Championship Kickboxing

Sun, 01/10/2016 - 21:39

#1

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

sample position analysis and commentary

To give people a better sense of the dynamics of the game and perhaps stimulate discussion, I have included a sample position analysis and commentary in the Dropbox folder:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w3e8qvym4it4nqo/AACAugdYTNCW3_pOQy8JJFQea/PnP...

Any comments or suggestions would be welcomed.

Mon, 01/11/2016 - 09:30

#2

adversitygames

Offline

Joined: 09/02/2014

The rules are a very solid

The rules are a very solid block of text that all looks the same which makes it hard work to read or to find specific things.

It *really* needs a summary page or summary card to outline play so players don't need to go through the whole rulebook just to get simple reminders of turn order.

The order of the sections is strange. You've got game play followed by scoring followed by game length and a load of stuff before it actually gets to how to play. It would be better if the game play section is immediately followed on the sections on how to play.

I haven't actually read it through thoroughly, because all these factors make it hard work to read.

I'm skeptical that this can be played enjoyably in half an hour, it looks too complicated for that. Also the half hour play time suggests "filler game" and it's not light enough to be filler.

Mon, 01/11/2016 - 12:02

#3

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

Thanks for the feedback,

Thanks for the feedback, iamseph!

I appreciate your taking the time to time to look at the instructions and respond!

But it isn’t clear to me why you think the order of the sections is strange.

The section headed “Game play”, which follows “Set up” near the top of the text, is intended as precisely the sort of outline you’re pleading for. It summarizes the game, including turn order, in five steps:

Game play
1. The initiator rolls the dice.
2. Beginning with the initiator, each player must do the following in alternate turns:
-----Select one of the green dice and set it on one of the player’s own tokens; and
-----Move the token the number of spaces indicated on the die, or
-----If the number on the die matches the number of the space on which it is set, perform the action associated with that space.
3. Otherwise, the player will do the following:
-----Take the red die and set it on one of the opposing tokens, and thereby
-----Block all tokens from entering or leaving that space, or
-----If the number on the die matches the number of the space on which it is set, block the action associated with that space.
4. If the player elects to take the red die, then the opponent may use any of the remaining dice or pass, and the round comes to an end.
5. The player who selected the red die will become the initiator of the next round.

Why this summary shouldn’t be followed by an explanation of the victory conditions and match length is not clear to me. I had imagined that these would be among the first things the reader would like to know.

I also made a careful effort to organize the text with clear headings and indents precisely to avoid foisting on the reader “a very solid block of text that all looks the same” and “which makes it hard work to read or to find specific things”.

To be honest, I don't think the game is especially complicated. But as the mechanics are rather novel, game play needs to be unpackaged for the reader, so I don’t know how to avoid including the detail that I have. I thought I had done well to compress everything into three and a half pages of bulleted points!

I’d be curious to know if others agree with your assessment.

Mon, 01/11/2016 - 18:10

#4

DarkDream

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Difficulty Understanding

I went ahead and tried to read the rules, and I had a very difficult time to understand them.

I looked at the sample provided. To be perfectly honest, I simply did not understand how the play worked. It was also a mystery to how the player starting cards (the cards showing fighters in position) fit in to the rules.

I did not understand how the numbered squares are divided up in to head & torso and feet & hands.

Maybe you need to have a step by step guide where every part of a move has a picture.

--DarkDream

Mon, 01/11/2016 - 18:50

#5

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

Thanks for the response,

Thanks for the response, DarkDream!

Maybe I'm so invested in this game that I can no longer anticipate what might be confusing from another's perspective.

But I'm rather surprised that you weren't able even to understand how the numbered squares are divided into the four body parts!

If you look at the board, surely you can see the image of a human body from three directions, and that the image is divided at the waist into an upper body (numbered 4-6) and a lower body (numbered 1-3). It should not be such a leap from there to grasp that the upper body is further divided into a head and torso, while the lower body is divided into hands and feet -- after all, there is a dotted line in just the right spot to reinforce such a division.

As you are now the second person to express utter confusion about the rules of the game, I have to believe there is something wrong with my explanation; otherwise, I would suspect I was being trolled!

Mon, 01/11/2016 - 19:41

#6

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

DarkDream wrote:To be

DarkDream wrote:

To be perfectly honest, I simply did not understand how the play worked. It was also a mystery to how the player starting cards (the cards showing fighters in position) fit in to the rules.

I have added a line of clarification about the role of the starting cards:

"• In addition, there are 2 starting cards, both sides of which show the fighter throwing a punch (or “touching gloves”). During the match, cards are put into play by stacking them on top of the starting cards. They are never turned over and must remain in place for the duration of the game."

Hopefully, that resolves at least one confusion!

Tue, 01/12/2016 - 03:54

#7

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

iamseph wrote:It *really*

iamseph wrote:

It *really* needs a summary page or summary card to outline play so players don't need to go through the whole rulebook just to get simple reminders of turn order.

I have added a one page summary (called Quick Rules), which describes the only four things you can do in this game:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w3e8qvym4it4nqo/AACAugdYTNCW3_pOQy8JJFQea/PnP...

I think it might be helpful.

Tue, 01/12/2016 - 07:58

#8

adversitygames

Offline

Joined: 09/02/2014

henry flower wrote:The

henry flower wrote:

The section headed “Game play”, which follows “Set up” near the top of the text, is intended as precisely the sort of outline you’re pleading for.

...

Why this summary shouldn’t be followed by an explanation of the victory conditions and match length is not clear to me. I had imagined that these would be among the first things the reader would like to know.

It breaks up the flow of understanding the mechanics. By putting a block of other material between the core game structure and the rules for enacting that structure, the player has to skip back and forth over the middle sections to get an integrated understanding of how to play the game.

The scoring rules can be put at the end of the rules. Players generally know that's where the scoring section will be anyway so it doesn't need to be in the middle of the game rules. To get to know the game they want to know *how* mechanics work, then once they understand how all the pieces interact then they can look up the scoring methods and start to assemble an idea on how to implement those mechanics to score.

For similar reasons I would put the game length *before* the turn structure, to keep the mechanics within one game round together. So (very briefly) I'd structure it like this:
* The game lasts 30 minutes
* Each round of play involves these parts with these mechanics
* You win the game by achieving X

While you have something like:
* Each round of play involves these parts
* The game lasts 30 minutes
* You win the game by achieving X
* The parts of each round of play involves these mechanics

I don't understand why you used the word "pleading" to describe my criticism.

henry flower wrote:

I also made a careful effort to organize the text with clear headings and indents precisely to avoid foisting on the reader “a very solid block of text that all looks the same” and “which makes it hard work to read or to find specific things”.

Yeah I saw that you did it a little. But it's not good enough.

Make the section fonts bigger, maybe add dividing lines or extra whitespace between sections (or both).

Whitespace helps readability as it makes it easier to focus on smaller pieces at a time.

henry flower wrote:

I thought I had done well to compress everything into three and a half pages of bulleted points!

There are loads of things you can do to reduce page count. You could fit it into even less pages if you lowered the font size. But that would be a terrible idea. The fact that something reduces page count doesn't make it good.

Supposing the quantity of text you have there is the right amount to succinctly and precisely describe the game rules - I would suggest doubling the number of pages (with whitespace, section breaks, shorter paragraphs) so it can be laid out with more space.

For example take the first page, you have the Overview and it's one big *wall* of text made of 8 sentences (some of which are run-ons). It would be more readable if you broke it down into 2 (or maybe even 3) smaller sections with a line break between each of them.

I think you should remove the strategic suggestions (both the whole page of them at the end and the commentary through various other parts of the rules). This will drastically reduce the size of the rules. The fun of playing a game is working out how to win, rather than being told how to win.

Tue, 01/12/2016 - 10:03

#9

DarkDream

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Not Clear on Space Delineation

"henry flower" wrote:

If you look at the board, surely you can see the image of a human body from three directions, and that the image is divided at the waist into an upper body (numbered 4-6) and a lower body (numbered 1-3). It should not be such a leap from there to grasp that the upper body is further divided into a head and torso, while the lower body is divided into hands and feet -- after all, there is a dotted line in just the right spot to reinforce such a division.

Yes. I was able to to see that numbers 4-6 were the upper body (torso and head) and numbers 1-3 is the lower body (hands and feet). The rules state, "These spaces are divided into an upper body (labelled 4-6) depicting the head and torso, and a lower body (labelled 1-3) depicting the fighter’s hands and feet."

To me it sounds like there is only one space for the head *and* torso and one space for the hands *and* feet.

It was not clear to me that the dotted line further divided the torso and head into a separate torso and a separate head space (I thought the dotted line was only a track for the circle counter).

This is also where I am confused. Maybe the tokens are small cubes or something, but if it is the circle token, how can you place it on either on an individual head or torso as it seems to cover both and should just be placed on the number.

It was not clear to me why you would want to move a token the amount of spaces on the die in either direction. Did not understand the point of it. Seems like you can place the token on either your fighter and the opponents.

Just me 2 cents.

--DarkDream

Tue, 01/12/2016 - 19:04

#10

killerkilroy

Offline

Joined: 10/04/2012

I took a shot at editing your rules

First I want to say it looks like you have an interesting idea, and I'm interested to see how it all works out. After looking at your rules, I decided to try and reformat/edit them to be a little clearer. I think you're correct in thinking that your own familiarity with your project was blinding you to some major issues with formatting and clarity.

I did my best to preserve what I believed to be the intention of your rules. Where I was unsure I highlighted areas in blue, usually with the two interpretations I saw listed next to each other. I hope that I haven't completely misinterpreted or misunderstood anything, but please let me know if I did.

You can see my version in my Google Drive .

A couple questions I had about the game/mechanics:

(1) From what I understand it's possible for the score die to be on red's side of the board due to a combination of jabs and strikes, then for blue to land a strike. This seems to mean you change the die to show 1 pip and move it one space toward blue. Does this result in blue having a striking advantage but red still having a point advantage and how do you keep track of whose strikes the die is showing in this situation? Or does a successful strike negate any technical points the other player may have and reset the track?

(2a) I'm a little confuse about the token placement and actions. Because each token covers two "spaces", when you activate it do you get both actions, or do you have to choose one? What about if there are multiple tokens on a space when you activate it?

(2b) Since hands and feet are on the same space, but feet don't require a die to activate, can you, for instance, activate left hand with a die and still hold a left kick?

(2c) I had another question about tokens, placement and activation (see a trend?), but it escapes me at the moment.

Let's hash some of this out and make a neat idea into a great game!

Tue, 01/12/2016 - 23:53

#11

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

clarification

Thanks so much for the feedback, killerkilroy. I was beginning to despair that anyone at BGDF was capable of understanding my game, but you seem to have grasped it quite well.

And thank you for taking the time to clarify the rules. Hopefully others will gain some insight from your explanation!

Let me first respond to the questions you raise in your post:

1. I think you understand the mechanism. The “score” is indicated by the position of the scoring cube on the track. It shows the net result of all strikes and jabs that have been scored in the match. The player with the higher number is winning.

The number showing on the scoring cube itself only indicates the current consecutive strike total. The idea is that if a player scores a flurry of strikes, it doesn’t matter what his score is; he can overwhelm the opponent and win. The red player could theoretically be leading in points but lose to a KO.

As there can only be one current consecutive strike streak, and it can only be held by the player who is in striking position, there is never any confusion over whose strikes the die is showing.

2a. No, you do not get both actions. Or, rather, you have both options, but you can only perform one action with each die. During the round, it is possible to select more than one die for use by the same token.

As for multiple tokens on a single space, I thought that was clear in the rules: this allows certain actions to be doubled (or tripled – or theoretically even quadrupled).
Putting multiple tokens on a foot space allows multiple cards to be held.
Putting multiple tokens on a torso space allows multiple strikes to be scored at once.
Putting multiple tokens on a head space allows multiple cards to be drawn at once.
There is no advantage to putting multiple tokens on a hand space (as there is no need to play more than one card at a time).

2b. Yes.

As for the areas you highlighted as uncertain in your reiteration of the rules:

1. Going “below the belt” results in the token being moved to the nearest corner. The idea is that this puts the token in a disadvantageous position as punishment for the foul.
2. When 2 dice are selected for use by a token occupying a double square, both dice must be used by that token.
3. Scoring the jab (with the red die) is additional to the blocking action it performs.
4. Yes, players discard any cards they choose not to hold.
5. No. One player must always choose the red die. But this will never be an issue as the die offers an important advantage.
6. Your description of the feint is a little ambiguous. Not only must the feint force a change in the opponent’s stance, it must also put your own fighter in striking position.
7. Your description of the victory conditions is a little confusing. For a KO, it does not matter where the scoring cube is located; what matters is only that 6 consecutive strikes have been scored.

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 00:05

#12

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

DarkDream wrote: To me it

DarkDream wrote:

To me it sounds like there is only one space for the head *and* torso and one space for the hands *and* feet.

It was not clear to me that the dotted line further divided the torso and head into a separate torso and a separate head space (I thought the dotted line was only a track for the circle counter).

This is also where I am confused. Maybe the tokens are small cubes or something, but if it is the circle token, how can you place it on either on an individual head or torso as it seems to cover both and should just be placed on the number.

It was not clear to me why you would want to move a token the amount of spaces on the die in either direction. Did not understand the point of it. Seems like you can place the token on either your fighter and the opponents.

Just me 2 cents.

--DarkDream

Thanks again for trying to make sense of my game, DarkDream.

In a sense, there really is only one space for the head and torso and one space for the hands and feet, as each token can occupy both at the same time.

But there is an important functional (and conceptual) distinction. And there is also a mechanical one, since the red die cannot occupy both "halves" at the same time.

Maybe killerkilroy's explanation (or the summary I added to the Dropbox last night) will help resolve the confusion.

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 00:30

#13

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

iamseph wrote:I think you

iamseph wrote:

I think you should remove the strategic suggestions (both the whole page of them at the end and the commentary through various other parts of the rules). This will drastically reduce the size of the rules. The fun of playing a game is working out how to win, rather than being told how to win.

Thanks again for the suggestions, iamseph.

I think if you ever come to understand the mechanics of the game, you will see that my list of basic strategies does nothing to spoil the fun of working out how to win; rather, it points out some of the most basic elements of game play.

In fact, you can't even really play the game without understanding those ideas; they are not something the player would want to work out on the fly.

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 01:54

#14

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

scoring

I just noticed one serious bit of confusion in killerkilroy's explanation.

He lists the actions as "drawing", "holding", "discarding", and "playing a strike".

This is problematic in a number of ways.

To begin, "holding" and "discarding" are not really actions in the sense that they do not require the use of a green die or a separate turn to be performed; rather, they are part of the draw.

In addition, the phrase "playing a strike" conflates two distinct actions: "playing" and "scoring" (both of which require the use of a green die).

Players "play" cards in order to get into "striking position". But this, on its own, does not affect the score.

Once a fighter is in "striking position" (and for as long as the fighter remains in striking position), the player may use his turn to "score a strike" by activating the appropriate token.

In short, there are only three main actions: drawing (+ holding or discarding), playing, and scoring.

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 16:44

#15

killerkilroy

Offline

Joined: 10/04/2012

My mistake

You're correct, I forgot that playing didn't guarantee a strike, and you had to use another action to actually score. Hopefully seeing how someone else who was not familiar with your game tried to interpret your original rules will help you be able to better clarify and explain your ideas in the future. I'll try and update my document to reflect your feedback tomorrow.

Don't forget to give me a credit in the final draft ;)

Edit - New, improved, and, I hope, more accurate rules can be found HERE as a Word Doc or Here as a PDF.

I feel that I have significantly streamlined your rules and made them as clear as I can based on the, no offense intended, terrible condition of your original rule set. I have, in many cases taken liberties by changing or eliminating some of the mechanics and removing much of the flavor (the MMA names of each action for instance), but I believe what is now present faithfully represents your original concepts AND presents a playable game.

There are a still a couple questions I have, which are again highlighted in blue.

1) I may not have been clear enough about this in my original set of questions, but when I asked about multiple tokens on a space, I was actually wanting to know if you could, with a single die, do a combination of available actions. Say, for example, Red has 3 tokens on their middle head/torso space. Can they do 2 draw actions and a strike with a single die, or are they restricted to choosing one of their options and doing that multiple times?

This only really applies to upper body, since you can't "activate" feet.

2) In your original rules the red die can only be placed on an opponent's TOKEN, but it made more sense to me for it to be placed on a SPACE (which may or may not have tokens on it) as this allows for more strategic options.

3) Holding cards - I understood that you couldn't hold drawn cards if you didn't have tokens in hand/foot spaces, but what I am unclear about is the timing of discarding. Does a player immediately discard cards from their hand if they move tokens off the correct hand/foot space, or do they only check at the end of a round/turn (end of turn is similar to immediately for most purposes, though could impact the use of Double Square tokens)

4) Playing cards and striking - You have two different version of these in you full rules and compact rules. In one you say you can only play cards if it puts you in striking position, but enforcing this rule means that there will NEVER be a "Parry" option. I liked the parry mechanic, and think it adds some neat depth to your game, so I configured it to read that you can play cards that put you in any position (it'd be silly to put your opponent into striking position if you can help it, but maybe it makes sense). However, you can only strike from 3 of the 4 possible configurations (Both players are in striking position, you are in striking position, or players are in parry position. Can't attack if only opponent has striking position).

I hope everything I've asked/changed makes sense. Let me know if you want more changes.

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 19:33

#16

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

killerkilroy wrote: I feel

killerkilroy wrote:

I feel that I have significantly streamlined your rules and made them as clear as I can based on the, no offense intended, terrible condition of your original rule set. I have, in many cases taken liberties by changing or eliminating some of the mechanics and removing much of the flavor (the MMA names of each action for instance), but I believe what is now present faithfully represents your original concepts AND presents a playable game.

Hi Killerkilroy,

I'll let you know what I think of your suggestions when I get a chance to read them.

As I said before, I appreciate your making the effort to understand my game and offer advice on ways to reformat the instruction book.

But to be honest, I do take offense to your comments, and rightly so.

Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm. But to suggest that somehow, due to your efforts, my "original concept" is now a "playable game" is not only insulting, but laughable.

Let me be perfectly clear:

The rule set was never in "terrible condition". It was -- and remains -- comprehensive, precise and economical.

And the game itself was -- and remains -- complete and fully conceived, without any need for the "liberties" you have taken with it.

The fact that you have taken such liberties even before you have fully grasped the rules seems to me to be both presumptuous and unseemly.

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 20:14

#17

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

iamseph wrote:It breaks up

iamseph wrote:

The scoring rules can be put at the end of the rules. Players generally know that's where the scoring section will be anyway so it doesn't need to be in the middle of the game rules. To get to know the game they want to know *how* mechanics work, then once they understand how all the pieces interact then they can look up the scoring methods and start to assemble an idea on how to implement those mechanics to score.

For similar reasons I would put the game length *before* the turn structure, to keep the mechanics within one game round together. So (very briefly) I'd structure it like this:
* The game lasts 30 minutes
* Each round of play involves these parts with these mechanics
* You win the game by achieving X

While you have something like:
* Each round of play involves these parts
* The game lasts 30 minutes
* You win the game by achieving X
* The parts of each round of play involves these mechanics

Hi iamseph,

I have moved the section on victory conditions and match length to the end of the rules. I agree that they look better there.

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 20:02

#18

killerkilroy

Offline

Joined: 10/04/2012

Appologies

I apologize, I should not have said that your rules were in terrible condition. They were carefully and created with dedication and passion, and I know that every designer wants their project to be successful.

That being said, please realize that myself and others saw some major flaws with your original rule presentation and the implementation of said rules. This is in no way a negative reflection on you as a designer or your game as quality work, it is simply the result of opening your work up to critique in a public forum.

henry flower wrote:

I was beginning to despair that anyone at BGDF was capable of understanding my game

As a frequent lurker and occasional contributor, the attitude that your work is so well refined that people who offer suggestions (however ham-handedly) or are confused are simply not capable of understanding your game is very detrimental to meaningful discussion.

Once again I offer my apologies.

Best of luck!

Wed, 01/13/2016 - 22:44

#19

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

killerkilroy wrote:I

killerkilroy wrote:

I apologize, I should not have said that your rules were in terrible condition. They were carefully and created with dedication and passion, and I know that every designer wants their project to be successful.

That being said, please realize that myself and others saw some major flaws with your original rule presentation and the implementation of said rules. This is in no way a negative reflection on you as a designer or your game as quality work, it is simply the result of opening your work up to critique in a public forum.

henry flower wrote:

I was beginning to despair that anyone at BGDF was capable of understanding my game

As a frequent lurker and occasional contributor, the attitude that your work is so well refined that people who offer suggestions (however ham-handedly) or are confused are simply not capable of understanding your game is very detrimental to meaningful discussion.

Once again I offer my apologies.

Best of luck!

Killerkilroy,

I would have been glad to accept your apology if it weren't sandwiched around a sly, out-of-context quote implying that I think "people who offer suggestions...or are confused are simply not capable of understanding" and that my attitude is "detrimental to meaningful discussion."

But that is nonsense.

I also said "I have to believe there is something wrong with my explanation" and "Maybe I'm so invested in this game that I can no longer anticipate what might be confusing from another's perspective."

And I both embraced and encouraged your efforts to clarify the rules.

I simply pointed out that your recent comments were untrue and impertinent, and I stand by that.

Thu, 01/14/2016 - 11:32

#20

adversitygames

Offline

Joined: 09/02/2014

I think killerkilroy was spot

I think killerkilroy was spot on when he described your rules as "terrible". My criticism could have been aptly summarised to "it's terrible". So I don't think he said anything untrue.

I don't think it was really impertinent either. He was pretty polite about it and also put extra effort into helping out.

Thu, 01/14/2016 - 15:31

#21

killerkilroy

Offline

Joined: 10/04/2012

Clarifications

I debated long and hard about whether to craft a reply, whether it would be worth the effort, and whether it would achieve the results I'm hoping for. I'm hoping that, now that I've decided to respond, that I'll be able to clarify where I am coming from.

To start, please, please, please understand that what follows is simply my interpretation and opinions. I understand that many subtle meanings, particularly humor and sarcasm are difficult to convey in a digital system, and everything I write from here on in could be based on gross and unfair mis-interpretation of your intention and character.

WARNING: Huge post with tons of quotes and text below Skip to the end for explanation of my statement and further apologies.

Regarding:

henry flower wrote:

I would have been glad to accept your apology if it weren't sandwiched around a sly, out-of-context quote

This was intended to be neither sly, nor out-of-context. Reading your other posts in this thread have given me, perhaps incorrectly, the distinct impression that you perceive those who have been confused about your rules and game play to be your intellectual inferiors.This may be, like I said, a completely false impression, but let me provide examples and explanations so you can, perhaps, see where I got it.

In response to user iamseph, who expressed legitimate problems (s)he had with your layout and clarity and offered concrete suggestions on how they thought it could be remedied, you responded by reiterating your (at the time) current rules layout then saying you,

Quote:

made a careful effort to organize the text with clear headings and indents precisely to avoid foisting on the reader “a very solid block of text that all looks the same” and “which makes it hard work to read or to find specific things”.

Instead of requesting suggestions or re-examining your own work with an eye toward what had been mentioned, you simply negated their comment.

In the same post you write,

Quote:

To be honest, I don't think the game is especially complicated. But as the mechanics are rather novel, game play needs to be unpackaged for the reader, so I don’t know how to avoid including the detail that I have.

I added emphasis to this quote to point out that of course you don't think it's that complicated, you've had who knows how many hours of thinking about, creating and refining the game. The problem is that it was not clear to iamseph.

Then, it appears that you completely dismiss iamseph's comment by saying

Quote:

I’d be curious to know if others agree with your assessment.

When, in the next post, DarkDream does agree, you seem to accept that there might be issues ("Maybe I'm so invested in this game that I can no longer anticipate what might be confusing from another's perspective.") but then immediately dismiss DarkDream's problems,

Quote:

I'm rather surprised that you weren't able even to understand how the numbered squares are divided into the four body parts!

Again, emphasis added. All I have to say is "Really?". This came across so condescending it's unbelievable, but then you followed up with,

Quote:

If you look at the board, surely you can see...

more condescension, and

Quote:

It should not be such a leap from there to grasp that the upper body is...

Again implying that someone who doesn't understand what you've written is simply too ignorant to understand you. Then you try to smooth over your comment by pseudo-admitting fault again, capping it with

Quote:

I have to believe there is something wrong with my explanation; otherwise, I would suspect I was being trolled!

By suggesting that these two commenters, who, at the time, where the only people who had offered you any feedback at all, could be trolling you (why else wouldn’t they understand your rules), it appears, to me, that you are again dismissing their suggestions and comments.

This is where I jump in. I liked your concept, and thought I saw a way of editing and streamlining your rule-set in a way that met the suggestions of both DarkDream and iamseph. This is where, after you had “admitted” the problems mentioned in your latest post, you

Quote:

despair that anyone at BGDF was capable of understanding my game

and respond to iamseph’s suggestion by saying

Quote:

I think if you ever come to understand the mechanics of the game…

,Both comments appeared to me, again, as supremely condescending.

Explanation and Apologies

Now, finally, regarding my comment

killerkilroy wrote:

I feel that I have significantly streamlined your rules and made them as clear as I can based on the, no offense intended, terrible condition of your original rule set. I have, in many cases taken liberties by changing or eliminating some of the mechanics and removing much of the flavor (the MMA names of each action for instance), but I believe what is now present faithfully represents your original concepts AND presents a playable game.

I have already apologized for the offence the statement about the terrible condition of your original rule set caused, and I reiterate my apology here. I admit that it was harshly worded and could have certainly been more diplomatically phrased or simply not mentioned. I don’t believe any of the mechanics I made changes to significantly detracted from their intended purpose, and my intention was certainly one of improving clarity and function, nothing else. When I said that the latest version of the rules I posted was playable, it was not intended to mean that I thought it was clarified and in line enough with your original intentions that it was ready for use. Not, let me emphasize, not,that your original game was unplayable.

I will leave my updated versions of the rules available for sharing and review. I leave it to you to use, edit or ignore them as you see fit. I sincerely hope that you will share your final version of Championship Kickboxing, no matter what form it takes, with us so we can see it in action.

Sat, 01/23/2016 - 19:09

#22

henry flower

Offline

Joined: 06/12/2015

Done

The game is now complete.
Many thanks to those who shared their opinions.

User login

Navigation

Nov 24 2024

Nov 23 2024

Nov 21 2024

Nov 20 2024

Nov 18 2024

Nov 17 2024

Nov 15 2024

Nov 13 2024

Nov 10 2024

Nov 7 2024

Nov 5 2024

Nov 1 2024

Oct 31 2024

Oct 29 2024

Oct 28 2024

Oct 25 2024

Oct 21 2024

Oct 17 2024

Oct 15 2024

Oct 14 2024

Oct 11 2024