Quote from: RandallS;384477I knew a guy back in the 1970s who almost always won at the a set piece/point balanced ancients battle, but had a great deal of trouble winning in a historical scenario -- as they weren't balanced.

Quote from: Benoist;384488*snipped*

Quote from: Benoist;384488"The game's quite instructive about Viking modes of thought.  It's played between two unequal sides (black has twice as many pieces as white), because who fights when it's fair?  Also, a piece isn't taken unless it's surrounded front and back, which leads to the formation of shield walls."

Quote from: The Shaman;384494Vikings fucking rule.

Quote from: RandallS;384506This sounds like a fun game. Google turned up this page with more info.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;384529Designers don't always know best but frankly game masters don't know shit. The number of game masters whose house rules I've experienced and were actual improvements can be counted on one hand. So any indicator that people are moving away from houseruling and running by the RAW is personally a good thing.

Quote from: KMIMO, this is the crux of the thing:

"And the problem is, once Balance became a major part of my process, in terms of creating RPG materials, I lost the ability to turn it off."

It's a tragedy.

It's like someone who studied English because they loved stories no longer being able to just friggin' tell a story.

It's like someone who studied Film because they loved movies no longer being able to just go to a friggin' movie.

As so often in life, I find the words of Kurt Vonnegut to be transcendentally liberating on the general topic: "I think it can be tremendously refreshing if a creator of literature has something on his mind other than the history of literature so far. Literature should not disappear up its own arse, so to speak."

Cross out "literature" and replace "rules," (or, really, any other creative process -- it works for 'em all!) and you have one of the big maxims by which I create.

Ari Marmell is a very good D&D designer. The fact that he can't surrender all his learned over-thinking about balance and caution in order to spice up his own bleedin' home game, like there's Balance Police in his own brain, is a testament to the ability of intellectualization to absolutely crush innate, productive creativity. The creativity of those high school years, of D&D's target audience, of wildly unbalanced fun.

I think it's really sad that his home games are barren of the rich, verdant fields of off-the-cuff ruling and tweaking that are the hallmark of any great D&D campaign, the thing that makes D&D yours, and not someone else's, whatever balance quirks or fudging blah or unintended consequences happen.

Seems like he's come to a similar conclusion, since that post ends with a sort of longing for innocence ripe for a dorky version of William Blake.

This is the tension between cold, sterile, keen, efficient logic and rampant, wild, destructive, creative chaos. I think it's sad that Ari's home games have lost, for the moment at least, the dangerous wilderness.

This is D&D. We're D&D players. The dangerous wilderness should be what we seek out.

And when there's no more dangerous wilderness, it's usually time to retire, at least for a time, to that keep you liberated so long ago.