Hi everyone,

I turn to you as it seems to me we have a lot of old school experts or dare i say, lovers, on these forums

The last couple of weeks have rekindled my interest in D&D and its clones and variants. Two newer iterations are Adventurer, Conqueror, King and the Dungeon Crawl Classics.

Which one is cooler in your opinion (as "cool" is a pretty subjective thing, explain "the coolness" if you can)? What are each ones strenghts and weaknesses?

Sell me on your favourite of those two (if you're more the "negative kind-of-guy", you can also tell me why one of those is uncool / not worth my time ).

Thanks in advance.

A.

Neither are cooler as they reflect different aspects of the fantasy genre.

ACKS is basically Labyrinth Lord (Moldavy/Cook B/X D&D) with a number of sub-systems/mini games designed to support high level play. Specifically by supporting higher level characters in building a legacy (stronghold, trading, etc). The whole treasure system has been tweaked to make it work with the economics of the game.

DCC RPG reflects Goodman Games' love of 70s era fantasy specifically the Swords & Sorcery subgenre. Magic is mercurial and progressively deadly to the caster, combat is brutal compared to other D&D variants.  The game explicitly supports zero-level play and has a unique funnel concept that make 1st level character memorable.

So which is cooler depend on your taste in fantasy.

Also while the DCC RPG is not a retro-clone like ACKS it part of the d20 family of RPGs and close enough to older editions that you can mix and match material out of ACKS if you like.

I like DCC. It's got a very strong feel of its own. I thought ACKS was ok, though not worth buying, after reading some of it.

ACKS uses a highly streamlined version of the classic Moldvay and Cook D&D Basic, Expert and Companion sets, with quite a few additions; e.g. most mechanics are d20 roll-high, a few new classes are given, there's a Proficiency system in place that's half General Skills system and half Feat system (no "feat trees" or "builds", though), level is capped at 14 and spells levels 7+ (for magic-users) and 6+ (for clerics) are handled as rituals, etc. Where it really shines, though, is when answering the ages-old question, "how do I challenge PCs at high level?" In addition to domain management rules, there are subsystems for such things as trade ventures, setting up criminal empires, conducting religious ceremonies with thousands of attending worshippers, creating magical items, and even for building your own dungeon! (The book suggests that mages often build them as "monster farms" in order to harvest exotic components, corpses for necromancy, etc.)

I have a review here. Pundit did one too.

Get it if you want the familiar D&D systems, fine-tuned towards a "tiered" play experience that involves players starting as your typical band of armed, gold-loving ne'er-do-wells (Adventurer), growing in fame, reputation and influence (Conqueror) until they finally come upon the power and responsibilities of being landed lords, high priests, criminal kingpins and archmages (King tier)

DCC is its own beast. It's clearly D&D, or at least D&D-inspired, but it introduces some radical chjanges to the familiar D&D structure the better to emulate sword-and-sorcery fiction; chief among them is the magic system. Magic can be a fickle and dangerous force now, a genre staple that's been missing from every edition  of D&D. Magic-users have Patrons, supernatural beings with whom they celebrate pacts of knowledge and power (technically, in latter-day D&D terms, all DCC wizards are Warlocks). Clerics vary quite a bit depending on their deity (and you get to be a cleric of Cthulhu! How awesome is that).

Get it if you want a game that changes some basic assumptions about D&D to make for a more hardcore, in-your-face sword-and-sorcery feel.

Basically ACKS goes: "would rule X impact play in a positive manner, let's think about that logically" while DCC goes "would rule X be cool?"

Basically ACKS is D&D with the soul of a very smart accountant while DCC is more Heavy Metal album covers. Also, as has been said above, ACKS deviates less from its source material so it's compatible with just about everything pre-3ed (more or less).

Personally I'm running ACKS since I like how it's streamlined and very well thought-out but I'd love to play me some DCC. In any case if you like some bits of both of the approaches it should be easier to mix and match them, for example take all of the economics, macro-level and domain stuff from ACKS and plug it into ACC.

AD&D

ACKS is good if you want to play Basic D&D and focus on Domain level management when the PCs get to higher levels.

DCC is good if you want a change of pace from standard D&D and its variants. The focus is on unpredictability. The monsters and magic items are customized by the Game Master (Judge). Magic is powerful and unreliable. Veteran D&D players can't rely on their decades of play to recognize and deal with the same old foes from the Monster Manual.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;567214AD&D

Ah yes, WotC's newest July release...


AD&D does have more options than ACKS. It does cover stronghold construction and domain management. It also allows players to continue in power beyond just ruling a realm.

There are more class and race options too.


There is a section of AD&D that talks about creating new monsters to challenge veteran players like DCC. There is no real equivalent in making magic more powerful and unreliable like DCC though (without house rules). The closest thing in AD&D to that is the potion miscibility table...

Quote from: jedimastert;567229Ah yes, WotC's newest July release...


AD&D does have more options than ACKS. It does cover stronghold construction and domain management. It also allows players to continue in power beyond just ruling a realm.

There are more class and race options too.


There is a section of AD&D that talks about creating new monsters to challenge veteran players like DCC. There is no real equivalent in making magic more powerful and unreliable like DCC though (without house rules). The closest thing in AD&D to that is the potion miscibility table...

Actually there's plenty of "more powerful and more unreliable" magic in AD&D (note I'm not platform-warring with you; bear with me).

Identify puts a magic-user on their butt for up to three days.

The mere act of writing a magic spell - at any level - can kill the magic-user in AD&D.

Then of course you've got Gate and Cacodaemon spells to consider at the other end of the spectrum.

There's always a chance of a scroll actually being cursed, and Cleric spells cast have a % chance of failure even for better-than-average WIS clerics.

Given those I'd say there's more than just the potion miscibility table.  Also consider that as written, Identify had best get cast PDQ or else the magic-item owner may, short of a side-quest all its own, never know the magical nature of their item.

 I would definitely add those elements if you're not playing AD&D directly.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;567251Actually there's plenty of "more powerful and more unreliable" magic in AD&D (note I'm not platform-warring with you; bear with me).

Yes there is but the difference is that in AD&D there are some things that are done with magic that are dangerous to the caster while in DCC RPG the entire Magic system is dangerous to the caster. Even the highest level have a 5% of crit failing a spell and gaining corruption. At those odds, there is a 50/50 changes of crit failing once for every 14 spells cast.

Makes for a completely different tone that reflects Goodman's view of 70s era fantasy.

While AD&D has a domain and stronghold system. ACKS take is more like mini-games Traveller have and the treasure tables and treasure assumptions been designed to integrate. So to avoid situations like the infinite money machine that Traveller has when two particular planet types are only a jump apart.

It isn't that AD&D lacks rules or unsuited to domain play, is just ACKS is written to focus on them. The same in regards to the DCC RPG.

Everybody basically covered it all. ACKS is a clear, streamlined version of Moldvay-Cook-Marsh B/X D&D that adds material to the upper end of the scale of character levels so you can manage your holdings, build your own dungeons, rule entire kingdoms. It is smooth, it reads well, and takes care of all levels of play from 1 to 14 where you got a clear idea of where to take your open world and campaign.

DCC RPG is a completely different beast. It's basically a mash up of different influences that goes for what's cool instead of what's mathematically correct, and does an amazing job at it, I might add. If you liked games like Warhammer FRP 1e, Rolemaster, Stormbringer and AD&D 1e, and are enthused at the idea of a mix of those games with a basic d20 base and the funky Zocchi dice added for good measure, you will love the vibe of DCC RPG.

Wow, thanks a lot guys. Very good information.

It seems as if i have to buy both of those games (ouch!). I am totally up for metal sword and sorcery but a rulesset that "thinks thing through to its logical end" is also very much enticing.

So i blame all you guys for the upcoming big-ass whole in my wallet

And if you have more to say, keep it coming! Or, at this stage, if you think there is another candidate that i HAVE to look at, feel free to advertise it.

Should I mention Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea?

Or, as thedungeondelver pointed out, there is this spectacular RPG Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!


And now I am off to check to see if I make my saving throw versus magic or take 1d4 damage per spell level while transcribing the spell on this scroll I found to my spellbook. :eek:

I say get both that way you can't lose.