--- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "dave.ruddock" <dave.ruddock1@...> wrote:
>
> > > A train wreck from DBM 3.1,
> > > Six years of mediocrity with DBMM,
> > > And a "back to the future" effort with FoG.
> >
> > Jeez there's no pleasing some people!
> >
> > > Our needs have not been listened to.
> >
> >
> > Then you should start talking to someone else! :)
>
> DR: Sit down everybody, but I actually agree with Mike here - there are two
very mainstream games out there, both of which can be directly influence by
either yahoo groups or internet forums. If you haven't contributed to either
then you cannot then complain when neither quite meets your expectation.
>
> No sarcasm intented - but have you tried writing your own? I presume you
liked DBM v3.0, so simply take some ideas and get writing. There is some good
stuff within DBMM which could solve some of the issues, the world is your
oyster...
>
[AB] Actually, I have some sympathy with Kevan on this (and you can't accuse me
of not being active, at least on this list) while the tone of both your and
Mike's replies are not exactly friendly or welcoming. Coupled with recent events
on this list, is it any wonder people like Kevan haven't wanted to get involved?

As you say, we now have two mainstream game systems to choose from but the
extent that anyone can 'influence' either through the on line discussions is
pretty limited.

FOG is very much a closed shop, with rule and list development kept away from
public gaze and any post publication criticism of either meets a very polite but
quite emphatic stone wall: "We (the authors and their immediate confidants) know
best and you plebs just take what you're given" :-)

Here in DBMM-land, the discussion is more open and there is superficially more
opportunity for individuals to get involved but, as you repeatedly broadcast to
all and sundry, change is slow, erratic and limited by the author's isolation
from much of the activity and thought in the game (sorry Phil but its true :-)).
The resulting frustrations are a prime cause of the bad tempered exchanges that
regularly flare up.

For me, of our two 'mainstream games', FOG is like McDonalds, slickly presented
but ultimately unfulfilling while DBMM is like a form of 'extreme dining',
initially exciting but after a while you wonder why it has to be so hard and is
it truly worth the effort. Meanwhile the atmosphere on this forum is a further
drain on enthusiasm, at least for me.

Like a number of recent posters I am currently reviewing my commitment to
Ancient and Medieval wargaming purely because its supposed to me an enjoyable
pastime and I'm struggling to find where the fun is to keep it enjoyable.

This is all very much a personal view but recent posts here suggest I am not
alone while I only have to look at my local club for further evidence. Ancients
used to be its life blood but, while both systems have their adherents, the fact
is that neither is currently played with any particular enthusiasm or passion.
Attendances are way, way down - last meeting there were but two games, one of
each system, and the rest of the hall was vacant.

I think both systems and their attendant communities need to take a long hard
look at themselves and what they are trying to do because, from where I'm
sitting, it isn't a pretty picture at present........

Pessimistically

Andrew