A Modest Proposal

General ACKS Forums General Discussion
7

[quote="Alex"] - Core rules without Heroic Fantasy - fix various flaws and loopholes, add improvements from Axioms [/quote] I guess this is the default assumption about what a second edition of ACKS would be: Not a new game, but the core game we all know and love, only with the rough edges that've been discovered in the years since its initial release smoothed over, the holes in the rules filled in, and a fresh lick of paint.

This sounds like it would be great for people who (like me) are already running ACKS campaigns by the book and don't want to change much, but would welcome some slight tweaks that improve rule clarity, fix up the more awkward mechanics, and give us a few more options without taking anything away. On the other hand, I imagine it might not be the most useful book you could release; since the changes are likely to be small, people who are already running ACKS campaigns might not feel that the new version is really needed. I guess it's hard to predict which of those would be the bigger group.

[quote="Alex"] - Revised core rules re-built around Heroic Fantasy [/quote] Ah, so basically Heroic Fantasy, but written as a standalone game rather than as a set of modifications and additions to the core rules.

That sounds like it would be great for people who (like me) yearn to run heroic fantasy because it's awesome and does a great job of capturing all the tropes of the heroic fantasy genre, but are reluctant to do so because it means having to juggle and adjudicate a two sets of rules that interact and override each other in complex and occasionally tricky-to-remember ways. Also, the need to juggle two sets of rules makes the learning curve steeper for players and GMs who aren't already familiar with ACKS, and a version of ACKS with the Heroic Fantasy changes baked in to the core game would solve that.

On the other hand, Heroic Fantasy already exists, and is still fairly new; a new second edition probably wouldn't introduce many changes that aren't already in the existing heroic fantasy handbook, so again, this wouldn't necessarily introduce much in the way of content that GMs and players feel they need.

[quote="Alex"] - Completely new game built around Heroic Fantasy, perhaps adapt it to feel a bit more like 5E (attack bonuses instead of attack throws or whatever) [/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by "completely new game." Are we talking about throwing out all of ACK's existing mechanics and starting from the ground up by making an entirely new game deisgned to support heroic fantasy plots rather than the "first you adventure, then you conquer a realm, then you reign and defend your throne against all comers" progression that ACKS is built around? Or do you mean to keep that progression from ACKS, but substantially redesign all the mechanics from the ground up, abandoning some of the proud nails of OD&D in favour of D&D 5e's... Uh... Actually, I don't know a lot about 5e, but I assume it has features which people like, and which are superior in some respect or another to the way OD&D did certain things.

I guess that'd please the 5e fans. Me, I'd have to see what the changes actually were before I could make up my mind. I really like ACK's focus on hexcrawl logistics and realm management and detailed economy and internally-consistent setting justification for everything beneath the winged sun, to the point where I tend to adapt them in some small measure whenever I run anything else... So, I'd be a little hesitant to play a game that deliberately distanced itself from those things. On the other hand, if you made a game that still included those things, it'd also need some improvement or new feature that made it significantly superior to ACKS, or there wouldn't be any point in making the switch.

Then again, "customers want what they know," and all that. Perhaps if you made something completely different to ACKS as it currently stands, I'd rapidly realise I wanted it.

At the end of the day, I'm likely to back nearly any kickstarter project Autarch announces, so my views probably aren't the most important one to take into account when making this decision.

8

I support replacing throws with d20 + modifiers vs. DC. After a year running 5e at my FLGS, I've started building another ACKS campaign. Since anyone I'm likely to recriut is going to be coming from 5e, I'm going to present the rules as d20+mod vs DC to make it easier to transition. I'm going to keep the math the same though. Naked AC will be 11, for instance, so a level 0 character still hits on an 11+. For saves, thief skills, proficiencies, and anything else that comes up, I'm using a fixed DC of 20 and calcualting the bonuses back from that.

9

 

Okay this is my first post on this forum. I always seem to find cool things after they are on the way out. I really like ACKS. I am looking forward to expanding my ACKS library and integrating it into my game. What appeals to me is the BX chasis and I would hate to see it go. I don't mind the attack throw system (it seems to me that its only problem is that it is a third system, but if 3e had used it instead then the current ascending system would seen odd), I don't like BAB/proficiency modifiers and the old descending system and the ACKS throw system neither need it. 

However, I realize I am a late comer. If a 2e is what is desired, maybe with the integration of the Heroic Fantasy Companion. But new editions should be editions, not completely new games: Chaosium and TSR, not WotC. Also, if it's more like 5e, why not just play 5e. 5e's greatest value is the many people playing it. If they don't want to learn a second cousin ruleset they probably don't want to learn a first cousin set either.

10

As it stands the attack throw actually fits well with the rest of the major rolling mechanics in ACKs (aka rolls with a d20), thus would feel a bit disjointed being an attack bonus if everything else was still a throw result.  Then comes the notion of do you change all of the rolls to bonuses, personaly I dont really think its worth while, the throw mechanic is solid and helps keep ACKs distinct from D&D 3rd - 5th.  It also helps keep it apart from ability score bonuses/penalities.

Core rules as Heroic vs Traditional would really be up to how you want ACKs to be seen.  Both versions have their perks and flaws depending on the individual group's prefered asthetics/mechanics.

11

just chiming in that in my game, my players and i immediately converted the attack target throw reduction into an attack throw bonus (so 10+ is +0, 9+ is +1, etc.) and then treating what you roll over 10 as what AC you hit (IE: you roll 15 you hit AC5). it's been pretty easy to mentally convert on the fly.

12

I think that ACKS' main strength is bringing robust high-level/domain play rules to the OSR ecosystem. It means that you can use bits and pieces of ACKS with your favorite OSR system, so you have use of ACKS even if your main ruleset is, say, Labyrinth Lord. This creates a wide market for ACKS beyond those interested in ACKS per se (such as myself). Thus, compatibility with other OSR rulesets is a selling point and you should be careful not to distance ACKS too much from the OSR ecosystem in order to maintain that market segment.

So, I think that keeping the current core magic system is a necessity. However, transplanting other HFH rules, such as the healing and Fate Point rules, would be excellent and will not harm compatibility too much.

Also, D20-type attack throws (roll high w/ bonus/penalty vs. a fixed DC) will work well; Sword & Wizardry: White Box has these, as does BFRPG. These are easy to explain to newcomers and are, as I noted above, compatible with several OSR games. I'd use the same basic system for saving throws as well.

That said, a stand-alone "high level play and economic rebalancing" book for D&D 5E would be awesome. There are already some products along these lines IIRC, but ACKS has the best economics and high-level play in the market.

13

From an information management perspective, two main rulebooks would be best. One, ACKS 2.0 Standard, and the other, ACKS 2.0 HFH. Each would be a standalone core book, the former being a version update of the existing ACKS Core and the latter a core rulebook using HFH rules.

From a product management perspective, that would be a nightmare. First, you'd either be dividing your product line into two competing lines, cannibalizing your own sales, or supplementary products would have to be larger, to include Standard- and HFH-specific content side-by-side.

Suggestion: for ACKS 2.0, keep the main product Standard, with HFH 2.0 as a supplement. As a special, separate Kickstarter, offer ACKS HFH 2.0 as a special one-off publication for those who want an integrated HFH.

[quote="golan2072"]

<snip>...a stand-alone "high level play and economic rebalancing" book for D&D 5E would be awesome. There are already some products along these lines IIRC, but ACKS has the best economics and high-level play in the market.

[/quote]

This, too. :)

14

On the topic of a new ACKS core rule book, I previously stated in another thread: I dream of a glorious 10th Anniversary Deluxe edition – largely the same as ACKS core, but with a wealth of clarifying sidebars and cross-references. And a few key bits from D@W, maybe. And an integrated Auran Campaign primer. And a Judge’s Screen, darn it.

As much as I love, love, love the Heroic Fantasy Handbook, I would not create an HFH core rule book at this time. Instead, I would create a Heroic Fantasy Basic book, with integrated rules in an introductory, low level focus. If successful, I would follow up with a Heroic Fantasy Expert book, and ideally Heroic Fantasy adventures/gazetteers.

15

 

I guess I'm a dissenter here. I'm somewhat wary about an ACKS 2.0. If a new edition is released it seems there would be a large catalog a associates products that would also need a second edition. Autarch is pretty much a 1 man operation, and that would mean Alex spending quite a bit of effort on pretty much the same material. I do like the HFH as that provides a different framework to use with ACKS core. What I'd find most interesting is if autarch created other frameworks built upon ACKS. Maybe there could be a post-apocalypse handbook or a cyberpunk handbook? I recall at one time Alex mentioned creating a sci-fi version of ACKS to simulate space opera, but he also likened it to Traveller, which confused me as I think of Traveller as not being very much like space opera. Maybe he could prove me wrong on that score, or create a handbook(s) that address one and/or both approaches.

Such "framework" handbooks wouldn't have to be limited to just supporting the genre they were written for in isolation. I am currently lifting material from White Star and SWN to replace the Astral Reavers in my Dwimmermount campaign.

I think an ACKS 2.0 would be more viable if and when ACKS gains a larger presence, and Autarch has more resources available in terms of man-hours. My 2¢ as someone never professionally involved in game publishing.

16

Hi,

Currently right now I am using the Core Book, The PC, several issues of Axiom and bits of HFH for my ACK that has been running close for two years now.

That is a lot, but over the last two years alot has come out and it has influence my campaign.

ACK does not need an 2nd Edition per say. It needs a Complete Edition.

The heart of the game is fine, what it needs is all of the errata and updates that have come out incorporated into it.

Combine the Core Book and the Companion Book, update the sections with the new stuff from Axioms

I would also take a lot of the Auran specific stuff out of the rule book and roll it into an authentic Auran Empire Sourcebook.

HFH deviants so far from ACK it really is its own game and should be treaterd as such.

 

 

 

17

[quote="KingofElfland"] I don't mind the attack throw system (it seems to me that its only problem is that it is a third system, but if 3e had used it instead then the current ascending system would seen odd), I don't like BAB/proficiency modifiers and the old descending system and the ACKS throw system neither need it. [/quote] Ditto! I find ACKS's "Add the target's AC to this number and roll over" system much easier to use than post-3e D&D's "Roll, add your AB to the result, and then compare that number to the target's AC" system. It's only a small difference, admittedly, but only needing to do addition once per foe is measurably easier and faster than having to do it once per attack roll.

[quote="Korean Kodiak aka Evil Eli aka The Vile One"] ACK does not need an 2nd Edition per say. It needs a Complete Edition.

The heart of the game is fine, what it needs is all of the errata and updates that have come out incorporated into it.

Combine the Core Book and the Companion Book, update the sections with the new stuff from Axioms [/quote] Huh, I really like the idea of having all the rules in one comprehensive and logically-organized place.

18

I understand it represents a non-trivial amount of effort, but I am currently at a place where I would be interested in buying rules i already have presented in a way that's easier to reference as well.  Just having rules that i regularly have to cross reference, which are very far apart in terms of pages or even books, in one place would be a big boon for me and, imho, worth ponying up $$$ to justify the effort.

19

I've read somewhere in the ACKS rulebook that everything a player sees in the world he can try to own someday, like everything is achievable, from having a pegasus mount and being the leader of the bandits in the woods to being a wizard-king inside a floating castle. This is possible in no small scale thanks to the finest market simulator in a RPG that you guys developed, and is something completely impossible to translate to any other RPG, including D&D 5E (which by the way is almost the complete opposite, leaning towards the GM saying 'no' to almost any action and decision outside what is defined by the character classes). I believe that this is the most important and unique factor in your system and the heart of it, and so the only thing I would not dare to change.

please forgive my engrish

20

Yes, this is the main strength of ACKS IMHO - everything follows consistent rules so players can essentially anything an NPC of their level can do. You can even tame and ride a dragon!

Of course, with the right Referee/Judge you can do that in any fantasy RPG with some handwaving and spot-rules, but ACKS provides a robust and consistent rule framework allowing all this cool stuff,

21

The key thing is not to loose your identity in the new addition, or your brand as the marketers would say.

Things like the relatively consistent throw mechanism are good as is (and can be houserulled with ease).

At its core a basic cleanup and update with a few additions changes would be all that is needed. Whatever is done should be relatively consistent with currently published material to not cause an edition earthquake.

22

I see the benefit of an ACKS 2.0 in consolidating the tweaks from the varios Axioms articles in the same place, plus a few tidbits from HFH such as Alchemmy adding to magic research rolls for potions, critical hits on 10 over roll, etc.  

I converted attack rolls to a d20 roll + modifier vs ACKs AC +10.  It makes monsters and NPCs easy to write in short hand (e.g. sword +5 1d6+3, or 2 claw +2 1d6, 1 bite +2 2d6).  I think that this is not a structural change, but a cosmmetic one.  

I do not like the idea of converting ACKS saving throws to a d20 roll + mod vs.  various DCs.  This is a structural change.  In my experience with 5e, it greatly effects scaling.  As an OSR option, if the DC was a static level (like the target 20 system), then it is mathematically the same as the current system.  

A simplification of the ACKs save system also effects class balance.  My players, completely on their own, have noticed the class distinctions in saves and adjust their strategies as a result : Poison? - have the cleric rush in; Magic? - send in the mage, etc.  

If there is a vote, I say focus on new content and work on modular rewriting of core sections to include Axiom and new content material appropiate to the sections along the way.  This would allow playtesting and comments.  You could publish either as Patreon content or piecemeal as pdfs for sale.  Once enough sections were completed, you could launch a kickstarter if there seems to be enough interest.  That might be a more sustainable economic model, which is important to me as a consumer to ensure that the game continues to grow and be supported.  

All that being said, an economic system add-on for 5e could be a very sucessful product.  It should include an alternate XP for gold system, and an explanation of player selected balance (i.e. the players deterine the level of risk/reward based on  in-game fiction - the deeper/farther you go, the more risk).  Without those elements, the basis for the ACKs economic system becomes a little skewed. 

A domain management system for 5e would also work, especially if you pared it with a software product that created a UI that combined a hexographer style mapping system that does all of the math and rolls for you.  (I keep holding out hope for something like this for ACKs, but I realize that the market just isn't big enough for the development cost - so back to the spreadsheets I go)

23

[quote="Saturno"]

I've read somewhere in the ACKS rulebook that everything a player sees in the world he can try to own someday, like everything is achievable, from having a pegasus mount and being the leader of the bandits in the woods to being a wizard-king inside a floating castle. This is possible in no small scale thanks to the finest market simulator in a RPG that you guys developed, and is something completely impossible to translate to any other RPG, including D&D 5E (which by the way is almost the complete opposite, leaning towards the GM saying 'no' to almost any action and decision outside what is defined by the character classes). I believe that this is the most important and unique factor in your system and the heart of it, and so the only thing I would not dare to change.

please forgive my engrish

[/quote]

Thank you for the very kind words!!

24

To summarize the views above:

  • There is fairly unanimous support for a revision to the rules that would combine game mechanics from the disparate rule books into a set of core rule books that includes much of what's in Axioms.
  • There is fairly broad support for retaining ACKS's distinctive approach to throws and mechanics, although not universal.
  • There is limited support for any robust revision of ACKS to make it more like HFH, which is viewed as more of a separate type of game. 

Hypothetically that suggests something like:

  • Adventurer Manual (Introduction to Campaign rules from ACKS, as revised by Axioms; all character class rules from Player's Companion; templates for all classes) 
  • Judge Manual (Monster, Treasure, and Secret rules from ACKS, class creation rules from PC, spell creation rules from PC, race creation rules from Axioms, spell creation rules from Axioms, economic notes from Axioms)
  • Monster Manual (Monsters from all books, monster creation rules from L&E, advanced monster rules from L&E)

I'd be curious if anyone has any thoughts on which Axioms articles would be most important to include and where to put them. 

25

Axioms abstract mass combat should definitely go into the Adventure Manual, alongside the revised domain rules. Potentially beastman/tribal domains as well.

You should also probably use HFH healing rules for the new ACKS core. They make much more sense than the vanilla D&D ones, IMHO.

26

[quote="Alex"]

 

I've read somewhere in the ACKS rulebook that everything a player sees in the world he can try to own someday, like everything is achievable, from having a pegasus mount and being the leader of the bandits in the woods to being a wizard-king inside a floating castle. This is possible in no small scale thanks to the finest market simulator in a RPG that you guys developed, and is something completely impossible to translate to any other RPG, including D&D 5E (which by the way is almost the complete opposite, leaning towards the GM saying 'no' to almost any action and decision outside what is defined by the character classes). I believe that this is the most important and unique factor in your system and the heart of it, and so the only thing I would not dare to change.

please forgive my engrish

 


-Saturno

 

Thank you for the very kind words!!

[/quote]

I'm 30 years old, started playing with AD&D First Quest, passed through many good years of different systems and tables, and was retiring from RPG when I found out about Old School/Retroclones, mainly Labyrinth Lord and ACKS. Now I'm totally hooked up, and me and my friends are returning to play thanks to you guys! So it is my pleasure to be part of your patreon! 

I've been showing ACKS to everyone I know here in Brazil and until now the reactions are all very very positive. If one day you guys decide to make a version translated to Portuguese I believe you would find a very good number of customers. I believe the wave of OSR games will hit my country very soon and make a huge impact in the way brazilians play RPGs.