terminology changes

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
Post Reply
tex
Posts:22
Joined:Thu Apr 12, 2012 07:44
terminology changes

Post by tex » Fri May 18, 2012 01:20

So I finally started rules editing. Changing the game's terminology is a grey area between editing for clarity and simplicity and changing the semantics, so I thought I'd write up some proposed changes so I could get some discussion from the group and get the Word of Snowdrop on the subject.

http://wtactics.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_Rewrite
aspidites
Posts:101
Joined:Mon Apr 11, 2011 22:39

Re: terminology changes

Post by aspidites » Fri May 18, 2012 07:40

Brief remark about the "Word of Snowdrop" before I comment on the terminology suggestions:
As per the Bulls on Parade news letter, while Snowdrop may very well be the "man", it's counter-productive to wait for his input on something if you are getting reasonable feedback from the rest of the community. Especially when some of us (Q_x, snowdrop, knitter, etc) have known each other for quite a while.

If your changes are truly that controversal and he decides to lash out, feel free to point him my way. I'm sorely out of shape and could use a work out, even if that translates to an ass-kicking.

terminology
army deck -> deck: I think army deck was chosen as a way of adding character. Also, I think at one point, there were multiple decks. As such, while I agree that 'deck' is more accurate, and better than army deck, I think it's a bit too generic. I wonder if something thematic would work, like stronghold or keep would work. If not, between the original and yours, I would choose yours.

questing -> quest: agreed.

grave -> graveyard: Also agree. I do feel discard pile is far too generic though. (Can you tell yet that I like themes?

span -> scope: Agree. At some point, I think it was scope, actually. Alternatively, range might work (albeit, not as a drop in replacement)

loyalty -> whatever: Agreed. Again though, Power is too generic. I want to say at some point it was named influence, which I think would make sense. Certain people can have a stronger influence over how certain events play out. That said, I'm not sure if my use of influence here conveys the original semantics of what loyalty is supposed to be representing.

Assignment -> (nothing): hmmm, I see your point, but I've not actually formed an opinion on the subject. I suspect that seeing the end result here would help.

gold & resources: Could you be a bit more specific here, perhaps giving examples?

Card Abilities: I think this change coupled with snowdrop's suggestion to allow types to be implicit in a card's title, rather than explicit adjectives would pair well together.

Glad to see rules being worked on, so thanks for contributing.
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts:334
Joined:Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: terminology changes

Post by Q_x » Fri May 18, 2012 08:19

I though for a moment that "loyality" is the new word for threshold :D

I like "deck" - people will call it that way no matter what we do, so why bother them with something "official"...

Thumbs up for the changes.
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: terminology changes

Post by snowdrop » Fri May 18, 2012 14:16

Nice work!
aspidites wrote:Brief remark about the "Word of Snowdrop" before I comment on the terminology suggestions:
As per the Bulls on Parade news letter, while Snowdrop may very well be the "man", it's counter-productive to wait for his input on something if you are getting reasonable feedback from the rest of the community.
Yups. The more people wait for me, the less gets done. I will object to stuff I find of the charts anyways and wiki supports revision handling, so... :)

It's good to have this discussion though as it gives people a chance to contribute with feedback, which could be valuable sometimes.
Army deck -> deck: The deck contains an army and numerous other things, such as magic spells and tactics cards.
Ok.

(While I agree with asp that something thematic should have been chosen in best case scenario I don't imagine we will ever come up with a word that doesn't sound too geeky, meaningless or isn't longer and easier to say/read than "deck". Correct me if I'm wrong though. "Keep" as asp suggested was a good example of something that might work. "Shuffle your keep" vs "shuffle your deck"... hrm.... hard...once I was thinking of naming it "future" and discard pile "past"...)

If it's named "deck" it's also very important that there are no other types of decks laying around in the game, meaning all other zones are "piles"(?)
Grave -> graveyard: Only one person goes in a grave unless it's a "mass grave." The proper term for a place where lots of dead things go is "graveyard." Personally I'd rather use "discard pile" as the name. It's more accurate (graveyards are for people; a place to put anything is more of a junkyard).
If deck is called deck then graveyard should not be called graveyard, simply because it's inconsistent and using unthemed terminology in the first case and themed in the second one. So, once first is solved the other one will also be, kind of.

What's interesting and striking me now is that we're talking about terminology of game components and if we should theme them or not. It is like having a discussion about what we call the dice in a game - do we use the word "dice" whenever we refer to them or do we call them something else, like for example "runes" or "signs of fate" . Example: Throw dice. Example 2: "Let the runes fall." I see no relevant difference between my dice examples and the discussion about what we should call our components when referring to them.

Cards are for example still called just cards in our rules, mainly because it's easier to follow them without having to de-code/learn every elements thematical name. We could for instance call cards something else, like for example in Magic the Gathering they are all called "Spells", yet, they are also called "cards" simultaneously since all cards are not spells (think lands aren't, dunno about "planeswalkers", probably are... and there we go again - they're caleld planeswalkers and not just heros, which would probably sound both better and be easier to say, but no, WotC/hasbro want to invent new nerd-sounding meaningless epithets that are allegedly themed and contribute to the overall Magic experience...but do they really?).

Theme is great and I believe it adds value. Bad or forced themeing though or one that go far to start re-theming every component name can risk making life so much harder on players learning the game, and also the game even more cryptic to bystanders that just are watching while it's being played. (For example, if every component is themes, why shouldn't "tokens" and "counters" also have more exciting wording?)

I'm not sure where I want to go with this and what my point was, but as I hope I have shown it isn't an all too obvious discussion, :P Maybe it can be summed up like this: Whatever players already know a name of, usually physical components, should keep their physical names (cards, dice, coins, counter etc). Whatever is abstract, such as variables etc, could if we want to be themed in some decent way (for example influence instead of "hp", or "victory points" instead of "gems").... or.. hrm....
Span -> scope: Span does have a meaning related to reach, but scope combined with the two adjectives ("local scope," "global scope") is more typical. It's kind of an idiom; span is a perfectly good word for the intended meaning, but it's not very commonly used that way.
Ok. As I often point out I'm not a native English speaker, so there will always be plenty of strangeness like this around in the wording of the rules until you + others cleanse them :P That's just one additional thing that makes it of great value to have you guys around, it looks like crap when we just use my text(s) as they are, and it's bad presentation of the project if we (read - I) can't even use the language correctly. Sadly I won't become any more proficient than I am due to never ever needing to speak or write the language anywhere else except on the internet, on my spare time. :/

I think Loyalty might need to be renamed to Power or something like that, because some things in the game seem to have nothing to do with loyalty, yet have a loyalty association. A good example is the loyalty requirement for events. How is the event loyal to anything!? But a hero's power can come in many forms: Force of personality to inspire followers to be loyal, or force of will to do magic, or the power of mind to use clever tactics.
I agree with you that some things in the game have nothing to do with loyalty and the validity of your examples. I'm not sure if any wording would be sufficient to solve it smoothly though. While "power" is probably a better word than loyalty it is a bad idea to use it for totally other reasons (mainly because that specific word is often used as an expression for damage dealing points and/or hp, or something else that suggesting a physical attribute due to it being associated with a creature).

I see two.. ehrm.. one, way of fixing it: Replacing the word "loyalty" with something that is utterly nonsensical and therefore can mean anything due to it meaning nothing at all, like for example the "newly" created name "urm". If doing so, it all has to be wrapped up nicely anyway in a thematic story explaining how events, equipment and soldiers all relate to and need urm.

As for "power", aside from that the word is already associated with something which it doesn't quite represent in our game, one might argue that almost the similar can be said about power as for "loyalty": Why would every event that a player plays somehow relate to a hero's power? And how come equipment cards and magic alike would relate to it? And if they all relate to it, then it either means that all things are one and the same or that the hero's power is, in reality, a number of totally different things (the power to purchase something, find it, supply your troops with it, vs the power to be able to get a wizard to work for you vs the power to make something random happen and so on).

What comes to mind is that you are right about us having to look at this. The way I see it though "loyalty" works ok in the same sense power does: Equipment doesn't require loyalty, but the fact that you fielded it in your deck means you "found it" and now have "supplied it" to your army, and maybe you wouldn't have been able to do so unless you were considered to be loyal to the faction or have good connections with others that are. Events don't require loyalty in themselves, yet maybe for the events to happen a certain affiliation and loyalty was required in order to stage them? I see this as more or less parallel with the power-explanations. It's the same "far-fetched" constructions of explanations :P

This has all made me think about our heroes and their own loyalty points: Whom are they loyal to? Answer: The faction. The leaders above them. Why can't a hero which gives the player gaian loyalty 2 not control an army with gaian units that require loyalty 3? Because, the Gaian high-command wants to give those units to somebody that they can trust even more. In this regard, loyalty could even be replaced by "leadership" or something simillar, although I like "loyalty" better even if it probably is a worse off word due to it fitting the themeing better than "leadership". Maybe "renown" would also work, or "destiny". Hrm... would be interesting to hear other's thoughts as well on this subject. Until that happens and something really much better than loyalty pops up we will keep it unchanged though.
Questing -> quest: This is for brevity, and it's better usage. A questing zone is a zone where you go to do quests. But this is a zone used for storage of quests, a "quest zone". /.. /
"Questing" is, at least the way I intended to use it, a verb that shows that something is going on and is happening. It says something about a state you as a player have put yourself and your creatures in. I'm not sure if I failed miserably when using the word and if it needs cleanup or if I use it too vaguely and in too varied ways for it to make sense. :roll:

Regardless, yes, "questing zone" should be changed to "quest zone". :)

Assignment -> (nothing): I don't quite understand why these are called that, because they're never actually assigned. Assignment is when some authority gives something to someone. These quests are free for the taking by anyone who happens to achieve the requisites. I would just call them "quests" with no special nickname, and then define the other two (contract and confrontation) as "special quest types".
They can't be called just quests since "Quest" is a cardtype (or supertype as it is sometimes called). There are 3 quest subtypes: Assignments, Contracts and Confrontation. All of these, or whichever else find their way into the Quest Pile, must share the identic card type, however we name it. Reason I chose "quest" was because it fitted nicely in with the theme and the idea of there being some kind of adventure/saga/story happening, in whatever sense that can ever happen in a ccg (I think we should also release a solo-player format where the player can play vs himself with more rpg elements, but more about that another time...)

As for assignments I had a similar discussion with asp I think the other day here in forum. I do agree with you that they are not assigned to a specific creature and that the name might be a tad misleading.
We need something better to call them... I'd suggest "adventure" but it sounds too nerdy and having a quest type that is called adventure sounds very strange and repetitive. :oops:

So, sure, we could do with a name change, but something other than "quests".... hrm hrm....


gold & resources
I would either drop the word "gold" or the word "resource" from the game's official terminology. I like calling them resources better. This is for simplicity and clarity.
You're right: Two expressions for the same thing is excessive and confusing. Personally I like gold better simply because it's shorter and people (players) will directly understand that they use it to pay stuff with. I think most would figure that out even if it's called "resources", but resources sounds slightly more complex(?) or is it just me? Others: Chime in on this, would be interesting hearing...

Then there is a related issue we haven't mentioned here: How is gold or resources spelled out on cards? Preferably with an icon + number or a number + a letter (G or R... for example 2G or 2R). To me it seems gold is preferably and something more players are already used to, yet I have a hard time actually giving any sound arguments for it beyond that, so input is welcome.
I also suggest removing T from the game, and just use X. Spell it out on the card explicitly. It's a TCG; the cards are supposed to explain themselves as much as is practical.
(aspidites: It is explained in http://wtactics.org/wiki/index.php?titl ... #Cost_of_T and makes no sense unless you've seen that :P )

The price X will be around as it is, I think, necessary to have it in the game. X will always be defined on card, since x is by definition unknown. Sometimes it will equal number of goblins on table, other times it will equal number of cards in your discard pile/graveyard or cards in opponents hand and whatnot. So, definition of x is required by it's very varied and flexible nature.

T on the other hand does vary, but not to that extent. It always equals the targets gold cost. These type of costs will be pretty common in WT, probably making it justifiable to add the extra way of expressing a variable cost, due to it saving card text space on every card it is printed on. In addition, it also relays the message faster to the player of what the card costs, else he/she'd have to read the text "x is equal to the targets (gold) cost"

Card Abilities
I'm not sure there needs to be an explicit name for types of card abilities, except for "Activated Abilities". "Elves in all Attack Zones gain +3/+0" doesn't need to be explained; it explains itself. This is just for simplicity. I like "Activated Ability" as a name though.
Hrm. This is a tricky one. I think I agree, but would want to keep them in the rules document you are editing as that docu will be the "comprehensive rules" and the main rules "authority" for all things considering WT, eventually.

In the quick rules though, which will be a very slimmed down copy of the comprehensive rules, I think you're correct that there is perhaps no need to explain the different types of abilities. In the comprehensive rules though I can see some use for it, as there very well might exist cards that say "opponent can't use activated abilities during his/her next turn". Now... what is an activated ability? Yay ;) In essence we create design space by acknowledging the fundamental distinctions between how the abilities operate.
". "Elves in all Attack Zones gain +3/+0" doesn't need to be explained; i
(I didn't follow your connection there: The above ability isn't an activated one. It's a passive, but that's probably beside the point..)

The explanation in therules about passive abilities doesn't aim to explain each passive ability. It merely explains how you can tell if abilities a b c are of the type x y z. You are correct that their type-belonging doesn't really explain much of the details that the particular ability has.

...

Agree with asp, thanks for contributing already. It's cool to have to re-think and try to remember what the heck is going on in my head and all the zillion discussions we've had on the forums. A new set of eyes is excellent and bound to discover plenty of frakkedupness. :) Also, I hope you are not discouraged to contribute due to lengthy discussions or the dictator-veto ;) (yups, it will be there until we resolve project lead democratically,, kind of a paradox.. lol... if you ever feel like hooking up via voice meeting using mumble preferably or skype in worst case secenario or irc we can always book a meeting (see wiki for details)... else forum is also fine.
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts:334
Joined:Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: terminology changes

Post by Q_x » Fri May 18, 2012 14:53

Quests be renamed to tasks, endeavours, or challenges, I see no problems here.

Also, if to theme names or not, I want to remind you, snowdrop, we have creature cards rather than units, due to the reason.
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: terminology changes

Post by snowdrop » Fri May 18, 2012 15:57

Q_x wrote:Quests be renamed to tasks, endeavours, or challenges, I see no problems here..
I don't see any reason for why we should rename the cardtype... although if you meant the quest type "assignments" maybe "challenge" wouldn't be totally wrong.... any more ideas out there people?
Q_x wrote:Also, if to theme names or not, I want to remind you, snowdrop, we have creature cards rather than units, due to the reason.
I am all for themes, but not sure if it is wise to theme real components. For example, we still call cards "cards" in the game, and nothing else, which I don't think is an issue, nor would I want it any
other way.

"Creature cards" is slang/abbreviation for "Cards of the creature card type." So the component is still cards, but due to their content we can also make statements about their characteristics, like for example "gaian cards" or "cards that only have an attack value of 1".

"Creature" or "Equipment" are not game components that exist in real life. They are abstracts, variables or constants, for which the players have to learn rules, read text etc to properly identify and understand them. The same can't be said about the objects "card, dice, draw deck" and other components.

My main point is actually that we try to stay consistent - that if one component is themed then maybe we should theme them all, or none if one isn't. Surely there is no logical explanation for theming some but not others. :)
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts:334
Joined:Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: terminology changes

Post by Q_x » Fri May 18, 2012 16:45

It's a bit off topic, but maybe it's important...

I quite can't see where the abstraction begins. Table, cards, dice. Deck of cards, table zones. Drawing cards, playing event cards, zone functions and so on. "Top row" or "attacking front", "marked cards" or "defenders"?
For me, it's not quite a matter of definition, like "physical game components" having the quality of "not being themed". Just why not cast the runes? We'll make the funky dice, if we care for the card theme so much!

Once you wrote it, I think we'll have to start drawing a bold line between what's "here" and what's "there", what's the outside world is, and what's the game world really. With a layer of translation, a language that transfers ideas from one space to another.

And the big question is still unanswered. Who the hell the player is in our game?
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts:798
Joined:Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location:Sweden
Contact:

Re: terminology changes

Post by snowdrop » Sat May 19, 2012 19:35

I quite can't see where the abstraction begins. Table, cards, dice. Deck of cards, table zones. Drawing cards, playing event cards, zone functions and so on. /../ For me, it's not quite a matter of definition, like "physical game components" having the quality of "not being themed".
The abstraction/themeing begins wherever we as developer want it to begin. My suggestion was that abstractions/themeing is usually kept to stuff that the players do not have to learn and already recognize. As I argued previously, dice is a good example of something that is seldom themed in games. At most it would maybe have a functional description, like for example "attack die" or "defense die".

A functional description/naming could be themed, and it might also not be. Most often it is not very themed, because the more themed words you use for a function the less functional that functions name becomes, at least in a universe where there is a terminology we aren't really versed in in our common natural (english or whatever) language. The fantasy theme, as well as sci-fi theme, can easily become very hard to follow and understand should we want to make it all very exotic. There is of course nothing hindering us from using a fantasy theme without making it hard to understand. BfW uses a fine balance: All that know what fantasy is know what elfs are, undead are, what a "blade weapon" is, and what a "captain" is. BfW doesn't require us to learn much new, if anything at all. (This might vary depending on how it has been translated into language x, but I 'm referring to English now)

Example of non themed non-functional wording: "Throw the die."

Example of non themed functional wording: "Throw the attack die."

Example of themed non-functional wording: "Sap the barwa."

Example of themed functional wording: "Determine the result of a duel."

All the above examples express the same thing, or, at least they could do so.

Now, what is there to gain, really, by using non-functional themed wording? We're not creating fiction. Treating our cards with minimal text space on them as such is a huge mistake. It is a strange way to read fiction, given you don't compose decks on how good the "stories" on the cards are, there are no stories (we intentionally skipped out on flavour texts due to space restrictions due to aesthetics and font sizes used), and they also come in random order when drawing cards.

I would understand such wordplay in a WT-novell, but not how it contributes to the game by "mystifying" it. As mentioned in previous post, a result is that the game will be cryptic for the newcomer and therefore harder to learn to play due to the newcomer having to learn not only what the logic of the rules actually mean (for example, move a card from hand into this other coordinate) but also a brand new gaming language eventhough he/she already knew one before: The newcomer will have to re-associate plenty of stuff if we don't call cards cards, tokens tokens, dice dice, and so on.

As one might figure I am opposed us using themed non-functional wording. I would however not have the same objections to themed functional wording, but even then the questions you pose remain unanswered: When, what, and why?

Let's keep one interesting thing in mind here: Rules should always be written as clearly as possible. I believe they get more and more cryptic the more "code" you have to learn in order to decipher them. Do we want a rulebook where we in the first section, keep defining all the strange wording we will introduce later in the rest of the document/game?

As it is now we don't have much strangeness around. Say we use northern and southern fronts as example. Those are both lightly themed and, to a limited extent, functional, as it isn't hard for a player to understand that a creature is placed in a front. Now, imagine we called them "barui" and "barai". Those names, in themselves, are themed but are hard to figure out even remotely.


"Top row" or "attacking front", "marked cards" or "defenders"
'

Top row = unthemed, functional, and obvious for any human that knows what a row is and what the top oen is when looking on two where one is on top of the other.


"Attacking front" = themed, semi-functional

"Marked" = unthemed (or could be undestood as themed if you want to) but functional, you mark out which card you have used in way x, whatever x may be, where x requires you to somehow mark the state of the card. "Tap" that mtg uses instead is totally unthemed but functional in the same way mark is (if not even more as it suggests HOW to mark the card...which we can't due to legal reasons)

"defenders" - themed, functional.
Once you wrote it, I think we'll have to start drawing a bold line between what's "here" and what's "there", what's the outside world is, and what's the game world really. With a layer of translation, a language that transfers ideas from one space to another.
Theme is brought into a game more by naming the cards properly and having a certain style than calling the dice "umbra" or dealing "spells" instead of dealing out "cards". This is very subjective though and I'm sure somebody perceives it all inverted.

What would be cool is to look at the top 50 successfull boardgames, and top 50 successfull CCG/TCG:s and check how they use themeing and for what. Is there a relation between it's usage and how well the game is recieved? I honestly think there is, indeed, and that theme can make you turn on or off, but that it also seems to not matter much at all when you reach a certain critical level where you have just enough theme balanced against enough functionality.

I haven't read a report on this, but would encourage anyone to do some in-depth work on it and share the findings, so we can debunk the importance and usage of theming and it's many ways it can be used for the general public. We design for that public, and not for me or the selected few in a nerd-elite that play Dwarf Fortress 40 h / week or have more imaginary roleplaying friends than real ones :twisted:

Until I see compelling argument and some real issues with how things currently are laid out, I'm not sure there is a reason to change most of them. Preferably somebody would do the proper research I mention above and we could base our decisions on something more substantial than our own personal preferences.
And the big question is still unanswered. Who the hell the player is in our game?


Player is for example....

Red Banner: The working class or destiny.
Gaia: Counsel of the Elder
Empire: The current emperor, heir to the fallen throne.
House of Nobles. The house of nobles, a group of about 10 - 30 rich families.
Shadowguild: A pissed of leader that has been the target of broken promises and persecution?

I'm not sure the player has to be one and the same thing for every faction and don't think it matters much who he is, really. In the end the plyaer knows who he is in real life, he knows he is playing game, he knows it's all just for fun and not for total immersion (like reading book or watching a movie could be) but more for fun and/or skills.

If a player has read each factions background story it will more or less be apparent who he could choose to be. Maybe a player playing the Empire identifies himself with the Emperor, while another identifies with the invisible hand behind the Emperor that advises him? Why would we want to spell it out to the player who he "should" be?
User avatar
Q_x
developer
Posts:334
Joined:Thu Sep 23, 2010 15:10

Re: terminology changes

Post by Q_x » Sun May 20, 2012 05:52

As for themed/functional wording topology, I don't mind, really. The problem is our docs will have the "transition layer" that should be at consistent depth.
Why would we want to spell it out to the player who he "should" be?
It's not a matter of spelling it out, it's a matter of design choices that are easier once this thing is decided. Affects wording, may lead to fresh ideas, makes design easier in general. For example, if you're a rich man, you'd rather use gold coins, being a leader, you'd collect taxes, while being a powerful, diverse group, you'd use resources.
I'm the filthy bastard you wish you never met.
Post Reply