What are some RPGs where you can do actual evil stuff like taking slaves and pillaging loot and brides?
>>96569835DnD.Most of them actually. It's just, you're playing with other people so letting your magical realm out in public is considered a social faus pax.
>>96569835"The Veil Riders: A Tale By Guardbro" a furry /k/unt homebrew that lets you actively rack up Warcrime Score.
>>96569835Please explain what the fuck I'm looking at>inb4 a half naked ladyI understand that, I don't understand literally everything else
>>96570062She's a baggage carrier slave for a huntsman or some such adventurer, her hands are bound so that she can't use the weapons she carries against the captor, but also can't hold things besides having them piled on her back, and she can't move very fast because she's chained to a piece of loose piece of masonry, making her service extra difficult and tedious. It's probably some revenge/humiliation thing. Might also work as a bait for whatever it being hunted - considering she can only move slowly and has to make noise as she goes.
>>96569835RIFTS. It even has slave price tables and slave experimentation tables.
>>96570132Thanks, I now understand what I'm looking at.
Conan 2d20
>>96569835Any game can include thatBut I suggest checking Barbaren!, since it's a game about being a Bronze Age macho man barbarian, poking fun out of how dead serious everyone is about stuff like fucking bitches and slaying witches. If I recall correctly, you even have separate stats for both of those
>>96569835Nothing to see here, just another fetish thread
>>96570612but I like those
>>96569835Many games, as long as the person who's running the game is down to run that game, and the other people at the table are down to play it that way.
Make one.
>>96570159Is it some old faggot's fantasy world he wrote one handed where he can self insert as a harem anime protag
>>96569835You can do that in almost any RPG unless it's directly story-driven or the other players don't want that shit. There are single-player RPGs, you can jack off to those.
>>96569835FATAL
>>96574166Even for coomer bait FATAL has overcompliated and boring gameplay. That's pretty much the joke with it; it's a fetish RPG but it sucks too hard to get off to.
>>96569835Literally any of them. Do you want ones where you're expected to do that or something?
>>96574166I think OP is looking for something playable.
>>96569835The fact that you feel the need to ask this without a hint of shitposting shows that you have never actually played an RPG ever
>>96569835She SHOULD be nude.
>>96570132It's not a loose piece of masonry it's a monster head, a hunting trophy
>>96569835Any RPG where you can mutually agree to engage in such degeneracy at the table with your friends.
>>96569835ACKS 2
>>96577488
>>96570132KDM is up there with FATAL in terms of utterly stupid games.
>>96577488>>96577497>heinous acts>reduced to a piss-poor lo-fi simulationThat's a heinous act in itself.
>>96577497>10d6 gp per urban family>Middling domain has 2500-7500 familiesDoes this game actually expect me to roll 25000+ dice? What the fuck is this design brother
Literally anything, anon. These are games of make-believe. I will, however give you 3 system suggestions.1. Runequest: It's a bronze age world, so think Conan. Slavery is normal, and people even have prices listed in the books.2. Exalted: This game takes more inspiration from eastern fantasy than western. However there is a splat called Abyssals. As an Abyssal, you play a nigh-unstoppable demigod of death and suffering. The goal of the Abyssals goal is to ultimately kill all life in a slow and painful way.3. World of Darkness: A modern-day gothic horror setting. There exist a group of mages known as the "Nephandi". The entire point of a Nephandi is to be the most evil thing you can think of. Not even fun evil, just fucking evil.
>>96578539Anon, are you retarded? You just roll 10d6 once and multiply the result for the number of urban families. It's toddler math.
>>96578789Nah it doesn't want you to do that because it has no multiplication procedure, it just expects you to be using a VTT.
>>96578789>You just roll 10d6 once and multiply the resultThat seems even more dumb and makes wealth wildly swingy. Why wouldn't you just use an average instead?
>>96578800The system was made by a complete amateur. Everything is always done in the most tedious and overcomplicated way.
>>96578793Anon, the example directly below that line does exactly what I described: It multiplies the dice roll for the number of families within the domain. Criticize the system as much as you want, but is it actually reading what is in front of your eyes that difficult?
>>96578854Nah that's a GM call, not procedure.
>>96569835>Roleplay stuffYou can do that stuff in almost any game ever made, so what exactly are you asking for?
>>96578800Using averages is an option, yes, and it's openly used in similar cases. Tho I don't see why the wealth of pillaging being rather swindly is a problem when historically despoiling a city destroys as much as it collects.
>>96578861Examples are provided to illustrate how to play, and they were writen by the exact same dude that wrote the rules above. Are you retarded?
>>96578878Don't care, it's still a GM call and not a listed procedure.
>>96578887>Rules don't expect me to use basic math because it's not listed, even when it's used in the example.>They do expect me to use a VTT tho, even if it isn't mentioned anywhere nor implied in the text.Go roll 25,000 physical dice, anon.
>>96578887And what, pray tell is the difference between a "GM Call" and a "Listed Procedure"? Do not spare the details.
>>96578816I see. I thought it might be for a solo game and was wondering why it wasn't designed the way a more veteran GM might design it, because alot of what's there makes no sense and seems tedious. For examples, I'd go with:>Here is how many families a day/how much space armies of X denomination can pillage per day. Example: an army of 1000 can pillage Y in one day.Because having a base level requirement is silly. A small army of 1000 could pillage a very large place given time.And rather than having players roll for averages per family, I'd give them different types of pillaging. There were instances of cities being violently massacred or entirely enslaved and plundered for every single thing they have, and there are also instances of them merely paying tributes/bribes and most families being left intact, depending on the nature of how it fell and who plundered it. It's too random as it is.And if this is meant to have detailed domains I'd have a table or two illustrating average wealth that can be plundered at given sizes+wealth levels. As it's written, you don't know if you're pillaging a wealthy domain until the moment you finish pillaging it because you roll for literally everything, even how many people can become slaves.
>>96570159>It even has slave price tables and slave experimentation tables.Which books are those in? And does it have any other useful tables in general?
>>96578907>What is the difference between a rule and the GM making a callNTA but are you gay and retarded or just gay?
>>96578903no thx I don't play shit games>>96578907I don't spoonfeed nogames, post five rulebooks you own first.
>>96577146how are you going to get the ropes and small cloth scraps home? I mean there's enough to fit perfectly as covers, I'm not going to not do that. Besides, you need to be able to escalate punishment.she might not even be a slave, might just be a punishment for cowardice or theft, or crying wolf when the coast was clear too many times, or needs extra stamina training.
>>96578926Just 5? I'll post 7.
>>96578920Nta, but while there's a difference between both the rather basic math is shown in the example. It's quite clear here that multiplying crap is expected for the sake of time.
>>96578961>GURPS>ExaltedAnd opinions discarded forever.
>>96578967That has nothing to do with what I said, I called you a gay retard for not understanding the difference between a rule and a call. And I'll also call you a nigger for obviously samefagging.
>>96578971Coward.
>>96578910While I agree that the rules are a little too abstract and that the type of pillaging should be a factor, keep in mind that they are meant to represent mostly what an army does after it already controls the main strongholds in a give region, rather than a raid: By this point, if it's a wealthy domain, the character is in posession of the lord's treasury and valuables, and for those we do get regular averages in the book. IMO, I would just make violent pillaging reduce the land value by 1d6, with stackable modifiers if monster, particullary violent or mercenary troops are used.
>>96579009>keep in mind that they are meant to represent mostly what an army does after it already controls the main strongholds in a give regioI did. It simply does not represent pillaging well. It's not even a matter of abstraction, it just reads like a first draft someone would use in a 5e homebrew: It's built for a very specific style of play, type of game, and doesn't adequately cover the breadth of possible ways you might want to cover such a situation or give the players any way to interact with it.
You gotta like how the only thing he denied was being angry, not being a shill who will shit up this thread until it dies.
>>96579022>specific style of play, type of game,What kind, you think?
>>96578910The rules, as presented, are basically worthless, because they amount to "Bigger domain you pillage the more gold you get", but presented in an incredibly awkward and convoluted fashion.>Because having a base level requirement is silly.It's outright stupid. It sets a ceiling for maximum efficient army at the absolute minimum for the army required, with time required being just random.Just about anyone could come up with a more elegant, simpler, more practical, and just plain smarter way to handle any given rule you might encounter. I think the goal is to take up as much space as possible with dumb charts. The game is 1500 pages long, so I imagine it's being marketed to people who buy rule books by the pound.
>>96579030I am not "ACKShill", nor any of the samefags from the general you constantly feud with. Just above I recognized how part of the criticism is right and I am genuinely curious about what the other Anon has to say about it. The only instance where I was hostile was due some dude not reading what's in front of his eyes.>>96579030
>I am not the guy you're feuding with, though I know him, I know exactly what you're talking about, and I am shilling the exact thing he shills with the exact same mannerisms and screeching over the exact same bogeyman he hasGotcha, lol
>>96579056NTA, but be careful. The ACKShill is pure shit roughly assembled in a human form and the only language he speaks is lies, so denying that your ACKShill is actually one of the first things the ACKShill would do.
>>96579034>It sets a ceiling for maximum efficient army at the absolute minimum for the army required, with time required being just random.How so, exactly? The armies are not operating within an isolated pillaging minigame: This is assuming the domain in question is partially or fully conquered and the invading player has some free rein to let his forces loose. Having an army able to bear the minimum requeriments of pillaging is useless if it can't face the garrison in place or the reinforcements coming in after the siege is over.
>>96579034>>96579034>The rules, as presented, are basically worthless, because they amount to "Bigger domain you pillage the more gold you get", but presented in an incredibly awkward and convoluted fashion.That's a good way to sum up the core issue. It's why I call it a first draft: It READS like something that a beginner would think is useful and interesting (How can't it be? You get to make so many different rolls!)But it doesn't actually provide anything that would be useful, actively hampers the players' ability to make informed decisions, and bogs things down. Thinking about it more, if families are used as a regular economic unit in the rules it might just be a natural extension for a shitty baseline.>The game is 1500 pages longExcuse me?
>>96579058You are paranoid and it's pointless to convince you otherwhise. Not everyone that likes ACKS is the same person dude, in the same way not all critics are a single anon. I am genuinely trying to have a discussion and it's tiring that these feuds make it essentially impossible.
Notice how he never offers refutations, merely accusations.
>>96579076>Excuse me?Between 3 rulebooks (MM, PH and DMG).
>>96579076>if families are used as a regular economic unit in the rules it might just be a natural extension for a shitty baseline.Why?
>>96579074>How so, exactly?NTA, but the issue is that army size (and other factors) do not determine speed of pillaging. A disciplined and organized Roman Legion can operate with much greater efficiency in despoiling the random hispanian town they're looting than, say, a roving warband of gallic warriors could. And a pillaging army should finish their work faster if they're aiming to perform mere "tax collection" rather than shaking every family down for every valuable they have and taking anyone who looks fit enough to be a slave, with varying levels of destruction and damage.>Having an army able to bear the minimum requeriments of pillaging is useless if it can't face the garrison in place or the reinforcements coming in after the siege is over.By the time any kind of pillaging occurs, garrisons should be non-issues and reinforcements are something that would best be handled separately. Including them as a minimum size when these things SHOULD vary a ton and be much more interesting than "Minimum army size to pillage" is very boring, and very dumb.>>96579099How big is the Monster Manual? I could understand the length if it's over a thousand pages or something.
>>96579109Many rulesets can be used to churn out dogshit because they start with a baseline/foundation that at minimum works for one thing, but then try to build off it in ways it fundamentally isn't good at supporting. Take d20 modern, for example.
Rolled 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1, 2, 4, 3, 2, 4, 6, 5, 4, 6, 3, 4, 5 = 93 (25d6)>>9657906814/1000>>96579099>500 pages per bookWould it be hypocritical of me to call that needlessly maximalist?
>>96579089>Not everyone that likes ACKS is the same person dudeChances are they belong to a very small clique though. It's not a particularly popular game. I don't think the ACKS2 kickstarter even hit 2000 backers, and their subreddit only had some 400 members.It's also not a very good game with very little to like about it. Ironically, the people who would like it least are people who like crunchy games, because it's got a lot of crunch but none of it is any good. Probably the reason it's so unpopular is because you have to find yourself right in the center of the "Wants lots and lots of rules" and "Doesn't understand how good rules work" venn diagram.Either way, the ACKS clique on this board is tiny but incredibly malignant, and likely is formed up of the same group that got themselves banned out of /rpg for brigading. If you're catching some heat intended for them, I wouldn't take it personally.
>>96579118>By the time any kind of pillaging occurs, garrisons should be non-issues and reinforcements are something that would best be handled separately.But that's not my point: If the pillage is meant to occur after the local garrisons are dealt with running with an optimized army that merely runs at the minimum necessary to pillage a domain is unviable: The enemy almost certainly will have more men than the necessary to plunder his territory, and if during an active campaign, he might recieve either support from allies or another vassal domain. As a matter of fact a particullary brutal battle or siege would take this strategy off balance completely.With the rest of the critiques I agree partially: They don't actually take in account variables otherwhise important in these types of actions, such as how professional the force is. However, things like tax collection or hispanic pariahs are not meant to be represented with this: Those belong to tributes. This is active war pillaging on territories recently hostiles.
>>96579147MY DICE ROLLS!
>>96569835All of them? You understand that you can just ignore the danger haired hags wagging their fingers at you right?
>>96579148Anon, just above you there's a dude actually criticizing the system and explaining why he thinks it sucks. That's cool and on-topic. How much you hate a certain cabal, how unpopular you think a game is, and speculation on the size of a subreddit are not thinks I am interested in. It would be best for everyone if you say something substantial.
>>96579153>But that's not my point...Well anon, it says the Domain is "Conquered" by the time pillaging can occur.Now, it may be that the person who wrote this is a retard who does not understand what "Conquered" means. Or it may be that you missed it. But that is what it says, making everything you've said in this paragraph irrelevant.>However, things like tax collectionAnon, I did not mean literal "tax collection". I referred to the Romans specifically because their unique form of tax collection in the provinces was, at many points, just pillaging shit until they met a quota. If this pillaging system cannot cover different levels of devastation, it's pretty shit.>or hispanic pariahs?
>>96579173>Anon, just above you there's a dude actually criticizing the system and explaining why he thinks it sucksYeah that's me, and I agree with everything >>96579148 saidAlso, breaking down why this pillaging system absolutely sucks isn't really what OP asked for either, I'm just engaging in conversation, same as that guy is. You are not the arbiter of what people can talk about.
>>96579074If there's a domain with 2,500 families, and I have 2400 troops, it takes 1d3 days to pillage. If I have 7,200 troops I can send, it still takes 1d3 days to pillage. Essentially, the largest force I could send for maximum efficiency and speed is also the minimum force I would need to send.
>>96579173You really can't pull the "Stay on topic" card when I was just addressing someone equally off-topic and explaining why he shouldn't be taking things personally.But you're right, and that it's better to just be on topic.>>96569835DAM LOOGIN DEM HIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPS*obscene noises*
>>96579183>But that is what it says, making everything you've said in this paragraph irrelevant.A "conquered domain" within the system doesn't necessarily means an independent domain: It's perfectly possible for a comital domain to be conquered and pillaged while a larger royal force is on its way to kick the invaders out of the vassal's land, or an ally moves to help. There's no requeriment that all hostilities have ceased.Your post doesn't adress, either, how running with the minimum number of men necessary to pillage a domain can work when to reach that point the garrisons, almost certainly above that minimum, have to be dealt with first, and even in case of victory you might end up with less men than what you need to plunder>hispanic pariahsIberian practice from the 12th century that involved christian armies marching to muslim realms to demand tribute under threat of pillaging and maybe even siege. We are talking about whole warbands sitting in front of a castle demanding treasure before fucking off.
>>96579148I'd add to this that there IS a malicious autist who shills it 24/7 (Or tries to? I honestly think he's trying to sabotage it because he makes himself and the game seem equally unlikable.)I'm pretty sure he searches up the game in the archive constantly. Or maybe he's such a no-life he checks every thread on the board. But >>96579020 already basically admitted to being him, "fishfag" is a phrase only he likes to use.
>>96574066iirc a good 20% of the slave chapter is sperging about how gladiator combat isn't as lethal as you would assume, and the rest is sperging over how tough the security is at the auction houses.
>>96579189You do your do then, but if you want to follow that dude down into thinking a malignant, lying famboy cabal is operating here, would you do me the favor to point where I insulted or lied to you?
>>96579234>CabalIt's just one autistic retard, my guy.
>>96579220>A "conquered domain" within the system doesn't necessarily means an independent domain: It's perfectly possible for a comital domain to be conquered and pillaged while a larger royal force is on its way to kick the invaders out of the vassal's landHalf of this post is incomprehensible, but to sum up your argument as I understand it:There COULD be distant reinforcements on the way when a domain gets pillaged... Therefore you should have a minimum army size to pillage said domain.(This makes no goddamn sense so I'm not sure if you're just dumb or the point was lost in translation)>Your post doesn't adress, either, how running with the minimum number of men necessary to pillage a domain can work when to reach that point the garrisonsAgain, it is specifically conquered. The situation you're referring to is not covered in the page given.Furthermore, "Can work" is not "Should always work that way". This minimum offered sets a baseline expectation: You need X many soldiers to pillage a domain of that size, period. Which is senseless for the reasons given. If the rules offered "However, even after conquering a domain, there may be holdouts that have X effects/reduce how much can be pillaged unless you have this many troops".Though that would just be a band-aid fix when the process of dealing with any garrisons or troops or reinforcements should be in the "Conquering the domain" part of the game, not the "what happens when you pillage it" part.>Iberian practice You mean *parias*?Eitherway this was irrelevant.
>>96579118>How big is the Monster Manual? I could understand the length if it's over a thousand pages or something.Each book is 450 pages give it or take. The MM specifically includes monster creation, taming and related stuff.
>>96579263>450 pages>There are 1050 pages of rules NOT dedicated to monster statsWew. Well uh, I hope there are at least gigantic lists of equipment or spells or other things you'd actually need the space for?
>>96579261I don't think you are actually grasping what I mean nor the point I was making at all.Anon, my intention is not to defend the rule of having a numerical requeriment to pillage a domain. I was specifically adressing something you said above: That this arbitrary rule makes it so the ideal strategy is to run around with armies as numerous and effective as it's necessary to plunder a land. If I misunderstood your point I apologize, but that's what I was going for: If a player plans to optimize his army to be only as big as it's needed to loot, he'll find out soon enough that he can't get to the pillaging part in the first place, wether because the garrison is too big or he's left with less men than needee after the battles are over. There was no point where I defended the rule itself, which I agree is rather arbitrary.
>>96579282I mean, yeah? Tons of spells in the PHB and treasures in the DMG.
>>96579310How many pages are we talking about? At least 300?
>>96579301>>96579301>I don't think you are actually grasping what I meanIt's kind of hard to understand you admittedly, so I'm probably not.>Anon, my intention is not to defend the rule of having a numerical requeriment to pillage a domain. I was specifically adressing something you said above: That this arbitrary rule makes it so the ideal strategy is to run around with armies as numerous and effective as it's necessary to plunder a land.Well like I said, that wasn't my point, but I saw what anon was getting at: It is suboptimal to have more troops pillaging a place than the absolute bare minimum necessary. Surely in the days it takes to pillage with the bare minimum needed you would instead have the rest of the army doing something, anything else (e.g. scouting, building fortifications if reinforcements are expected, etc.)
>>96579261>Eitherway this was irrelevant.What I meant is that roman-style tax collection, and similar unusual practices, are not actually the ones meant to be represented by the pillaging procedures even if they involve widespread destruction.
>>96577777You're either being purposefully hyperbolic to troll or you don't know the basest shit about either of those games.
>>96579332>What I meant is that roman-style tax collection, and similar unusual practices, are not actually the ones meant to be represented by the pillaging procedures even if they involve widespread destruction.They were more usual than unusual in many parts of the world. And yeah like I said this is what makes it feel like a pretty shit and inflexible subsystem since it can cover only a very specific style of play in a particular type of game without needing extensive reworking. It not "meaning" to be properly representative of pillaging, is just it meaning to be a shit pillaging system.
>>96579351With this I have to agree, then: The rules for pillaging are too abstract, stiff and the minimum requeriment is arbitrary.
>>96579331>It is suboptimal to have more troops pillaging a place than the absolute bare minimum necessary.Do you believe it should scale with size?
>>96579383I think the entire way pillaging works would need fundamental changes, but I talked about that already.
>>96579390Fair enough.
>>96579331>at: It is suboptimal to have more troops pillaging a place than the absolute bare minimum necessary.Nah. Always bring more troops than you need because you ALWAYS need more.
>>96579556Except you don't to pillage. You should only use the minimum necessary so the others can do other things.
>>96579560>Except you don't to pillageSee, you'd think that's how it works, but remember an army marches on it's stomach and for it's plunder, as a leader you want to maximize the amount of gains you make and minimize the delays making it. Meaning when it is well and truly pillaging time, you want as many boys down there, grabbing as much shit as possible. You don't want EVERYONE, bad things follow if the whole squad's in town and nobody's watching the horizon for trouble, but the "Bare Minimum" is cheating your men, cheating your superiors, frankly it's cheating yourself.
>>96579582>See, you'd think that's how it works, but remember an army marches on it's stomach and for it's plunder, as a leader you want to maximize the amount of gains you make and minimize the delays making itWell anon, bad news: Army size does not increase pillaging speed under those rules. Whether you have 10,000 troops or 100,000 troops pillaging, the length of time it takes is the exact same.
>>96579614Shit. You're right. Goddamn.
GURPS
>>96579148>Either way, the ACKS clique on this board is tiny but incredibly malignantUnlike you, who goes around looking for any mention of ACKS so you can rave about the ACKSlluminati and how they're behind everything from every single shitpost on the board to you failing to hook up with that one girl that one time (She was a god damn plant.)Tell us more about ACKS players and their world-wide mad deadly communist gangster computer god, it's very compelling.And by that I mean you're going to do it regardless of if everyone tells you not to or not so we might as well strap in.
>>96577777>the quints of the unintelligentFATAL is an unplayable brick of a tomeKDM is an amazing tabletop tactics and strategy boardgame that plays like medieval x-comBoth use excessive overt sexuality for shock value, but KDM actually takes the effort of incorporating sexual horror very well into its setting and horror themes
>>96569835TravellerCollect people to feed into bioreactors for their genetic stock and material to make supersoldier clones, replace their decision making with computer controlled Neural Links, use them to kill and capture more genetic stockRepeat until authorities try to stop you
>>96569898About to get a group I play with to try Veil Riders. It's a fun system.
>>96579118>NTA, but the issue is that army size (and other factors) do not determine speed of pillaging. A disciplined and organized Roman Legion can operate with much greater efficiency in despoiling the random hispanian town they're looting than, say, a roving warband of gallic warriors could.Thing is that's a pretty easy fix, watch, I'll do it right now:>Proficiency: Disciplined - You are not only a soldier, but one trained in regimental practices, you count as 2 men whenever calculating the minimum amount of troops required for pillaging, sieging, occupying or looting, decrease time taken to pillage by 1 step and increase the amount of loot gained per slain peasant family to 30 GP (Rather than 20) or through spoils of war after a battle by 10% (Often in the form of comfortable boots). You can act as unskilled labour when constructing supply bases or simple fortifications and if you are a henchman gain a +1 moral bonus due to your discipline.Done, simple as making sausages. That's the good thing about ACKS, if you see something missing you have enough to go off of that you can wangle it with a bit of work. While not much use in combat, throw it on some elite riders and you're golden.
>>96580281Oh, that that one cuck that hates ACKS is bitching about ACKS again. Tell him that they just hit over 100k on their new kickstarter. That cause him to bitch and moan some more.
>>96580454>Thing is that's a pretty easy fixYou can fix any system, but I'd rather play one that's not shit and requires the least amount of fixing. ACKS is horrible for that because it's filled with broken shit and offers the players and DM nothing of value.Oh and best of all, your fix doesn't actually fix it. It just breaks it more.
>>96578789>Are you retardedHe is, but not in this particular way. No, he's just intentionally reading it in the least charitable way he can because of his desire to seethe about ACKS.
>>96580281>>96580459The ACKS shill really does samefag like crazy bruh
The Pirate Isles supplement for Mongoose Conan 2E includes slavery and slave trade in coastal raiding rules, including rules about capturing and selling valuable beautiful and highborn women.
>>96580501What's with people being so emtional about ACKS?The rules are pretty OK. Not flawless but not abysmal either. Surely not to merit such vitriol.
>>96580520I don't see how "Damn, this is boring" is vitriol. They're just aggressively mediocre and are defended by even more aggressive and unpleasant autists.
>>96569835Bro WHAT ARE THESE GRIPPERS?SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:
>>96580527Oh, well boring is so subjective I can't see that as worthy of making a point of it.But I played MERP back in the day so what do I know.
>>96580542Main reason he's here at all is because he can no longer get away with his bullshit in /osrg/ after someone posted an entire ACKS campaign and everyone noticed it was someone who'd been casually mentioning it now and then as an ongoing thing with him going 'But you don't even have games, no one plays ACKS, hurr' any time it was mentioned.Which is great for /osrg/, but not so great for the other threads he's metastasized to.
>>96580520>pretty okThe rules that are okay are the ones that were copied from b/x. The skeleton of the system should be pretty ok, considering it's not original. The main issue is that every rule that wasn't just copied is very poorly designed. So, we've got a system that's technically playable, but everything the designer was actually responsible for is mediocre or worse.>Surely not to merit such vitriol.Most of the vitriol is directed towards its fans/and or shills. They try to pump the game up as being far better than it actually is, but worse they use all sort of underhanded methods to try and promote their game. They keep getting themselves banned from various forums, and all for a game that's largely forgettable except for what it does wrong.
>>96569835>Ctrl + F>Only a single hit for Barbaren/tg/ is officially dead
>>96570062it's standard AIcoomslop: festishes trump realism and logic, >>96570132 tries to justify this erotic drivel but these post hoc explications don't hid the fact this female slave only make sense in a BDSM dungeon, not a high fantasy dungeon (inB4 all post-tolkien fantasy is coomer-fantasy, GTFO raggi and take meds)inb4 this is not AIslop: hands are hidden, feet badly drawn, tits are too big, I mean carefully look at them..
>>96580585You are aware that people have been complaining about the ACKShills even in the current /osrg/ thread, right? And also in the previous thread, right?No one's intimidated by that campaign, not even in the /osrg/. You seem to be taking that few people (though some have, because /tg/ is not a single entity) have been criticizing that campaign as some sign of weakness. And here, you're trying to create a story where you can brandish that campaign and make anyone who ever said something bad about ACKS flee in terror.I can sort of see where you're coming from. Very few people have actually bothered to read the Bible or Koran either, but those books are supposed to have special powers. But, far from some holy text, what you have is some hundred page campaign that mostly just serves to confirm that yes, there is at least one person on this board who is obsessed with that game, and not in a particularly healthy way.What I find somewhat amusing is in your story, people calling ACKShills nogames was the primary attack on them, and that campaign serves as a shield against that. Nogames has always been a weak insult on this board, and most of the criticism towards ACKS and its shills has been considerably more substantial. One such criticism is how you like to create drama, and even in the /osrg/ you've been trying to use that campaign as some sort of bait, to try and get people to start shitting on it so you can defend it. Unfortunately for you, most people are just never going to bother reading it in order to let you do that. You keep trying to advertise that campaign, even to the point of trying to advertise it in the /5eg/ before you were thrown out of there. You probably should relax with that, because what minimal respect people have had for someone making something to share with /tg/ (albeit with likely some ulterior motives) is very quick to erode when they actually try to read that campaign.
>>96580910>never played KDMnewfags are born everyday
>In this threads Redditor manifesto (I would say todays, but he already posted 3-4 in /osr/ and /nusr/): playing games is unhealthy and books are magicThere are people who use words to communicate ideas, rather than as a series of spells and passwords to get people to do what they want. I know you'll never understand that because you're the latter, but the former does exist.
>>96580969No one said playing games is unhealthy. But most people play games to have fun, with very few motivations beyond that.
>>96569835Horrible, horrible feet.
>>96569835You don't really need special rules for that.
>>96570159>RIFTS. It even has slave price tables and slave experimentation tables.Are there any other specific TTRPGs that go this far?
>>96580492>offers the players and DM nothing of value.NTA and I don't want to restart what essentially is a pointless conversation, but this is false. Could you please point me to a D&D-adjacent system with a demographic breakdown of leveled characters per settlement size? Can you point me to a game with monster taming rules? Can you point me to a game with a domain system as detailed and scalable? Can you point me to a D&D-adjacent game with as much material to detail and create a fiefdom, from its ruling NPCs to its peasants and soldiers? Can you point me to a game in this niche with something as simple as a avaliability table for equipment per settlement size? Can you point me to a D&D-adjacent game that has all of the above together?ACKS usefulness comes down to its capacity to flesh out fantasy sandboxes in a way that is cohesive and makes sense within its mechanics. While no perfect by any means (I agree with some of the critiques above openly), there's no other product that even approaches the number of resources it has, and even if you don't use its combat system the tables, economy and demographics remain extremely useful. Not even games that attempted to do this in the past (AD&D for example), managed to achieve it, having domain rules that amount to four paragraphs of vague suggestions, references to unexplained procedures, and a prize list for services and structures that doesn't actually match with the avaliable wealth an NPC ruler or even a Player would have at the level the domain-play usually starts. And if your argument is that none of this "necessary" and that GM should just make it the fuck up each time, then I don't understand your complaint about homebrewing a fix for the pillaging system.
>>96578912>Which booksRifts Atlantis and Splynn Dimensional Market. There are tons of tables in those, Palladium loves their random tables. >>96582627The Gor RPG.
>>96580492>inb4 D&D isn't about that!!!!Except that it was: Blackmoor, B/X and AD&D all take for certain that high level play will involve domains and wargaming, and the early campaign writeups prove this. It isn't on the least unreasonable to expect a system designed with that in mind to also flesh out the domains that exist in the world and its armies.>broken shitThis is a claim you keep making, but not one you actually substantiate beyond vague allusions and pointing out some defective subsystems like pillaging. As someone that plays and GMs in ACKS, and haven't yet found the game to be fundamentally broken by any means (tho not perfect), could you tell me what makes it so? What is the thing that makes the entire structure fall apart? This would be a good start and much more productive than screaming about either Fishfag or ACKShill.
>>96583020
>>96569835Ventangle.
>>96583006>>96583023>Could you please point me to a D&D-adjacent systemI can do you one better: I can just point you to D&D.https://www.d20srd.org/d20/demographics/Same goes for pretty much everything else you asked for. Though having a wide breadth of shitty, poorly-executed ideas is not really a plus for ACKS so I don't know what exactly you thought you were doing here.>ACKS usefulness comes down to its capacity to flesh out fantasy sandboxesNah, it comes down to two things:1. You have a pretty inflexible spreadsheet simulator that will be painfully slow and boring in play, BUT may work excellently for some autists who hold a great love for procedure over verisimilitude and dislike having to use their imaginationsAND2. A good GM can take all of the half-baked, low effort slop shoved into the crevices of what is effectively D&D and extrapolate ideas from them, ignoring most of the rules.Now a problem with #1 is that it's a niche audience, and niche audiences often get insecure and very loud to compensate, hence why ACKS' fan(s?) act this way.And the problem with #2 is that you're better served by using a different ruleset and just glancing at ACKS when you need something to spark an idea. A better system that understood this role much more adequately would be, for example, WFRP. Its splatbooks (Importantly, it does not drop 1500 pages of poorly wrought rules on your head as if that's a sane page count for a functional game to have and not a sign of terminal bloat) are designed with the idea of creating adventure seeds and inspiring ideas rather than exclusively offering procedures and more ways to waste 15+ minutes randomly generating slightly differing results.>but not one you actually substantiate beyond vague allusions and pointing out some defective subsystems>Pointing out broken things is not pointing out broken thingsYou can just say you disavow all criticism and think its flawless tbqh. It would be more honest and save us both more trouble.
>>96583115>Check a random troll thread>Find out ACKS faggot already infested even thatWhy are you even trying to reason with him? The guy is genuinely autistic (so check #1 of your post) and thus incapable of any type or shape of introspection. He already decided that ACKS is the best thing ever, forever. And will now not stop claiming that, no matter the amount of rightful scorn he gets. You're effectively wasting your breath on him.
>>96583023>>96583006This guy is simultaneously shilling in the 3.5e thread btw.
>>96583143Welcome to the ACKS autist. He doesn't even need a tripcode to be known.
>>96583115You know, I didn't believe it when people said that you were Richard Petty.But watching you go 'Oh, you want a good system, here, have D&D 3.5 and its demographics tables' has made me a believer.It's like watching someone pretending to be a waiter so they can assure people that steak tartar isn't actually that good, after all it's raw meat, ew, stinky, no-no, you should eat raw sewage with your bare hands directly from the gutters like a fucking Racoon, for that is the essence of fine French dining, trust me, I'm a waiter.
>>96583138Honestly, you are 100% right but I'm bored and I like wasting my time. I don't expect there to be any reasoning with him. I just really enjoy discussing systems.>>96583165>But watching you go 'Oh, you want a good system, here, have D&D 3.5You didn't ask for a good system, you asked specifically for any system that offers you level-based demographics. I gave you one.I think it's hilarious that you needed to wholecloth reinvent the entire premise of the discussion to avoid taking the L though.
>>96583182>I think it's hilarious that you needed to wholecloth reinvent the entire premise of the discussion to avoid taking the L though.You mean like you do any time the fish story that is your namesake comes up?Lel.
>>96583188Ahhh, back to the same old shtick of "Accuse everyone of being fishfag". Sorry, I'm not the shadow you jump at whenever you're made to look like a retard. QQ moar tho
>ACKShill on damage controllolYou got cooked.
>>96583165>Oh, you want a good systemYou said D&D adjacents though?
>>96583197We're at the point where being Fishfag is a state of mind. That state being 'Waaaaaaaaaah, babby want people to stop talking about ACKS, wanna wanna reddit janny banny it, make the bad man go away or else go boom-boom in diapy'Which fits you to a fucking T, intellectually, morally and spiritually.
>>96583211>anyone i disagree with is my fishfagYou're kind of a dumb bitch.
>>96583211Schizophrenia and your obsession with diapers aside, I noticed a hole in your FAS logic.>That state being 'Waaaaaaaaaah, babby want people to stop talking about ACKSSo you admit you were wrong to accuse me then, since nowhere did I say I want to stop talking about it?Like I said anon, I enjoy discussing systems, both in practical and theoretical terms. ACKS, although it IS absolutely just trash in a trash genre, is still interesting to break down and talk about. At least to me, I don't think most other people care to talk about it at all.
>>96583234Says the man to whom all men are ACKshill.
>>96583115>Pointing out broken things is not pointing out broken thingsExcept that's not what I said, did I? If your central critique is about how the system in its very fundamentals, in its conception so to speak, doesn't work and it's broken to such an state that just playing another game is a better alternative, then expecting someone to substantiate such a claim is perfectly reasonable: Pointing out how a subsystem doesn't account for a certain amount of variables is a valid point, but it's not a systematic failure, so I invite you to ellaborate on that: What is it? It's the use of families as an economic unit as the guy far above said? It's the economy in general? Is it the progression? The combat rules, perhaps? The wargaming part? Simply saying that certain procedures are boring or that slightly different results are not worth rolling is not a fitting critique, even less so when in actual play I haven't found myself bothered by it: It's subjective. >Literal d20 demographicsThe point I was making is that there's no other alternative within a single cohesive system that actually makes sense within its mechanics. Using 3.5, a system famous for a number of lazy splatbooks with wildly different assumptions clearly not designed to work together to demonstrate how ACKS offers nothing of value isn't the argument you think it is. And if you think ACKS fit that description, then substantiate more.>poorly executed ideasNice, ellaborate dude. Please, that's all I ask: Tell me why you think specific ideas are poorly executed. I already agreed that the pillage system is too simple and even lazy.
>>96583243Only the guy who thinks he can force "fishfag."
>>96583247>Why do people keep calling me Fishfag after I throw the same tantrum over and over again thread after thread using the exact same talking points, way of writing and on the exact same topics that Fishfag gets his autism on about, in the exact same way and with the exact same talking pointshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO6u_avs6hI
>>96583245>Except that's not what I said, did I?I mean yeah no it's exactly what you said. You got mad that I pointed out a subsystem that's shit, is shit, and does not work well. And you said that's not *really* pointing out broken things.>If your central critique is about how the system in its very fundamentals, in its conception so to speak, doesn't work and it's brokenPlease, do quote where I said that. You have five minutes to do so.>The point I was making is that there's no other alternative within a single cohesive system that actually makes sense within its mechanicsOh no, there are plenty, I just gave you one. But rather than accept it as an alternative, I'm sure you'll continue to say, after returning to this argument and losing the sideshow, that "It doesn't count, it's not cohesive or make sense!" (Which are what actual non-critiques look like).>Nice, ellaborate dude.I have done that all throughout the thread. Please stick to particular points and topics without more of your schizophrenic delusions, anon, and we can discuss the finer details if you're able to engage with them in good faith, instead of claiming that pointing out something is broken garbage is not actually pointing out that something is broken garbage.>>96583255This doesn't work when you just admitted you call anyone who critiques the system fishfag.
>>96583255You've called like 5 people in this thread alone your fishfag. Now 6.Methinks you know you're full of shit.
>>96583143>>96583199I am not "ACKShill" and this is literally the only thread where I am defending the system. And this is precisely why I argued in favor of dropping the samefag accusations on both sides: It muddles actual discussion.Everything I have said so far here has been centered around the game itself. Claiming to be more than one person while accussing all opposition of being one schizo (no matter if pro or anti-ACKS) is retarded.
>>96583269You're shilling the super mediocre game ACKS. Only like a hundred people play the game world wide. You are the ACKShill.
>>96583269
>>96583269>I am not "ACKShill"Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. But there is indeed a shill in this thread who's also in the 3.5e thread. For example, they have the same style of posting, such as these:>>96583255>>96583248>And this is precisely why I argued in favor of dropping the samefag accusations on both sidesBe the change you wanna see hombre, don't demand others do what you want or they'll just spite you.
>>96583269Anon, go look at the archives. I know it sounds insane on the surface of it, but it is, quite literally, one mentally ill redditor who wants ACKS banned off the site and has dedicated his life to a Fremen-esq Jihad against it.I know, it sounds insane when you say it aloud. But the reality is?He actually is fucking insane.
>>96583291>but it is, quite literally, one mentally ill redditor who wants ACKS banned off the siteIn poetic irony, the one advocating for it has done far more harm to its reputation than anyone critiquing it ever could.
>>96583283>Someone posted a youtube link to mock me and that proves it's the same personHave you considered taking up professional basketball because holy shit son have you got some fucking reach.
>>96583303Neither of those posts were in reply to me, though? It's just very obvious that you're a samefag. You always think they're being clever about it too.
>>96583269I honestly don't know which is worse though. The ACKShill just being one guy, or the ACKShills trying to do the same thing they did on Reddit and using a discord to try and brigade the place. Even the whole "fishfag" thing reeks of people trying to dogpile on anyone who disagrees with them.
>Everyone else is fishfag>Everyone else is madKek, shit like this is why OSR is a graveyardJust gonna drop this herehttps://archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/text/fishfag/deleted/deleted/ACKSfag has had nearly 150 posts about his "fishfag" deleted within the last couple of months. He is mentally ill.
>>96583115>>96583182Since I find it more productive to talk about systems rather than engage ACKS autismo, consider this:Premise #2 doesn't really work, because it falls under the same problem as trying to dredge good stuff out of bad systems:It's too little and too far between (since it's a bad system), while it is also very poorly formatted (been a while I saw a published, officially released game with print larger than 100 copies to have formatting this bad).So you are putting an enormous effort to... what, exactly? Figure out that tables might be useful? That bean-counting might be not your thing? What's even the lesson to be learned here.Bad systems shouldn't be used for anything else than GAME DESIGNERS learning from mistakes of others. Are you designing a game? No? Then no point wasting time on reaiding a terrible rulebook, because you gonna actually learn anything useful from it
>>96583300>In poetic irony, the one advocating for it has done far more harm to its reputation than anyone critiquing it ever could.Put down the crack pipe and spend a few days getting clean, then maybe you'll notice that everyone from /osrg/ to the recently formed /nusrg/ to random threads hates your guts by this point. You haven't ruined the reputation of ACKS.All you've done is make yourself despised by a frankly remarkable number of people.
>>96583333>You haven't ruined the reputation of ACKS.Correct, YOU did.
>>96583283>Be the change you wanna see hombre,I try, but any attempt at having a discussion gets me shat on with "ACKShill!!!! You are dishonest!!!!", no matter if me being an ESL and having differeng posting patterns is rather obvious.
>>96583333>Put down the crack pipe and spend a few days getting clean, then maybe you'll notice that everyone from /osrg/ to the recently formed /nusrg/ to random threads hates your guts by this pointFucking stop, man. My sides can take it only this much!
>>96583329Fucking hell. There's persistence and then there's "This guy just can't take a hint."
>>96583329I'll do you one better, you flaccid cuckold:https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/text/fishfagMy, look at all those posts that aren't deleted.And in those threads? Well me oh my, would you look at that, people posting the way you do, with the same salt and sand, on the topic that you're currently whining about.Very interesting. I wonder why you insist on posting 'No-no, they're always deleted'As if appealing to authority means anything on 4chan of all places.
>>96583359Like we already established: autism. As in: real, actual autism.Which explains why he loves ACKS in the first place.
>>96583362>Here, let me dig myself deeper, that will show you all
>>96583362>I'll do you one better!!!>Shows that he's made over 300 posts seething about his fishfagWell, credit where it's due. Technically, you did do me one better. Clearly not in the way you intended, but you did.
>>96583339Which is the reason everyone apart from (you) is fine talking about it eh?What a funny world it is, when one retard can proclaim 'This is ruined forever' and when other people say '...but I want to talk about it', you just get to scream 'No, it's ruined FOREVER' and expect that to stick.>>96583353A good insult is its own reward anon. Read back through the archives and some of them thrown at this faggot are corkers.
>>96583262>And you said that's not *really* pointing out broken things.No, I said that a single broken subsystem doesn't break an entire game and that to prove the thesis that the game as a whole is not worth pickin up, more than it is necessary. Would you consider a car broken and shit as a whole if a single light inside doesn't work? >Oh no, there are plenty, I just gave you one. No, you gave me a system that by default doesn't have any of the things I mentioned and the very example you linked is based on an adaptation of medieval demographics external to it. Is it the mass combat system also based on that link? Is the economy, perhaps? I'll take that there's more D&D systems with all I mentioned. Please give me the names so I can try them out. >do quote where I said thatMy mistake, I confused you with someone from earlier. >I have done that all throughout the threadCan you link me to those posts? So far we have only discussed why pillaging doesn't work, and I ended up agreeing. In what else we went into detail? This is a sincere question.
>>96569835>Ctrl+F "Lament" >No resultsLamentation of the Flame Princess will satisfy all your edge-y needs anon, the fuckedupness is baked right in.Your desires will appear tame by comparison for what is normal in that setting.Good luck getting players!
>>96583374
>>96583348Sadly, you can't do anything more than ignore it. Discussing the game will always provoke this rabid autist, and anything except decrying it is to associate with him by proxy. Fortunately, you can just stoically ignore him, he's pretty obvious, but friendly fire between otherwise invested posters is unavoidable. It is what it is.>>96583332>Premise #2 doesn't really work, because it falls under the same problem as trying to dredge good stuff out of bad systems:True, BUT we are not necessarily dredging good stuff out of bad systems. We are instead leaving the bad system as it is, and taking inspiration from what it does present. There have been many instances for myself where I've read something of poor quality and thought to myself, "I could use these ideas and concepts better in my own game, I would just do A and B instead of X and Y". Though ofc, this won't work for everyone. It's closer to what you say about learning from the mistakes of others. But my take is that I think every GM is a game designer and can benefit along the same lines.
>>96583374>>96583377>No-no, you don't understand, all those different posts in different styles discussing a well known village idiot are actually the same person attempting to conjure up the tulpa of a village idiot into existence>Rather than Occams razor of 'No, there actually is a village idiot and people are complaining about him doing village idiot things, pissing in gutters, buggering the goats, bathing in the horse trough, that sort of thing'It'd be a very compelling argument if half this thread hadn't been you with your pants around your ankles trying to line up with the keyhole of the village tavern then having a 'tard rage when people tried to tell you to behave yourself in a civilized manner.
>>96583383>No, I said that a single broken subsystem doesn't break an entire gameAnon, this is what we call a "strawman" argument. Nobody said all of ACKS was broken. Nobody said it was fundamentally broken at its roots (It's based off D&D.As much as I'm not a fan of D&D, it's objectively a functional system, it's REALLY REALLY hard to fuck it up so bad you render it totally broken).What was specifically said, is that you think I "keep making" the claim that it is filled with broken shit, but pointing out "some defective subsystems" does not count as substantiating the claim... Which, it quite literally IS substantiating the claim.>Would you consider a car broken and shit as a whole if a single light inside doesn't work? If the lights don't work, the engine keeps sputtering, the tire is flat, my driver side window is shattered, and I have to threaten to beat the car with a hammer to keep it from squeaking and squealing like it's about to keel over... Yeah I would consider it broken and shitty, even if it does still run and could get me from point A to B without breaking down entirely.But bad analogies aside, games are a bit more complex than this. You can very easily attempt to fix games with house rules, put figurative masking tape over the shit that's broken and non functional, just ignore it outright, and even passable GMs will do this. Good GMs often have enough experience to do this and gloss over rules that, RAW are absolute dogshit and don't work, and apply them in a way that is functional.>No, you gave me a system that by default doesn't have any of the things I mentionedLying will get you nowhere, and convinces me that you are worth no effort or shows of good will.>Can you link me to those posts/games/spoonfeed me please?See the above. If you'd asked upfront I'd have done so, but you'll have to put in effort. Or if you're smart and as disingenuous as you act, you'll take my ignoring the attempted sourcetrolling as an ebic win and scurry off.
>>96583418>Rather than Occams razor of 'No, there actually is a village idiot and people are complaining about him doing village idiot thingsI mean yeah, that's the ACKStard.>All these different posts in different stylesYou screeched that this was pure schizophrenia a short while ago btw. Sorry RETARD, we don't forget things as quickly as you do
Oh and while we're on archive links;https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/text/%22Milo%20Inc%22/Here's multiple posts of Fishfag showing his hand, outright admitting it's about politics rather than the system and claiming that ACKSman is worse than your average SS officer, ect, ect, so on, so forth.Have a laugh at how poisoned by reddit he is. It'd be funny if he was happening to someone else.>>96583430>N-nuh-uh, y-youI look forward to your future posts where you integrate village idiot as an insult because it cut you.
>Here are more posts of me seething about something for yearsThe hole gets deeper
>>96583446>Anon will now call everyone who uses the phrase 'village idiot' fishfagTelling on yourself is never a good idea.
>>96583418How about this explanation?>reddit bans acks because its discord did bad shilling during acks2 kickstarter>no place for them to go to advertise their dying game, so they come here>they try to dogpile on people who say mean things about acks>not used to anonymous boards, they underestimate how many people they're talking too>they try to force 'fishfag'>end up incidentally creating an easily searchable keyword for their posts>sunk cost fallacy hits hard, they now have to stick to calling everyone fishfag because they've already spent thousands of posts doing soHelps explain where the guys who got banned from Reddit went. Otherwise, where did they go? Where are they shilling now?
>>96583446From the archive:>Politics? Who said anything about politics?>If you're alluding to Milo being a political troll, that's kind of laughable, because he is an attention whore first and foremost and politics is just the best avenue for that>Some people did despise Milo inc. because they were trying to present it as a Far-Right mouthpiece, but hating them for that is literally exactly what they wanted. Please, don't act like everyone is a complete idiot and the only reason to hate something is because they've succesfully baited you with politics. idk lil bro it seems like one of your fishfags DOESNT think its about politics
>>96583468Honestly, I could be convinced that the ACKSfag is just Macris himself. The amount of projection and double standards he shows feels like it fits. He also accused me of being Richard Petty (All I could find is a guy who is/was a famous NASCAR driver) just for pointing out that the pillaging system is dog. It's such a weird non-sequitur it made me think that it's probably a defense mechanism. Accuse others of being some faggot before they point out your own identity.
>>96583463Given it's such a fine description of you, I think I'll reserve it just for when it's obviously you using it because your intellectual legs are too stumpy to stride alongside the rest of us, so you need to stilt up by stealing.>>96583468'They shilled on reddit' is your founding mythology for the bullshit you engage in and like many things about you, it's fake, gay and reveals why you don't belong here but instead hanging from a lamp post.>B-but a Reddit Janny said that they were shilling, and his proof was a bunch of people got together on discord and all jumped on reddit at the same time to complain about muh evil alt-night noizess and their shill brigade.At its core you're making an appeal to authority.And that authority is fucking reddit.
>>96583471Boy, you must wear some pretty narrow glasses to miss the posts directly above and below that one.
>He's back to claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is the games authorWhat a wonderful coincidence that I just so happened to post you doing exactly the same tactic over half a year ago seconds after you start that bullshit again >>96583502And then you wonder how everyone knows who you are?
>>96583487>I think I'll reserve it just for when it's obviously you using itSo like I said, anytime anyone ever uses the phrases lol
>>96583502>Post above>Still not political, points out that Macris has a history of shilling>Posts below>Still not politicalLike I said, you're really not doing your argument any favors bud. Tho I'm sure you'll convince yourself anyone who doesn't agree with you is fishfag.Hey... Maybe you're fishfag?
>>96583487There's actually a good chunk of evidence. A few people were digging up stuff, and even one ACKS guy in an attempt to dismiss the evidence accidentally posted something that turned out to be even more evidence, this time of vote manipulation.We're not talking about Appealing to Authority. That would be simply taking the reddit mod on their word, which even the redditors wouldn't do. There's evidence of accounts made just to shill the game with no other posts, there's dozens of people testifying about how they personally witness the aggressive brigading, alongside evidence of that shilling in the form of positive threads made where any negative comments about ACKS were deleted. Politics may have moved the needle a bit, but the key cause was, according to the people who had been there and experienced it, the underhanded shilling efforts.This is not some mythology. It's not even the first place it was banned from. The people who were promoting ACKS also tried to start conflicts on rpg.net, and when Macris threatened the mods by hinting that he might sue them, they just said "fuck this guy," and just banned the game entirely.It's a repeating pattern, and it looks like it's repeating here.
>>96583557I'm not saying you're lying, but would you post the accounts and a few examples of said testifying?
>>96583502This Milo guy does seem like a piece of shit.
>>96569835Exalted.
>>96583425>some defective subsystems" does not count as substantiating the claim... Which, it quite literally IS substantiating the claim.>If the lights don't work, the engine keeps sputtering, the tire is flat, my driver side window is shattered, and I have to threaten to beat the car with a hammer to keep it from squeaking and squealing like it's about to keel over... I am starting to think you don't understand: If ACKS is meant to be the car in this analogy then one has to first demonstrate that the game is in such a sorry state as to need constant homebrewing for it to work. Such a claim, which isn't uncommon here, runs against my own experience while running and playing the system, and for it to be justified one needs to do more than pointing out why the pillaging system is raw and not detailed enough. Why do you think I brought up the combat, the economy and the mass combat? Because those are parts that ACKS adds on top of the B/X crap and are meant to be the basis of its sandbox, systems that inform the player's experience a lot. How they malfunction, exactly? In which way the procedures for dungeon delving, wilderness exploration, domain play and mass combat are broken? What subsystems? Because that's what you do the most while playing the game, and I assume you have enough experience to point out their failings. >Lying will get you nowhere, I apologize: It includes four pages of fantasy demographics and a breakdown of leveled characters that, unlike ACKS own breakdown, doesn't connect with much else on the system and doesn't even adress the wargaming part that existed in previous editions. Your other example was WFRPG, but you gave no examples from it, and by the way you worded that part it seemed like it's more useful as an inspiration than directly lifting anything from it.
>>96583425If you'd asked upfront I'd have done so, but you'll have to put in effort. What the fuck are you talking about dude? As far as I can see no other system except pillaging was tackled during the discussion, and the closest we got to something else was some anon (You?) mentioning how the family as an economic unit is a bad idea, something that wasn't ellaborated on further despite being on itself a critique worth delving into. This isn't source trolling: Linking posts needs no effort.
>>96583557>and when Macris threatened the mods by hinting that he might sue them, they just said "fuck this guy," and just banned the game entirely.LMFAO never fucking happened btw. They banned him for political reasons and even openly said so.
>>96583565There's a good amount of evidence being discussed/posted in the tail end of this thread.>>96526070
>>96583609I see. Thank you.
>>96583588He's raised his blood pressure so much that he's stroking out and mixing up RPG.net, where Marcis did ask them, politely mind you, to stop their mods openly slandering him while acting in an official capacity, with reddit.I look forward to the day he finally has a heart attack caused by ACKS, because it seems his blood pressure is through the fucking roof any time its mentioned.>>96583565His evidence is literally 'People were posting about ACKS'Which he's now linked to, go check for yourself.
>>96583576>>96583583>I am starting to think you don't understandI think I do, actually, and much better than you do.>Then one has to first demonstrate that the game is in such a sorry state as to need constant homebrewing Well anon, this has been done in this very thread. Using its pillaging system as an example of something broken, there was even an attempt to "fix" it in >>96580454Though it was a miserably bad attempt since it... Doesn't fix it at all. If this was being held up as good, I can only imagine how much worse the rest of the system must be.>Why do you think I brought up the combat, the economy and the mass combat?Well anon, let's pick a topic you levied that I'm interested in and test out whether it's also busted or not for all to see, and whether a pattern can be established: Post the pages for the mass combat.>I apologizeThat's good but the rest of this paragraph and the follow up post would've been unnecessary if it were genuine.
>>96583617>where Marcis did ask them, politely mind you, to stop their mods openly slandering him while acting in an official capacity, with reddit.This NEVER fucking happened you lying two-faced faggot.
>>96583652You shouldn't really get worked up over ACKShill lies.
>>96583652>>96583617First of all he never asked them anything. It was suggested out of hand that if he was slandered he would pursue legal action over it, in ENTIRELY UNRELATED CONVERSATIONS. Then the rpgnet mods, who were already looking for excuses to ban the game because it was overtaking all other discussion, jumped on that to get rid of ACKS. Whatever bullshit you're on about literally never happened. He did not directly talk to them. He did not threaten them. He did not tell them they were slandering him. Macris never even knew they existed. You can ask him yourself if you really want to, but quit repeating lies.
>>96583617>Which he's now linked to, go check for yourself.I'm actively doing this and... Nope, he's definitely got much more evidence than people were posting about ACKS. There are tons of redditors saying they felt they were being brigaded, that posting behavior was unusual, that there were obvious sock accounts. And he's posted many accounts from the archive that were since deleted and seemed to only post about ACKS.Brigading from dedicated fans? Paid shilling? Could be either, but it's inorganic as fuck, especially with how their main subreddit is stone cold dead. For once the redditors had a pretty clear cassus belli.FWIW, I also don't think they would have hesitated to ban Macris for political reasons either, but they'd just say so. r/OSR has literally zero problems with just banning people because they hate them like with Zak and aren't afraid to say so.
>Edgelord shitpost OP>Actual thread: ACKS fag on a meltdownThe funnest part is that ACKS doesn't even fulfill OP's premise. It's like suggesting D&D to people who ask for a cyberpunk game
>>96577488Buy a fucking ad
>>96583696But ACKS is literal perfection and not a bloated mess of shitty BECMI add-ons slapped together and called cohesive, what can't it do???
>>96583565>>96583609This one is too good.>>96552295Nice big list.>>96552416Here's the announcement of ACKS getting banned and the redditors adding details of why.https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/17g6mxa/acks_and_other_osr_compatibility/This is the start of a chain involving evidence of vote manipulation.>>96551085>>96551156
>>96583717All faked. Never happened. Never discussed. Redditors organized this to create a facade of having a legitimate reason to ban ACKS, an incredibly popular topic of discussion, because without it their own subreddits would have rebelled over the obvious censorship going on.
>>96570062Made by AI or possibly a retard. One chain is only attached to itself and the other connects to nothing in the monster's mouth. Why would she even be chained to stuff by her feet if she serves as a luggage carrier.
>People were talking about ACKS and when it was banned they stopped talking about ACKS.>Clearly this is proof of brigading rather than proof they banned ACKSA man with an answer already in mind goes searching for proof, finds the scantest, circumstantial evidence and declares victory. Who could've seen that one coming?>>96583576>>96583583Frankly the best way to form an opinion on ACKS (Or any system) isn't Ivory tower discussion.Doubly so Ivory tower discussion with someone that hates it from the depths of their propeller helmet.Someone recently posted an ACKS campaign in /osr/, go over there, ask for it, read it and form your own opinion on if the system seems fun or not.
>>96583782>when it was banned they stopped talking about ACKSACKS was never banned from reddit. It was banned from r/OSR. ACKS discussion across their own subreddit instantly died when they weren't able to shill on the other subreddits.
>>96583782Why would I read a campaign when I want to learn about the system and whether it's worth using? Any system can have bad or good campaigns, dumbass.
>>96583826He just want to advertise it. 90% chance he wrote it.
>>96583642>Well anon, this has been done in this very thread. Using its pillaging system as an example of something broken, there was even an attempt to "fix" it iWhile I want to think you are honest, this is quite a blatant attempt at dogding the challenge: The example of the car implies a game filled with broken shit to such an extend that homebrewing the entire thing is the only way to make the experience viable. The problem, of course, is that you used a single-page pillaging subsystem, part of the mass combat procedures, that doesn't come even near of tackling the entire or even the core experience of the game; you conceded that, in fact, by accepting that the "lights" are wrong but also adding that the rest of the car barely works anyway. We need now examples of why is that the case and you... Bring the example of the pillaging again?>I can only imagine >Post the pages Hold on a second... I ran with the assumption that we both had actual experience with the system, specially for the way you spoke of it as filled with broken shit, cumbersome and lacking anything useful for players or GMs. Now turns out you haven't actually even read the manual, let alone played ACKS? Dude this is dishonest and retarded af. There's systems I don't jive too much with, but with pretty much all of them I have actual experience: PBTA, Against the Darkmaster, Scarlet Heroes, 5e, etc. That's the minimum one should meet before speaking with so much confident about why a system suck. Now all of what you said turns out to be pure speculation? No wonder our experience differs so much: Yours is pure imagination.
>>96583642>follow up post would've been unnecessaryI apologized for affirming that 3e didn't had fantasy demographics. I stand by My words in regards to them being shallow compared with ACKS and not being too linked with anything else in the system. Also, you haven't demonstrated again what other systems or mechanics we discussed, and your refusal to link those posts if they exist doesn't seem too honest either. Mind you, I am willing to apologize if you did.
>>96583838>While I want to think you are honest, this is quite a blatant attempt at dogding the challengeMmm, no not at all. I get the feeling that you're about to use this as a pretext to lie again though since you very obviously aren't honest.>The problem, of course, is that you used a single-page pillaging subsystemYes yes, I'm aware that you dislike actually using examples and want to pivot away from the shitty pillaging system by going to anything else, preferably something that is as non-original as possible and thus built on more solid foundations and by more competent developers.>part of the mass combat proceduresPillaging is not in the section on battles/mass combat.>Hold on a second... I ran with the assumptionYou do seem like you didn't really understand what the topic was about, yeah.So, your coping aside, I'm guessing the reason you won't post the pages for mass combat is because it's dogshit and you know it's dogshit?>>96583854>I apologizedNot really, no. You did pretend to so you could backpedal though, but it's irrelevant. Where are the mass combat pages?
>>96583782This isn't even Ivory Tower discusion: Dude seemingly hasn't even played ACKS, or even read the books. I shit on storygames constantly but I have played and currently am in a storygame campaign with some normie friends. How can you speak with so much confidence about a game you have no experience with is beyond me.
>>96583819Weird, and ACKS discussion suddenly popped up here right around then.Kinda weird for a 13 year old game to have almost no discussion for a decade here.
>>96583868>Dude seemingly hasn't even played ACKS, or even read the books.I like how you make more assumptions whenever you lose an argument and get cornered into doing something you really desperately don't want to do.
>>96583826>Why would I read a campaign when I want to learn about the system and whether it's worth using?Because a practical example of how something plays is better than white room theorycrafting?>Any system can have bad or good campaigns, dumbass.Find me the good FATAL campaign then, shithead.'I want to know if this car is any good. Why would I ever test drive it or what a review of someone giving their opinion after having drove it when I can read the specs sheet?'
>>96583886>Because a practical example of how something playsPractical examples are dependent on GMing more than the system.>Find me the good FATAL campaign thenI was in one for april fools, once. We all had a great time and a good laugh at how dumb it was, fuckface.Why do you keep using car analogies? You sound like a fucking retard who can't understand tabletop games.
>>96583862>I'm aware that you dislike actually using examples and want to pivot away from the shitty pillaging system by going to anything elseI am giving you free reign to tackle the fundamentals the system promotes itself with: Mass combat, economics, domains, etc. Yet for some reason you need me to post the pages and your own post hints at that you can "only imagine" how awful the rest of the system is.If you have actual experience why do you need me to post pics of the mass combat system? Why do you need to "imagine" how awful everything else is? Do you have examples of mass combat working badly? Because I do have stories of battles played in the system that were quite fun for everyone involved. >Not really notSo I ought to lay down and yield the truth I said with the mistake I made? Do you expect me to say that 3e fulfills the criteria while it clearly doesn't? Get a fucking grip. It includes fantasy demographics in core, that's it.
>>96583872You can tell when ACKshill feels pressed because he'll pivot to irrelevant points.
>>96583872>something you really desperately don't want to do.Like you not linking any of the supposed posts where you tackled the many other broken aspects of the system? Or perhaps you needing to be spoonfed to make a critique? Why you need me to post the mass combat section when you can do it yourself, if you are actually familiar with the system?
>>96583913Like you not linking anything system related because anybody who looks at the game is horrified with how awful it is.
>>96583904You don't think someone needs at minimum some familiarity with a system before making such critiques?
>>96583921He seems more familiar than you desu.
>>96583916More unsubstantial assertions, as always never paired with examples or actual critiques of the game's mechanics. Dude, it isn't hard: If you are familiar with the game or the manual, can't you just say your piece and present examples? Maybe we can even get something out of it.
>>96583913I'm going to cut through the bullshit for him here, it's because he's not familiar with the system and is just here to be angry about it for his own absurd reasons.Anything else is just window dressing around this fact.This is a 'person' (to use the word in the most charitable way possible) who has spent the last several years talking about how 2e is totes Kino and 100% based, but didn't know Raistlin was a player character in Dragonlance.I've never even played Dragonlance and I know that through sheer cultural osmosis.He doesn't play games. He doesn't even like them. He just hates one game and wants to say the magic words necessary to get it off the board.If 'Skidaddle, Skidacks, the Janny will remove ACKS' worked he'd never post here again afterwards.
>>96583903>I am giving you free reignI am telling you to post the pages for the mass combat rules you know are utter dogshit and want to avoid discussing.>B-but why do I have to do it???Because, anon, it is a sign of sincerity and a willingness to engage on your end. I have pretty calmly wrangled all of your 'tarded objections and "Nuh uhs" to my contributions to the thread so far, and now it's time for you to make a contribution by posting the rules to the game you are defending so everyone can see them openly.>B-but you said you can only imagine how awful the rest of the system isYes, anon. That's called a figure of speech, that one can extrapolate from a part how infirm and poorly wrought the whole is.Now, we're both aware that the reason you don't want to do this is because the mass combat in ACKS is absolutely horrible, and the only way you can really dispute this is by posting the rules. So your alternative is gonna be to try and stubbornly hold your ground, as if it doesn't make you look deranged and incapable of good faith discussions about rules.>So I ought to lay downWhen one sincerely apologizes for a wrong, you should place your head to the floor and beg forgiveness without further disputing the point, yes. You do not get do-overs in conversations. You've already shown an eagerness to assume and make up strawmen to suit your arguments though so I really doubt you are capable of offering a sincere apology. Feel free to prove me wrong.
>>96583926You mean, the person that needs the pages posted here because he doesn't have, and likely didn't even read the manual? Someone that needs to "imagine" how bad the game is because he hasn't even played it?
>>96583932>>96583930>I'm going to cut through the bullshit to get increasingly angry and make up more lies>>96583930>More unsubstantial assertionsFeel free to post the mass combat rules shillboy. Oh wait you can't because they're bad and you don't want anyone to see them lol
>>96583941Doesn't seem that way to me. Seems to me like you're mad that he hit the nail on the head really. You do you though
>>96583941>NeedsOh ACKStard, it gets tiresome hearing the same excuses and projections. Let me guess, you don't even have a copy of the rulebook?I was being polite enough to give you a chance to contribute to the discussion, since you haven't really done anything but make really stupid analogies so far and cope. But it seems I must do the heavy lifting once more.
>>96583944ACKS mass combat rules make me a bit queasy.I generally like complex systems, but when I saw those rules I actually felt like I was gonna throw up.
>>96583934>Because, anon, it is a sign of sincerity and a willingness to engage on your end. I have pretty calmly wrangled all of your 'tarded objections and "Nuh uhs" to my contributionsWhat contributions? Dude, the only thing you did so far was to do a critique of the pillaging system (and I agreed with that) based on the two pages that anon posted, and proceed to claim that based on that single piece of evidence one can safely assume the enterity of the system is also broken shit. When pressed to reinforce this argument with more examples you deny that they are necessary and spin back to the pillaging, and only now, after 100+ posts, you are willing to tackle something else... Only if I spoonfeed you the pages tho, almost like despite your confidence this entire drivel is based on personal distaste and not any familiarity with the system.Wouldn't be better if you posted those pages yourself and demonstrated how wrong I am post by post? It would become a copypasta I am sure: A sistematic breakdown, something many other bad systems get. Very likely I wouldn't reply inmediatly, or ever, leaving you as the uncontested winner. Why, if you are so familiar and so confident, you need your opposition to hand you munition?
>>96583984They are pretty fucking terrible. Not only boring as hell, but TEDIOUS. I could understand if they were quick and lite and it's just "Roll a couple dice to see which army wins and how hard", but it's a lengthy process where you don't really get to interact, and the most interesting thing it offers are forays, but it's still not particularly interesting because BECMI combat was never anything special.
>>96583994>What contributions?The ones you have admitted to me making repeatedly, in detailing what exactly were wrong with the rules presented and why they fall short of their intended representations?>Uh, yeah but you need to contribute MOAR!Look anon, you've contributed literally nothing except going "Nuh uh" and trashy analogies. I've given you the chance to post the rules and demonstrate that you can contribute to this discussion, but... Well you can't. You're clearly afraid of having ACKS' mass combat rules outed for garbage.>Only if I spoonfeed you the pages tho, almost like despite your confidence this entire drivel is based on personal distaste and not any familiarity with the system.I suppose you were too enamored with rage to have noticed >>96583971Or maybe you don't have the rules yourself like I suspected? That's more likely imo.>Uhm, why would we post the rules we're discussing?Obstinately asking for the same answer twice, eh?That's so everyone in the thread can read them and understand the topic of discussion, I'll have to post them since your faggot ass is too dishonest and inept. And seeing as how you're so dishonest and inept, I will deal with you as a troll: No more (yous) for you!
>>96584021So continuing: Here's the first of three pages for running a battle in ACKS, which mostly concern set up, preparing details, battle ratings, and just general busywork.
>>96583971Are you trying to use a "no u" here? Really?
>>96584043First page continued
>>96584049Second page
>>96584056Third and final pageThis is all just to prepare the battle. A more savvy GM will probably have spotted some issues and lacking details already.
>>96584063Continuing from here we have the actual steps for fighting battles. Here's where I believe the developer just stopped trying.First page for fighting battles.
>>96584087No, no, you didn't read that wrong about battle ratings and rolling hits. You are infact expected to make dozens of attack rolls.Second page for fighting battles.
>>96584096Third page for fighting battles.I have to say, I enjoy seeing that it was immediately recognized that heroic forays, although conceptually interesting, were slow and awful in practice and they needed a quick way to summarize heroic units. And the solution they landed on was more math formulas.
>>96584110Fourth and final page for fighting battles.Impressive how difficult it was for a dishonest troll to simply post up and show he was not afraid to reveal the rules for the system he was defending, eh? There are further rules on ending battles, though they're instead mostly about covering the morale phase instead. It's rather disappointing how poorly formatted the game is with how interconnected it tries to be, makes it poor even for trying to borrow concepts and procedures from, but I digress.
>>96584140Here's the first page for handling morale/"ending battles".
>>96584152Second and final page for handling morale.In conclusion, I think most anons will have made their minds up upon reading it and realizing how little there is to actually do in the mass combat outside of rolling tubs of dice and waiting to see which spongy wall of meat breaks first. My own issues with it are many, but to stick to just one, it would be that is that it isn't very satisfying from a tactical point of view (Standing on a hill is a +10% advantage? Really? Has the retard who wrote this even READ about ancient warfare?)
So the practical upshot is heroic forays are PCs gambling life and limb in the form of mid-battle encounters to steer the course of the battle while the battle still rages on around them?Are you actually retarded, that sounds like a perfectly appropriate way to handle mass combat in a heroic fantasy setting. Players get to decide how much they're willing to risk being merked in the heat of battle. It's a perfect framework for Achilles vs Hector moments.
>>96584152I'm still waiting for this moment.
>>96584110>Heroic forays>have to play out a full combat against a bunch of enemiesThis is so boring even after you ignore how it would make no sense in most situations.
>>96584179The problem I see with it is that it'd be pretty time consuming and just fighting 30 goblin riders doesn't make for interesting combat. Plus it adds more calculating you have to do. Idk how you'd make heroes interesting in this without changing the entire system though
>>96584167>realizing how little there is to actually do in the mass combatApart from engage in combat encounters, hunt down enemy officers and all that good shit am I right?It's a system outright designed around nudging the players to go do cool shit and to zoom in on them doing it.>27 wolf riders is considered an actually possible encounterHoly shit, that sounds amazing, a system where players can actually take on that number of foes and it not chug itself to death sounds perfect.Thanks for the recommendation.
>>96584213>Thanks for the recommendationYou already said you played and GM'd it though?
>>96584087This is inexcusably ba->>96584179>>96584213How are you actually able to try and excuse this? Hats off for trying, but damn son.
>>96584213>Apart from engage in combat encounters, hunt down enemy officers and all that good shitplaying mass combat so I can*checks notes*"Engage in combat encounters"and "Hunt down enemy officers" (You can't do this RAW and it has no impact on the battle)>And all that good shit"That good shit" is two things, and not engaging with the mass combat whatsoever because there's nothing to engage with.>Holy shit, that sounds amazing, a system where players can actually take on that number of foes and it not chug itself to death sounds perfect.Oh no it absolutely chugs. In my experience that type of encounter becomes a slog of just taking turns rolling dice until hopefully your character croaks so you can do something else.
>>96584226Whoever you're talking about is a different anon.I just noticed someone posting about mass combat from the catalogue and thought I'd take a look.
>>96584237what do you mean? how is mindlessly rolling 50 attack rolls every turn not good???? isn't more dice rolling better?????????????????
>>96584243Nobody believes you retard, you even started talking about what the system is "outright designed around". You're such a bad shill it's genuinely comical.
Hello fellow anonymous poasters. I learned about it in this thread and I love ADVENTURER CONQUEROR KING SYSTEM©Please not be saying bad thing about it, it is really good! You should buy many copies and tell all your friend to be redeeming it immediately, please help with kickstarter too thank you
>>96584249>what the system is "outright designed around"Hey, you're the one that posted the rules. I just read them and realized what their intention is. I'm off to go pirate a copy.
>>96584271>Hey, you're the one that posted the rules.Nah I wasn't, but now everyone else is the same person huh? You're like an open book with how you project lmfao
>>96584056>The battlefield is just a couple static zones>reserves just teleport to any flank>Field fortifications don't exist>units don't maneuver, formations don't exist>The advantage for flanking is a +2 to hitBruh are all osr games this bad
>>96584282Okay, fuck. Fine. I'll admit it. I am the same poster. I'm upset that a system I like and have had good times with is getting dragged through the mud. Can we stop this now?
>>96579234>you do your do>famboyAre you having a stroke?
>>96584306To be fair with the system, the mass combat in core is abstracted and mostly meant for NPCs. Fortifications, terrain and maneouvering are handled in Domains at War, tho I have no experience with it so I can't tell if it's good or bad.
>>96584326Pretty sure he was on the verge of passing out at that point and became borderline incoherent. You can tell that he passed out, then he woke up and immediately got back in the thread to start seething about the lost arguments all over again kek.
>>96584339>To be fair with the system, the mass combat in core is abstracted and mostly meant for NPCsScusi moi? Are you saying the DM is meant to run this shit between NPCs?
>>96584346Holy shit.I don't know about NPCs but I'm dying over here.
>>96584326No, I just have a terminal case of ESL.>>96584317I haven't said shit since the dude I was debating actually delivered by posting the pages he had issues with (good for him). Stop lying you tard.
>>96584346If the heroes are involved on either side, or leading units under a NPC lord, or no one wants to bother and set up a DoW battle, yeah.
>>96584435That's abhorrent. Why the fuck would the GM not just handwave the results? What kind of incompetent writes this garbage? And why do you think it's MEANT for that?
Anon accidentally reveals he was samefagging by contradicting himself for the 4th or 5th time now lol
my fellow tg-ers, i, an ordinary anon, have just been convinced to give all my worldly possession to alex macris after reading the blessed system that is acks. so holy and non-putrid is his written word, that i hope one day his aids-endowed penis may grace not just milo's bottom, but also mine, and instill in me just the barest hint of genius that allows him to write such unmatched rollslop
>>96584474Don't do it man. I tried it and it gave me AIDS.ROLLAIDS.
>thread gets a couple hundred posts in just a few hoursoh no
>>96584489not to worry, the shill will get mad and spam reports until half of the thread gets deleted
I've run mass battles using the ACKS system and they work fine for stuff involving a few hundred people. It's kinda boring and I wouldn't run them again but they're not fundamentally broken or anything.ACKS is a mediocre system. It doesn't deserve all the praise from the one acksfag but it doesn't deserve all the hatred from the anti-ACKS fag either.I can't speak for the trade system (who even runs campaigns based on trading?) but the regular dungeon exploration, the mass combat and the domain rules work.
>>96584554What a load of shit. What's boring about it? You used this same cope in /3eg/ and couldn't come up with anything. They're not boring, they're literally perfect and all you should want from mass combat.It's not mediocre either. Like I said, find me anything that can do what it does, even half of what it does. Nothing else even makes the attempt unless it's rules lite trash.
>>96584346>Are you saying the DM is meant to run this shit between NPCs?Welcome to ACKS. Wanna hear the best part?This was actually a marketing pitch for it: that the game "plays itself" and players can do more interesting things. Except this is a game designed for hexcrawling and combat with everything on your path. And the combat is so shit, you will delegate it to hirelings just to not bother. In the end of the day, it's a DF-style world simulator with broken rules, where players do NOTHING and the GM is supposed to calculate everything that happens in the background.And all of this is deliberate features, not an oversight. The people behind this game genuinely and sincerely think this was good ideas, too
>>96584554>I can't speak for the trade systemIt's utterly brokenAs in: it doesn't work at fucking all. And on level that is going to involve players, it's twice as broken due to the fact it decreases ability to turn loot into money/gear in a very weird fucking way> (who even runs campaigns based on trading?)I tried to re-purpose those mechanics for a builder game, where trade is like 2/3 of the game. Which is why I know they not only don't work, but were never playtested, as they have such glaring issues, anyone would instantly spot them when using themFrom the top of my head>system by design is build on stagnation, and the more you use it, the more stagnant the market>supply hubs are actually supply voids>any market better than size 4 is going to be a black hole siphoning goods and money>demand always rises, supply can only decrease, even when establishing new supply hubs>rules as written mean establishing a farming community puts a drain on local grain supply; and its repeated in three different places, so it's not a typo in values, it's a feature>the sheer impracticality of the system requires to either set up an excel sheet for EACH AND EVERY location, or cry yourself to sleep when having to roll 33d6 per location, on each and every visit>The roll outcome affects a 5% range of prices, but you must do it on first visit anyway to establish current prices>Caravans are always a giant net loss, no matter what; it is impossible to make profit on a caravan in rules as written, for someone didn't do the math on their upkeepI probably could going with this but why even bother?The game is getting shat on not because it's mediocre or bad or whatever. It's just a Pavlovian reaction to the well-known asshat that keeps pushing it and insisting it's great, awesome and answer to all questions. Then he gets into arguments with people, which further piles up arguments and hate against a broken mess of a game that probably everyone would forget about long time ago
>>96584580>This was actually a marketing pitch for it: that the game "plays itself" and players can do more interesting things.Pretty grim if true. This should really just be how any game functions because the GM can easily handwave things that occur beyond the players' reach.
>>96584636>a broken mess of a gameSee I was going to agree with everything you said, but the fact is that I played the game and it works. It's boring but it works. It's just D&D again. If you were saying the trade system was a broken mess sure, I could agree with that, but the entire system isn't broken.
>>96584666NTA but He literally did say the trade system was a broken mess tho.
>>96584570GURPS mass combat is better.
>>96584636>supply hubs are actually supply voidsCan you explain what you mean by this?
>>96584669No? Not even close? GURPS mass combat is a sprawling mess of spreadsheet garbage. ACKS mass combat is straight forward and could be done at a table in like 30 minutes, tops. I've ran battles over VTTs that took under 20 minutes with timestamps to know that for a fact.
>>96584580>genuinely and sincerelyYou really can't rule out that they're just making a product that they think they can grift people with. They wouldn't be the first people to make a lazy B/X clone and then spend more effort on pushing a social media campaign rather than spending time actually making the game good and playtesting the rules sufficiently. Something like even the basic combat being terrible really makes me wonder how a game like it ever hit print.Making the game super long is kinda like a wall that simultaneously make the product look like it has more value while also discouraging closer inspection, and when people just throw out quick advertisements and claims, some people might trust them without actually digging into the rules themselves. Even the idea of a game that allows you to simulate a world can sound pretty intriguing, up until you actually look into how ACKS does it. Same with mass combat. Or trading. Or basically anything.I don't want to say it's 100% a grift, but I really find it hard to explain many of the design choices with anything other than someone trying to hit a particular page count as his primary goal.
>>96584693Even despite Macris's history with the grift king, I think this isn't super likely because there are so much better ways to make money and get your ego jerked off. Like, you'd have to be retarded to try and grift off TTRPGs because they're almost impossible to make a profit off of unless you sell minis or you're one of the huge companies.
>>96584666The parts taken right out of B/X are fine. Of course they work, they've been proven to work for decades.It's everything else that's worse though. It's like a car inexplicably handed over to a mason, and he just started adding bricks to it.
>>96584709If you just pull the bricks off your front window you can drive it just fine though? what's the problem here??? show me another car that's as bricky as mine buddy you CANT, GOTCHA!
>>96584709As I said, the domain stuff and the mass combat stuff, which I believe weren't just taken out of B/X do work.You can probably find some situation where it's completely broken if you do X but in general I was able to have a campaign and use the system just fine.I can't say it was a great time tho. Domain stuff just doesn't add to the fun of the game.
>>96584703Some OSR games have made truckloads of money though.He wouldn't even be the first talentless guy who only know hows to troll on the internet who made an RPG just for the money. That Kristian guy did the same thing. And then there's that Thirsty Lesbian.I don't want to say it's a binary matter of "It's 100% a grift or it isn't," but I'm gonna have to say that all the shilling business puts at least some percentage of grift in it.
>>96584723In my experience the mass combat stuff doesn't really "work" given how boring and unfun it is, and how it does not actually represent mass combat well. It's a bit like pillaging. Technically, it works if you just do what the rules say. But it will not work if you're actually playing a game and the players start asking for things that make sense, but the rules do not cover whatsoever and make difficult to include.
>>96584723>Domain stuff just doesn't add to the fun of the game.I think I gotta call "rules that don't make the game fun" not working.
>>96584733>>96584693>>96584693>>96584703I wanna add to this in evidence of them being genuinely sincerity. This is some of the first advice they give in the judges guild for running games.There's obviously a profit motive behind all of this, but I don't think you could write a passage like this if you were driven mostly by profit.
>>96583575Really? How so?
>>96584666I'm not sure you actually bothered to even read my post, but I don't blame you.Still: no, the game doesn't work as a whole. There is just too much broken stuff for the "good" elements to carry it as a whole.Also: the game being (semi) functional doesn't mean it's not broken nor that it's ok. It just means you can theoretically play it.And in this case, easily 3/4 of the whole thing doesn't work, particularly the entire barony side of the game. (which is nearly half of it)
>>96584740I feel like whoever wrote this had a very strong desire to rationalize why they don't need to learn and grow as a GM or figure out what GMing actually entails. Hence how you can have a game be an utter failure and still be "an amazing GM"
>>96584693See, this is one of those cases where they were really into their own narrative. They really believed they are making a new unique thing by giving "automated" game (without automating shit). I've seen this stance in a completely different game in early 00s, so I'm willing to believe they were genuine with their claim. As in - they still marketed the shit of the game, but they did believe themselves in their pitch.
>>96584740I don't think anyone who genuinely or sincerely loves games could write that sort of butthurt about people not liking his games.
>>96584669Trvthnvke>>96584690Bruh we got the whole rules posted, you're not fooling anyone. I wasn't even gonna weigh in because I was happy just reading the shitfit but then you dogged on GURPS and I, Steve Jackson's strongest soldier, was forced to join the fray. ACKS mass combat is clunky, poorly-designed, unsatisfying and above all, byzantine to actually play out. It's literally designed to render the PCs irrelevant, and instead you spend all your time rolling tons of dice to slam fungible walls of soldiers against each other. Fiat battles would genuinely be better.
>>96584673Roughly it boils down to how the modifiers are insufficient and how markets siphon goods, creating voids.And in case you are unfamiliar: market class goes from VI (worst) to I (best)Theory of the game rules>City of low market class needs grain, gets debuff due to size, market class, age and location to their own supply, netting -4 to supply>Small farming village produces grain, and gets additional bonus due to low local demand, low market class, being established just recently and favourable location in prime farmland, netting +1.5 supply>A caravan could be run between village to city, shipping grainPractice>Because the city is of low market class, it extends its influence around>It covers the area with the village, meaning the village is integral part of the market; as such, it automatically moves 2 positions toward the market centre's demand, giving it -2 supply in this case; that's final -0.5 supply>The demand of the city isn't actually fulfilled, so any grain produced within the market itself, will be instantly turned toward the city>The caravan that could haul grain from outside the market size of V (so a large village) wouldn't be profitable, because the costs of running said caravan would be about thrice the value of the merchandise, not to mention profit>There is a massive table (pic partially relate) that handles the modifiers that in theory could affect things, but are too small and too weak to provide genuine supply; they only create demand>The table has to be slavishly followed for EACH AND EVERY GOOD when establishing a new location and affecting pre-existing market, enjoy>The actual profits from trade between high supply and high demand are about 10% mark-up, even ignoring the costs of moving it from place to place>Trade goods that aren't luxuries have price ranges of below 40 gp, so even the most lucrative deal is going to net you like 300 gp, after you and your GM fill your tax forms to play the gameSo good luck with trade
>>96584858
>>96584850>Bruh we got the whole rules postedNotice how not a single criticism of it was posted. Literally nothing. And we even got someone to get into ACKS. Your trolling isn't working.And the funny thing is, it doesn't matter what ACKS is like, GURPS mass combat is still unusably bad.
>>96584673>>96584858And the joke is that the system has like 40 pages of trade and commodity rules, except none of it works. It all LOOKS very impressive, robust and detailed, but when you just as much as read through it (but I'm a bank data analyst, so maybe that's just me), you will notice it's all fucked. And even if you won't notice it from reading, trying to USE that monstrosity will instantly reveal just what sort of mess it is.I admire in this system one thing: this pig-headed drive to continue. That they had those insane ideas that were impractical, but usually that makes people eventually drop the project. Here, they published a game and expansions to it. They aren't even mediocre, they do not work, but imagine the sheer personal drive to just keep making a broken game and not stopping.If only they could use that drive for something less shit...
>>96584869I'm oscillating between giggling at how insistent that other anon was over how it was the best thing since sliced bread, and being horrified that someone put in this much work for something just to be busted and shit.>It all LOOKS very impressive, robust and detailed, but when you just as much as read through it you will notice it's all fuckedFortunately being 1500 pages long, few people will ever read it. I can see why he was so obstinately opposed to having the rules posted and abandoned thread shortly afterwards.
>>96584858>>96584869>The table has to be slavishly followed for EACH AND EVERY GOOD when establishing a new location and affecting pre-existing market, enjoyI remember asking if someone maybe has a tool for world gen using ACKS rules, since they are so fucking huge and clunky to use with actual, real dice rolls. Some Italian made one to generate locations and their garrison but openly stated that he couldn't care about the trade and commodities, because the sheer amount of work needed to script that even once would outweigh any benefits of using it. Because nobody sane is going to waste the amount of time and work needed to turn it into even a primitive excel sheet, not to mention more elegant generator
>>96584858>>96584883WELLif nothing else I can probably take the commodity list and use it for something.Maybe just have a very simple rule of high demand/insufficient supply based on common sense and fiat.I wonder how WWN handles this.
>>96584858>Trading a high demand good gives a 10% markupHOW DO YOU FAIL THIS HARD
>>96584897Don't bother.There are two actual lessons from ACKS trade rules:>Functional trade system in a tabletop RPG is so impractical to make without a computer, it defeats the purposeand>There is a reason why games of old told you "just wing it" and modern ones don't even bother with this stuffSo in the end of the day, you can make a sprawling set of rules detailing for each place trade value of coffe and tea (each separately) and then player asks what about the prices of yerba and all you can do is suicide yourself for over-focusing on details, rather than providing general rulings.
>>96584864GURPS Mass Combat is serviceable. It includes meaningful distinctions between troop types and terrain and various tactical and strategic choices and allows the players to meaningfully direct the battle since their PCs, individually, can't personally determine the outcome. It allows for different army elements to give direct superiority bonuses as well as counterplay/neutralizing elements when facing a disadvantageous composition. It makes elements like reconnaissance and quality of equipment actually valuable rather than being token suggestions at best. It's far from perfect, and it has some clunk itself, I won't deny. But it's laughable to shill ACKS as a superior alternative.
>>96584912>and then player asks what about the prices of yerba and all you can do is suicide yourself for over-focusing on details, rather than providing general rulings.I don't know why but the suicide yourself bit made me kekThis has been educational indeed on why not to bother, and I'm glad because I've often toyed with the idea whenever I got bored of running my usual campaigns. Thanks for the writeup anon, it made my night
>>96584908You get 5% per point of difference. By design, you can't get more than 3 points of difference as a maximum distance. Meaning you by design can't get more than 15% price difference.And the most common difference is 2 points, so 10% mark-up.This COULD work, if not for two facts:- prices themselves wouldn't be so low and the trade opportunities weren't handled the way they are (did I mention this system has a fucked up trade opportunity subsystem?)- raiding a random dungeon didn't net you a two years profit worth of a high-end, well-managed barony, not to mention a random trade goods deal (ironically, that raid is going to provide you with a random amount of trade goods, too, which are the only profitable goods to trade - because you "bought" them for 0 gp and thus no matter the sale price, you gonna earn more than buying them for any price at all and selling for higher one elsewhere)
>>96584864>>96584930Also >And we even got someone to get into ACKS. Your trolling isn't workingDude I'm sorry, the samefagging was painfully obvious. You were shilling it as the ideal system and saying "never heard of it before just found this thread lol" in the same post. It's time to give it up.
>>96584930NTA but I agree with you.I did not like GURPS mass combat at all because I found it cumbersome and too autistically detailed to be worth running.But I don't like ACKS mass combat a tall because I find it cumbersome, not at all detailed, and non-interactive. I could still work with GURPS mass combat as a player, or in a dedicated campaign for it. I could never do that with ACKS because it would still suck.
I didn't expect to find ACKSfag shitting up this thread goddamn. He's really gone to just about every board at this point.There's no one particular post worth replying to with this but for my own part on mass combat, I think there aren't any really good systems out there for emulating it outside of Vernois' approach to Kriegsspiel. I've glanced over dozens of alternative systems and none of them really get anywhere close to tactically engaging or making the players think like commanders.However, it is hard to use and understand and has a skill floor to it. Except in place of having lengthy rules it requires the GM/Referee to understand how warfare should be fought in a realized sense rather than through gamist terms and approaches. For example, if you're fighting a napoleonic battle and one line of troops is arrayed near some favorable terrain with hedgerows to hide behind and stone fences for cover, what does that practically mean? You can't say the enemy just has a -30% to hit them or they get 5+ cover saves or something, you have to make a call on how many casualties they're gonna take, on who's gonna win a fight and how hard, and you want to be able to envision exactly how that's working so you can describe it to the player and ask them what their orders will be. And there's no way a system can handle this because there are too many niggling nuances that would be too many to cover, but serve as focal points for tactics. What if the other side is supported by light cannons? What if the cover is more scattered and they're in a more rigid formation? What if you have a spotter balloon to survey the field? Tactics, I believe, are all about taking advantage of small inequalities and opportunities that will arise in battle.And for larger scale strategy, you need consistency to make it truly matter, which not even the original wargame offered.
>>96585166>There's no one particular post worth replying to with this but for my own part on mass combat, I think there aren't any really good systems out there for emulating it outside of Vernois' approach to Kriegsspiel. I've glanced over dozens of alternative systems and none of them really get anywhere close to tactically engaging or making the players think like commanders.Try either:Hollowe Earth Expedition (with or without Continuous Combat rules)OutgunnedTwilight 2000, 2.2 edThey work to about company-sized enemies, and after that, the real question is - why are you playing a TTRPG instead of a wargame about commanding regiments?
>>96585191>why are you playing a TTRPG instead of a wargame about commanding regiments?I run games where the players act as commanders for regiment-sized groups. There's a lot to do besides command them in battle that's interesting, I've found.
>>96585191>HEERead it and saw nothing for mass combat.>OUTGUNNED – Cinematic Action RPG>Outgunned is a cinematic action RPG inspired by the classics of the action and heist genre, from Die Hard to True Lies, passing through James Bond, Lethal Weapon, Kingsman, Ocean’s Eleven, Hot Fuzz, and the latest John Wick.This doesn't sound like what I'm looking for either. Did you misread something in my post?
The text based game Aura Clash let me enslave some bandits, enslave sailors to row for my pirate ships, out-demon a demonic cultist, and fuck a necromancer's catgirl ex-fiance to form some sort of sex ritual that turned his soul into fuel I used to power up.www.auraclash.com/adventure
>>96580765That's a lot of projection, bud.
>>96580910>inb4 this is not AIslop: hands are hidden, feet badly drawn, tits are too big, I mean carefully look at them..That image is nearly 10 years old. It's one of the oldest in the Kingdom Death range. No, it's not AI.
>>96578971Just say you are too retarded to do basic math or use a calculator.
>>96585433>Translation: I didn't bother beyond googling the titles
>>96579318Table of Contens for ACKS2 says 84 pages for magic, 71 for spell descriptions.56 pages for equipment, with equipment list & description being 30 pages.Illustrations may be taking some space too, but I'm not reading through it for that.
>>96578971>herp derp I don't know how to engage with people who play different games and hold different opinions than I do
