How well would this work out? On the surface of it I can't see any reason it wouldn't work. ACKS has a few little tidbits in general I'd like to borrow for other OSR games. For that matter how well would things port from ACKS to AS&SH?

Mostly I'm looking at domain management, economics, and hireling and morale rules being borrowed from ACKS into an upcoming S&W Complete campaign.

Depending on what you want from S&W, it might be easier to port S&W stuff into ACKS.

Quote from: Ddogwood;873025Depending on what you want from S&W, it might be easier to port S&W stuff into ACKS.

+1. ACKS' economy, demographics and experience systems are more or less joined at the hip, which is why I abandoned my ACKS/DCC hybridization attempts still at the bench. What do you want to use from S&W?

As for ACKS and AS&SH (my favorite OSR games, actually), a fine gent was working on a pulp-S&S-cranked-up-to-11 ACKS hack named Barbarian Conqueror King. And of course, the ACKS Heroic Companion promises a more Conanesque ACKS experience (ACKSperience?) but I'm not sure when that's coming out.

Given that most of ACKS economic/domain rules were lifted from BECMI D&D (domain stuff from Companion Rules, trade stuff from Gaz 9, I don't see why they wouldn't fit S&W.

Quote from: JeremyR;873054Given that most of ACKS economic/domain rules were lifted from BECMI D&D (domain stuff from Companion Rules, trade stuff from Gaz 9, I don't see why they wouldn't fit S&W.

[oh_you.jpg]


I'd agree with Ddogwood. Take what you like about S&W and port it into ACKS. I'm a fan of the single save and replicated it in ACKS.

Looking through the S&W SRD, I'm pretty sure you can just drag-and-drop S&W's races, classes, and assorted rules (ability bonus/effect tables, racial level limits, etc. ) into the ACKS framework and nothing will break. Dropping ACKS proficiencies won't break anything either. If you take the classes, take the monsters with them, and it all sorts out.

The racial level limits in S&W will work fine in ACKS - I think it'd be an interesting mix with the stronghold types, honestly - just add the multi-classed demihumans total levels up and let it it at the 9th character level - pick which one they get perhaps by what their best match is. I'd kinda like to hear how it works out if you get that far.

Above 14th level you're stepping out of the defined space of ACKS' economics - but you can just treat it as a multiplicative problem. Above managing an empire is perhaps managing a small continent in size, say, Australia, then double out from there - large continent, hemisphere, planet. It's a bit of a stretch, but, hey. Magic. And it's a problem that'd be interesting to have if you get into those higher spaces.

Everything else is just style, combat rules, etc.

Quote from: JeremyR;873054Given that most of ACKS economic/domain rules were lifted from BECMI D&D (domain stuff from Companion Rules, trade stuff from Gaz 9, I don't see why they wouldn't fit S&W.

Really?! Tell me, will you ever stop lying?
I used to think you were just mistaken, but you've repeated falsehoods so many times it's clear that your posts are mendacious.

Quote from: Bobloblah;873069Really?! Tell me, will you ever stop lying?
I used to think you were just mistaken, but you've repeated falsehoods so many times it's clear that your posts are mendacious.

I agree while the idea of the ACKS domain system have been done in BECMI and other games the mechanics are unique to ACKS.

They're a radical reinterpretation. You can't really compare it to the companion book domain rules, except as inspiration. It would be like saying that Alien was just a rip-off of The Thing.

Moreso, the Companion rules are way more arbitrary. The value of ACKS is just how well planned and thought out it all is.

That's also its weakness: to 'port' it into any OSR game other than ACKS you have to, at the very least, port over EVERY detail of the economics from ACKS, right down to basic equipment prices.

Quote from: RPGPundit;873532They're a radical reinterpretation. You can't really compare it to the companion book domain rules, except as inspiration. It would be like saying that Alien was just a rip-off of The Thing.

Moreso, the Companion rules are way more arbitrary. The value of ACKS is just how well planned and thought out it all is.

That's also its weakness: to 'port' it into any OSR game other than ACKS you have to, at the very least, port over EVERY detail of the economics from ACKS, right down to basic equipment prices.

Yeah that's too much work for me.

Quote from: Arkansan;873611Yeah that's too much work for me.

Good thing Pundit is full of it, then. You don't need to port over every detail. ACKS price lists are pretty good, but if you don't bring them over, what breaks? Answer: nothing much. Use the price list from whatever your game of choice is. Having said that, using the ACKS price list isn't exactly what I'd call "work." Print a copy or save a screenshot, done.

Now, I did say "nothing much," as opposed to nothing. Things fray around the edges if you're only grabbing portions of ACKS, as the whole thing is designed to hang together, but my suspicion is that if your preference is playing something like S&W, you seriously aren't going to care; it's not going to be any more broken than S&W RAW, which isn't terribly concerned with such things.

Were I to make a recommendation, it'd be to grab the Market Class rules, the Domain rules, and then an assortment of campaign activities as you prefer (my picks: Magical Research, Divine Power, and Strongholds).

Oh, and one last thing: if you're going to make the Domain endgame a part of your campaign with the ACKS (or other) rules, do yourself a favour and pick up Domains at War: Campaigns. You will be glad you did.

Quote from: RPGPundit;873532They're a radical reinterpretation. You can't really compare it to the companion book domain rules, except as inspiration. It would be like saying that Alien was just a rip-off of The Thing.

Actually Alien is a rip-off of It: The Terror from Beyond Space and Discord in Scarlet from Voyage of the space Beagle and has nothing in common with The Thing aside from having an alien. So I guess that is a good analogy.

While I dont have a particularly great opinion of ACKS. It does rip off bits of at least BX. I am not sure it yanks the economic system from BECMI. That was prediminantly a seafaring trade system. ACKS covers land and sea trade and is a more robust system for the land side while BECMI was more robust on the seaside. The systems do not look the same at a glance.

I think you could merge the two and get a pretty good coverage.

Quote from: Omega;873639It does rip off bits of at least BX.

It doesn't "rip off" bits of B/X any more than OSRIC "rips off" AD&D, or S&W Complete "rips off" OD&D plus Supplements. It's a neo-clone (meaning a clone that builds on the original) of B/X, and quite intentionally so. The author was running a B/X campaign, and houseruled stuff that didn't hang together the way people tend to say ACKS does.

Quote from: Omega;873639I am not sure it yanks the economic system from BECMI. That was prediminantly a seafaring trade system. ACKS covers land and sea trade and is a more robust system for the land side while BECMI was more robust on the seaside. The systems do not look the same at a glance.

Yeah, they aren't really the same. You could say that portion of BECMI was one of the inspirations for ACKS' system, but that's about it.

Quote from: Omega;873639I think you could merge the two and get a pretty good coverage.

If you're not playing a game with a heavy trade and economic focus, I wouldn't bother. Have a look at Demand Modifiers for settlements in ACKS, and if those don't thrill you, you're not going to be porting the rules for Mercantile Ventures to another system. Personally, I like the Demand Modifiers, as they add a certain kind of flavour, and provide adventure hooks for non-gp (i.e., trade goods) treasure.