>>95857362
>All the other stuff posted and going on about ACKS I have nothing to do with, and didn't even know it was a thing someone's been sperging about in previous threads, personally I just find the idea of "let's make the game about something it's shit at doing" a bad idea and much like a lot of people who want narrativist mechanics I find it a dreary focus for a game session. As a minor diversion idgaf but if they start wanting to run a game of merchants i'd either tell 'em that i'm not willing to run that or make it a game about their loot being stolen by raiders from the nearest dungeon/bandit fortress/thieves guild of nearest metropolis.
Hell I can respect that. At the end of the day the DM has to be into the campaign as well.
Personally though, that's kind of what I like about ACKS. You can do a solid merchant game, or thieves guild game, or Kingdom building game, with it.
You don't have to do any of them, but the option is there and its supported in such a way that it will lead to an interesting game rather than the DM being stuck going 'Shit, this is going to get really boring really quickly because I'm stuck making it up as I go'

Historically, in the real world, merchants were basically one of the 'adventure classes', right up there with crusaders.
Going exotic places, trading with strange peoples.
If you pitched a campaign to me as 'You lads are going to be involved in a great big hulabaloo about Pepper, I'd probably be pretty suspect.

But check out the life and adventures of Romano Mairano and you can see the potential there, from pirate skirmishes to trading with Saladin, to the Pope going 'Know what, fuck you, half the city is excommunicated because I'm sick of your shit.'
It's refreshing to have a game that opens up new avenues like that.
I mean shit, fundamentally I want a game where you can:
>Play a necromancer and build a giant bone army
>Re-enact the Conan novels complete with becoming King
And ACKS can do both, so I'm happy with it