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

[Mark CMG]

The Publisher's Forum has recently been combined with the General Forum so it's now the place for such things. It may be that Tav, a longtime EN Worlder, thought that with the demise of the Publisher Forum, news and PR goes where it seems to best fit. Since the reviews were making 5E comparisons, I can certainly understand why it was put where it was, albeit erroneously.

Personally, I'm looking forward to getting a chance to give ACK a play through in late March at Gary Con in Lake Geneva (where it all began). There will be a lot of (O)D&D, 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D, Basic D&D, Original Chainmail, as well as C&C, Hackmaster, Pathfinder, and other games happening all that weekend, so making comparisons to older editions will be easy to do. Hopefully, some concrete revelations will come regarding 5E before that time so I'll also be able to check it out in that light as well. It's a shame WotC isn't going to be running any of their playtests there, as a nod to tradition. I read they had been playing some older edition games with one another, and I hope that has helped them get somewhat of a feel for those dusty rulesets. If any of them get to Lake Geneva, they'd be able to play in some games run by Tim Kask, Frank Mentzer, and other authors from those editions they plan to have 5E honor. I'm lucky enough to have scored a seat at the table of Ernie Gygax's game this year (I've gamed with Frank and Tim in the past - GREAT FUN!).

Anyway, EN World has always been an open place for folks to advertise their new RPGs, though that was tradtionally done in a separate forum. Let's not break out the torches and pitchforks and run off an old campaigner like Tav for making an error in judgement as to where to place his personally happy news of good reviews for his labor of love. He's a good guy and deserves some hearty congratulations for getting his baby through the tough stages.

Plus, when I get Griffins & Grottos out, I don't want you guys even more practiced at running folks off with their newfangled rulesets.

 

[Saracenus]

Mark,

Respectfully, I have to disagree with you. This was not just an ad misposted in the 5e thread (and I have grave doubts that is was indeed misposted) because it specifically targeted 5e and he actively asked us to read those reviews and compare it to what WotC is saying about their own game.

No. This is most definitely not a good look. If WotC has popped into the Pathfinder RPG section and said here are some bloggers saying that the 5e playtest eats Pathfinders lunch, this place would be burning to the ground right now.

While I cannot know the thoughts and direct motivations of the OP, I can say that how he posted this up does not even remotely look like an accident.

I am glad you are looking forward to trying out this game. I, on the other hand, have about zero interest in it now.

 

[Mark CMG]

Mark,

Respectfully, I have to disagree with you.

Fair enough. But I've known Tav for a while and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not like he was using a sock puppet, anyway. He was, at the least, up front about who he is. Hopefully he won't get hit too hard for his error in judgement, whether that was just posting in the wrong forum or being a little too agressive in his trying to get the word out. Maybe, after a little time, you'll be willing to give him a second chance too.

 

[Nellisir]

I've only skimmed through my copy of ACKS, but my initial impression is of Basic D&D with 2e proficiencies bolted on. Now, this isn't a review - I've literally spent less than 10 minutes with it. But race as class is not a direction I want 5e to take.

 

[scourger]

Is this in print?

 

[Tav_Behemoth]

Sorry for the error in judgement, folks, and while I appreciate Mark standing up for me I regret having given him cause to do so!

I haven't been around these parts since the D&D Next sub-forumization and the disappearance of the Publisher Forum, so I guessed wrong in where this should go.

And although I do have an obviously disclosed self-interest in Adventurer Conqueror King's success, I don't know that having people make comparisons to D&D Next helps that out at all!

I'm actually a little freaked out by seeing these two bloggers, and other comments on forum threads, make this kind of claim. Eating 5e's lunch wasn't on our agenda in any way, and even if it was, as a third-party OGL publisher I'd have to euphemize it as "the latest edition of the original fantasy role-playing game" and maybe "mid-day meal" if "lunch" was closed content.

My intent, since I haven't been following the news as closely as I trust folks here to do, was to say "hey is this reflecting something that's actually being said about D&D Next in the larger world, or is it just an OSR misperception?" But I acknowledge that I did that poorly and will think more carefully before posting next time.

 

[Consonant Dude]

My intent, since I haven't been following the news as closely as I trust folks here to do, was to say "hey is this reflecting something that's actually being said about D&D Next in the larger world, or is it just an OSR misperception?" But I acknowledge that I did that poorly and will think more carefully before posting next time.

I don't think DnD-Next is gonna look much like ACKs from what I have read.

Can I give my 2 cents about your product?

I checked your official site, various threads and reports. I found myself nodding while I read many designer notes such as the brilliant The Demographics of Heroism. I think the way you guys have dissected old school and new school mechanics and paid attention to both flavor and elegance when it comes to rules is pretty incredible. And I love the overall goal of the game. You know, playing an adventurer and eventually playing the DnD of realm management! Rock on! I figured, with the way everything has been thought out, this is going to be an internally consistent marvel.

But I found out something today that has convinced me to pass on the product. It seems you're not providing a mass combat system in your rulebook I can't play the DnD endgame without one. And from what I understand, it will be published as a supplement and it will be a detailed mini-intensive thing. To me, the good thing about stuff like BECMI was having a simple, abstract system for mass combat. Cause these old games are all about swiftly resolving actions and moving on to descriptions. That's what all these old editions you guys have been inspired by were about. And it seems that's what ACKs is about. But it looks like that's now what mass combat will be about. After having read how you distilled DnD mechanics, I have no doubt you guys could concoct an amazing abstract mass combat system running a few page long. And if you ever do that in a future edition, I'll gladly buy a print copy.

 

[Izumi]

You might as well have asked ACKs to view the sunrise...

 

[Stainless]

Anyway, EN World has always been an open place for folks to advertise their new RPGs, though that was tradtionally done in a separate forum. Let's not break out the torches and pitchforks and run off an old campaigner like Tav for making an error in judgement as to where to place his personally happy news of good reviews for his labor of love. He's a good guy and deserves some hardy congratulations for getting his baby through the tough stages.

+1

Seems the blood in the water over the 5e announcement has caused a bit of a feeding frenzy.

 

[Falstaff]

There are so many OSR games to choose from nowadays that it is hard to keep up. The one I'm really looking forward to getting is Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea.