Adventurer Conqueror King as a preview of D&D Next?

[apmacris]

Tav - I'm reading through ACKS, and I have to ask... what on Earth possessed you to essentially recreate THAC0??? (that's right, folks...the ACKS attack system features the number "To Hit Armor Class 0") Esp. when (since you've reversed AC), you're so close to the straight-up 3e "to-hit" model anyways? Your system seems to introduced added, and unnecessary, complexity in the form of level-variable TNs (Target Numbers), and I don't understand how this is a benefit.

Nellsir, I'm lead designer on ACKS. The answer to your question is that we wanted ACKS to have a character-centric task resolution system. For each question of "what do I need to roll to succeed" the answer is always found on your character sheet, rather than in the DM's announcement of a Difficulty Class.

A player can look at his character sheet and know what he needs to save v. any effect, hit a standard target, hide in shadows, find a secret door, etc. It's listed right there.

For rolls that are not normally modified much, such as Open Locks, this is clean and easy. For rolls that are often modified, such as attack, it has the pleasant benefit of making the "difficulty" quite transparent.

This puts the Judge (DM) in the position of offering modifiers to those rolls, rather than creating DCs out of thin air. If the Judge says "save v. poison at -20" then there's great outrage - that's well outside of ACKS norms. Whereas in 3.5, for instance, it's just assumed that at high levels you'll face saves of DC25+.

The problem I've had with 3.5/4e style DCs is that they encourage a treadmill where as player bonuses go up, DCs mysteriously also go up, and the chance of success remains the same. This was implicit in 3.5 and explicit in 4.0.

Whether our approach aesthetically appeals to you is of course a different matter, but considerable thought went into the decision. I hope that makes sense and that you'll give the unified "throw" mechanic we've built a try before dismissing it as merely a legacy of 1e/2e.

 

[DMKastmaria]

To be honest, the 5e announcement has sparked my interest more in OSR gaming than 5e. But one thing that seems very counterproductive is that so many people are trying to re-make rulebooks (with new core rules), rather than putting out supplements for their theme for the most popular/most faithful recreations (either OSRIC for AD&D or S&W/LL for D&D).

Especially since they are mostly either just D&D with a twist (D&D with Lovecraft, D&D where you rule kingdoms, D&D with Conan, etc) or just house rules.

I guess it makes sense business wise, it's probably a lot better to try to sell a rulebook for $40 (and you can base further products on) than a sourcebook for $20. But it seems like it's fracturing an already small base...

The OSR isn't nearly as subject to "fracturing," as other markets. People buy the games that interest them and are as likely to hack ACKS into their homebrew system as run it straight. Most OSR gamers I know own several clones, have their favorite(s) but play with more than one.

And the old saw that "all the OSR does is make clones," is just plain false.

Not counting rulebooks/sets, there are over 200 for-pay OSR products available for purchase (I stopped counting almost a year ago.)

As the clones, neo-clones and original versions are all compatible enough to be converted on the fly, a module/supplement billed as "Compatible with Labyrinth Lord," is often purchased by DM's running Swords & Wizardry, AD&D, etc.

 

[Nellisir]

The problem I've had with 3.5/4e style DCs is that they encourage a treadmill where as player bonuses go up, DCs mysteriously also go up, and the chance of success remains the same. This was implicit in 3.5 and explicit in 4.0.

Whether our approach aesthetically appeals to you is of course a different matter, but considerable thought went into the decision. I hope that makes sense and that you'll give the unified "throw" mechanic we've built a try before dismissing it as merely a legacy of 1e/2e.

Thanks for answering!

A quick note: I played 1e briefly, 2e extensively, 3e extensively, and 4e almost not at all. My references to 3e are to the system, not a passive/aggressive means of saying 3e did it better or somesuch. It's also the system I played most extensively most recently (I probably had a more extensive knowledge of 2e rules, but that was 13 years ago).

Here's how I'm seeing it: in most cases, your TN system is functionally identical to 3e's DC number. A random character has a TN of 18+ to detect a secret door, or secret doors are found with a seach check of DC 18 or higher. Whether or not those numbers inflate with levels (as they tended to do in 3e, or assuredly do in 4e) is irrelevant, since either system could support inflation, or not. I'm not a fan of inflating DC with levels myself.

It is very clear that you're going for a "unified" mechanic, and by and large, there's nothing wrong with it. You've opted for a fixed DC in most cases, including (I haven't delved into it yet) what looks like a fixed save system (saves are not modified by spell level). I'm OK with all of that.

The attack mechanic, however, is the most frequently used system in the game, and is extremely variable. Any one combat can feature opponents of differering ACs vs characters of differing ATVs. In standard 3e, the AC as written functioned as the DC that a character had to meet or beat in order to inflict damage. That DC is identical for each character. In ACKS, the AC as written is converted to a modifer, and added to each character's ATV to determine whether or not they hit, generating (hypothetically) a different TN (or ATV?) for each character. Rinse and repeat for each monster of a different AC, so an encounter of 4 characters with 3 monsters of different ACs generates 12 different target numbers, whereas 3e would have 3.

Also, while you've opted for static DCs in most cases, characters still improve their chances to hit as they increase in levels, and I notice ACs for tougher (more HD) monsters are generally higher than for weaker (lower HD) monsters (ie dragons). I think this is the problem. If attack bonuses (or TNs) were truly static, the TN system would work as a universal system. But they're not, and it doesn't.

A partial solution to this would be present AC as a bonus (giant crocodiles have an AC of +8). This makes it clear that the AC is not a target number, but rather a modifer (which it is). This still makes for a slew of different numbers in play at one time, but adds some clarity.

BTW: I don't dismiss the ACKS system as a legacy of 1e/2e. Mathwise, it's 3e. The fact that I can add 10 to the AC, and change the ATVs into bonuses makes that clear. But it is, literally, a THAC0 system. The ATV is to hit Armor Class 0.

I'd like to hear how exactly the information is conveyed around your table. Do you say a monster has an AC of 8, and the player adds 8 to his ATV? Does the player say she rolled a 12, and you check her character's level, find the ATV, and add the AC before comparing results? Does the player roll and say "my character hit an AC of 6", and you give a thumbs or or thumbs down?

Ultimately, I doubt I'll play the ACKS system as written. As you said, it's an aesthetic choice, and the values wouldn't change, so I'd houserule to something I find more intuitive. But that doesn't mean I don't wonder why you made the choice, or how exactly it functions at your table.

 

[apmacris]

I'd like to hear how exactly the information is conveyed around your table. Do you say a monster has an AC of 8, and the player adds 8 to his ATV? Does the player say she rolled a 12, and you check her character's level, find the ATV, and add the AC before comparing results? Does the player roll and say "my character hit an AC of 6", and you give a thumbs or or thumbs down?

Thanks for your response. I appreciate that you've taken so much time to check out the game, and glad that you've only found one to dislike!

I don't dispute that our system is based on rolling to hit AC 0, but "THAC0 System" has very specific implications of descending AC as were used in 2e D&D, which is not true of ACKS. So I don't think it's a useful way to describe the game - it confuses rather than clarifies. ACKS is not 1e/2e. I've run 1e, 2e, 3.5, and ACKS's system is much easier and more intuitive than 1e and 2e's descending AC. I personally find it easier than 3.5, but it's certainly at least as easy. Ultimately, both games come down to needing to roll a particular number on a d20. 4 different characters v. 4 different monsters will need 16 different values in both games.

Anyway, to answer your question: In general, the player rolls, and announces what AC they hit. "I hit AC4!" Once the monster's AC is known hey can work from that to announce that they've hit it or not. That works very well in play.

 

[Nellisir]

Thanks for your response. I appreciate that you've taken so much time to check out the game, and glad that you've only found one to dislike!

Well, there are other things I'm not fond of, but they're more in the vein of holdovers from other editions of D&D, and I understand why they were included. The attack system was clearly designed for ACKS, however, and so merited extra inquiry.

Anyway, to answer your question: In general, the player rolls, and announces what AC they hit. "I hit AC4!" Once the monster's AC is known hey can work from that to announce that they've hit it or not. That works very well in play.

I remember that phrase well. I found it annoying.

Honestly, I get your system. I wouldn't chose to run it in my home game, but I understand it. I think you could do more to make it transparent, however. For example, on page 13, the character has an ATV of 6+, and it's said "...if it [his throw] equals or exceeds 6, he hits". There is qualification to this statement, and no mention of AC, which implies that a 6+ hits anything. That clearly can't be true, unless the AC is a (negative) modifier to the throw itself and the ATV is truly static. I don't think this is what you intend.

Conversely, the AC is applied to the TN (which de facto changes the TN), and the example is incomplete (the "6" only hits an AC of 0)

Question: On page 97, is there an error in the encounter distance of the sample encounter (the PCs on a 24' hill, possibly encountering an ettin)? The total encounter distance given is 102 yrds, which doesn't mesh well with the statement that "the encounter distance would multiply five times" unless your die roll is generating fractions.

Thanks for your patience; I understand this is probably covered on your forums, but I'm pressed for time and it's easier to come here than to multiple sites.

 

[apmacris]

I don't have the rules in front of me, but the example on p97 seems like it might be a typo, where 5 x24 = 120, but I typed 102.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't have the rules in front of me, but the example on p97 seems like it might be a typo, where 5 x24 = 120, but I typed 102.

It's a weird example. 24' is the height of the hill. The "base" encounter distance is 21 yards, but that doubles to 42 yards with an ettin (since it's twice the size of a human). Then the characters get put on a 24' hill (which is 4x the height of a human) and the "encounter distance" is "multiplied" to "(4+1) five times". So it's not clear if the "encounter distance" is 21 yards, or 42 yards, or (21 x 4) + 42, or whether or not the ettin is still involved at all.

42yrds x 5 is 210yrds, so maybe it's a typo and the ettin is still in on it? That's certainly the longest option.

Hey, at least you know I'm reading the thing.

 

[nedjer]

The OSR isn't nearly as subject to "fracturing," as other markets. People buy the games that interest them and are as likely to hack ACKS into their homebrew system as run it straight. Most OSR gamers I know own several clones, have their favorite(s) but play with more than one.

And the old saw that "all the OSR does is make clones," is just plain false.

Not counting rulebooks/sets, there are over 200 for-pay OSR products available for purchase (I stopped counting almost a year ago.)

As the clones, neo-clones and original versions are all compatible enough to be converted on the fly, a module/supplement billed as "Compatible with Labyrinth Lord," is often purchased by DM's running Swords & Wizardry, AD&D, etc.

The first generation of clones may have been about reproducing rule sets, but they've evolved/ developed a lot since then. For some that's been about offering variant mechanics, but for others it's about adding content. In the case of Swords & Wizardry the rules have filled-out to form a 'full' system, while significant chunks of content have been added, e.g. Tome of Horrors. That in turn forms a necessary platform for 3rd party/ homemade scenarios and campaigns.

The ACKS THAC0 example above shows part of what this brings to the party, as the designer has clearly thought at length and experimented with an alternative. The designer's freedom to do that without having to answer to any corporate chain of command or fixed legacy seems quite valuable for RPGs if we're to have fresh ideas circulating and appearing in the wild as tangible products.

The reasons for making rule sets rather than supplements may be down to a perceived benefit/ improvement which a designer/ s can't demonstrate or model for use without showing how it works alongside/ fits into the lexicon/ language of the original game.

Can't speak for others, but my clone offerings needed a rule set 'to work'. I.e. a S&W engine plus what's necessary to model steps which should make it easier for young adults/ complete newbies to sit down and just play.

Would it have been be more practical to make a supplement for OSRIC, S&W, Labyrinth Lord. Perhaps, but a supplement wouldn't serve as a one-stop boot camp for trying to help a complete novice pick-up and go as a GM.

Equally, it would have been impractical to make a chunky teenage dark comic version/ module and a family-friendly 8-12 year old version with the same scaffolding of play - under very different themes - without working from a rule set designed for scaffolding play.

So, imo the modest sum for an ACKS PDF can have value as a system you play, but also might have ideas, fluff, or adapted mechanics which result from exploring options in the new school meets old school area that hasn't been covered/ cloned as much as old, old school.

 

[apmacris]

Question: On page 97, is there an error in the encounter distance of the sample encounter (the PCs on a 24' hill, possibly encountering an ettin)? The total encounter distance given is 102 yrds, which doesn't mesh well with the statement that "the encounter distance would multiply five times" unless your die roll is generating fractions.

Sorry it took me so long to respond to you on this. I got overwhelmed with answering other questions (and mistakes!)

Here is the example in question, CORRECTED:
*****
Man-sized targets are visible from a maximum of 1,000 yards over flat plains. Larger creatures can spot and be spotted at greater distances. Likewise creatures can spot and be spotted at greater distances if they are on towers, high hills, and so on. Increase the spotting distance in proportion to the increase in height or elevation relative to a man (6’).

EXAMPLE: Adventurers encounter a 12’ tall ettin in a light forest. The base encounter distance is 5d8 yards, and the Judge rolls a 21, yielding 21 yards. However, the ettin is double the height of a man, so the encounter distance is doubled to 42 yards. If the adventurers were standing on a 24’ hill (four times the height of a man), the encounter distance of 21 yards would multiply by (4+1) five times, to 105 yards.
*****

I hope that clears it up. Thanks again for your attention to detail.