I'm in the process of writing up Mercenary, Liberator, Tyrant, my historical conversion of ACKS, into a proper supplement. My first departure from the usual way of doing things is right in Chapter 2, where "party definition" comes before you get into character creation. The whole point is to agree how the group is going to be structured, with regards to number of NPC henchmen alongside the PCs, and also the starting level of the PCs. The latter of course then determines what level the henchman can be.

So here's what I've got so far:

   Creating the Party

Before you create the characters, it is necessary to define the nature of the party to which they belong. This is tied to the premise for the game, and will influence the types of characters which are appropriate, their level of starting experience and the composition with regards to the mix of Player Characters and Non Player Characters. The characters might all be members of a mercenary company or similar military unit, members of a noble house or mercantile guild, the officers and crew of a ship, a street gang or criminal enterprise or one of countless other possible concepts. While there are a potentially infinite number of possibilities, three premise types are presented as suggestions.

Just starting out

This is the lowest-level option which is pretty close to the usual starting point for D&D games. The PCs are either a new outfit just starting out, or the junior members of a larger organisation. They are 1st level, making them fragile in combat and have relatively little starting funds. Obviously this restricts the range of experience of henchmen they have in their employ, who must be 0th level Normal Men. This is the best option for a group who are relatively new to roleplaying or wish to experience building their power base from scratch.


An established organisation

This is the middle option and is the recommended starting point for MLT. The PCs might be an established organisation or the middle-tier members of a larger one. The PCs start at 3rd level, they are more durable in combat and amongst some of the more competent people around. They have more money for equipment and retainers. They can have henchmen ranging from Normal Men up to 2nd level, giving more options in how each player chooses to build their PCs retinue.


Leading the charge

This is the highest-level option which puts the PCs in charge of organisations and significantly more capable than most people they might encounter. The PCs start at 5th level, they are tough and inspiring to be around. They have a great deal of funds to disburse and can have extremely competent henchmen (going anywhere up to 4th level), likely filling out their retinues to the maximum number.


Creating Henchmen

Rather than add still more to the GM's workload, it is intended that the player should create their PCs henchmen. This not only gives them more of a stake in their retinue and some control over it, but also assists them in getting familiar with what their henchmen can do. In a combat situation it is expected that the player will make the decisions and roll the dice for their henchmen, even if they choose not to roleplay them outside of combat. Henchmen can act as backup character options should something happen to the PC, either temporarily while they are elsewhere or recovering, or permanently, being uplifted to PC-level if they are removed from the game.


Now a question I'm musing on is whether there should be a shared pool of "party resources", funds independent of any particular PC for group assets like pack animals, remounts, trade goods, a base location, hirelings (while henchmen attach to a particular PC, hirelings don't have to) or perhaps even a ship. This could represent loot won in war, bounties granted by a victorious general to their troops, a share of the sale of a captured ship, whatever.

I'm thinking that might be a sum of money based on the number of PCs and their level. So the more PCs and the higher level they are, the more money the group gets for all this ancillary stuff.

I also use a variant method of chargen here, both for PCs (who are assumed to be a cut above normal people) and henchman (who are also, though to a lesser extent than PCs). This is entirely by design, the game is about people who are paragons of the age, the colourful and exceptional personalities who might have been written about in the same way as people like Demetrius the Besieger of Cities or Pyrrhus of Epirus.

   Creating Characters
NB: This replaces the text on p16 of ACKS under the same heading.

Refer to your agreed premise for the starting level of your PC, then repeat this process for any henchmen.

• You'll need a fresh character sheet for your main character and a henchmen sheet to record the details of your retinue.
• For your PC roll the following and record your results: 1d6+12, 2d6+6 rolled twice, 3d6 rolled four times. You will have generated seven numbers ranging from 3 to 18. Discard the lowest result and reorder them from highest to lowest. This is an array and each player generates one. Bring all the arrays generated together so everyone in the group can see them. Choose your preferred array (more than one person may choose the same one).
• For henchmen roll the following: 2d6+6 rolled twice and 3d6 rolled five times. Discard the lowest result. Do this once for each henchman.
• Assign the numbers to your ability scores as desired. Finally you may move up to 2 points from any ability score to any another. Write down your ability score bonus or penalty.
• Choose a class which suits your character abilities from the Character Classes section.
• Note your level and calculate your hit points (hps), taking the base value for your class and level and applying your Constitution bonus or penalty.
• Record your character's attack throws and saving throws on your sheet. Note down your bonus or penalty to each from your ability scores. Melee attack throws are modified by Strength and ranged attack throws by Dexterity. Fortitude saves are modified by Constitution. Reflex saves are modified by Dexterity. Will saves are modified by Wisdom.
• Choose your character's starting Proficiencies from the Proficiencies chapter. Apply any modifiers to your ability scores, hit points, attack throws or saving throws from Proficiencies. Record any new special abilities granted by Proficiencies.
• Generate your character's starting wealth, referring to the table for the amount appropriate to your level. Use this to purchase equipment and any mounts or pack animals for your character and hire henchmen and hirelings. Once you have chosen armour and weapons, note your Armour Class (AC), applying your Dexterity modifier. Also note your weapon damage, determined by your weapon, applying your Strength bonus or penalty. Calculate your character's encumbrance based on how much weight they are carrying, modified by the lower of their Strength or Constitution bonus or penalty.
• Give your character a name, determine your starting languages, choose your age and roll your Prime attribute to determine when aging modifiers start to apply.

Notable, though is that while you have parity between the PCs (or at least the potential, since everyone could use the same array if they wanted), there isn't between henchmen. They don't get to roll an array and pick, they just get a slightly better chance of some good scores, and get to assign them.

Quote# For your PC roll the following and record your results: 1d6+12, 2d6+6 rolled twice, 3d6 rolled four times. You will have generated seven numbers ranging from 3 to 18. Discard the lowest result and reorder them from highest to lowest. This is an array and each player generates one. Bring all the arrays generated together so everyone in the group can see them. Choose your preferred array (more than one person may choose the same one).
# For henchmen roll the following: 2d6+6 rolled twice and 3d6 rolled five times. Discard the lowest result. Do this once for each henchman.

This has always puzzled me about the OSR in general, why there seems to be so much resistance to using the most common way of rolling stats - roll 4d6, drop 1, arrange how you want.

Quote from: JeremyR;736714This has always puzzled me about the OSR in general, why there seems to be so much resistance to using the most common way of rolling stats - roll 4d6, drop 1, arrange how you want.

Mine's not an OSR game beyond the fact that it's derived from older D&D, but speaking for myself, I have no time for any chargen method which privileges one player over another on the basis of a few rolls. Thus the business of generating non-exclusive arrays for everyone's PC.

ACKS standard is 3d6 in order, so mine is quite a departure there.

Quote from: Kiero;736720Mine's not an OSR game beyond the fact that it's derived from older D&D, but speaking for myself, I have no time for any chargen method which privileges one player over another on the basis of a few rolls. Thus the business of generating non-exclusive arrays for everyone's PC.

ACKS standard is 3d6 in order, so mine is quite a departure there.

I have nothing against 4d6-drop-lowest. I've used it a lot, still do every now and then, and quite frankly don't think it disqualifies any one game from being considered "old school" (I'm almost sure it was first described in the AD&D 1e DMG).

But I don't think 3d6-in-order makes for a game "which privileges one player over another on the basis of a few rolls" either. The most meaningful thing for a PC to survive and thrive in an old school D&D campaign is not the character's ability score levels and modifiers, but the skill of the player controlling the character.

Quote from: The Butcher;736722I have nothing against 4d6-drop-lowest. I've used it a lot, still do every now and then, and quite frankly don't think it disqualifies any one game from being considered "old school" (I'm almost sure it was first described in the AD&D 1e DMG).

But I don't think 3d6-in-order makes for a game "which privileges one player over another on the basis of a few rolls" either. The most meaningful thing for a PC to survive and thrive in an old school D&D campaign is not the character's ability score levels and modifiers, but the skill of the player controlling the character.

This isn't an old school D&D game (and I make no attempt to address that style). There's no magic, monsters or dungeons, few of the dynamics of that style of play are really relevant. There's other people and their agendas, incessant warfare, opportunities through trade and intrigue to make money and establish yourselves.

Furthermore, it's built on the assumption that the PCs are the leaders of retinues, exemplars of the time who are worthy of being followed. The Greeks prized excellence and expected a man to be an athlete, a warrior, a learned scholar and an interesting conversationalist.

The PCs also have a buffer of people against the vagaries of chance (which are harsher with no healing magic and no resurrection). Its assumed that a lot of combat situations won't just be the PCs, but they and their henchmen acting in a co-ordinated manner.

Quote from: The Butcher;736722But I don't think 3d6-in-order makes for a game "which privileges one player over another on the basis of a few rolls" either. The most meaningful thing for a PC to survive and thrive in an old school D&D campaign is not the character's ability score levels and modifiers, but the skill of the player controlling the character.

Da Troof!

Quote from: Kiero;736782This isn't an old school D&D game (and I make no attempt to address that style). There's no magic, monsters or dungeons, few of the dynamics of that style of play are really relevant. There's other people and their agendas, incessant warfare, opportunities through trade and intrigue to make money and establish yourselves.

Furthermore, it's built on the assumption that the PCs are the leaders of retinues, exemplars of the time who are worthy of being followed. The Greeks prized excellence and expected a man to be an athlete, a warrior, a learned scholar and an interesting conversationalist.

The PCs also have a buffer of people against the vagaries of chance (which are harsher with no healing magic and no resurrection). Its assumed that a lot of combat situations won't just be the PCs, but they and their henchmen acting in a co-ordinated manner.

It really doesn't matter if your campaign features dungeon crawling or not. The key question is does success largely come from the decisions of the player during actual play or mostly from values on the character sheet?

Quote from: Kiero;736782There's other people and their agendas, incessant warfare, opportunities through trade and intrigue to make money and establish yourselves.

Furthermore, it's built on the assumption that the PCs are the leaders of retinues

All of which are also manifest assumptions of old school play. One of these days, if the mood strikes you, check out the Wilderlands (both the original Judges Guild Wilderlands of High Fantasy, and Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands) which strikes me as the best examples of a classic, published fantasy sandbox D&D setting that's about a lot more than "magic monsters and treasure" as you put it. I mean, it does employ those elements to good use, but it goes well beyond that.

Interestingly enough, reducing the classic D&D playstyle to "magic, monsters and dungeons" strikes me, a new school forest-for-the-trees thing.

Again, I'm not knocking your game or your rules hacks, which I think are pretty cool BTW. I'm just pointing out that, the way it looks from here... suspense music... you're playing a true-to-form old school game and didn't even realize it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;736787It really doesn't matter if your campaign features dungeon crawling or not. The key question is does success largely come from the decisions of the player during actual play or mostly from values on the character sheet?

Both. It's a false dichotomy. Each supports the other. All this talk of "player skill" seems to be code for finding ways to circumvent the system by persuading the GM to make rulings rather than use the mechanics. There's already less room for that sort of thing in ACKS through Proficiencies for skills. Yes, you can still attempt things you don't have Proficiencies for (they're additions to and clarifications of areas of competency), but chances are you're relying on an 18+ or at best 14+ roll.

No amount of "clever decisions" is going to stop a Str 6 Fighter (-1 to hit and damage, difficulty wearing full panoply) from being worse in the clash of bronze than a Str 16 Fighter (+2 to hit and damage, likely very mobile in full panoply). Sure they might have other good attributes which contribute to their leadership or tactical presence, but if they aren't in the front rank being seen to stand firm, they won't be earning the renown they need. You might get away with fighting clever during raids or skirmishes, but when it comes to pitched battle, you have to be at the head of the wedge.

Look at Pyrrhus of Epirus. He wasn't just a king and great commander, he led from the front. Which was the expectation then, which meant you had to be a capable combatant or you wouldn't last long. He's also a good example of how everyone is vulnerable. I'm thinking of putting a level cap of 9th, so people can get into the rulership endgame, but won't continue to get ever more divorced from normal people.

Quote from: The Butcher;736789All of which are also manifest assumptions of old school play. One of these days, if the mood strikes you, check out the Wilderlands (both the original Judges Guild Wilderlands of High Fantasy, and Rob Conley's Majestic Wilderlands) which strikes me as the best examples of a classic, published fantasy sandbox D&D setting that's about a lot more than "magic monsters and treasure" as you put it. I mean, it does employ those elements to good use, but it goes well beyond that.

Interestingly enough, reducing the classic D&D playstyle to "magic, monsters and dungeons" strikes me, a new school forest-for-the-trees thing.

Again, I'm not knocking your game or your rules hacks, which I think are pretty cool BTW. I'm just pointing out that, the way it looks from here... suspense music... you're playing a true-to-form old school game and didn't even realize it.

If I am unconsciously playing things old school without even realising it, that's from having never seen the real article. I didn't learn D&D from an existing group and we didn't play modules. I also came in during TSR's tenure when it was all about campaign settings and god-wars and such (though thankfully I was spared the sorts of horror stories I've heard about some of those modules).

I'm not hugely surprised that there's some commonality with the sandbox side of things; it's kind of the idea that we have a world in turmoil into which we pitch a band of capable hardcases who could shift the balance of any local conflict however they might choose. Particularly in the case of the Hellenistic setting, that's pretty much what really happened; there were thousands of demobilised mercenaries, tribal levies, citizen-soldiers, barbarian warbands and others washing around the Mediterranean looking for their next payday or throwing their lot in behind yet another noble who fancied being king.

I do have to wonder how, though, any dungeon-crawling game could make much use of those things when 95% of play is below ground and the surface is a logistical contact point. Unless it's the politics of the dungeon-world and its denizens, in which case why bother with all the detail about the surface-world?

Quote from: Kiero;736912All this talk of "player skill" seems to be code for finding ways to circumvent the system by persuading the GM to make rulings rather than use the mechanics. There's already less room for that sort of thing in ACKS through Proficiencies for skills. Yes, you can still attempt things you don't have Proficiencies for (they're additions to and clarifications of areas of competency), but chances are you're relying on an 18+ or at best 14+ roll.

I haven't used Proficiencies in ACKS yet. Which ones do you feel could tip the balance of a battle?

Quote from: Kiero;736912No amount of "clever decisions" is going to stop a Str 6 Fighter (-1 to hit and damage, difficulty wearing full panoply) from being worse in the clash of bronze than a Str 16 Fighter (+2 to hit and damage, likely very mobile in full panoply). Sure they might have other good attributes which contribute to their leadership or tactical presence, but if they aren't in the front rank being seen to stand firm, they won't be earning the renown they need. You might get away with fighting clever during raids or skirmishes, but when it comes to pitched battle, you have to be at the head of the wedge.

You should see the STR 6 Fighter PC in my dungeon-crawling game downing 20+ goblins in single combat with a longbow, flaming oil and a modicum of tactics. Not every culture demands or even rewards leader for leading from the "boar's head" as it were.

Quote from: Kiero;736912If I am unconsciously playing things old school without even realising it, that's from having never seen the real article. I didn't learn D&D from an existing group and we didn't play modules. I also came in during TSR's tenure when it was all about campaign settings and god-wars and such (though thankfully I was spared the sorts of horror stories I've heard about some of those modules).

Makes two of us. I've been a stickler for the D&D RC, while AD&D 2e was touted as the "real" or "adult" or "hardcore" version of the game, even back in the day; but for the most part, the OSR was my big window into old school D&Ding.

Quote from: Kiero;736912I do have to wonder how, though, any dungeon-crawling game could make much use of those things when 95% of play is below ground and the surface is a logistical contact point.

The exact mix between dungeon and surface time is really up to the individual group. Some groups might go into dungeons very rarely or not at all; in our whole two-year-long C&C game we only went into three dungeons; a ruined temple in the desert, a city of the undead, and the city manor of demon-worshipping aristocrats which featured a sprawling underground complex beneath.

My current game is dungeon-heavy and I've deliberately led it into a dungeon-dominated schedule, but last session was mostly on the surface and I feel alternating between the two makes for a more diverse and interesting game.

Quote from: Kiero;736912Unless it's the politics of the dungeon-world and its denizens, in which case why bother with all the detail about the surface-world?

Now that is a false dichotomy. If you starting leaving town, returning laden with gold and magic, and boasting about your subterranean exploits at the local watering-hole, questions will get asked.

• Rival treasure hunters might show up and you might even bump into them at the dungeon.


• Clearing out monster lairs makes the wilderness safer, caravans start showing up more often, settlers start moving in and next you know they're cutting down the Wild Woods for lumber and dredging the Dead Man's Marsh into arable farmland.


• The local nobleman might lay claim to the riches of the ruins, and God help you, tax your ass (my players have just come to an understanding with the local Duke and requisitioned a charter of their own as the Ducal Company of Spelunkers; they tithe the duke 10% of their earnings and the Duke nominally defends their rights from rival adventuring parties).


• The surfacing of relics of foul, dark gods might raise the alarm of the local church, or stir the interest of shadowy cults.


• What of that undecipherable scroll? You might have to travel from Podunksville to Capitalia so you can find a sage who might be able to identify it.

There's a lot of room for interaction between the surface world and the dungeon. And there is zero reason dungeon politics and surface world politics are mutually exclusive; hell, just look at the chaplain from the Keep on the Borderlands for an easy and straightforward example. All that is necessary is that there be one or more NPCs on the surface whose background and/or agenda ties them somehow with what transpires within the dungeon.

I meant to say thanks for the Wilderlands recommendation. I'm thinking I'll need to write a (non-linear) module type thing at the end of this product, and some good examples are welcome.

Quote from: The Butcher;736927You should see the STR 6 Fighter PC in my dungeon-crawling

Not every culture demands or even rewards leader for leading from the "boar's head" as it were.

However, virtually every culture we deal with in my game does demand that of their leaders. The Greeks aren't even the most emphatic about it, the Celts, Thracians, Illyrians, Iberians and many other warlike "barbarian" peoples expected it to be a given that a warleader was a fearsome combatant in their own right.

A Persian warrior might get away with not being the best swordsman around, but he'd still be expected to be an excellent horseman, a deadshot with a bow and to have unimpeachable integrity.

Quote from: The Butcher;736927Makes two of us. I've been a stickler for the D&D RC, while AD&D 2e was touted as the "real" or "adult" or "hardcore" version of the game, even back in the day; but for the most part, the OSR was my big window into old school D&Ding.

I've only got what people report it was all about on internet fora. Not all of which reads favourably to me. Especially what I deem rules-avoidant behaviour as some sort of ideal.

It may be a new school way of looking at things, but the whole point of having rules is to use them, especially when they are good at adjudicating the very task in front of us.

Quote from: The Butcher;736927The exact mix between dungeon and surface time is really up to the individual group. Some groups might go into dungeons very rarely or not at all; in our whole two-year-long C&C game we only went into three dungeons; a ruined temple in the desert, a city of the undead, and the city manor of demon-worshipping aristocrats which featured a sprawling underground complex beneath.

My current game is dungeon-heavy and I've deliberately led it into a dungeon-dominated schedule, but last session was mostly on the surface and I feel alternating between the two makes for a more diverse and interesting game.

Fair enough. Those three dungeons sound well-suited and apt, and the right sort of balance of things. I just find all the surface-stuff vastly more interesting than the dungeon-stuff. Especially "sprawling" ones, multi-level-spelunking just doesn't appeal.

Quote from: The Butcher;736927Now that is a false dichotomy. If you starting leaving town, returning laden with gold and magic, and boasting about your subterranean exploits at the local watering-hole, questions will get asked.

• Rival treasure hunters might show up and you might even bump into them at the dungeon.


• Clearing out monster lairs makes the wilderness safer, caravans start showing up more often, settlers start moving in and next you know they're cutting down the Wild Woods for lumber and dredging the Dead Man's Marsh into arable farmland.


• The local nobleman might lay claim to the riches of the ruins, and God help you, tax your ass (my players have just come to an understanding with the local Duke and requisitioned a charter of their own as the Ducal Company of Spelunkers; they tithe the duke 10% of their earnings and the Duke nominally defends their rights from rival adventuring parties).


• The surfacing of relics of foul, dark gods might raise the alarm of the local church, or stir the interest of shadowy cults.


• What of that undecipherable scroll? You might have to travel from Podunksville to Capitalia so you can find a sage who might be able to identify it.

There's a lot of room for interaction between the surface world and the dungeon. And there is zero reason dungeon politics and surface world politics are mutually exclusive; hell, just look at the chaplain from the Keep on the Borderlands for an easy and simple example. All that is necessary is that there be one or more NPCs on the surface whose background and/or agenda ties them somehow with what transpires within the dungeon.

All that is fine, but I'm left with a simple question: why do we need the dungeon in all of that? Lairs don't require multi-level underground settings, and they have the most interesting impact on the surface. It just seems to be a conceit to concentrate a lot of wealth in one place that no one but the PCs is apparently brave or competent enough to get.

Quote from: Kiero;736933All that is fine, but I'm left with a simple question: why do we need the dungeon in all of that? Lairs don't require multi-level underground settings, and they have the most interesting impact on the surface. It just seems to be a conceit to concentrate a lot of wealth in one place that no one but the PCs is apparently brave or competent enough to get.

I find the question a bit baffling, a bit like asking "why have six different funny dice" or "why have Paladins". The only answer I think can offer is "because it's fun."

There are lots of reasons for dungeons, but, putting aside any historical reasons for their inclusion, the simplest is that they provide a focused, simple to manage and run game structure.

Quote from: The Butcher;737250I find the question a bit baffling, a bit like asking "why have six different funny dice" or "why have Paladins". The only answer I think can offer is "because it's fun."

Quote from: Bobloblah;737325There are lots of reasons for dungeons, but, putting aside any historical reasons for their inclusion, the simplest is that they provide a focused, simple to manage and run game structure.

Which is fair enough, but I'm not finding either reason convincing enough that dungeons merit inclusion here. I don't find them fun and I don't think there is a need for that sort of structure in a historical game.

Quote from: Kiero;737338Which is fair enough, but I'm not finding either reason convincing enough that dungeons merit inclusion here. I don't find them fun and I don't think there is a need for that sort of structure in a historical game.

I don't think I posted anything suggesting or encouraging you to include dungeons in your historical campaign. I'm pretty sure you were the one who brought up dungeons, actually.

Quote from: The Butcher;737345I don't think I posted anything suggesting or encouraging you to include dungeons in your historical campaign. I'm pretty sure you were the one who brought up dungeons, actually.

Disappearing off into a digression. I think you're right, it was me who started it.

Quote from: The Butcher;736927I haven't used Proficiencies in ACKS yet. Which ones do you feel could tip the balance of a battle?

I think you edited this one in later, so I hadn't responded to it.

To answer the question, there are a collection of combat-oriented Proficiencies which could be quite significant, especially in combination. The Fighting Style ones give little bonuses like +1AC or +1 to hit. When you have multiple styles that are applicable at the same time (eg single weapon and weapon and shield), you can choose from round to round which one applies.

Combat Trickery changes maneuvers from interesting novelties you probably won't bother with (because they default at -4 to hit), to things you might find uses for (since it reduces them to -2 to hit, and imposes a -2 penalty on your opponent's save against it).

Skirmishing (my rewriting of it) gives a pretty big mobility boost (able to move 75% of your allowance without turning your back).

Those are the personal scale ones, when looking at the warleader angle; Command gives your henchmen and hirelings +2 morale (in addition to your CHA bonus), which is huge. Military Strategy gives your side bonuses to initiative. Manual of Arms, plus some other Proficiencies allows you to turn raw levies into professional troops.