>>95839902
>I'm one of the Anons who criticises the proficiencies and the extra classes of ACKS
I can respect that. On the extra classes, honestly? That's one of the things I like the most about ACKS.
You can make extra content.

One of the most frustrating things about OSR in my eyes is that because you're using the same broad strokes every game does feel kind of same-y, mechanically at least.
Yeah you can change the fluff and set dressing, but the foundations are always going to be Castle Blackmoor Basalt. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the classic OSR setting.
But the fact you know what I mean when I say classic OSR setting is a bit of a shame, what with the old OSR games being the guys before us going fucking wild, dancing on the razors edge and coming up with their own crazy bullshit that defined the entire genre.

ACKS is structured enough that you can back things up with mechanical variation and create your own distinct settings/campaigns/styles. An all dwarf campaign will actually play different to an Egyptian campaign, or a Conan-esq campaign, ect.

Yeah it can be abused and you'll always get some cocksucker who tries it on, but that's why all that should only ever be DM facing and if a player tries to go 'But I made my own class' you break all their fingers with a bit of rebar as a matter of principle.

But it does feel like you need something like ACKS if you're going to do something like, I don't know, Sir Fang becoming the first Vampire and the DM having to go 'Alright, fuck, shit, time to create clerics to redress the shenanigans currently ongoing.'
Maybe that is straight up just me though.