| John the OFM | 03 Jun 2008 3:25 p.m. PST |
I tried to do the same kind of thing for a Trojan War game I wanted to design, but gave up when I realized that I would hate it. |
aecurtis  | 03 Jun 2008 3:48 p.m. PST |
You call *that* a flow chart? Now Empire V: *those* were flow charts! Allen |
| Terrement | 03 Jun 2008 4:04 p.m. PST |
Posted the following on the blog, in response to a Yahoo post by Mr. Barker: "God save me from flow charts! I have concocted too many myself in the past. My advice is to start reading the rules from the front through to the back. Everything is written in the order you need to know it." Phil Barker, 03 Jun 2008" Were that actually true, there wouldn't be so many discussions on so many boards about the rules that sound like:
"The attacking party shall be designated as the party of the first part except when the second party (the party of the second part) becomes the party of the first part in lieu of the original party of the first part under the general circumstances (not to be confused with the general principles, or general electric who is a purveyor of electrical goods, not to be confused with the conveyor of the goods which is a belted drive mechanism (+2 for uphill, +1 for electrical power, void where prohibited by law some assembly required, batteries not included) which shall move the electrical goods forward at a standard rate unless in rough going or out of the command radius of the party of the second part (formerly known as the party of the first part) or when uphill or charging pike armed heavy infantry (+1 for each additional rank, +1 if supported by skirmishers) in which case the general prudential rule (not to be confused with the rule of General Prudential of the Fatimid (See book III a army 47, with all options) in which case the earlier definitions of the parties of all respective parts are restored by a 1 rolled on an average D6." Yes, before all of you purists get a knot in your knickers, I KNOW Mr. Barker's english usage is technically correct, but especially for a newcomer to wargaming, picking up one of the DB? rules books and trying to make heads or tails of it without a mentor is at best a daunting task, and in many cases overwhelming enough to say "Heck with this" and find a rule set that is less arcanely worded, cross-referenced, with illustrations and examples. |
| Number6 | 03 Jun 2008 5:01 p.m. PST |
A flow chart like this is great for something that is done only once per game. If you have to do it more than once, you need to rework the mechanics. |
| darthfozzywig | 03 Jun 2008 6:07 p.m. PST |
Nothing says "fun!" like flow charts! I'm holding out for MicroSoft's latest game, "Visio: the Darkening". Just hope I don't have to rebase all of my spreadsheets for it. |
| Patrick R | 03 Jun 2008 11:19 p.m. PST |
Reminds me of "Stars and Bars" Down with beer and pretzel games, I want to count rivets. In fact I want to count the layers of spiral on the rivet and I want to know its carbon content and the air pressure when it was cast !! Bring on the modifiers and tables the size of NASA computer core dumps !!! |
| Martin Rapier | 04 Jun 2008 3:47 a.m. PST |
Rules which require a set of flow charts to aid understanding… I thought we'd left the 80s behind? |
| Lentulus | 04 Jun 2008 4:18 a.m. PST |
Flow charts are so 1970s. The whole rule book should be re-written in UML  Actually, I think this sort of thing is a good idea. Not everyone has the same way of learning, and diagram can be great for visual people. When I want to learn a rules set, I actually write a precis and diagram chunks of the system -- mostly state diagrams and the like. Not for others to use, just to get it through my skull. |
| Pohtonen | 04 Jun 2008 4:39 a.m. PST |
Nice flow chart, but it reminds me why I stopped playing DBx games. The rules were too hard to follow and understand. I know part of the problem was I was playing DBA, DBM and DBR and they each had different basic rules. Fleeing is different in all 3 games. Why? |
| platypus01au | 04 Jun 2008 4:45 a.m. PST |
Number6 is right. Luckily, this flow chart _is_ only needed once per game. At the start. I quite like it. G^is,
JohnG |
| warwell | 04 Jun 2008 4:52 a.m. PST |
Seems to me that a flow chart like this acts as an advertisement NOT to buy DBMM |
| Mr Elmo | 04 Jun 2008 5:56 a.m. PST |
I would agree, "And now with flowchart" is not exactly a selling point. Seems like DBMM would be a great game for all those people playing the Ad Astra titles. |
| Terrement | 04 Jun 2008 7:30 a.m. PST |
"I know part of the problem was I was playing DBA, DBM and DBR and they each had different basic rules. Fleeing is different in all 3 games. Why?" Because it made sense to Phil Barker.
Just like his rules. Doesn't matter if it made sense to anyone else. "Actually, I think this sort of thing is a good idea. Not everyone has the same way of learning, and diagram can be great for visual people." I agree, and the ones by Two Hour Wargames I think are a good example. They are an assist and a quick reference, rather than having to serve as the Rosetta Stone for deciphering what was meant in the rules themselves. |
| Lentulus | 04 Jun 2008 11:48 a.m. PST |
And now, an alternative opinion on diagrammed complexity: TMP link |
 Bobgnar  | 04 Jun 2008 12:03 p.m. PST |
I gave my son-in-law to be a copy of the draft version of DBA 2.0 and asked him to read it, and come back the next week to play a game. He is late 20's, college degree. As a potential relative, I knew he would try. Next week he came back. I had laid out a board and a couple of armies, but not set up. I said, ok let's start, what shall we do first. He says, in all humility, "I read these but I really do not understand what to do." |
| John the OFM | 04 Jun 2008 12:33 p.m. PST |
Posted the following on the blog, in response to a Yahoo post by Mr. Barker:"God save me from flow charts! I have concocted too many myself in the past. My advice is to start reading the rules from the front through to the back. Everything is written in the order you need to know it." Phil Barker, 03 Jun 2008"
In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies regarding Lord Astor, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" |
| Sysiphus | 04 Jun 2008 3:16 p.m. PST |
there are obviously not enough "dull 8 year-olds" around to enlighten the rest of us |
| Whatisitgood4atwork | 04 Jun 2008 6:15 p.m. PST |
The best learning aid in the world is another human being that takes a bit of time to tell you how to do something. The rest are pale imitations. I enjoy DBA and DBR and have enjoyed DBM in the past, but if I had learned entirely from the written rules rather than club players, I doubt whether I would have played one game. |
| vexillia | 05 Jun 2008 3:40 a.m. PST |
|
| Aloysius the Gaul | 05 Jun 2008 9:45 p.m. PST |
Flow charts are good when you need them – however it does need to be pointed out that lots of DBMM players have not needed them (loud and silly posts to the contrary notwithstanding the aforementioned…..), and as has been pointed out…..this is for the few that are befuddled….whether by chance or, sadly, by choice (which is not the case here but does seem the be the case for many!) |
