The Chaos Game

AI Art by @nightcafestudio

You know how a lot of modern games go...

Don't play an evil campaign; you will upset other players.

We have the default assumption of the heroic adventurer.

We don't recommend these alignments...

Games where some players are evil usually end up in fights and are not recommended.

Some players may be upset by specific themes or concepts, so we want to warn you...

I am an adult. I watch Game of Thrones and other shows. I read fantasy novels with a lot of dark stuff in them. My group is okay with this, or I play solo. I play Grand Theft Auto or other video games where you play an anti-social bad guy.

Some games feel like they have gotten so safe they are written with the "happy adventuring party" mindset for the entire game. As games get more mainstream, they are written more for children, and we see how we can play the roleplaying game reduced to the safest ways to play. Even some OSR games have fallen into this "all ages" mindset and assume the default "neutral or good" aligned party.

It is all about adventuring from level one to the maximum number, right?

Chaos is an Option

ACKS has three alignments, law, neutrality, and chaos.

Note that a character’s choice of Alignment doesn’t determine whether or not he takes care of his children, cheats on his wife, or steals from the merchant’s guild. It is concerned only with the weighty issue of where his allegiance lies in the grand struggles of existence. To have an alignment of Lawful or Chaotic is to have chosen a side in this perpetual struggle.

-ACKS, page 37

So the alignments are not strict guardrails of behavior, and you can deviate from what your alignment says you should do, based on your character and personality. Alignment is the side you choose in the eternal war between order and chaos, or if you choose neither. And the game allows you to play any alignment.

You can build a chaos kingdom and rule over beastmen in you like, or play as one. Some of the modules have opportunities to team up with one faction of the dungeon's monsters against other factions, and if they like you enough - guess what? You now have a tribe of monsters following you around you can use as a small army, provided you pay to upkeep them and figure out where they will live. There may be roleplaying work needed as well in managing and befriending them, but if you are chaos-aligned, that is what you can do.

Chaos does not just walk into a dungeon looking for loot; they are also looking for recruits.

They got some serious strut in ACKS.

But no! Monsters in rooms are there to kill! They are challenge ratings and encounters! What about XP and treasure! You are ruining the balance of this encounter and all future ones in this module if you can befriend an encounter and use them in campaign play!

An even lawful character could befriend the monsters and help them out. A lawful alignment could let them go after the fight, but a lawful alignment could be used to betray the monsters and wipe them out, saying that the world does not need more chaotic creatures to be let loose to terrorize others.

This may seem like a brutal example, but ask yourself, could you see a lawful character in a gritty fantasy novel or Game of Thrones-type show do this? I totally could. It would be one of those "shocking moments," but it would not be outside the character's alignment in the war between chaos and good.

Wait? Lawful can break a promise and betray others?

Is Chaos acting more lawful here?

Yes, and it shows a fascinating way of looking at alignment, and I love it. Alignment is not an "uh-uh, no, you can't!" Alignment is your allegiance to the perpetual struggle. Whatever you justify are your choices, and if you can justify heinous acts under lawful, well, those are your character's choices and live with the consequences.

This is also life. Lawful nations and rules make horrible choices to do evil in the name of the greater good every day. In many games, alignment is a reason to turn your brain off and let alignment choose your actions. In ACKS, alignment is the ultimate justification for your actions.

Working Together of Apart

Lawful and chaotic characters can work together towards a common goal, and alignment is not a barrier to cooperation or being in the same party. At low levels, alignment will be more of a guide to behavior, but at higher levels, when choices are being made about what world the characters wish to create, alignment becomes more critical.

If one of your associates begins creating a chaotic stronghold, and you are the lawful scion of good - how do you react? You may be forced to fight each other, often on the battlefield, with the forces you built in each of your kingdoms.

A traditional role-playing game would typically paint this as a bad thing. Please don't fight! Work together! Keep the party happy and unified!

In ACKS, these are your endgame stories. You used to work together, but now friends have become enemies, and the final battle shall decide everything. This is cool, and the epic conclusions of both these characters' stories shall be played out on the table.

Perhaps when the party is split along law and chaos arcs, the players without characters in each story can roll up new ones and play on the other side for a while, and vice versa. Don't fear splitting the campaign; embrace it and go with the story. ACKS has domain management systems, and you can always back burner a few characters and say, "they are running their kingdom," and play others.

Or, law and chaos may find ways to work together as they build their holdings. Perhaps they are far apart and never interact. But the characters always know each other and can call on each other for aid if the cause - or price - is right.

Alignment is Much More

If alignment in most B/X and D&D style games is a glass of water, in ACKS, it is an ocean. It is OK to play chaos; you can mix party alignments, work together, fight, work apart, or mix things up. An alignment is a storytelling tool that gives you reasons for what you do, but it doesn't control them.

What matters here is the story.

And every part from the beginning to the end.

Mods: SRD Style Skills and Ability Checks

AI Art by @nightcafestudio

I like the idea of setting target numbers for challenges and actions, and this comes from the proficiency system in ACKS and the combat system of the target number and roll equal or higher.

I also might make a "generic proficiency check" system by setting the target number and letting characters with the proficiency add their level to the roll. A lot of the proficiencies in ACKS have fixed target numbers, such as roll 11+, but I can see turning this into an OGL-style "skill check" system with DC numbers from 1 to 30.

This opens up a lot of skills to interesting uses and aligns the game closer to the 3.5 SRD style of skill checks. Lockpicking in ACKS is a +2 to a proficiency skill check, and you can do this in one round (instead of one turn). Under a more SRD-style system, the referee sets a target number, and the player rolls 1d20 + level + optional ability score modifiers.

Ability Score Checks

You could do a similar thing with ability score checks. Set a target number and add the character's ability score modifier to the roll. If you wanted to do a more heroic route, you could add the character's level to the roll, so high-level characters are jumping pits without trouble where low-level characters would fall right in. This may make characters "too heroic," but this fits the Heroic Fantasy Handbook style of characters.

Then again, you could always make that pit a bit wider and make that a 15 or 20-foot jump and raise that target number accordingly. High-level characters should be doing incredible feats of daring.

You could also tamp the modifiers down by making them a +1 per two levels, which would net a +10 bonus at a score of  18 and a level of 14, which works ((14 / 2) + 3 = 10). That keeps a DC 30 check to level 14 and an 18 score on a natural 20 (sans modifiers).

Adding level is what they do in the ACKS acrobatics skill, which feels right. A DC 30 check at level 14 with an 18 would require you to roll 16 or higher, so a 25% chance (sans modifiers). Also, you need to have the proficiency to make the roll (in most cases).

SRD-Like Skills

If I used a mod like this, I would apply it to every proficiency on the list, such as bribery, animal training, climbing, lockpicking, loremastery, and everything else. One of the places it gets tricky is in opposed checks, but you could say the highest roll wins. In a case like bribery, the referee must come up with a target number based on the situation, request, and target and modify the number by the amount offered.

Target Numbers are Good

Does this system change much? Setting target numbers for checks? Not that much, and you can assume this is how ACKS works anyways just by how consistently the rest of the rules are put together and work. It is not a far jump to say, "Make an N+ roll, and add your ability score modifier!" I am using this as my task resolution method, regardless. This feels how ACKS core works, just like the rules presented in the proficiency system, and just like combat.

This also opens up every skill for dynamic "the referee picks the target number" checks. I like that a lot, and it simplifies my character sheets since most skills can have an assumed use. For skills that modify to-hits or other attributes, they still work as written, though other uses for them may open up with this "skill check" system.

The Heroic Option

Adding the level to the roll with the "heroic" option? That is a more significant change, and it kicks open the DC range to 30. I may not want to use that and just set 1 to 20 target numbers and add an ability score modifier, and not add the "heroic level bonus" to the roll. For a Heroic Fantasy game where you want level 10 mages jumping 20-foot chasms, I say yes, add your character level to the roll. 

For more grounded, ACKS-like OSR-style games, adding levels to proficiency and ability rolls may be overkill, and I would stick closer to ACKS rules. Or at least come up with a balanced compromise.

Semi-Heroic Modifiers

The "semi-heroic" system of adding +1 per 2 levels (round down) may be a better compromise, still giving a level bonus to the roll but keeping the entire system to the 1 to 30 target number range for max-level 14 characters. This way, a level 6 character gets a +3 modifier to all ability and proficiency rolls, reflecting skill and experience but keeping the raw modifier down to a manageable range.

This also reflects that higher-level characters will be better at proficiencies than lower-level characters.

With the semi-heroic option, level 8 characters get a +4 to jump that 11+ pit, but it still is a threat. Level 14 gets a +7, but this is like a King Arthur-level hero we are talking about, so a 4+ to make it across. This seems fair and gives higher-level characters a slight bonus while protecting the 1-20 target number range, even at the highest levels.

I would still make a natural dice roll of one a failure for everyone, regardless of what system or option I use (none, heroic, or semi-heroic).

Of all of them, semi-heroic feels the best to me. I prefer to keep modifiers under control and lower overall. I dislike modifiers so high they force me into a "DC arms race" with the players.

Played Two Ways, Opens up Proficiencies

This system opens up the ACKS proficiency list to be more like SRD skills and a little less like, "if you have the proficiency, you get an 11+ to do this one thing." If you like the SRD skills and how they work, and the entire "set a DC" system, this may be a great way to mod the rules to be a little more to your liking.

Adventurer Conqueror King System

Why ACKS?

This is one of those questions that has yet to really have an answer. I have other awesome B/X and OSR games that just beg to be played, such as:

• Castles & Crusades
• Labyrinth Lord
• Old School Essentials
• Dungeon Crawl Classics
• Swords & Wizardry

Castles & Crusades has to be my favorite from this list, it is a throwback game that has simplified out all the tables and charts, and you can play straight from an index card. To me, C&C is my 5E and PF2 replacement; it scales to high levels, does everything from AD&D to 5E, and has that higher-powered epic fantasy feeling. It is more straightforward than both those games too. C&C feels like that "mainstream fantasy" genre, so thus it takes on that same Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Mystara feeling.

This is the same as Dungeon Crawl Classics; this game has a particular flavor and feeling. This is Appendix N, gonzo wild deadly insane you have never seen this before, total craziness. This game has wild swings of power, on the level of Savage Worlds, and also instant death and campaigns that are inspired by 1970's drug trip purple planets through TV-like devices that are portals to other worlds.

Old School Essentials, Swords & Wizardry, and Labyrinth Lord have a B/X and AD&D mashed generic feeling; they are clay that does anything but without imparting any specific flavor to the campaign. They are a lot like GURPS in a fantasy gaming sense, generic fantasy rules that can do it all - but they do not give you much to work with in terms of a specific world or setting.

So we have the mainstream fantasy, gonzo fantasy, and generic fantasy genres covered.

ACKS is a kingdom-building game at its heart and very similar to Labyrinth Lord and AD&D in feeling and genealogy. The game is built for three tiers of play, the adventure level, the conqueror level, and the dominion level. Tweaks are made to the spells to prevent them from wrecking mass battles, serving as technology replacements (continual light streetlights), or giving magic too much power (armies of charmed followers). The game feels like a great fantasy 4X game with evolving play.

Any of these other games could do that with a few tweaks.

So again, why ACKS?

Flavor

My first answer would be flavor. You get a lot of cool stuff in ACKS that you don't get in other games. There are specialized classes unique to each race, and this is like having a "Wakandan Spearfighter" class in a Marvel RPG that only Wakandans can take. It makes all the races in the game special and unique and stands out as the only way you can play some classes. Elves don't have the "fighter, mage, thief, cleric" choices - those are human classes. An ancestry looks at the world and does things differently, which is flavorful and fantastic.

And I am a bit tired of the infinite combination RPGs out there; sure, you can be anything - but does any of it really mean much? Do those "race + class" combinations tell us anything about the world, or are game designers giving up on writing unique settings and letting anybody do anything - you figure it out.

Elven paladin, drow paladin, lizardman paladin, halfling paladin, fairy paladin, dwarf paladin, goblin paladin, gnoll paladin, ghost paladin, undead paladin, shadow paladin, vampire paladin, demon paladin,  machine-forged paladin, bugbear paladin, orc paladin, kobold paladin, succubus paladin, and it just feels like an overloaded buffet plate after a while and two things happen:

• Paladins become generic and bland.
• Cultures lose anything unique and special.

Some of those combinations are cool and special, but that does not mean they can "never happen." Just when they do, they will be unique and one-of-a-kind things. Players can still choose these and work with the referee to play them, but for the rest of the world, there will likely never be a kobold paladin ever again.

That makes players feel special.

That also frees up referees to allow this creativity in their games.

The gaming group owns the game. Not a company. Not people on the Internet. Not what a virtual tabletop supports. Not a popular opinion. And not what people on YouTube say and feel.

Players and referees are the ultimate game designers.

That is an old-school mantra.

If humans are the only race that can be paladins, that does not "close the door" on other races having unique "divine warrior" classes. ACKS has a class design system, so create the unholy knight class for the demons, and you now have a fantastic race-specific class with powers that are not paladin powers, and the class design adds to the ancestry and culture of the demon-folk in the game. Races with "divine fighters" will do things differently depending on their outlook and faith, and some may not even believe in the "divine warrior" thing at all - preferring to do things differently.

Also, any chance of creating conflict with the paladin class is gone once anyone can be one. You may say in your world, elves feel humans are too busy "spreading faith by the sword" and do not want to associate with violent divine warriors or see that as a "human" thing.

Also, some peoples see things differently. Maybe the fae sees "paladins" as "mage clerics" and combine divine and arcane magic without the heavy armor and sword-swinging holy smite throwing armored nuts.

Simplicity

While C&C is a more straightforward game, ACKS feels more traditional, with the saving throw tables and other B/X staples. Compared to 5E and Pathfinder 2, it is way more simple in design and approach and, like Swords & Wizardry, leaves how tasks and challenges should be resolved up to the group.

Note, if you follow the proficiency rules, typically, the referee will set a target number, such as 11+, 15+, or 18+, and the character will roll to meet or beat it, possibly adding an attribute modifier. This is the "task resolution pattern" set in that part of the rules and feels like the "most ACKS way" to me, but nowhere in the rules does it say you have to do things this way. 

 Another point about ACKS is level is not added to the roll for task resolution, like it is in C&C (sometimes), and selecting a proficiency twice (or more) is how to add +4 to the roll (each time).

One issue I had with C&C early on was how it forced me to pick primary and secondary attributes, and the system forced me to always feel half or more of my ability scores could have been better. The difference between a primary and a secondary is six points (30% better chance of success), and I felt the system felt a bit too punitive to characters without a DEX primary that wanted to jump pits. I was forced to set a lot of "negative" difficulties to compensate. Yes, C&C unifies all saves and skill rolls under one system, but a few things happen:

• The system feels too simplified.
• The referee loses the ability to set target numbers and only chooses modifiers.
• Classes at higher levels feel similar in capability and lack specialization.
• The question always becomes, "Does my level add to the roll?"

With ACKS, you are back in B/X where you decide the target number, can set it once for everyone (11+ to jump the pit), and then roll and add DEX modifiers as needed - or if a class were acrobatic or had that training, give them a bonus. I can also judge the degree of failure better; failing by a few points may allow a "second chance" roll. It also allows me to award situational bonuses easier; wearing boots of speed on the pit jump would give a +4. I control the target number and challenge, which lets me tweak the difficulty constantly.

I like setting target numbers for the challenge, which is a critical difference between ACKS and C&C.

With other B/X-style games, you typically "roll under" an ability score on a d20 and apply situational modifiers. Again, the referee does not control the target number with "roll under," making high ability scores too strong and low ones too weak. Setting a target number and applying an ability score modifier is fairer to the middle-range scores and applies a "bell curve" to the success chance as you get higher and lower. This also lessens the inflationary pressure on always having high ability scores.

Jumping that 11+ pit with a DEX of 18? Roll an 8+ (65% chance of success instead of 90%).

Jumping it with a DEX of 3? Roll a 14+ (35% chance of success instead of 15%).

Setting

ACKS is set in the Middle Ages. A lot of B/X games assume the "comes later" Renaissance. The technology level of the Renaissance feels too high for fantasy, and the themes of that age are nations and colonial exploration. ACKS assumes a "Conan-like" past of empires that used evil magic, and civilization may not make it - that is up to the players and the kingdoms they build.

In fact, the Middle Ages is all about this - rebuilding after the fall of the Roman Empire. There are lots of lost cities, temples, shrines, and other construction all over the place - and much of the land has fallen to the wilderness or banditry. This is a better setting for a "kingdom builder" game since, by the Renaissance, all the land had been taken, and the rise of nation-states was happening. The Renaissance ended with the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, and the world was being explored and conquered.

In the default ACKS setting, the Auran Empire is still a powerful force - but in decline and collapse. This is the "Roman Empire" style faction in the setting. It is a sort of more Conan-style world mixed with low fantasy with an Eastern flair.

A lot of the legacy D&D settings feel over-settled. Mystara feels like modern-age Europe with borders on borders and even sea borders. Greyhawk and the Realms have a little more open space, but still, they feel settled and static since these settings felt written to host adventures and not as kingdom-building spaces.

But I like the concept of "the old empire was evil and corrupt." Then a collapse happens, and we start as civilization begins to explore and spread again. We only have a collection of beginning towns and cities and a loose alliance or adversaries with lots of political infighting.

The default setting is a bit more political and happens during the collapse of civilization, so this is sort of like the "during the apocalypse" genre of storytelling. ACKS can also do a long-after "coming out of the Dark Ages" game well, which feels like an exciting genre to explore.

There are no real nations, or if they are, they are corrupt and in decline. The rulers are small-minded, just keeping what they have together. The evil kingdoms are numerous and out there, waiting for a new domain to reach its borders and the wars to start. When the current characters set up their domains, new characters can begin and play in an evolving world. Characters can have heirs and children, and those could be characters in a 20-year-after game, with the map changed and new things going on in a familiar world the players built.

This is a 4X game with B/X rules, and I love that.

Welcome!

 Hello again!