Wraith's Pass (Olle Skogren)
ACKSII adventure
I am reviewing these in the order they were submitted. For my review criteria, please check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (two page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews brief.
The final ACKS adventure on the docket, thank the Lord. This one does not list how many adventurers or what levels it's been written for, simply writing:
How to Use This Module?This is a mighty but lightly occupied border fortress of an evil realm. A conventional army will have a very hard time taking it in a siege, but commando action by heroes is possible. In a full scale war the fortress could be garrisoned by 1920 troops, a full brigade. It is also possible to run this as an independent mountain realm, add more forces that raid the surrounding lands and it becomes a sort of super-bandit fortress.
So....Do As Thou Wilt Is the Whole of the Law, I guess?
This has nine encounter areas spread over three maps that I find ugly, off-putting, and nearly indecipherable. I mean, I assume they are "decipherable," but I'm not taking the time to do so.
Not really sure this is an "adventure" site, but there's stuff to kill, and since I'm unqualified to judge a system where the "sorcerer-wraith" lists proficiencies of "Battle Magic," "Black Lore of Zahar," "Engineering," and "Military Strategy 2," I'll let other reviewers judge whether this is any good.
Assume it's "playable" ACKS. Three(ish) stars.
Pity. Conceptually, the "evil border fortress" adventure site has good potential. Certainly worked in Lord of the Rings, and you could probably crib the factional infighting among the garrison thing without getting caught. Putting a truly giant spider in the metaphorical basement might be a bit too obvious, though. :)
ReplyDeleteThere is one explicit and one implicit source of infighting in the fortress; a plastered over tomb holding the mummies of the previous masters who'll want to retake their fortress if awoken, and the orc second in command who's seen the wraith execute many of his predecessors (ACKS wraiths and specters outside tombs or evil temples have to kill the living to sustain themselves).
DeleteJD is not engaging with ACKS modules because they look too alien, which is a mistaken assumption. Standard practice in the OSR has been using modules from all sorts of sources and just slotting in things that are equivalent if you squint. If I run a LL module and see an "Eye Tyrant" I don't throw my hands up in confusion. Sometimes precision is necessary for the game to work as intended, but the important part is in my opinion internal consistency within the campaign.
I am not engaging with ACKS modules because I do not know ACKS well enough to make an objective assessment of the nuts-and-bolts of game play. With regard to a contest of this sort, I am inclined to be as objective as possible, without regard to whether or not an idea is "cool" or "interesting." My criteria is "can this be played as written? Is it stocked appropriately?"
DeleteI don't know whether or not "Earth's Teeth" or "Summon Hellhound" are appropriate for this adventure, in part because I don't know ACKS, but ESPECIALLY because you didn't list a level range. What I DO know is that if I picked this up to run for my home campaign, I would be forced to guess at whether or not it would be a satisfying evening's play, and that this adventure, as is, leaves more than a few questions unanswered. Unanswered questions mean extra work for the DM. And since I am picking up someone else's module instead of writing my own precisely because I'm not interested in doing "extra work," this one doesn't really meet my needs...regardless of whether or not it's written for ACKS.
I had no idea ACK was so popular. But clearly it needs its own contest.
ReplyDeleteMaybe its easy to translate TSR era D&D to ACK but it sure doesn't sound like you can translate ACS to D&D without the books.
I talk about this a bit in my summary thoughts (coming soon!)...ACKS appears to have become popular amongst a certain strand of players, just as OSRIC has, and OSE has, and Seven Voyages of Zylarthen has, etc., etc.
DeleteWhat all these "non-D&D" D&D games have in common is A) ongoing current support for the system (i.e. the publishers are actively doing work and promoting them), coupled with B) an active community of players looking/willing to engage with fellow players.
Mm. Maybe I need a blog post on this subject.
ACKS2 is compatible, it looks alien I think for three main reasons:
Delete1) Deliberate de-coupling from the OGL means many things got renamed, including classes, spells, and other D&D staples (Wisdom -> Willpower, Cleric -> Crusader, Hold Person -> Halt Humanoids).
2) Optional rules people use as standard. Proficiencies are something between feats and non-weapon proficiencies from AD&D2e. They differentiate characters but nothing breaks if you ignore them completely. A helpful ACKS module (with a more generous page count) would give a short conversion guide at the start or end. If I wrote the sorcerer-wraith for something like OSE in the shortest way possible it'd be "9 HD wraith with 9th level mage abilities".
3) Conquest/economic focus, since fortresses, natural resources, populations, etc. themselves are prizes to be won during adventure their value has to be carefully considered (and helpfully explicated) just like traditional treasures have to be in any system. In this module I include (an admittedly ugly) map so a field battle can be fought on it, and spend a lot of the word count on the different parts of the fortress in case the players want to tear it down with spells or siege engines. Something that also has to be explicit is where the money and supplies for the garrison is coming from, because one option to weaken it is to ravage the farms supplying it (if you can circumvent the fortress) which would cause the living defenders to starve or desert. These details are ofc. superfluous if you're not running that kind of game.
Indeed, these same elements (field battles, supply and resources, siege and starvation, etc.) can be a part of MOST D&D-style campaigns, assuming the world-building is elaborate enough, and the players (and DM) are thoughtful about their approach.
DeleteThat you have written "a mighty but lightly occupied border fortress of an evil realm" that can only be taken by "heroes" engaged in "commando action" is not really the issue. The issue is one of WHY...so what? Presumably this fits with some sort of pseudo-medieval campaign world that has castles and fortresses dotting the countryside...why do the PCs need or want to burgle this particular one? Is this just what they do? Sneaking into castles for robbery and murder?
For me, without purpose, this one lacks verisimilitude. Dungeons (or adventure sites) are DESTINATIONS for players...there's a reason to go there and "do" all the "D&D stuff." An adventure does not have to be a dungeon (it can be a "situation," for example) but it always has something that draws the players to it like a moth to flame...some tangible "gain" that will get them to risk life and limb.
This is just a castle, guarding a pass. So what? Are we at war with these guys? Are they burning our villages? Will antagonizing them (by attacking their stronghold) start a war? Is that what we want?
Sorry, man. This is D&D (or, at least, supposed to be D&D compatible). We don't just knock over castles, just like we don't enter a village and start killing the villagers and looting the local shops. We COULD do that, but that's not really the premise of the game.
Though maybe it is with ACKS?
I don't think your estimation of the module is unfair.
DeleteKnocking over castles and pillaging cities or entire counties for its loot is definitely a part of ACKS, and you need a proper army to do a proper job of it.
D&D evolved from a wargame, and though that part is usually vestigial now, it's still deeply embedded in its DNA. Fighters in AD&D still get multiple attacks against normal men, because one of their strengths is attacking massed formations of soldiers. At 9th level they attract armed followers if they establish a stronghold. This implies Gygax was still thinking about the wargame aspect when he wrote AD&D, unless he meant those things as decoration.
The rules for multiple attacks against normal men in AD&D come directly from OD&D, which evolved directly from Chainmail (where a "hero" would attack as four men and a "superhero" would attack as eight...this scales right to the 4th and 8th level level titles). OD&D was certainly "backwards compatible" with the Chainmail wargame, and the OD&D supplement "Swords & Spells" (by Gygax) was Chainmail's update. I don't think wargaming was considered "vestigial" or "decorative" by Gygax...even in the "Advanced" version of the game.
DeleteThat being said, the idea of "leveling" based on "adventuring" was a type of activity separate and apart from battlefield combat. You were fighting one or the other, not both. Even Mentzer's "War Machine" rules only awarded very paltry x.p. for mass combat, and then only for commanding forces. If sieging and pillaging is a large and integrated part of ACKS gameplay, I consider that a divergence.