Yup, $10,000 goal hit, so Jeff Brown's amazing artwork will be in. Now it's a question of whether or not they hit the $11,500 goal for the Auran Empire primer...

Final tally: $11,828 so the Auran Empire primer is a thing.

That was a heck of a final surge. I did not expect that last goal to fund.

Quote from: Raven;831261Final tally: $11,828 so the Auran Empire primer is a thing.

That was a heck of a final surge. I did not expect that last goal to fund.

I was blown away. Apparently demand for the Auran Empire campaign setting is considerably greater than I knew!

Great news!

...aaaaand the Sinister Stone of Sakkara just became available on DTRPG. I don't have a print copy from the Kickstarter, yet, but I'm guessing it'll hit retail shortly after I do. Based on the PDF, it's a beautiful looking book, and a pretty excellent starting module.

EDIT: sorry, here's the link http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/156763/The-Sinister-Stone-of-Sakkara

Cool!

I really like this module but then I am a huge Autarch/ACKS fanboy.

It's very similar to Keep On The Borderlands in its premise, but being nested in the Auran Empire setting, it's got a great Late Antiquity, Conanesque feel.

Looking forward to the Auran Empire primer.

I just bought this. I am not a ACKS fan (it's a good B/X with Gazetteers clone, but people make it out to be more than that) but I like starter modules and it's a hell of a deal with 80 pages for $5 in PDF.

From the name I thought it would be Egyptian themed, but it's more like a late era Roman empire. At least the home base, which is elaborately detailed (about half the module).

The dungeon itself is somewhat pedestrian. Kobolds, bandits, orcs, hobgoblins, goblins on the first level. Each type has its own "territory" in the dungeon.  Clearly inspired by B2. The second level also features traditional monsters. Ogres, gnolls, carrion crawlers (under the LL name, carcass scavenger), some undead, and one new monster, the "abomination" and the main villain is a "ruinguard", which I guess is like a cleric/fighter.

To me, it's like ACKS. It's a solid, competent job, but it's essentially a rehash.

Don't really see the "Conanesque" part to it. (for that, see the recent Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea adventures). Seems very firmly D&D-ish, you could easily plop the whole thing into Mystara (or perhaps rather, The Known World) without batting an eyelash.

Nice looking though (especially the cartography), and they were nice enough to have a high res and low res version (which still looks nice).

Quote from: JeremyR;857874(it's a good B/X with Gazetteers clone, but people make it out to be more than that)

Good grief! This again? Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? I notice you're not claiming it's a BECMI clone anymore (see here). That's progress, I guess. ACKS is derived from B/X, but then builds from there, and calling it a straight clone shows that you're either disingenuous, or fairly stupid. Spellcasting, classes, and combat have enough differences to significantly impact gameplay, and the economic subsystem, domain subsystem, proficiency subsystem, and others, are entirely new. There are superficial similarities, of course (both rely on the same primary source for their price list, for example), but even a cursory reading reveals the significant differences. Apparently you've never managed that.

I get that you don't like ACKS, and hey! Whatever floats your boat. But you could at least try and lay off the complete falsehoods every time you open your mouth about it. I'll just leave my previous response to you: here

On topic, the Sinister Stone of Sakkara definitely comes across as an homage to B2: Keep on the Borderlands. Whether or not that is a good thing depends on whether or not you think the original had anything to offer. Personally, I think B2 was one of the best starting modules available for classic D&D, so I'm favorably disposed towards the Sinister Stone.

It also does a good job of laying out the starting fortress, Türos Tem, as a base of operations for a new party, with interesting plots and personalities that might get involved with the PCs, as well as details on the Domain (per the ACKS Domain rules) of the fortress. This lets it also serve as an example or model of what PCs might eventually aspire to, as well as something that can be reskinned and dropped down in one's own home brew ACKS game. I think it's a pretty worthwhile module, whether taken as a whole, or raided for parts.

Quote from: Bobloblah;857891Good grief! This again? Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? I notice you're not claiming it's a BECMI clone anymore (see here). That's progress, I guess. ACKS is derived from B/X, but then builds from there, and calling it a straight clone shows that

I am a supporter of ACKS as much as anybody. But inches separate the different editions of classic D&D (AD&D, OD&D, B/X, BECMI,R/C, etc) and the various retro-clones including my own Majestic Wilderlands.

I am bringing this up because the point of the OSR is to play classic D&D, more specifically to play classic D&D with the author(s) viewpoint mixed in. It OK that ACKS is essence B/X with tweaks, better economic numbers, and better support for domain level mechanics.

OK to get excited about it and people JeremyR don't get that their problem not yours.

For example I don't find Harlequin style Romances that interesting but there are people who just love them to death. And that like any genre there are some that are that good and some that are that bad. ACKS in my view are one of the retro-clones that are pretty darn good.

Hey, I have no problem when people like different things, or actively dislike things I like. That's not why I responded to JeremyR. I replied because he has a habit of throwing out totally false claims about ACKS whenever he posts about it online. Maybe Alex Macris peed in his cornflakes?

Quote from: estar;857960I am a supporter of ACKS as much as anybody. But inches separate the different editions of classic D&D (AD&D, OD&D, B/X, BECMI,R/C, etc) and the various retro-clones including my own Majestic Wilderlands.

Taken to that extreme, one could argue there are no real differences between any of them. That's a pretty silly argument (and not one I'm saying you made), though, seeing as there are large numbers of people playing them, and those people are actively choosing one over the other. Either they're all idiots, or there really are material differences between the various iterations, and, more importantly, how they play. I would say that's the case with ACKS, where a number of seemingly minor differences in rules produce pretty significant differences in play (free-casting and cleave spring to mind). I've spoken about those in other threads here. Those differences may not be to everyone's tastes, but claiming they aren't there? Or that it's really just BECMI or B/X plus the Gazetteers? That's both factually incorrect, and highly misleading for anyone interested in actually taking a look at ACKS.

Quote from: estar;857960I am bringing this up because the point of the OSR is to play classic D&D, more specifically to play classic D&D with the author(s) viewpoint mixed in. It OK that ACKS is essence B/X with tweaks, better economic numbers, and better support for domain level mechanics.

Sure. Of course that would already mean it doesn't match with JeremyR's claims of just being B/X plus Gazetteers. Note that that's a new one, too. His previous claim was that it was just BECMI. Would you say B/X and BECMI are the same? They are to someone who doesn't play either, but someone who'd play them, or who has played them? They're close, but noticeably different. The differences between B/X and ACKS are greater.

JeremyR appears to have once given ACKS a cursory read, decided it was something it isn't, and now needs to tell the world how wrong they are about it. I suppose I like ACKS enough to point out how mistaken he is about what ACKS is and isn't. Whether or not people like it is an entirely different question, and one that others are more likely to answer accurately for themselves if they don't listen to his summary of the game.

Quote from: estar;857960But inches separate the different editions of classic D&D (AD&D, OD&D, B/X, BECMI,R/C, etc) and the various retro-clones including my own Majestic Wilderlands.

Absolutely!

And most players never notice the inch difference. Most just want to have fun and minor tweaks often pass without notice, or accepted with a shrug.

I run OD&D with D6 as base damage for weapons. I tell them monsters use 1D6 per HD and everyone shrugs and one guy gets excited because FINALLY he can use a spear in D&D.

Quote from: estar;857960I am a supporter of ACKS as much as anybody. But inches separate the different editions of classic D&D (AD&D, OD&D, B/X, BECMI,R/C, etc) and the various retro-clones including my own Majestic Wilderlands.

Those inches are more than enough to discriminate between things I like, and things I don't. ACKS is the only B/X-derived game I like, largely because of Proficiencies, transparent class design and the solid economic underpinning of everything.

Quote from: estar;857960I am bringing this up because the point of the OSR is to play classic D&D, more specifically to play classic D&D with the author(s) viewpoint mixed in. It OK that ACKS is essence B/X with tweaks, better economic numbers, and better support for domain level mechanics.

Personally, I couldn't give a toss about the point of the OSR. The only thing I care about is games I like and can make use of. I don't care what the author's viewpoint is, I care whether it presents things that are useful to me.

Quote from: Kiero;858023Those inches are more than enough to discriminate between things I like, and things I don't. ACKS is the only B/X-derived game I like, largely because of Proficiencies, transparent class design and the solid economic underpinning of everything.

The fact inches separate ACKS from AD&D means that when you run a ACKS it is far easier to adapt a AD&D, OD&D, or BECMI adventure or supplement than it is Runequest, or GURPS. Nor do I claim that the fact that inches separate the various editions of classic D&D and the retro-clone doesn't eliminate personal preference for a specific set of rules. Presentation, writing style, and the set of mechanics make certain editions appealing to some and not to others.

Quote from: Kiero;858023Personally, I couldn't give a toss about the point of the OSR. The only thing I care about is games I like and can make use of. I don't care what the author's viewpoint is, I care whether it presents things that are useful to me.

Look the OSR isn't a singular vision, it is a aggregate of everybody who found a classic edition of D&D or similar retro-clone useful or fun to play. Which is why you found that you like to play ACKS and found it useful you became part of the OSR. It is a descriptive term meant to encompass what a bunch of people are already doing.

As for your comment on the author viewpoint, I have to say that is nonsense. All the elements you pick out as good in ACKS are a result of Alexander Macris and the Autrarch team view of what is important to have in an edition of classic D&D to run the campaigns they like to run. Just as the Majestic Wilderlands embodies my view of what is important to have an edition of D&D to run the campaigns I like to run. Lamentation of the Flame Princess embodies what James Raggi thinks is important to use in a campaign.

The trick of course is to write this in a way to make it understandable, useful and fun. Which obviously Autarch succeed in doing for you with ACKS.