As a recent reader of your fine magazine, and an occasional subscriber to other, overseas, wargaming magazines, I have often read of criticism of rules systems for failing to mirror exact historical circumstances. However, some recent criticism of DBx has caused me to ask the question: Are we becoming too hysterical about being historical? I think I should put on the table that I am an avid player of DBM and, now, DBR along with Napoleon's Battles and Fire and Fury (ACW). Criticism of rules systems will be an integral part of our hobby for all time, and is often justifiable. However, I believe wargamers often take an overly narrow view of the hobby, and of many rules systems currently on the market. Recent criticism of DBM as failing to accurately portray the entire Ancient period to some player's liking has me somewhat bemused. Here is a rules system which is more singularly responsible for attracting new players to historical wargaming than any other system on the market. Here is a rules system which leaves itself open to constant amendment by players and historians as more information becomes available. Here is a rules system which, unlike some very popular fantasy and sci-fi systems, is not a vehicle for one particular miniature manufacturer. DBM, and its offshoots, have opened my eyes to periods of history I had never before investigated. It has created intense interest in historical wargaming amongst a number of friends who had never wargamed before. It has brought me new friends, and given me a hobby to replace drunken pub crawls and late nights watching obscure international cricket matches. However, DBM seems to have one major flaw. It is popular. Sometimes that is all it takes to raise the ire of many, but it is not a justifiable reason in itself for petty nit-picking and pedantic postulating on various (perceived) inadequacies. I have seen this before and, while I will fight for people's rights to have their say, it angers me to see rules systems vilified just because they are enjoyed by a lot of players. People come to wargaming for many different reasons. Some come because they enjoy painting miniatures, others for the gaming and tactical challenge of defeating a worthy opponent, and others because they have an intense interest in a historical period. Many come for all of the above reasons. Surely the most important thing for the wargaming community is to be able to play each other. To do this, we need popular systems, accepted by the majority, and easily learned and played. This may entail some minor corner-cutting, but the benefits are obvious. No wargaming system will be perfect, because, at the end of the day, it is a game, not war. It is a recreation. While the historical premise should be as close to reality as possible, it will never BE real. It is a hobby. Wargaming is a social event, an interaction between players. This can be the game itself, or the endless discussions about the relative strengths of ar mies, who was the best general, which manufacturer produces the best miniatures and, which rules system is the best. Otherwise you might as well sit at home and play computer games. I have heard more discussions about the relative merits of Empire and Napoleon's Battles than I care to number. The fact is, they are both good systems, and have different strengths and weaknesses. Who cares, as long as we can all get together for a game. And, as much as some of the sci-fi/ fantasy games companies anger me with their obvious manipulation of gamers, constant re-issues and the never-ending need to buy more miniatures, even they have a role to play. After all, young players almost inevitably start with a sci-fi/fantasy game before progressing to historical wargaming. I am a case in point (although I am far from young). It is the right of every wargamer to question rules. (I for one believe Roman Legions should be able to about face for one pip, but I haven't found anyone of influence who agrees with me!) It is the right of every wargamer to play the rules set they most enjoy. It is the right of every wargamer to argue in favour of one rules set over another. But surely it is also the responsibility of every wargamer to ensure that our hobby grows and prospers in the future. [Hear, hear! - Ed.] I for one don't want to be the member of a steadily diminishing group of crusty old men. To grow, our hobby needs rules systems like DBM. Systems which offer the choice of running Caesar's army, or Henry V at Agincourt. Which give us the opportunity to see whether we are better than Lee, or luckier than Napoleon. Because, at the end of the day, these rules systems will ensure the future of our hobby. And wargaming has a great future, provided it doesn't get bogged down in useless debates by people who seem to more interested in the minutiae than the big picture. If you want to play at home with a mate an obscure rules system which mirrors exactly every single weapon, tactic, leader, morale factor and troop type, that's fine - but don't doom the hobby to obscurity and a slow death. The future is in constantly attracting new players, and generating interest and excitement in the hobby. DBM does this admirably. Paul Turner is a member of the Brisbane Independent Gamers (BIG) club in Brisbane and an enthusiastic DBM/R player. This may have started as a 'Letter To The Editor' but the arguments were so well put that we thought it worthy of publication as an article! Back to Table of Contents -- Kriegspieler #8 To Kriegspieler List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1999 by Kriegspieler Publications. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com