|
|
Post by dwayanu on Feb 15, 2009 8:00:47 GMT -6
The 4th edition of Wargames Research Group's standard-setting "Ancients" rules (August 1973) included a Fantasy Appendix. Links to even older rules are also here. I thought this might be slightly interesting for those not already acquainted. In case it's not obvious, this is a different Phil Barker than the one who wrote Empire of the Petal Throne! |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 15, 2009 8:12:59 GMT -6
Yes, a completely different Phil Barker.
This one later went on to write the highly successful De Bellis Antiquitatis set of Ancients rules, and the fantasy version of that, Hordes of the Things. Good stuff, I thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Feb 15, 2009 9:05:37 GMT -6
I had a look. I'll see how it could be emulated. Imagine this was the basis of rpg instaed of chainmail  |
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Feb 15, 2009 10:26:41 GMT -6
Yes, a completely different Phil Barker. This one later went on to write the highly successful De Bellis Antiquitatis set of Ancients rules, and the fantasy version of that, Hordes of the Things. Good stuff, I thought. They have met one another and apparently concluded that they are distant cousins. At the time, the resemblance between them was uncanny! (it was quite awhile ago) |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Feb 15, 2009 16:20:40 GMT -6
In case it's not obvious, this is a different Phil Barker than the one who wrote Empire of the Petal Throne! So "Phil" is not the same as "M.A.R." (Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman)? Hmmm, but the initials don't match, either.  Actually, Wikipedia does confirm that fact that Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman Barker was actually born "Phil". Not sure if I've ever seen a photo of M.A.R. Barker, or if I did it never really made much of an impact on me. However, the differences in initials would have led me to dismiss them as two individuals had you not suggested that they could be confused. Now that I know they both were named Phil, I might get them confused now. (I'm rambling here and also running a fever. Maybe there is a connection.) |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Feb 15, 2009 19:21:42 GMT -6
We (Americans, anyhow) could have used the one's linguistic expertise in parsing the other's prose in Seventh Edition. Even at DBA length, later WRG "Barkerese" can be a bit trying.
Elsewhere online is a scan of what purports to be a 1975 revision of 4th. It does not include Appendices numbered I, II or III -- much less the fantastic IVth.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Feb 16, 2009 0:41:58 GMT -6
I have to say, I read version 1.1 of DBA and understood the entire thing, despite the "Barkerese". It was only when this came up against serious rules lawyers that the whole thing broke down...
I think if people were to simply accept that it means what it says, and not quibble about "what it really means", we'd all be better off.
But hey, that's just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Feb 16, 2009 1:49:54 GMT -6
Oh, I don't think there's any want of precision! Having never seen DBA 1.1, I can't think of how it might be an improvement in that regard over the March 1990 version I have.
I just recall that many people found the phrasing uncomfortably awkward, and I can somewhat understand the reaction. NASAMW started adopting amendments to 7th for its tournaments, stirring a bit of controversy in the pages of The Courier, IIRC.
Reading the prototype Horse, Foot and Guns a few years ago, I experienced a sense of the strangeness I think affects many folks. "Legalese" may be an appropriate term. It seems to have a soporific effect on some parts of the brain. Sentence by sentence, it all makes perfect sense ... but by the end of a page, it's somehow become as muzzy as a dream. After a while, one gets acclimated to it, and indeed it becomes hard to see how one had any difficulty at first.
Getting to that point seems too great an effort for some people.
Once one is in the proper frame of mind, the extreme care in construction pays off. The rules are indeed quite explicit, and trying to "read between the lines" (especially in an attempt to insert a subtext of old assumptions) simply leads to needless confusion. Unfortunately, a great many other rules sets seem to lack in completeness what they gain in ease of reading from a less formal style. That being so prevalent, it is no wonder that many in the hobby are "trained" habitually to seek recondite inferences.
Then they run into OD&D (or even AD&D). Give 'em some High Gygaxian to chew on ... and at last the bits making clear that in the end it's all up to the Referee! This "rule" or that simply is not in the books, and probably by intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Feb 16, 2009 3:01:35 GMT -6
Snorri: You could check out DBSA (prototype of De Bellis Antiquitatis), and De Bellis Velitum (a man-to-man set with a similar approach). These are a notable departure from what were previously considered "conventional" war-game rules. DBA (along with its inflated offspring DBM) was a startling sensation in the 1990s, and so certainly not very evocative of the 1970s. The simplicity, though, and the emphasis on "elements"** (rather than "counting noses") brought a bit to my mind Joe Morschauser's 1962 How to Play War Games in Miniature (a book for which I have considerable affection). They might be a distraction from the "what if" premise. On the other hand, another such (DBA in 1974?) might actually fit. ** These are bases all of the same frontage, although depth and recommended number of models varies by type. |
|
