A Modest Proposal

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.

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)

[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!!

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. 

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.

[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.

[quote="Alex"] ...

  • 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. 

... [/quote]

A change to the throw mechanic (particularly for attacks) could be a sidebar optional rule (providing word limits allow that is).  This could then spark it as a posibilility for those that are keen on that while keeping the current throw style system as the core idea for ACKs.

Likewise the HFH stuff could be an appendix style addendum should you want it (and have the word count for it).  Though I've not delved far enough into the differences between ACKs Core and HFH to really tell if that is even a valid option.

This could essentially bind the two flavours into the one product, while giving more data to fill out the 3 tome route (there could be more than enough stuff already to fill 2 core tomes anyway).

[quote="Loswaith"]

A change to the throw mechanic (particularly for attacks) could be a sidebar optional rule (providing word limits allow that is).  This could then spark it as a posibilility for those that are keen on that while keeping the current throw style system as the core idea for ACKs.

Likewise the HFH stuff could be an appendix style addendum should you want it (and have the word count for it).  Though I've not delved far enough into the differences between ACKs Core and HFH to really tell if that is even a valid option.

This could essentially bind the two flavours into the one product, while giving more data to fill out the 3 tome route (there could be more than enough stuff already to fill 2 core tomes anyway).

[/quote]

the first is feasible, the second isn't really. the biggest differences between core and HFH are ceremonial magic and the eldritch power source, which both take up a large amount of pages.

One or more appendices might be a good way to handle the larger parts of the second, while the smaller parts are handled as sidebars.

As far as HFH, I think you could integrate the stuff like healing and adding Wisdom to saves, and have another supplement for the new magic, the altered treasure (unless that is becoming core), Fate Points, etc.

As far as Axioms articles, this is my vote: Tribal and Chaotic domains from Axioms 2, all the new domain stuff, everything from Axioms 5, the persuasion rules from Axioms 6, and possibly Stocking the Wilderness from Axioms 8 (I like it, but it may not be for everyone). Not sure about Downtime Rules, revised D@W (Axioms 4), or Magic Item Research (Axioms 7), as I've never used them. 

Perhaps also launch a compilation of sundry Axioms articles that don't quite fit into a core rulebook, such as "Who Stands Against the Beastmen?", "The Economics of Peasant Families", "What's In Its Pockets?", and "Make Magical Items Magical Again". I have found those pretty useful, but they seem out of place in a core rulebook. 

[quote="Mender"]

Perhaps also launch a compilation of sundry Axioms articles that don't quite fit into a core rulebook, such as "Who Stands Against the Beastmen?", "The Economics of Peasant Families", "What's In Its Pockets?", and "Make Magical Items Magical Again". I have found those pretty useful, but they seem out of place in a core rulebook. 

[/quote]

and just like that, we get one step closer to ACKs having its own version of Unearthed Arcana :-P

[quote="Jard"]

 

 

Perhaps also launch a compilation of sundry Axioms articles that don't quite fit into a core rulebook, such as "Who Stands Against the Beastmen?", "The Economics of Peasant Families", "What's In Its Pockets?", and "Make Magical Items Magical Again". I have found those pretty useful, but they seem out of place in a core rulebook. 

 


-Mender

 

and just like that, we get one step closer to ACKs having its own version of Unearthed Arcana :-P

[/quote]

 

Call it "ACKSheads".

[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]

Absolutely this. 

The class- and spell- building rules are also big reasons I like ACKS. They are great for world building. If those are going to be native in ACKS 2.0, I think you should incorporate the magic rules from Heroic Fantasy natively, too. That gives three lists of magical effects (arcane, divine, and eldritch) that can be generated in five different ways (using magic items, performing ceremonies, casting spells, singing spells, and perfoming rituals). If all the spell descriptions take up too much space, perhaps a limited list in the core book. Or just a giant core book like Hero.

I also reiterate my support for at least a sidebar listing of different, mathematically-equivalent ways to perform a throw. The core of the players in my Crusaders campaign were three veteran gamers who started in AD&D 2nd Ed or earlier. Throws were the one thing in ACKS they universally disliked and had trouble wrapping their brains around. As bad resolution systems go, they rated ACKS throws below THAC0, but above the Palladium system, the Gamma World 3rd Edition action table, the original World of Darkness Storyteller System, and the Castle Falkenstein card-based system.

It might have something to do with my play style. I prefer to have my players roll an attack and tell me what AC they hit. The simplest way I could explain how to get that was to roll the die, add all your bonuses, and subtract the ACKS Attack Throw target number. Subtraction is never popular.

Another potential way of organization is a Core book and a Companion book. The Core book has basic, tight rules and a basic, tight cast of classes and races (and monsters). It goes all the way to high-level and domain play, but in a streamlined manner. The companion gets all the ultra-cool fiddly bits, all the Player's Companion design sequences, AXIOMs hedge wizardry and financial investments, tribal domains, and so on.

Alternatively, have Core + Player's Companion (potentially just a splat book without the design sequences) + a Judge's Companion (all the cool design sequences, advanced monsters, HFH magic, etc).

Keep the Core tight and avoid bloat; make it as accessible as possible as the gateway to ACKS. The Companion(s) will add complexity for players who are already familiar with teh core and desire expanding it.

[quote="Saturno"]

 

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.

 

 

[/quote]

Brazil is a huge market. If I ever decide to do a translated version, a Portugeuse language version would be on the list for sure!

 

I recall seeing a couple of large booths of Brazilian vendors the last two years or so at GenCon. I recall none from other Latin American countries, but that is anecdotal. There seems to be a significant gaming market and enthusiasm in Brazil. I believe there are some noticeable differences between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese, so you might be mindful of that when looking for a translator.

[quote="Loswaith"] Likewise the HFH stuff could be an appendix style addendum should you want it (and have the word count for it).  Though I've not delved far enough into the differences between ACKs Core and HFH to really tell if that is even a valid option.

This could essentially bind the two flavours into the one product, while giving more data to fill out the 3 tome route (there could be more than enough stuff already to fill 2 core tomes anyway). [/quote]

Mmm, I suspect that wouldn't work very well. The big problem with HFH at the moment is that many of its rules replace or alter parts of the core rules, and there's enough changes that keeping track of all of them is hard and requires you to constantly flip between the core rules and the HFH during play to make sure you don't miss anything. Moving the HFH rules into an appendix wouldn't solve that problem.

Integrating HFH's content into the core rules as a vast number of sidebars would avoid that problem by putting each HVH rule next to the core rule it's connected to, but it would also obscure how all the HFH content is supposed to hang together as a consistent whole and make the core rules harder to read, so I suspect that's not a great option, either.

Then again, I'm in favour of the HFH rules being made into a stand-alone product, so I'm biased.

[quote="Alex"]

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)

[/quote] Sold!

[quote="Alex"] I'd be curious if anyone has any thoughts on which Axioms articles would be most important to include and where to put them. [/quote] Unfortunately, I haven't read all the Axioms articles, so I'm not sure what should be included... But it sounds like the stuff that would be most popular would be the things that expand on the core rules (useful to everybody) without extending them with new options and content (useful only to those tables who want to make changes).

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

I wonder what people acutally think about the overcasting rules from Axioms 1. I really like them but they seem not to be too popular in general it seems... 

 quote=Rodriguez]

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

I wonder what people acutally think about the overcasting rules from Axioms 1. I really like them but they seem not to be too popular in general it seems... 

[/quote]

 

My players have used them, especially at the lower levels, though that was also in conjunction with using the fate points for rerolls in case the overcasting failed. There has been a time when they let the failed result stand , and they wound up with a permanent Dispel Magic zone in the middle of a level of Dwimmermount.