WHAT DON'T YOU GET ABOUT THE ACC?!!

I have been getting a lot of mail lately with questions about some of the stuff in the ACC. Ranging from Dual Handedness to Battle Options to simple species stuff, all of which I was glad to answer; but I can't help but think there are more out there who's brain just ain't wrappin' around some stuff.

There's a lot of cool things that can be done in battles, used for your characters and all of that - but, no matter how plain "I" may think the instructions are; some people just might not get it. It's not an intellect thing (so I'm not calling you stupid ), because the mails come in from even the "smartest" people with "WTF does that mean...?" - it's more a matter of approach and how I am prone to explaining stuff. Because of that, all of these "neat" things are probably getting ignored because they may read as too complicated to deal with - and I don't want that to keep happening.

In addition, while some members of the DB and the ACC are doing very good jobs at helping me answer questions, there are some that even they are not getting entirely right. This is causing a bit of a headache on both sides because, while their intentions are good, they might be misinforming people.

So, please - ask away! Your questions may even point to a bigger issue that will require adjusting the information in the Compendium, and I am COMPLETELY open to that!!! After all, the compendium is for you, the combatants, if you don't get what's in it, then it will hardly do you any good. The same is said for the ACC itself. Procedurally and operationally we are far better of than we were a year ago, but that's a thing that's hard to notice - and we are far from 'perfect'. I will be the first to admit that I have "ACC Tunnel Vision" sometimes, so your insight may do well to help the structure of the greatest of DB platforms.

I would ask that, should people actually use this, that you leave the answering to me. I really hate having to contradict what people reply with, especially when you think you're right The DCM and I are on the same page 99.9% of the time - and he is probably more in the "know" than anyone in the DB - but I will ask that even he refrain from replies to inquiry's here. Of course, I can't force people not to answer questions, so consider this just me asking nicely

Thanks

OK I'm gonna be serious this time.

Alright I'm trying to update my CS but everytime I send it in Halc comes back saying

"Backhanded Lightsaber Combat is a saber form" and that I have to train it with the lightsaber forms thing.

I deleated it because I'm sure he's right but I was looking in the Compendium to find how to do armor and it says and I quote "You may use the custom slot to specify skill/training in sabre forms (DJK+ only)"

Now I don't know if he want's me to put it as the actual saber style or delete it completely so can you help me out?

I think the form you are looking for is Shien maybe.... ?

I find it all too complicated. It's not that I can't understand it, but understanding all the techniques, weapons, etc detract from the storytelling. I did this kind of thing several years ago and it was understood that you had a lightsaber and some powers (based on the DBC) and it was quite amusing. Now it's all character sheets, tests to win weapons, and god knows what. Can't be arsed.

The question: Why does it need to be so complicated?

What don't I get? Why it's so damn complicated. One of the things that I hear again and again from the members in my house is that they can't figure the ACC out, they tried reading all the documents on the ACC site, but they were overwhelmed by the mountians of information that there was. I may be wrong, but from what I've seen throughout the ACC's development is that the Compendium was origionally written, then edited and added onto as issues came up. This had led to something that's rather wordy, redundant and has a thrown togeather feel to it. For example, the rules for dual wielding both lightsabers and blasters are listed twice in the ACC Rules alone.

Basicly I think that the Rules and Compendium need to have a major revision where they're condensed, simplified and made easier to read.

I dont think its complicated, but I want to know why must there be over 70 pages to create a personal species?
My species would prbly only take 10 or 12 pages on all the info necessary to have it in the ACC, I couldnt ever possibly have 81 pages on it.

I dont think its complicated, but I want to know why must there be over 70 pages to create a personal species?
My species would prbly only take 10 or 12 pages on all the info necessary to have it in the ACC, I couldnt ever possibly have 81 pages on it.



I know they wanted to stop all the dumb vampire variants that we had out there. It was like a WoD convention.

I believe the reason behind the lengthy section is mostly to discourage people from making a new species. The Star Wars universe already has a few hundred different KNOWN species that are rather diverse. Basically if you can't make it fit with any of those, try harder.

Actually, my take on it was this.

When they did that committee on races, it was decided that people who had written enough fiction on their original species would be allowed to "keep" said species, instead of choosing a new one. I'm not sure if 70 pages was the agreed upon number, but if it was, it's not that you have to write a 70-page description; it means, over the course of your career, that's how many total pages of fiction you should have that involves yoru character and species.

As Kaine said, it was to prevent everyone from jumping up with a new species. And yes, a lot of them were WoD-variant vampires, simply because a lot of us like WoD. I wasn't one of the "vampires," but I am very much a WoD enthusiast. Considering the amount of stuff in the Brotherhood that ties into WoD, though, it's not a huge surprise that people would want to bring WoD Vampires across. But, it was also all of the "star elves," "forest shifters," and other fantasy crap, too. It was all of it, and there was a lot of it.

As has been said, there are MANY different species to choose from that can allow you to play what you want. And also remember, you don't necessarily need a new species if the same can be accomplished within an approved one. For instance, for the past six years, Sith Bloodfyre has been Shaevalian. What does that mean? Well, for all intents and purposes, he looks human, but Shaevalians tend to have a more-dense muscular structure, and are taller than the average human. Sith, however, is sort of a runt by Shaevalian standards. End product? He's a little better than a baseline human in some areas, and I'm able to represent the "better parts" just by using the standard ACC character set-up. I don't have to go through and figure out racial bonuses and get people to code them into my sheet, and all that nonsense.

There's ways to work inside of what is currently "canon" in Star Wars; but, if you feel the need to go outside of that box and create something entirely new, that's cool. After all, Star Wars is a landscape of our imagination. Just be prepared to put the time, effort, and creativity into it if you REALLY need to go that direction.

Okay, getting to all the questions:

1) Callus: The line you are referring to has been removed. It was just left over from before the incorporation of the sabre style points to the CS. What you need to do is use the Shien style in the sabre forms section of the CS - that's about all you can do. Since the sabre styles were added to the CS, a custom slot can't really contradict it.

2) Why is the Compendium so Complicated and Redundant? (I'll try and keep this short) First of all, redundancy: there are only a few items, throughout the ACC that are truly redundant - to include the dual weapon thingy, for example. This is for one simple reason: because it falls between different aspects of the Centre. It is a 'skill' as well as a subject of 'mechanics' - it is listed twice so there is absolutely no confusion about it - as are all the 'pain in the arse' items throughout the Centre - that people STILL screw up, despite being mentioned repeatedly

As for complication, I really can't answer that because I don't find it complicated and neither do the folks who've been helping to edit it. I'd hate to think that complicated is synonymous with 'lazy' in a lot of circles, but that's how it seems. But I am far from being above scrutiny - I just need a little more specifics than "the compendium needs a major revision..." because it has already had 3 of them since it's been open.

3a) A lot of Information. Yep - there is. Why? Because there's a lot of aspects to the ACC - but lets go over it:

1) ~History - just for fictional stuff, not really important to how to play
2) ~/*/**Intro - just a hi, how're you doin - here's some basic info. Maybe used once in a career
3) *CS Guide - hardly a lot of 'useless' information and key to discerning opponent's abilities
4) **Species index - virtually useless after you've selected your species, maybe a quick glance on opponents
5) **Ground Combat Guide - fighting and sabre styles, only really worth a quick opponent glance once you pick a form/style
6) **Weapon Guide - again, just a quick glance databank
7) **Piloting Guide - just a glorified databank
*/**Force Powers - regular usage, better informed than the DSC, pivotal to Force use for those learning, can be ignored for vets
9) */**FP System - not a big deal in higher ranks, good for lower ones
10) RoE - barely used
11) ~Ranks and Titles - good reference for where your points take you, but generally useless
12) ~Creature Guide - not even done yet
13) **Venue Guide - good for reference and terrain selection
14) */**Operational Information - battle set-up options, mostly
15) ~Even Guide - only really for those who run competitions
16) ~Five Steps - just a guide or a bit of advice, not really pivotal

* These sections are important for use during a battle, there are 5; but they turn into mere reference once someone is familiar with them
** These are virtually 1 time references for things that pertain to a battle, mostly based in just understanding an element like a weapon or fighting style, there are 9
~These are purely for reference and not really pivotal in a battle at all, in fact, they are probably glanced at once or, in the case of ranks, only as needed, there are 6

So, out of all 15 chapters - only 5 really matter in a battle, and even then - as someone gets familiar - are reduced to mere reference. Like Force Powers, I am familiar enough with them that I barely ever look at the section during a battle - but it took time and experience to get there. While there is a lot of information (just like there is in the DSC or any rule book), people only use what they need. My main thought on that is people are afraid of it because it 'looks' like a lot - not because it actually is.

3b) The rules are a different beast - but far from complicated or even 'long' (again, that's just another opinion ). Those who have been around the ACC for a while will hardly ever use them, because it's all common sense to those who play - but there is no denying that they've gotten longer as the members have become...well...let's say; mentally diverse hehe. Don't get me wrong, we don't find anyone dumb or anything, but the things members are willing to try and get away with now seems different than even the short time ago when I joined - then again, I could just be seeing it different as well, who knows? Nevertheless, the rules are meant to be in depth - that's why they cover so many things - we tried to leave absolutely no room for conflict, but in that; people seemed to assume that we've also taken away room for ingenuity - despite that idiocy, it's not the case.

There's no less room for that now than there was then - it's just now; instead of waiting to find out that you did something wrong and lost a battle in the comments, you can see that what you're attempting isn't 'legal' before you even try. The rank thing, for instance, and self promoting. It was NEVER written in the original rules, but people lost battles because of it (way before I was CM) - right or wrong, that's what went down. Now, though, folks can read that they can't do that and it has ceased to even be an issue, overall. Rest assured, all the problems that people faced have been cut drastically now that certain things are 'in stone' - and that's good enough for me to keep them the way they are. People lose battles now primarily based on mechanics like how to compare stats - which is totally normal - instead of losing because they breeched some 'unseen' rule that was hailed as common sense, but not really common knowledge.

4) 80 Page Species Stuff. I was asked once: "how long does a species description have to be?" I answered, "I've gotten some that were 5 pages and the longest was over 80...(but never approved)" I have never said that "80" was a requirement in the ACC...I merely used it as an example to point out how in depth a person could be. Can a species be approved in the ACC and not in CRAPS? Absolutely - as CRAPS seems a little defunct for the moment anyway.

There are thousands of SW species, the need to create a new one is absurd, but I never turn away those who want to try. We will never allow demons and vampires and that kind of garbage because we are a star wars club (but we will allow the SW species that already exist in that likeness ), but if you meet the requirements, then we won't deny you. There are 3 approved species in the Users list - of which I have never seen word 1 of their histories/write ups - they were all 'approved' by the ACC long before I was CM - much like the 'grandfathered' Echani users on the list, I won't ask...I just accept - provided they were on the list when I took over

Even now, if Arania or Kaiann mail me with a 'this has been approved' thing - I won't even ask if the person has gone that route. The description would be nice for people to research, but even that isn't necessary if the CS/history is adequate. However, if they want to approve through the ACC, then they gotta go by the specs - it is strict (seemingly moreso than CRAPS) because I am hoping that if we give them the "go", then they'll be able to keep it when CRAPS fully kicks in without much hassle. Can ACC approved species be accepted into CRAPS? I am in no position to even say.


Anyway, think I got it all...

I don't think I'm really qualified to answer what is too complicated about the ACC because that was a comment that I've seen quite a few times from newer members in my house and I passed along. What I will do is see if I can get a little more specific information out of them about what's too complicated and get back to you.

Actually, to new members, I can see the ACC being a little daunting and -looking- complicated. That's probably where the difference comes in. Someone like Dalthid, who spends a good majority of their time involved with, and enahncing the ACC may not find it complicated, because Dalthid and his staff are dedicated, and make sure that they understand each facet and work to make it as understandable as possible.

For new members, however, who do not have that time and involvement, it may look rather intimidating and incomprehensible. Perhaps the solution lies in just getting them involved slowly, and having someone familiar with the ACC mentor them even along the path of stepping into the ACC. That could provide some means of resolving the complication factor on that end. I can see how it would look rather outlandish, and I used to spend a great deal of time involved in the ACC. I've talked to people who have had problems with it, most of them who viewed it as confusing or complicated. It might just take seeing it through their eyes, and talking to them directly. Or getting them to post their impressions and issues here.

I agree. I'm too lazy to care about reading all the rules and regulations just to post in a 1v1 run-on. But I bet I'm not the only one.

Well the best way for any new member to become more familiar with the ACC is to do some training battles. The staff members are more than willing to mentor trainees in the workings of the ACC. Plus they don't have to worry about getting any losses.

The ACC in Five Key Steps is also a great chapter for new members to read. It's got lots of information all in one place.

What the rules are trying to do is stop all the god-moders out there who want to be an APP kicking a GMs butt from here to next Tuesday. Does it work? Not all the time but it gives staff members a reference to point to. But if you know how to write a battle you'll be fine not reading the rules all the way.

OK I'm done babbling.

Yes, yes and yes...

Complications: Please do get more info on what is complicated about it - I don't want it to be. As BF pointed out so nicely, hehe, I have ACC Tunnel Vision (as I mentioned in the beginning) - I deal with it every single day, so it's almost like second nature in some respects. I can't tell what is perceived as complicated.

HOWEVER - I am working on 'quick references' right now, which may help a bit. A separate section from the compendium that has all the 'important' snippets of the whole thing. It will be one main chapter with sub-chapters; basically instead of going to the CS Guide to read about what the stats mean, you can go to the sub-chapter of the 'Condensed Battle Guide' called 'Character stats' and see ONLY the tables of the points, instead of all the crap around it - in fact, I'm thinking of replacing the compendium with it as the main link if I get get it to work out okay - while the compendium will be bumped to being called something like the 'Unabridged ACC Manual'...or something like that - rest assured, it's in the works - but input on what to avoid would help a lot in the case of those who are finding the present one complicated.

"I'm too lazy to care about reading all the rules and regulations just to post in a 1v1 run-on. But I bet I'm not the only one." You're absolutely right, a lot of folks don't read it for that simple fact - and that's okay. You can still play in the ACC without reading all the rules and guidance, but it is a safe bet that you'll be at a serious disadvantage against someone who does. Again, that's not a big deal either if you're just in it to be in it without getting all nutz about it - especially in ACCLive! Most of the rules (save certain ones about specifics) are all actually common sense, rather, simple enough that they're just 'matter of fact' - so many can do well without even looking at the compendium.

Training Battles: Those are great, but I have to think that they might still fall short of their purpose with folks who just have no clue - we've seen that frequently. Multiple training battles eventually can turn those folks around, provided they don't get dissuaded. Inevitably though, it comes down to the nature of the platform and whether it's 'your thing' or not. We've had A LOT of members who just can't write - but because they are held to the same standards as everyone else, the chances of them being good at it are slim. I can't play video games to save my life, I know it and people who have played me know it - and I have no misconceptions about it. Equally, Training in the ACC will NOT improve a person who does not have the 'base skills' - it's merely meant to take base writing skills and tweak them for the platform. We don't want to leave anyone behind, but sometimes we have to - forgive my ego about the staff, but these are (often times) Picasso's teaching Neanderthal's how to paint - only so much can be achieved. Many walk away well improved and are often successful in the ACC, but there's a few who just can't handle it because they lack the base skills - it sucks, but that's the way it goes.

BF had an idea a while ago; to let INI's train/qual against each other with a Trainer looking on - I think it's a great idea. People of equal levels would be a far easier scale to reveal errors to instead of the "he's a DA...you'd be dead..." crap. I'm still hanging on to it and looking at how to implement it - but it's easier said than done at the moment.

kk - been doin some tweaking and the quick reference section is up as well as the breaking up and segregating of some other stuff on the compendium's main page...hope it helps.

I skimmed through the changes you made to the compendium and that seems like it should help quite a bit. I'm emailing my house and trying to get more specific information about what people think is complicated. I'll compile everything and email it to you when I have enough feedback.

Edited to add:

I just noticed a typo in the Compendium. In both the Force Pool Table and the power description it has a power called 'affect force imprint'. Affect is a general term used to describe a person's mental state, the proper word to use would be effect. It's minor, but worth pointing out.

Actually, I think the right verb is affect.

Taking the verb tense info from Websters...since I don't think I EVER get this one right on my own:

"Effect: to cause to happen, to bring about, to accomplish."
"The crossing was effected without difficulty."


"Affect: To have an effect on something."
"Does this change affect your plans?"


This is indeed a disturbing universe.


/me slams shut the Infernal Dictionary of Despair and returns to MB obscurity.

Really now? Lots of english teachers don't know their own subject matter. I'll trust Mr. Webster though, comment withdrawn X-)

no worries

Oh, one more question that I thought of and haven't been able to find an answer to in the various ACC documents. Why don't ACC wins/losses during things such as GJWs, RoSs, Feuds, etc count on our win/loss records? I'm not questioning the policy, I just can't think of a reason for it on my own and was wondering what the official explination was.

Double Awarding - plain and simple. You can't get awards on top of wins/losses because the records of the ACC grant points to a person's CS.

It was a policy instituted in '03:

November 12 2003: Chancellor (Flechette) publically announces that the ACC is no more difficult than a JK match and thus should not be rewarded "extra". It is also a public solidification of the "dual" awarding for the ACC due to skill points and such (i.e. if a battle generates win/loss points, it can't be awarded with Cr's, CoF's etc and vice-versa).

And no one has seen fit to repeal it, though it has been repeatedly discussed.

Ok, that makes sense.

Thanks

Dear CM,

I had a question
... Do you still hate me for sending that bad message?
*growl* if not let me know and I will try to get a rematch, I am geting better. :-

don't even know what you're talking about

I was a little punk that wrote you a bad message that was sent to all the staff members. The onw with a bad attitude.*growl* Anyway would like to send my dearest appologe to you sorry for a mix up. :'(