Simplicity and the Gentle Power Curve

Disclaimer (for those who don't already know): I'm a Fighter man.

I've been ruminating the last few days on a couple of things. At first they didn't seem related, but the more I thought about it, the more I saw a connection. My frantic ADD swing has led me back to a few of my old favorites. These are games that I know well from repeated readings over the last number of years, or the fact that I've used them. If I were to try to use them now, though, I would have to teach my wife and kids these games. They already know old-school style D&D, but one of these other systems would be a from-the-ground-up proposition. Probably not a very fun one, either.

But isn't that why we game in the first place? Fun? Maybe in a different time, and with a different group of players, it was fun to learn and try new systems. In my here and now, though, that's not where it's at. However, it isn't a case of D&D being fun because it is the only game in my house. It's not fun due to a lack of choice. It's fun because it is fun. Even all the way back to the LBBs (I would argue especially in the LBBs), it is a very tight system. All the parts work well together, and it isn't until "improvements" were made that problems started to develop. In its most simple state, D&D is still an excellent engine for fantasy gaming.

That simplicity began to collapse as the power curve started going up. I have been guilty (in these very posts) of trying to make Fighters more powerful so they are more on par with other classes, Magic-users especially. What I should have been doing was lowering the M-U's power curve, not raising the Fighter's. (I do believe that, as a playable class, Fighters do need more than what is offered in the LBBs. The class offers little fun to the player. A Fighter in the LBBs gets a HD each level and gets 10% better at hitting opponents every 3 levels. Not a lot to get excited about. But, I digress.)


Monster HD go up in response to more powerful spells and class abilities. Monster abilities, even if it is just better damage, go up to keep the monsters a challenge. Our simple little power curve became a self-perpetuating spiral of one-upsmanship.

The sweet spot

I've been reading Adventurer Conqueror King again, and in light of power curves and simplicity, I have to say, it hits a sweet spot. The core engine is simple and elegant, because it doesn't stray too far from the founding principles. The characters are simple archetypes, but there are customization options to keep things interesting. They don't wreck the power curve, though. ACKS has an inherent interest in maintaining the power curve.


That interest is, of course, the endgame. For a fully realized endgame to work there has to be two things going on: a steady progression toward the goal, and relative power levels once the endgame is reached. Considering these points individually:


Steady progression is achieved by concise rules supporting henchmen so that players (not necessarily characters, because it is the players that are interfacing with the systems) can develop an understanding and experience with the building blocks of the domain systems. Learning to handle henchmen, hireling, and eventually mercenaries, are vital components of domain management. Simply waiting until the character reaches Name level and opening the doors to Castle Depo doesn't really work.


The above point is crucial to getting to the endgame. This point is paramount for operating in the endgame. The characters have to be somewhat balanced at the highest level. The game tops out at 14th level for all characters. If one 14th level character is clearly superior, then the endgame collapses under the weight of the imbalance. Either nobody will want to play through to the endgame, or everyone will want to play the unbalanced class so they can dominate the endgame.


Ok, that's another digression, but it was to make a point. The point is that ACKS attempts to have balanced classes from the outset and keep them balanced. That balance occurs along a fairly modest power curve. The modest power curve keeps things simple: player choices matter in the scheme of things, combats are shorter, creative solutions to problems are not only encouraged, they are necessary because there isn't some uber-feat/ability for dealing with the challenge. Simplicity is King.

More ACKS Thoughts

I read the magic chapter last night (minus all the spell descriptions). In a nutshell, I like it. It is a pleasing combination of Vancian magic and something a bit more free-form.

The biggest eyebrow raiser was the INT bonus. It surprised me to learn that the INT bonus provides a number of spells equal to the bonus at each spell level, as soon as the ability to cast that level is obtained. So, a mage with a +2 INT bonus, upon obtaining 5th level can suddenly cast three spells. That combined with the free-form nature of casting seems to make mages more powerful than their traditional OSR ancestors. That's not necessarily a criticism, I'm just wondering if it affects play.

My favorite thing about ACKS magic, bar none, is the flavor. According to the flavor text:

For an arcane spellcaster to have a spell in his repertoire, he
must keep track of complex astrological movements and star
signs that are constantly changing; he must daily appease
various ghosts and spirits that power certain dweomers; he must
remember and obey special taboos that each spell dictates. All
of these strictures, and they are many, can vary with the season,
the lunar cycle, the caster’s location, and more. Having a spell
in the repertoire is thus an ongoing effort . . .

So, it isn't a matter of constant re-memorization for an ACKS mage. When he has his nose buried in his spellbooks he is actually checking to see which planet is over his left shoulder and the affect it will have on his Sleep spell. Very cool to me.

Oh yes, that brings me to the repertoire. This is the concept whereby free-form casting works. Mages in ACKS still have a chart showing number of spells per day. Now that I look at the chart closer, it is a bit slower progression than some others, notably the LBB, but the same as Dark Dungeons and Labyrinth Lord. Maybe that INT bonus I mentioned earlier is intended to provide a little something extra to mages with the right stuff.

Anyway, the familiar spells-per-day is now the mage's repertoire. It represents not only how many times per day he can cast spells of a given level, it also represents how many he may "keep in mind" of a given level. For example, a 1st level mage with a +2 INT bonus has three 1st level spells in his repertoire. He may cast three first level spells per day. Let's just assume he has Charm Person, Light, Magic Missile, and Sleep in his spellbook. He would designate three of the four to be in his repertoire, meaning he could cast any of the three, as desired, up to three times per day, total. So, the player still has to think about which spells he believes will be most useful, as with the Vancian system, but he has a little more wiggle room when doing so. No more using all your 3rd level slots on Fireballs only to discover you really Water Breathing.

As an aside, if you happen to like ACKS, but prefer traditional Vancian magic, it would be easy to use it, since the spells-per-day chart is already there.

The last thing about the spell system I'm going to cover in this post is spell signatures. They represent tell-tale signs in how a spell actually manifests. Is your mage's Magic Missile shards of glass, or maybe tiny laughing skulls? Whatever it happens to be, it has no mechanical effect on the function of the spell. It is possible to divine something about an unknown caster from studying the signature. Signatures can vary by campaign, meaning that they can be based on the individual, magical philosophy, the college where your mage studied, or any other factor you can think of. So, in my world of Aranor, signatures would be based on college. I suppose within that "college signature" framework it is acceptable to allow individualization, such as the shards-of-glass magic missile being a certain color for a certain mage.

Anyway, there you have it, my first impression on my first read of the magic chapter. More to come as I continue my way through ACKS.

ACKS Initial Impressions

(Note: I started writing this last Monday (5/14), but just couldn't bring myself to go any farther than halfway through the second paragraph. Since I am feeling better today I decided to finish it up and get some sort of substantive post in this week.)

I've read through the character creation and proficiencies chapter so far. I skimmed the equipment chapter, which is to say I looked at the weapons and armor. I've had a terrible toothache all weekend and couldn't think clear enough to deal with "economics".

I am very pleased. There are a lot of old school sensibilities already. Roll 3d6 in order for stats, d4 HD for thieves, clerics don't have spells at 1st level, all very old school, at least up through Greyhawk. Likewise, there is the Greyhawk HD scheme for the classes, d8 for Fighters, d6 for Cleric, and d4 for M-U's ("Mages").

Variable weapon damage, with ranges similar to Greyhawk's are also included. Interestingly, a weapon's damage is based primarily on its size/heft and mode of use (one-handed, two-handed, or either). So, all heavy weapons that require two hands (all heavy weapons require two hands, actually) deal d10. I don't mind this at all, because trying to differentiate weapons based on damage gets very niggling very quickly. This represents a decent compromise between mechanics and role-play. A rather handy corollary to this is that it becomes easy to judge weapons that aren't on the equipment list. No need to fuss over "Is it more like a rapier or a longsword?" Just call it medium or heavy or whatever and get back to the game. In a system that encourages players to commission custom-made equipment, this level of elegance really helps.

So far, I love how proficiencies work. I know this may be a shock to some of you who have become accustomed to all my LBB palaver (love that word) lately, but to those who've read enough of my mess to know, I'm a different sort of referee. Most referee's are concerned with monsters, traps, or magic (in the form of new items and new spells). I'm more of a character referee. I like character options for players, I like things that players can identify with and hold on to that help them get into their characters, things that make their characters "real". Unfortunately, for every option you pick, there are a bunch you didn't, and sometimes it is human nature to be more dissatisfied with what you don't have, rather than be saitisfied with what you do. Too many options during character creation tends to limit options in play. I love being able to make a mechanical link between a player wanting to call his character a good tracker and there being a mechanic that supports it. So long as the mechanic doesn't exclude anyone else from doing it.

But, I've veered off topic. Proficiencies seem, on my read-through, to be pretty well balanced, and seem to bring as much flavor to a character as they do mechanics. One thing that rankled my LBB sensitivities a little is the fact that proficiencies are divided into lists. Each class has its own list, plus there is a general list which all classes can select from. When you create your character you gain one general proficiency, one class proficiency, and a number of bonus proficiencies equal to your INT bonus (+1,+2, or +3). These bonus proficiencies must be selected from the general list. I would be strongly tempted to allow the bonus proficiencies to be selected from any list, to represent a diverse background. My only concern would be that Mages should, by virtue of relying on INT, always get bonus proficiencies, which could be used in martial pursuits. I think that would be rare, though, and easily addressed by requiring the player to come up with a backstory for the character that makes sense of the choices.

All in all, I am extremely excited by what I'm seeing. It hews close enough to my personal old school to satisfy that itch. As a bonus it offers character options that help define characters without pigeonholing them. Win-win.

Oh, and one more cool old school thing: the rules refer to the referee as "Judge". It doesn't get anymore awesome than that.

Northern Calanthas with Rivers and Cities

Northern Calanthas with Rivers and Cities

Here is an updated map, including rivers and cities. Now, only roads and labels left to do.

Aranor Hex Map

Northern Calanthas Hexmap

Here is an early draft of my campaign setting, rendered on an ACKS hex grid, for sandbox purposes. I used hexGIMP (available here). The download includes a brush folder and a script for generating the blank hex map. Even though the ACKS sheet already has a hex grid, I couldn't get the brushes to properly fit. The brushes scale proportionately, but the hexes aren't proportionate to them, so it was pretty fugly. I ended up saving the border from the ACKS sheet and pasting it onto the grid generated by hexGIMP. I had to scale it around the map, but that was easy. If anyone tries this and has any trouble, I'll be happy to offer whatever advice I can.

This level of map is mainly a reference for greater detail hexcrawl development. I'm still pretty happy with it so far, just on its own merits. I still have to add rivers, roads, settlements, and labels.

ACKS Mass Combat

Sometimes I'm a little backwards (my wife is probably saying "Sometimes??"). Case in point, I love to read game reviews after I get the game in question. I do this because it gives me pointers to what reviewers think are important and/or noteworthy aspects of the game in question.

An excellent example of this is the lack of mass combat rules in ACKS. Many of the reviews I've seen cite this as either the chief flaw, or only flaw, of the system.

This is a rather glaring omission, really, considering the much-touted endgame of the system. My research has shown me that the first planned supplement is all about mass combat and is carefully crafted to fully integrate with the economic set-up established in the core rules. That really does sound awesome. I've also seen something about including a basic mass combat engine in future pdf downloads, as well as an SRD of the forthcoming mass combat supplement. Both of those sound good, except that I haven't been able to find said SRD, and my pdf does not include a basic mass combat engine.

I have a question, though. One of the often ballyhooed strengths of the OSR is that elements from pretty much any title are cross-compatible.  Since one of the strongest influences in ACKS is Mentzer BEC (hold the MI, please), why not kitbash the mass combat rules from there? At least as a stop-gap? I know those particular rules may be difficult to come by, but there is always Dark Dungeons. The mass combat system in DD was very well-received in reviews.

Now, let me be clear: I'm not asking this in some sort of rhetorical, "look how clever I am" fashion. This is a serious question for those of you with enough knowledge/experience with both systems to answer. Is a cludge possible? I haven't gotten very far into ACKS at all, yet. I have skimmed the section on Hirelings, and I didn't see anything that should cause obvious conflict with the mass combat rules from DD. In fact, once I considered this possibility, the lack of any sort of mass combat in ACKS almost became a feature. At least there isn't enough of one to make porting DD's too messy to consider.

Basically, here's how I see it, based on my very limited reading. DD rates troops based on three things: Troop Rating, Quality, and Size. Modify the Hireling costs from ACKS as necessary for superior/inferior troop units, and use DD from there. That seems to be the only point of intersection between the rules, at least that I've seen.

So, how about it? I know some of you are familiar enough to have an opinion on this. What do you think of splicing the DD system into ACKS?

Finally on the ACKS Bandwagon

I fought it. I rolled my eyes in disgust whenever I looked at my blogroll and saw all the new posts devoted to it. I was irritated by it at every turn. All that discomfort was due to one simple fact: self-inflicted ignorance. I was disgusted by Adventurer, Conqueror, King because I would not allow myself to learn its deeper mysteries.

In my own defense, I had already been disappointed by Dungeon Crawl Classics and, most bitterly, by Crypts & Things. I thought DCC was nothing but some nifty cosmetic hacks on a basic clone chassis. C&T is, in my opinion, misleading, to put it kindly. If they want to charge for their background and setting, fine, go for it. To take someone else's work, work that is freely available, and modify with someone else's free house rules, and have the audacity to call it yours and charge money for something they gave freely is reprehensible.

It was with those jaded eyes I viewed the release of ACKS. My apprehension was aggravated by the fact that one of the main selling points are the domain-type rules. Specifically, that ACKS returns the domain management end-game to fantasy gaming. That always sat a little odd to me. This is ostensibly an OSR title, and every OSR player worth his dice knows that the domain management end-game is part-and-parcel of any iteration of D&D from the LBBs through AD&D 1E and all points between. So, based on that thin exposure and hastily formed opinion, I avoided ACKS like the disappointment I was sure it would be.

I am very pleased to report that I was wrong. I finally broke down and picked up the PDF after reading a play report about a cleric getting his hand hacked off. Hmmm, thought I. A couple of Duck-Duck-Go clicks later and I learned that there is a critical hit system that comes into play when a character's HP are gone. That put me in mind of the excellent way WFRP 1E handles criticals, which is still my all-time favorite. After seeing that, it was all over but the crying.

I'll be reading this over the next few days. I'll definitely be posting my impressions, probably as I read, so they'll come in multiple parts. I'll try to make sure I see them all through and not leave it hanging. For now, though, I just wanted to let everyone know, I'm one of the cool kids now.