What's a blog for if you can't be controversial once in a while :) Luckily, so far the readership of this blog has not yet exceeded the number of authors, so we can poke a stick into the anthill once in a while. Todays stick is a realisation I had, which became the title of this entry: DBM, the most popular ancients wargame, is not a miniature wargame.
Of course, this depends entirely on one's definition of _miniature wargame_. If you define the term purely linguistically, as a game simulating warfare and played with miniatures, then DBM _is_ a miniature wargame, for it simulates ancient warfare and uses miniatures as a means to do so. [Wikipedia](http://www.wikipedia.org) [defines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_wargaming) miniature wargaming as
> a form of wargaming designed to incorporate miniatures or figurines into play
This is essentially the linguistic definition. However, later on in the entry, the author also adds that the main attraction to miniature wargaming is that
> many find the tactile element of soldiers and scenery on a tabletop to be aesthetically pleasing; additionally, painting miniatures and constructing scenery can be a rewarding challenge
And that is _my_ definition of a miniature wargame. It is more that just a wargame played with miniatures. It also engages ones aesthetic and creative aspects, and that is what sets it apart from board or computer games. Therefore, the creative aspect of painting, modelling etc. is an essential part of miniature wargaming, without which it would not be miniature wargaming; so that aspect is a part of the definition of the term.
And by that definition, DBM is not a miniature wargame.
Allow me to illustrate with an example. In our group, we have one player who adamantly refuses to even consider playing any other game than DBM (not that he's obnoxious about it or derisive of other games, he just only plays DBM). I had a hard time understanding this, until I realised that this player is not playing a miniature wargame, he's playing DBM. He's also an avid [Advanced Squad Leader](http://www.multimanpublishing.com/ASL/asl.php) player, and I think for him, DBM is a similar sort of game that just happens to be played with miniatures. This last fact is incidental to the game however, it is not essential in any way. As a result he, and players like him are not into the whole painting and modelling part of the hobby -- to wit, he buys his miniatures fully painted, they're part of the investment, not part of the game or hobby to him.
We can generalise this particular players' attitude towards DBM to the rule set as a whole: DBM is a tactical wargame that just happens to be played with miniatures. It is a game upon itself, not really connected to the larger world and meme pool of miniature wargaming. This explains why it is so successful as a tournament game (it is a game upon itself, with an internally consistent rules framework not tied to anything else), and also why it often draws such extreme reactions from the miniature wargaming crowd.
So, to sum things up, in my opinion DBM is not a miniature wargame as I, and I think most people who identify themselves as miniature wargamers, conceive of the term. It is a good and succesful tactical wargame system by itself, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it is not a miniature wargame.
If there's anyone reading this, comments have been activated here on [TTM](/snv/ttm), so I'm inviting you to make full use of the interactivity of the blog medium to comment on this entry!
As you point out yourself, it all depends on your definition of miniature wargaming.
ReplyDeleteFor me, there is no good definition, since a miniature wargame is composed of a whole bunch of factors, with different weights attributed to them by different players. To sum up a few: historical research, painting and collecting miniatures, painting and collecting terrain, writing rules, designing scenarios, playing the game, having fun, pretending to simulate war, ...
At various ends of this spectrum, you might find different styles of play:
- 'board wargames' with miniatures as playing pieces (Battlecry, Memoir 44, Spacehulk, ...)
- 'tabletop wargames' using non-miniatures as playing pieces (e.g. map-based kriegspiels)
- dioramas with set movements depicting a historical battle
- very informal games, more resembling a roleplay session played out using miniatures (in fact, roleplaying evolved from this type of miniature wargaming)
- very strict games, using a strict set of rules (DBM)
- the GW hobby ( :-) )
- etc.
I enjoy mostly the freeform aspects of scenario design and the 'gamesmastering' bit, with nicely painted terrain and figures as a plus, although other visual reps are no problem for me, as long as there is a certain aesthetic appeal to it.
Anyway, DBM is not really my thing either, since it doesn't really match what *I* am looking for in miniature wargaming. I consider the whole DBM scene a bit similar to the GW scene: a somewhat isolated branch of wargaming, in some aspects very succes, and with a large following, but at the same time so much focused on itself that its adherents tend to forget there is something else as well.
But, that does not make it in any way 'inferior' to my preferred miniature wargaming style. It's just something different, and there's room enough for lots of styles.
I tend to agree with you on this Bart. Just a few days ago the topic of DBM came up at lunch with JP and Stephen. My point to them was that I had come to the conclusion that an ancients game that dispensed with the concept of units was no longer really representative of ancient warfare. I see DBM as an exercise in tactical thinking within the context of a game played with miniature pieces representing Vikings, Romans, etc. I played DBM for a long time, even helped playtest DBA and DBM, but I'm done with it now. Been there, done that. For me, DBM no longer works as a wargame of ancient warfare.
ReplyDeleteDavid
Tricky one. As it is played by clubs and in tournaments, dbm is basically a form of chess with figures and army lists. The pleasure is in designing good armies, or perversely playing with large lousy ones and then, on the tabletop, playing the clever manouevres, cheesy manouevres and, sometimes, rather cheating manouevres!
ReplyDeleteIt could, theoretically, be played with nice figures, lovely terrain, historical match-ups, etc. But you're right, that tends not to be the case.
From that point of view, it's more its own little world and community than a wargame.
I will still go to Anderida in November, but mainly because I like the venue and its a fun weekend. I may indeed not bother anymore with other dbm affairs.
Just a clarification - the post does not mean I'm against DBM or people that play DBM. As Phil says, the hobby is really a conglomerate of different approaches to miniature wargaming, and the fact that one groups way of doing things does not equal the way I like to do things, does not mean that that group is wrong or misguided in any way. In fact, I'll even play DBM on occasion :)
ReplyDeleteThe many facets of the hobby might well form the basis of a future post on TTM.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteDBM is no longer MY personal game of choice. But, would I play it at someone's house if that's what they wanted to do? Absolutely. I see myself moving more towards WAB for my ancients gaming, but I don't think there is anything wrong with people loving DBM (thousands certainly do!). I play wargames as much for the social interaction that goes along with it as the game itself so I can honestly say I don't think there is really any game I would absolutely refuse to play in a friendly atmosphere.
David
I got into the hobby through my interest in military history and have tried to remain as true as possible to this whatever rules/preriod I play.
ReplyDeleteDBM is part of a trend in wargames rules over the last few years that therefore greatly worries me (eg Rapid Fire, Panzer Marsch, the various DBM and related rules) in which the emphasis has been placed far too much on simplicity at the expense of historical accuaracy. I like simple rules systems. What I do not like is when these simple systems become so simplistic that they end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Sadly DBM and many "modern" systems end up with exactly this result. DBM bears little or no reality to what we know about the period from ancient sources (I wonder how many DBM players have ever actually read any ancient works such as Ceaser's Conquest of Gaul for example)
DBM games invariably involve lining up the two armies on opposite sides of a flat table with very little terrain to speak of (maybe a river off to a flank if anything at all). While many ancient battles were face to face actions the reality of the situation (operational, strategic, nature of the terrain) was often much more complex. The battle could involve a whole variety of tactical situations such as a river crossing, a battle in a forest, a mountain pass, an ambush or storming a defended town, settlement or camp. I have never seen any of these situations in any DBM game. However, when playing Rome Total War on the computer I have encountered all of these tactical situations as the attacker or defender and have experienced much more intersting and realistic experiences of the problems encountered by ancient commanders as portrayed in the writings of ancient historians that have come down to us.
My personal favourite rule set is Ancient Empires, which, although they are somewaht complex and probably are not perfect in terms of historical accuracy do at least allow me to deploy a manipular Roman Legion and employ it in a historical manner - the only rule set I am aware of that does!
In the only DBM game I have ever played I deployed my Polybian Roman Legions in the historical manner. I was facing a Gallic army that simply charged right through my army in not just one game but two! This result appears to be in sharp contrast with historical accounts of actual battles between these two armies (see Polybius and Livy) which clearly indicate that the Romans were able to defeat the Gauls on many occasions using the historical deployment I used (Velites in the fromt line, Princeps in the second line, Hastati in the third line and Triarii at the rear. Cavalry on both flanks.
Result - put me off DBM for life as DBM tactics appear to bear no resmblance to historical tactics or deployments.
For me as a historically minded wargamer I have to agree with the contention that DBM is not a historical miniatures game. Frankly, with all due respect to Phil Barker, I have to say that, while he has made great contributions to the hobby, his approach, and that of WRG hae now become far to dogmatic and have really lost the plot as far as historical simulation goes.
TIME FOR A CHANGE!
I got into the hobby through my interest in military history and have tried to remain as true as possible to this whatever rules/preriod I play.
ReplyDeleteDBM is part of a trend in wargames rules over the last few years that therefore greatly worries me (eg Rapid Fire, Panzer Marsch, the various DBM and related rules) in which the emphasis has been placed far too much on simplicity at the expense of historical accuaracy. I like simple rules systems. What I do not like is when these simple systems become so simplistic that they end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Sadly DBM and many "modern" systems end up with exactly this result. DBM bears little or no reality to what we know about the period from ancient sources (I wonder how many DBM players have ever actually read any ancient works such as Ceaser's Conquest of Gaul for example)
DBM games invariably involve lining up the two armies on opposite sides of a flat table with very little terrain to speak of (maybe a river off to a flank if anything at all). While many ancient battles were face to face actions the reality of the situation (operational, strategic, nature of the terrain) was often much more complex. The battle could involve a whole variety of tactical situations such as a river crossing, a battle in a forest, a mountain pass, an ambush or storming a defended town, settlement or camp. I have never seen any of these situations in any DBM game. However, when playing Rome Total War on the computer I have encountered all of these tactical situations as the attacker or defender and have experienced much more intersting and realistic experiences of the problems encountered by ancient commanders as portrayed in the writings of ancient historians that have come down to us.
My personal favourite rule set is Ancient Empires, which, although they are somewaht complex and probably are not perfect in terms of historical accuracy do at least allow me to deploy a manipular Roman Legion and employ it in a historical manner - the only rule set I am aware of that does!
In the only DBM game I have ever played I deployed my Polybian Roman Legions in the historical manner. I was facing a Gallic army that simply charged right through my army in not just one game but two! This result appears to be in sharp contrast with historical accounts of actual battles between these two armies (see Polybius and Livy) which clearly indicate that the Romans were able to defeat the Gauls on many occasions using the historical deployment I used (Velites in the fromt line, Princeps in the second line, Hastati in the third line and Triarii at the rear. Cavalry on both flanks.
Result - put me off DBM for life as DBM tactics appear to bear no resmblance to historical tactics or deployments.
For me as a historically minded wargamer I have to agree with the contention that DBM is not a historical miniatures game. Frankly, with all due respect to Phil Barker, I have to say that, while he has made great contributions to the hobby, his approach, and that of WRG hae now become far to dogmatic and have really lost the plot as far as historical simulation goes.
TIME FOR A CHANGE!
Lucas,
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. Although I have to admit in all fairness that my experience with DBM is limited, the few times I played the rules, it never struck me as if the situation on the table could happen in reality.
Of course, that is not the case in many other games as well, so in the end it comes down to how serious you hold that against a set.
When playing any set of rules, an individual player's evaluation always comes down to a subjective weighting of things such as fun, preconceived notions of 'realism', the perception of whether what happens on the table conforms to 'real tactics', all of which might be very different from player to player.
So, yes, in my scale of evaluations, DBM does not work for me either ;-)