DBMM Report Card Results – Part 2

Introduction

This is the second part of of my look at the results from a recent online survey into player’s attitudes to DBMM.

• Part 1 – Basic findings
• Explanation of results format

The Rulebook

Five questions in the survey were designed to probe players’ attitude towards the DBMM rules & rulebook:

• How complicated – 58% (74/128) of players rated the rules as difficult or very difficult. No one rated them as easy. The average score was 3.55 ± 0.93 a rating between neutral (3) and difficult (4).
• Sections – The best rated section was Troop Definitions (88% rating of good or excellent) followed by Organizing An Army (61%). The worst rated section was Fighting A Battle (47%).
• Clear & concise – 67% (84/126) of players disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the rules are written in a clear and concise style. The average score was 3.79 ± 1.02 a rating between neutral (3) and disagree(4) but tending towards the latter.
• Well organised & easy to understand - 61% (77/126) of players disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. The average score was 3.65 ± 1.00 a rating between neutral (3) and disagree(4) but tending towards the latter.
• Enough diagrams - 61% (77/126) of players disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. The average score was 3.60 ± 1.07 a rating between neutral (3) and disagree(4) but tending towards the latter.

It’s interesting that the least well liked sections of the rule book are Command & Control, Setting Up A Battle and Fighting A Battle; the very ones you need to fight a battle.

The survey sample showed that the majority of players think the rules are difficult or very difficult and that the rule book is; not clearly written; isn’t written in concise style; is not well organized, nor is it easy to understand. A few more diagrams wouldn’t hurt either.

Relationships & correlations

Using the database I delved into the data to examine the nature of the link between the complexity and style ratings:

Complexity	Clear & concise style	Well organised etc.
1 (V. Easy)	No ratings	No ratings
2	2.71 ± 0.85	2.62 ± 0.80
3 (Neutral)	3.50 ± 0.88	3.50 ± 0.88
4	4.09 ± 0.89	3.89 ± 0.90
5 (V. Difficult)	4.67 ± 0.49	4.39 ± 0.70
Average	3.79 ± 1.02	3.65 ± 1.00

The table shows both a clear correlation between players’ complexity ratings and both of the style scores and between the two style scores. Of course complexity is not always a bad thing but here it is, as it seems to arise from the players’ struggle with the rulebook itself: only those that find DBMM easy rate the style and organisation as good (average below 3)

Next I looked to see if the complexity scores correlated with the number of games played and the overall rating. A word of warning here some of the figures are counterintuitive:

Complexity	Playing often	Overall rating
1 (V. Easy)	No rating	No rating
2	3.67 ± 1.28	1.33 ± 0.80
3 (Neutral)	2.76 ± 1.20	1.93 ± 0.84
4	2.64 ± 0.94	2.38 ± 1.03
5 (V. Difficult)	1.89 ± 0.96	3.87 ± 1.46
Average	2.73 ± 1.17	2.27 ± 1.24

The table shows that players who played more often (high score from 1 to 6) rated DBMM as easier than those that didn’t. Likewise those that found DBMM easy (1 excellent to 5 poor) rated DBMM higher overall than those that found the game more difficult. In some ways it’s not a surprising finding but it’s a nice consistency check. However it clearly shows that the complexity of DBMM was viewed as a negative attribute.

Finally, I checked to see how the style scores correlated with the overall rating of DBMM:

Overall	Clear & concise style	Well organised etc.
1 (Excellent)	2.97 ± 1.00	2.97 ± 0.90
2	3.91 ± 0.93	3.70 ± 0.95
3 (Neutral)	4.15 ± 0.90	3.85 ± 0.80
4	4.33 ± 0.82	3.83 ± 1.17
5 (Poor)	4.54 ± 0.66	4.54 ± 0.78
Average	3.79 ± 1.02	3.65 ± 1.00

The trends here suggests that the rulebook was a smaller factor in the overall assessment of the game than with its complexity.

What surprised me is that even those who rated DBMM as excellent overall (23% or 32/117) only rated the rulebook styles about average (score of 3) whilst the remainder (77% or 85/117) marked the rule book down.

Summary & conclusions

• The majority rated the complexity of DBMM as difficult to very difficult whilst no one rated the rules as easy.
• Frequent players rated DBMM as easier and less complex than those that hadn’t played as often.
• Players who found the rules complicated rated DBMM lower than those that didn’t.
• The style and organisation of the rule book was not well received.
• Players who disliked the rulebook’s style and organisation tended to rate DBMM as both more complex and lower overall.
• The complicated nature of DBMM emerged as a negative factor and this stemmed from the poorly received writing style and organisation of the rulebook.

In the first part I suggested that there may be a barrier to overcome for some players who don’t, or can’t, play often. This analysis suggests to me that the perceived complexity of DBMM is a significant factor for this group. As complexity is clearly linked to the poorly received writing style and organisation of the rulebook the solution is obvious.

Coming next: playing the game.