"Is Barkerese a myth?" Topic

Sorry, but again it is clear to me. Except in your first bound of the game, it is going to cost you an extra pip if the general is dead, a long way away, or closer but crap terrain intervenes.

So why did he not say it like that? Your way is much clearer, which only goes to illustrate exactly the opposite of what you want. Phil is concise, but not clear.

The most annoying thing I find is that he refused to write things in bullet point lists, but insisted on trying to write long sentences.

"When a single element
or an element of a group
entirely of Skirmishers
and/or Light Horse
is contacted by the front edge
of an element of an enemy group,
it must immediately pivot
and/or shift sideways
to conform to that element,
unless either defending
a fortification, an obstacle or the edge of a terrain feature,
or its recoil would then be prevented by friends."

Reads like wargaming poetry to me…

:-)

One may enjoy, tolerate, or loathe "Barkerese," but it definitely exists.

Been playing WRG rules since 2nd edition, played the modern rules just aren't that modern anymore.

Not sure why anyone would say that Barkerese is a myth? Pick up DBMM V1 and try figuring out the sentence dealing with troop quality.

@colinhow – Ah I see. I have always heard the term use pejoratively to imply complexity leading to confusion.

@Mark Plant because you and I are both gentleman gamers who wouldn't intentionally warp such a loose definition to win a tournament match. ;)

Reads like wargaming poetry to me…

It becomes less poetic looking when it gets pushed into paragraphs that look like bricks.

"When a single element or an element of a group entirely of Skirmishers and/or Light Horse is contacted by the front edge of an element of an enemy group, it must immediately pivot and/or shift sideways to conform to that element, unless either defending a fortification, an obstacle or the edge of a terrain feature, or its recoil would then be prevented by friends."

Judging by the large number of posts to the Black Powder yahoo group on interpretation of the rules it doesn't look like Preistlyese is any better! Also despite encouragement to treat the rules as a guide and resolve any issues between plyers it does seem that a lot of people want to know EXACTLY what the rules mean!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Mr. Barker begin as a writer of technical manuals for the British government? That may explain the style of writing present in his rules.

I think that the "anti-Phil" faction has something to do with the fact that Phil regularly makes statements about Ancient warfare and history and his legions of fans immediately accept these as absolute fact… While I enjoy "Armies and Enemies" and his other work, it is absolutely clear that most of his statements are presented as fact (with a few notable exceptions.) It's only occasionally that he'll say, "I propose, based upon the evidence." Even then, one has to stretch to find some of the evidence that Mr. Barker is talking about.
Also, Phil tends to respond rather… err… poorly.. to criticism.

Also, Phil tends to respond rather… err… poorly.. to criticism.

The bombshell effect of some of his missives on the letter column of Slingshot was something that would not be witnessed again in the world of wargaming until the advent of TMP.

Whether it was deliberate I know not, but he really could wind some people up – everyone off to the sidelines found it hilarious (IMO).

What were those PB modern naval rules? "The miniature should subtend an angle equal to that of the real ship at attack distance" or words to that effect.

Phil, I hate to tell you, but they don't make 1/10,000 scale minis. Modern naval ranges are much longer than you seem to grasp.

An aircraft carrier, broadside on, is 1000 feet. A *submarine's* engagement range is say, 30,000 yards. A thousand-foot long target at 30k yards distance subtends 40 minutes of angle. At 3 feet away, 40 minutes of angle is .4"… and that's your aircraft carrier's length!

Concise writing does not equal clear, unambiguous writing.

(minutes of arc)

:-)

"Now concentrate Father Dougal. These cows are very small, those cows are far away"

@Lion. AFAIK Seastrike are the only modern naval rules that were published by WRG and they weren't written by Phil.

I would like thank for his invaluable contribution to wargaming. Confusing wording yes and to this no thanks. BUT I feel we are where are now thanks to Phil and others.

The difference between questions about Black Powder and now Hail Caesar is that when Rick Priestly answers a question, it is in the same 'plain English' style as the rule book is written in. When Phil answers a question on the DBMM yahoo site, it is in plain English. There is a clear difference in his email style and rules writing style. Which certainly indicates that 'Barkerese' is real.

That said, Phil's contribution to wargaming has been enormous and beneficial.

Anyone brave enough to write wargames rules is entitled to a quirk or two :-)

Which certainly indicates that 'Barkerese' is real.

Except that you would be hard pushed to find evidence of it in a lot of Phil's other rules – WRG 1925-50 comes to mind which are a model of clarity and people spot it in WRG rules not even written by him (yes Lion I'm talking about you!). :-) It is also clear that for all Rick Priestly's "plain English" a lot of people still don't understand what he means, which makes you wonder just how clear it is!

It is also clear that for all Rick Priestly's "plain English" a lot of people still don't understand what he means, which makes you wonder just how clear it is!

The rules-related questions one sees in the BP and HC groups are no different in type or number than those found in groups for COE, WAB, Lasalle, FOW, or any other rule set written in conversational English. The fact of the matter is that new players to any wargame tend to ask questions and misinterpret rules, often based on preconceptions held over from other rule sets they played previously. Nothing remarkable about that.

What is clear is that there are many more questions about rules meaning and interpretation – and many more complaints and arguments about the author's writing style – in discusion groups for rules written by Mr. Barker. The current furor over proposed changes for DBA 3.0 is an instructive case in point.

I felt that James Hamilton's definition was said well in just a few words.

? That wasn't written by Phil? My apologies, then. Still convoluted, and requiring a dictionary to find the definitions of some words does not bode well for the rules.

@Colinhow: It's 'minutes of angle' in the US, or at least in the shooting sports. It may be arc for the astronomers, but I don't look at stars. Or were you referring to the original quote that I paraphrased?

I think the biggest barrier to the intelligibility of Barkerese is using big ugly sentences when tables or bullet points would convey the same information. Yes, tables take more paper. Paper's cheap.

The rules-related questions one sees in the BP and HC groups are no different in type or number than those found in groups for COE, WAB, Lasalle, FOW, or any other rule set written in conversational English.

Really? I'm on the CoE list and can think of only 1 or 2. I don't know about WAB, Lasalle or FoW, but on the RFCM and Toofatlardiers groups actually questions abot what the rules mean are few and far between. Lots of discusssion on changes, new rules, variations etc. From my time on the DBMM list most of the discussion was about what the rules should be, not what they mean – usually people arguing in favour of their pet troop type. On the Blackpowder list it is more about basic interpretation of the rules.

The current furor over proposed changes for DBA 3.0 is an instructive case in point.

Again I think that's more about rules changes than writing style.

? That wasn't written by Phil? My apologies, then. Still convoluted, and requiring a dictionary to find the definitions of some words does not bode well for the rules.

Saestrike was written by Robin Wyatt – does that make Wyattese? :-)

Paper's cheap.

Paper might be, but printing isn't – or it wasn't. I think it is getting cheaper now. Certainly back in the days of WRG Ancients the printing costs were a significant capital investment.

Really? I'm on the CoE list and can think of only 1 or 2.

Try looking here: link
That forum is far more active than either the publisher's list or the Yahoo group. By my count, 26 out of the 60 threads there concern basic questions about the rules… that's 43%!

Again, let me stress that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is not at all surprising for a new rule set… which is precisely my point about Hail Caesar (and Black Powder, for that matter).

From my time on the DBMM list most of the discussion was about what the rules should be, not what they mean

Try looking at posts from the years immediately following the release of the rule set, and I think you will find a rather high percentage of questions about "basic interpretation of the rules." And there have been plenty of discussions about what the rules mean, right up to the present.

Again I think that's more about rules changes than writing style.

"Rules-related questions" were precisely what I was talking about. There are quite a few of those in that thread, along with numerous others. In other threads, a frequent response to rules-related questions is to direct people to the 72-page WADBAG interpretation guide.

Cheers,
Scott

I have introduced myself to Mr. Barker twice, at conventions, for the sole purpose of thanking him for his vast and underappreciated role in creating and sustaining my hobby, playing Ancients. His rules are clear, concise, and a LOT of work to read and learn.

Personally, I did not make the transition from DBM to DBMM and now enjoy playing FoG. This does not diminish Phil's greatness or the huge debt every Ancients gamer owes the man. Every Ancients gamer owes this debt, including those who play WAB, FoG, Warmaster, Hail Caesar, and every other set written in the past 40 years. We all play better games becauase Mr. Barker was there to set a high standard.

And no, Barkerese is not a myth.

This is why I often include this in rules I put out

RULE NUMBER ONE. It's only a game. You are to show sportsmanship at all times. You are not to try to squeeze every last advantage from the rules. You are to remind the opponent if he forgets something. You are not to measure to minute amounts to try and gain advantage (see page 6 for an example). In case of dispute do what seems most logical, and if you still can't agree flip a coin. PLAY NICELY.

Maybe it needs a sub-rule

When you are arguing about something, can you look your opponent in the eye and confidently say, without any second thought, regret or hesitation, nor fear of contradiction, "I am not being a complete and utter cock"?

"? That wasn't written by Phil? My apologies, then. Still convoluted, and requiring a dictionary to find the definitions of some words does not bode well for the rules."

You're thinking of 'Subs and Sams' – Phil's unpublished set of modern naval rules based (I think) on something he did for the UK government. Available free online (just google it, it's out there), and not a bad set of rules pr se, but totally unintelligible when set against Shipwreck.

And yes, we all owe him a great debt for getting the hobby to where it is today.

it's like having a pop at the original WH40K – bad rules, bad writing, out-dated even – but it's what got a lot of us into it.

That forum is far more active than either the publisher's list or the Yahoo group. By my count, 26 out of the 60 threads there concern basic questions about the rules… that's 43%!
Try looking at posts from the years immediately following the release of the rule set, and I think you will find a rather high percentage of questions about "basic interpretation of the rules."

So what your saying is that it happens with any new rules! Hardly proves Barkerese exists though does it?!
The basic problem I have with the existence of Barkerese is that I've never had any problem understanding Phil's rules or any problems using them. Never needed to ask a question about intepretation – unlike like Crossfire for example which left me scratching my head with puzzlement. Never had any of the "issues" either that gets frequently brought up – like micromeasuring and complex geometry with DBx rules. Yes occasionally you have to do some carefull measuring to see if a unit is in shooting range or not, or some other distance critical thing, but show me a set of rules that doesn't use square/hex based mechanisms and you will get the same thing.
Some people "get" certain authours writing and others don't. I think that's the same whether you talk about Barkerese, Priestlyese or Conliffese!

Hardly proves Barkerese exists though does it?!

These DBMM and DBA players clearly think that "Barkerese" exists:
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link

That is just a small sampling, and doesn't include many similar posts from the DBMlist, the DBMM Forum or the DBA Fanaticus Forum.

Some people "get" certain authours writing and others don't. I think that's the same whether you talk about Barkerese, Priestlyese or Conliffese!

There I agree with you 100%.

Cheers,
Scott

These DBMM and DBA players clearly think that "Barkerese" exists:

I'm aware that there are people who think it exists, just as I'm aware there are people who think the world is flat. Doesn't make either true! :-) To prove it exists you have to show that Phil's style of writing is uniquely difficult to understand. I took one of the links you show – someone talking about the spontaneous advance rules in DBMM 2.0 and read through the page. Seemed perfectly clear to me! Now to paraphrase Yogi Bear that maybe because "I'm smarter than the average wargamer!", but I doubt it. As I've said I struggle with Crossfire and others find that easy to understand, although the level of questions on the Crossfire groups after the rules came out suggest I wasn't alone! That means that Conliffese must exist!

To prove it exists you have to show that Phil's style of writing is uniquely difficult to understand.

No, to demonstrate that "Barkerese" exists and is not a myth, one simply needs to provide compelling evidence that Phil Barker's writing style is distinctive and individual, and that the term describing it as such is widely used, recognized and understood. Abundant evidence has been provided in support of that proposition. And preponderance of evidence is why today far more people recognize that the Earth is spherical than believe it is flat.

On the other hand, if one could convincingly demonstrate that Phil Barker's writing style is neither distinctive nor individual, then one would have taken a significant step toward falsifying the proposition, in spite of the large number of people who clearly believe in its existence. And if Phil Barker's writing style is neither distinctive nor individual, then it follows that one ought to be able to cite examples of other wargaming authors who have very similar writing styles. I cannot think of any such examples myself, but I look forward to reading any that you may care to provide.

And yes, if large enough numbers of gamers decide that Arty Conliffe's writing style is distinctive and individual enough that "Conliffese" or some similar term becomes as widely used throughout the hobby as "Barkerese" has been for several years already, then I would agree that it also exists.

Thanks for a very interesting conversation.

No, to demonstrate that "Barkerese" exists and is not a myth, one simply needs to provide compelling evidence that Phil Barker's writing style is distinctive and individual

Difficult to prove when people mistake others writing for Phil's – see above! That would tend to suggest that some see just as a term for difficult to understand rules. Which seems a bit unfair on Phil as lots of others write rules that are difficult to understand!

Does 'Barkerese' exist? Yes. Proof: DBA 2.x "The whole blasted thing."

Good game? Yes (not my fave, but still good). Well written? Only if you're a contract lawyer.

I have found the Yahoo group is great for getting clarity

If a Yahoo group is necessary to provide clarity for a set of rules, those rules are neither clear nor well-written.

(paraphrase): "Barkerese helps when playing strangers…"

A better solution might instead be saying, "Well, yes, you could do that, but it wouldn't exactly make for either a fun game or good sportsmanship, would it?"
If they don't take the hint, say, "Since you insist on that interpretation, and since I clearly did not share it or I would not have arranged my forces so as to allow it, perhaps I had best concede. We can then reset our forces and have another go— assuming you have no other 'surprise' rule interpretations to spring on me?"

In other words, politely imply to the individual that he is in fact being a (insert descriptive word of choice), and offer him the opportunity to correct his social blunder. And/or decide not to play that person again.

Do certain rule sets written by Phil Barker tend to exhibit a distinctive writing style?

The overwhelming weight of evidence says, "yes."

Has this distinctive writing style been given the nickname "Barkerese?"

The overwhelming weight of evidence says, "yes."

And is the nickname "Barkerese" widely recognized and used throughout the wargaming community, including by large numbers of players and supporters of those same rules?

Once again, the overwhelming weight of evidence says, "yes."

So, does "Barkerese" exist?

The overwhelming weight of evidence says, "yes."

In closing, here are a few thoughts that seem appropriate to this discussion in a number of different ways, from someone far wiser than myself:

YouTube link

Scott, if you want to push the view that Barker's rules are hideously complex and badly written – then say as much. A dozen posts from a group with thousands of posts isn't conclusive. A good 75% of the posts on the Polemos groups are seeking clarification, but no-one ever criticises the writing style.

His original 1925-1950 Armour and Infantry rules are a masterpiece of concision, brevity and precision – they work.

His 1988 reworking is unreadable (may be playable but I couldn't be bothered and went back to the 1973 version)

His original DBA rules are eminently simple and understandable. Later variants got a bit tied in knots.

The problem is he listens to people who are trying to bend the rules into what they want him to have written and not what he wrote and he tries to rewrite to stop them bending them. What he and the poor saps who play these people should say is something that would get me DH'd here.

The problem is not 'rule lawyers' it is 'rule fraudsters'. They know what the rules say and they want them to say something else. Their sniping messes up perfectly good rules sets. The answer is to not play them – forcefully – aanywhere.

WIth DBA, he keeps adding rules but refuses to allow more than 4 pages for the actual rules section. So there's a completely pointless cramming of grammar to save space. Nice game, but would be a lot more accessible if he was willing to write it in common English and with diagrams.

Yes, can't argue with that.
But he wouldn't need to add extra rules if he just had the courage of his convictions and told people where to go!
Nobody ever drafts watertight legislation – hence the wonerful world of lawyers! Why Phil thinks an engineer can do better is beyond me. He should just ignore the tweakers.

Actually, the most complex rules additions to DBA come entirely from Phil, not player demand. BUA's, Warwagons on bases that are twice as deep as their frontage, and double ranked mounted troops were not requested by players!

And further thoughts on that -- when he added the new rules for BUA's, and made warwagons much more complex, he had to remove wording from previously existing rules to make space within his self-imposed 4 page limit on the rules section. This makes the existing writing even more convoluted.

The essence of Barkerese is an excessive reliance on using punctuation in place of words or whole phrases that would be used in standard common English.