Adventurer Conquer King (ACKs)

Zardnaar

Legend

• Jul 13, 2013

• #1

Has anyone else here played ACKs (pronounced axe) here? It is basically a retroclone of the BE part of BECMI and it goes to level 14. A basic proficiency system has been included which allows some customization options and higher level seems to be built around things like strongholds and domains.

It has 12 classes, core 4 + Assassin, Bard, Bladedancer, Explorer, and demihuman classes like the Dwarven Vault Guard, Dwarven Craftpriest, Elven Spellblade and Elven Nightblade. and the players companion has 19 more including things like Paladin, Barbarian, Anti-Paladin and what I suspect are 3.5 inspired ones as the Nobirian Wonderworker is a Mystic Theurge type class playable from level 1. The game is OGL and d20ized to some extent as roll higher is usually better but old school save etc are used. Seems cool anyway and nice and simple + fun.

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/99123/Adventurer-Conqueror-King-System

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero

• Jul 13, 2013

• #2

I haven't. When I have more time/money, I may grab the PDF to see if I might want to use the domain rules with C&C, but my players don't seem at all interested in going that direction, so it's not a high priority.

 

Zardnaar

Legend

• Jul 14, 2013

• #3

I'm the DM and my players will generally try anything I put in front of them. If they do not like it though I will change it. They are not interested in 4E, 1st ed or BECMI, DCC as they are to basic or are 4E. They will play 2nd ed, 3.x and ACKs or retroclones wit some options in them.

 

F

fletch137

Explorer

• Jul 15, 2013

• #4

You know what I like most about ACKS? The encumbrance rules. Seriously.

 

B

Blackwarder

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2013

• #5

fletch137 said:

You know what I like most about ACKS? The encumbrance rules. Seriously.

Click to expand...

+1

Among other things, simplicity at its best and its one of the important parts about old school dungeon crawl.

Warder

 

T

trancejeremy

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2013

• #6

I was underwhelmed by ACKS

It does offer customization, but it's such a hodge podge of things.

It uses a weird way to calculate attacks (sort of like THAC0, but AC starts at 0 instead of 10), and the bestiary is so limited so you have to do a lot of extra conversion work (since it's not compatible with any other retro clone, other than I think maybe Starships & Spacemen 2nd edition)

The economic rules aren't any better than in BECMI/RC D&D

Classes are poorly balanced.

And I don't get the encumbrance system. I mean, I understand it, i just don't see why doing it in stone is any improvement. It's just as fiddly, the numbers are just a bit smaller.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess has a better system (and seems to have inspired this).

 

Last edited: Jul 15, 2013

B

Blackwarder

Adventurer

• Jul 15, 2013

• #7

ACKS got the best economic model of any D&D game I've seen and its easy to modify and change things, I originally bought it for the domain rules and economic model alone.

As for the rest, I guess it's a play style preference.

Warder

 

F

fletch137

Explorer

• Jul 19, 2013

• #8

trancejeremy said:

And I don't get the encumbrance system. I mean, I understand it, i just don't see why doing it in stone is any improvement. It's just as fiddly, the numbers are just a bit smaller.

Click to expand...

But it's NOT as fiddly. Rather than having unique numbers for the weight of each item, the broadly-generalized "stone" weight means something is either 1 stone or six of them are 1 stone (or 1000 coins are 1 stone for when you're scooping the dragon's hoard into your 6-stone capacity backpack).

It's certainly a playstyle choice, but I really like the gear management aspect of exploration, where success depends on how much food you can carry and how much treasure you can recover. Being able to say "my backpack holds 6 stone of food, and I use 1 stone/day" makes that style of play easy to employ.

 

howandwhy99

Adventurer

• Jul 19, 2013

• #9

fletch137 said:

But it's NOT as fiddly. Rather than having unique numbers for the weight of each item, the broadly-generalized "stone" weight means something is either 1 stone or six of them are 1 stone (or 1000 coins are 1 stone for when you're scooping the dragon's hoard into your 6-stone capacity backpack).

It's certainly a playstyle choice, but I really like the gear management aspect of exploration, where success depends on how much food you can carry and how much treasure you can recover. Being able to say "my backpack holds 6 stone of food, and I use 1 stone/day" makes that style of play easy to employ.

Click to expand...

It sounds like an intriguing system. I haven't used it, but it sounds like it isn't cemented to stone (heh) as the only metric of encumbrance. Finer detail is still in coin ...at least that's what it sounds like from the last few posts.

EDIT: I'd say one of the most important thing to realize about D&D is that it isn't the particular grouping, formation, or design of the game that makes it D&D. We aren't playing a different game because you track days in Weeks of seven and I track them in "Cycles" of sixteen. D&D tracks time, as well as a few other major elements, which are the most common patterns expressed in the game. Each table could even add more or remove some. In fact, it''s expected that will happen regardless through play. All of this though doesn't change the rules or identity of the game, just the particular code hidden behind the screen for that instance of it.

 

Last edited: Jul 19, 2013

F

fletch137

Explorer

• Jul 20, 2013

• #10

howandwhy99 said:

Finer detail is still in coin ...at least that's what it sounds like from the last few posts.

Click to expand...

Nah, it doesn't get any grainier than the "stone." It's the perfect answer for people like me who want to track nitty gritty stuff without having to do nitty gritty.

It's kind of a surprise, really, because the economic system is crazy detailed, with item availability changing based on the size of the town and so on. Again, my personal play style is that I love that economics is a play consideration ("we need to go to Grand City so I can buy a warhorse.")

In some game elements, I've grown used to 3rd Ed. D&D and find the old school approach jarring. Fer instance, I miss BABs (rather than ACKS' "attack throws") but have somehow held off on converting. It'd be super easy to change, mind you, but I kind of want the full ACKS experience before I start changing things up.