about not adapting the game so much; I have an answer.

See, I'm chasing the dream. I've been reading D&D books – specifically 1e, as my go-to fluff establisher – since I was six. There are things, world spin in the words that I've always wanted to play... And nothing hurts more than a game that is almost the Dream, could be if but a few concessions were made, but instead runs off in a bizarre, noneuclidian parallel, never to touch yet soon to depart the goal.
Some people at heart want the background to be static for the same reason an addict wants another hit- hoping to get that original high back. I'm seeking the Northern Shore, and I know it by the configuration of the stars over the horizon.

[Water_Bear]

The Sorcerer-Kings will either be 14th-level mages or some psychic-sorcerer campaign class.

If you have Player's Companion, the Nobiran Wonderworker (or Munchkin Wonderworker as I call it) Campaign Class sounds great for this.

They get both the full Mage Arcane progression and the Cleric Divine progression with all the Magical Research / Necromancy stuff that goes along with it, plus assorted goodies like agelessness and immunity to disease. Plus, due to their class requirements, every Ability will be above 11, and as spellcasters their Prime Requisites (Int and Wis) will likely be high. And while they don't go to the human limit of 14th level, their cap is all the way at 12th so they're still absolute beasts in the end-game.

As godlike spellcasters draining the lands around them and commanding the worship of cities, I'd say they're at the least a good base.

[SiuiS]

How is the players companion? I was worried it would be another power creep cherry pik toolbox, and that was before this guy came up! Does it just mod a bunch of classes? Is there much you couldn't get from proficiencies?

[Rhynn]

Does the Player's Companion have actual rules for creating campaign classes? I'm going to have to come up with a bunch... gnomes and halflings (at least) for FR/Undermountain and my own setting, probably more elves (some sort of druid-priest-elder at least), a half-elf "gypsy" class for my setting, psionics (and probably warrior-psionics and sneak-psionics) for Dark Sun, cannibal halfling warriors and their psionic-arcane-divine priest-leaders, mul gladiators, thri-kreen, etc. ... I'd love to have some guidelines on hand for all of this. :smalleek: (I'm sort of loving the idea of race classes after so many years: I'm totally okay with thri-kreen and muls only having one class, for instance.)

A lot of "classes" can obviously be done with proficiencies (maybe bonus starting proficiencies in exchange for increased XP requirements): paladins as fighters with access to cleric proficiencies, druids as clerics with Beast Friend, etc., maybe some new proficiencies for gladiators, and so on.

[Machpants]

The players c has a massive section on creating classes. All broken down to the nth degree. So if you want to make classes that books is for you.

[SiuiS]

Does the Player's Companion have actual rules for creating campaign classes? I'm going to have to come up with a bunch... gnomes and halflings (at least) for FR/Undermountain and my own setting, probably more elves (some sort of druid-priest-elder at least), a half-elf "gypsy" class for my setting, psionics (and probably warrior-psionics and sneak-psionics) for Dark Sun, cannibal halfling warriors and their psionic-arcane-divine priest-leaders, mul gladiators, thri-kreen, etc. ... I'd love to have some guidelines on hand for all of this. :smalleek: (I'm sort of loving the idea of race classes after so many years: I'm totally okay with thri-kreen and muls only having one class, for instance.)

A lot of "classes" can obviously be done with proficiencies (maybe bonus starting proficiencies in exchange for increased XP requirements): paladins as fighters with access to cleric proficiencies, druids as clerics with Beast Friend, etc., maybe some new proficiencies for gladiators, and so on.

I know the paladin gets some treatment in the next book, so finding a copy woul be key (of the paladin, I mean) to seeing if is easy to reverse engineer. An explorer with elven blood and some other stuff could be a gypsy, bu is that sufficient? Who knows.

Making campaign classes is pretty much what I am worried about; my go to frontier setting has all sorts of racially enforced variants. Those would be hard to do from scratch with just the four base classes... I think.

[Rhynn]

The players c has a massive section on creating classes. All broken down to the nth degree. So if you want to make classes that books is for you.

Excellent!


I know the paladin gets some treatment in the next book, so finding a copy woul be key (of the paladin, I mean) to seeing if is easy to reverse engineer. An explorer with elven blood and some other stuff could be a gypsy, bu is that sufficient? Who knows.

Well, my half-elf gypsy idea is essentially a bard or a fighter/magic-user/thief. It could probably be done as a bard with Elven Bloodline. I originally got the idea of making my half-elves a travelling minority everyone is unfairly bigoted towards from the AD&D 2E Complete Bard's Handbook and the Gypsy Bard kit. Basically, half-elves are mostly born to human women by elf travellers or adventurers, are usually discriminated against as "fey" (often, if the woman was married and won't fess up to adultery, half-elf "gypsies" are accused of stealing a child an leaving a "changeling" once the elf blood becomes obvious).

[Water_Bear]

How is the players companion? I was worried it would be another power creep cherry pik toolbox, and that was before this guy came up! Does it just mod a bunch of classes? Is there much you couldn't get from proficiencies?

Aside from that guy, the Mystic (Monk) which has four Prime Requisites and is bad at fighting, and the hilarious typo which gives Paladins Dark Fortresses it's an excellent book. The rules for making campaign classes are pretty solid; you actually can't even make the Munchkin Wonderworker with those rules, which I count as a huge plus even if it raises some questions.


I'm going to have to come up with a bunch... gnomes and halflings (at least) for FR/Undermountain and my own setting, probably more elves (some sort of druid-priest-elder at least), a half-elf "gypsy" class for my setting, psionics (and probably warrior-psionics and sneak-psionics) for Dark Sun, cannibal halfling warriors and their psionic-arcane-divine priest-leaders, mul gladiators, thri-kreen, etc. ... I'd love to have some guidelines on hand for all of this. :smalleek: (I'm sort of loving the idea of race classes after so many years: I'm totally okay with thri-kreen and muls only having one class, for instance.)

There's already one Gnome class, a Lizardman Gladiator class, a bunch of Elves, but no Halflings :smallfrown:. But yeah, that sounds like a lot of work, you might want to take it the Autarch forums if you want good advice on the specifics of the system.

[Tavis]

Here is some stuff on Dark Sun for ACKS:
http://muleabides.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/dark-sun-meets-acks/
http://ironlands.blogspot.com/2012/07/dark-sun-hack-for-acks.html

[Rhynn]

Thanks! That's gonna come in handy. :smallbiggrin:

[SiuiS]

Well, my half-elf gypsy idea is essentially a bard or a fighter/magic-user/thief. It could probably be done as a bard with Elven Bloodline. I originally got the idea of making my half-elves a travelling minority everyone is unfairly bigoted towards from the AD&D 2E Complete Bard's Handbook and the Gypsy Bard kit. Basically, half-elves are mostly born to human women by elf travellers or adventurers, are usually discriminated against as "fey" (often, if the woman was married and won't fess up to adultery, half-elf "gypsies" are accused of stealing a child an leaving a "changeling" once the elf blood becomes obvious).


Nice. I actually had something similar but let the details erode from neglect. I may pinch this if lookin over the old documents doesn't jog my memory...


Aside from that guy, the Mystic (Monk) which has four Prime Requisites and is bad at fighting, and the hilarious typo which gives Paladins Dark Fortresses it's an excellent book. The rules for making campaign classes are pretty solid; you actually can't even make the Munchkin Wonderworker with those rules, which I count as a huge plus even if it raises some questions.

Haha hahaha snort~



There's already one Gnome class, a Lizardman Gladiator class, a bunch of Elves, but no Halflings :smallfrown:. But yeah, that sounds like a lot of work, you might want to take it the Autarch forums if you want good advice on the specifics of the system.

Oh ho, dedicated forum? I'm there.

[Matthew]

Not my mug of tea, but as mentioned above, good for what it is.

[SiuiS]

Not my mug of tea, but as mentioned above, good for what it is.

I'm surprised, luv. I would have thought it was your kind of thing, from what I remember. Any specific thing turn you off, or just a general sense of 'meh'?

[Matthew]

I'm surprised, luv. I would have thought it was your kind of thing, from what I remember. Any specific thing turn you off, or just a general sense of 'meh'?

The specific correlation between levels and power was a major turn off, but that is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the design philosophy that flows from that assumption.

[thirdkingdom]

If anyone's interested I'm getting ready to start recruiting for an ACKS hexcrawl over on the Unseen Servant forums. Interest thread can be found here: http://www.unseenservant.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1273

It will pretty much be a by the book sandbox game.

[Kiero]

My face-to-face game is no longer a figment of my imagination, but a real thing! I had a lengthy discussion with my group last night and we'll be playing it. Premise generation with characters next week, and maybe a start. We'll be podcasting as usual on our site (http://insanitywetrust.wordpress.com/).

[SiuiS]

If anyone's interested I'm getting ready to start recruiting for an ACKS hexcrawl over on the Unseen Servant forums. Interest thread can be found here: http://www.unseenservant.us/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1273

It will pretty much be a by the book sandbox game.

I'm all over that, but I need some information first so I don't commit without following through.

What is the setting? I have only the core book, so any Aura stuff is beyond my grasp. Especially since it involves signing up for another message board.

How much background do you need on a character?
Scratch that; this game looks like everything I've ever wanted out of these sorts of games. I'm awaiting verification, but I'm all for trying to join :smallsmile:

How often do you expect to post?


My face-to-face game is no longer a figment of my imagination, but a real thing! I had a lengthy discussion with my group last night and we'll be playing it. Premise generation with characters next week, and maybe a start. We'll be podcasting as usual on our site (http://insanitywetrust.wordpress.com/).

Sweet. Will keep an eye on.
My own game is slowly building steam. Only snag is forcing people to set aside time instead of saying "oh, you know. Whatever is good for you is fine." Damn dirty noncommittal...

[thirdkingdom]

Posting expectation is a minimum of once per day for players. I'm pretty strict about that. Real life stuff always takes precedence, but if someone is obviously not keeping up with the rest of the group for long periods of time I gently suggest a slower paced game might fit them better.

[SiuiS]

Bangerang. I will be showing up under the name Hrafn, then.

[thirdkingdom]

Bangerang. I will be showing up under the name Hrafn, then.

Cool. The recruitment thread will be up this coming Monday. I shall save you a spot.

[thirdkingdom]

One of the things that I think ACKS does so well is the explicit use of randomness for setting generation, most noticeably in the realm of random wilderness encounters. This makes it perfect for the hexcrawl, plot-hook (as opposed to plot) driven style of play.

This is accomplished though the line "% appearing in lair" found in each monster stat block. This line can be found in other games, but is specifically used in ACKS to populate the world, and is used thusly: every time you roll a random encounter check the percentage found in lair. If you roll under the given number it means the party has stumbled upon not just an individual creature but its lair as well -- which could be an orc village, a sunken temple that a hydra has taken up residence in, etc. In other words, it generates plot hooks on the spot. For instance, let us assume a wilderness encounter check results in a swarm of bats that happen to be in their lair. Instead of "a swarm of bats flies around you" it could be "the swarm of bats emerges from a sinkhole in the ground before you. Peering over the edge you behold a shaft ten feet deep that opens up into a room with walls of quarried stone. Strange carvings adorn the walls."

To carry the thought forward, assume goblins are the result of an encounter check. They have a 40% chance of being in their lair. Now, I will take some multiplier if that chance to check and see if the lair is in the same hex. So, on a roll of 1-40 a goblin lair (or dungeon, of which the lair is the first part) is discovered. On a roll of 41-80 the lair is not discovered but it is in the current hex. I make a note of that, and a goblin lair has now been added to the map. With some more searching the PCs could discover the lair itself.

[Rhynn]

I finished my 6-mile-hex map of the Tablelands of Athas and surroundings (I had a 5-mile-hex map based on the old black-and-white Tablelands map that covered a smaller area).

Going chapter-by-chapter through ACKS now and making notes for my Dark Sun campaign (and somewhat less notes for my Undermountain/Waterdeep/Savage Frontier campaign and Hyborian campaigns). Everything just seems to fit in so perfectly well... for instance, alignment:

Alignment: The struggle of Law and Chaos is central to the state and the fate of Athas. Essentially, Chaos drives the extinction and ruin of the world and Law opposes it.

Law: Civilization, long-term survival, templars, preservers, Elemental clerics who serve civilization and seek to improve the world and protect or restore nature.
Neutrality: Elements, Elemental clerics who seclude themselves from civilization.
Chaos: Sorcerer-Kings, the Dragon of Tyr, defilers, clerics of corrupted or "negative" Elements.


I think Lawful templars/clerics serving Chaotic Sorcerer-Kings fits right into Athas' twisted nature.

Naturally, this being Athas, clerics don't get powers from gods. Many of them worship gods (not "real") or land spirits (real), and templars worship Sorcerer-Kings... I like the idea of "false faiths" being very popular (if somewhat suppressed by Sorcerer-Kings). Clerics use elemental power, either directly or through a Sorcerer-King. I'm integrating Dark Sun paraelements and probably adding in "negative quasi-elements":

Sun: Fire, or Earth and Fire
Rain: Water, or Air and Water
Silt: Earth, or Earth and Water
Sun: Fire, or Air and Fire
Vacuum (Air)
Dust (Earth)
Ash (Fire)
Salt (Water)


I'm also coming up with classes to create - I got my hands on the Player's Companion but haven't started reading through it yet. So far:

Dwarven Earth Priest (cleric)
Dwarven Sun Speaker (cleric)
Elven Desert Runner (explorer?)
Elven Trader (PC courtier or trader)
Elven Windsinger (cleric)
Half-Giant Brute (high HD fighter-type with high XP requirements)
Halfling Renegade (assassin/explorer)
Halfling Rain Priest (cleric)
Mul Gladiator (fighter-type with higher HD)
Thri-Kreen Tik (hunter; fighter or explorer type)


I'm going to need a psionics system. I'll probably base it on AD&D 1E but make it more like Carcosa's... something simple, maybe a couple of dozen powers to cover the basics (telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, attacks and defenses). I'd appreciate any tips anyone has for old-school D&D-style psionic systems!

[SiuiS]

What do you want out of a psionics system? From what I recall it was broader in scope than magic, just as particular with individual powers as individual spells are, and fiddly; you had an even chance of disintegrating yourself as you did perfectly enacting the power at maximum threshold.

I think Proficiencies would cover the biggest divergences. You could have a generic system which is specialized through proficiency selection.

[Rhynn]

Basically I'm almost satisfied with something like Carcosa: you have a % chance (based on Int, Wis, and Cha scores) of being psionic and having a random power (from a list of maybe 12). I just want to expand it, probably include the AD&D 1E attack/defense matrix (but not the insanely complicated and poorly defined offensive/defensive strength system)...

I could also go more Gamma World/Mutant Future with it: if you're psychic, roll from a table for an ability, or a couple. (Maybe with an extra chance to be telepathic.) Telepaths could make mental attacks (give them a Mental Attack Throw, mental AC is, say, Wis and Int Cha modifiers added up).

I'm actually not sure if it needs to be a whole "spellcasting" type (arcane, divine, psionic) with its own class(es) - maybe? Many/most of the abilities can just be "as the spell" (charm mammal/monster/person, clairvoyance, command word, confusion, ESP, etc.). I'm probably going to convert/come up with some new Athasian spells anyway, so I may as well add some specifically for psionics.

[Rhynn]

Started a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285529) for my Dark Sun conversion. I might take it over to the ACKS forum at some point once I've got my house rules written down, for feedback (since Alexander Macris appears to post replies regularly), but frankly their forums are a bit ugly and clunky. :smallredface: And we've obviously got a decent ACKS crowd here, too.

[Kiero]

Started a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285529) for my Dark Sun conversion. I might take it over to the ACKS forum at some point once I've got my house rules written down, for feedback (since Alexander Macris appears to post replies regularly), but frankly their forums are a bit ugly and clunky. :smallredface: And we've obviously got a decent ACKS crowd here, too.

He does, and he's extremely helpful. :smallsmile:

[SiuiS]

So a point of interest; ACKS focuses a lot more on the game aspect rather than the roleplay, ad it is evident from character creation; You cannot come up with a character concept and then build it. The challenge is doing great with what the dice gods give you, immediately taking the focus from how to create the narrative you want to how to succeed with what is available.

This is one of those things that is misse in these discussions. Games like D&D actively incentivise yu to play them as a game with benchmarks by which to measure victory, whereas more narrative versions, even including D&D 4e, focus more on telling awesome stories first, rather than as a close second.

It is not something I have ever consciously noticed before, but it is something to think about.

[Kiero]

So a point of interest; ACKS focuses a lot more on the game aspect rather than the roleplay, ad it is evident from character creation; You cannot come up with a character concept and then build it. The challenge is doing great with what the dice gods give you, immediately taking the focus from how to create the narrative you want to how to succeed with what is available.

This is one of those things that is misse in these discussions. Games like D&D actively incentivise yu to play them as a game with benchmarks by which to measure victory, whereas more narrative versions, even including D&D 4e, focus more on telling awesome stories first, rather than as a close second.

It is not something I have ever consciously noticed before, but it is something to think about.

That's only if you stick to the 3d6 in order method provided. My group wanted at most semi-random, without the "you got stiffed, while that other player aced" problem. So we went with this:

Roll 1d6+12, then 2d6+6 twice. Roll 3d6 four times for the remaining three attributes, dropping the lowest roll, and assigning to taste. This generates an array. You may choose to use either your array, or that of anyone else at the table.

[SiuiS]

That's only if you stick to the 3d6 in order method provided. My group wanted at most semi-random, without the "you got stiffed, while that other player aced" problem. So we went with this:

Roll 1d6+12, then 2d6+6 twice. Roll 3d6 four times for the remaining three attributes, dropping the lowest roll, and assigning to taste. This generates an array. You may choose to use either your array, or that of anyone else at the table.

Yes, if you stick to the rules as presented, because that's the only way to discuss rules in a vacuum, silly. That is my point; Your system is because you don't want to focus on the player overcoming a handicap, you want to focus on characters being awesome. Which is perfectly fine! It's actually my preferred method of gaming. But I am a big advocate of it being a well understood choice, and not jiust "I don't like this, let us change it". Noticing the fall out - that the entire mnetastructure of the game, player side, is different based on this one assumption - is a powerful position to be in. It means you can make meaningful choices.

This is that nebulous difference between hard core grognards, and more recent players. It's easy to miss that the very rules programmed them to respond a certain way, or that the subtle shift from random arrays to choice, even as far as point buy, wan't some attempt to make the player stronger, but to shift the game from a simulation of random adventurers in a dungeon to taking on a role and engaging in a story.

[Machpants]

Yes, if you stick to the rules as presented, because that's the only way to discuss rules in a vacuum, silly. That is my point; Your system is because you don't want to focus on the player overcoming a handicap, you want to focus on characters being awesome. Which is perfectly fine! It's actually my preferred method of gaming. But I am a big advocate of it being a well understood choice, and not jiust "I don't like this, let us change it". Noticing the fall out - that the entire mnetastructure of the game, player side, is different based on this one assumption - is a powerful position to be in. It means you can make meaningful choices.

This is that nebulous difference between hard core grognards, and more recent players. It's easy to miss that the very rules programmed them to respond a certain way, or that the subtle shift from random arrays to choice, even as far as point buy, wan't some attempt to make the player stronger, but to shift the game from a simulation of random adventurers in a dungeon to taking on a role and engaging in a story.

+1 well said

[Water_Bear]

If we're trying to put ACK in a GNS system, it's going to have to be simulationist.


The economy system was, in the words of it's designer, made with "23 interlocking spreadsheets" and many of the rules have been adjusted to better represent actual medieval politics and warfare.
The 3d6 down the line is hardcore, but it is harcore in a way which produces a bell curve of ability and the bonuses from ability scores have been adjusted to roughly match standard deviations. All of the alternate character generation methods listed are essentially just going through enough random people that you find an exceptional one.
The low hp and ACs combined with high weapon damage mean that even 14th level characters simply cannot ignore a crossbow bolt or a short fall. Even the toughest possible human (HP 109) is going to die jumping off Victoria Falls (35d6 ~= 122.5 damage).
You can actually build a 0th level merchant with no combat or adventuring skill whatsoever, level them up into a Venturer on a trade convoy and build a mercantile empire up to level 14 without taking or dealing a single hit-point of damage. There are actual rules to determine the difference between the price of wheat in any two cities.

I really love this game because it gives you all the tools to make a living world, and then lets you loose to explore it however you want. I'd say it's very close to my ideal simulationist game.

[Kiero]

Yes, if you stick to the rules as presented, because that's the only way to discuss rules in a vacuum, silly. That is my point; Your system is because you don't want to focus on the player overcoming a handicap, you want to focus on characters being awesome. Which is perfectly fine! It's actually my preferred method of gaming. But I am a big advocate of it being a well understood choice, and not jiust "I don't like this, let us change it". Noticing the fall out - that the entire mnetastructure of the game, player side, is different based on this one assumption - is a powerful position to be in. It means you can make meaningful choices.

This is that nebulous difference between hard core grognards, and more recent players. It's easy to miss that the very rules programmed them to respond a certain way, or that the subtle shift from random arrays to choice, even as far as point buy, wan't some attempt to make the player stronger, but to shift the game from a simulation of random adventurers in a dungeon to taking on a role and engaging in a story.

To a degree, yes. However, it also suggests you make five characters and take the one you prefer. That's not quite as simple as only getting one shot at a PC, which you've then got to live with.

EDIT: Also worth bearing in mind that in my game specifically, there's no magic. So no fast healing, no easy-out of combats, and no revolving door of resurrection.

Furthermore, If you check out the notes on starting with not-1st-level characters in the GM's section at the back, it also offers a much less random/more skewed towards awesome chargen method. I'd say the assumption there is if you're starting out higher, PCs have already passed through the dungeon-crawling winnowing process that weeds out the weak.

[SiuiS]

If we're trying to put ACK in a GNS system, it's going to have to be simulationist.

I like the terms, but I would rather avoid actually using GNS, as apparently the terms have specific meanings separate from just what they evoke language-wise.



The economy system was, in the words of it's designer, made with "23 interlocking spreadsheets" and many of the rules have been adjusted to better represent actual medieval politics and warfare.
The 3d6 down the line is hardcore, but it is harcore in a way which produces a bell curve of ability and the bonuses from ability scores have been adjusted to roughly match standard deviations. All of the alternate character generation methods listed are essentially just going through enough random people that you find an exceptional one.
The low hp and ACs combined with high weapon damage mean that even 14th level characters simply cannot ignore a crossbow bolt or a short fall. Even the toughest possible human (HP 109) is going to die jumping off Victoria Falls (35d6 ~= 122.5 damage).
You can actually build a 0th level merchant with no combat or adventuring skill whatsoever, level them up into a Venturer on a trade convoy and build a mercantile empire up to level 14 without taking or dealing a single hit-point of damage. There are actual rules to determine the difference between the price of wheat in any two cities.

I really love this game because it gives you all the tools to make a living world, and then lets you loose to explore it however you want. I'd say it's very close to my ideal simulationist game.

Oh, certainly. It is seriously the best system I've yet seen for the kinds of games I always strove for and couldn't find. But think about coming into ACKS with, say, D&D 4e assumptions; you can't be awesome, you can't even qualify for the character you want, and there's no guarantee the party will be in any way balanced or prepared for the world by virtue of their internal systems without the player being savvy. You would miss that an attribute between 9 and 13 inclusive is actually good, that not having at least one 18 or even a 16 is fine too, and that you're supposed to have camp followers.

ACKS is a great system for what it does. What I am surprised to be noticing for the first time is how well the rules work toward that goal, and how well indoctrinated I became in my youth.

Oddly, moving from simulation to a more role-play heavy system is less painful, or was for me and seems to have been for those few friends whose history O am privy to.


+1 well said

Oh, gosh. I don't think I've gotten one of those before :smallredface:


To a degree, yes. However, it also suggests you make five characters and take the one you prefer. That's not quite as simple as only getting one shot at a PC, which you've then got to live with.

That's true. You make three, cruelly, one primary and two back-up/henchmen. In going through that now, and the weight of the curve towards the 9-13 area is pretty severe. That's what prompted this thought process, or crystallized it.

The ability to sort of wiggle the attributes is a nod toward other gaming styles, I think.


Furthermore, If you check out the notes on starting with not-1st-level characters in the GM's section at the back, it also offers a much less random/more skewed towards awesome chargen method. I'd say the assumption there is if you're starting out higher, PCs have already passed through the dungeon-crawling winnowing process that weeds out the weak.

That is exactly what it is, actually. Very open about that, which is refreshing. There is the randomness still, however. Sure, rolling four times at 25% means you're liable to get an item (4*25=100 after all) but then you aren't guaranteed to get an item you can use, and it costs a hefty chunk of your total resources.

I've bounced around, from wanting to play an explorer, to a blade dancer because of my attribute arrays, to a shaman, to maybe being able to play the explorer after all if the other party members leave mapping and survival off their priorities. But the process itself has been an interesting almost mini game, and I've learned a lot about the system by slogging through char-gen that I didn't get through trying to actually dissect the ruleset. It's a rather fun and robust system, I think.

[Kiero]

Oh, certainly. It is seriously the best system I've yet seen for the kinds of games I always strove for and couldn't find. But think about coming into ACKS with, say, D&D 4e assumptions; you can't be awesome, you can't even qualify for the character you want, and there's no guarantee the party will be in any way balanced or prepared for the world by virtue of their internal systems without the player being savvy. You would miss that an attribute between 9 and 13 inclusive is actually good, that not having at least one 18 or even a 16 is fine too, and that you're supposed to have camp followers.

That's one element of the downside you get with totally random. However, the first objection, and the one I had to work hardest to mitigate was a different one. That being the fundamental unfairness of rolling poorly when another player rolled well. Not only do they get much more freedom in choosing a character, but they get a better character and bonus XP for their troubles.

A core part of the sell for my group was the shared array approach; everyone generates one, but anyone can use anyone elses (and non-exclusively; everyone could have the same one).

This isn't a four PCs against the world game, either. Henchmen are a vital part of what's going on, because without them the PCs wouldn't be taken seriously. Bear in mind also that there's no magic in this game, so no fast healing, no insta-win buttons, no resurrection. That initial cushion is to mitigate the fact that when play starts, there aren't any.

Henchmen are backups too, which is why we'll be making a few of those in chargen too (though they won't use quite so generous methods). We've also discussed playing up elements of troupe play with henchmen, too.

Hell, my custom character sheets have a whole page with room for six henchmen of note (PCs will have up to 4 +/- their Chr modifier).


That's true. You make three, cruelly, one primary and two back-up/henchmen. In going through that now, and the weight of the curve towards the 9-13 area is pretty severe. That's what prompted this thought process, or crystallized it.

The ability to sort of wiggle the attributes is a nod toward other gaming styles, I think.

Exactly. Even right up at the front, allowances are made for something more forgiving than 3d6 in order.


That is exactly what it is, actually. Very open about that, which is refreshing. There is the randomness still, however. Sure, rolling four times at 25% means you're liable to get an item (4*25=100 after all) but then you aren't guaranteed to get an item you can use, and it costs a hefty chunk of your total resources.

I've bounced around, from wanting to play an explorer, to a blade dancer because of my attribute arrays, to a shaman, to maybe being able to play the explorer after all if the other party members leave mapping and survival off their priorities. But the process itself has been an interesting almost mini game, and I've learned a lot about the system by slogging through char-gen that I didn't get through trying to actually dissect the ruleset. It's a rather fun and robust system, I think.

Yes, that robustness is what kept me with it. Ultimately, it's a very straightforward and fast rules-set, but then you can bash it around and achieve all sorts with the whole still functioning. The transparent way it's been written helps no end.

The other major facet of my group is that we always create characters by concept first, then approach the system. We like coherent groups of PCs that can be explained and skip the "getting to know you" phase at the beginning. We like them intermeshed with each other and starting play with reasons to stick together. Totally random characters is pretty anti that, and as above in a game like this that would discourage any sort of attachment to character.

[Rhynn]

So a point of interest; ACKS focuses a lot more on the game aspect rather than the roleplay, ad it is evident from character creation; You cannot come up with a character concept and then build it. The challenge is doing great with what the dice gods give you, immediately taking the focus from how to create the narrative you want to how to succeed with what is available.

I don't quite agree. With 5 series of rolls and the ability to move points around (and given that your ability scores don't matter that much, at least once they're at 9+), I find it pretty easy to decide, generally, what kind of character to make. (Obviously, deciding "I want to be the strongest and the toughest" isn't feasible, but there's few RPGs where it is.)

But it obviously does go for the OD&D "you play what the dice say" approach.


I really love this game because it gives you all the tools to make a living world, and then lets you loose to explore it however you want. I'd say it's very close to my ideal simulationist game.

That is exactly why I'm finding it perfect for me. Even HârnMaster/HârnWorld didn't manage this level of simulation.


As an aside, on bonus XP: one alternative from the OSR blogosphere I liked was reversing this. Remove prime requisites, and then you get +10% for an ability score at 3-5 and +5% at 6-8. You either learn fast to make up for your lack of ability, or you die.

[Water_Bear]

As an aside, on bonus XP: one alternative from the OSR blogosphere I liked was reversing this. Remove prime requisites, and then you get +10% for an ability score at 3-5 and +5% at 6-8. You either learn fast to make up for your lack of ability, or you die.

That was from Grognardia right?

I personally don't like it because it doesn't feel very realistic. People who lack natural talent have pretty long odds against ever catching up to someone who does, and people with a legitimate handicap tend to be out of the running entirely. That's not very fair, but then again what is.

Of course, there's no law saying ACK can't be run with something other than 3d6 down the line. Something like the D&D 3.5 Elite Array (Nonelite Array for Henchpersons or other low-rank NPCs), with 2:1 ability swapping into Prime Requisite if needed, seems more than generous enough for a "high power" ACK game.

[Rhynn]

That was from Grognardia right?

Most likely, yeah. I've read Grognardia more than any one other OSR blog. (Pity about it...)


I personally don't like it because it doesn't feel very realistic. People who lack natural talent have pretty long odds against ever catching up to someone who does, and people with a legitimate handicap tend to be out of the running entirely. That's not very fair, but then again what is.

Yeah, but it's not really a simulation thing, it's a story (or story simulation) thing. And it's not like +5%/+10% actually put you measurably ahead, it just means you level up slighty earlier.


Of course, there's no law saying ACK can't be run with something other than 3d6 down the line. Something like the D&D 3.5 Elite Array (Nonelite Array for Henchpersons or other low-rank NPCs), with 2:1 ability swapping into Prime Requisite if needed, seems more than generous enough for a "high power" ACK game.

Yup. The OSR is all about making up your own rules, after all. ACKS is just an exceptionally robust OSR toolkit. (But why no guidelines for creating races?!)

[SiuiS]

That's one element of the downside you get with totally random. However, the first objection, and the one I had to work hardest to mitigate was a different one. That being the fundamental unfairness of rolling poorly when another player rolled well. Not only do they get much more freedom in choosing a character, but they get a better character and bonus XP for their troubles.

I dunno. The odds of getting a 16 or higher on 3d6 is 4.7%, and the odds of someone else getting 5 or lower is likewise 4.7%, which from blatantly stealing surface results without knowing the actual math, makes me think the odds of two people rolling these at the same table to be (.047*.047=) .00221, or about a fifth of a percent. By rolling five times you further equalize the curve, guaranteeing that everyone has an average array, which is actually the point. The odds of being saddled with 'bad' stats while someone else gets 'good' stats is astronomical – made slightly easier because you select upward.

That is to say, I think this is elegantly handled and not really an issue.

Henchmen are backups too, which is why we'll be making a few of those in chargen too (though they won't use quite so generous methods). We've also discussed playing up elements of troupe play with henchmen, too.



Yes, that robustness is what kept me with it. Ultimately, it's a very straightforward and fast rules-set, but then you can bash it around and achieve all sorts with the whole still functioning. The transparent way it's been written helps no end.

The other major facet of my group is that we always create characters by concept first, then approach the system. We like coherent groups of PCs that can be explained and skip the "getting to know you" phase at the beginning. We like them intermeshed with each other and starting play with reasons to stick together. Totally random characters is pretty anti that, and as above in a game like this that would discourage any sort of attachment to character.

Indeed! I'm actually endeavoring to make that a reality by talking the other players into transparency! Most people are the "make a guy, bring him to the table, roll" type by default. By forcing people to work together and synergies before they are married to a concept... Admittedly, not as good as everyone starting out to synergize, right? But still good.


I don't quite agree. With 5 series of rolls and the ability to move points around (and given that your ability scores don't matter that much, at least once they're at 9+), I find it pretty easy to decide, generally, what kind of character to make. (Obviously, deciding "I want to be the strongest and the toughest" isn't feasible, but there's few RPGs where it is.)

Yes, but this hearkens back to those conceits I mentioned. It takes some mental effort, at first, to shift your parameters. Most players go in for a minimum bonus amount before they are good enough. In ACKS that minimum is +1, and I had an array which looked limiting but quote frankly would have been fine at any class.



As an aside, on bonus XP: one alternative from the OSR blogosphere I liked was reversing this. Remove prime requisites, and then you get +10% for an ability score at 3-5 and +5% at 6-8. You either learn fast to make up for your lack of ability, or you die.

Interesting. More importantly it is incentive to use low attributes. I think it falls apart though because you only get bonus XP for your prime requisite, not in general.



Yup. The OSR is all about making up your own rules, after all. ACKS is just an exceptionally robust OSR toolkit. (But why no guidelines for creating races?!)

Huh. I haven't crashed the class creation section just yet, but wouldn't that cover it?

[Kiero]

I dunno. The odds of getting a 16 or higher on 3d6 is 4.7%, and the odds of someone else getting 5 or lower is likewise 4.7%, which from blatantly stealing surface results without knowing the actual math, makes me think the odds of two people rolling these at the same table to be (.047*.047=) .00221, or about a fifth of a percent. By rolling five times you further equalize the curve, guaranteeing that everyone has an average array, which is actually the point. The odds of being saddled with 'bad' stats while someone else gets 'good' stats is astronomical – made slightly easier because you select upward.

That is to say, I think this is elegantly handled and not really an issue.

Irrespective of the odds, in reality it happens. Especially with something as swingy and safety-net-less as 3d6 in order. We've all seen people on good or bad streaks with the dice, the last thing you need is to be having that on chargen day. A bad roll at chargen sabotages your character for the entirety of its existence, where a bad roll in play merely does so until the next roll.

Rolling five times just turns it into a chore, which is why I've gone with everyone rolls once (with skew towards better results), then chooses whichever array they like. So if someone is having a good day, and another a bad one, no one gets stiffed.

That's without getting into the constraining nature of "in order". As before, my group don't do "roll the dice, see what we get, then work it out". I know that works for some groups, but it's not our style. After our last discussion, everyone has a pretty good idea of what they want to play, and that's before we even get to talking mechanics.


Indeed! I'm actually endeavoring to make that a reality by talking the other players into transparency! Most people are the "make a guy, bring him to the table, roll" type by default. By forcing people to work together and synergies before they are married to a concept... Admittedly, not as good as everyone starting out to synergize, right? But still good.

Yeah, groupgen is has been our MO for the longest time. At the very least you discuss what you're thinking about on email before we get there, but turning up with a fully-formed character without any reference to the group isn't on for us.

[SiuiS]

In order makes it harder, yes. I find a high wisdom can become a high anything else though, due to shuffling. It's a mini game. Fun.


A request; I didn't put the ACK:players companion on my phone. Could someone with access tell me the weapon proficiencies of a shaman? I'm specifically looking for darts, and which hand and a half weapons they have. All i remember is "you get tribal weapons like axes and stuff", too generic >_<

[Rhynn]

Huh. I haven't crashed the class creation section just yet, but wouldn't that cover it?

Nope. (Unless I've totally missed it reading over the sections again and again.) I mean, you can cobble them together (I just did yesterday, creating Athasian half-giants, haflings, thri-kreen, and muls), but there's:

No guidelines for the XP costs of Race Value. They follow no logical progression that I can see or unravel. Elf Value 0 has 4 custom powers for 125 XP, Dwarf Value 0 has 5 for 200 XP, Thrassian has 6 fo 200 XP, and Zaharan has 3 for 200 XP, and it just gets worse from there. I just went with 25 XP per custom power for Value 0 and then completely fudged the rest. (It's easy if they provide Mage like Elves or Superior Fighting, etc., but other than that...)
No guidelines for XP requirement increases after 8th level for race. I just fudged that.
No cost given for increased HP after 9th level. (Which dwarves get.)


Also, the one thing that seems to be missing for classes is a statement on which Proficiencies Gained per Level scheme to use (fighter, thief/cleric, or mage), but I figure that's just "what do you save as?" Or maybe Fighting Value... or which one of Fighting, Arcane, Divine, and Thievery is highest.

Creating classes is dead easy once you have a functional race, but that's about it. I really am very pleased with how easy it was to create classes once you have a race, but I had to largely fudge and eyeball my own races.

For instance, I gave the Mul race Endurance and Savage Resilience, priced that at 50 XP (since 25 is obviousy the "unit," and adding "Diplomacy and Protocol" to the elf race costs 25 XP), and values 1-4 stack with Hit Dice Value, which let me create the Mul Gladiator as a Fighter with 1d10 HD (and some special abilities in exchange for limiting the armor selection). The Half-giant got a similar treatment, and my half-giant brute has 1d12 HD, +3/2 attack throw progression, and can't advance beyond level 8. (Which mostly makes it a great henchman, which makes perfect sense in-world.)


A request; I didn't put the ACK:players companion on my phone. Could someone with access tell me the weapon proficiencies of a shaman? I'm specifically looking for darts, and which hand and a half weapons they have. All i remember is "you get tribal weapons like axes and stuff", too generic >_<

Club, dagger, hand axe, short sword, staff, spear. It does say "only with common tribal weapons such as", but that comes out to a full 6 (narrow weapon choice, taking "any 3 weapons" twice). You could switch any of those around, in theory (I don't know why short sword is a common tribal weapon).

[SiuiS]

Creating classes is dead easy once you have a functional race, but that's about it. I really am very pleased with how easy it was to create classes once you have a race, but I had to largely fudge and eyeball my own races.


That's quite a mess!
And from what I can tell, proficiency (or class proficiency) follows attack throw progression quote literally. I had to puzzle that out because i couldn't find the level advancement bit for player's companion classes.



Club, dagger, hand axe, short sword, staff, spear. It does say "only with common tribal weapons such as", but that comes out to a full 6 (narrow weapon choice, taking "any 3 weapons" twice). You could switch any of those around, in theory (I don't know why short sword is a common tribal weapon).

Dang. That looks like not a single bastard weapon in the lot.
Ah well, should have time to look before i tuck in.

And short sword as a tribal weapon is because a short sword may as well be a Bowie knife as much as the traditional interpretation. I plan on getting darts which are functionally the glaive from Krull.

[SiuiS]

And from what I can tell, proficiency (or class proficiency) follows attack throw progression quote literally. I had to puzzle that out because i couldn't find the level advancement bit for player's companion classes.

Confirmed, had a chance to read the whole thing instead of hunt and peck;


GAINING PROFICIENCIES
All characters may choose one additional proficiency from the
general list at levels 5, 9, and (if maximum level permits) 13.
Characters may choose one additional proficiency chosen from
their class list each time they complete a full (2-point) saving
throw progression. Thus, fighters get a new proficiency from
their class list at level 3, 6, 9, and 12; clerics and thieves get a
new proficiency from their class list at 4, 8, and 12; and mages
get a new proficiency from their class list at 6 and 12.

[Rhynn]

Dang. That looks like not a single bastard weapon in the lot.
Ah well, should have time to look before i tuck in.

You mean one-handed weapons that can be used two-handed for extra damage? Shamans only get the spear, which is the king of weapons. :smallcool:

[SiuiS]

You mean one-handed weapons that can be used two-handed for extra damage? Shamans only get the spear, which is the king of weapons. :smallcool:

I noticed that and am ecstatic. The balance there really pushes the idea of fighters being good, too; sword and shield +1 AC, drop shield, +1 damage, pull a dagger, +1 attack. Add in fighting styles and fighter melee bonus and you've got a heady, versatile brew!

Of course, I can also morph into a python, which is arguably better (constriction! Free hunting! Better armor!) but then I'm down spells. It's going to be interesting though, I tell you what.

So glad to find the spear was versatile... And could be set for a charge~

[Rhynn]

So glad to find the spear was versatile... And could be set for a charge~

Yeah, it's pretty much intentionally the best "basic" weapon (until you get to find out most magic weapons are swords, anyway), to encourage its use, according to Alex Macris on the ACKS forums.

[Kiero]

Yeah, it's pretty much intentionally the best "basic" weapon (until you get to find out most magic weapons are swords, anyway), to encourage its use, according to Alex Macris on the ACKS forums.

I don't think it's a surprise that in my magic-free game, virtually everyone carries a spear if they intend to be in melee. Even the archer has one for those times he might get caught fighting in melee on horseback.

[shadow_archmagi]

So, the primary selling point of ACKS is that at level 9 you become a Knight/Archmage/Thief Lord and carve out your own little domain where you get to be the big dog and have an army and be a part of the world and pretend you're playing Crusader Kings 2.

However, doesn't level 9 seem a little... late? Does that mean that the first eight levels of the game are just regular old early-edition D&D?

It seems weird that ACK, is, well, two-thirds A and one-third CK, given that the CK is the primary innovation.

[Kiero]

So, the primary selling point of ACKS is that at level 9 you become a Knight/Archmage/Thief Lord and carve out your own little domain where you get to be the big dog and have an army and be a part of the world and pretend you're playing Crusader Kings 2.

However, doesn't level 9 seem a little... late? Does that mean that the first eight levels of the game are just regular old early-edition D&D?

It seems weird that ACK, is, well, two-thirds A and one-third CK, given that the CK is the primary innovation.

You start gathering a meaningful personal retinue from around level 5.

ACKS also cleans up and represents the old D&D rules, not a trivial undertaking.

[Rhynn]

The only thing being level 9 does is get you free stuff. Fighters don't have to pay to find their free mercenaries, and clerics outright get divine help to reduce the cost of building their stronghold, demi-humans get free defenders, etc. You can secure a domain - by whatever means, conquest, settlement, fealty, etc. - at any level, theoretically. I'm still in Chapter 6, but on a quick skim I see nothing in the rules for domains that requires being level 9+.

Indeed, the XP for Domain and Mercantile Income table (p. 146) starts at level 1. Note that because of the thresholds, a level 1 fiefholder is going to level up fast at first.

There is a "natural" barrier, though: unless someone else gives you a domain, you need to get a whole lot of treasure to afford starting one in the borderlands or wilderness. If you've gotten a whole lot of treasure, you've gotten a whole lot of XP for it.

Obviously there's nothing to keep you from running a game where, say, the PCs are vassal knights or something similar.

[shadow_archmagi]

Also, I had some confusion regarding rerolling after character death.

Normally, your new character is a level 1 character, just like when the game starts. However, by spending money on useless things, you can transmute GP to XP, and that XP goes into a pool for your new character.

However, the game also suggests things like leaving a will, designating an heir, and beginning play as one of your henchmen who is ascending. Do these stack? Say my 9th level fighter Steve-Steve names his 7th level henchman Dave-Steve as his heir, then goes to the bargain brothel and rents a small army of concubines before expiring during the night. Dave-Steve becomes the PC, collects the XP from the pool, and thus increases from 7th to 8th level, thus meaning that only one level was lost with the tragic overconfidence of Steve-Steve?

[Rhynn]

Normally, your new character is a level 1 character, just like when the game starts. However, by spending money on useless things, you can transmute GP to XP, and that XP goes into a pool for your new character.

However, the game also suggests things like leaving a will, designating an heir, and beginning play as one of your henchmen who is ascending. Do these stack? Say my 9th level fighter Steve-Steve names his 7th level henchman Dave-Steve as his heir, then goes to the bargain brothel and rents a small army of concubines before expiring during the night. Dave-Steve becomes the PC, collects the XP from the pool, and thus increases from 7th to 8th level, thus meaning that only one level was lost with the tragic overconfidence of Steve-Steve?

I read it (page 115) as an either-or thing from the wording. Heirs benefit from inheritance and an XP pool; henchmen don't. But I don't see any reason, as Judge, to not allow a henchman-turned-PC to get the reserve XP. It seems simplest: whether you roll a new character or make a henchman into a PC, they get the reserve XP. This may level them up. Clearly it's a good idea to build some huge monuments and an impressive mausoleum and commission a bunch of poems about your exploits before going off to certain death.

[Rhynn]

Going over the Mortal Wounds and Tampering With Mortality tables, I noticed that Tampering With Mortality result 1-5/6 implies that you make reaction rolls even for non-intelligent Undead. I somehow like that: obviously they're not going to be terribly helpful, but there's a chance a bunch of skeletons is just going to stand there and stare at you creepily.

[SiuiS]

So, the primary selling point of ACKS is that at level 9 you become a Knight/Archmage/Thief Lord and carve out your own little domain where you get to be the big dog and have an army and be a part of the world and pretend you're playing Crusader Kings 2.

However, doesn't level 9 seem a little... late? Does that mean that the first eight levels of the game are just regular old early-edition D&D?

It seems weird that ACK, is, well, two-thirds A and one-third CK, given that the CK is the primary innovation.

Not quite. The XP division means that you slow down in advancement when you come into your prime, prolonging it. And there is the steady buildup; starting a game at 20,000 XP and I've already got workshop for the creation of minor magic items. Next comes someplace to protect yourself while using it, and the money would seem to come pouring in...

You also don't exactly stop. You hit 14th level, you've nowhere to go on paper, but you're still running a kingdom. You could retire, but why? You've just gotten started.

That the choices available continue to be meaningful is a good bit of the point. You enter 'conqueror' at sixth level, on average, which is not too hard to achieve. You become a major player fast. Whether you continue to murderhobo or play politics is your call.


Also, I had some confusion regarding rerolling after character death.

Normally, your new character is a level 1 character, just like when the game starts. However, by spending money on useless things, you can transmute GP to XP, and that XP goes into a pool for your new character.

However, the game also suggests things like leaving a will, designating an heir, and beginning play as one of your henchmen who is ascending. Do these stack? Say my 9th level fighter Steve-Steve names his 7th level henchman Dave-Steve as his heir, then goes to the bargain brothel and rents a small army of concubines before expiring during the night. Dave-Steve becomes the PC, collects the XP from the pool, and thus increases from 7th to 8th level, thus meaning that only one level was lost with the tragic overconfidence of Steve-Steve?

A henchman stepping up is one way to do it. Bringing in a new character with your Reserve XP total is a separate way to do it.


Going over the Mortal Wounds and Tampering With Mortality tables, I noticed that Tampering With Mortality result 1-5/6 implies that you make reaction rolls even for non-intelligent Undead. I somehow like that: obviously they're not going to be terribly helpful, but there's a chance a bunch of skeletons is just going to stand there and stare at you creepily.

Maybe. It does say elsewhere that reactions aren't always needed; zombies guarding a crypt will always attack, for example.

[Rhynn]

Maybe. It does say elsewhere that reactions aren't always needed; zombies guarding a crypt will always attack, for example.

Obviously, yeah, if they've got orders they'll obey them. But I really like the creepiness of random undead (spontaneously spawned by sinkholes of evil, for instance) not bothering to attack.

For instance, on Athas, the Dead Lands are, naturally, a giant sinkhole of evil (probably of the third grade), full of wandering corpses... and on a good reaction roll, they'll just stare at or walk right past the PCs. It's just atmospheric, somehow.


You also don't exactly stop. You hit 14th level, you've nowhere to go on paper, but you're still running a kingdom. You could retire, but why? You've just gotten started.

I'd at least semi-retire max-level PCs. If something turns up that they have to concern themselves with, they'll come out of retirement, but otherwise I'd focus on new PCs. The old PCs would serve as NPCs or semi-NPCs, as patrons and rulers, etc.

But I absolutely don't feel that a character's arc or story is over just because they can't level up anymore. They can still develop their realm practically endlessly, find or create magic items, and change the world.

In my Waterdeep/Undermountain campaign, 14th-level characters would be Lords of Waterdeep, archmages like Khelben or Halaster, or the rulers of new realms carved out of the Savage Frontier. They could be at least semi-re-activated for orc hordes, a Flight of Dragons, a war, etc.

In my Dark Sun campaign, 14th-level characters would probably be conquerors of one or more city-states, ruling the entire Tyr Region, possibly further. They might be semi-re-activated for the Dragon's visits (if they've not dealt with him already), to deal with an invasion by the Kreen Empire, wars with any remaining Sorcerer-Kings, etc. Chaotic mages would probably be Sorcerer-Kings themselves (whatever that means; they're not necessarily would-be Dragons).

[SiuiS]

Aye. Ambient undeath is my favorite undeath.

Retirement is a fun game. You may have to retire before you reach a good level, if you have no fingers, legs or anything left. But mostly I mean, if a story arc continues, aborting it because you're high level is silly. If you want to play economics, do it!

[Rhynn]

I'm foreseeing a lot of one-handed or lame innkeepers, temple priests, merchants, castellans, etc. in my campaigns. Especially at levels when restore life and limb isn't available yet. (Heck, maybe the players will even go back once they have access to it and make some old PCs into henchmen or something.)

[SiuiS]

That's a really good idea. I like that.

[Rhynn]

The big thing, for me, is to make sure that retired PCs don't just disappear. I'll definitely ask the players to please take the time to decide what the PC will retire on: to their domain, buy a business, or just cash out their treasure and live off it for the rest of their natural life in at least comfort, and quite possibly luxury. The PC would then become a feature in the campaign world, and the player would retain some control over them (possibly even getting to roleplay them for any interactions). Naturally, some Judge control will need to be exerted - the retired PC won't give his treasures to other PCs, etc. (At least without a really compelling reason.) Not that my players would try to pull that stuff, but I know back in our teens they might have...

[shadow_archmagi]

Hang on- Restore Life and Limb only costs 500gp, but it has delightful possibilities? I think I like this system.

[Rhynn]

Hang on- Restore Life and Limb only costs 500gp, but it has delightful possibilities? I think I like this system.

Yup. The Mortal Wounds and Tampering With Mortality tables are great.

The game is actually slightly less lethal than default: you can survive even at ½ full hp and more in the negatives (although the further below 0 you are, the worse your odds). Also, typically in old-school games, PCs can't find someone else to raise them from the dead: they have to get to a level where they can cast it themselves. So it's not going to be very common in the world, usually.

And yes, you can get all kinds of funny results, both negative and (far less often) positive:
"You gain permanent power. Gain +2 in your class's prime requisite statistic. All negative side effects are removed."
"Dark power leaked in while you were being restored. Holy Water and Turning now affects you as if you were a wight. "Destroy" results charm you."
"You did not return altogether human. You gain a body part from a creature on the Reincarnation table for your Alignment. -4 to reaction rolls with normal humans."

I love this stuff.

I'm also going to stealadapt the Clone Pits table and Mutations from Swords of Athanor (http://swordsofathanor.blogspot.fi/) (setting book PDF download (https://www.box.com/shared/ifyu9tnm8q)) as an alternative. I'll probably put them in Under-Tyr and put some sort of ancient undead biotechnology-necromancer in charge of them... I might even re-write the Tampering With Mortality table for Dark Sun, at least for the ancient biotech -based restorations of life and limb. My Athas is going to have a decent proportion of mutated humans and demi-humans anyway.

[Rhynn]

Finally got to Special Maneuvers and already found an advantage metal armor has over non-metal armor: if you're in metal armor, hardly any other character will be able to deal you damage with brawling. And, of course, some monsters can't be dealt brawling damage without metal armor.

Also, non-metal armor stops at AC 3, naturally. This actually fits what I had for AD&D ... light (fibers, textiles, hides), medium (wood, bone, chitin), and heavy (carapace, shell, scales) primitive armor at AC 8, 7, and 6. Braxat shell might make better armor, but good luck getting some. (I'll probably treat armor made from ankhegs, braxats, etc. as magical armor though.)

And, as was suggested earlier, it seems easy to make non-metal swords, etc. sundered more easily. I'm probably also going to make some enemies invulnerable to non-metal weapons (like some were in AD&D).

Also, spears are pretty seriously balanced by the sunder rules: -4 to the attack throw (instead of -6), -4 to save (compared to +0 for axes and +4 for swords).

Edit:
Going with this house rule:

Sunder: Non-metal swords and daggers do not receive a +4 bonus to the saving throw (they are at +0). Non-metal axes and flails, hammers, and maces receive a -2 penalty to the saving throw. Metal weapons can always sunder non-metal weapons, regardless of magic bonuses.

It may not quite make metal weapons worth 100 times the usual price, but you're generally supposed to find them rather than buy them, and you'll probably never want to enchant a non-metal weapon.

I'm still undecided on whether some creatures can only be hit by metal weapons, or if metal weapons should count as magical for hitting creatures only hit by magic weapons.

[Rhynn]

Fire-throwing catapults made me think of Melnibonéan battle barges, and then I got to thinking how ACKS would probably work well for playing in Elric's world (or Hawkmoon's or Corum's for that matter). Switch out elves' racial abilities for some other ones, and keep the classes otherwise (Spellsword, Nightblade, Courtier, Enchanter). I found some rules for generating demons in ACKS already. Spell lists might do with some revision - fireballs and lightning bolts don't seem appropriate.

[Water_Bear]

I'm foreseeing a lot of one-handed or lame innkeepers, temple priests, merchants, castellans, etc. in my campaigns. Especially at levels when restore life and limb isn't available yet. (Heck, maybe the players will even go back once they have access to it and make some old PCs into henchmen or something.)

Obligatory Old Meme.
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/36864525.jpg

Now that that's out of the way, it's not exactly the end of the world. Restore Life and Limb is fairly cheap and easy to find (assuming you use the b0rked B/X Cleric progression; with the BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia one it is much much rarer), several Player's Companion classes get Mortal Wounds rerolls, and every adventurer ought to have at least one henchperson, ideally an heir squirreled away too. And you only have to roll on the Mortal Wounds table at all once you've passed 0hp; losing the character by that point is already likely, dismemberment just means you can walk (or roll) to the Cleric instead of being dragged there in a sack.

[shadow_archmagi]

So, I've read through most of the book, and feel ready to start starting on my campaign. The first step is, naturally, to draw a huge and detailed map.

Oh wait, I don't have any artistic skill or geographic creativity. Even if I had a really high quality mapping program where I could just push a button to add a river, I still wouldn't have any sense of how many rivers to add, or where to add rivers. So making a map myself is out.

What are some strategies you guys use? Ordinarily I just steal a map, or handwave it, because terrain becomes meaningless in most RPGs once everyone has flying boats, but ACKS actually cares about maps because of all the interaction with domains and whatnot. You can't have a wargame without maps.

[thirdkingdom]

I have just started an ACKS game in which I am using a randomly generated map (from Hexographer). I also populated the map randomly using a system I devised by extrapolating rules in the core book. If you're interested I can post in greater detail this evening.

[shadow_archmagi]

I have just started an ACKS game in which I am using a randomly generated map (from Hexographer). I also populated the map randomly using a system I devised by extrapolating rules in the core book. If you're interested I can post in greater detail this evening.

Thanks! I would be very interested.

[Rhynn]

So, I've read through most of the book, and feel ready to start starting on my campaign. The first step is, naturally, to draw a huge and detailed map.

Oh wait, I don't have any artistic skill or geographic creativity. Even if I had a really high quality mapping program where I could just push a button to add a river, I still wouldn't have any sense of how many rivers to add, or where to add rivers. So making a map myself is out.

What are some strategies you guys use? Ordinarily I just steal a map, or handwave it, because terrain becomes meaningless in most RPGs once everyone has flying boats, but ACKS actually cares about maps because of all the interaction with domains and whatnot. You can't have a wargame without maps.

Hexographer (http://www.hexographer.com/) so much.

I've gotten off easy; so far, I've underlaid png files of maps to create hexmaps of the Tyr Region (15,210 hexes; Jagged Cliffs region will be the same size), the Savage Frontier (a mere 3,900 hexes at 18 miles per hex, and I've done Frozenfar, Neverwinter Environs, and Waterdeep environs at 6 miles per hex), Lost Uthedmael for Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, and Jaconia for a Finnish RPG called Praedor.

Randomly generated maps are an easy but rough answer, or you can slap a hexgrid on or underlay a map that you like the look of and use it as a basis. Take a map of an area you like, rotate it 135 degrees, and change up some of the detail. There's also map creation guides: I really like the AD&D 2E World Builder's Guidebook, but I am completely in love with Bat in the Attic's sandbox creation guide (http://batintheattic.blogspot.fi/2009/08/how-to-make-fantasy-sandbox.html), which also deals with map creation (http://batintheattic.blogspot.fi/2009/09/fantasy-sandbox-in-detail-part-iii.html). Seriously, if you are going to start an ACKS sandbox campaign, read that guide!

Also, for dungeons, Dungeonographer (http://www.dungeonographer.com/)! For randomly creating natural caves, I love donjon's dungeon generator (http://donjon.bin.sh/adnd/dungeon/) (I just ignore the room contents etc.). It also creates a decent if busy and Nethack-ish dungeon map, but for that, I prefer Paratime Design (http://paratime.ca/)'s free maps. With over 200 dungeon maps hand-drawn by others, I'm not in a terrible hurry to create more. Although I have redone the first level of Undermountain in Dungeonographer already.

[SiuiS]

So, I've read through most of the book, and feel ready to start starting on my campaign. The first step is, naturally, to draw a huge and detailed map.

Oh wait, I don't have any artistic skill or geographic creativity. Even if I had a really high quality mapping program where I could just push a button to add a river, I still wouldn't have any sense of how many rivers to add, or where to add rivers. So making a map myself is out.

What are some strategies you guys use? Ordinarily I just steal a map, or handwave it, because terrain becomes meaningless in most RPGs once everyone has flying boats, but ACKS actually cares about maps because of all the interaction with domains and whatnot. You can't have a wargame without maps.

My favorite method so far involved getting a bunch of pieces for Heroscape, and laying them all out on the dining room floor, setting up interesting features and having one of us chronicle it on hex paper. I can find that map for you, actually. It's pretty neat.

Otherwise I can't beat the advice you've received already.


I have just started an ACKS game in which I am using a randomly generated map (from Hexographer). I also populated the map randomly using a system I devised by extrapolating rules in the core book. If you're interested I can post in greater detail this evening.

Note that I'm in that game, so let me know if there are any secrets i should avoid reading~

[shadow_archmagi]

I'd be delighted to see an example of an ACKS map.

[Madfellow]

Yeah, just get out all the hexes from a Mageknight game and put them all together like a jigsaw puzzle with no guide. Then get out your phone and snap a picture. Easy peasy. :smallsmile:

[Rhynn]

I'd be delighted to see an example of an ACKS map.

This map of the Irridium Plateau (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qvS7K0_WD0U/Spnj3uICGWI/AAAAAAAAAAM/k9EZq9OZiNI/s1600-h/Irridium+Plateau.bmp) for Planet Algol is one of my favorite hexmaps. The key (http://refereesresources.blogspot.fi/2009/10/hexes-of-iridium-plateau-completed.html) is essential to understanding why.

That's hours upon hours of fun right there. It's full of encounters, interesting places, and things that can easily be elaborated into full adventure locations.

Here (http://oi43.tinypic.com/2vuip1c.jpg) is my labeled, numbered hexmap of the Tyr Region. (That one is unfortunately resized to uselessness.) Hexographer lets you turn off grids, labels, and numbering, so I've got a labeled gridless version, grid-numbered versions with labels and without, and a gridded labeled version.

I'm patient, precise, and meticulous, so I actually enjoy converting big maps into enormous hexmaps... and I love looking at all the places as I make them and imagining the adventures to be had, of course.

The Tyr Region, specifically, is completely wonderful for ACKS. The civilized and borderlands regions are between the Ringing Mountains (the long western mountain range) and the Sea of Silt to the east. The Hinterlands, west of the Ringing Mountains, is practically all wilderness, and much better land to live in - but it's extremely hard to get to (crossing the mountains and getting through the Forest Ridge jungle alive is basically unheard of). Perfect for industrious adventurers. The further you get from the city of Tyr, the stranger things get: to the east, you've got the Valley of Fire and Ur Draxa; to the south, you've got the flat obsidian plains of the Dead Lands; and to the west and northwest lies the Kreen Empire in the Crimson Savannah.

I can upload other examples of my Hexographer re-creations (Lost Uthedmael and the Savage Frontier), if you'd like to see those. Unfortunately, they're going to end up shrunk, I think. The Tyr map is 5220x3520 px, the much smaller Savage Frontier map is still 2700x2101 px, and the smallest, the Lost Uthedmael map, is 2343x1804 px. I like big maps and I cannot lie.

[thirdkingdom]

Okay. So, when I was setting up for the game I just started I generated a couple of random maps using Hexographer and picked one I liked. This became the world map, with a scale of 24 miles per hex, as recommended by the ACKS guidelines. I then selected the starting area and used the "Create Child Map" feature to drill down to six mile hexes in that region. This became the regional hex map.

At this point I selected a hex that would be the starting city; the conceit is that the characters have just arrived in a new land. At this point, I should probably point out that this is a ply-by-post game, which offers more flexibility in planning than a face to face game. For instance, I really don't do much planning beyond some back of the envelope stuff and general setting information, because I have time to think and fill in the details. The advantage to this is I don't have to spend time creating ten dungeons in the off chance the PCs will visit one of them, because by the time they have decided to do so I have a couple of days to create the specific dungeon or city or whatever.

Anyway, I've got the starting city located, and begin by using lined notepaper and writing out all the hexes nearby. I went ahead and wrote out about twenty columns with forty hexes per column, or 800 total hexes. Page 235 of the Core Book recommends that one out of every six hexes have a pre-determined point of interest. So, I start rolling dice, initially a d6 for each hex, writing the result next to each hex number. A roll of 1 indicates a point of interest.

For every 1 I roll a 1d6 (note that this die and the ratio can be changed as desired) with the following results: 1-2 settlement, 3-4 lair, 5-6 dungeon. I then go back through the entirety of the hexes rolling a 1d10; a result of 1 indicates a differing terrain type. I mark these on the map and change as needed. For instance, if the result is a 1 in the ocean I will note this and change it to an island, or add a volcano to a mountainous region. You know, whatever seems to make sense.

At this point I divide the resulting hexes among three sheets of paper; one for settlements, one for lairs, one for dungeons.

Settlements
For each settlement I roll 1d100 as follows: 1-30 Class IV, 31-60 Class V, 61-80 Class IV, 81-90 Class III, 91-98 Class II and 99-00 Class I (again, this can be adjusted based upon your desired campaign to skew it one way or the other). The game I am running is all human, so all my settlements are human. It would be fairly easy to randomly determine the racial makeup of each village.

Lair
Each hex that indicates a Lair I roll on the wilderness encounter chart for the proper type of terrain. I roll for the type of monster first (animal, humanoid, etc.) then for the specific type of monster. Note that the table uses 1d12; I roll 1d13 online and treat a result of 13 as a unique monster, either creating it or drawing it from another source. I note the lair type, draw up the number in it, etc.

Dungeon

I've got some quick charts I use to determine the number of levels a dungeon has and the starting "level". That's all I determine at this point.

I will come back and finish this thought.

[thirdkingdom]

At this point I've got a hexmap with settlements, lairs and dungeons. I draw in some roads connecting appropriate settlements, rivers where they seem appropriate, etc.

I don't run games with plots, I run games with plot hooks. I use the randomly generated stuff to provide starting plot hooks, usually two of each or so. For instance, in the new game one of the lairs near the starting city just happened to be a bandit lair. Voila! Instant plot hook. I think all but one or two of the starting plot hooks I gave out were the result of random setting generation.

I also go ahead and make modified wilderness encountered tables for each region, depending on the lairs in the area; this is usually where I throw in monsters from other sources, as well.

With a hexcrawl part of the point is wilderness exploration. Everything I have generated thus far is considered to be easily encounterable. In other words, a pre-generated settlement in a hex, regardless of size, will have a road leading to it, and will be the first thing encountered in a hex (assuming they stick to the road.

However, according to the designers on the Autarch forum each 6 mile hex should have a larger number of points of interest, as follows:


Terrain Lairs Per Hex
Inhabited 1d4
Clear, Grass, Scrub 1d4
Hills 2d4+1
Woods 2d4+1
Desert 2d4+1
Jungle 2d6+1
Mountains 2d6+1
Swamp 2d6+1

Each day of searching, allow one encounter throw to find a lair. (An "encounter throw" is a wandering monster check).


This specifically says "lair" but I prefer to treat it as an encounter. In other words, an encounter might be an interesting shaped rock formation, the ancient bones of a dead explorer, a discarded pair of non-magical boots, a small treasure, etc. Remember that a 6-mile hex contains a lot of space.

I basically come up with or steal a bunch of random tables for this stuff. For instance, I've got a table of ruined structures I made. And one of detritus.

[Rhynn]

Thank you very much, thirdkingdom! Still wading through the book taking notes, haven't gotten to filling out maps etc., but I'm definitely going to make use of your technique and tips. I can't wait to get started on keying my Tyr Region hexmap...

I particularly like the 1/13 chance of a unique monster. The Planet Algol and Carcosa hexmaps have plenty of those, and I think every OSR D&D campaign should be heavy on original or unique monsters (or at least ones stolen because they fit the style).

[SiuiS]

Hehe.
I'm looking forward to making a map, myself. I consider it a leisure activity XD

[ken-do-nim]

I really wish ACKS had come out as a supplement that I could bolt onto any flavor of Classic D&D, such as BFRPG.

[SiuiS]

I really wish ACKS had come out as a supplement that I could bolt onto any flavor of Classic D&D, such as BFRPG.

It's backwards, actually. You can seemingly bolt any other RPG onto ACKS. Proficiencies and class creation work wonderfully for it.

[shadow_archmagi]

I actually ended up resolving my map-drawing issues by having friends draw the maps- One of my friends is quite the amateur cartographer, so we all went to his house and chattered at him as he drew, creating a setting that everyone had a hand in. (As the GM, I'll go ahead and write secrets for it over the next few weeks, but this was both a really easy way and fun way to generate a setting, and also it ensures that everything that's common knowledge actually is common knowledge amongst the party.)

One of the players recommended that there should be a region with nomadic farmers who move every few days to follow the Wandering Wheat, which I thought was a pretty cool thing to have on the far eastern coast.

[Rhynn]

I really wish ACKS had come out as a supplement that I could bolt onto any flavor of Classic D&D, such as BFRPG.

ACKS's big thing is the ground-up rewrite of economics to help create the domain-management endgame, though; it'd be very hard to bolt that onto anything.

[SiuiS]

I actually ended up resolving my map-drawing issues by having friends draw the maps- One of my friends is quite the amateur cartographer, so we all went to his house and chattered at him as he drew, creating a setting that everyone had a hand in. (As the GM, I'll go ahead and write secrets for it over the next few weeks, but this was both a really easy way and fun way to generate a setting, and also it ensures that everything that's common knowledge actually is common knowledge amongst the party.)

One of the players recommended that there should be a region with nomadic farmers who move every few days to follow the Wandering Wheat, which I thought was a pretty cool thing to have on the far eastern coast.

That is always the most fun way to do it. Might I suggest Dawn of Worlds (http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf) for your next venture? It is even more fun, I think. Your group designs a world by moving from mythic to modern history playing the part of overdeific forces shaping creation in antagonistic dialectic.

[Rhynn]

That is always the most fun way to do it. Might I suggest Dawn of Worlds (http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf) for your next venture? It is even more fun, I think. Your group designs a world by moving from mythic to modern history playing the part of overdeific forces shaping creation in antagonistic dialectic.

It's like participating in Dwarf Fortress world generation!

I want to be the pitiless forces of "did not meet volcanism requirements" and discard everything. :smallcool:

[SiuiS]

It's like participating in Dwarf Fortress world generation!

I want to be the pitiless forces of "did not meet volcanism requirements" and discard everything. :smallcool:

You can totally do that.

Sometimes you get dumb stuff, though. Like the guy who made a really narrow, really high mesa and topped it with a race of jalapeno people guarded by a giant animate cactus.


Far to the north, the ice trolls bred themselves am army which relied on fast healing and the axe wielding Auxiliaries of the legions of the Father Gryphon went to war... While the jalapeno people invented tequila. You really want to make sure everyone is on the same framework with this.

[Rhynn]

I dunno, I could probably work moonshining pepper-people living on a mesa under the protection of a terrifying cactus monster-god into my Dark Sun setting... but yeah, even at its best, that'd be gonzo, and depending on presentation it can just be stupid.

Actually, I'd probably make them cactus-people who brew spicy moonshine from peppers. Cactus-people seems to be practically a requirement in swords & sorcery & saucers settings...

[Rhynn]

I finally waded my way into the rules for Divine Power, and I am loving them. They obviate any need for clerics to unreasonably charge for their magical services (they still can), and create huge potential for RP. I can totally envision PC clerics scrabbling for congregations in Waterdeep, building their own temple, etc. On Athas, preaching in the Sorcerer-Kings' cities is obviously dangerous (but not impossible), but spreading the word among the slave tribes and raider villages is a great idea. And so on.

[SiuiS]

I finally waded my way into the rules for Divine Power, and I am loving them. They obviate any need for clerics to unreasonably charge for their magical services (they still can), and create huge potential for RP. I can totally envision PC clerics scrabbling for congregations in Waterdeep, building their own temple, etc. On Athas, preaching in the Sorcerer-Kings' cities is obviously dangerous (but not impossible), but spreading the word among the slave tribes and raider villages is a great idea. And so on.

Where at? I confess to reading sequentially, most times, and the chapters that cover commerce and divine power and undead and stuff get too borin at the time for me to wade through them for specifics. Having a specific thing to look for might help.

[Kiero]

My game is now underway, we had our first session earlier this week. Kind of impromptu on my part, because I wasn't really prepared yet, but will do more for next week.

Our wiki (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Tyche%27s_Favourites) is just about set up now, and these are the characters:

Rhyanidd - a princess of the Lugii, from the most northerly fringes of Keltoi influence bordering with Germania, she is an experienced warrior and warleader. Like many aristocrats amongst her people, she is an excellent horsewoman and has served in the role of mercenary cavalry since her mid-teens in the wars of the Greeks. She was on the winning side at Ipsus, seizing much plunder. Her bodyguard are devoted to her, they have earned wealth, status and renown following her (and in some cases, freedom).

Meshullum - an Alexandrian Jew originally from Tyre (evacuated as a child from the siege that resulted in its destruction at the hands of Alexander), perhaps it was that early dislocation that led him to his wandering lifestyle. He is a mercenary captain of archers, having been involved in all the major conflicts, since the Gaza campaign, and changed sides more than once. His retinue is comprised of his most loyal archers, and his nephew, a doctor from the Alexandrian school.

Septimus - a Latin from central Italia, he is an enterprising man who considers himself the foremost merchant of war in the Hellenistic world. He provided Demetrios with siege equipment during his famous siege of Rhodes. But he is no idealist allied to the Antigonid cause, he goes where the profit is. His retinue comprises agents, savants and a trio of Cilician pirates.

Philipos - a giant of a man from Macedon, he was a hypaspist like his father before him, wearing a fortune in heirloom armour purchased with Persian plunder. On the battlefield he is bronze god of war, almost impervious to harm. He was on the losing side at Ipsus, but came away with his honour intact. His retinue comprises his closest companions; Greek officers, a dubious Ionian, his valet and his nephew.

Their stats and retinues are on the wiki.

[Rhynn]

Where at? I confess to reading sequentially, most times, and the chapters that cover commerce and divine power and undead and stuff get too borin at the time for me to wade through them for specifics. Having a specific thing to look for might help.

Pages 123-125, starting under the heading Divine Power.

[thirdkingdom]

For those interested, this blog (http://www.theskyfullofdust.co.uk/dynamic-lairs/)has some fantastic examples of how Dynamic Lairs work in ACKS.

[Rhynn]

So, magic item formulae make great treasure: they're worth 50% off each item you craft, reduce crafting time, make it less likely you'll waste your time and gold, etc.

But I am just enchanted by the other aspect: PCs may find formulas they don't like. Great, a formula for making a sword +1 ... that requires the horns of 37 unicorns. :smalleek: It'll be an interesting way to tempt PCs with unpleasant magic. "Gee, I hate to kill Lawful creatures, but I really want that magic item..."

[SiuiS]

So, magic item formulae make great treasure: they're worth 50% off each item you craft, reduce crafting time, make it less likely you'll waste your time and gold, etc.

But I am just enchanted by the other aspect: PCs may find formulas they don't like. Great, a formula for making a sword +1 ... that requires the horns of 37 unicorns. :smalleek: It'll be an interesting way to tempt PCs with unpleasant magic. "Gee, I hate to kill Lawful creatures, but I really want that magic item..."

The moral road is expensive but not insurmountable; each time you create an item, you get the formula if you did not have it. So don't like the formula? Make one up and see what your new result is. Don't like that? Go on a journey quest to find other crafters and trade formulae.

[Rhynn]

I've started re-creating my AD&D Dark Sun monsters for ACKS... currently, the list of creatures (all to be converted) stands at:

Air shark, artificial man, bird-dog, burrower beneath, corpse flower, flying fungi, freak, fungal husk, giant mantis shrimp, great white ape, green giant, grue, headless, husk ghoul, langford basilisk, man-ape, manta tyrant, man-thing, mist monster, morlock, mutant ghoul, pyrosarchus, rathound, sandbox tree, she-fiend, shoggoth, sinor, sub-man, swine-thing, tentacled worm, thoat, thylacine, war-ape, vat-man, winged ape, vulture-lion.

They're drawn from the real world, Barsoom, sword & sorcery (including Marvel's old Conan comics), the Mythos, various OSR sources, and some random sources.

If anybody's interested, I can post them up here as they get done. (I really should probably start a blog for this stuff, but I don't really want to until I've got more material - like a complete campaign setting conversion.)

[shadow_archmagi]

How much should a GM compensate for party size? How does the game play with extra small or extra large parties?

[Rhynn]

How much should a GM compensate for party size? How does the game play with extra small or extra large parties?

Hard to say what's considered small and large to begin with. With henchmen, parties could easily be 12+ characters, and assorted followers would grow them even bigger. There's a natural limit: you get less treasure and XP when you're splitting it more ways (henchmen get a ½ share of XP; I'm not sure if they get a full share of treasure by default, yet). A bigger party will take on greater challenges than a smaller party of the same level, and they'll be more challenged by them.

I'd say don't bother compensating too much, just create situations where charging in is only a viable option if your party is huge and very combat-capable. Fighting should be a tertiary option, after sneakiness/trickery and deception/negotiation.

[Water_Bear]

How much should a GM compensate for party size? How does the game play with extra small or extra large parties?

Large parties mean less risk and correspondingly less reward; the defenses of a dungeon or lair aren't going to change just because you've brought a few more friends, but neither do the spoils. Plus there are unique disadvantages to big parties, like the increased risk of any one hireling/PC going rogue and the difficulty moving stealthily.

Small parties mean that, even more than usual, combat needs to be avoided. A large (or normal sized) group can afford to lose a few party members per expedition, but a smaller group means less redundancy; your Thief is likely your only Thief, your Mage may be your only Mage, etc. But even more than that there are mundane difficulties like how to carry all of the treasure recovered while still being ready to fight or run, dividing watches when only one or two party members are particularly perceptive, or making multiple dungeon maps.

If I were running a dungeon for a particularly large or small party though, my biggest concern would be how the monsters themselves react. A large group will send Beastfolk scouts and lookouts running immediately, to return with a Warband or more reinforcements, while a small group might seem weak enough that those same scouts might stand and fight to have first pick at the corpses. Is a strong group in a better position to parley, or is their strength likely to make them seem too dangerous to let live? Do small groups look more like dangerous thieves or spies, or are small gangs of ill-prepared adventurers common enough that monsters dismiss them as "random encounters"? The best part about a dungeon is seeing how all the bits work together and react to stimulus, and that includes the psychology of whatever lives there.

[SiuiS]

How much should a GM compensate for party size? How does the game play with extra small or extra large parties?

The other guys nailed it. A by-the-book encounter (which may be a horde if 25 orcs or more!) doesn't need fudging. If the party trumps them, easily, that's fine, because each party member gets like, 1.3 orcs worth of loot. If a party struggles, then they are probably getting 3 or 4 orcs worth of loot, plus! Since experience comes primarily from loot the difference is null. A surviving small party levels up faster, meaning they keep pace with a larger low level party.

For henchman loot, they get a half-share by default. Four pCs and four henchman divide loot twelve ways, with the PCs getting a full two shares and the henchman only one. Pirate style.

[shadow_archmagi]

How is the price of special components for a magical item calculated? It says that's a portion of the research cost of the item, but the research cost formula is escaping me.

If someone could do an example write-up of the process of creating a magic item, that'd help me a great deal.

[Water_Bear]

If someone could do an example write-up of the process of creating a magic item, that'd help me a great deal.

You ask and I provide;

Step 1: Concept
If you are lucky you have a Formula for the item already, or an item of that type called a Sample, which saves you a lot of work. If not you need to first research or find any spells used to create the item's effects, then build the thing at the full cost and time (both halved otherwise), with a higher Magic Research Throw (+Spell Level rather than +1/2 Spell Level).

Obviously if you want a unique item you are not going to have a Formula or Sample already. But since you're a smart spellcaster and take notes, you will have both once you've made any magic item.

Step 2: Ingredients
The price of a Magic Item is determined by it's effects, as per the table on p.118, but that isn't the whole story. You also need a well-equipped Workshop just to make the thing (4000gp for 1st level Spell effects + 2000gp/Spell Level), with each extra 10,000gp of swankyness adding a +1 to your die roll on the Magic Research Throw up to a maximum of +3. In the same vein you can add rare and/or elaborately crafted embellishments up to the base price of the item for addition bonuses on your die roll, 10,000gp for each +1.

Finally you need Special Components (AKA random body parts) from monsters worth a combined xp total equal to the item's price, of a type specified in the Formula. If you were unlucky enough not to have a Formula that means that you only find out what you need half way into crafting. If the DM is feeling really nice he has the option of making the Special Component something ephemeral like "A freely given lock of hair from the Enchantress of the enchanted glade" instead of monster bits so you don't have to run around collecting bugbear colons all the time. Still, the expectation is that you will be burning through enough monster parts to eventually have to build your own dungeon just for that purpose.

Step 3: Crafting
You've got your Formula/Sample (or at least a few new Spells), a Workshop to make Tony Stark jealous, enough gold to hire a small army of mercenaries and roughly the same amount in hand-carved ivory engravings, more buckets of Dragon Snot than you know what to do with and a few months of free time; now it's the moment of truth.

One die roll. Make the Throw, you leave with an item (plus a Formula if you didn't have one already). Fail it, you lose everything except the Workshop itself; your Gold, Ivory engravings, Dragon Snot, and your summer are all gone forever.

Step 4: Profit
You cannot make money selling your Magic Items wholesale, at least not easily (http://www.autarch.co/blog/pricing-magic-items-acks). Commissioned items are pricey enough that you could make a decent business on it; the buyer is responsible for paying for all the Gold Ivory and Snot you need to make it, plus you charge them a minimum of 100% of that much to buy it (7,000gp per months worked if that's higher). But you can only do that in a Class I Market and it's likely you'll be doing most commissions sans-Formula since the buyer likely has fairly specific ideas on what they need the thing to do.

So any item you make is probably going to be for you or your party members to use, as a gift to a loyal vassal or tribute to a lord, or even just as a prize to lure monsters and adventurers into your dungeon. You won't get cash from it per se, but still likely a good return on investment; if nothing else it'll speed Snot harvesting for when you need to cast a Ritual Spell.

[thirdkingdom]

Still, the expectation is that you will be burning through enough monster parts to eventually have to build your own dungeon just for that purpose.


I love this.

[shadow_archmagi]

Re: Components with XP value equal to GP value of item: It lists "fangs of 20 hellhounds" as an example component for a Wand of Fireball. A Wand of Fireball costs 30,000 gp to make. A hellhound is worth 65 xp. Thus, wouldn't it require 462 hellhounds to make it?

[Water_Bear]

Re: Components with XP value equal to GP value of item: It lists "fangs of 20 hellhounds" as an example component for a Wand of Fireball. A Wand of Fireball costs 30,000 gp to make. A hellhound is worth 65 xp. Thus, wouldn't it require 462 hellhounds to make it?

Yeah, I actually just looked at the math of the examples and it doesn't seem to be following the rules. Sometimes it lowballs the estimate, other times like with the healing potion it blows them out of the water. IDK.

[SiuiS]

Did not know the 'XP equal to gold value' part. Nice catch!

Additional point, "sample" means magic item. If you find a potion of healing, you can reverse engineer it. Implies losing your sample though. So a sword +3 against shapeshifters? You could start churning out weapons +1, +3 against shapeshifters. But you lose the original.

[shadow_archmagi]

Did not know the 'XP equal to gold value' part. Nice catch!

Additional point, "sample" means magic item. If you find a potion of healing, you can reverse engineer it. Implies losing your sample though. So a sword +3 against shapeshifters? You could start churning out weapons +1, +3 against shapeshifters. But you lose the original.

Wait, where do you see that you destroy the sample?

[SiuiS]

Wait, where do you see that you destroy the sample?

It came up when using a potion, but I'm at a museum so i can't check any references. I'll do that when I get home.

[Rhynn]

I'm going over stronghold construction now, and I'm really liking it: like like in B/X & BECM Expert, you buy individual "components" of strongholds, but the prices are (presumably) more carefully calibrated to everything else. I like castle floorplans, so this is great for me. (I also like it as a help in creating castles "modularly" to place in game.)

Incidentally, a sword +1 has the same base cost as a small round tower, which is sufficient to secure/rule a 6-mile hex in civilized lands (pretty much a barony; large enough for 10 knights' fees, in theory). I like how the costs compare, somehow.

I really like the rule for minimum stronghold value based on size and type of a domain. I eyeballed Harlech Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlech_Castle) and got 370,000gp, which is big enough to rule 25 civilized hexes, 16 borderland hexes, or 12 wilderness hexes. That's a pretty sizeable castle, and could rule the personal domain of a king. (A maximum population of 19,500 families or 97,500 people in civilized lands.) Building it would "only" take 2 years, a fair bit faster than the real castle was built... (1282 - 1289)

[Kaun]

Is there a hard copy of this game yet? I remember checking a while back but the answer was no.

[SiuiS]

Is there a hard copy of this game yet? I remember checking a while back but the answer was no.

Yes. It is set up so that buying the PDF gets you $10 off the book, and buying the book hardcover gets you a coupon for a free PDF – which costs $10, so it balances out.

Man. Need to work stuff out for this ASAP.

[Totally Guy]

How necessary is the player's guide supplement?

[SiuiS]

How necessary is the player's guide supplement?

It's not. It introduces rules for creating new classes, some new spells, and what feels like a bit of power creep, but is optional. The shaman, for example, is a themed cleric with a familiar, wild shape and some built in proficiencies (commune). The warlock is a weaker but more EVUL wizard. The paladin and antipaladin are fighters with automatic proficiencies. Etc.

[shadow_archmagi]

How necessary is the player's guide supplement?

It's basically a big book of extra classes.

[Rhynn]

How necessary is the player's guide supplement?

It's great, but not even one little bit necessary, IMO. The core book has everything you need. The Player's Companion is great for creating your own campaign classes and even races, though.

[shadow_archmagi]

Over on the ACKS official forum, there's an explanation for the Magic Item Creation rules!

http://www.autarch.co/forums/ask-autarchs/magical-item-creation-questions#new

Paraphrased, heavily abridged version

"Whoops! The example table was written using XP values from like, six editions ago, and is entirely wrong. Ha ha ha, good times. Anyway, it's XP equal to the GP cost of making the item, not researching it."

[thirdkingdom]

There's an interesting discussion going on at rpgnet, about why play a fighter instead of another class, that tangentially touches on the subject of the Player's Companion and potential power creep. That thread can be found here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?691826-ACKS-Why-play-a-Fighter).

[Rhynn]

There's an interesting discussion going on at rpgnet, about why play a fighter instead of another class, that tangentially touches on the subject of the Player's Companion and potential power creep. That thread can be found here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?691826-ACKS-Why-play-a-Fighter).

Well, it gets sort of shot down straight away. You have to give up things. The fighter is the best fighter: 1d8 hp, all weapons (and a damage bonus with them all), plate armor and shields. Barbarians give up either the melee or missile damage bonus, the best armor, and a lot of weapons in exchange for some abilities; paladins lose hp and missile weapons for some abilities; etc.

Mind you, you can create real combat monsters using The Player's Companion: I did exactly that for my Dark Sun setting. The Half-Giant Brute gets (by using the Thrassian and Elves as an example) 1d12 HD, advanced in Attack Throws by 3 points every 2 levels, and has an extra +1 to damage (plus other goodies). On the other hand, they need 4,100 XP to get to first level, and their maximum level is 8. That is, they don't get to name level, they don't get free followers (they could still create strongholds), they're more or less locked out of the "end-game." This is completely intentional, because I don't think Athasian half-giants are good leaders or "supposed to be" leaders. They can lead small groups (raiders, slave tribes), but they're never going to be the highest-level character in a large domain. They also consume quadruple rations, which means they're extremely hard to feed by foraging on wilderness adventures; and I've written separate rules for finding water which also kick their ass...

Also, of course, you can create other kinds of "superpowered" characters, like the Nobiran CheesemongerWonderworker already pointed out earlier in the thread.

[shadow_archmagi]

So, how does ACKS play? My instincts from other systems tell me that running a party of 20+ (with all the henchmen) will get pretty slow, but I haven't heard any complaints on that front. What gives?

Do you guys use battle maps?

[Rhynn]

Writing this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=287889&p=15429055), I was thinking more about wilderness adventures in my Dark Sun ACKS, and I really like the idea of just getting there being a challenge. Not only do you have to contend with wilderness encounters, but you have to survive.

You're probably going to be carrying over 5 but under 10 stone of gear, which means you can't carry very many man-days of supplies (water and food). The basic rules probably assume the steady availability of water sources to replenish that, as the foraging and hunting rules address food. So I wrote up some water-finding rules, because IMO Dark Sun needs rules to emphasize the terrible harshness of teh desert wastes:

Finding Water: Anyone with the Adventuring or Survival proficiency can search for water. This requires a proficiency throw of 18+ (with no travel that day) to find an oasis or other large water source (which will not run out) or a proficiency throw of 14+ (can travel normally) to find small quantities (1 gallon) in cacti, plants, small animals, or little pools or pockets. A character cannot both hunt or forage for food and search for water. Characters with the Survival proficiency gain a +4 bonus on their proficiency throws to find water. The Judge can rule that no throw is required (in the Misty Border or a jungle), or that no water is to be found in the terrain (such as in obsidian plains). The Judge can also rule that a failed throw to find a water source indicates none exists in the hex.

I'm generously going with the low water requirements of 2E Revised Dark Sun (1 gallon per day for a human doing work, which is like 33-50% of what they'd really need; weird evolution, adaptation, minor mutation, whatever).

Basically, wilderness adventures are going to require:
1. Using a known caravan trail with regular oases, usually fortified by the nearest city-state (and fought over in wars) or a merchant house controlling the route. You have to pay for your supplies, possibly exorbitantly.

2. Using a "secret" trail, either from a map or known by a hired guide.

3. Forging a new trail, which will require regular stops to find a source of water. Once forged, such a new, secret trail will be a treasure in itself, if it leads somewhere useful. The PCs can follow it again any time (although there's a chance a source of water will have dried up).

1st-level explorers also become critically important henchmen/hirelings. A 1st-level explorer with Int 13 can start with Mapping, Navigation, and Survival as proficiencies, which is pretty much a requirement for wilderness treks in such a climate and environment. (Alternatively, Int below 13 and 3rd-level.)

This all pleases me greatly, somehow.

[SiuiS]

Over on the ACKS official forum, there's an explanation for the Magic Item Creation rules!

http://www.autarch.co/forums/ask-autarchs/magical-item-creation-questions#new

Paraphrased, heavily abridged version

"Whoops! The example table was written using XP values from like, six editions ago, and is entirely wrong. Ha ha ha, good times. Anyway, it's XP equal to the GP cost of making the item, not researching it."

Good to know!
I'm bringing a dentist with me on my next adventure. I wonder what I can make with vampire fangs....


There's an interesting discussion going on at rpgnet, about why play a fighter instead of another class, that tangentially touches on the subject of the Player's Companion and potential power creep. That thread can be found here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?691826-ACKS-Why-play-a-Fighter).

Definitely power creep. Definitely. Not in terms of sheer numbers though, but options.

The shaman for example, is heads and tails above the blade dancer. The blade dancer is actually much easier to optimize, for some rather nice offense and defense boosts, but the shaman fits much nicer. And this goes for a lot of the classes, even the campaign classes in the core book compared to the core classes. You can make an explorer with the fighting man via proficiencies, but the explorer is better at being an explorer.

If you want something based on the fighter that is not the fighter, the actual class is superior because it is designed for it's role. But I why you want is a fighter? That guy is king. Which is very refreshing...


So, how does ACKS play? My instincts from other systems tell me that running a party of 20+ (with all the henchmen) will get pretty slow, but I haven't heard any complaints on that front. What gives?

Do you guys use battle maps?

Honestly? Delegation. "Tyriel, we cannot risk the duke escaping. Take five of the men to the portcullis and keep him here! We will bag trough the back gate." Kinda thing. Otherwise any fight becomes "five chicas charging the dragon while fifteen hang back with longbows" not out of some intrinsic desire to keep things same but because that's the logical, smart (and cowardly!) way to handle things.

I'll let you know as I get farther in, though.

[Rhynn]

Small note from reading page 130: your henchmen can have henchmen! Parties can be even bigger! (5 PCs can each have an average of 4 henchmen, who can each have an average of 4 henchmen, and you're already up to 105 people!) Obviously the Judge ultimately controls henchman availability, though.

Anyway, it's explicitly stated on page 130. Your direct vassals must be your henchmen. You can give your henchmen more than one domain each, and they can give those to their own henchmen.

I love spreadsheets and amateur accounting, so I had to do some quick ROI calculations, and with zero growth of population, a newly established average population 1 6-mile hex civilized domain can make back its minimum investment in 12 months - but that's easy sailing. A borderlands domain needs 60 months (or 35 months if you get taxes waived for being a march lord), and a wilderness domain needs 25 years. Of course, you'd have to be a blithering moron to run a wilderness domain without working hard to increase its population. After all, if you can get it to civilized, you can clear out another hex of monster lairs and use the same stronghold to secure that (a large tower can secure 1 hex of wilderlands or 2 hexes of civilized), potentially increasing population all the way to 1,560 families (over a 4300% increase from the average starting population for wilderlands), before urban settlement.

I freaking love these domain rules. They just work out. Incidentally, a knight-sized domain of 1-4 square miles can be ruled from a small house with a palisade fence to a stone manor with a palisade fence and maybe a dry moat, which is exactly how it mostly worked IRL: a manor with a wall, maybe a moat.

Edit: Also, investing in a domain is always better than hoarding your treasure. After that 12 months recouping your 15,250 gp investment, you've earned XP twice for it: once when you brought it back from your adventure, and again when you got it as domain income. It's always better to invest your money in something and get back more over time, because it always means earning more XP.

[shadow_archmagi]

There's a quiet, aesthetic-hating part of me that wants to fulfill minimum GP requirements by just filling the building with doors. Big, expensive doors, with fancy, expensive locks, many of which don't actually open.

Also, quick question regarding economics:

The Class I city of Brickberg has many quarries, resulting in a -3 demand for stone. It has a slight lumber deficit, so +1. It's connected by trade route to Lumbertown, a class III market which has no brick production at all, but many, many trees, resulting in a -3 demand for trees and a +2 demand for bricks.

So, as I understand it:
Brickberg shifts Lumbertown by two, because it's dominant. If these were the only two towns, they'd look like this:

Brickberg: +1 lumber, -3 stone.
Lumbertown: -1 Lumber, +0 stone.

Now, let's say I add in Urbanopolis, a class II market with no demand modifiers. It's completely boring. Now, because Brickberg is class I, its trade modifiers act first, so Urbanopolis now has +1 lumber, -2 Stone. Urbanopolis then exerts that trade onto Lumbertown again, which means the final readout looks like:

Brickberg: +1 lumber, -3 stone
Urbanopolis: +1 lumber, -2 stone
Lumbertown: +1 lumber, -2 stone

[Kiero]

Honestly? Delegation. "Tyriel, we cannot risk the duke escaping. Take five of the men to the portcullis and keep him here! We will bag trough the back gate." Kinda thing. Otherwise any fight becomes "five chicas charging the dragon while fifteen hang back with longbows" not out of some intrinsic desire to keep things same but because that's the logical, smart (and cowardly!) way to handle things.

I'll let you know as I get farther in, though.

I'm about to run a massive skirmish with the PCs entire combined retinues (unlikely to happen again once they arrive at their destined home base), so I'll report back how it goes. 30-odd on the PC side vs 50-odd raiders after their horses and any other loot they can carry away.

[Rhynn]

The more I read, the better it gets. I swear ACKS has the best emergent mechanics I've read since RuneQuest 6 (which just screamed ideas at me, like how to do vampires with Sorcery, how shamans need a spirit to guard their body while they leave it, how animistic undead work) and Artesia: Adventures in the Known World.

So I read the rules for vassals and vassal realms, and ACKS practically looks like Crusader Kings 2: The RPG. A king could have any number of direct vassals ("dukes"), but only 1-7 or so, depending on Charisma (and proficiencies), are henchmen and thus even indirectly controlled. This suggests many things to me: the vassals who aren't henchmen might not bother to pay the full 20% tax, and they won't agree to the one free duty, requiring a favor for any duty. So, a king's Charisma and rulership ability directly affect the stability of his realm, and trying to hold too many direct vassals is a recipe for disaster.

Also, you can control one urban settlement in your domain. What if you want another one in your domain? Why, you make it a vassal realm held by a henchman. Or, if you don't care for the income and just want another city around, you can make it a free city, granting it to someone else (or the city itself) altogether, under some kind of charter.

More! A large, "universal" church would work as a "distributed" realm: the high priest cleric holds one domain, which includes the holy city. The high priest's henchmen clerics (let's call them "cardinals") hold vassal realms that lay inside other realms altogether! These vassal realms, again, are made up of vassal domains ("bishoprics") that are, likewise, widely distributed: they might be quite small, and probably no larger than baronies (although some, possibly held by "prince-bishops", might be quite large). A king could make clerics vassals, too, but whether they paid their taxes to him or directly to the church would be a matter of loyalty; and the high priest might object to a king naming "bishops," which could result in... changes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Vasa#The_Reformation).

ACKS is freaking great. :smallbiggrin:

(Incidentally, Crusader Kings 2 had some awesome emergent stories, too. I played a king who occasionally held nobles and bishops for ransom to fund wars... :smallamused: )

[Rhynn]

Eyeballed and came up with a bunch of numbers, using my hexmap, and statted up the City-State of Tyr: totalling 9 domains and 2 urban settlements (Tyr and Ablath; I might do up Altaruk and Kled as villages or small towns, too) at 89 hexes, it's roughly a "duchy" ... which got me thinking. I already figured I'll fold tithes into the Sorcerer-King's punitive taxes (the Sorcerer-King takes 30%, instead of 20% and 10% tithes; after all, the Sorcerer-King is also the religious head). But what if the Sorcerer-Kings have to put aside 30% of their yearly income as yearly sacrifices to the Dragon of Ur Draxa in the form of slaves, cattle, and magical components ("the Dragon's Third") ? Why, that would effectively make the Tyr Region one "kingdom," with the Dragon of Ur Draxa as the "king."

Domains are going to work much more cleanly in all my other campaign setting concepts, but they work well enough for Tyr: they're just distributed. All of the domains of the City-State of Tyr don't border on each other, for instance, and instead have empty, unclaimed borderlands/wilderness between them. But it still seems to work out nicely. Incidentally, my numbers gave King Kalak of Tyr a nice income (after the Dragon's Third) of 105,000 gp/month. Not enough for XP, but I figure the Sorcerer-Kings have all been 14th-level for a long, long while. I know, "1 in 10,000,000" and all, but Athas is a dying world and the Sorcerer-Kings are maybe-probably-possibly remnants of an earlier age. At the very least, they're immortal god-kings who have ruled for as long as contemporary records exist.

[Water_Bear]

I'm not sure statting the Sorcerer-Kings up as 14th level is a good idea, at least not all of them. It feels like the same impulse which makes people stat Gandalf as a 20th level Wizard in 3.X or throw out lots of 18s whenever an NPC needs to be gifted in their field. Just because they aren't at the mechanical peak of human ability doesn't mean they can't be at the top of the food chain; an 11th level Mage with the Elite Array (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm) (that and the nonelite array have made my NPC generation so much easier) can still throw down with 6th level spells like Enslave or Anti-Magic Shell and Ritual Spells like Wish, and are easily capable of ruling a Principality with a personal domain of a Small City.

Another thing to consider is whether the Sorcerer-Kings are human, strictly speaking. If they are a monster with the ** Special Ability of Mage casting equal to their HD, that gives room for them to be a lot more powerful and unique than their level might otherwise indicate. If nothing else the d8 hit die and monster attack progression make them tough enemies to kill outright, even without their magic. It also means their XP progression might be slow enough to justify taking centuries of defiling to reach their level even while PCs can rocket up to similar power adventuring.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, I'm not 100% set on making them 14th level. I suppose 11th-13th could work; I could make some of them tougher than others (giving a sort of "progression" of city-states for PCs to knock over). I could also do them as monsters, but I've mostly scrapped canon except on a case-by-case basis anyway... they might have a magical transformation comparable to undeath applied, or they might not. They're probably not "Nth stage dragons" in any case.

I did do a preliminary version of the Dragon of Ur Draxa as a venerable dragon with scouring wind breath, Fear Aura, Invulnerability, and Tail Lash (I might add two instances of Massive Size for another **), plus psionics. I might up his magic powers to 6th-level spells and rituals, too... he's basically the "King" of the region.

Of course, I also need to think about expansion: the Tyr Region is a tiny corner of the world, and thanks to The Athasian Cartographers' Guild (http://ds.daegmorgan.net/), I have some maps to use as a base for expansion if I ever need it. I think, though, that the Sorcerer-Kings and the Dragon are the most powerful individuals around now (unless, of course, there are other dragons - the old Dark Sun material actually heavily hints at the possibility of other dragons across Athas, ruling regions comparable in size to the Tyr Region!).

I guess, most importantly, doing them at slightly lower levels will make the Sorcerer-Kings more viable opponents to 9th and 10th-level PCs. In fact, I think conquering a city-state by slaying a Sorcerer-King should be a totally viable way to get your first domain (obviously, it's likely to fragment and be attacked by the neighboring city-states, probably leaving the PCs with only the "core" 16-hex domain and city to divide among themselves). Just as viable as striking out into the Hinterlands or the scrub plains north of Raam to found a new domain in the wilderness.

[Rhynn]

Finished scribbling on my map and putting the results into an OpenOffice spreadsheet (to automatically generate numbers). The Tyr Region comes out to 474 hexes, plus 16 hexes for Ur Draxa, which makes it a "principality." There's 7 "duchies" (city-states) instead of 4-6, but that's close enough when most of them are small (51-79, Tyr itself is 102). I think it works out fine. Athas is obviously a special case; I can paint borders broadly and not bother mapping out each individual domain (of which there'll be a lot more; Tyr only has a total 10 domains and 2-4 urban settlements, after I added one I missed) for other settings. Currently planning on sketching out a Hyborian Age setting, my Waterdeep/Savage Frontier setting, and my own world.

I'm having to bend the rules for civilized/borderlands/wilderness, because Athas just works differently, IMO, but it shakes out fine.

[SiuiS]

Sorcerer kings are like vampires, they are monsters who once were human, but are no longer.

Are you going to allow your Pcs to eventually become those anti-King moth creatures?


I need to buckle down on the domain rules, but I never have time. I wish I had gotten the Hard Cover version instead of the PDF, now. It's so hard to get time at the computer with a notepad and some graph paper where I also don't need to fall asleep as soon as humanly possible D:

[Water_Bear]

anti-King moth creatures?

I freely admit I don't know much about Athas (my one 2e game never got off the ground and I found ACK soon after), but that had to be a typo right? Are there really magic moth-like creatures trying to save the environment in Dark Sun, and if so why?

[Rhynn]

I freely admit I don't know much about Athas (my one 2e game never got off the ground and I found ACK soon after), but that had to be a typo right? Are there really magic moth-like creatures trying to save the environment in Dark Sun, and if so why?

It's not typo. Avangions are basically moth/butterfly humanoids. Some type of lepidopterans, anyway. Like so (http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/ghost_warlock/avangiontransformation.jpg).

I have no idea who came up with them and why. They're not mentioned in the original campaign setting, and come up in Dragon Kings (published before the revision), so I suppose they were invented for that book for "completeness" (clerics also get elemental transformations).


Are you going to allow your Pcs to eventually become those anti-King moth creatures?

Probably not. Like I said, the Sorcerer-Kings probably aren't even Nth-stage dragons in my head, so far. The Dragon of Ur Draxa may not be an ascendant Sorcerer-King. There's no Rajaat, so far, and although the world was destroyed in some kind of wars, they may not have been the Cleansing Wars. (And there definitely aren't undead pixies in the Dead Lands!)

But there's going to be some sort of alternatives to undead transformations.

[SiuiS]

I freely admit I don't know much about Athas (my one 2e game never got off the ground and I found ACK soon after), but that had to be a typo right? Are there really magic moth-like creatures trying to save the environment in Dark Sun, and if so why?

No. One of the sources has epic advancement, allowing you to eventually become either a dragon, or a moth. The dragons are what the sorcerer kings are, and the moths were apparently once their rivals but hunted to extinction? The moth is sort of sacrificial. Sure, you restore part of the world and begin the process of low-distance natural genesis, stabilizing the world by your presence, but now you're a moth. And a hunted one at that.

http://i37.tinypic.com/dhd8gx.jpg


It's not typo. Avangions are basically moth/butterfly humanoids. Some type of lepidopterans, anyway. Like so (http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq339/ghost_warlock/avangiontransformation.jpg).

That picture is dumb. XD.



Probably not. Like I said, the Sorcerer-Kings probably aren't even Nth-stage dragons in my head, so far. The Dragon of Ur Draxa may not be an ascendant Sorcerer-King. There's no Rajaat, so far, and although the world was destroyed in some kind of wars, they may not have been the Cleansing Wars. (And there definitely aren't undead pixies in the Dead Lands!)

But there's going to be some sort of alternatives to undead transformations.

Interesting. Okay.

[Rhynn]

The dragons are what the sorcerer kings are, and the moths were apparently once their rivals but hunted to extinction?

Actually, AFAIK the only named Avangion was a Sorcerer-King. It's a bit unclear at what stage he turned to the other path, because there's nothing anywhere ever that indicates you can reverse dragon transformation... and I'm pretty sure they became first-stage dragons when they used the Dark Lens to trap Rajaat blah blah blah oh lord I hate Troy Denning like I needed a reminder why I scrapped the canon.

[SiuiS]

Actually, AFAIK the only named Avangion was a Sorcerer-King. It's a bit unclear at what stage he turned to the other path, because there's nothing anywhere ever that indicates you can reverse dragon transformation... and I'm pretty sure they became first-stage dragons when they used the Dark Lens to trap Rajaat blah blah blah oh lord I hate Troy Denning like I needed a reminder why I scrapped the canon.

Heh. Backwards for me; I have no idea what the canon is. I've pieces everything together in the aftermath; dark sun was the one thing I could never find data on — I even had the deck if psionic powers, which is where I learned that Dragon Kings even existed! Their powers were awesome, too, the ones that required psionics and arcane power.

[Rhynn]

So, having finished reading the rules, I've got to start dealing with my loose ends for a Dark Sun conversion. First is defilers and preservers.

In other editions:
In AD&D 2E, they're different classes: a defiler needs 1,750 XP to 2nd level (compared to the wizard's 2,500 XP; 2.7M to 20th, compared to 3.75M). Defilers always defile, and a preserver who defiles becomes a defiler (losing XP and staying the same level). I do not want this. It works very poorly: you defile when preparing your spells rather than casting them (and must make an Intelligence check to gain or lose spells per level based on the terrain), which works for some interpretations of spellcasting, but not for mine. It doesn't work at all for ACKS, where you don't memorize or prepare spells.

In athas.org's 3.5 version, any arcane spellcaster can defile when casting. Much better. Basic defiling has no use (except for a minor indiscriminate debuff and damage to plants), but you can extend the casting time for an increase in caster level, and there are feats and class features that give you extra perks when defiling. The greenness of the terrain modifies spell save DCs. Better, but not very impressive.

In the D&D 4E version, defiling is an at-will power available to all arcane casters (anyone with an arcane daily attack power). Defiling gives you a reroll on attack or damage, but deals damage to allies only in a 100' radius! That's crazy bad. (Also, makes no sense, because only Sorcerer-Kings using special obsidian focuses could defile animal life.)
So, what do I want from defiling?
1. Available to any arcane caster at the time of casting a spell.
2. Plant destruction is adjudicated ad-hoc by the Judge.
3. Terrain has no mechanical effect.
4. Beneficial, tempting, but not "the only sensible option." It can be more powerful, but needs to be balanced.

What do you all think about letting someone use defiling magic without having declared casting a spell before initiative was rolled? Basically, you don't risk losing the spell, and can react to things happening during the round a bit better. Defiling becomes particularly attractive in desperation, or when being attacked in close combat.

If I do this, should I give a bonus to defiling after having declared it at the start of a round? Treated as one level higher for level-dependent effects?

I also think I'll institute a corruption mechanic. Something simple like: any time you defile, save v. Spell or suffer a roll from a table (based on the Tampering with Mortality and Mortal Wound tables, with mental and physical mutations and corruptions).

Any ideas and suggestions are welcome!

[Rhynn]

It's a productive day: I finished my first draft of psionic power lists. I basically went through the spell lists and picked spells that would work well as psionic powers, maybe re-fluffed. I got a total of 60 and arranged them into five levels, for now. Might make it six - this is just the first draft.


First Level Psionic Powers: Charm Person, Command Word, Detect Psionics, Read Languages, Salving Rest, Sanctuary Shield, Sleep, Telekinesis, Telepathy, Trance, Ventriloquism
Second Level Psionic Powers: Cause Fear, Charm Animal, Choking Grip, Detect Danger, Detect Invisible, ESP, Levitate, Locate Object, Produce Fire, Remove Fear, Resist Fire, Speak with Animals
Third Level Psionic Powers: Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, Command Animals, Command Person, Dispel Psionics, Find Treasure, Fly, Hold Person, Nondetection, Probability Glimpse, Protection from Normal Missiles, Tongues
Fourth Level Psionic Powers: Charm Monster, Confusion, Control Animals, Dimension Door, Fear, Hold Monster, Minor Psionic Static, Psychic Blast, Strength of Mind, Third Eye, Wall of Fire, Weakness of Mind
Fifth Level Psionic Powers: Aetheric Records, Anti-Psionic Shell, Disintegrate, Enslave, Feeblemind, Panic, Phantasmal Killer, Projected Image, Psionic Static, Psychic Crush, Teleport, True Seeing
Basically every psionic power is "as the spell."
Aetheric Records is as contact other plane.
Detect Psionics is as detect magic, but for psionics.
Minor Psionic Static is as minor globe of invulnerability for psionic powers.
Probability Glimpse is as augury.
Psionic Static is as globe of invulnerability for psionic powers.
Psychic Blast is as cone of paralysis.
Psychic Crush is as death spell.
Third Eye is as wizard eye.
The powers are mostly based on telepathy, telekinesis and extra-sensory perception, with some "psychoportation" and pyrokinesis thrown in.

Compared to mages and clerics, 5th-level power are more like 5.5th-level; I'm thinking right now that full psionic casters will get 5th-level powers around 10th or 11th level, but they will have 1st-level powers at 1st level.

[SiuiS]

So, having finished reading the rules, I've got to start dealing with my loose ends for a Dark Sun conversion. First is defilers and preservers.

In other editions:
In AD&D 2E, they're different classes: a defiler needs 1,750 XP to 2nd level (compared to the wizard's 2,500 XP; 2.7M to 20th, compared to 3.75M). Defilers always defile, and a preserver who defiles becomes a defiler (losing XP and staying the same level). I do not want this. It works very poorly: you defile when preparing your spells rather than casting them (and must make an Intelligence check to gain or lose spells per level based on the terrain), which works for some interpretations of spellcasting, but not for mine. It doesn't work at all for ACKS, where you don't memorize or prepare spells.

In athas.org's 3.5 version, any arcane spellcaster can defile when casting. Much better. Basic defiling has no use (except for a minor indiscriminate debuff and damage to plants), but you can extend the casting time for an increase in caster level, and there are feats and class features that give you extra perks when defiling. The greenness of the terrain modifies spell save DCs. Better, but not very impressive.

In the D&D 4E version, defiling is an at-will power available to all arcane casters (anyone with an arcane daily attack power). Defiling gives you a reroll on attack or damage, but deals damage to allies only in a 100' radius! That's crazy bad. (Also, makes no sense, because only Sorcerer-Kings using special obsidian focuses could defile animal life.)
So, what do I want from defiling?
1. Available to any arcane caster at the time of casting a spell.
2. Plant destruction is adjudicated ad-hoc by the Judge.
3. Terrain has no mechanical effect.
4. Beneficial, tempting, but not "the only sensible option." It can be more powerful, but needs to be balanced.

What do you all think about letting someone use defiling magic without having declared casting a spell before initiative was rolled? Basically, you don't risk losing the spell, and can react to things happening during the round a bit better. Defiling becomes particularly attractive in desperation, or when being attacked in close combat.

If I do this, should I give a bonus to defiling after having declared it at the start of a round? Treated as one level higher for level-dependent effects?

I also think I'll institute a corruption mechanic. Something simple like: any time you defile, save v. Spell or suffer a roll from a table (based on the Tampering with Mortality and Mortal Wound tables, with mental and physical mutations and corruptions).

Any ideas and suggestions are welcome!

Spontaneous magic seems powerful enough to me; there shouldn't be an additional benefit for dropping that an declaring defilement like a normal caster. There's also nothing that can make defilement better enough when declared that A) will make someone not take the usual amount if flexibility and B) not be absurdly worth it. The ability to pull out magic whenever is maybe not something we think of as strong, but it's a sight better than declaration, and is one of the reasons 3.X wizard is t3h borken.

Psionics, I dunno. I don't see a need to make them different than magic; make a psion class with those spells is enough for me.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure psionics is now just a matter of re-jiggering the power lists and coming up with a progression for the main psionicist class (and values for building character classes). Then there'll be a percentile chance equal to Int mod + Wis mod + Cha mod for any non-psionicist character to have a wild talent, rolled from a list, probably with an extra chance of telepathy. And adding a few powers, maybe. I'd like to get up to 15 per level, whether that's 5 or 6 levels.

I think telepathy will get changed a bit: instead of using it as a regular spell, you'll be able to use it a number of rounds in a day, broken up as you like. You can also activate it for a round to make a Mental Attack (I figure everyone else will have a Mental Attack Throw of 11+, and psionicists will have one that improves like Fighter Attack Throws) that has... some sort of effect.

Psionicists will have the most limited repertoire: basically, like mages but with no formulae. Spells per day, plus Int mod for each level, in their repertoire; learn spells from their master until 9th (up to their per-day limit for each level), and after that only psychic research (which involves lots of expensive radioactive intoxicants (http://planetalgol.blogspot.fi/), black lotus, crystals, et cetera) can get you new powers in your repertoire, up to the limit. So, no psionicist will ever have more than 6 powers per level in their repertoire, and most will have 3. I figure they get some extra power and flexibility in exchange for a narrower scope of powers.

[Kaun]

You have put me in the mind to run an ACK's Darksun game myself.

I have ordered the ACK's book and i am now just awaiting its arrival.

Re defilement, have you considered allowing it to add a 3x style meta magic feet to the casting of the spell. With an increased range of defilement based on the power.

For example; destroy a 3 meter radius of plant life cast the spell as a "fast spell" type thing.

That means it is controlled some what by the amount of plant life etc in range.

and secondly.

It was the fluff punishment was always meant to be the controlling part of defilement.

Being a known defiler was always meant to get you at very least expelled from a settlement. Generally it just got you killed. On top of that it made you a target for the veiled alliance (or what ever those mages were called) and a target of any Dragon sorcerer king who you didn't serve.

There was never really meant to be a major mechanical downside. It was all in the fluff.

[Rhynn]

I think trying to figure out the amount of plant life around you is too big of a hassle and always comes down to "how does the Judge feel." You can't use the hex you're in, because you might be on a big naked rocky outcropping in the middle of that 23.4 sq mi area. So the actual defilement effect is going to be fluff, although I might let defilers deal some damage to plant monsters nearby. If there's plants around, people may see them turn into ash. If not (you're defiling underground roots etc.), maybe the ground blackens around you (I still think that effect makes no sense; sucking nutrients out of the ground isn't really indirectly using solar energy), and you'll definitely emanate a sense of wrongness.

IMO, the fluff is harsher on preservers than defilers. Arcane magic is illegal, and only defilers can practice it legally. Not only that, but they get to study with a Sorcerer-King. They are going to have a huge advantage in this area; basically, any defiler can be one of the King's, getting their new spells (until 9th level) from the Sorcerer-King, and possibly having (limited) access to his libraries, workshops, and laboratories (of which he's going to have several, of different values). And even in the canon, it's pretty much 50/50 whether a settlement's resident wizard was a defiler or preserver. Elf tribes commonly had defilers, etc.

The big thing, too, is that only Lawful people are going to really care about your defiling, unless you're defiling their crops or something. Lawful people means druids and the Veiled Alliance; the first are only powerful out in their stretch of wilderness (and once the PCs are at mid-high levels, they can probably take on most druids), and the second are not powerful at all.

Now I wonder... should I create a class akin to a non-elven nightblade, to give the Veiled Alliance access to hideouts and hijinks, and a class able to perform assassinations... some kind of trained wizard-killer, used by Sorcerer-Kings to hunt the Veiled Alliance and by the Veiled Alliance to hunt defilers. I think the AD&D kit that did this was called "chasseur" ?

[Rhynn]

I finished the two-page spreadsheet (that's getting off easy, for me!) of the realms and domains of the Tyr Region (except for the big one, e.g. the theoretical "principality" of the whole region ruled by the Dragon); the city-states of the Sorcerer-Kings, and the free city of Celik (ruled by a merchant prince).

Next up, I'm going to list the existing syndicates and "guilds" of the city-states: a few thieves' guilds, maybe, but mostly merchant houses (venturers' syndicates & guilds) and elven tribes' "local chapters" (which work as "straight" nightblade syndicates). Not because I feel like I have to, but because it feels like it'll make a better, stronger sandbox.

These are basically going to be in the format of "House Tsalaxa's Tyr chapter (Exoctl Tsalaxa, venturer 10)", maybe expanded with a short list of henchmen, followers and ruffians (e.g. "12 3rd-level venturers, 28 2nd-level, 51 1st-level, 100 ruffians"), that can in turn be expanded into one-paragraph descriptions of the henchmen and interesting persons if a specific syndicate becomes important in the campaign.

Randomly, a group of players playing all elves could work out great in the campaign setting. Between just a few players, they could run an entire tribe, commanding several oasis-fastnesses, maybe a hidden fastness in some distant canyon, as well as multiple syndicates ("elven markets") in city-states, a sanctum somewhere...

ACKS campaign prep strikes, for me, a pretty perfect balance between detail and abstraction.

[SiuiS]

You're doing all the prep I always say I'll do but never get to. XD

[shadow_archmagi]

Just rolled up my first market. The small, forested, coastal city of Bajur!

Primary exports are meat and armor/weapons, with a -3 demand, and with beer, oil, silk, semiprecious stones, rare books, and precious metals as secondary exports with -2 demand. Finally, there's a small supply (-1) of pottery, tools, dye, glass, rare wood, and ivory.

The city's highest demand modifier is a meagre +1, which it applies to gems, furs, and common metals.

This will be most amusing when the adventurers return from their first big haul to find that no one wants or needs their looted solid gold statues and ancient tomes. "Why didn't ye bring BADGER PELTS?" the merchants will ask. "Now thems valuable!"

[Rhynn]

I'd done a lot of more vague idea-spitballing and random work (still a huge pile of files) for AD&D Dark Sun, and then ACKS gave me a bunch of structure and help...

It'd not like all this prep is even necessary beforehand. I could easily see running my own scratch-written world's campaign as a "start small, develop outward" type of deal, starting with a dungeon and a town, and then developing the barony, then the county, then the duchy, then the kingdom, then the realm... that's what I've planned on anyway.

So basically it's ACKS fault for making the prepwork fun for me. Perhaps bizarrely, it helps that I can make spreadsheets and calculate stuff, that always draws me in... I love filling out manor worksheets for HârnMaster. Probably the bigger part is that all of this prepwork goes along with visions of how it can be used in awesomely fun ways in play.

Edit: :smallbiggrin: Market demand modifiers are up next for me. I'm going to make a few tiny changes to commodities: common metals will be replaced by obsidian etc. (your basic weapon materials), and precious metals will mostly be iron, with a tiny bit of silver and gold. Needing to have a list of markets and their classes was part of why I did the domain spreadsheets. The Tyr Region, being extremely centralized by necessity (total 4 steps down on the list for the city-states' capitals) has five Class II markets, two Class III, one Class IV, two Class V, and a bunch of VIs (most of the wasteland settlements are villages).

Also, I've already decided that a big part of treasures found on beastmen and raiders (e.g. most treasures not found by scavenging ancient ruins) will be commodities, leaving the PCs to deal with getting maximum value on them.

Edit2: The demand modifiers are easy to mass-produce, incidentally... spreadsheet, columns for products, rows for markets. I used two spreadsheets, and pasted =RANDBETWEEN(1;3)-RANDBETWEEN(1;3) (1d3-1d3) into each cell on a row, then pasted that row onto all the other rows, then copied the mess and used OO's Special Paste to only paste the numbers into the main spreadsheet. Voila, 620 1d3-1d3 rolls in ~15 seconds. Now to modify them by hand. :smalleek:

[shadow_archmagi]

Edit2: The demand modifiers are easy to mass-produce, incidentally... spreadsheet, columns for products, rows for markets. I used two spreadsheets, and pasted =RANDBETWEEN(1;3)-RANDBETWEEN(1;3) (1d3-1d3) into each cell on a row, then pasted that row onto all the other rows, then copied the mess and used OO's Special Paste to only paste the numbers into the main spreadsheet. Voila, 620 1d3-1d3 rolls in ~15 seconds. Now to modify them by hand. :smalleek:

Ooh, classy. I used a computer roller to do 1d3-1d3 thirty one times and then copied results by hand, but yours is even faster!

[Rhynn]

The environmental adjustments are definitely the fiddly bit...

I was thinking about doing the forts and oases along trade routes as Class VI Markets, but that would be extra fiddly work, plus merchants aren't going to stay around, they'll just pass through; you might do incidental business with someone if you really need something, but that would be it. Merchants want to unload their cargo at their destination, then pick up a new cargo and head back (or to their next stop), not unload halfway there and go home empty.

I also realized I need to do up slaves as a commodity; they can replace preserved fish; fish would be so rare (there's a tiny lake by Makla near the Smoking Crown Mountains, and a lake in the Dragon's Bowl by Urik, but fishing is probably poor in both) they'd be a rare luxury product, even dried.

I suppose they'd be something like...

Slave; 16 stone; 5 per load (80 stone); Supply Cost per Load (35 stone*) 10gp/wk; Price per Load 750gp

* Includes weight of water carried, at 1 stone total supplies per man-day. Price is at 3sp/day (rounded down), with the cost of water (1cp/day) folded in. This assumes regular stops (at least weekly) at oases etc. to restock.

This is soooo politically correct, but does valuing a slave as equal to about four horses sound about right? :smallamused: This would make slaves valuable, but not as valuable per weight as wine/spirits, pottery, tools, armor, weapons, etc., never mind precious merchandise. In addition, you'd have to deal with the supply cost (50% more than warhorses, with nearly quadruple the price-per-weight). On the other hand, all the city-states are going to have guaranteed demand for slaves.

[shadow_archmagi]

Quick question about trade routes: If City A is connected to Village B which is connected to Small City C, how does that work in terms of who influences whose market.

[Rhynn]

I wish the example addressed that. As far as I can figure, if class VI market "A" is connected to class V market "B" and class IV market "C", then "A" is first modified by "C", then by "B"... this seems sensible? The small market is going to end up somewhere between the two larger markets (which are themselves not affected by it). But if "C" and "B" are also connected... well, I'd say "B" is modified by "C" before "A" is modified by "C" then "B"...

Basically, the biggest markets modify equal and smaller markets first, then the next biggest markets modify equal or smaller markets, etc. Only by direct trade routes. So if Market "C" increases demand of Grain in Market "B", this can affect how much Market "B" increases demand of Grain in Market "A" - this seems sensible to me?

Incidentally: water merchants, yea or nay? The concept exists in AD&D 2E canon, and I like it (cf. Fallout 1, etc.). But if water is 1cp (ACKS cp) per gallon (seemed like a reasonable price; a wretched laborer would spend ~60cp on poor meals and ~30 cp on water in a month), it just doesn't make a very good commodity... 10 gallons is 8 stone... 100 gallons is 80 stone and worth 1gp. That's only 1/10th the value of grain, and probably not worth the trouble to transport anywhere. It makes slightly more sense in 2E revised Dark Sun, where a gallon of water is worth 4 standard cp (4/10th of a ceramic bit), but that price of water produces untenable results (people not being able to afford even the minimum water on normal wages and dying of thirst in a week or two).

[Water_Bear]

does valuing a slave as equal to about four horses sound about right? :smallamused:

That is severely overpricing slaves. In ancient Rome, and much of the classical world, a slave was cheaper than a mule unless they had some kind of skill or were particularly attractive. Dark Sun might not have the population that the classical world did, but the proportion of the population in bondage is a lot higher so I'd peg them somewhere similar.

Since a Normal Man is nearly mechanically identical to a Militia Slave Soldier (other than the +1 hp for being a "mercenary") I would say that by ACK pricing an unskilled slave would be a little under 40gp, with the 100gp Household Slave representing a more well trained and presentable servant. Either way they are cheaper than heavy draft horses, although mules and horses are distressingly cheap.

[SiuiS]

I wish the example addressed that. As far as I can figure, if class VI market "A" is connected to class V market "B" and class IV market "C", then "A" is first modified by "C", then by "B"... this seems sensible? The small market is going to end up somewhere between the two larger markets (which are themselves not affected by it). But if "C" and "B" are also connected... well, I'd say "B" is modified by "C" before

Basically, the biggest markets modify equal and smaller markets first, then the next biggest markets modify equal or smaller markets, etc. Only by direct trade routes. So if Market "C" increases demand of Grain in Market "B", this can affect how much Market "B" increases demand of Grain in Market "A" - this seems sensible to me?

Man, what?

So it turns out my initial reading was way off, and it polluted my thoughts since. I've been thinking I needed a map and had to figure markets and stuff based on hex allotment, etc., but I could instead not down notes about a town, figure it's market, and do all that completely separate from mapping! Much easier. Going to play with tonight.


Incidentally: water merchants, yea or nay? The concept exists in AD&D 2E canon, and I like it (cf. Fallout 1, etc.). But if water is 1cp (ACKS cp) per gallon (seemed like a reasonable price; a wretched laborer would spend ~60cp on poor meals and ~30 cp on water in a month), it just doesn't make a very good commodity... 10 gallons is 8 stone... 100 gallons is 80 stone and worth 1gp. That's only 1/10th the value of grain, and probably not worth the trouble to transport anywhere. It makes slightly more sense in 2E revised Dark Sun, where a gallon of water is worth 4 standard cp (4/10th of a ceramic bit), but that price of water produces untenable results (people not being able to afford even the minimum water on normal wages and dying of thirst in a week or two).

Use dark sun prices. You can't afford water? Oh, well, you're indebted to your clan now. Outsiders mean it's even scarcer; shun them. Enemy tribes? Even worse! Kill them. Maybe drink their blood (or use it to water some crops! Save the water for yourself) to keep going.

Scavenging is easy. If we assume scavenging leaves you alive but thirsty – sucking some roots at dawn, but not too many as you need enough plants alive to sow for next year; licking rocks, squeezing ants, that sort of thing – then you get people who survive but don't live. Purchased water is a damn fine commodity then, because those who get it for cheap will still sell way above cost; you get a cup when you enter town, because the first hit is free (and to reduce your blood salinity so you're drinkable, if we have to kill you!)

[Rhynn]

I'm sticking with 1 ACKS cp (still haven't worked out a satisfactory way to deal with the currency conversion) per gallon. That makes it slightly cheaper than cheap beer (1 cp per 3 pints), which makes sense to me; that stuff was basically water that had been boiled (and sort of a side-product of making "proper" beer). If I change the cost of water from there I'll have to change all sorts of other prices.

I don't care to make the cost of water an issue, I want to make the weight of it one. (Basically 1 stone per day if you're a regular human.)

Owning the rights to a large well seems like a much better deal than transporting water... if you have 1,000 people using the well, you're getting 10 gp per day, every day, at a minimum; factor in other uses of water and you're probably multiplying that.

I think being charged to use a community well is already pretty post-apocalyptic... no ceramic pieces, no water.

[SiuiS]

Okay. I'm having trouble grokking the domain stuff. So I'm gonna walk through it slow and steady and double check everything.

Good golly gosh this is a pain on my phone...

So. Starkhimmel, port city, thriving center of civilization on this continent, also starting area. It has 34,000 families. Now, it's the center of civilization, and most people are crap level so stick close to home; it has a pop. Density of 800 families per 6 mi. Hex, 8,000 families per 24 mile hex. So that's 68 individual 6mi hexed and 4.25 24mi hexes. But this isn't the city; this is the entire domain, the nation basically, right?

The set up is advanced, agrarian, and centralized. So that's a few steps down the pop. Density chart, meaning instead of having a town with a few hundred families, I'll bump it down three spaces to Large city, with about 10,000 families. So now I divide, yes? Those 10,000 divided into 500/hex leaves me with (oh, probably messed that up. Think I used 80, not 500 last time!) 20 6mi hexes for the city proper.

This means the domain has 4-6 counties, 16-36 marches, and 64-216 baronies(!?). Gonna need to scale down... Mistakenly used population i stead of family as the unit, do divide by 5 later... But for now this would be correct application? How does rulers realm pop. Factor in?

(Corrected numbers leave me with 6,800 families; a county of 13.6 small hexes (we'll say 15 or 16 for expansion); a city that's a large town with a class IV market covering 4 contiguous small hexes; 4-6 marches and 16-36 baronies, modified for density of population).

[Kiero]

The set up is advanced, agrarian, and centralized. So that's a few steps down the pop. Density chart, meaning instead of having a town with a few hundred families, I'll bump it down three spaces to Large city, with about 10,000 families. So now I divide, yes? Those 10,000 divided into 500/hex leaves me with (oh, probably messed that up. Think I used 80, not 500 last time!) 20 6mi hexes for the city proper.


No. That means the largest settlement/capital is 10,000 families, you don't divide that up into the general populace. What it skews is the urban population which ranges from 10-25% of the general populace. Skews because it means they are predominantly in the capital, rather than in towns and villages all across the countryside.

[SiuiS]

No. That means the largest settlement/capital is 10,000 families, you don't divide that up into the general populace. What it skews is the urban population which ranges from 10-25% of the general populace. Skews because it means they are predominantly in the capital, rather than in towns and villages all across the countryside.

The division was solely for "how many hexes for this specific settlement" only. Is that not a thing? Does a city exist only within one six mile hex?

[Rhynn]

So. Starkhimmel, port city, thriving center of civilization on this continent, also starting area. It has 34,000 families. Now, it's the center of civilization, and most people are crap level so stick close to home; it has a pop. Density of 800 families per 6 mi. Hex, 8,000 families per 24 mile hex. So that's 68 individual 6mi hexed and 4.25 24mi hexes. But this isn't the city; this is the entire domain, the nation basically, right?

The exact term would be "realm." A realm is made up of domains, and domains can contain an urban settlement (which is a sort of domain-within-a-domain). Note that domains have a maximum size of 16 6-mile hexes. One person can only directly manage one domain and one urban settlement attached to that domain. Any other domains must be given to vassals (usually henchmen, if you want them to have any loyaty beyond convenience).

As a side-note, I figure a single domain may include multiple urban settlements, although they are going to get smaller and smaller as you move past the first. These can easily be treated as vassal domains that only include the urban settlement (or they could be granted along with the hex they're in). You could even easily make a "free city" by granting it to itself; it'll be ruled by a council and hopefully pay taxes. It was not unknown for cities to refuse to pay taxes, in which case the ruler who wanted the taxes would have to lay siege...


The set up is advanced, agrarian, and centralized. So that's a few steps down the pop. Density chart, meaning instead of having a town with a few hundred families, I'll bump it down three spaces to Large city, with about 10,000 families. So now I divide, yes? Those 10,000 divided into 500/hex leaves me with (oh, probably messed that up. Think I used 80, not 500 last time!) 20 6mi hexes for the city proper.

Oh, no no. An urban settlement doesn't take up hexes. It has no size, as such (just its urban investment). These are medieval urban settlements, they're fairly compact and small; anything outside the walls (if there are walls) isn't treated as part of the settlement, it's treated as part of the attached domain.

Basically, you'd start by seeing how big your realm is. Let's say the Kingdom of Kelemen is 2,000 6-mile hexes, and has a population comparable to Medieval England, averaging 250 families per hex: that's 500,000 families, or 2.5 million people. It's composed of 4-6 principalities, and each principality is composed of 4-6 duchies, each duchy is composed of 4-6 counties, each county of 4-6 marches, each march of 4-6 baronies... of course, there's going to be baronies not part of a duchy, etc. That's just generalization. (Medieval subinfeudation was a messy and complicated process.)

The king's personal domain is going to be 16 hexes and probably the full 12,500 families (780 families per hex, rounded up). By default, with its realm population of 500,000 families, the largest settlement in the kingdom is a Large City. If Kelemen were centralized and/or advanced, that might be bumped up to a metropolis, or if it were agrarian or dispersed it might be bumped down to a city. Large City sounds fine, though.

This Large City might be the royal city, attached (contained within) the king's personal domain of 16 hexes, or it might be a free city elsewhere in the realm (attached to another domain, possibly ruling it by charter). That's all up to you.

It doesn't matter that the king's personal domain is only 12,500 families, because we're not looking at just the individual domain, we're looking at the whole realm. In total, about 50,000 families (10%) will live in urban settlements, and you can use the guidelines to determine what the largest settlements are: take each principality, for instance, and see how many families are in them, and see what that gets you for the largest settlement, etc., keeping in mind the total limit of 50,000 families.

The limit of 16 hexes to a single domain applies, but a duchy (a "vassal realm" to a principality, which is vassal to the kingdom), for instance, is composed of many domains. Going by the table, even a count's personal domain only has 780 families; if it is civilized, it's going to be between 1 and 3 hexes (minimum 250 families per hex for civilized, maximum 780); the rest of the county's 15-30 hexes is going to be 1-hex baronies, maybe organized into 4-6 marches. (Technically, a march would be a border domain; a margrave is the count of a march)

So, in short: no individual domain is more than 16 6-mile hexes.* Realms are made up of domains. Urban settlements are attached to a domain and take up no hexes in themselves.

* See the "Revenue by Realm Type" domain for an estimate. It lists the average population for a ruler's personal domain, and you can get the size in hexes by dividing the population by density per 6-mile hex... wilderness domains are under 125 families/hex, borderlands 125-249 families/hex, civilised 250-780 families/hex. (As domains become borderlands then civilised, they're probably likely to be subdivided more, as they become capable of supporting more nobles at a certain level; a civilised realm can easily support 3-6 times as many rulers as borderlands realm of the same size.)

My Tyr Region had to be fudged some, because it's very different and centralized, with huge distances between settlements out of necessity. It still worked out fine. There are, at least currently, huge domains ruled as single units... it's probably unrealistic, in part because I'm trying to be faithful to the old edition map, which probably is all messed up on distances.

I'm actually looking forward to doing a more traditional, temperate climate and setting with a lot of subdivision of realms, and letting the ACKS guidelines control things more. I really like the idea of using ACKS for a game of fantasy medieval politics and warfare...

Edit: For reference, actual medieval cities were often/usually about 1 square mile in size, or 640 acres. (About half an early knight's fee, that is, the land owned and managed by a knight and a village of maybe 15-20 families)

[SiuiS]

Hm Hm. I presume that all comes up in the player section, which I skipped for expediency and lack of time, then? The max domain size and all, I mean.

[Rhynn]

Actually, page 125 in Chapter 7: Campaigns:


SECURING THE DOMAIN
The minimum size of a domain is a 1-square mile area of land. An average domain size is a 32-square mile area of land (1 6-mile hex on a standard wilderness map) while the maximum size of a domain is 500 square miles (1 24-mile hex on a large scale map, or 16 contiguous 6-mile hexes on a standard map)

Check out REALMS AND VASSALS on page 130, too.

I find that while it may be useful to deal with domains under 1 hex at times, mostly they'd be astracted. 1 square mile or 640 acres with a Medieval English population density, ruled from a mighty 470gp stronghold, would only have a monthly income of 35 gp on average. It'd basically be the home of one somewhat poor 2nd level fighter knight.

The 32 square mile (1-hex) barony is the smallest I'd bother with during mapping etc., and probably not even those, since you can largely assume each hex is one... I'd only give borders on a political map to actual counties.

[SiuiS]

Ah, aye. I've been working from ps. 225-230 exclusively, I think. Due to the limits of my PDF reader; I'm constantly kicking myself for not buying the hard bound! :smallredface:

It doesn't help that I'm converting forward my pet campaign setting. I've been working on it for ten years, off and on, and it was custom designed for D&D 3.5 using what I liked and remembered out of my old redbox and stuff. So a lot of things just don't work translating.

Doesn't help there are three ways to generate these numbers and data XD
I'll have to find the most organic method, but that means it is, indeed, a sit-Dow-cross-reference project and not something I can do on the bus home or anything.

[JohnnyCancer]

I'm sorry you guys don't seem to care for the Wonderworker, it really wasn't intended as some kind of munchkin device. I take some solace in that it was better received in some other quarters. I hope those of you who don't care for it at least like the Venturer. :smallsmile:

[Rhynn]

I'm sorry you guys don't seem to care for the Wonderworker, it really wasn't intended as some kind of munchkin device. I take some solace in that it was better received in some other quarters. I hope those of you who don't care for it at least like the Venturer. :smallsmile:

Ha! I don't have anything against it as such; it's just a bit very powerful. +625 XP at first level for full priest casting? Well, that's the class creation rules. It ends up approximately as a wizard/cleric in AD&D, a level behind clerics and 1.5 levels behind mages. Someone just called it "Nobiran Cheeseworker" upthread, and that sort of thing tends to stick. Heck, I am still considering ripping them off to make a class for the Sorcerer-Kings, if I want them psionic as well as arcane.

And it's not like I didn't create a horrible munchkin class in my Half-Giant Brute, with +3 per 2 levels to attack throws, 1d12 HD, and assorted other abilities (but with the full 4000+ XP cost for all that plus a level limit of 8).

Venturer is cool, although for most of my campaign ideas, it has to be altered... for both my Dark Sun campaign and my hypothetical Hyborian campaign, their Arcane value is switched into a HD increase, changing the XP totals. Spellcasting merchants don't really fit either, but the altered Venturer (no other changes) is going to be pretty much essential, and the merchant houses will be the most prevalent and powerful "guilds"/syndicates. For my Waterdeep/Undermountain campaign, they wouldn't need changes, but probably won't be prevalent (I'm going for more of an AD&D 1E feel). For my Elric campaign idea, they'd probably work fine as is, too.

[Water_Bear]

I'm sorry you guys don't seem to care for the Wonderworker, it really wasn't intended as some kind of munchkin device. I take some solace in that it was better received in some other quarters. I hope those of you who don't care for it at least like the Venturer. :smallsmile:

I like it, and tied it into my game's background, but it is an easy target for mockery and not something I'd let most of my Players roll up. Venturer is fun too, although my players disagree and so there aren't many running around.

The only class I really dislike is the Mystic, because of the four Prime Requisites. If it focused either on the meditative or the unarmed combat sides it could be really solid, but with both it ends up on the "meh" side.

[SiuiS]

I like it, and tied it into my game's background, but it is an easy target for mockery and not something I'd let most of my Players roll up. Venturer is fun too, although my players disagree and so there aren't many running around.

The only class I really dislike is the Mystic, because of the four Prime Requisites. If it focused either on the meditative or the unarmed combat sides it could be really solid, but with both it ends up on the "meh" side.

On the contrary, the prereqs make the mystic. If you have a group of four bodyguards who all obvious are in great shape and fight unarmed, that's an actual threat.

You don't get that in any other system with monks in them.

[JohnnyCancer]

Ha! I don't have anything against it as such; it's just a bit very powerful. +625 XP at first level for full priest casting? Well, that's the class creation rules.

I didn't actually know that. I came up with the idea for the Wonderworker and the Venturer in a single afternoon, having only taken the most cursory glance at the Player's Companion at that point. Somewhere out there I read that the Venturer would have been better off with some of the Bard abilities rather than its current casting; that may well be, I had a very limited amount of time in which to consider it back in April of 2012.

[shadow_archmagi]

I'm nearing completion of my conversion of the map my players drew into a hexmap. see the results (http://imgur.com/TbvIHeE)

I'm almost certainly going to go back and work out a coherent system of labeling, add in a few towns and rivers that I just haven't gotten around to yet, and then once I've finished the Player's Map I can add in more ruins and dungeons and monsters lairs and Secrets

[Kaun]

looks cool.

the see of terror is an interesting name. Im sure all the you lads want to become sailors when they grow up. :smalltongue:

What are those symbols in the swamps along the south east coast lines? They kinda look like half submerged hippos?

And is the city of Theros(SP?) really 18 miles wide? or are you using a different scale for your hexes?


In other news...
I finally picked up a copy of the pdf. last night. managed to read through to about half way into the gear section.

How good are the class building rules in the players companion. I can see a need to build a few new classes or alter existing ones to fit them to other settings. (as the default setting isn't really grabbing me as yet.)

[Kaun]

so gambling proficiency.... wtf?

[Kiero]

so gambling proficiency.... wtf?

It's another means for a character to make a monthly income.

[shadow_archmagi]

http://imgur.com/KXHIgPO

There! I think I can call this 24-mile hex Campaign Map pretty much done. Note the color coding: Blue=Empire, White=Human, Red=Beastman/Monster, Teal=Independant Vassal State to the Empire. The icons that look like half-submerged hippos are towns.


Now I just need to pick a portion of it to zoom in on.

[Kiero]

Bristol? That sort of leaps out and slaps me where all the other names are Fantasyland, that's the nearest major city to me, a short trip in the car.

[shadow_archmagi]

Bristol? That sort of leaps out and slaps me where all the other names are Fantasyland, that's the nearest major city to me, a short trip in the car.

You forget, England is Fantasyland! :smalltongue:

[Kaun]

It's another means for a character to make a monthly income.

Yeah it just seems so ineffectual. Meh who knows, maybe i need to think on it a little more.

It seems to me that it would be better being like 1d20-3 gold per month. So there was at least a chance to have a sour month and the chance for big pay outs.

Then maybe a further +1 to your roll per extra proficiency spent.

[shadow_archmagi]

Yeah it just seems so ineffectual. Meh who knows, maybe i need to think on it a little more.

It seems to me that it would be better being like 1d20-3 gold per month. So there was at least a chance to have a sour month and the chance for big pay outs.

Then maybe a further +1 to your roll per extra proficiency spent.

Gambling is worthless as a "I'd like to make money" proficiency. Profession gives seven times as much on average. Gambling's only merit is the special rules as a conflict resolution tool- players deciding to bet castles on one throw of the dice. Even then, I can't say that it's a good proficiency, or if I'd ever actually want to run a game where players won and lost domains like that, just that it's, you know, a neat idea.

[SiuiS]

I'm nearing completion of my conversion of the map my players drew into a hexmap. see the results (http://imgur.com/TbvIHeE)

I'm almost certainly going to go back and work out a coherent system of labeling, add in a few towns and rivers that I just haven't gotten around to yet, and then once I've finished the Player's Map I can add in more ruins and dungeons and monsters lairs and Secrets

Boss. It looks so... Small. But that's just my preconceptions, so it's actually nice to be forced to reevaluate scale.


looks cool.

the see of terror is an interesting name. Im sure all the you lads want to become sailors when they grow up. :smalltongue:

What are those symbols in the swamps along the south east coast lines? They kinda look like half submerged hippos?

And is the city of Theros(SP?) really 18 miles wide? or are you using a different scale for your hexes?

Probably just an artifact of the symbol set.



In other news...
I finally picked up a copy of the pdf. last night. managed to read through to about half way into the gear section.

How good are the class building rules in the players companion. I can see a need to build a few new classes or alter existing ones to fit them to other settings. (as the default setting isn't really grabbing me as yet.)

They look solid. Racial classes have some small issues according to Rhynn, but both he and ... Kieros? Greek city state guy, they both used them to good effect.


so gambling proficiency.... wtf?

Gambling is a true and true genre convention. They need rules for it because otherwise people are going to make their own up, and this is one of those things where you need to establish scale.

Plus gambling is good for troupe morale.


You forget, England is Fantasyland! :smalltongue:

I know right? Driving on the left wth?


Yeah it just seems so ineffectual. Meh who knows, maybe i need to think on it a little more.

It seems to me that it would be better being like 1d20-3 gold per month. So there was at least a chance to have a sour month and the chance for big pay outs.

Then maybe a further +1 to your roll per extra proficiency spent.

It's definitely the conflict resolution mechanic getting precedent that's the point, I think.

[shadow_archmagi]

According to the rulebook, the Regional Map should have approx 15 human/demihuman things on it, and 30 dungeons, plus at least one dynamic lair for each monster type in the region

Three questions:

1. How many of these dungeons should be on the player's map? Obviously there would be some that'd be well known, or familiar enough that any local could point it out.

2. How much prep should I have for these dungeons? Should I really draw 30 dungeon maps in advance? The book suggests drawing from a variety of sources, but some links would be nice, since my huge stack of old dungeon designs seems to have mysteriously never existed.

3. The need to design a dynamic lair for every monster in the region means that rather than designing 30 dungeons, I'll actually need over a hundred, since a single regional map could easily include forests, grassland, hills, and a river or two. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

[SiuiS]

According to the rulebook, the Regional Map should have approx 15 human/demihuman things on it, and 30 dungeons, plus at least one dynamic lair for each monster type in the region

Three questions:

1. How many of these dungeons should be on the player's map? Obviously there would be some that'd be well known, or familiar enough that any local could point it out.

2. How much prep should I have for these dungeons? Should I really draw 30 dungeon maps in advance? The book suggests drawing from a variety of sources, but some links would be nice, since my huge stack of old dungeon designs seems to have mysteriously never existed.

3. The need to design a dynamic lair for every monster in the region means that rather than designing 30 dungeons, I'll actually need over a hundred, since a single regional map could easily include forests, grassland, hills, and a river or two. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

I like Thirdkingdom's interpretation, where when you roll a random encounter it means that hex has a laoir in it. I can't do it justice, though, so look fo rthe post on page two or so.

I suggest having several maps that are generic, and making more after the first has been used. It's going to need more pregeneration for tabletop than PbP obvious, where in the latter you could just wait until it's discovered and generate it then.

Third page, my apologies;


One of the things that I think ACKS does so well is the explicit use of randomness for setting generation, most noticeably in the realm of random wilderness encounters. This makes it perfect for the hexcrawl, plot-hook (as opposed to plot) driven style of play.

This is accomplished though the line "% appearing in lair" found in each monster stat block. This line can be found in other games, but is specifically used in ACKS to populate the world, and is used thusly: every time you roll a random encounter check the percentage found in lair. If you roll under the given number it means the party has stumbled upon not just an individual creature but its lair as well -- which could be an orc village, a sunken temple that a hydra has taken up residence in, etc. In other words, it generates plot hooks on the spot. For instance, let us assume a wilderness encounter check results in a swarm of bats that happen to be in their lair. Instead of "a swarm of bats flies around you" it could be "the swarm of bats emerges from a sinkhole in the ground before you. Peering over the edge you behold a shaft ten feet deep that opens up into a room with walls of quarried stone. Strange carvings adorn the walls."

To carry the thought forward, assume goblins are the result of an encounter check. They have a 40% chance of being in their lair. Now, I will take some multiplier if that chance to check and see if the lair is in the same hex. So, on a roll of 1-40 a goblin lair (or dungeon, of which the lair is the first part) is discovered. On a roll of 41-80 the lair is not discovered but it is in the current hex. I make a note of that, and a goblin lair has now been added to the map. With some more searching the PCs could discover the lair itself.

[shadow_archmagi]

Right, that's exactly what dynamic lairs are- You essentially design a 1-2 room dungeon full of bats, and then slap it down on the map the next time the dice say the players run into a bat-lair.

But the book suggests having both those and traditional dungeons, and I was asking how many of the traditional dungeons should be revealed ahead of time.

[SiuiS]

Right, that's exactly what dynamic lairs are- You essentially design a 1-2 room dungeon full of bats, and then slap it down on the map the next time the dice say the players run into a bat-lair.

But the book suggests having both those and traditional dungeons, and I was asking how many of the traditional dungeons should be revealed ahead of time.

Well, yes. I was giving a way to bridge the "none through 300" disparity.

Show about half the ones that are pregenerated, would be my call.
Maybe more for a more uncivilized area.

[thirdkingdom]

Due to the fact that I don't really have much time IRL I do my gaming pbp. This really lends itself to the hexcrawl style of play, since I don't have to have anything definite in advance. I give a bunch of options, and by the time the players have decided on an option and we do the travel thing I've got plenty of time to figure something out. There's no need to do tend dungeons if the PCs are going to ignore them all to check out the mad archmage or whatever.

Some tips for IRL play, however:
1)Make use of a random dungeon generator like Wizarddawn or Donjon. Neither are specifically for ACKS, but they can be converted easily enough.
2)Steal stuff from online or modules. Dragonsfoot has a great selection of short adventures for 1e that can be downloaded and converted quite easily.
3)Check out this (http://www.theskyfullofdust.co.uk/dynamic-lairs/) blog for an idea of what dynamic lairs can look like.
4)Remember, there's only a smallish chance for most monsters that a random encounter will directly involve their lair. Most of the time the random encounter will occur and the PCs will have to specifically say they want to search the hex for a lair.
5)Don't give out more hooks than you are prepared for. In fact, I wouldn't give out more than 6-8 to begin with anyway. Have a couple dungeons, an obligatory guard the caravan thing, maybe some intrigue, etc. The following is one of my favorite plot hooks to use, by the way:

"A beast is terrorizing the nearby farms and smallholds to the east. No one is quite sure what type of animal it is, whether it be wolf or bear or man-eating tiger, but it has killed a half-dozen men and women, leaving the survivors with only a terrified account of its nature."

Don't pre-determine what the beast is unless the PCs pick it as a plot hook. If they don't, ignore the hook for the moment, except when making random encounter checks when the PCs are traveling near the indicated hexes. Then, first time an "Animal" result comes up as an encounter, you've got your beast. Roll to determine what kind of predator it is, pad up the creature's hit points and AC a bit, maybe add a diseased bite or something (rabies) and go to town.

[shadow_archmagi]

All right, I've pretty much finished my Player's Document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPvuDcDzxK_nOH3pn60M16Zdbi9nk10B5mv4dclRqhc/edit?usp=sharing) for the group. It contains the campaign and regional maps, setting information, and roleplaying advice/requirements.

[Kaun]

Ok, so my players seem interested in playing some ACKS as our current game has prematurely run its course.

And we are currently going through the joys of putting together a world to play in, (they like the previous homebrewed world we were using so we are polishing it up.)

I would like to ask anybody who is/has run some ACKS for tips regarding stating out the "play area" of the world.

Potential pitfall i should dodge.
Things you would do differently in hindsight
Things that worked really well and you would recommend trying.

Im working through my first read of the core book. All essentially familiar rules with little twists to keep in mind. But my players are keen to play so i need to start getting the scene set.

[shadow_archmagi]

Ok, so my players seem interested in playing some ACKS as our current game has prematurely run its course.

And we are currently going through the joys of putting together a world to play in, (they like the previous homebrewed world we were using so we are polishing it up.)

I would like to ask anybody who is/has run some ACKS for tips regarding stating out the "play area" of the world.

Potential pitfall i should dodge.
Things you would do differently in hindsight
Things that worked really well and you would recommend trying.

Im working through my first read of the core book. All essentially familiar rules with little twists to keep in mind. But my players are keen to play so i need to start getting the scene set.

According to the developers, the key to a good setting is to balance material and existential threats. If you set your game in the Game of Thrones universe, for example, the players would have to deal with piles and piles of intrigue and wars and very real armies with swords, but they'd also have to be trying to go on quests to research the White Walkers and figure out how to survive Winter. In Lord of the Rings, there's both the orc armies that need to be defeated, and the One Ring that needs to be quested away.


I recommend disregarding the book and *not* creating dynamic lairs in advance. You should be fully capable of making up a description of "You stumble onto a mossy cave. Within, you can see firelight beckoning, but when you approach, GIANTS ARE THERE OH SNAP" without forethought, and then there are many excellent treasure generators online that mean you don't have to slow down gameplay at all. Creating a unique lair for every enemy just seems like hours and hours of work for no reason.

[Slipperychicken]

All right, I've pretty much finished my Player's Document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dPvuDcDzxK_nOH3pn60M16Zdbi9nk10B5mv4dclRqhc/edit?usp=sharing) for the group. It contains the campaign and regional maps, setting information, and roleplaying advice/requirements.

I've seen some of your posts on Autarch. Is this a RL game or a PbP?

[shadow_archmagi]

I've seen some of your posts on Autarch. Is this a RL game or a PbP?

It's an RL game. I don't really ever do play-by-post (Slow pace, I tend to forget about it and then feel guilty, players vanish a lot, doesn't fill my human need to see faces)

[shadow_archmagi]

In Sinkholes of Evil, corpses turn into undead. However, undead is a type rather than a specific monster- Are there any guidelines for determining what kinds of undead get produced, beyond simply rolling the random encounter table for Undead?

[shadow_archmagi]

So, do non-henchmen just not have ability scores? Where should a henchman's ability scores be kept track of, since the normal character sheet doesn't actually include a tiny character sheet inside it?

[Grac]

So, do non-henchmen just not have ability scores? Where should a henchman's ability scores be kept track of, since the normal character sheet doesn't actually include a tiny character sheet inside it?

I would just write up a charsheet for the henchmen, since their equipment, xp, scores, abilities, and so on, need to be kept track of.

And by henchmen, you mean like mercs and other level 0 nobodies? Eh, I wouldn't bother with it unless they become important enough to the story or the players to warrant giving them their own writeup.

[note: I've not yet played the game and haven't read the whole thing properly]

[Water_Bear]

So, do non-henchmen just not have ability scores? Where should a henchman's ability scores be kept track of, since the normal character sheet doesn't actually include a tiny character sheet inside it?

For Henchmen (Henchpeople?) of players, roll out the ability scores 3d6 down the line, roll their hp, choose their Proficiencies and have that jotted down somewhere. Once they hit 1st level and either become a Fighter or go train to be something else you can give them their own sheet, plus reroll their hp and keep the new total if it's higher.

Normal Humans have 1d4 hp, four general Proficiencies, and you can assume all of their scores are in the 8-12 range. Specialists have the same hp and proficiencies (+1 at 5/10/15 years of work), but I like to give them the Nonelite Array from the d20 SRD which lets them have a single ability at +1. Mercenaries have 1d4+1 hp and the four general proficiencies, but since they can more easily become Fighters (1/4 of Mercenaries hired are by default) I like to make sure one of their Proficiencies is Adventuring and that they either use the Nonelite Array or actually roll their stats.

[Kiero]

So, do non-henchmen just not have ability scores? Where should a henchman's ability scores be kept track of, since the normal character sheet doesn't actually include a tiny character sheet inside it?

I record henchmen with a statblock that includes their modifiers (but not their ability scores).

For example:


Bisalkes - A Gallo-Thracian who was originally a slave taken after a skirmish with the Boii. He is the bodyguard's scout.

Explorer 2. Move 120’, AC 7/8, HD 2+2, hp 11, Att 9+/7+, Saves: Fort 9+ Ref 11+ Will 12+, Init +4, Mor +6
Dmg: 1d6+2 (spear), 1d4+3 (dagger), 1d6+2 (javelin)
Str+1, Wis+1, Dex+2, Con+1.
Proficiencies: Seasoned Campaigner, Beast Friendship, Riding, Survival, Tracking.
Languages: Celtic, Thracian
Equipment: Leather (exceptional), medium shield, spear, dagger (good), javelins (5). light riding horse, medium war horse . Enc 5/6 stone.

Non-henchmen (ie hirelings/mercenaries/specialists) just get a single line. There's a general assumption that 0th level people who become 1st level tend to do so as Fighters; for those who really aren't suited I've added the Expert class (see here (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Tyche%27s_Favourites/New_Classes)). Works really well for scholars, specialists and so on, with options to make them less combative.

[shadow_archmagi]

I don't know how many of you read the official ACKS forum, but I'm quite pleased to have gotten a response from Alex! My question there was whether selling "treasure" could generate XP twice (Since you receive XP from finding things in dungeons, and you receive XP for selling things like a merchant, so if you're a merchant who sells things from dungeons...) and the answer was, surprisingly enough, yes, but only if they take the time to use the mercantile rules for it. (IE: Look up which cities have good rates for diamonds, roll to find merchants, etc).

I think this puts a very interesting spin on things, since it adds additional value to trade goods found in dungeons which would otherwise not be worth looting due to a low gp/stone ratio, and thus encourages "lumpy" loot bags (I think it's a lot more fun when the players return to town with goblets, diamonds, pelts, and tapestries than just flat number values of coin)

[SiuiS]

So, do non-henchmen just not have ability scores? Where should a henchman's ability scores be kept track of, since the normal character sheet doesn't actually include a tiny character sheet inside it?

The actual autarch site has a sheet for recording henchmen actually. Although you only need to care about presence/absence of bonus/penalty.


I don't know how many of you read the official ACKS forum, but I'm quite pleased to have gotten a response from Alex! My question there was whether selling "treasure" could generate XP twice (Since you receive XP from finding things in dungeons, and you receive XP for selling things like a merchant, so if you're a merchant who sells things from dungeons...) and the answer was, surprisingly enough, yes, but only if they take the time to use the mercantile rules for it. (IE: Look up which cities have good rates for diamonds, roll to find merchants, etc).

I think this puts a very interesting spin on things, since it adds additional value to trade goods found in dungeons which would otherwise not be worth looting due to a low gp/stone ratio, and thus encourages "lumpy" loot bags (I think it's a lot more fun when the players return to town with goblets, diamonds, pelts, and tapestries than just flat number values of coin)

Cool, that's a good thing to know. I would have said no, on account of not getting value twice being the justification for not letting you get XP for items you've used before selling.

[shadow_archmagi]

I remember reading the people who supported the Domains at War kickstarter get access to current-draft of the book, right up until its release. Unfortunately, I didn't realize the D@W kickstarter was even a thing until after it had ended. Is there another route to get early access, or do I just have to wait a few months for the book?

[thirdkingdom]

I remember reading the people who supported the Domains at War kickstarter get access to current-draft of the book, right up until its release. Unfortunately, I didn't realize the D@W kickstarter was even a thing until after it had ended. Is there another route to get early access, or do I just have to wait a few months for the book?

Just email Tavis and explain you missed the Kickstarter and can he please send you the playtest files. He's been super nice and helpful.

[shadow_archmagi]

So, I had a dungeon concept I wanted to share with everyone except for my players:



Dungeon is an old castle, famously filled with spiders. Players fight their way through spiders and discover that every so often, there's a terrible noise, and the ground rumbles and there's a waft of warm air and horrible stench, sometimes followed by insect swarms. Eventually they realize that there's a central staircase that leads down, and the insect swarms come up from there. If they descend, they find a massive whale-like thing made of rotting flesh with lots of big blisters that periodically burst and release stinging flies. If they research the monster, they find out it was a gluttinous king who, after a battle, used the money reserved for burial rites to host a feast, so they declared his stomach their tomb and all climbed inside, making him into a rotting-meat-monster.

I'm particularly proud of this because it adds plausibility to the whole 'castle full of spiders' thing by creating a partial ecosystem (spiders eat flies! Flies come from monster!) while also having the sort of supernaturally cruel and unusual punishments that you often find in old myths.

[VeliciaL]

So, I had a dungeon concept I wanted to share with everyone except for my players:



Dungeon is an old castle, famously filled with spiders. Players fight their way through spiders and discover that every so often, there's a terrible noise, and the ground rumbles and there's a waft of warm air and horrible stench, sometimes followed by insect swarms. Eventually they realize that there's a central staircase that leads down, and the insect swarms come up from there. If they descend, they find a massive whale-like thing made of rotting flesh with lots of big blisters that periodically burst and release stinging flies. If they research the monster, they find out it was a gluttinous king who, after a battle, used the money reserved for burial rites to host a feast, so they declared his stomach their tomb and all climbed inside, making him into a rotting-meat-monster.

I'm particularly proud of this because it adds plausibility to the whole 'castle full of spiders' thing by creating a partial ecosystem (spiders eat flies! Flies come from monster!) while also having the sort of supernaturally cruel and unusual punishments that you often find in old myths.


I kinda like it. I do like that the spiders aren't there because they're some sort of symbol of absolute evil, they're just there 'cause the eatin's good.

[thirdkingdom]

So, I had a dungeon concept I wanted to share with everyone except for my players:



Dungeon is an old castle, famously filled with spiders. Players fight their way through spiders and discover that every so often, there's a terrible noise, and the ground rumbles and there's a waft of warm air and horrible stench, sometimes followed by insect swarms. Eventually they realize that there's a central staircase that leads down, and the insect swarms come up from there. If they descend, they find a massive whale-like thing made of rotting flesh with lots of big blisters that periodically burst and release stinging flies. If they research the monster, they find out it was a gluttinous king who, after a battle, used the money reserved for burial rites to host a feast, so they declared his stomach their tomb and all climbed inside, making him into a rotting-meat-monster.

I'm particularly proud of this because it adds plausibility to the whole 'castle full of spiders' thing by creating a partial ecosystem (spiders eat flies! Flies come from monster!) while also having the sort of supernaturally cruel and unusual punishments that you often find in old myths.


Very cool. Reminds me a bit of the Church of Consumption (http://www.theskyfullofdust.co.uk/2013/03/dynamic-lairs-dwarf/).

[SiuiS]

I remember reading the people who supported the Domains at War kickstarter get access to current-draft of the book, right up until its release. Unfortunately, I didn't realize the D@W kickstarter was even a thing until after it had ended. Is there another route to get early access, or do I just have to wait a few months for the book?

There's always piracy, but I recommend against it. I kinda wanna support the system.

Domains at war is also rather unnecessary and should be fully integer table without any changes once it ones out, so not worth sweating I feel.


Just email Tavis and explain you missed the Kickstarter and can he please send you the playtest files. He's been super nice and helpful.

Wow. These folks are pretty swell, all told.


So, I had a dungeon concept I wanted to share with everyone except for my players:



Dungeon is an old castle, famously filled with spiders. Players fight their way through spiders and discover that every so often, there's a terrible noise, and the ground rumbles and there's a waft of warm air and horrible stench, sometimes followed by insect swarms. Eventually they realize that there's a central staircase that leads down, and the insect swarms come up from there. If they descend, they find a massive whale-like thing made of rotting flesh with lots of big blisters that periodically burst and release stinging flies. If they research the monster, they find out it was a gluttinous king who, after a battle, used the money reserved for burial rites to host a feast, so they declared his stomach their tomb and all climbed inside, making him into a rotting-meat-monster.

I'm particularly proud of this because it adds plausibility to the whole 'castle full of spiders' thing by creating a partial ecosystem (spiders eat flies! Flies come from monster!) while also having the sort of supernaturally cruel and unusual punishments that you often find in old myths.


That's really clever and I'm stealing it. :smallbiggrin:
But no, really, that's a good touch. I like the corpulent king becoming such a beast.


I kinda like it. I do like that the spiders aren't there because they're some sort of symbol of absolute evil, they're just there 'cause the eatin's good.

Exactly!
Hi, Twilight!


Very cool. Reminds me a bit of the Church of Consumption (http://www.theskyfullofdust.co.uk/2013/03/dynamic-lairs-dwarf/).

Well. That's... Terrifying.
I might use this too, but it's kinda weird as I'm afraid where my players would take it.

[shadow_archmagi]

That's really clever and I'm stealing it. :smallbiggrin:
But no, really, that's a good touch. I like the corpulent king becoming such a beast.

Cool! You'll probably end up running it before me, since my campaign hasn't even started yet (Going to get together with the players and finalize their character sheets and write little backstories today, and then run the first session thursday.)

One thing that makes me curious is the level scaling- It seems like there's almost nothing that 1st level characters can safely take on; anything bigger than a kobold is nastier than a 1st level fighter. How does a level 1 character make it to level 2? The only way I can think of is a slow, laborious process of going into dungeons, praying that you hit empty rooms that had loot in them anyway, and then retreating after the first fight.

I know there's some conventional wisdom about "never participate in a fair fight" but when I was a player in games like 3.5 and shadowrun, I made fights unfair through resources that just aren't available at 1st level. What kinds of tricks can they even bring to bear at this point?

[thirdkingdom]

Make sure at least two characters have the Healing proficiency. It rocks.

As to questions of play, I strongly encourage -- nay, I implore -- those interested in the OSR or considering running an OSR game to read through the following: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?519816-The-Wyzard-s-OD-amp-D-Campaign.

You will need an rpgnet account to read it, but it is well worth it. The game being played is OD&D, but it is applicable to all OSR systems. It addresses issues of repeated delves, how to win through trickery, etc.

[VeliciaL]

Exactly!
Hi, Twilight!

Haha hi! :3

Don't mind me, I don't own ACKS (yet, can't quite afford it), but it intrigues me, so I've been following this thread. :smalltongue:

[Kaun]

Ok i have started into the players companion and im looking for opinions on the classes there.

I have one player interested in a wonder worker already (if he can make the rolls that is).

Are any of them best avoided?

The anti paladin seems like it could be hard to fit into a party unless really smartly played.

[shadow_archmagi]

Ok i have started into the players companion and im looking for opinions on the classes there.

I have one player interested in a wonder worker already (if he can make the rolls that is).

Are any of them best avoided?

The anti paladin seems like it could be hard to fit into a party unless really smartly played.

I think he's intended for when the party are all playing Chaotic- the game where everyone starts an empire of Beastmen and crushes the jeweled thrones of civilization under their sandaled feet.