Quote from: RPGPundit;1057162I don't get how anyone who likes D&D style fantasy could like savage worlds better than OSR games.

As for RC vs ACKS, I LOVE the RC, and would usually pick that over ACKS if those were my choices to run, but if it was a game that focused a lot on managing domains, I'd go with ACKS because in that particular element of the rules it's better (and note that the RC did the best job with domain management of any official D&D ruleset).

For me ACKS is what I wish B/X would have become rather than the Companion and Masters not come along. Or maybe what AD&D might have done.

Still, it's great and I love it too. Recommend the Players Companion though, if you want to create your own classes for unique campaigns.

Talking of B/X and what ifs, did you ever get a chance to look at the B/X companion?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1056845I have nothing against ACKS and I enjoy my Rules Cyclopedia, but OSR isn't my cup of tea right now.

I would be a sucker for any Savage Worlds supplement that focused on dungeon fantasy (and was still in print. My queue for campaigns is so long now even with two weekend groups that my purchase has to come with coffee table art)

I was actually a little annoyed that GURPS doesn't bundle the PDF with the physical book purchase. I may have actually used their store if they offered that instead of letting Amazon take a cut.

I spent most of my SW fantasy time with Hellfrost, which does have a bit of dungeon exploring here and there. And while I haven't read it, Gold & Glory came out not too long ago. It might be worth looking into: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/223242/GoldGlory-Seven-Deadly-Dungeons

Quote from: Brand55;1057254I spent most of my SW fantasy time with Hellfrost, which does have a bit of dungeon exploring here and there. And while I haven't read it, Gold & Glory came out not too long ago. It might be worth looking into: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/223242/GoldGlory-Seven-Deadly-Dungeons

Oh looks like they finally got the POD set up.

Quote from: Brand55;1057254I spent most of my SW fantasy time with Hellfrost, which does have a bit of dungeon exploring here and there. And while I haven't read it, Gold & Glory came out not too long ago. It might be worth looking into: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/223242/GoldGlory-Seven-Deadly-Dungeons

I ran a Savage Worlds Hellfrost campaign for several years that's currently in hiatus (we lost a couple of players), and I also run an active ACKS campaign using Dwimmermount. My players and I have enjoyed them both, and they both can be played in a gritty OSR style even though only ACKS is actually an OSR ruleset. I think playing an old school like dungeon crawl depends a lot on the setting and play style at the table. Rules matter, too, but nothing in Savage Worlds precludes running such a game.

Quote from: wmarshal;1057281I ran a Savage Worlds Hellfrost campaign for several years that's currently in hiatus (we lost a couple of players), and I also run an active ACKS campaign using Dwimmermount. My players and I have enjoyed them both, and they both can be played in a gritty OSR style even though only ACKS is actually an OSR ruleset. I think playing an old school like dungeon crawl depends a lot on the setting and play style at the table. Rules matter, too, but nothing in Savage Worlds precludes running such a game.

For sure. My Hellfrost campaign was more of a high-powered delve into world-traveling and giant-slaying, but there were times the party had to delve into old ruins or underground tunnels. I was quite fond of the simple, easily modified system for traps that the game used, too. I used it often for more generic traps then worried about sketching out something worthy of Grimtooth when I needed something more unique.

I've never played ACKS but it's one of those games I've been tempted to get many times. I think the thing that's kept me from pulling the trigger is that I know about half my group would never go for it. I love the concept, but there's just too much detail and math involved for people who just want to toss dice and kill stuff.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057162I don't get how anyone who likes D&D style fantasy could like savage worlds better than OSR games.

That's simple, you could be top rank in SW and a trap can still kill you.  No inflating hit point mechanic, every character feels competent, but is not an overpowered demigod, even at the highest 'level'.  It does the adventuring is dangerous feeling long than D&D ever does.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057162As for RC vs ACKS, I LOVE the RC, and would usually pick that over ACKS if those were my choices to run, but if it was a game that focused a lot on managing domains, I'd go with ACKS because in that particular element of the rules it's better (and note that the RC did the best job with domain management of any official D&D ruleset).

And isn't mixing and matching systems the whole point, anyway?  Use what you think works, tweak if it doesn't.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057306That's simple, you could be top rank in SW and a trap can still kill you.  

In Lion & Dragon you could be a 12th level fighter and a lucky shot from a 0-level peasant could kill you. You don't need to go outside the OSR to get that.

That's a cherry picked example though. Certainly not the case with D&D. Which was probably one of the main drivers for the proliferation of home brew crit tables that appeared - don't recall there ever being anything 'official' along those lines, so unless you'd parsed the grappling rules, then Joe fighter could stand in front of Bob the peasant in a frilly dress and be in virtually no danger.

Quote from: Derabar;1057770That's a cherry picked example though. Certainly not the case with D&D.

Surprise rules.

Thought it couldn't be more than 6 segments though (although I haven't played 1e for a long time, and I confess to not having played enough B/X to know how it handles surprise...)?

Pundit's 12th level fighter is going to have, what, 50 - 60 HP at least, so Bob's going to need a halberd and a better fucking D20 than I've got to get through that lot before getting creamed.

EDIT: and he did say 'lucky shot' which implies one hit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057700In Lion & Dragon you could be a 12th level fighter and a lucky shot from a 0-level peasant could kill you. You don't need to go outside the OSR to get that.

You don't need to be lucky to kill a high ranked Savage World's character, it helps, but you don't need it.  And it's with basic attacks.  Hell, pushing a book shelf can do serious damage to a SW hero.

If that were the case, then no one would ever reach 12th level.  They'd have been killed by a peasant long ago.

IIRC, it was EGG that pointed out the obvious about critical hits - that they are going to happen to the PCs far more than anyone else, simply because they are the ones in every combat.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057877You don't need to be lucky to kill a high ranked Savage World's character, it helps, but you don't need it.  And it's with basic attacks.  Hell, pushing a book shelf can do serious damage to a SW hero.

Your high ranked Savage Worlds character is not even necessarily harder to kill than he was as a Novice if you never invested in more defenses.

So what does ACKS domain rules do, or do differently, that BECMI's did not?

Quote from: Derabar;1057770don't recall there ever being anything 'official' along those lines,

So what, how that matters now? Lion & Dragon added a rule that made it more gritty. I have a rule in my own take, the Majestic Fantasy RPG, that could result in massive damage in one shot. In conjunction with the low number of hit points, could result in a 0 level peasant taking out a 12th level fighter*.

Now that criticism is valid if you want to talk about OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry all of which follows an earlier edition closely. However my own rules, Lion & Dragon, and others illustrate that particularly hard to bolt on a system that allows for one shot kills in a way that is consistent with the rest of the rules.

*My rule is if you roll a natural 20, roll another to hit roll. If you miss you roll damage and do double damage. If you hit you do max damage. If you roll a natural 20 again, you get to make another to hit roll and increase your damage accordingly. The most I seen was four nat 20s in a roll followed by a miss. So the player rolls his damage and added four times his max damage. I think he did around 45 points of damage in that blow.

While not as straightfoward as other crit system, the players really like the exploding dice part. The chance of rolling successive nat 20s.