OSR ACKS 2

[CandyLaser]

I don't actually think any of those games are better than ACKS. That being said, I totally get where you all are coming from. I'll drop the issue.

Perfectly understandable; tastes vary, and I freely admit that my distaste for ACKS as a rules system is undoubtedly colored by the moral abhorrence I have for Macris as a person. I don't even think ACKS is bad as a rules system. My main reason for making alternative suggestions is to make sure I'm not just being negative and offer up some constructive alternatives for discussion.

 

[Gradine]

Potentially worth mentioning: Pickpocket Press is working on a revised version going by the name "Tales of Argosia" and has published a playtest draft for it. While there seem to be no domain rules in the core book, they have linked community content that claims to support domain play: Tales of Argosa – Playtest Draft Released. Cannot comment on the quality of said content, though.

Also didn't Matt Colville also famously put out a couple of products specifically about domains and strongholds and the like? I thought that those were somewhat system neutral, maybe they're 5e only, but I have to say I don't think Colville has ever openly promoted a neo-nazi pedophile nor advocated for the dissolution of American democracy, so that's gotta be a step up at least?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also didn't Matt Colville also famously put out a couple of products specifically about domains and strongholds and the like? I thought that those were somewhat system neutral, maybe they're 5e only, but I have to say I don't think Colville has ever openly promoted a neo-nazi pedophile nor advocated for the dissolution of American democracy, so that's gotta be a step up at least?

Colville is too much of a 4e fan for me to really be on board with his game design, unfortunately. Some of my friends like his stuff though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Last thing. He did just reference the Trump Rubicon article you guys mentioned:

"It was meant to be a disturbing read. I was attempting to warn people that America was headed into a very dark place. By analogy: "If the Arab Nations continue to press Israel, Israel will use nuclear weapons in its Samson Option and the result will be terrible." The reaction I got was, from the Left: "So basically you want Israel to nuke everyone." And from the Right: "What a good idea, let's nuke everybody." So I took the article down.

If you read my blog with the understanding "this is what Alex wants to happen," you would have to conclude I am a misanthropic psychopath that wants my own nation to be destroyed in war and economic collapse.

If you read it with the understand "Alex gets depressed a lot thinking about the future and writes it out so that maybe people will listen and change course" then you are understanding it correctly."

No comment on this. Just posting what he wrote.

 

[schneeland]

Also didn't Matt Colville also famously put out a couple of products specifically about domains and strongholds and the like? I thought that those were somewhat system neutral, maybe they're 5e only, but I have to say I don't think Colville has ever openly promoted a neo-nazi pedophile nor advocated for the dissolution of American democracy, so that's gotta be a step up at least?

As @Micah Sweet already mentioned, Colville's design philosophy is probably not a good fit for people leaning old-school gaming. However, I indeed never heard anything that indicated he might hold questionable beliefs (certainly not the ones we are otherwise discussing here).

 

[Jahydin]

@Micah Sweet
Thanks for posting the Discord message.

Firsthand information is always a plus.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People who want an OSR game with top-flight world generation through random tables should be looking at Worlds Without Number, which is universally agreed to be best in class here.

WWN and its related games are great, agreed. Worth noting that Kevin Crawford is a backer of ACKS II, for whatever that's worth. I certainly don't think that says anything about him as a person, however, anymore than it would about any other backer.

 

[CandyLaser]

Last thing. He did just reference the Trump Rubicon article you guys mentioned:

"It was meant to be a disturbing read. I was attempting to warn people that America was headed into a very dark place. By analogy: "If the Arab Nations continue to press Israel, Israel will use nuclear weapons in its Samson Option and the result will be terrible." The reaction I got was, from the Left: "So basically you want Israel to nuke everyone." And from the Right: "What a good idea, let's nuke everybody." So I took the article down.

If you read my blog with the understanding "this is what Alex wants to happen," you would have to conclude I am a misanthropic psychopath that wants my own nation to be destroyed in war and economic collapse.

If you read it with the understand "Alex gets depressed a lot thinking about the future and writes it out so that maybe people will listen and change course" then you are understanding it correctly."

No comment on this. Just posting what he wrote.

He actually wrote several articles with similar themes, over a period of several months. The others are less aggressive but also seem to endorse the use of violence and for Trump to use extralegal means, including violence, to retain power. Some links: Repressive Tolerance in Action, Who Counts the Votes of the Presidential Electors?, Et Tu, Congress?

The last one is telling - the title, of course, is also a reference to Julius Caesar and what he says when he is betrayed by Brutus. The article goes on to describe how Congress modified the Insurrection Act in what he describes as an effort to remove Trump's ability to invoke it and use mass violence to seize control of the American government after losing the election. He concludes that Trump still has this power despite Congress's amendment to the law. But note that he characterizes it as a betrayal of Trump to do so, which only makes sense if you think Trump should do it.

All of this should also be evaluated in light of the fact that one common tactic among alt-right folks like Macris is to couch their threats and wishes in speculative language precisely so they can make defenses like this. It's part and parcel of the whole "I'm just asking questions" defense that regularly gets trotted out in these sorts of situations. Anyone who wants to can read what Macris wrote, and anyone with a brain can read the original "Trump at the Rubicon" article and see what Macris is advocating. Hell, he ends the piece with a quote from Sun Tzu about how “when on death ground, you must fight.” It comes right at the end, after a long screed about how the scary mean liberals are going to make Trump do this. This, incidentally, is also a textbook part of the abuser's playbook—and to be clear, I am not accusing Macris of being an abuser. What I am saying is that he's using the same DARVO tactics they use. He is saying "Look what you made me do!" and using that as an excuse, a way to absolve himself for the terrible things he's advocating for.

 

[Libertad]

Last thing. He did just reference the Trump Rubicon article you guys mentioned:

"It was meant to be a disturbing read. I was attempting to warn people that America was headed into a very dark place. By analogy: "If the Arab Nations continue to press Israel, Israel will use nuclear weapons in its Samson Option and the result will be terrible." The reaction I got was, from the Left: "So basically you want Israel to nuke everyone." And from the Right: "What a good idea, let's nuke everybody." So I took the article down.

If you read my blog with the understanding "this is what Alex wants to happen," you would have to conclude I am a misanthropic psychopath that wants my own nation to be destroyed in war and economic collapse.

If you read it with the understand "Alex gets depressed a lot thinking about the future and writes it out so that maybe people will listen and change course" then you are understanding it correctly."

No comment on this. Just posting what he wrote.

Fascists and similar authoritarians are quite fond of casting their actions as a "grim necessity." They'll opine that they wish things didn't have to come to this, that they didn't want to have to enact horrific violence, that they didn't want to have to undermine democratic institutions. "I wish we lived in a world where everyone was equal," they'll say. "I wish we lived in a world with maximum individual freedom. But we don't, which is why we had to put them in camps. Which is why we had to kick them out of our country. Which is why we had to attack Parliament/Congress/the Reichstag."

A fascist may say they didn't want the outcomes they support to be so violent. And yet they still support those who either brought them about, or seek to bring them about. The weeping fascist will say that nothing is off the table in order to defeat liberalism, multiculturalism, the Jews, or whatever other Enemy of the Week they assigned to be responsible for all the world's ills.

 

[Jahydin]

I see he's partnered with Chuck DIxon to write a Conan setting.

Has anyone read his Conan comics? Are they any good?