DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: andrew on February 27, 2009, 08:57:18 AM
-
Do you think the rules need to be re-written?
Or are they perfectly ok for you?
If neither, would you prefer clarifications from Phil and / or a committee? Or something else?
I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts........
I have been a huge fan of the rules since they were released and believe they are vast improvement over DBM3.1. However, I am getting frustrated with the questionable interpretations being adopted by some players and I guess I'm also frustrated at the lack of a formal process for clarifying areas that are not 100% clear (BTW nice article Martin!).
What are your thoughts?
Cheers
Andrew
-
Do you think the rules need to be re-written?
Yes; to resolve the many contradictions, highlight the underlying elegance of the system and attract new players.
If neither, would you prefer clarifications from Phil and / or a committee? Or something else?
Yes to a committee; to end the reliance on one man and to reduce the time between revisions.
I'm also frustrated at the lack of a formal process for clarifying areas that are not 100% clear (BTW nice article Martin!).
Thanks. Did you see Geoff Pearson's description of the existing process?
--
Martin Stephenson
Vexillia: Wargames Miniatures & Accessories
http://vexillia.ltd.uk
Personal web log
http://vexillia.blogspot.com/
-
I would prefer the book to be re-formatted, written in a modern style and layout.
As far as the _rules_ are concerned I'm 98% happy with them. I would like some of the small number of ambiguous rules to be clarified.
But if this does not happen, I'll continue to play the game, because I like it! ;)
G^is,
JohnG
-
Clarification and revision in language that those who have never played a wargame can understand, and also for dummies like me who appear to be making assumptions about parts of the rules that are totally wrong! :-[
-
1. IMHO, the whole text should be re-written in an easier way, more understandable for dummies, especially.
2. I would prefer clarifications from Phil himself, but we have to accept that it probably would never happen, so a Commite would be acceptable.
3. Rules are NOT perfect to me right now, but they are light years better than 3.1 :)
-
Hi
I agree with all of the above statements.
neil fox
-
Do you think the rules need to be re-written?
Or are they perfectly ok for you?
If neither, would you prefer clarifications from Phil and / or a committee? Or something else?
I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts........
I have been a huge fan of the rules since they were released and believe they are vast improvement over DBM3.1. However, I am getting frustrated with the questionable interpretations being adopted by some players and I guess I'm also frustrated at the lack of a formal process for clarifying areas that are not 100% clear (BTW nice article Martin!).
What are your thoughts?
Cheers
Andrew
:) Hello Andrew,
I included your original question as I could refer to it more easily.
Do I think the rules should be rewritten ? Hmmm this is tough, Phil ( and I can call him Phil here instead of Mr Barker ) has written a fine ( if I feel looholed ) set of rules, but it has been smoothered by archaic language that most English speakers ( myself included ) find a little difficult to take in at once. The rules have IMHO had a lot of input from members on the Yahoo list, this input may have caused some changes within certain sections of the rules but created problems in others. Yes it could do with clarifications but I have come to see DBMM as Phil's rules, he can and does write them in the way he wants to, :-\ well they are his. We do have a lot to thank the author for over the years ( well I only started playing a couple of years ago but others say we do ) and it is possible that the wargame world owes him to a certain degree not to change his work.
:o But we all ( well assume all of us ) have bought a copy ( or copies ) of DBMM and as consumers we should be completely satisified with our purchases, we are entitled to ask ( demand is probably to strong ) to get a finished product and I think most feel it is not.
;) As who to complete any clarifications, I really think Phil should ( if he has time ),the commentary team as I have stated before seem to do a reasonably good job in a tough situation but with them it is a consensus project and they may not come up with whats Phil intended, indeed some of their clarifications are contested while others are even more complicated than the actual rules ( have you seen the stance they take on deployment maps ). The decisions about the rules I feel should really be a one man job ( or may be Phil and a ghost writer to ensure the message gets accross ).
Expanding a little from posts on the Yahoo group, some have said that DBM was like this when it first came out and with the age of the information highway people expect to much. I am of the opinion that lessons should have been learnt or remembered for that start of DBMM.
;) Was the whole process rushed to compete with another recently published set ?
;D I must admit I am mostly happy with the rules and would not like to see many changes with them ( wording yes ), leave them sit a while longer to sink into the brain cells.
8) William
-
Thanks everyone for replying. Your comments have confirmed my thinking. I wonder if a few more diagrams would have helped clarify a number of ambiguities......to make the concepts more accessible (pictures being worth 1000 words and what not!).
For those of use who were not around during the release of 3.1 (myself included, I have only been playing a few years) it is highly likely DBM went through a similar process (thanks William). So it isn't yet a case of throwing out the baby with the bath-water and simply waiting to see what develops. So I suppose the best thing we can do is to play more games (most important!), help put forward examples of issues, discuss options on how they can be resolved, and trying to adopt/enforce a systematic (i.e. less haphazard) process.
Cheers and happy wargaming!
Andrew
-
For what it is worth, DBMM 1.0 is much less buggy than DBM1.0 was.
But it was a different world. Uptake of DBM was slow at start because it was competing with a dominant set (7th, also Phil's). The process of DBM from 1.0 to 3.1 was also mainly orchestrated by Richard, the co-author. 7th was pretty much written the same style as DBM, so one was certainly not better written or layed out than the other!
But now we have a lot more competitors, not just FOG, but Foundry rules and Warhammer Ancients, etc, etc. The competition is not just on how these games play, but what they look like, ease of getting into the game, and the sort of "buzz" you get from being part of the playing community.
As to another question, DBMM wasn't rushed because of other sets. Quite the contrary. At the end of the process people were frustrated because it had taken _so_long_! The ambiguities are there simply because it didn't go through a UAT* process. Instead it was accepted by the developers, who already had an idea how it should be played. And Phil has always written rules in this style.
Though I think there are a lot less rules _problems_ than people think. Certainly lots of questions, but this is the same for any rules. The Slitherine FOG forum has over 1700 topics in its Rules Questions section. It's not because the rules are badly written, but because lots of people find rules difficult, or just want to confirm that the rules say what they say, or want to be smart-asses, etc.
Any set of rules would benefit from a re-write after publication, DBMM more so because it is written in this 1980's style. But the underlying game is a cracker!
G^is,
John
*User Acceptance Testing
-
Hi John
I agree the rules are a *cracker* and thoroughly enjoy playing the game with others who bring the same attitude as mine to the table; being the desire to play an enjoyable game.
I also agree that UAT would have identified more of the issues that we are encountering. I suppose it is also a question of balance : what price that last x%? If the rules are 95% ok, then how much effort should be expended getting the next 1% right, or 2%, or 3% and so on?
However, I don't agree there are a lot less problems that people think. I have played many many games of DBMM (more than double all of the others added together), and I have a good understanding of the game. The more I play the more I think the rules are actually broken given the number of outstanding issues, the need for the clarifications by the committee, some of the gamey mechanisms and the lack of formal, not group-think, progress on a number of issues. However, that's not to say these aren't great rules - they are awesome. I guess it's that last 5-10% that is getting to me.......
What I would like to see (in addition to DBMM 1.1, so yes I think they need to be re-written) is a new ruleset that uses the mechanisms of DBMM with less complexity and some of the points actually laid out, instead of being implied/deduced. It is really tempting to try and write such a ruleset, but for fear of copyright issues! :) Something that sits between DBA, DBR and DBMM would be good.
Andrew
-
Do you think the rules need to be re-written?
I think they could benefit from editing for style and formatting. Some rules could be changed.
Or are they perfectly ok for you?
Well, I doubt anyone has ever said any set of rules was perfectly okay. Let's just say that I think the mechanisms are generally very good, with only a few tweaks and clarifications needed. The language, on the other hand, isn't the best.
If neither, would you prefer clarifications from Phil and / or a committee? Or something else?
I don't really care who they come from, as long as they've been thought through and tested. Phil, however, should ideally be the source, as it's his concepts we're playing with.
I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts........
I have been a huge fan of the rules since they were released and believe they are vast improvement over DBM3.1. However, I am getting frustrated with the questionable interpretations being adopted by some players and I guess I'm also frustrated at the lack of a formal process for clarifying areas that are not 100% clear (BTW nice article Martin!).
What article? Where can I read it?
What are your thoughts?
The main rules problems in my opinion occur:
- Where Phil didn't think through the implications of his rules, and no one bothered to test them either (for example, what happens when opponents in close combat can both repulse);
- Where two concepts have contradictory intentions (for example, how much impetuous advance is prevented by inert generals);
- Where a concept has a potentially game-breaking effect yet can't be avoided (for example, Hungry Horses);
- Where the concepts are overly complex (for example, grading factors);
- Where the concept is unevenly applied (for example, the huge advantage (S) mounted have in combat compared with (S) foot); and
- Where a concept is explained in words when a table would have been clearer (for example, grading factors).
Despite the length of the rules development process, it's become clear that many concepts were never properly play-tested, meaning that their implications weren't fully explored.
Having said all that, I thoroughly enjoy DBMM, much more than DBM. The main reasons are stratagems and brilliant/inert generals. Between them they add a dimension to the game which has never been explored before in competition rules. They are also a dimension to play which should make good players just a little bit nervous - they provide a mechanism other than luck for average players to beat good players.
-
I agree the rules are a *cracker* and thoroughly enjoy playing the game with others who bring the same attitude as mine to the table; being the desire to play an enjoyable game.
I have generally found DBMM games to be more enjoyable than DBM, though not to a huge extent. DBM was mechanistic enough that good players knew all the good tricks to dominate play with. DBMM provides a more chaotic experience which I think has frightened off a few of the DBM experts, because it introduces factors they can't control. For example, in DBM, if you place a wood on your flank as cover, you know that flank's secure. But in DBMM, you'll always have that nagging fear your opponent has the Guides stratagem and is about to march some Knights through the wood and into your rear. I suspect the result of this has been to produce a self-selecting pool of players who, like me, can live with a bit of chaos and uncertainty in their games, and I suspect I find these people more pleasant to be around. I think, and I think a few other DBMM players do too, the chaos and uncertainty built into DBMM better reflects reality than DBM did, and much more than a certain other set of ancients rules does (there are already plenty of people at my club who are learning the optimal tactics in those rules based on the dice probabilities, confident in the fact that there are no chaotic factors to upset their plans).
I also agree that UAT would have identified more of the issues that we are encountering. I suppose it is also a question of balance : what price that last x%? If the rules are 95% ok, then how much effort should be expended getting the next 1% right, or 2%, or 3% and so on?
My thought here is that everyone should really consider Version 1.0 of any set of rules to be provisional to some extent. Throw it out there for competition players to find the faults in the rules, and fix them up a year later with Version 1.1. The problem with DBMM is that Version 1.1 won't be coming out before the list books are finished, and this has been a disgracefully slow process. When I mentioned on the DBMM email list that the better is the enemy of the good, and in other words it was more important to get the list books out sooner than later, rather than debate endlessly, I was taken to task by a couple of people there who basically suggested they'd take as long as it needed to get the lists perfect. All the while, some were engaging in almost endless debates about minute parts of lists, debates for which the evidence either way was tenuous.
However, I don't agree there are a lot less problems that people think. I have played many many games of DBMM (more than double all of the others added together), and I have a good understanding of the game. The more I play the more I think the rules are actually broken given the number of outstanding issues, the need for the clarifications by the committee, some of the gamey mechanisms and the lack of formal, not group-think, progress on a number of issues. However, that's not to say these aren't great rules - they are awesome. I guess it's that last 5-10% that is getting to me.......
With respect, which is it? Are the rules "awesome" or "broken"? I don't think they can be both. I could accept they might have some awesome concepts and some poor concepts. Unless you've just got a different way of saying the same thing.
What I would like to see (in addition to DBMM 1.1, so yes I think they need to be re-written) is a new ruleset that uses the mechanisms of DBMM with less complexity and some of the points actually laid out, instead of being implied/deduced. It is really tempting to try and write such a ruleset, but for fear of copyright issues! :) Something that sits between DBA, DBR and DBMM would be good.
And now we have a real problem. Ask four different DBMM players, and you'll get five ideas for how to fix the rules. Some people want no change whatsoever, some want the rules as they are but rewritten, some want some rules changed, and some want substantial changes. If we all had our way, DBMM would fragment into multiple rules sets, none of which could be played outside a club, and it would essentially die as a set of competition rules. Most of us are going to have to accept that how DBMM gets fixed isn't going to be the way we wanted it. After playing my first DBMM competition, I decided that what I wanted was to graft a few of the best concepts of DBMM back into DBM 3.0, because I liked that set of rules, and I thought the new concepts in DBMM would improve the game. Of course, if I'd done that, I would have had to play the game solitaire, because no one else saw things quite the way I did. Now, taken as a package, I think DBMM is better than DBM 3.0, even though there are things in DBMM I don't like that much. Still, it's an important point to understand - how the observed problems in DBMM are resolved will have a major effect on the ultimate popularity of the rules.
-
What article? Where can I read it?
http://tinyurl.com/bzajx2
--
Martin Stephenson
Vexillia: Wargames Miniatures & Accessories
http://vexillia.ltd.uk
Personal web log
http://vexillia.blogspot.com/
-
Hi
I have generally found DBMM games to be more enjoyable than DBM, though not to a huge extent. DBM was mechanistic enough that good players knew all the good tricks to dominate play with. DBMM provides a more chaotic experience which I think has frightened off a few of the DBM experts, because it introduces factors they can't control. For example, in DBM, if you place a wood on your flank as cover, you know that flank's secure. But in DBMM, you'll always have that nagging fear your opponent has the Guides stratagem and is about to march some Knights through the wood and into your rear. I suspect the result of this has been to produce a self-selecting pool of players who, like me, can live with a bit of chaos and uncertainty in their games, and I suspect I find these people more pleasant to be around. I think, and I think a few other DBMM players do too, the chaos and uncertainty built into DBMM better reflects reality than DBM did, and much more than a certain other set of ancients rules does (there are already plenty of people at my club who are learning the optimal tactics in those rules based on the dice probabilities, confident in the fact that there are no chaotic factors to upset their plans).
I agree with this especially the aspect that Dbmm by its design is less 'predictable' than Dbm or FOG and I too enjoy the added chaos factor (I am a fan of Piquet school of rules so no surprise there). I find Dbmm games to be quicker and more decisive mainly due to oft maligned grading/combat factors/outcomes especially compared to Dbm 3.1 or FOG (both more 'grinding' in nature).
Personally I like the rules as is but do feel that several sections need clarification (and more illustrations) especially how TZs work in several differing circumstances in relation to other rule sections such as Moving Into Contact, Group moves etc.
There are several aspects when playing that the current verbage of Dbmm lends itself to oppossing interpretations which are equally plausible. Having said that nothing occurs which is an actual game-breaker as such.
I know PB has traditionally used dense prose with aim of reducing overall rules length but I for one would be happier with double the length if it helped increase clarity but I suspect that wont happen. A set of offical clarifications would be nice to see in due course though.
I have tried numerous other sets both new and old and Dbmm definately generates the most satisfaction for me overall and garners a feeling of having a full scale battle rather than a minor engagement :)
Later
Gary
-
Are the rules "awesome" or "broken"? I don't think they can be both.
Maybe I was being a bit too brief with my words. I think the concepts are awesome and relative to other rulesets DBMM is awesome, but certainly some aspects of the game are broken. Take for instance the need for 40-odd pages (something like that) of clarifications?!?! That is a pretty big indicator that something isn't right. Take another example being Spear - they are *broken* under DBMM. No two ways about that! I could name other examples but the point being I think the rules are 90-95% of the way there, but certain aspects are broken. By broken they either don't work, don't work as intended, or are too unclear.
Andrew
P.S. Actually, re-reading my post, I wasn't brief with my words at all - you elected to take my comment out of context! I stated the reasons I thought it was broken in my earlier post........
-
Thanks everyone for replying. Your comments have confirmed my thinking. I wonder if a few more diagrams would have helped clarify a number of ambiguities......to make the concepts more accessible (pictures being worth 1000 words and what not!).
Cheers and happy wargaming!
Andrew
As for illustrations we would like to put as many as we can on www.dbmm.org.uk that help explain aspects of the rules.
If you can draw then sent them to us.
Best Regards
Geoff
-
Do you think the rules need to be re-written?
Phil spent some months re-writing the rules page by page before they were publish with comments from DBMMlist?ers and as for style the British Army and Royal Navy were both happy with his style of rule writing and format to pay him far more then he will ever get from DBMM.
So unless you can put a well thought out and reasoned argument why he should spend 100?s of hours re-writing DBMM it?s a non-starter, non have been put forward yet that come near.
What will most likely happen, but not till Phil has finish the army lists is he will review the commentary and notes from others on how the rules are playing and problems that have been highlighted. Consider solutions and fixes, rewrite sentences, add, remove or change words. This will probably take a few months.
Something else to consider is what contractual obligation Phil is under for finishing Army lists and other rules which will take up his time.
Best Regards
Geoff
-
Are the rules "awesome" or "broken"? I don't think they can be both.
Maybe I was being a bit too brief with my words. I think the concepts are awesome and relative to other rulesets DBMM is awesome, but certainly some aspects of the game are broken.
Fair enough, but in reply #9 you said, "The more I play the more I think the rules are actually broken given the number of outstanding issues, the need for the clarifications by the committee, some of the gamey mechanisms and the lack of formal, not group-think, progress on a number of issues." I took the words "actually broken" literally.
Take for instance the need for 40-odd pages (something like that) of clarifications?!?! That is a pretty big indicator that something isn't right.
I agree, but I don't think the problem is quite as bad as you make out. Firstly, many of those pages have only a few lines on them, and secondly a few of the clarifications are for things that IMHO people have to be pretty obtuse to get wrong. Having said that, there are still many concepts in the rules which either haven't been fully thought out, or have been poorly explained.
Take another example being Spear - they are *broken* under DBMM. No two ways about that!
Hey, don't knock my poor little Spearies! I'd seriously challenge the idea that Sp are broken. I've used Sp-based armies quite successfully, particularly my Sub-Roman British, and I've lost games against Sp-based armies despite using armies which were full of Sp-killers. You might like to have a look at a few of my battle reports elsewhere on this forum. I suspect the problem is that Sp-based armies have to be used in a particular way which is slightly different from the way other infantry armies are used, and that these tactics haven't been fully worked out.
I could name other examples but the point being I think the rules are 90-95% of the way there, but certain aspects are broken. By broken they either don't work, don't work as intended, or are too unclear.
Fair enough. I agree with this comment.
P.S. Actually, re-reading my post, I wasn't brief with my words at all - you elected to take my comment out of context! I stated the reasons I thought it was broken in my earlier post........
Andrew, I don't want to get into a semantic debate, particularly as we seem to agree on the major issue - that there are problems with DBMM which need to be addressed. I've explained above the basis for my question, and I'll leave it there.
-
Take for instance the need for 40-odd pages (something like that) of clarifications?!?! That is a pretty big indicator that something isn't right.
As Barritus said, most of the commentary is white-space. And some are simply re-iterations of rules.
Take another example being Spear - they are *broken* under DBMM. No two ways about that!
I disagree that Spear are broken. Which means Barritus is right _again_. "Ask four different DBMM players, and you'll get five ideas for how to fix the rules."
So for me, I'm in the camp that I would like it written in a 21st Century style, but I'm not holding my breath (Geoff explained this). I really want some of the questions cleared up, but the commentary does a good job at that . I don't want any particular changes, but if there are any, I hope they are thought through.
For me, the rules can't be broken if 5 of us can play a game with 600AP a side, finish in under 3 hours, cack ourselves laughing AND spend only a fraction of that time looking at the rules!
G^is,
JohnG
-
Hi Geoff
I take your points on board but I think you are missing the point. For instance, the question was "do you think the rules need to be re-written?", not "do you think the rules need to be re-written by Phil now". This isn't a case of arguing semantics nor is it an argument about Phil's availability or priorities. This is seeking opinions as to whether or not other players perceive there are problems, which obviously there are. There is no getting away from that fact.
You also sought reasons as to why Phil should spend 100's of hours re-writing them. We aren't necessarily asking for Phil to re-write them and we aren't necessarily asking for 100's of hours of input. As the saying goes there is more than one way to skin a cat.....but there has to be a formal process. Even issuing clarifications and interpretations goes against what Phil has to say (page 45 : "Sets of 'interpretations' by competition organisers sometimes cause more problems than they solve, due to poor understanding, careless paraphrasing or being made a vehicle for ill-judged amendments".)
You seek reasons yet they are all around you. I have been a long-time vocal supporter of the rules (and still am) but I created this thread to promote discussion on the topic, simply to see where it heads. I'm not into slinging matches or raking over old coals - but we can't deny there is a problem and try to suppress discussion on the topic.
The point still stands, as most posters in this thread appear to agree, that there are a number of issues with this game. You say Phil is going to review various issues and the clarifications but what is the process to ensure all valid concerns are addressed? The dismissive approach adopted to date by many self appointed experts doesn't bode well for the future, although I also agree there are a number of argumentative people (mostly on the Yahoo group, not here) who will prevent the process from being completed. Again it is a question of balance....
We are all striving for the same thing and I freely admit I can have a some really good games of DBMM, but as I said earlier, that is on the proviso that my opponent brings the same attitude to the table of wanting to enjoy the game.
Cheers
Andrew
Do you think the rules need to be re-written?
Phil spent some months re-writing the rules page by page before they were publish with comments from DBMMlist?ers and as for style the British Army and Royal Navy were both happy with his style of rule writing and format to pay him far more then he will ever get from DBMM.
So unless you can put a well thought out and reasoned argument why he should spend 100?s of hours re-writing DBMM it?s a non-starter, non have been put forward yet that come near.
What will most likely happen, but not till Phil has finish the army lists is he will review the commentary and notes from others on how the rules are playing and problems that have been highlighted. Consider solutions and fixes, rewrite sentences, add, remove or change words. This will probably take a few months.
Something else to consider is what contractual obligation Phil is under for finishing Army lists and other rules which will take up his time.
Best Regards
Geoff
-
Phil spent some months re-writing the rules page by page before they were publish with comments from DBMMlist-ers and as for style the British Army and Royal Navy were both happy with his style of rule writing and format to pay him far more then he will ever get from DBMM.
With respect, most of us DBMM players aren't in the British Army or the Royal Navy. Whatever writing style they might be used to appears to be different to what most of us are comfortable with.
So unless you can put a well thought out and reasoned argument why he should spend 100s of hours re-writing DBMM it's a non-starter, non have been put forward yet that come near.
There's no requirement for Phil to "spend 100s of hours" rewriting the rules. Several people on the DBMM list offered their skills as technical writers to do the necessary work, and one in particular took the time to produce a sample of a few pages. Phil's response was that he prefers his style. Well, that's fine, but he's not the only person using the rules. Unfortunately, this appears to be a common thread in his thinking - Phil has said elsewhere that he doesn't care how many copies of the rules he sells, all he wants to do is to write the most realistic set of ancients rules. With an attitude and rulebook like this, it's hard for those of us playing DBMM to attract new players.
What will most likely happen, but not till Phil has finish the army lists is he will review the commentary and notes from others on how the rules are playing and problems that have been highlighted. Consider solutions and fixes, rewrite sentences, add, remove or change words. This will probably take a few months.
And we look forward to it eagerly. It's not helped by the slow speed at which the list books are being produced. If Book 2 is any indication, Book 4 won't be published before the end of 2009, meaning DBMM Version 1.1 is unlikely to appear before mid-2010. That is, two-and-a-half years after the original rules were published.
Something else to consider is what contractual obligation Phil is under for finishing Army lists and other rules which will take up his time.
A good point. I understand Caliver Books pushed Phil hard to get Book 2 to the printer quickly. This would explain why there wasn't time for people to proofread the text, meaning the book was published with several fairly obvious errata.
-
What article? Where can I read it?
http://tinyurl.com/bzajx2
--
Martin Stephenson
Vexillia: Wargames Miniatures & Accessories
http://vexillia.ltd.uk
Personal web log
http://vexillia.blogspot.com/
Cheers for that. And yes, I agree with what you say.
-
IMO the rules are not "broken"...period.
There are plenty of games being played all over the world - things that are "broken" do not work.
DBMM does work - so it is not broken.
Of course (to use motoring analogies) you may sometimes overheat, have a flat tyre, use more oil than expected, or have the hood down when it rains.......:)
Rewrite? Yes I would prefer them to be rewritten in clearer language, but I do not think that they HAVE to be ....and I do wish people who do actually say they like the rules would stop getting all hyperbolic over it!! :(
There's no requirement for Phil to "spend 100s of hours" rewriting the rules. Several people on the DBMM list offered their skills as technical writers to do the necessary work, and one in particular took the time to produce a sample of a few pages. Phil's response was that he prefers his style. Well, that's fine, but he's not the only person using the rules. Unfortunately, this appears to be a common thread in his thinking - Phil has said elsewhere that he doesn't care how many copies of the rules he sells, all he wants to do is to write the most realistic set of ancients rules. With an attitude and rulebook like this, it's hard for those of us playing DBMM to attract new players.
I'm sorry - but Phil's attitudes have nothing at all to do with how I try to get people invovled with the rules - I tell them they're a great set of rules - there's a couple of quirks but nothing insurmountable, and they give a fabulous game.
Why on earth would you worry about Phil's attitude to his writing style as part of a recruitment effort?
It makes much more sense to work with the positives of what you do have rather than fretting over something that you'd like to have but aren't sure when it will happen if ever....
Let's put it this way - can you play DBMM as it is right now? If yes then go forth and spread the word!! If not then why are you here in the first place?!
-
Even issuing clarifications and interpretations goes against what Phil has to say (page 45 : "Sets of 'interpretations' by competition organisers sometimes cause more problems than they solve, due to poor understanding, careless paraphrasing or being made a vehicle for ill-judged amendments".)
Personally, I take some heart from the fact that Phil at least added the word "sometimes" in on p.45. ;)
Tim Child
-
There clearly are some areas where the meaning of the rules is uncertain, so those bits do need rewriting. There are other areas where you have to work hard to figure out the practical implications of the rules, and others where they are easily misread, so those would benefit from rewriting too. Separate clarifications such as the commentary are an alternative here.
Overall, a style and format change might make things clearer and more memorable, but I would class this as nice but unnecessary.
I wouldn't change the actual rules (as opposed to the way they are expressed) at this stage.
-
;D There is one other way of looking at things,
If the rules were not ambiguous in many places what would we have to talk about here all day?
::) William
-
With respect, which is it? Are the rules "awesome" or "broken"? I don't think they can be both. I could accept they might have some awesome concepts and some poor concepts. Unless you've just got a different way of saying the same thing.
[it] Mostly awesome (with thanks to Douglas Adams).
-
Do you think the rules need to be re-written?
Phil spent some months re-writing the rules page by page before they were publish with comments from DBMMlist?ers and as for style the British Army and Royal Navy were both happy with his style of rule writing and format to pay him far more then he will ever get from DBMM.
So unless you can put a well thought out and reasoned argument why he should spend 100?s of hours re-writing DBMM it?s a non-starter, non have been put forward yet that come near.
Best Regards
Geoff
Prior to publication, several members of the various DBMM Lists (there were originally two) with editing or technical writing experience offered to rewrite DBMM in a less impenetrable style. I wish this had been taken up. I still believe that as far as Ancients Rules go, they are the 'only game in town' - but the way they are written and presented is an obstacle to take-up. The numerous comments on 'Barkerese' and convoluted language on wargames forums and the wargames press provide plentiful evidence.
I personally believe I have a reasonable understanding of DBMM, but even after three or more years playing it, i still come across things that make me go 'hmmm?' My biggest gripe is just the organisation of the rules where the relevant parts are not grouped together. For example - look in vain for the effects of being disheartened in the section on Disheartened.. they are in the combat table and the movement rules, but why couldn't they also be in the Disheartened section? The same applies to the various locations where you will find the rules on pip allocation.
Frustrating and it requires immense familiarity and expertise to be able to stop a game and say 'yeah I know the section on this doesn't include that, but it is in here .. somewhere'. In fact, I would say that's the most commonly heard phrase at a DBMM table. Obviously that will lessen over time, but can you imagine the frustration of newbie players when they play someone experienced who points out all the bits they hadn't yet noticed? Of course the risk is that it inhibits the takeup by new players and we have an ever diminishing pool of opponents and armies till it becomes stale at a local level, and I fear that is already happening in Oz where we struggled to get enough players to run the Nationals in DBMM this year.
-
I'm sorry - but Phil's attitudes have nothing at all to do with how I try to get people invovled with the rules - I tell them they're a great set of rules - there's a couple of quirks but nothing insurmountable, and they give a fabulous game.
Why on earth would you worry about Phil's attitude to his writing style as part of a recruitment effort?
It makes much more sense to work with the positives of what you do have rather than fretting over something that you'd like to have but aren't sure when it will happen if ever....
Let's put it this way - can you play DBMM as it is right now? If yes then go forth and spread the word!! If not then why are you here in the first place?!
Okay, fair enough, Phil's attitude doesn't directly affect the recruitment of new players. But it lies at the heart of how he writes his rules, which in turn affects our ability to recruit new players.
The main problem I'm seeing when people play the game for the first time is something along the lines of, "Yeah, it's not a bad game, but the rules are really hard to understand," or "I don't have enough time to waste on learning this set of rules when there are other rules which are much easier to learn that aren't that much worse as games." So people will try it once and not return, scared off by the rules. On top of this, as I mentioned earlier, Phil has indicated that he's not interested in the game's popularity - he appears to have no vested interest in making them more user-friendly.
-
I've been playing wargames since 1966, first using those rather basic Donald Featherstone and Tony Bath rules, then moving onto WRG sets, and even more complex ones like the Newbury sets that came out before they brought out their 'Fast Play' rules.
I generally found the WRG editions reasonably ok to use, but at times the odd thing would crop up which threw the game for awhile. I have to admit that possibly 6th Edition was the worst set, I saw actual fist fights between players over that set. 7th Edition was a step in the right direction as far as I was concerned, but an awful lot of people could not get their heads around the none figure removal and hence did not convert.
I've stuck by Phil's ruleset more out of a sense of loyalty to a man who has dedicated many years of his life to try and create a set of rules that best captures what an ancient battle was like in gaming terms.
That's not to say that even loyalists should be blinkered to his rulesets faults. DBMM for me ticks most of my boxes. It just needs to tick all of the boxes for me to be content.
I treat DBMM as a working prototype that now has been tested, found a bit wanting and now needs upgrading and revision to make it a full production model.
Nothing wrong in that, everything becomes tested, evaluated and then made better, so why should DBMM be any different?