[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Dragon. Missing description (9x15, Cells: 135) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]7.7 out of 10. Very complicated and cross-references as 'Fiction'. Nice diagram 'Board and Initial Deployment'. Produced in 2005 the year after Gridlock, we take Dragon here mostly as satire. One giveaway is the number of pieces having ''no power of movement or capture.'' No one outside Gridlock's or Dragon's coterie are likely to play either. With respect for readers' time, Glenn Nicholls has cut Rules-Set articles to the two, TigerChess and Dragon. Anyone interested can easily enough master them, unlike the work of several dozen 'prolificists'. By and large, it is prolificists' bodies of work that remain out of reach by very burden of their being 15 and more separate, undistinguished Rules Sets. As examples: we are still working through potential fourth 'Joyce' CVs to Comment, no small task to do adequately with citations that author always omits. Likewise, we have not yet re-familiarized with the other 25 'Aronsons' (after evaluating Rococo, AntiKing, Horus and Illusionary). Some prolificists have even more than their 'only' 20 or 30 CVs. Staying true-to-form in style and structure, as Gilman remarks, proves nothing but hobgoblin 'consistency'. In general, one interesting, ironic effort like the present Dragon is better than yet another earnest, formulaic new-combination Rules Set. To anyone not self-absorbed in own CVs' sheer numbers, the game Dragon conveys its sense of self-parody, and even spoof, very readily -- without of course trying to comprehend all the embedded Rules and notwithstanding Nicolls' own combative denial of any such intrinsic ambiguity. The remote coherence of Dragon's Rules, obviously intentional, is diverting for a change.
A reply to Charles Gilman: Whilst I do not intend to go back over ground already covered, it seems that you are wondering about one or two things….. I wrote this game (with reference only to the standard games of Western and Chinese Chess) in its basic form several years before I was aware that this website existed, and the first I was aware of another game/article featuring Forest and Storm pieces was in your comment. I do not know whether you thought of these names before myself and I do not even know in which of your many games/articles they appear. If you are saying, as you seem to be, that Sultan’s Elephant Chess is not a spoof then why should Dragon be so. Or, put another way, if you think Dragon is a spoof then surely you must expect such thinking about Sultan’s Elephant Chess. Presentation is largely about form only and is a matter of individual style and preference. In any case it is always possible to re-write such games in a different format or order.
Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by considering all possibilities. Yes, this page could all be rewritten, but only by someone with a working knowledge of it, and I do not have that. What I have is long experience of being criticised for pages that overemphasise the theme, accepting that criticism, rewriting to bring the rules more to the fore, and keeping this in mind for subsequent variants. The relevence to your game of what everyone wears and what flags they wave still escapes me entirely. Even if I try to search for particular words or phrases, the page's grotesque length hampers the attempt and leaves me still waiting while I have visited and understood a dozen other pages in a parallel window. Try starting the Pieces section with a paragraph per piece along the lines of 'The [piece name] moves [which directions and how far in each]. It [has zero or more restrictions e.g. must stay out of check]. This reflects [features of the character relevant to the piece move and/or restrictions].' If you still feel the need to mention stuff not directly relevant to the moves, defer it to the Notes section. Then you may be surprised at the change of heart in your critics.
A reply to Charles Gilman & George Duke: Thanks for the comments which have proved helpful and I can see why words such as satire and theme heavy came about. Obviously nobody wants their page to be awkward to read but there is a reason why the game was written in this manner – let me explain. There are a number of popular novels which feature within them the playing of chess, a chess variation or a complex board game; they are generally science fiction or fantasy and range from the Dune novels to the Harry Potter books. Broadly speaking we therefore have in these novels the playing of a war game within a war story. What I have attempted to do with the game of Dragon is, of sorts, to reverse this by having the story within the game such that the playing of the game enacts out the situation as described by the outline story. In order to do this it is necessary to bring the pieces and the board to life and the so the pieces must be given characters and sufficient descriptions and the board must be given sufficient terrain details and they need to look realistic and be on a large board – standard Staunton pieces or symbolic Chinese Chess discs have to be forgotten here as does the size of and form of their standard boards. These additions to the game, of course, substantially increase the length of the page and may at times cause the reading of the rules to be harder. Probably the easiest way to learn the game is to start with the naval chess side of the game; once the ideas of embarking, passage, boarding, sinking and disembarking are grasped the rest of the game falls into place much easier. The presentation of the game does not have an obvious order, arrangement or format (that I can see) which gives the best way of learning together with all the rules, prelude and details fitted alongside in a tidy way. I am sure anybody with good writing and presentation skills could present the game in a much better and more readable way than I can, but for the time being I will have to give this some more thought.
Senor Nicholls - this looks like a very interesting game. I think you should leave the rules as you currently have them. Let players read a little and figure out what is going on with your game... Your narrative/picturesque style allows Dragon to stand out from the crowd. You could remove the theme... but then you'd just have a board and pieces and the magic would be gone. What you need though, is a pre-set so people can actually play Dragon. Adios.
Also, year 1921 science fiction novel ''The Chessmen of Mars'' by Edgar Rice Burroughs interweaves the story and the Rules of chess-form ''Jetan'' within Chapter 2 of the text and an Appendix, the famous two versions of Jetan. USA television series 1966-1969 shows ''Star Trek Chess'' in enough episodes for determining the Tridimensional Chess' Rules. Proto-Chess presented that way shows the author considers the variation important enough to think out symbolism. Presumably David Howe's Nomic Chess allows lots of room for differing interpretation that can be nailed down specifically in a given context or occurrence, almost like role-playing. Feliz Navidad.
It's probably good game, but: '...King, Dwarf, Gnome, Pirate, blah blah blah... And now i will enumerate them again: King, Dwarf, Gnome, Pirate, blah blah blah... Now, i will explain them: King is tall in platinum crown, Witch have red hair, blah blah blah... Now, let me enumerate them again: King, Dwarf, Gnome, Pirate, blah blah blah... Have you remember them yet? So, no i will finaly explain how they moves!' -It's impossible to read! Can you explain each piece ones: it's moves, elements, role in story, everything?
I'm not sure that a preset would be that much help, unless it were a prescriptive one like the Ed Friedlander programs. If it just waited for players to make a move and then complained that it was an invalid one, it would just put players off. If it failed to enforce the rules at all, players could easily start exchanging invalid moves without knowing it - or getting into a row because they disagree about what is a valid move.
Does asking "How many times can I consult you again?" to your Seer count towards the number of times you can consult them again?
9 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.