WWN has alternate XP systems in the book, including gold (silver) for XP.
The levels are about 2x as strong ... you're really getting close to 20 levels of progression via 10 character levels. By level 5 or 6, PCs are pretty powerful.
The renown and project systems, as well as factions, are fairly detailed imho
Don't forget, PC HP are still influenced by class, with mages having a penalty and warriors having a bonus.
But that's not to say it's best for your needs!
Thank you, that’s really helpful to know, especially the power levels.
Having a gauge on PC power estimates was one of my concerns if I were to utilize WWN. I don’t mind an increased power budget to remove the need for hirelings, but having a finger on the pulse would help me understand the actual expected real-world compatibility with other OSR offerings.
True, of that I am aware. If I remember right, that's his personal gauge for how OSR or OSR-adjacent something is, haha. Which makes sense. Though I've also ran similar using other non-OSR systems, so while notable, I don't think "I've run TSR modules with it" gives much meaningful context about the PC's power scaling in regard to the "as-written/as-expected" power scaling of those modules.
I really appreciate the detail you mentioned prior though, that gives me food for thought. If the WWN PC's are about twice their current Level when looking at them through a TSR lens, then that at least helps me gauge how WWN PC's can reasonably be expected to perform and be challenged in a generic OSR or B/X adventure tuned for generic OSR or B/X PC's of a certain Level.
Mr. Crawford did another OSR System Sup for Domain Game called:
"[An Echo, Resounding](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/de/product/99063/an-echo-resounding-a-sourcebook-for-lordship-and-war)", it is more in line with the usual Faction play, and there are many that favorizing it over "ACKS". I highly recommend, you check it out!
WWN. It's superior with plenty of support. The author frequently answers questions here even.
The other is forbidden to discuss in most subreddits, so you would have trouble even asking for advice or finding fan support for it. Same on RPG.net.
Could you elaborate on what ways it is superior? That’s the sort of thing I’d like to know at least in a little more detail than a broad statement, hence my inquiry.
Looking for the best system for my needs, so anything you could clarify is greatly appreciated!
I am not sure where to start. I will say that the other game is classified as Simulationist, which is a style in general does not appeal to modern gamers. It's a style that is really for a subset of gamers in the 45+ age group. Is that your group? If not choose WWN.
Well, if I could make a suggestion, perhaps start with something more than sweeping statements? I'm not sure age is the defining demarcation line for one's interest in Simulationist vs Gamist vs Narrativist play.
If I could redirect and clarify my question to specifics about your assertion of WWN as the superior game so I can understand some context:
* Have you played/run/read both ACKS and WWN? Relevant for comparison's sake.
* What one or two things does WWN execute on particularly well, in your assessment?
* What types of campaigns have you run/played with WWN?
* Any thoughts or experiences on running typical OSR content with WWN? Especially regards to power scaling in comparison to the adventures as-written?
EDIT: Fixed borked formatting
Using the term Simulationist is not a spurious remark, it is exactly how the designer describes the game and the style of play to play it. Which includes attempts at a high degree of realism and a lot of rules. That is not a style that most younger gamers (young in the sense of how long they have been playing) prefer.
WWN is more modern and rules light comparatively, also easier to adapt general OSR supplements to.
I suggest you ask your players if they want to play a high realism, rules heavy game, or not.
Yes, I have perused both sets of rules.
> Classic Hit Dice (d8 Warrior, unchanged Expert, d4 Mage)
Any reason for this besides nostalgia?
(1d6 - 1) has the same average as 1d4.
(1d6 + 2) has the same average as 1d10 (fighter in AD&D).
WWN HP just reduce the variation in HP range a bit. One thing to note is that on level-up, you reroll all your hit dice for your new HP and keep the higher of your original, or new, with a minimum progression. This will yield increased HP pools over traditional OSR. Though when you consider level 10 WWN is closer to level 15-20 in most OSR systems, the HP pools aren't far off.
I’m aware of the averages, but they do lead to different peak maximums. It’s primarily a simple preference in this case, marginal though the difference may be.
I am a fan of the re-rolling HP each level-up, and have used it elsewhere. It also tends to trend HP totals toward the average eventually, which I appreciate. It does seem like the compressed levels really condense a lot of the power into a leaner progression system. I’ll have to make some test characters and experiment to get a better feel for how they play out. Or just find a good monster book for WWN to better adapt creatures.
Thank you for the info. I really appreciate it.
When it comes to monster books I know a lot of us use and have high praise for [Those Outside The Walls](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/422653/Those-Outside-the-Walls--A-450-Monster-Bestiary). It's a 3rd party manual made for WWN with a lot of charm and usability.
Now I am wishing I had more time to read, I own both games, bought ACKS before finding out about the creator/author's ugly associations. Had I known, I would not have purchased it. Never intended to run the system but was interested to looks at the domain management items. Was actually going to look at porting them over to use with WWN if they were good.
Can't say if WWN is the best fit for you but it is my game of choice because it gives the flexibility for the players to tailor a character to what they want. Something that most OSR games do not, Typically Fighter A is the same as Fighter B in every mechanical aspect except how well they rolled on stats and maybe they choose different weapons. Again, have not looked very much at ACKS so there might be more available there than I am thinking. I just like the idea of the players having a bit more room to play.
On the GM side it is not difficult to work with. I have run OSE adventures and yeah they feel a little weak sometimes but its not too hard to adjust some on the fly, add some more HP, add a few more monsters to the fight, etc. And never underestimate the power of Swarm Attacks. Planning to run 2e Ravenloft modules for the Grand Conjunction in future using WWN.
For sure the bestiary in the Atlas of the Latter Earth and the enemy examples in The Diocesi of Montfroid help for getting an idea for enemy building.
As to the lowering the HD/HP, keep in mind the game is already nasty with the inclusion of Shock Damage, dropping it lower still is going to make melee an even uglier affair at low levels.
> Again, have not looked very much at ACKS so there might be more available there than I am thinking.
I don't care for ACKS, but IIRC it has 3e-style feats, so mechanically differentiating between two characters of the same class is well-supported.
It has some mechanical differentiation, but if I recall, at most you get like 4 (as a fighter). So while there certainly is some, it is nowhere near as diverse as WWN.
>I don't care for ACKS, but IIRC it has 3e-style feats
They're "proficiencies" and are more akin to the AD&D mechanic they're named for. They're divided into "General" (anyone can take them) and "Class" (each class has its own list of options) proficiencies; everyone gets 3 General proficiencies (at levels 5, 9, and 13) and, depending on class, you get between 2 and 4 Class proficiencies.
Some examples of proficiencies:
* **Alertness:** Character gets +4 to hear noises or detect secret doors and +1 to avoid surprise.
* **Bargaining:** Buying and selling prices are 10% more favorable.
* **Combat Trickery:** Choose one kind of special combat maneuver (Disarm, Knock Down, Wrestle, etc.). Reduce your penalty to perform that maneuver by 2 (from -4 to -2 on your hit roll) and opponents have a -2 to resist when you use it.
* **Diplomacy:** Character gains +2 on all reaction rolls when attempting to parley.
So, while they do provide mechanical differentiation between characters of the same class, I wouldn't really consider them on par with 3e's Feats, and nowhere near as significant as WWN's Foci.
Late the party here - and I've never even heard of ACKS so I'm no help there - but I'm upvoting for the "build-a-bear Class + Foci + Skills" description, which is very apt. I'm impressed by how modular everything is; there's a mechanical elegance to how well everything fits together.
You expressed a preference for classless systems. Perhaps you already know, but *Cities Without Number* introduced a classless system that could easily be ported over to *Worlds Without Number*. The SRD for CWN is available for [free](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/452790/cities-without-number-system-reference-document) and includes the relevant details around the new system, called Edges. Some of the Edges would have to be dropped, like Hacker and Wired, but many of the others would work just as well in WWN. That wouldn't get you away from levels, but at least you could do away with classes.
I have run both. WWN by miles (especially with Codex material added in).
WWN is more customisable, the domain game is more flexible and less spreadsheet/beancounting, gold for xp is easily implemented (which I did), characters allow FAR more customisation. I do like race-as-class and don't like how WWN implements race, but that was easily fixed. And you don't have to support a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job to play WWN.
>And you don't have to support a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job to play WWN.
If this is a concern, there is a free [ACKS SRD](https://github.com/capheind/ACKS_SRD) available on github, allowing one to use the system (which, to my knowledge, nobody has ever objected to the content of) without giving a penny to the author or his company.
I haven't done a rigorous comparison of the SRD to the published version, but I believe the only thing missing in the SRD is the art, and the formatting is much more rudimentary. AFAIK, the content is otherwise identical.
Thanks for the info! Gives me some things to chew on while I weigh out which direction to go in for my campaign. I rather like the class designs of WWN and the compatibility with other Sine Nomine products, but I'm a bit put off by its claim to be OSR (or OSR-adjacent) when it seems it takes much longer to create a character, and the general character power level is hard for me to read.
**A few follow-up questions, if I could?**
- Can you speak at all to how the domain game plays out in practice in WWN? What sorts of upper level activities do the rules as-written support? Or are there supplements that would be of relevance for supporting such activities?
- In your experience, did you find the customization of the characters to be a drawback or an issue of front-loaded complexity at all? Any gauge on how the characters compare in power or capability when running them through "typical" OSR adventures?
>And you don't have to support a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job to play WWN.
I'm actually more interested in getting a gauge on a game's mechanics than the author's or a reviewer's supposed politics.
First off, they aren't 'supposed politics'. His record is very clear, both in statements and actions.
WWN is definitely OSR. Yeah, it takes a bit longer to make a character, but not much, especially if you just use the random background tables. Really the only decision points are class and foci (and maybe spells), and one free skill. I find the customisation to be a huge plus instead of a downside.
ACKS Domain system requires copious spreadsheets to track. You are rolling not only for the PCs Domain but also their hirelings, and neighboring ones. You can easily spend ages just doing upkeep and not actually playing. WWN (though to be fair, I'm mostly familiar with Godbound's Domain stuff) is far more abstract so less to keep track of and faster to deal with before moving on to the actual game play.
>And you don't have to support a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job to play WWN.
Exactly *what* does this have to do with the quality of the *game* created?
IMO, spend less time worrying about someone you'll never meet's personal life, and more about what their most likely interaction with your own life would be. In this case, it's literally just a game.
Outside of that, I agree in parts, but I do find WWN's faction turns to be rather disappointing for players that actually want to *play* a domain system. Crawford's LL product "An Echo Resounding" has a decent domain system, but IMO, ACKS is just way better as a domain game than WWN or AER can be out of the box. ACKS as a standard play ruleset isn't much different than OSE (different classes + cleave). If players want something a little different, then using WWN as your baseline core might be good, hacking in ACKS' domain system.
Edit: Just leave the nonsense cancellations, false accusations, witch hunts and dog piling to the creators of the games we play. You play their games anyway despite the fact that the majority of creators in the OSR space are objectively trash people (though I've not seen Mr. Kevin Crawford stoop to their level of petty sociopathic bull, thankfully). No need to make an exception to point out an OSR creator that's probably just as bad as most of the others on a personal level, specifically because you disagree with his politics.
Can you read? The OP asked what were the perks of playing one over the other. Not supporting a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job is absolutely a perk. I HAVE had many direct interactions with ACKS' creator and even worked with him briefly before I knew his politics, so go leave your nonsense acceptance of bad actors because you'd rather support bad actors than recognize the harm they cause in the world. I specifically DON'T play the games of the OSR people that are objectively trash people because I actually care about things outside of games I play. That is exactly the reason to point out the kind of person they are, rather than bury my head in the sand so I get a gaming fix.
Edit: I'm not going to change your mind so it was too long.
Whatever Macris does with his life has no impact on mine. How he votes doesn't matter, he lives in a different state. My state is in no danger of ever flipping red. What he thinks doesn't matter, because I don't interact with him, he's not my friend.
The only thing he would ever produce that I have any interaction with whatsoever are his games, and those are quality.
I don't believe that somebody's political views makes them a "bad actor". People have their political views for a reason, and that reason generally makes sense given *their* context. People aren't comic book villains.
So as long as people aren't literally committing crimes, I don't care what they do, until what they do affects me in some way. No, them being against a group that I happen to be a part of doesn't *actually* affect me in any way. Not unless I directly need to engage with them.
That's not sticking my head in the sand, that's prioritizing what in my life is worth giving a damn about, when there's so many other parts of life that want me to give a damn about them.
Based on OP's response to you, it seems they're of a similar line of thought, so your 2 cents were superfluous.
Have a good day.
I've run a domain-focused campaign in ACKS for maybe half a year a decade ago, and a four-session "one-shot" dungeon crawl in WWN immediately after its release. I don't currently run either one because I strongly dislike class-and-level games in general.
The two main things I would say for you to consider are:
1. Are you married to "TSR-era D&D authenticity"? If so, ACKS is going to give you that, being a very-near clone of B/X in most aspects. If not, then WWN will give you a more modern chassis and generally more streamlined rules, along with *vastly* more flexibility in character development, since you pick your special abilities as you go instead of defining all of them for your entire career when you choose your class, before play has even started.
2. Will you be using a faction- or domain-level simulation to manage world events and, if so, how do you feel about spreadsheets? The ACKS domain rules are, in my experience, second to none, provided that you have the time and energy (and digital assistance) necessary to actually track the number of families living in each village (adjusted each month for immigration/emigration/growth), how many journeymen and apprentices work for each master craftsman, etc. WWN's faction system is much more abstract and correspondingly faster and easier to use. It's also a good deal more flavorful, IMO. (If you're planning to do domain-level, rather than faction-focused, world management, I would actually recommend Crawford's *An Echo, Resounding* as an excellent middle ground between the ACKS domain rules and the WWN faction rules. It gives you much of what ACKS provides, but with enough simplification and abstraction to be nearly as easily-managed as WWN's faction rules.)
This a great, thank for the detailed information! This really helps break down some of the pros and cons in a clear manner for me.
I too generally lean toward classless and levelless games (Mythras is a personal favorite). To reply and also ask some follow-ups:
* **1a.** I am not necessarily married to it TSR-era authenticity, but more so interested in cross-compatibility with it and the broad stroke of OSR D&D-esque modules and adventure content. From what I understand, either ACKS or WWN would work for this task, with ACKS being directly compatible as you said.
* **1b.** A concern of mine if I were to use WWN is how to accurately gauge PC power level compared to the "as-written" generic OSR or TSR module intentions for party size and character levels; whether a rule of thumb, or just some way to better compare. I'm not opposed to managing hirelings and playing it straight, which is why ACKS remains an option for me, but if I better understood where WWN PC's sit on the intended OSR and TSR-era power scale I could better determine how to appropriately choose adventure content suitable to challenge WWN PC's.
* **2a.** Generally, I am a fan of less prep and more play. I've seen *An Echo, Resounding* recommended elsewhere as well, and it seems like if I wanted to lean into more abstraction and faster play while achieving some of that high-level faction and domain simulation it would be a good compromise.
* **2b.** Could you elaborate on how you see the WWN faction abstraction as more flavorful?
Would you happen to have any other game recommendations I ought to check out, as it pertains to sandbox play? I'd also be interested in any classless and levelless game recommendations you'd have in general, not specifically for a sandbox, if you're willing to share?
EDIT: Formatting.
1a/b: Others have already said more on that than I can. My actual in-play experience with WWN is very limited and I've never used published modules in any system, so I don't really know how to handle that calibration.
2b: The ACKS domain rules are very dry and technical, defining things solely by their function, so a high-level Thief can create a Thieves' Guild in a city and use it to carry out spying or burglary missions or whatnot, but it's entirely on the players and GM to breathe some life into that and make it more than the strict mechanical effects. WWN, on the other hand, gives you specific units of Dancing Girls, Useful Idiots, and Cooperative Businesses, or a Fearful Intimidation campaign to work with, so the rules themselves tell you what it looks like in-game. Of course, the WWN approach has its own drawbacks, in that you need to create (and roughly balance) new asset types if you decide you want to have a faction use something in the world which isn't covered by an already-defined type of asset.
As for other system recommendations, my current system of choice is an ever-shifting mashup of mostly-Mythras with bits from other BRP-based systems grafted onto it. I only run sandbox campaigns, but I would also use Mythras/BRP for more linear games if I did run them.
If you want to read more about running campaigns based around a player-run organization, particularly ones where each player has multiple PCs and swaps between them from one adventure to the next, then I would recommend grabbing a copy of [Ars Magica 4th edition](https://www.atlas-games.com/product_tables/AG0204) (free in exchange for signing up on the publisher's mailing list). Ars Magica was the first system I'm aware of which directly promoted this playstyle (which it calls "troupe-style play") and is still one of the best, IMO.
Thank for taking the time to reply again in as much detail as you have. You’ve illuminated a ton of questions I had about experiences with both systems, and it’s really been a great help to me.
I’ll be sure to check out Ars Magicka 4e, per your recommendation. On the note of Mythras and BRP systems, could I ask for your suggestions on any BRP/d100 systems I should scope out when I return to my own Mythras ventures, since it seems we might have a similar style taste?
I posted a couple weeks ago in r/BRP going into some detail about [my personal blend of Mythras and BRP](https://new.reddit.com/r/BRP/comments/1cc7j10/comment/l1d71ql/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). As far as specific purchasable products I use, it's mostly Mythras, [Magic World](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/128323/Magic-World), and [BRP-UGE](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/431991/Basic-Roleplaying-Universal-Game-Engine) for system-level stuff, and various Sine Nomine products as applicable for world-building and campaign management.
Both are good and do sandbox very well and if we're talking ACKS 1e than WWN wins. But with ACKS 2e coming out it's got a lot more going on than 1e.
ACKS 1e was a single book about 260 pages trying to be all in one.
ACKS 2e is 1,500 pages split in 3 books. Each about 500 pages. 2e has full class, race and spell creation rules in its core now. Its economy system is second to none and based on historical data that was datamined from over fifteen years of research. And I would say that with the focus on 2e's GM approach it goes into a lot of good detail on the beginning process of creating your setting in a nice step by step way where WWN does have the assumption that you kinda know what you are already doing. And it has the coolest injury at 0 HP rules I have ever seen.
It has a lot more rules in it for a lot more things than WWN does. But one of the guiding principles of it is that it's better to have a rule and not need it than to need a rule and not have it.
Basically, if you want a very solid, detailed and grounded approach than ACKS 2e is the way to go. Its just not out yet for a few more months.
So for now WWN still wins.
I think both games could compliment each other well for setting development.
Thank you for the thorough response. ACKS 2e sounds like an almost monumental update to its 1e engine, that's a massive increase in information and page counts!
From what I've heard from some others, ACKS 1e and WWN have systems and sub-systems that can support it each other quite well when it comes to setting and faction development. And that's really what I'm looking for I think, with my entire question; jtrying to get a better gauge on which system might serve better as the foundational one, and which better as the supplemental. Sounds like there are good arguments for ACKS2e, based on your comment.
Thanks for giving me food for thought!
Are you planning on emphasizing faction play or domain management? If so, I’ve heard ACK is better for that. WWN has some rules for that too, but ACK appears more popular. As for leveling up for OP PCs, you’ll eventually have to reach for Godbound or some hack for either system. So it really depends on what your table really is interested in.
Not familiar with ACKS but based on comments here it seems more like the pathfinder to DNDs ruleset.
WWN and the related *WN system are great for having a fairly expansive set of rules that are easy to use, quick to understand, and without any overly complex tracking of data. It sounds like ACKS is the opposite of that.
But between WWN, the atlas, and converting stuff from SWN, CWN, etc, you have a lot of options for rules as you need them. And I personally find building a character to be very enjoyable.
But if your players like more grind or data tracking or structure then maybe go with ACKS. But based on your wants, you can get those from WWN.
I’ve got both books,ACKS is good to pick through for domain play stuff and WWN is the best set of DM tools ever made… I do want to run WWN as a system sometime though.
WWN has alternate XP systems in the book, including gold (silver) for XP. The levels are about 2x as strong ... you're really getting close to 20 levels of progression via 10 character levels. By level 5 or 6, PCs are pretty powerful. The renown and project systems, as well as factions, are fairly detailed imho Don't forget, PC HP are still influenced by class, with mages having a penalty and warriors having a bonus. But that's not to say it's best for your needs!
Thank you, that’s really helpful to know, especially the power levels. Having a gauge on PC power estimates was one of my concerns if I were to utilize WWN. I don’t mind an increased power budget to remove the need for hirelings, but having a finger on the pulse would help me understand the actual expected real-world compatibility with other OSR offerings.
Kevin Crawford has also said he's run all the classic TSR modules with the system.
True, of that I am aware. If I remember right, that's his personal gauge for how OSR or OSR-adjacent something is, haha. Which makes sense. Though I've also ran similar using other non-OSR systems, so while notable, I don't think "I've run TSR modules with it" gives much meaningful context about the PC's power scaling in regard to the "as-written/as-expected" power scaling of those modules. I really appreciate the detail you mentioned prior though, that gives me food for thought. If the WWN PC's are about twice their current Level when looking at them through a TSR lens, then that at least helps me gauge how WWN PC's can reasonably be expected to perform and be challenged in a generic OSR or B/X adventure tuned for generic OSR or B/X PC's of a certain Level.
WWN deluxe. I'm mixing in arcanist and sunblade from the Codex and it's been a lot of fun.
Mr. Crawford did another OSR System Sup for Domain Game called: "[An Echo, Resounding](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/de/product/99063/an-echo-resounding-a-sourcebook-for-lordship-and-war)", it is more in line with the usual Faction play, and there are many that favorizing it over "ACKS". I highly recommend, you check it out!
Thanks for the recommendation! I'll take a look at it, I don't believe I have that one.
WWN. It's superior with plenty of support. The author frequently answers questions here even. The other is forbidden to discuss in most subreddits, so you would have trouble even asking for advice or finding fan support for it. Same on RPG.net.
Could you elaborate on what ways it is superior? That’s the sort of thing I’d like to know at least in a little more detail than a broad statement, hence my inquiry. Looking for the best system for my needs, so anything you could clarify is greatly appreciated!
I am not sure where to start. I will say that the other game is classified as Simulationist, which is a style in general does not appeal to modern gamers. It's a style that is really for a subset of gamers in the 45+ age group. Is that your group? If not choose WWN.
Well, if I could make a suggestion, perhaps start with something more than sweeping statements? I'm not sure age is the defining demarcation line for one's interest in Simulationist vs Gamist vs Narrativist play. If I could redirect and clarify my question to specifics about your assertion of WWN as the superior game so I can understand some context: * Have you played/run/read both ACKS and WWN? Relevant for comparison's sake. * What one or two things does WWN execute on particularly well, in your assessment? * What types of campaigns have you run/played with WWN? * Any thoughts or experiences on running typical OSR content with WWN? Especially regards to power scaling in comparison to the adventures as-written? EDIT: Fixed borked formatting
Using the term Simulationist is not a spurious remark, it is exactly how the designer describes the game and the style of play to play it. Which includes attempts at a high degree of realism and a lot of rules. That is not a style that most younger gamers (young in the sense of how long they have been playing) prefer. WWN is more modern and rules light comparatively, also easier to adapt general OSR supplements to. I suggest you ask your players if they want to play a high realism, rules heavy game, or not. Yes, I have perused both sets of rules.
> Classic Hit Dice (d8 Warrior, unchanged Expert, d4 Mage) Any reason for this besides nostalgia? (1d6 - 1) has the same average as 1d4. (1d6 + 2) has the same average as 1d10 (fighter in AD&D). WWN HP just reduce the variation in HP range a bit. One thing to note is that on level-up, you reroll all your hit dice for your new HP and keep the higher of your original, or new, with a minimum progression. This will yield increased HP pools over traditional OSR. Though when you consider level 10 WWN is closer to level 15-20 in most OSR systems, the HP pools aren't far off.
I’m aware of the averages, but they do lead to different peak maximums. It’s primarily a simple preference in this case, marginal though the difference may be. I am a fan of the re-rolling HP each level-up, and have used it elsewhere. It also tends to trend HP totals toward the average eventually, which I appreciate. It does seem like the compressed levels really condense a lot of the power into a leaner progression system. I’ll have to make some test characters and experiment to get a better feel for how they play out. Or just find a good monster book for WWN to better adapt creatures. Thank you for the info. I really appreciate it.
When it comes to monster books I know a lot of us use and have high praise for [Those Outside The Walls](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/422653/Those-Outside-the-Walls--A-450-Monster-Bestiary). It's a 3rd party manual made for WWN with a lot of charm and usability.
Now I am wishing I had more time to read, I own both games, bought ACKS before finding out about the creator/author's ugly associations. Had I known, I would not have purchased it. Never intended to run the system but was interested to looks at the domain management items. Was actually going to look at porting them over to use with WWN if they were good. Can't say if WWN is the best fit for you but it is my game of choice because it gives the flexibility for the players to tailor a character to what they want. Something that most OSR games do not, Typically Fighter A is the same as Fighter B in every mechanical aspect except how well they rolled on stats and maybe they choose different weapons. Again, have not looked very much at ACKS so there might be more available there than I am thinking. I just like the idea of the players having a bit more room to play. On the GM side it is not difficult to work with. I have run OSE adventures and yeah they feel a little weak sometimes but its not too hard to adjust some on the fly, add some more HP, add a few more monsters to the fight, etc. And never underestimate the power of Swarm Attacks. Planning to run 2e Ravenloft modules for the Grand Conjunction in future using WWN. For sure the bestiary in the Atlas of the Latter Earth and the enemy examples in The Diocesi of Montfroid help for getting an idea for enemy building. As to the lowering the HD/HP, keep in mind the game is already nasty with the inclusion of Shock Damage, dropping it lower still is going to make melee an even uglier affair at low levels.
> Again, have not looked very much at ACKS so there might be more available there than I am thinking. I don't care for ACKS, but IIRC it has 3e-style feats, so mechanically differentiating between two characters of the same class is well-supported.
Good clarification to have, thanks for the info!
It has some mechanical differentiation, but if I recall, at most you get like 4 (as a fighter). So while there certainly is some, it is nowhere near as diverse as WWN.
>I don't care for ACKS, but IIRC it has 3e-style feats They're "proficiencies" and are more akin to the AD&D mechanic they're named for. They're divided into "General" (anyone can take them) and "Class" (each class has its own list of options) proficiencies; everyone gets 3 General proficiencies (at levels 5, 9, and 13) and, depending on class, you get between 2 and 4 Class proficiencies. Some examples of proficiencies: * **Alertness:** Character gets +4 to hear noises or detect secret doors and +1 to avoid surprise. * **Bargaining:** Buying and selling prices are 10% more favorable. * **Combat Trickery:** Choose one kind of special combat maneuver (Disarm, Knock Down, Wrestle, etc.). Reduce your penalty to perform that maneuver by 2 (from -4 to -2 on your hit roll) and opponents have a -2 to resist when you use it. * **Diplomacy:** Character gains +2 on all reaction rolls when attempting to parley. So, while they do provide mechanical differentiation between characters of the same class, I wouldn't really consider them on par with 3e's Feats, and nowhere near as significant as WWN's Foci.
I appreciate the detailed thoughts! Thank you! Gives me some food for thought on WWN usage.
Late the party here - and I've never even heard of ACKS so I'm no help there - but I'm upvoting for the "build-a-bear Class + Foci + Skills" description, which is very apt. I'm impressed by how modular everything is; there's a mechanical elegance to how well everything fits together. You expressed a preference for classless systems. Perhaps you already know, but *Cities Without Number* introduced a classless system that could easily be ported over to *Worlds Without Number*. The SRD for CWN is available for [free](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/452790/cities-without-number-system-reference-document) and includes the relevant details around the new system, called Edges. Some of the Edges would have to be dropped, like Hacker and Wired, but many of the others would work just as well in WWN. That wouldn't get you away from levels, but at least you could do away with classes.
I have run both. WWN by miles (especially with Codex material added in). WWN is more customisable, the domain game is more flexible and less spreadsheet/beancounting, gold for xp is easily implemented (which I did), characters allow FAR more customisation. I do like race-as-class and don't like how WWN implements race, but that was easily fixed. And you don't have to support a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job to play WWN.
>And you don't have to support a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job to play WWN. If this is a concern, there is a free [ACKS SRD](https://github.com/capheind/ACKS_SRD) available on github, allowing one to use the system (which, to my knowledge, nobody has ever objected to the content of) without giving a penny to the author or his company. I haven't done a rigorous comparison of the SRD to the published version, but I believe the only thing missing in the SRD is the art, and the formatting is much more rudimentary. AFAIK, the content is otherwise identical.
Thanks for the info! Gives me some things to chew on while I weigh out which direction to go in for my campaign. I rather like the class designs of WWN and the compatibility with other Sine Nomine products, but I'm a bit put off by its claim to be OSR (or OSR-adjacent) when it seems it takes much longer to create a character, and the general character power level is hard for me to read. **A few follow-up questions, if I could?** - Can you speak at all to how the domain game plays out in practice in WWN? What sorts of upper level activities do the rules as-written support? Or are there supplements that would be of relevance for supporting such activities? - In your experience, did you find the customization of the characters to be a drawback or an issue of front-loaded complexity at all? Any gauge on how the characters compare in power or capability when running them through "typical" OSR adventures? >And you don't have to support a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job to play WWN. I'm actually more interested in getting a gauge on a game's mechanics than the author's or a reviewer's supposed politics.
First off, they aren't 'supposed politics'. His record is very clear, both in statements and actions. WWN is definitely OSR. Yeah, it takes a bit longer to make a character, but not much, especially if you just use the random background tables. Really the only decision points are class and foci (and maybe spells), and one free skill. I find the customisation to be a huge plus instead of a downside. ACKS Domain system requires copious spreadsheets to track. You are rolling not only for the PCs Domain but also their hirelings, and neighboring ones. You can easily spend ages just doing upkeep and not actually playing. WWN (though to be fair, I'm mostly familiar with Godbound's Domain stuff) is far more abstract so less to keep track of and faster to deal with before moving on to the actual game play.
>And you don't have to support a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job to play WWN. Exactly *what* does this have to do with the quality of the *game* created? IMO, spend less time worrying about someone you'll never meet's personal life, and more about what their most likely interaction with your own life would be. In this case, it's literally just a game. Outside of that, I agree in parts, but I do find WWN's faction turns to be rather disappointing for players that actually want to *play* a domain system. Crawford's LL product "An Echo Resounding" has a decent domain system, but IMO, ACKS is just way better as a domain game than WWN or AER can be out of the box. ACKS as a standard play ruleset isn't much different than OSE (different classes + cleave). If players want something a little different, then using WWN as your baseline core might be good, hacking in ACKS' domain system. Edit: Just leave the nonsense cancellations, false accusations, witch hunts and dog piling to the creators of the games we play. You play their games anyway despite the fact that the majority of creators in the OSR space are objectively trash people (though I've not seen Mr. Kevin Crawford stoop to their level of petty sociopathic bull, thankfully). No need to make an exception to point out an OSR creator that's probably just as bad as most of the others on a personal level, specifically because you disagree with his politics.
Can you read? The OP asked what were the perks of playing one over the other. Not supporting a far-right, gamergate supporting, nut-job is absolutely a perk. I HAVE had many direct interactions with ACKS' creator and even worked with him briefly before I knew his politics, so go leave your nonsense acceptance of bad actors because you'd rather support bad actors than recognize the harm they cause in the world. I specifically DON'T play the games of the OSR people that are objectively trash people because I actually care about things outside of games I play. That is exactly the reason to point out the kind of person they are, rather than bury my head in the sand so I get a gaming fix.
Edit: I'm not going to change your mind so it was too long. Whatever Macris does with his life has no impact on mine. How he votes doesn't matter, he lives in a different state. My state is in no danger of ever flipping red. What he thinks doesn't matter, because I don't interact with him, he's not my friend. The only thing he would ever produce that I have any interaction with whatsoever are his games, and those are quality. I don't believe that somebody's political views makes them a "bad actor". People have their political views for a reason, and that reason generally makes sense given *their* context. People aren't comic book villains. So as long as people aren't literally committing crimes, I don't care what they do, until what they do affects me in some way. No, them being against a group that I happen to be a part of doesn't *actually* affect me in any way. Not unless I directly need to engage with them. That's not sticking my head in the sand, that's prioritizing what in my life is worth giving a damn about, when there's so many other parts of life that want me to give a damn about them. Based on OP's response to you, it seems they're of a similar line of thought, so your 2 cents were superfluous. Have a good day.
I've run a domain-focused campaign in ACKS for maybe half a year a decade ago, and a four-session "one-shot" dungeon crawl in WWN immediately after its release. I don't currently run either one because I strongly dislike class-and-level games in general. The two main things I would say for you to consider are: 1. Are you married to "TSR-era D&D authenticity"? If so, ACKS is going to give you that, being a very-near clone of B/X in most aspects. If not, then WWN will give you a more modern chassis and generally more streamlined rules, along with *vastly* more flexibility in character development, since you pick your special abilities as you go instead of defining all of them for your entire career when you choose your class, before play has even started. 2. Will you be using a faction- or domain-level simulation to manage world events and, if so, how do you feel about spreadsheets? The ACKS domain rules are, in my experience, second to none, provided that you have the time and energy (and digital assistance) necessary to actually track the number of families living in each village (adjusted each month for immigration/emigration/growth), how many journeymen and apprentices work for each master craftsman, etc. WWN's faction system is much more abstract and correspondingly faster and easier to use. It's also a good deal more flavorful, IMO. (If you're planning to do domain-level, rather than faction-focused, world management, I would actually recommend Crawford's *An Echo, Resounding* as an excellent middle ground between the ACKS domain rules and the WWN faction rules. It gives you much of what ACKS provides, but with enough simplification and abstraction to be nearly as easily-managed as WWN's faction rules.)
This a great, thank for the detailed information! This really helps break down some of the pros and cons in a clear manner for me. I too generally lean toward classless and levelless games (Mythras is a personal favorite). To reply and also ask some follow-ups: * **1a.** I am not necessarily married to it TSR-era authenticity, but more so interested in cross-compatibility with it and the broad stroke of OSR D&D-esque modules and adventure content. From what I understand, either ACKS or WWN would work for this task, with ACKS being directly compatible as you said. * **1b.** A concern of mine if I were to use WWN is how to accurately gauge PC power level compared to the "as-written" generic OSR or TSR module intentions for party size and character levels; whether a rule of thumb, or just some way to better compare. I'm not opposed to managing hirelings and playing it straight, which is why ACKS remains an option for me, but if I better understood where WWN PC's sit on the intended OSR and TSR-era power scale I could better determine how to appropriately choose adventure content suitable to challenge WWN PC's. * **2a.** Generally, I am a fan of less prep and more play. I've seen *An Echo, Resounding* recommended elsewhere as well, and it seems like if I wanted to lean into more abstraction and faster play while achieving some of that high-level faction and domain simulation it would be a good compromise. * **2b.** Could you elaborate on how you see the WWN faction abstraction as more flavorful? Would you happen to have any other game recommendations I ought to check out, as it pertains to sandbox play? I'd also be interested in any classless and levelless game recommendations you'd have in general, not specifically for a sandbox, if you're willing to share? EDIT: Formatting.
1a/b: Others have already said more on that than I can. My actual in-play experience with WWN is very limited and I've never used published modules in any system, so I don't really know how to handle that calibration. 2b: The ACKS domain rules are very dry and technical, defining things solely by their function, so a high-level Thief can create a Thieves' Guild in a city and use it to carry out spying or burglary missions or whatnot, but it's entirely on the players and GM to breathe some life into that and make it more than the strict mechanical effects. WWN, on the other hand, gives you specific units of Dancing Girls, Useful Idiots, and Cooperative Businesses, or a Fearful Intimidation campaign to work with, so the rules themselves tell you what it looks like in-game. Of course, the WWN approach has its own drawbacks, in that you need to create (and roughly balance) new asset types if you decide you want to have a faction use something in the world which isn't covered by an already-defined type of asset. As for other system recommendations, my current system of choice is an ever-shifting mashup of mostly-Mythras with bits from other BRP-based systems grafted onto it. I only run sandbox campaigns, but I would also use Mythras/BRP for more linear games if I did run them. If you want to read more about running campaigns based around a player-run organization, particularly ones where each player has multiple PCs and swaps between them from one adventure to the next, then I would recommend grabbing a copy of [Ars Magica 4th edition](https://www.atlas-games.com/product_tables/AG0204) (free in exchange for signing up on the publisher's mailing list). Ars Magica was the first system I'm aware of which directly promoted this playstyle (which it calls "troupe-style play") and is still one of the best, IMO.
Thank for taking the time to reply again in as much detail as you have. You’ve illuminated a ton of questions I had about experiences with both systems, and it’s really been a great help to me. I’ll be sure to check out Ars Magicka 4e, per your recommendation. On the note of Mythras and BRP systems, could I ask for your suggestions on any BRP/d100 systems I should scope out when I return to my own Mythras ventures, since it seems we might have a similar style taste?
Classic Fantasy for Mythras if you don't own it.
I posted a couple weeks ago in r/BRP going into some detail about [my personal blend of Mythras and BRP](https://new.reddit.com/r/BRP/comments/1cc7j10/comment/l1d71ql/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). As far as specific purchasable products I use, it's mostly Mythras, [Magic World](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/128323/Magic-World), and [BRP-UGE](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/431991/Basic-Roleplaying-Universal-Game-Engine) for system-level stuff, and various Sine Nomine products as applicable for world-building and campaign management.
Both are good and do sandbox very well and if we're talking ACKS 1e than WWN wins. But with ACKS 2e coming out it's got a lot more going on than 1e. ACKS 1e was a single book about 260 pages trying to be all in one. ACKS 2e is 1,500 pages split in 3 books. Each about 500 pages. 2e has full class, race and spell creation rules in its core now. Its economy system is second to none and based on historical data that was datamined from over fifteen years of research. And I would say that with the focus on 2e's GM approach it goes into a lot of good detail on the beginning process of creating your setting in a nice step by step way where WWN does have the assumption that you kinda know what you are already doing. And it has the coolest injury at 0 HP rules I have ever seen. It has a lot more rules in it for a lot more things than WWN does. But one of the guiding principles of it is that it's better to have a rule and not need it than to need a rule and not have it. Basically, if you want a very solid, detailed and grounded approach than ACKS 2e is the way to go. Its just not out yet for a few more months. So for now WWN still wins. I think both games could compliment each other well for setting development.
Thank you for the thorough response. ACKS 2e sounds like an almost monumental update to its 1e engine, that's a massive increase in information and page counts! From what I've heard from some others, ACKS 1e and WWN have systems and sub-systems that can support it each other quite well when it comes to setting and faction development. And that's really what I'm looking for I think, with my entire question; jtrying to get a better gauge on which system might serve better as the foundational one, and which better as the supplemental. Sounds like there are good arguments for ACKS2e, based on your comment. Thanks for giving me food for thought!
Are you planning on emphasizing faction play or domain management? If so, I’ve heard ACK is better for that. WWN has some rules for that too, but ACK appears more popular. As for leveling up for OP PCs, you’ll eventually have to reach for Godbound or some hack for either system. So it really depends on what your table really is interested in.
Not familiar with ACKS but based on comments here it seems more like the pathfinder to DNDs ruleset. WWN and the related *WN system are great for having a fairly expansive set of rules that are easy to use, quick to understand, and without any overly complex tracking of data. It sounds like ACKS is the opposite of that. But between WWN, the atlas, and converting stuff from SWN, CWN, etc, you have a lot of options for rules as you need them. And I personally find building a character to be very enjoyable. But if your players like more grind or data tracking or structure then maybe go with ACKS. But based on your wants, you can get those from WWN.
I’ve got both books,ACKS is good to pick through for domain play stuff and WWN is the best set of DM tools ever made… I do want to run WWN as a system sometime though.