Are you happy with the rules?

[andrew]

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

[vexillia]

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/

[Platypus]

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

[Valentinian Victor]

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!

[landmeister]

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 

[foxgom]

Hi

I agree with all of the above statements.

neil fox

[william]

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.

  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 ?

  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.

  William

[andrew]

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

[Platypus]

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

[andrew]

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

[Barritus]

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.

[Barritus]

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.

[vexillia]

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/

[Sgt Steiner]

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

[andrew]

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........