PDA

View Full Version : Message from Phil Barker about DBA 3.0


sue@wrg.me.uk
06-30-2011, 10:14 AM
DBA 3.0

Although there were many more volunteers to take part, I decided that I had to limit the revising group to 12 plus myself and Sue in order to be able to service the group and get a result in the time available before stocks of 2.2 ran out. Two of the members of the group were people who had not previously played DBA but had previously demonstrated an exceptional talent for rule development. All the others were long time DBA players, including competition organisers on three continents (including America!). One of the original members dropped out part way, but was replaced with another player from his group. Most of the members also play DBMM and had been involved in the very successful development process for that set. This was important because many of the problems in DBA were also in DBM and had been solved in the development of DBMM. It was not that the solutions had to be identical with rules of a much different degree of complexity, but that they were aware of possible approaches.

The method I chose was to send each of the group members a weekly copy of the current draft.
These used coloured text. Black was text unchanged from 2.2, Green was agreed rewording hopefully to improve clarity without changing the way the game was played, Red was agreed substantive changes in the rules and Blue was all other changes and suggestions since the last draft. These we argued through and tested for a week before the next draft. Blue has now largely disappeared. The final version will revert to all black.

Some of the group members brought in larger local groups to help them test and some of these included a minority of players who did not distinguish between development (testing in the expectation that something will go wrong, then producing a revised version) and the testing of a finished product. Much of the gossip on your list seems to have resulted from rumours about things which have been tried out, even though many of them have since been discarded.

The Green text (re-wording to improve clarity) might be thought unnecessary on the grounds that several thousand people have been playing with previous editions and presumably know what they are doing. Against this, it has apparently been felt necessary for people to construct commentaries. Our intention has been to rewrite some sections with the intention of making commentaries obsolete and unnecessary. Most of the rewording has not in fact been to prevent misunderstandings that have occurred, but potential misunderstandings that could occur.

The red text is changes in playing rules. Some of them are to produce a more historical result, others to discourage a chess-playing mentality (for example removing certainty in terrain placing) and remove geometrical ploys (such as the “buttocks/elbows of death”), and others to simply improve convenience (such as measuring in multiples of base widths). A large number of suggestions were made and all but the most obviously flawed have been tested, most often to destruction... Every effort has been made to keep the rules as simple as before, and more line spaces have been added to break up formerly over-long paragraphs.

As you would expect, there has been much discussion about which troop types are losers and which are gainers. The conclusions are that heavy infantry are improved because the opponent cannot now keep an infantry army out of the game by deploying their targets far back out of reach; and that light horse are improved because they can operate against the enemy rear areas and camp without running out of PIPs. No army loses out.

Sue and her helpers have simultaneously been working on the army lists (and still are), which have been revised to take into account the massive amount of research by knowledgeable people on DBMM army lists (just as 2.0 and 2.2 was based on the DBM lists). In general, they add options rather than remove them. Sue says she had hoped to include enough options to make all 2.2 armies still valid, but now realises this is not possible in all cases. She will do as much as she can.

Lastly, I understand that some people are spreading the ludicrous story that DBA 3.0 will be totally unacceptable to American wargamers and so should be rejected by clubs before publication; Please bear in mind that they have very little knowledge of what will be in the final version of 3.0 and may have axes to grind.

Rich Gause
06-30-2011, 10:52 AM
DBA 3.0

The conclusions are that heavy infantry are improved because the opponent cannot now keep an infantry army out of the game by deploying their targets far back out of reach.

This wasn't a problem in 2.2 as far as I was aware. Maybe it was a problem in DBMM. Oh well, as long as the solution doesn't include a broken idea like giving heavy foot an 80mm move or something silly like that it won't be an issue. Hopefully BUA rules get fixed too.

Inanna'sBoyToy
06-30-2011, 10:53 AM
Thank you, Sue! :up

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p219/Keeneddie_2007/LOL-Monty_Python_Applause.gif

Rich Gause
06-30-2011, 10:57 AM
What would have been really nice would have been to have a discussion/debate about what exactly needed improvement in 2.2 and ideas for 3.0 on this forum before 3.0 was designed. Hopefully 3.0 was playtested and bad ideas don't make it into the final draft and it turns out to be a better game than 2.2.

broadsword
06-30-2011, 11:27 AM
I wonder if BUA and rivers will now get used at long last.

In principle, I really have never objected to using BW as a unit of measurement, because even board size (say 15 X 15 BW, or 18 X 18 BW) is now scale independent. I just wish to goodness PB would finally drop the "paces" designation, and replace everything with BW in all his rules.

pozanias
06-30-2011, 11:56 AM
Sue, Phil,

Thank you for posting this. It helps me to understand your approach.

DBA 3.0

Although there were many more volunteers to take part, I decided that I had to limit the revising group to 12 plus myself and Sue in order to be able to service the group and get a result in the time available before stocks of 2.2 ran out. Two of the members of the group were people who had not previously played DBA but had previously demonstrated an exceptional talent for rule development. All the others were long time DBA players, including competition organisers on three continents (including America!). One of the original members dropped out part way, but was replaced with another player from his group. Most of the members also play DBMM and had been involved in the very successful development process for that set. This was important because many of the problems in DBA were also in DBM and had been solved in the development of DBMM. It was not that the solutions had to be identical with rules of a much different degree of complexity, but that they were aware of possible approaches.

I don't agree that many of the problems with DBM were problems with DBA. We have debated for the past decade on this website the problems with DBA (which is a game we all love!) and have very surprisingly come pretty close to a consensus across the world as to what the key issues are. You would get the same list from 9 out of 10 people on this forum! But we were not asked, and as far as I can tell you didn't bother to look either. That's part of my frustration.

I think having a manageable advisory group was a good thing. And I would not have expected to be included in that group. But of the 12, it appears to me that only 4 were from the global pool of serious DBA players/promoters.


As you would expect, there has been much discussion about which troop types are losers and which are gainers. The conclusions are that heavy infantry are improved because the opponent cannot now keep an infantry army out of the game by deploying their targets far back out of reach; and that light horse are improved because they can operate against the enemy rear areas and camp without running out of PIPs. No army loses out.

I have played 1000s of games of DBA and have been an active participant on this forum for 12 years (and so have been exposed to DBA issues from around the world) and have NEVER seen or heard that either of those was a problem. In fact with LH I would say its just the opposite, people liked the idea of LH being out of command range on 30" boards as it created an interesting dilemha for the general.

This is why I think you may have been listening to the wrong people. People who primarly play DBM/DBMM and occassionally play DBA will not have the same perspective.



Sue and her helpers have simultaneously been working on the army lists (and still are), which have been revised to take into account the massive amount of research by knowledgeable people on DBMM army lists (just as 2.0 and 2.2 was based on the DBM lists). In general, they add options rather than remove them. Sue says she had hoped to include enough options to make all 2.2 armies still valid, but now realises this is not possible in all cases. She will do as much as she can.

I think everyone appreciates Sue's efforts to include us in her progress. And we know that she has been trying very hard not to disrupt people's pre-existing armies. IMO, she may even be overly accomodating -- but I appreciate her efforts and intentions.


Lastly, I understand that some people are spreading the ludicrous story that DBA 3.0 will be totally unacceptable to American wargamers and so should be rejected by clubs before publication; Please bear in mind that they have very little knowledge of what will be in the final version of 3.0 and may have axes to grind.



Please know that most Americans are not advocating the abandonment of 3.0 before publication. A few are, but most of us will reserve judgment until the final product has been released. It is true that many are skeptical based on things we have heard, but I think we are also hopeful that the final product will produce an enjoyable game.

The one idea I would want to convey to you is that any frustration you encounter from us exists solely because we *love* DBA. Our worry is that you will introduce ideas with the best of intentions and the worst of results. This is heightened by the (possibly false) understanding that DBA 3.0 "fixes" many problems that didn't exist. And that few or none of the universally accepted issues are being addressed adequately.

But I'm in the hopeful crowd.

teenage visigoth
06-30-2011, 12:20 PM
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ksrPJQL_9kw/TgygmT1arXI/AAAAAAAAA3A/FCMZljtIGLE/intrigued_chimp.jpg

For the record, Poz's post encapsulates the state of things most eloquently.

Filippo S.
06-30-2011, 12:24 PM
Well written Pozanias :2up

Bardolph
06-30-2011, 12:25 PM
What Mark said.

winterbadger
06-30-2011, 12:28 PM
Lastly, I understand that some people are spreading the ludicrous story that DBA 3.0 will be totally unacceptable to American wargamers and so should be rejected by clubs before publication; Please bear in mind that they have very little knowledge of what will be in the final version of 3.0 and may have axes to grind.

I think I see plenty of axe-grinding in this message. :rolleyes

david kuijt
06-30-2011, 12:31 PM
Well said, Mark. Don't let anyone say you're just a pretty face. (Not that anyone says anything like that, I'm just sayin'...)

david kuijt
06-30-2011, 12:32 PM
I think I see plenty of axe-grinding in this message. :rolleyes

You made me Pepsi Ex Naso Iacere. :D

Andreas Johansson
06-30-2011, 12:33 PM
This wasn't a problem in 2.2 as far as I was aware. Maybe it was a problem in DBMM.
Did you mean to say DBM?

Martyn
06-30-2011, 12:34 PM
Hi Sue/Phil, thanks for taking the time to clarify the process of the development of v3.

Personally I am trying to be positive about the new rules but would second much of what Mark has posted.

I would also wish to correct you on the issue of trashing v3 before it comes out. There is no conspiracy on this forum to boycott v3. There have been some isolated voices advocating an “I am not going to play v3 come what may” type attitude but they are in the minority and from both sides of the pond. I have a suspicion that they have seen earlier drafts and did not like what they saw, so on went the blinkers.

Speaking for myself, as one who has not been part of the play testing process, this has been a very frustrating time with little information. The odd snippets that have leaked out have not always helped as it is always the contentious topics that get reported, but I always comeback demanding more. Recently a more balance leakage has occurred which has highlighted some of the good points which has raised moral and expectation.

I look forward to publication, the sooner the better.

Rich Gause
06-30-2011, 12:51 PM
Did you mean to say DBM?

When did the 2 BW move for heavy foot debut? Was it DBMM version 1 or 2?

Andreas Johansson
06-30-2011, 01:07 PM
When did the 2 BW move for heavy foot debut? Was it DBMM version 1 or 2?

1.0

Apparently part of the reason was that it was felt to be too hard to close with heavy foot in DBM.

winterbadger
06-30-2011, 01:18 PM
1.0

Apparently part of the reason was that it was felt to be too hard to close with heavy foot in DBM.

Skillful use of the passive voice, there, Andreas! :up

Andreas Johansson
06-30-2011, 01:20 PM
Skillful use of the passive voice, there, Andreas! :up

Er what? :???

(I know what the passive voice is, but I'm mystified as to in what literal or metaphorical sense my particulare use here was "skillful".)

Rich Gause
06-30-2011, 01:27 PM
1.0

Apparently part of the reason was that it was felt to be too hard to close with heavy foot in DBM.

That makes sense in a game with a point system where you can buy a big bunch of crappy foot that costs very little but can help raise the break points of your commands so that you can park them at the back edge of the board and make the enemy good heavy foot take time to march across the board before they start to slaughter them; but in DBA you really need to use most of your army a lot more than in DBM or DBMM. I am sure the 80mm heavy foot move works just fine in DBMM. It is broken for DBA, unfortunately.

broadsword
06-30-2011, 02:29 PM
Sooo... given that heavy foot are to now have 2 BW move, does that mean Bow now shoot 2 BW also?

If not, Bow become pretty much completely uselss against any and all foot. Not that they were good before, but unless you add the Pavisier element type, those Early Achaemininds are going to get PWNED by hoplites...

If they are to shoot 2 BW, the board is going to have to be a larger for sure, otherwise Bow will be akin to heavy machine guns in mowing down Cv and LH on a 24" board.

Therein lies the answer to so many questions... about board size I guess. Please tell me the DBMM-ers have thought this through, because DBMM 100 with its current measuring system would be a total disaster on a 24" board. BTW the setup area for DBMM 100 on a 24" "tile" is just five elements wide. :sick

Andreas Johansson
06-30-2011, 04:26 PM
Therein lies the answer to so many questions... about board size I guess. Please tell me the DBMM-ers have thought this through
It doesn't matter if "the DBMM-ers" have thought it through, it matters if Phil has thought it through (and if his thoughts bear any relation to those of common mortals).

kontos
06-30-2011, 04:31 PM
It doesn't matter if "the DBMM-ers" have thought it through, it matters if Phil has thought it through (and if his thoughts bear any relation to those of common mortals).

If you are speaking of the "mortals" in this community, we are anything but "common". :D

kontos
06-30-2011, 04:32 PM
Sooo... given that heavy foot are to now have 2 BW move, does that mean Bow now shoot 2 BW also?

If not, Bow become pretty much completely uselss against any and all foot. Not that they were good before, but unless you add the Pavisier element type, those Early Achaemininds are going to get PWNED by hoplites...

If they are to shoot 2 BW, the board is going to have to be a larger for sure, otherwise Bow will be akin to heavy machine guns in mowing down Cv and LH on a 24" board.

Therein lies the answer to so many questions... about board size I guess. Please tell me the DBMM-ers have thought this through, because DBMM 100 with its current measuring system would be a total disaster on a 24" board. BTW the setup area for DBMM 100 on a 24" "tile" is just five elements wide. :sick

More importantly, have recoil distances increased relative to movement distances. The "can of worms" is deep. ;)

winterbadger
06-30-2011, 04:41 PM
More importantly, have recoil distances increased relative to movement distances. The "can of worms" is deep. ;)

If they had been changed to something involving BWs (1/2 BW, perhaps?), that would at least obviate some of the issues around what depth stands different versions of the same element use. Not all, of course, but some.

El' Jocko
06-30-2011, 05:19 PM
Er what? :???

(I know what the passive voice is, but I'm mystified as to in what literal or metaphorical sense my particulare use here was "skillful".)

I think that Winterbadger was inferring that your use of the passive voice allowed you to sidestep saying WHO felt that way about heavy foot movement.

- Jack

EDIT: Just to be clear, it isn't important to me where a rule comes from or how it got into the rulebook. It doesn't matter whether it started as a DBMM rule or it whether it came to Phil in a vision. What matters is how well it works when I play DBA.

John Loy
06-30-2011, 05:40 PM
Personally, I have high hopes and low expectations:yawn

John

Cromwell
06-30-2011, 06:05 PM
Personally, I have high hopes and low expectations:yawn

John

Funny..I had those feelings when I last had a date with a girl!:up

And yes! Those feelings got me a slap round the face! :o

ferrency
06-30-2011, 08:28 PM
Once upon a time, there was a filmmaker named George. He created a trilogy of amazing science fiction movies using techniques unheard of at the time. Audiences went wild, and many remained fans for years after the trilogy was complete.

Years later, George came back and made some new movies based on some of the same plot and characters, but the fans of his original trilogy almost exclusively considered them to be horrible. They were not fans of the new movies, and the retroactive continuity they introduced was generally thought to break the original trilogy as well.

While he was at it, George also went back to his original trilogy and changed the movies in ways that significantly pissed off the immense fan base he had built over the years. He no longer allowed the original version of the films to be available.

Nowadays, George is a multimillionaire who still makes money off the movies he made decades ago and their spinoffs. But his actions drove away many fans of the original trilogy.

These fans, who were once George's most vocal proponents, have since found new magic created by other filmmakers. To these fans, the original version of George's trilogy is still a great achievement, but it is enjoyed mostly only for nostalgia's sake. George himself is completely irrelevant: an old nutter who feels compelled to rewrite history and fix things that weren't broken.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/bluesunimages/15C53B1348199C0B3F4227F2F8396E59.jpg

On the other hand, George has enough fans of his new material that he probably considers his disenfranchised fan base to be irrelevant as well.

Luckily, the world is a big enough place that people can watch great movies they want to watch, and George can find enough people willing to support him, without those two groups butting heads too much, except possibly on Internet forums.

Gascap
06-30-2011, 09:50 PM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-33N_rnB33CY/Tg0ni91SgDI/AAAAAAAAA8w/L6Iq51WwJBs/oie_134316oHJE3gJJ%2525281%252529.jpg

(Insert 10 characters here.)

JM

snowcat
06-30-2011, 10:06 PM
It'll be a bit of a surprise if Bw are broken in 3.0 because of the new BW rules (to heavy foot for instance), because it will adversely affect all those much loved English longbowmen. Can't see it happening myself. ;)

kontos
06-30-2011, 10:20 PM
"Wonderful! I am excited to see the change in light horse and how no army loses out. I am not worried about the changes. There has been tremendous input. I think this will be the best rules yet. Like anytime there is change, there will be some who decry it, no matter how good it is. Some will say too much has changed, others will say not enough, and others will say the wrong stuff was changed. The silent majority will probably accept it, and even like it, and if they don't, someone will probably create a knock off based on an earlier version and sell it. Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. I hope everyone accepts 3.0 and that the DBA community grows stronger."


***SIGH*** PB has a cult following. Maybe a speech from a Miss World contestant? :D

snowcat
06-30-2011, 11:05 PM
"...the change in light horse and how no army loses out.
DBA 3.0
... light horse are improved because they can operate against the enemy rear areas and camp without running out of PIPs. No army loses out...


What exactly is the change to LH that gives them this camp-raiding edge? Increased movement + increased PIPs depending where they are?

david kuijt
07-01-2011, 12:36 AM
What exactly is the change to LH that gives them this camp-raiding edge? Increased movement + increased PIPs depending where they are?

Instantaneous psychic communication with the commander in chief over great distances, basically.

snowcat
07-01-2011, 01:02 AM
instantaneous psychic communication with the commander in chief over great distances, basically.

Cool!

. . .

;)

Andreas Johansson
07-01-2011, 01:12 AM
I think that Winterbadger was inferring that your use of the passive voice allowed you to sidestep saying WHO felt that way about heavy foot movement.
No such intention on my part. I've been told it by various people who played DBM and are or were involved with DBMM. I don't see any utility in naming names, and anyway am too lazy to start digging through years of email to find out exactly who said what. (Note that I never played DBM myself, and therefore don't have an opinion of my own here.)

That the same problem should be present in DBA 2.2 is, near as I can tell, a much less widespread idea. Hardly anyone but Phil himself seems to hold it.

michael guth
07-01-2011, 07:59 AM
I am confused by the notion that DBA 3.0 had to be brought out before stocks of DBA 2.2 were sold out. Dozens of wargames are now available as PDF files sold on the internet. DBA 2.2 could continue virtually indefinitely without another 'hard' printing.

The idea of restricting testing to a small group of gamers seems very retro to me. Sort of like the old days where a club would write their own rules, come to their understanding and then publish them as mimeographic copies such as 'The Humberside Ancient Wargame Rules'. Wouldn't a more modern approach be to release a Beta edition to hundreds of gamers (wish it were thousands) who could report their activity back to a development team to identify problems? I was involved in the DBR development process (see the back of the book), and I know for a fact that the team failed to perform adequate playtesting. First, not enough actual games were played to detect problems such as 'the giant mountain' or inferior shot now being useless. But also we needed to send the rules out for 'test reading' to gamers to see how they would interpret the more difficult passages. To this day, no one knows if light horse recoil through light horse in a column in DBR. Oh, and that's a product support issue as well.

Phil, you might also address whether or how you will support this set of rules in case mistakes are found. Will you respond to letters pointing out that an army list has 13 elements, or that a defender can place a hill extending from his deployment zone to the enemy camp? Or, will we hear the story, 'All of our energy now is being devoted to HF+G'.

I think the DBA community would have loved to be more involved in the development process. Its not like they are a hard bunch to find. Your small development group process has made them/us feel left out. I think you've squandered an important resource.

So, publish DBA 3.0 as a beta edition, without the army lists. Have each member of the design team review about 200 game reports from HMGS east trial runs at Fall In, Cold Wars, and Historicon. Then publicly discuss the problems that have arisen. Then sell the rules as both an on line prouduct AND as an on line game (yes, upgrade DBA On Line to 3.0).

Oh, and if you want to get rid of the chess like quality of the game, you should have adopted Wally Simon's brilliant inverse Pip system....

Mike Guth

David Constable
07-01-2011, 09:28 AM
I am confused by the notion that DBA 3.0 had to be brought out before stocks of DBA 2.2 were sold out. Dozens of wargames are now available as PDF files sold on the internet. DBA 2.2 could continue virtually indefinitely without another 'hard' printing.

PART CUT
Mike Guth

Or like 6th, printed by John Curry.

Pherhaps with the WADBAG guide added to help players (with known errors removed). :D

David Constable

El' Jocko
07-01-2011, 09:30 AM
Oh, and if you want to get rid of the chess like quality of the game, you should have adopted Wally Simon's brilliant inverse Pip system....

Ok, I'll bite. What is Wally Simon's brilliant inverse PIP system?

- Jack

michael guth
07-01-2011, 09:58 AM
Wally Simon was a gamer in Wheaton Maryland in the 1970's who helped found The Potomac Wargamers, which in turn became one of the main groups founding the HMGS. Wally loved the 'rules on the back of a postcard' concept and would invent a new set of rules on an almost weekly basis. He published many of his ideas in the club journal, 'The Potomac Wargamer'. He never tried to finish any of his rules to a commercial standard. But he was a voice of reason in a world of 'now the rate of fire of a 1941 bolt action Mauser would be 3.6 shots every....'.

Wally loved the concept of DBA. But, he felt that the mechanism of players getting to make troops do exactly what they wanted by expending pips was backwards. Instead, he thought that players should expend pips to STOP troops from doing what you didn't want them to do. Usually, this meant troops would advance straight until such time as you paid the price to get them to stop. Benteen would keep riding south until you got a messenger to him. The bows would close with the spears instead of scissoring with the nextdoor blades so they could face the cavalry etc...

I think it had potential. Even if not, it gave me a moment to think about a lost friend. Wally died about 3 years ago.

Mike Guth

Andreas Johansson
07-01-2011, 10:22 AM
The idea of restricting testing to a small group of gamers seems very retro to me. Sort of like the old days where a club would write their own rules, come to their understanding and then publish them as mimeographic copies such as 'The Humberside Ancient Wargame Rules'. Wouldn't a more modern approach be to release a Beta edition to hundreds of gamers (wish it were thousands) who could report their activity back to a development team to identify problems?
This is, of course, approximately what Phil did with DBMM. For reasons good or bad, he decided to handle DBA 3.0 differently.

michael guth
07-01-2011, 10:30 AM
DBMM went into a second edition very quickly. Do you think the failure of the first edition was related to increased playtesting before release? My experience with DBR was that players said they were playtesting, but actually were not. And, much depends on the quality of the team reviewing the input.

Gascap
07-01-2011, 10:34 AM
DBA 3.0
The Green text (re-wording to improve clarity) might be thought unnecessary on the grounds that several thousand people have been playing with previous editions and presumably know what they are doing. Against this, it has apparently been felt necessary for people to construct commentaries. Our intention has been to rewrite some sections with the intention of making commentaries obsolete and unnecessary.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XP4M5b6-zMA/Tg3aK3J-RdI/AAAAAAAAA9E/bVpI6zm6Drg/s512/oie_116151s0FPv1zc.png


Lastly, I understand that some people are spreading the ludicrous story that DBA 3.0 will be totally unacceptable to American wargamers and so should be rejected by clubs before publication; Please bear in mind that they have very little knowledge of what will be in the final version of 3.0 and may have axes to grind.

First, I doubt even the axe-grindingest of yankee DBAers think that 3.0 will be _totally unacceptable_; there are some good ideas being considered.

Second, "they have very little knowledge of what will be the final version of 3.0" is a notion that makes no sense. If that's true, it implies that the final version of 3.0 won't resemble the numerous in-development iterations, which is an asinine development model.

More likely, and the case fore me, is that people who have been part of playtest groups have noticed that DBA 3.0 is on a trajectory unlikely to make it an acceptable game.

JM

Andreas Johansson
07-01-2011, 10:50 AM
DBMM went into a second edition very quickly. Do you think the failure of the first edition was related to increased playtesting before release?
What does it matter what I think on the subject?

ferrency
07-01-2011, 11:28 AM
Second, "they have very little knowledge of what will be the final version of 3.0" is a notion that makes no sense. If that's true, it implies that the final version of 3.0 won't resemble the numerous in-development iterations, which is an asinine development model.

No, no. You misunderstand. Only 12 people have actually seen any of those in-development iterations, so no one else can possibly know what to expect. Didn't you read his development process? ;)


On the other hand: if we have very little knowledge of the final version of 3.0, then this implies it will be significantly different from 2.2, because we do have a lot of knowledge about what 2.2 is.

In response to the original post and not to JM:

The most common complaint I've seen from Americans threatening not to buy DBA 3 is that they don't want to play a different game, even if it's good. There are plenty of games that are different from DBA 2.2, and yet good. If changing to a new game is required, it is not obvious whether changing to DBA 3 will be the best option or not.


Alan

Rich Gause
07-01-2011, 11:38 AM
I'll probably buy it no matter what that's not the question. The question is will I play it? If it isn't better than 2.2, NO. If it is better than 2.2 but needs some changes I'll probably stick with 2.2 until there is a standardised set of house rules that fix anything needing fixing. If it is an improvement over 2.2 without needing any major fixes and the DBA community adopts it as is then I will probably do that.

Gascap
07-01-2011, 12:07 PM
I'll probably buy it no matter what that's not the question. The question is will I play it?

I like reading rules, even for games I may not play. So I may buy it. But I do share Dr. Spengler's opinion of print, so seriously, PDF option or bust. Edit: (Oh, hah, "bust," accidental pun, +1 Internets for me.)


JM

Martyn
07-01-2011, 12:13 PM
DBMM went into a second edition very quickly. Do you think the failure of the first edition was related to increased playtesting before release? My experience with DBR was that players said they were playtesting, but actually were not. And, much depends on the quality of the team reviewing the input.

It is interesting that both DBMM v1 and v2 had extensive play testing but as you point out v2 came out quite quickly after v1.

I wonder if Phil felt the experience was not successful and so reverted to the restricted circulation for DBA?

I am confused by the notion that DBA 3.0 had to be brought out before stocks of DBA 2.2 were sold out. Dozens of wargames are now available as PDF files sold on the internet. DBA 2.2 could continue virtually indefinitely without another 'hard' printing.

And if that were the only reason for changing DBA then a v2.3 would have been more appropriate rather than the larger scale redraft that Phil has decided DBA needs.

Redwilde
07-01-2011, 12:25 PM
I'll probably buy it no matter what that's not the question.

Heck, I even bought the first two editions of DBM and with no intention at all of moving down from playing DBA to DBM.

michael guth
07-01-2011, 12:41 PM
Interested in your opinion because you have interesting opinions. No more, no less. Someday I might again be involved in playtesting or game design myself, so there is a question of how do you optimize your game design process.

People outside of the 12 have been playtesting various drafts with various groups. Phil's comment suggesting that no one knows what will be in the final draft is intellectually dissonant. If the sacred band of 12 haven't playtested the last version, then the last version wasn't playtested. Good luck with that. If they did playtest, then there is a group who knows with some certitude what will be in the final draft, along with whoever did the playtesting.

OOps, back to my version of the EAP war wagon....(I'm hoping my LAP will get one knight and an elephant).

Rich Gause
07-01-2011, 01:14 PM
Heck, I even bought the first two editions of DBM and with no intention at all of moving down from playing DBA to DBM.

I have HOTT, DBR, DBM, and DBMM mainly so I can be familiar with those rules even though I am only really interested in playing DBA and DBA-RRR.

ferrency
07-01-2011, 01:22 PM
Interested in your opinion because you have interesting opinions.
I'm not sure if I'm the "Alan" you're referring to, but I'll answer what might be appropriate.

People outside of the 12 have been playtesting various drafts with various groups. Phil's comment suggesting that no one knows what will be in the final draft is intellectually dissonant.

My comment regarding "no one except the apostles has seen it" was partially sarcasm based on the knowledge that the statement is obviously false. But it was also commentary on Phil's other statements. It was an attempt to provide the context Phil may have been assuming when writing his statements, but that we do not share.

That is: if you assume no one has seen the most recent version, and if you claim that therefore, no one knows what to expect, then this implies the changes contain something unexpected and different from what we know (which is 2.2.)


In the end: some people are making their decisions based on reading recent revisions of 3.0 as a part of the extended playtesting network, and some people are making their decisions based on hearsay. It's difficult to tell who is who, because the conclusions people reach don't correlate strongly with the amount of information they are based on.

Those who have inadequate information may be making uninformed decisions, but it's not clear whether their conclusions are incorrect or not. In most cases, having more information won't change peoples' minds anyway. Then again, having Phil say "stop worrying and drink the kool-aid" won't either.

Alan

winterbadger
07-01-2011, 01:29 PM
Those who have inadequate information may be making uninformed decisions, but it's not clear whether their conclusions are incorrect or not. In most cases, having more information won't change peoples' minds anyway. Then again, having Phil say "stop worrying and drink the kool-aid" and rubbish the efforts of people who have tirelessly explicated and promoted a game that he seems to rarely play and to largely ignore except when he takes a whimsical decision to revise and change it won't either.

Alan

Stuck in the words you missed out, Alan. ;)

david kuijt
07-01-2011, 01:29 PM
I have HOTT, DBR, DBM, and DBMM mainly so I can be familiar with those rules even though I am only really interested in playing DBA and DBA-RRR.

You're only saying that because you've never experienced the Glory that is Monsterpocalypse HotT : "There Goes Tokyo -- The Rise of the Terrasaurs!!!"

Coming soon to a Historicon near you! (If you live in Valley Forge, that is)

Rich Gause
07-01-2011, 03:12 PM
You're only saying that because you've never experienced the Glory that is Monsterpocalypse HotT : "There Goes Tokyo -- The Rise of the Terrasaurs!!!"

Coming soon to a Historicon near you! (If you live in Valley Forge, that is)

I will be playing that and am looking forward to it. I won't be doing any armies though unless somebody is going to be playing it in 15mm.........

I'd give DBM and DBMM a try too, but they would not be my preferred game over DBA even if I liked them.

kontos
07-01-2011, 03:32 PM
As a matter of principle and because of PB's arrogant dismissal of the members of the DBA community, I will NOT buy 3.0 unless the "Consumer Reports" states it is a good value. My hard earned cash won't be given to Barker unless I know he produced a product I want.

Martyn
07-01-2011, 03:55 PM
As a matter of principle and because of PB's arrogant dismissal of the members of the DBA community, I will NOT buy 3.0 unless the "Consumer Reports" states it is a good value. My hard earned cash won't be given to Barker unless I know he produced a product I want.

In an ideal world wouldn't we all buy rules only on the feedback. If so, how come so many of us have a shelf full of rules bought and never played.

We are all suckers for a new rule set even if only to satisfy curiosity. On that basis I am sure I will be buying v3 even if I end up not using it. :o

ferrency
07-01-2011, 04:01 PM
I will be playing that and am looking forward to it. I won't be doing any armies though unless somebody is going to be playing it in 15mm.........

The Ohio players seem to play HOTT primarily in 15mm, and the HMGS-E cons seem to play primarily in 25mm. Being in Pittsburgh, this means I need some of each depending on which direction I'm going to drive...

It's a good game in any scale, but I seem to be reserving it for "not taking it too seriously" so far. At least it's not... um, nevermind.

25mm can definitely cost more and take longer to paint, and it doesn't look as impressive on the table to me. But there are plenty of prepainted figures available.

Maybe if you play 15mm HOTT in FL, the guys in the middle will eventually bring a few 15mm armies as well?

Alan

david kuijt
07-01-2011, 04:05 PM
It's a good game in any scale, but I seem to be reserving it for "not taking it too seriously" so far. At least it's not... um, nevermind.


Not taking it seriously?!?! :eek I'm going to take my Santa-Claus army and kick your ass for that one.

winterbadger
07-01-2011, 04:10 PM
In an ideal world wouldn't we all buy rules only on the feedback. If so, how come so many of us have a shelf full of rules bought and never played?

Because obviously that isn't everyone's ideal. And because the suggested ideal is impossible. If no one ever bought rules until there were feedback (real analysis, not just "reviews", which in the wargaming world rarely do more than report on the print job and layout of a rulebook and list its contents), there would never be any feedback because no one ever bought rules.

We are all suckers for a new rule set even if only to satisfy curiosity. On that basis I am sure I will be buying v3 even if I end up not using it. :o

Well, caveat emptor. I know Frank, and he's done his share of buying before reading, out of that same curiosity (as have I). What he's saying is that in this case the author has been so injudicious and ill spoken as to lose himself a potential sale. I know we're supposed to believe that the author doesn't care; I beg leave to doubt that.

winterbadger
07-01-2011, 04:11 PM
Not taking it seriously?!?! :eek I'm going to take my Santa-Claus army and kick your ass for that one.

If you don't, the guy with the garden gnome army will! :D

michael guth
07-01-2011, 04:30 PM
and I'm sorry I did. I didn't buy DBMM, and I'm glad I did not. I helped with development of DBR, and I was disappointed with the result.

Andreas Johansson
07-01-2011, 04:44 PM
Interested in your opinion because you have interesting opinions. No more, no less. Someday I might again be involved in playtesting or game design myself, so there is a question of how do you optimize your game design process.
FWIW, I don't think the relatively quick need for DBMM 2.0 had much to do with the degree of openness of the 1.0 playtesting. Also, the "need" is somewhat debatable - there were issues with 1.0, certainly, but many of us (= people on the DBMMlist) thought it'd been better to issue an FAQ and errata at that point, and wait with a new edition till after the army list books were finished.

Kingo
07-01-2011, 04:50 PM
I reckon based on the way other rules series have developed,

2.2 will be as dead as a wombat on the calder freeway a few weeks after the release of 3.0. The problem is, if after a few months of 3.0 we think its crap, a lot will not go back to 2.2, but will migrate to other rule sets.

That would be very sad. :eek

winterbadger
07-01-2011, 05:04 PM
I reckon based on the way other rules series have developed,

2.2 will be as dead as a wombat on the calder freeway a few weeks after the release of 3.0. The problem is, if after a few months of 3.0 we think its crap, a lot will not go back to 2.2, but will migrate to other rule sets.

That would be very sad. :eek

That would be sad, but I don't see it happening, at least in my local circle. I have my doubts as to whether many from the Huzzah Hobbies crowd will be buying 3.0. And I also doubt that many will be dropping DBA; I for one have far too many DBA 2 armies to give up on it for the foreseeable future. I plan to keep playing 2.2 (unless there's a generally accepted 2.3 that emerges).

I don't know what the general sentiment in the wider WADBAG crowd is-- I've missed most of their recent gatherings due to car trouble, airplane trouble, or other commitments.

Martyn
07-01-2011, 05:14 PM
Because obviously that isn't everyone's ideal. And because the suggested ideal is impossible. If no one ever bought rules until there were feedback (real analysis, not just "reviews", which in the wargaming world rarely do more than report on the print job and layout of a rulebook and list its contents), there would never be any feedback because no one ever bought rules.

OK maybe not everyone's ideal, but there are ways of spreading the word about a rule set. Some reviews are worth considering, display and participation games at shows give enough opportunity to expand the player base to create feedback.

Well, caveat emptor. I know Frank, and he's done his share of buying before reading, out of that same curiosity (as have I). What he's saying is that in this case the author has been so injudicious and ill spoken as to lose himself a potential sale. I know we're supposed to believe that the author doesn't care; I beg leave to doubt that.

I thought Franks comments identified that he was not going to take Phil's work on trust but would want some independant confirmation of the worth of the rules, not that he was not interested come what may.

However I'm treading on thin ice second guessing others opinions based on a short post, so I may well be wide of the mark.

jcpotn
07-01-2011, 05:27 PM
Not taking it seriously?!?! :eek I'm going to take my Santa-Claus army and kick your ass for that one.

In all sincerity and deference to the DBA community, I humbly submit this as the next BIG THING for DBA 3.0:

THE *******. It will replace the BUA and Denizens. Impervious to Arty. You'll never get your ass kicked again. :)

Jeff


http://i345.photobucket.com/albums/p369/jcpotn/World%20War%20II/*******s1.jpg

winterbadger
07-01-2011, 05:33 PM
OK maybe not everyone's ideal, but there are ways of spreading the word about a rule set. Some reviews are worth considering, display and participation games at shows give enough opportunity to expand the player base to create feedback.

Yes, but the answer to your initial question ("In an ideal world wouldn't we all buy rules only on the feedback{?}") is still "No". As you acknowledged in the next sentence. Which caused one to wonder why you posed the question to begin with.

I thought Frank's comments identified that he was not going to take Phil's work on trust but would want some independent confirmation of the worth of the rules, not that he was not interested come what may.

Which is precisely why I said he had lost a potential sale. Absent his snarkiness, Frank would probably have bought a copy on publication, just to see what it was like and for that collection of rules that we all have that we may never play. In fact, I think Frank had already said he would be doing that. Now he may never buy them. Perhaps I should have said that PB has changed a definite sale into only a potential one. *shrug* Either way, his intemperate responses just put him into a worse and worse position. IMO.

Martyn
07-01-2011, 05:41 PM
I reckon based on the way other rules series have developed,

2.2 will be as dead as a wombat on the calder freeway a few weeks after the release of 3.0. The problem is, if after a few months of 3.0 we think its crap, a lot will not go back to 2.2, but will migrate to other rule sets.

That would be very sad. :eek

DBM is still alive and kicking even after being superseeded by FOG and DBMM, but each game has probably suffered in the number of participants.

I would think that many will try v3 and if they don't like it they will revert to tried and tested. For many it will be dependant on what thier local community collectively decide as to which version or alternative game they play.

Lets hope v3 is a success.

Inanna'sBoyToy
07-01-2011, 05:53 PM
In all sincerity and deference to the DBA community, I humbly submit this as the next BIG THING for DBA 3.0:

THE *******. It will replace the BUA and Denizens. Impervious to Arty. You'll never get your ass kicked again. :)

Jeff


http://i345.photobucket.com/albums/p369/jcpotn/World%20War%20II/*******s1.jpg

Be nice! That's the sole propulsion source for my rolling fruitstands...:D

Alan Lauder
07-01-2011, 07:19 PM
2.2 will be as dead as a wombat on the calder freeway a few weeks after the release of 3.0.


Good bit of local content, Kingo, I laughed till I stopped. :2up

Kingo
07-01-2011, 07:24 PM
DBM is still alive and kicking even after being superseeded by FOG and DBMM, but each game has probably suffered in the number of participants.

I would think that many will try v3 and if they don't like it they will revert to tried and tested. For many it will be dependant on what thier local community collectively decide as to which version or alternative game they play.

Lets hope v3 is a success.

I still play 6th Edition and never found anything better that followed, I think three might, if its too rad, thin the DBA community, which is small anyway.

that would be sad

Redwilde
07-01-2011, 07:40 PM
DBM is still alive and kicking even after being superseeded by FOG and DBMM, but each game has probably suffered in the number of participants.

There are still holdouts playing WRG 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th!

I kept playing BloodBowl 2nd edition with housemods for many many years after 3rd edition was released. Switched to 5.4 and upgrades after that a few years back.

I know I'll still be playing some form of DBA in the future.

Rich Gause
07-01-2011, 09:11 PM
That would be sad, but I don't see it happening, at least in my local circle. I have my doubts as to whether many from the Huzzah Hobbies crowd will be buying 3.0. And I also doubt that many will be dropping DBA; I for one have far too many DBA 2 armies to give up on it for the foreseeable future. I plan to keep playing 2.2 (unless there's a generally accepted 2.3 that emerges).

I don't know what the general sentiment in the wider WADBAG crowd is-- I've missed most of their recent gatherings due to car trouble, airplane trouble, or other commitments.

FL will be playing DBA whether 2.2, 2.3, or 3.0..............

dicemanrick
07-02-2011, 12:22 AM
Instantaneous psychic communication with the commander in chief over great distances, basically.

http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/picture.php?albumid=50&pictureid=337

Ancient Chinese Secret:D

Andreas Johansson
07-02-2011, 04:18 AM
There are still holdouts playing WRG 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th!
Was there something particularly wrong with 4th?

michael guth
07-02-2011, 07:54 AM
I have the fourth edition army lists, but never played fourth edition. Each edition seemed to have some grossly underpriced troop type. My recollection going back to 1984 was that 4th or 5th edition was the edition of the unstoppable Cataphracts. 6th edition was the edition of EHK, EHI and SHI and lots of dead cataphracts. 7th edition-elephants with escorts, Aztecs charging out of skirmish formation, and guided missile scythed chariots. Which edition first had the machine gun Midianite camels?

Redwilde
07-02-2011, 11:54 AM
Was there something particularly wrong with 4th?

Apparently so! But I couldn't tell you what it was. The style of game of that whole system kept me away from ancients miniatures games until DBA arrived. From an etic viewpoint, it looks like 2nd and 3rd editions were major improvements, and 4th was a dud. Then 5th on kept improving something for some people.

Could be the 'curse of the 4th edition'. BloodBowl 4th was so bad that the author tries to pretend it never happened. Officially, the 5th edition was rebooted as LRB 1.0 and went to free pdf format (the Living Rule Book). This conveniently avoids calling attention to the fact that there ever was a 4th ed.

Ammianus
09-11-2011, 09:18 AM
From what I'm seeing on the Internet (The Miniatures Page etc), it appears that the message Phil Barker is sending is, "Go ahead and switch to Basic Impetus."
I wonder if 3.0 might just provide the"impetus" for folks to switch.

Bobgnar
09-11-2011, 12:05 PM
Ammianus, nice play on words. One useful thing about the internet is that when you attribute something to a person, you can post the link so others can read it for themselves.

I follow TMP quite closely as I am also interested in gaming other than ancients, too. I have seen no reference to Phil Barker commenting on Impetus. It is a big site and I might have missed it. An interesting item to find, so I did a quick search on Basic Impetus but found none with reference to Phil. I am curious as to what he said.

Can you please post the link to the thread with the comment you mention. I am just not good enough at searching to find it, thanks

david kuijt
09-11-2011, 12:27 PM
Can you please post the link to the thread with the comment you mention. I am just not good enough at searching to find it, thanks

I couldn't find it either. And I find it unlikely Phil would provide any advice upon which non-Phil ruleset should be adopted by the people he alienates? Maybe Ammianus was just putting Impetus forward for the value of the play on words...

winterbadger
09-11-2011, 01:14 PM
I rather suspect that what Ammianus was suggesting is that PB is, intentionally (probably not) or unintentionally, discouraging players from wanting anything to do with DBA. (Basic) Impetus is the obvious alternative, given its popularity at the moment, its size, its mechanics, etc. Another would be (Mini) Might of Arms. I think Armati has a scaled-down version too. None of them is DBA, of course; even with its few issues, I find DBA 2.2 far more fun than any of those that I've played, but I've played none of them as much as I have DBA. But I think Ammianus's point is that PB seems to work hard to alienate players.

El' Jocko
09-11-2011, 01:51 PM
But I think Ammianus's point is that PB seems to work hard to alienate players.

The thing I admire most is that he does it so effortlessly.

- Jack

broadsword
09-11-2011, 02:14 PM
Another really, really fun little game is "Ancients D6" by John Acar - now on an improved 3rd edition, with many cool, innovative ideas. It does have "hit points" of course, so that you do slowly grind an enemy centre by extended combat. There is in some sense an incentive to do something like "use up the Spaniards" to weaken his best troops (sorry, no disrespect intended toward Spanish troops, but "use up the Irish" would definitley get me in trouble in my neighbourhood!). DBMM would try to achieve the same effect by just having far more elements on the table, but DBA with only twelve, is limited in that regard.

Ancients D6 is designed around DBA armies, so no rebasing is required. Even "leaders" can just be a small marker attached to a unit (that's how we do it, so no actual commander's bases to clutter up the line).

I think after all I've seen and read on all the fora about the DBx franchise, I'm done with it.

Ammianus
09-11-2011, 07:26 PM
Thanks Winterbadger, my point exactly.

Bobgnar
09-11-2011, 08:49 PM
I rather suspect that what Ammianus was suggesting is that PB is, intentionally (probably not) or unintentionally, discouraging players from wanting anything to do with DBA.

He might well just say what he means and not set up an elaborate facade that Phil is making comments or being comment on via TMP.

But I think Ammianus's point is that PB seems to work hard to alienate players.

Phil does this quite easily. He writes rules as he wants, according to his own ideas, and those that do not agree, become alienated. Original DBA alienated the WRG ancients players (in that he did not continue with that style of game), DBMM alienated DBM players. DBA2 alienated DBA 1 players.

Why does Phil need to write rules in some democratic way. Do other authors put their game up for a vote? Do other authors pass on their work to a committee for comment? I am happy to let Phil create what he wants and then play it, or not. I never liked DBM, nor DBMM, nor HFG, yet, that did not make me think any the less of him as a great rules writer.

Ammianus
09-11-2011, 09:04 PM
My apologies to all for what was to me fairly clear. It appears to me that there are a number of people who for various reasons connected to the mechanics, scope, etc of DBA and the accompanying dialog from PB and those pro and con, have begun to embrace alternatives. I see a great deal of buzz for the various flavors of Impetus (for one example). Btw, I have never played Impetus. Sorry that anyone took was I said as an elaborate scheme putting words in Phils mouth. Whew!

winterbadger
09-11-2011, 10:29 PM
He might well just say what he means and not set up an elaborate facade that Phil is making comments or being comment on via TMP.

I'm sure you know perfectly well that that was not what Ammianus was saying. Why you pretend otherwise I do not understand.

Phil does this quite easily. He writes rules as he wants, according to his own ideas, and those that do not agree, become alienated.

It isn't his writing rules that people don't care for that alienates people. Plenty of authors do that, and the net result is that no one buys their rules and they are quickly forgotten.

Why does Phil need to write rules in some democratic way. Do other authors put their game up for a vote? Do other authors pass on their work to a committee for comment? I am happy to let Phil create what he wants and then play it, or not. I never liked DBM, nor DBMM, nor HFG, yet, that did not make me think any the less of him as a great rules writer.

There are so many preposterous implications in that paragraph that I don't know where to start in replying to it.

Other authors, at least of my acquaintance (see the dozen or so I've cited when you have raised this straw man before) do not sneer at or denigrate their fans. Others listen. Others communicate directly and regularly. Others test their changes or additions in a transparent way both with people who know something about the game and some who don't. Others engage in a positive way with the people who pay to support their product and their livelihood.

No one is saying that PB needs to be democratic. Or even pleasant or likeable or rational. We're just observing that there are consequences when someone in his position chooses not to be. For some reason I don't grasp, this bothers you beyond all reckoning.

If you're going to stand outside and yell at the rain for falling, Bob, take an umbrella. It would be a pity if you got pneumonia.

david kuijt
09-12-2011, 01:04 AM
Why does Phil need to write rules in some democratic way. Do other authors put their game up for a vote? Do other authors pass on their work to a committee for comment? I am happy to let Phil create what he wants and then play it, or not.

Democratic and Offensive are not the only two options, Bob. Lots of authors make the final decision themselves without a vote; most of them are less offensive to their audience, less derogatory to their players, and less recalcitrant, arbitrary, and curmudgeonly than Phil.

In the end, we all must let Phil create what he wants, and if it is crap, we don't play it. But you shouldn't be surprised if we who love this game rail against HOW Phil goes about it. Because the way Phil goes about it, could hardly be less well aimed at alienating those who love the game.

Doug
09-12-2011, 01:40 AM
Democratic and Offensive are not the only two options, Bob. Lots of authors make the final decision themselves without a vote; most of them are less offensive to their audience, less derogatory to their players, and less recalcitrant, arbitrary, and curmudgeonly than Phil.

In the end, we all must let Phil create what he wants, and if it is crap, we don't play it. But you shouldn't be surprised if we who love this game rail against HOW Phil goes about it. Because the way Phil goes about it, could hardly be less well aimed at alienating those who love the game.

I actually think the truth is more prosaic. Phil opened up the DBMM development process, and got absolutely hammered by a large number of people, many of whom knew virtually nothing about anything, but made lots of special pleading. When they weren't listened to, many of them walked away in an almighty huff...

For DBA he did open up the development process, but to a much more limited extent. So whereas in the past a ruleset might have been developed in a small club setting with a few players, here it is online. That in itself has clear disadvantages in that it is visible, but exclusive. What little leaks out, however (in)accurate, sets the rumours going, which spread much more rapidly in an online community, and lead to players feeling disenfranchised.

Now regardless of whether this is a good or a bad process, Phil also has an approach that does not 'suffer fools gladly' - and he reacts strongly to what he sees (with some justification) as uninformed criticism. Which in turn leads to further conflict..

I don't offer any value judgement, but it is my observation of what has happened.

Macbeth
09-12-2011, 03:37 AM
I appreciate the frustrations of those in the playtest group given that they are instructed to keep their "sharing" to a minimum and are forced to watch the vitriol thrown around on the forum by those of us who are less than well informed.

But I would like to put this in some perspective

As far as alienating players goes I believe that Phil once said that "DBA was meant to be played by 8 year olds, Drunks and the Semi Senile". :p

Maybe he was misquoted and meant to suggest that it was 8 year old geniuses, Drunken Savants and University Professors who are Semi Senile but are still masters of their subject matter. It is possible that what was meant was that we who play DBA are to be considered equals of this elite group :D

Given that the dialouge has included statements like those above for years now then YES We Whinge. We feel alienated. It might not be justified but that doesn't change it and a thousand reasoned arguements or a dozen snipes about what Phil does and why won't change a thing.

But

Was it Julius Ceasar who said that he preferred it when his troops were grumbling - as it meant they weren't plotting. Or is that a later quote.

All in all I want to say

Suck It Up Princess!! to a vast cohort here

Playtesters - there are going to be grumbles and gripes but that isn't going to stop the process.

Non Playtesters - DBA 3 is coming one way or another and after it lands we will be making our informed decision.

Doug
09-12-2011, 04:14 AM
I believe the expression was that it should be comprehensible to a 12 yr old, but you know how these things grow (or shrink) in the telling.

jcpotn
09-12-2011, 05:44 AM
Yesterday, three of us playing Welsh, Celtiberian, and Marian played two round each on a spur of the moment competition. We had great fun in a timely manner. No problem with movement other than the dice. Can't see anything that needs changing. Where's the beef? DBA 2.2 ,hmmm, hmmm,hmm. :D

Jeff

michael guth
09-12-2011, 09:02 AM
Maybe we could change the name of this thread, since there doesn't really appear to be a message from Phil Barker. DK says there were some elements of 3.0 in testing that he liked. Maybe, at the last minute, the movement rules will be changed for 3.0 and everything will be great, despite the messed up process.

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 01:06 PM
Maybe we could change the name of this thread, since there doesn't really appear to be a message from Phil Barker.

?????

The thread was started by Sue Barker, who was very definitely delivering a message from Phil.

DK says there were some elements of 3.0 in testing that he liked. Maybe, at the last minute, the movement rules will be changed for 3.0 and everything will be great, despite the messed up process.

My memory is that DK said there were a lot of things that were messed up about the drafts that he saw, as well as some things that he thought were not messed up.

Yes, maybe at the last minute everything will be fixed and made perfect. "So maybe, if we screw up our eyes really tight and pray to the big pink pixie in the sky, someone will come and reward us."

El' Jocko
09-12-2011, 01:32 PM
?????

My memory is that DK said there were a lot of things that were messed up about the drafts that he saw, as well as some things that he thought were not messed up.

I think that's being a bit too negative. There are a number of changes that are good--not just tolerable but good. There are a number of changes that are bad--perhaps not bad enough to make me give up on DBA 3.0, but bad. Then there are the changes that will keep me from playing DBA 3.0 if they remain in the final version. The latest draft has a healthy sampling from all three categories.

- Jack

jcpotn
09-12-2011, 01:35 PM
?????

The thread was started by Sue Barker, who was very definitely delivering a message from Phil.



My memory is that DK said there were a lot of things that were messed up about the drafts that he saw, as well as some things that he thought were not messed up.

Yes, maybe at the last minute everything will be fixed and made perfect. "So maybe, if we screw up our eyes really tight and pray to the big pink pixie in the sky, someone will come and reward us."

This PC stuff is killing me. Can't you just say Tinkerbelle and clap your hands?:silly

Jeff

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 01:46 PM
This PC stuff is killing me. Can't you just say Tinkerbelle and clap your hands?:silly

Jeff

Hey, NMP if you don't recognise a quotation from the greatest comic genius of our time when it's presented to you! :silly

Si2
09-12-2011, 02:31 PM
Hey, NMP if you don't recognise a quotation from the greatest comic genius of our time when it's presented to you! :silly

It is a time for miracles....

Kingo
09-12-2011, 02:43 PM
"Drunks and the Semi Senile"

Well two out of three aint bad :D

Soon we will have the choice between 2.2 and 3.0, the sooner they are released the better.

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 02:56 PM
I believe the expression was that it should be comprehensible to a 12 yr old, but you know how these things grow (or shrink) in the telling.

Quoting from Bob Beattie's DBA: Ten Years After and Beyond (http://dba.fyicenter.com/article/DBA_TEN_YEARS_AFTER_AND_BEYOND.html).

In all fairness, Phil Barker has come to realize the need for better clarity. He wrote in an internet message in the first week of January, 2001, "The original concept of DBA was that it should be simple enough for a 7 year old to memorise. This worked well in the UK, but apparently not in the US, which likes to search the fine print for unlikely interpretations. V2.0 has accordingly much closer definitions to hopefully satisfy Bob Beattie if not Florida Democrat lawyers."

A good example of PB demonstrating his ability to charm and persuade.

Bobgnar
09-12-2011, 03:59 PM
Did he not deliver on his promise? Was 2.0 not clearer than 1.1? I do not understand what the charm and persuasion refers to? Do you imply that 2.0 was not a good set of rules, it was just a conjure of charm and persuasion?
--------
Quoting from Bob Beattie's DBA: Ten Years After and Beyond.

Quote:
In all fairness, Phil Barker has come to realize the need for better clarity. He wrote in an internet message in the first week of January, 2001, "The original concept of DBA was that it should be simple enough for a 7 year old to memorise. This worked well in the UK, but apparently not in the US, which likes to search the fine print for unlikely interpretations. V2.0 has accordingly much closer definitions to hopefully satisfy Bob Beattie if not Florida Democrat lawyers."

Winterbadger claims this was
"A good example of PB demonstrating his ability to charm and persuade."

Rich Gause
09-12-2011, 04:10 PM
Did he not deliver on his promise? Was 2.0 not clearer than 1.1? I do not understand what the charm and persuasion refers to? Do you imply that 2.0 was not a good set of rules, it was just a conjure of charm and persuasion?
--------
Quoting from Bob Beattie's DBA: Ten Years After and Beyond.

Quote:
In all fairness, Phil Barker has come to realize the need for better clarity. He wrote in an internet message in the first week of January, 2001, "The original concept of DBA was that it should be simple enough for a 7 year old to memorise. This worked well in the UK, but apparently not in the US, which likes to search the fine print for unlikely interpretations. V2.0 has accordingly much closer definitions to hopefully satisfy Bob Beattie if not Florida Democrat lawyers."

Winterbadger claims this was
"A good example of PB demonstrating his ability to charm and persuade."

I think he is showing an example of Phil basically insulting US DBA players by saying there was nothing wrong with DBA 1 except that a bunch of nitpicky USA rules lawyers played the rules as he wrote them instead of how he meant them..................

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 04:10 PM
Did he not deliver on his promise? Was 2.0 not clearer than 1.1? I do not understand what the charm and persuasion refers to? Do you imply that 2.0 was not a good set of rules, it was just a conjure of charm and persuasion?

Bob, are you being deliberately obtuse? :rolleyes

Doug challenged the popular belief that Phil Barker said that the rules should be simple enough for an eight-year old to understand; Doug suggested that Phil said they should be comprehensible to a 12 year old.

In fact, Barker said (according to you) a seven year old. And he didn't even try to assert that they would be comprehensible, just that a child could memorise them, which is hardly the same thing.

As for charm and persuasion, are you really going to pretend that you don't see the sneer at American players in his quote? One of many in all his published remarks.

Pavane
09-12-2011, 04:56 PM
As for charm and persuasion, are you really going to pretend that you don't see the sneer at American players in his quote? One of many in all his published remarks.
You are taking PB literally again. I'm sure he intended to include all of the former colonies, not just America.

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 05:02 PM
You are taking PB literally again. I'm sure he intended to include all of the former colonies, not just America.

True, true. And here I was thinking that DK and all of you chaps in the north would be offended because he said "US". But probably everything outside the Home Counties is the same to him. :) Canada, the US, Texas, Australia, Watford...

kontos
09-12-2011, 05:50 PM
True, true. And here I was thinking that DK and all of you chaps in the north would be offended because he said "US". But probably everything outside the Home Counties is the same to him. :) Canada, the US, Texas, Australia, Watford...

Did Texas secede from the union? I thought only Key West did that...for a day! :D

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 05:51 PM
Did Texas secede from the union? I thought only Key West did that...for a day! :D

I tend to think of it as being not quite part of the US. I gather most Texians do too. :D

Doug
09-12-2011, 05:59 PM
Quoting from Bob Beattie's DBA: Ten Years After and Beyond (http://dba.fyicenter.com/article/DBA_TEN_YEARS_AFTER_AND_BEYOND.html).



A good example of PB demonstrating his ability to charm and persuade.

Pah - Truth is a defence against defamation.. ;-)

In all fairness, I have had a few people try to winkle strange meanings out something that I thought perfectly clear.. I didn't ask them about their political leanings, or state of origin, and if I had known they were lawyers would have arranged for a lunching...

Phil has often expressed incredulity that what he thought was transparent was considered opaque by some.

Doug
09-12-2011, 06:08 PM
True, true. And here I was thinking that DK and all of you chaps in the north would be offended because he said "US". But probably everything outside the Home Counties is the same to him. :) Canada, the US, Texas, Australia, Watford...

Well, as Phil lives well outside the Home Counties, I am not sure this is entirely true.

As for the 12 year old remark, if it was 7, my mistake, it certainly wasn't 'drunk' - 'semi-senile' etc as some are suggesting.

Finally, I think some of the issue can be brought to the differences between UK & US English. Some words in common usage in the UK are not commonly used in the US, and there are subtle differences which I think bedevilled v1.

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 06:14 PM
Finally, I think some of the issue can be brought to the differences between UK & US English. Some words in common usage in the UK are not commonly used in the US, and there are subtle differences which I think bedevilled v1.

You know, I hear this all the time, but the truth is that the differences between British and American (or Australian or Canadian or whatever) really aren't all that great. For the most part, there are some nouns that are different, there are some constructions that are different, but--as member of the [UK] Society for Editors and Proofreaders--what I hear most from my colleagues are complaints that British is being taken over, lock, stock, and barrel, by American.

Phil's problem is not that he writes in British and we read him over here in American. It's that he writes in Barker.

I've shown some of his "writing" to my British colleagues, and the reactions were divided between outright disbelief that this was material that had actually been published and gales of hysterical laughter.

Doug
09-12-2011, 06:25 PM
You know, I hear this all the time, but the truth is that the differences between British and American (or Australian or Canadian or whatever) really aren't all that great. For the most part, there are some nouns that are different, there are some constructions that are different, but--as member of the [UK] Society for Editors and Proofreaders--what I hear most from my colleagues are complaints that British is being taken over, lock, stock, and barrel, by American.

Phil's problem is not that he writes in British and we read him over here in American. It's that he writes in Barker.

I've shown some of his "writing" to my British colleagues, and the reactions were divided between outright disbelief that this was material that had actually been published and gales of hysterical laughter.

The differences are not that great (note my use of the term 'subtle') but the effects can be significant where they differ even slightly, just look at the problems caused by 'Or'and 'At' as well as 'Within'. Any dismissal of these is a facile response.

Pavane
09-12-2011, 06:33 PM
I've shown some of his "writing" to my British colleagues, and the reactions were divided between outright disbelief that this was material that had actually been published and gales of hysterical laughter.
Writers can be inscrutable when they self-publish and don't bother with an editor.

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 06:35 PM
The differences are not that great (note my use of the term 'subtle') but the effects can be significant where they differ even slightly, just look at the problems caused by 'Or' and 'At' as well as 'Within'.

Problems that have nothing to do with the difference between British English and other versions thereof.

Bobgnar
09-12-2011, 08:57 PM
I am sorry you cannot understand some humor when you see it. Phil's UK colleagues, in 1999, played easily with him as they shared a common knowledge of gaming style. I suggested to Phil that this shared knowledge system did not cross the Atlantic. He took me at my word and did make 2.0 more easy to understand, but gave me a little jab in the process.

Why do you insist on finding fault with Phil? You play his game and maybe enjoy it, yet continue to find fault with the man himself. Why do you get off on the personal attacks? Maybe his humor is not to your taste, in that you do not understand it, but what does that have to do with his tremendous contribution to war gaming? Perhaps Chris will set up a new thread on "Let's Rag on Phil." I will avoid that one, and hope the other threads deal with ideas and not personalities.



Bob, are you being deliberately obtuse? :rolleyes

Doug challenged the popular belief that Phil Barker said that the rules should be simple enough for an eight-year old to understand; Doug suggested that Phil said they should be comprehensible to a 12 year old.

In fact, Barker said (according to you) a seven year old. And he didn't even try to assert that they would be comprehensible, just that a child could memorise them, which is hardly the same thing.

As for charm and persuasion, are you really going to pretend that you don't see the sneer at American players in his quote? One of many in all his published remarks.

winterbadger
09-12-2011, 10:23 PM
I am sorry you cannot understand some humor when you see it.

Ah, the "oh, people are calling me on being a prat; I'd better pretend it's just a joke" gambit--the last refuge of the passive-aggressive.

Gascap
09-12-2011, 10:36 PM
Ah, the "oh, people are calling me on being a prat; I'd better pretend it's just a joke" gambit--the last refuge of the passive-aggressive.

What is this "prat?" That's not American English. I don't understand. :???

JM

jcpotn
09-12-2011, 10:37 PM
Ah, the "oh, people are calling me on being a prat; I'd better pretend it's just a joke" gambit--the last refuge of the passive-aggressive.

So, let's see. No sense of humor or digital camera to take pictures of your DBA games. One sorry individual. Please turn in your ration card and report for voluntary dismemberment. You will be separated from your misconceptions.:D

Jeff

(uuh, what's a prat?)

david kuijt
09-12-2011, 10:42 PM
What is this "prat?" That's not American English. I don't understand. :???


Twit, wanker. Does that help? How about hoser?

Zhukov
09-12-2011, 10:44 PM
Twit, wanker. Does that help? How about hoser?

For Americans, I guess that translates well to 'prick'.

-Zhukov

Redwilde
09-12-2011, 10:50 PM
What is this "prat?" That's not American English. I don't understand. :???

Urban Dictionary is your friend.

Gascap
09-12-2011, 10:52 PM
Twit, wanker. Does that help? How about hoser?

Nope. Please restate in a way that would be clear to a seven-year-old.

JM

david kuijt
09-12-2011, 10:54 PM
Nope. Please restate in a way that would be clear to a seven-year-old.


"Twit" and "Hoser" were common parlance where I grew up when I was seven. Prat and Wanker less so.

Doug
09-12-2011, 11:38 PM
Urban Dictionary is your friend.

A prat is more of a fool, whereas a pr*ck is more of an unpleasant character.

ferrency
09-13-2011, 12:00 AM
Why do you insist on finding fault with Phil? You play his game and maybe enjoy it, yet continue to find fault with the man himself.

Why do you insist that everyone must like Phil as much as they like his rules?

In my experience, there is very little correlation between the quality of art and the tolerability of the artist who created it.

That is not to say I don't like the man; I can't dislike him, I don't even know him. But I don't like some of the things he has done, even though I do like some of the other things he has done. How is this different than anyone else?

Alan

Roland Fricke
09-13-2011, 07:33 AM
This forum has always kept the discussion from getting ugly or personal. Several discussions lately have become ugly which is what keeps me away from other boards. Perhaps the tension of 3.0 has promoted that.

Maybe we should refrain from personal attacks lest this board degrade to the level of some others..

Tony Aguilar
09-13-2011, 08:19 AM
This forum has always kept the discussion from getting ugly or personal. Several discussions lately have become ugly which is what keeps me away from other boards. Perhaps the tension of 3.0 has promoted that.

Maybe we should refrain from personal attacks lest this board degrade to the level of some others..

I agree, Roland. This is why I rarely go to TMP anymore.

Si2
09-13-2011, 08:27 AM
I agree.
Phil is Phil, that's his perogative.

He thinks stuff up and we either like it or don't.

DBA/DBM is a good example of the binary preference effect. There are some that play both, but in my personal experience, people like one or the other. His output is quite varied.

DBA3 will just give us more choice.

Phil wants to put out something new - he doesn't want a tweaked 2.2, he wants to try a new tack. You never know it might be great.

2.2 will live forever - no one's sending around the firemen to burn the books.

Give the guy a break.

Stop posting Phil bashing posts and go and paint something.

Si2

winterbadger
09-13-2011, 11:09 AM
Thanks for your helpful suggestions, Si. Here are a few of my own.

If you don't like the content of a thread, don't read it.

If you don't want a thread to get longer, don't post to it.

Understand that, on the Internet, about the least productive thing you can do is tell other people to shut up. Because it is the one near-perfect guarantee of extending the conversation.

john svensson
09-13-2011, 11:35 AM
Somebody cut Euthydemus off. :yawn John

Si2
09-13-2011, 12:30 PM
Thanks for your helpful suggestions, Si. Here are a few of my own.

There was only one.

I wasn't telling people to shut up, just to stop lambasting the man.

I'm quite happy to read the thread, I'd read it all the way to here.
I'm quite happy for it to grow longer, but personally I'd rather it was less about Phil and more about Phil's message.

Feel free to post more helpful suggestions.

I will be here, I will be reading them, I will probably respond.
It's the main reason I join forums: to post.


Si2

teenage visigoth
09-13-2011, 01:35 PM
Everytime I pop on the forum the 'Message from Phil Barker' heads the 3.0 board.

Alas, that I've paired it up with 'Message in a Bottle' from the Police.

I can hear Sting rasping:
'Message from Phil Barker, Message from Phil Barker'

Egads...

Sending out an SOS.

-TV

maybe i'll rewrite the words to fit... :eek

Tony Aguilar
09-13-2011, 01:39 PM
Sending out an SOS.

maybe i'll rewrite the words to fit... :eek

Woke up on this morning.
Can't believe what I saw.
Hundred million posts now.
All up on the board.

Etc.. :D

teenage visigoth
09-13-2011, 01:47 PM
No Tony... DON"T!!

I need to work... :outrage

Zhukov
09-13-2011, 06:46 PM
Woke up on this morning.
Can't believe what I saw.
Hundred million posts now.
All up on the board.

Etc.. :D

OMG.......

CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM! lol

-Zhukov

dicemanrick
09-16-2011, 09:17 PM
Nope. Please restate in a way that would be clear to a seven-year-old.

JM

JM: in Pittsburghese it would definitely be "Jaggoff":D