Skip to Content
 

Clarity and awkward wording on cards...

21 replies [Last post]
bbblackwell
bbblackwell's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/23/2013

*Skip down to "THE QUESTION" if you're in a hurry!

Picture if you will... a ship, sailing in the night, carrying hundreds of copies of a much-anticipated game across the swaying seas, to be delivered into the hands of eager kickstarter backers.

In a far-off land, a designer fitfully paces the creaking floorboards of his sleeping chamber, trying desperately to recall the wording on that one, seemingly insignificant card...

And then, all at once, the memory returns. The card reads:

Zealous Squire:
During your action phase, you may attach a melee weapon to Zealous Squire.

The implications strike him like a thunderbolt. He falls to his knees in anguish, bellowing to the heavens...
"ONE! He can only hold ONE!!!!!"

For all the days of his life, he is haunted by internet posts about "The Squire of 1,000 swords" whose whirling blades cut a swath of destruction across the land, felling men, orcs, and even dragons, with a single roll of the dice...

This is my greatest fear; and if you've ever played Yu-Gi-Oh! or Magic The Gathering, you know that I'm not the only one. Some of the wording on these cards can get ridiculous in their attempt to convey a difficult idea, or patch up exploits before they happen. Clairty via unintelligibility -- whatever it takes to stop the opportunist in his tracks! This is the motto of the wary designer.

THE QUESTION:
I'm struggling with one particular phrase right now. It's a benign example, but I was wondering if you guys know a better way to say it:

"During your turn, you may attach and/or detach one Materials card to/from this card. This card may only have one Materials card attached at a time."

I don't like the "and/or" and "to/from." It's a grammatical necessity with "attach" and "detach" and I don't how else to say it. I also don't like "...attached at a time" but that's nitpicking. The whole sentence just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm trying to say that this card can hold 1 Materials card, and that you may attach 1 Materials card to it on your turn. Naturally, if you wanted to change the attached card, you would have to detach the one that was already there, so I'm letting you know you can do that too.

If you made it this far, I'm much obliged. Thank you!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I would leave out "at a

I would leave out "at a time".

Then there is this attempt of mine:

"During your turn, you may attach, detach or replace one Materials card. This card may only have one Materials card attached."

saluk
Offline
Joined: 05/11/2010
"You may store a single

"You may store a single material card on this one or replace the existing material."

radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
Too redundant.

bbblackwell wrote:

THE QUESTION:
I'm struggling with one particular phrase right now. It's a benign example, but I was wondering if you guys know a better way to say it:

"During your turn, you may attach and/or detach one Materials card to/from this card. This card may only have one Materials card attached at a time."

I don't like the "and/or" and "to/from." It's a grammatical necessity with "attach" and "detach" and I don't how else to say it. I also don't like "...attached at a time" but that's nitpicking. The whole sentence just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm trying to say that this card can hold 1 Materials card, and that you may attach 1 Materials card to it on your turn. Naturally, if you wanted to change the attached card, you would have to detach the one that was already there, so I'm letting you know you can do that too.

If you made it this far, I'm much obliged. Thank you!

There's a redundancy in your original text. The "to/from this card" is excessive. Sometimes you have to let the player decipher what the card means.

You should use, "During your turn, you may attach or detach one Materials card. Limit 1 Materials Card on this card."

Or you can just put "Limit 1 Materials Card per card" in your rulebook, therefore eliminating the second sentence and streamlining your text.

If the card can only have 1 Materials, it is already implied that if there's a Materials Card on the card, you must detach the existing Materials Card before attaching another one. It also implies that attaching and detaching are separate actions (denoted by "or").

Of course, I'd always test this phrase with play testers to make sure they get the meaning.

WikkedWood
Offline
Joined: 10/27/2016
Uh...

Isn't having a bgg sticky page dedicated to deciphering your cards a badge of honor?

At any rate...I like what saluk wrote. Add "with another" if you want extra clarity.

WW

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Off-topic but only sort of...

Since this thread is about "wording", I thought I'd ask what designers think of "Keywords".

Like for example a "Monster" Encounter card may have the keyword "Darkness".

What this means is that unless you have a "counter" to this ability, something happens. In the case of "Darkness" you remove one (1) dice from the damage dealt in combat (something like that...)

"Darkness: remove 1d6 from Damage roll; counter with 'Light'."

What do you guys think? Is this clear enough or is learning what keywords do a "pain-in-the-@ss"???

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
KISS IMHO

bbblackwell wrote:
"During your turn, you may attach and/or detach one Materials card to/from this card. This card may only have one Materials card attached at a time."

"Attach 1 Material Card; Limit 1."

Something SIMPLE like that. I think this conveys the FULL-version pretty well and it's simple enough to understand.

This ties in with "Keywords": you want them to be sufficiently understandable but... at the same time you don't want them to be too verbose. If you know what I mean?!

radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
Too vague.

questccg wrote:
bbblackwell wrote:
"During your turn, you may attach and/or detach one Materials card to/from this card. This card may only have one Materials card attached at a time."

"Attach 1 Material Card; Limit 1."

Something SIMPLE like that. I think this conveys the FULL-version pretty well and it's simple enough to understand.

You'll need to make sure that the audience knows when and exactly how to use it, but you don't want the text to be too vague that players find ways around the cards intended mechanics.

The way you put it, first of all doesn't imply any detaching of the card, nor does it imply that it can only be done on their turn...a player can interpret it to be that they can ONLY attach Materials cards and they can do it on another person's turn.

I do agree on just putting "Limit 1". Very simple, to the point.

Like I said in my last post, the true litmus test is to just playtest it out. They will have better suggestions since they are in the game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Use of symbology

radioactivemouse wrote:
...The way you put it, first of all doesn't imply any detaching of the card, nor does it imply that it can only be done on their turn...a player can interpret it to be that they can ONLY attach Materials cards and they can do it on another person's turn...

In my mind, if you can "ATTACH", you can "DETACH".

Another version could be:

"Attach 1 Material card [Permanent]; Limit 1"

This version says that you CANNOT "detach".

I think you need some "symbology" to say "on your turn". For example:

">" means only on YOUR turn whereas ">>" means on ANY player's turn.

I'm getting better with Magic: The Gathering cards since I have downloaded Magic Puzzle Quest. I get to see a LOT of cards and understand how they work. If learning the SYNTAX is "part of the game"... Well you should use clear symbology...

radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
Not trying to shoot you down...

questccg wrote:
radioactivemouse wrote:
...The way you put it, first of all doesn't imply any detaching of the card, nor does it imply that it can only be done on their turn...a player can interpret it to be that they can ONLY attach Materials cards and they can do it on another person's turn...

In my mind, if you can "ATTACH", you can "DETACH".

Another version could be:

"Attach 1 Material card [Permanent]; Limit 1"

This version says that you CANNOT "detach".

Second of all, the more verbose version doesn't say "on your turn".

I think you need some "symbology" to say "on your turn". For example:

"> Attach 1 Material card; Limit 1" - ">" mean only on YOUR turn.

">> Attach 1 Material card; Limit 1" - ">>" means on ANY player's turn.

I'm getting better with Magic: The Gathering cards since I have downloaded Magic Puzzle Quest. I get to see a LOT of cards and understand how they work. If learning the SYNTAX is "part of the game"... Well you should use clear symbology...

I'm only seeing it by how others might interpret it, not by how I see it. Even I would think that if it attaches (and doesn't clarify it can't detach) then I would assume the attachment is permanent, therefore saying "detach" is necessary.

The human element is the X factor. People will be literal and be Rules Lawyers about everything. If it doesn't say it, it's not there OR it's open to interpretation.

It's a hard balance. Like I said, you want to be simple enough for players to infer the meaning, but wordy enough that you communicate exactly how you want the card to function.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just throwing out ideas...!

radioactivemouse wrote:
...It's a hard balance...

I am also influenced by "EPIC"! LOL :P

They have a "bunch" of keywords and even have videos for EACH ONE!

Things like "Banish"/"Blitz"/"Recall"/"Recycle"/"Righteous"/etc. You need to learn what each one of these keywords mean before playing the game. Why? Well because on the card itself it will say "Recall".

And then you will be like: "WTF does Recall mean???" "And when can I use it???"

My "Darkness" example is good IMO. Something more "convoluted" would not work...

radioactivemouse
radioactivemouse's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2013
That's bad design IMO

questccg wrote:
radioactivemouse wrote:
...It's a hard balance...

I am also influenced by "EPIC"! LOL :P

They have a "bunch" of keywords and even have videos for EACH ONE!

Things like "Banish"/"Blitz"/"Recall"/"Recycle"/"Righteous"/etc. You need to learn what each one of these keywords mean before playing the game. Why? Well because on the card itself it will say "Recall".

And then you will be like: "WTF does Recall mean???" "And when can I use it???"

My "Darkness" example is good IMO. Something more "convoluted" would not work...

Aside from my own issues with the game, if you have to have a separate video to clarify each of your keywords, then that's just bad design overall.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
My version vs. EPIC's version!

radioactivemouse wrote:
...if you have to have a separate video to clarify each of your keywords, then that's just bad design overall.

Well it makes the game MORE difficult to play. I don't think it's great design either... But I can understand the use of "keywords". However I believe it's BEST to "explain" the keyword, rather than assume the players have memorized what it means:

"Darkness: remove 1d6 from Damage roll; counter with 'Light'."

This is pretty good since it has the "keyword", the meaning too and how to counter this "effect". I think with something like this, players have a much more clear explanation about what the keyword does.

What do you think?

bbblackwell
bbblackwell's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/23/2013
Keywords are GO!

questccg wrote:
"Darkness: remove 1d6 from Damage roll; counter with 'Light'."

I like Keywords a lot, and I think you have one of two options with them:

1. The Keyword chosen is so self-explanatory that after one quick glance at the rulebook or reference sheet, they remember it forever.

Heal: 2

"Heal" means that the card recovers HP equal to the value indicated. Done.

2. As you demonstrated, explain the rule after the Keyword. When the player recognizes it, they needn't read further, but if they forgot, the explanation is right there. Love this approach too.

bbblackwell
bbblackwell's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/23/2013
Style choice

X3M wrote:
"During your turn, you may attach, detach or replace one Materials card. This card may only have one Materials card attached."

I think this sort of suits my style best. I do prefer to be a little more wordy for the sake of clarity, plus I just like the flow of sentences like this.

Of course, I'm an exceedingly patient player. It takes me 2 and a half hours to solo play a 45 minute game. Hahaha

Others may lose patience with all the reading, but playtesting will hopefully shed more light, as previously mentioned. Thanks a million, guys!

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some other examples of Keywords

bbblackwell wrote:
...1. The Keyword chosen is so self-explanatory that after one quick glance at the rulebook or reference sheet, they remember it forever.

Heal: 2

"Heal" means that the card recovers HP equal to the value indicated. Done...

Ya Brian I agree... That too can work! I wonder if there are some other keywords that are "self-explanatory"?!

Like I could have:

Zap: 1D6 Damage

That also could be pretty straight-forward... There could be others in this category too. Like:

Burn: 2D6 Damage

Another possibility could be:

Drain: -2 Mana

This could be important when fighting a creature that uses Mana for initial attacks. Draining that creature's Mana might be a quicker way of defeating it.

Anyone else have any other "keywords" in these or other categories?!

bbblackwell
bbblackwell's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/23/2013
Categorical question

questccg wrote:
I wonder if there are some other keywords that are "self-explanatory"?!

Like I could have:

Zap: 1D6 Damage

That also could be pretty straight-forward... There could be others in this category too. Like:

Burn: 2D6 Damage

Another possibility could be:

Drain: -2 Mana

Anyone else have any other "keywords" in these or other categories?!

Yeah, those would work great, I think. The damage is the damage, and if there's other cards that resist of buff "Burn" damage, then they know it applies to that.

What "categories" are you referring to here? What kind of keyword suggestions are you looking for?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Well I guess "categories" because I need more examples

Like Zap; Burn = Damage, Drain; Heal = Magic, what other categories could there be?

I'm just trying to figure out more examples of this...

bbblackwell
bbblackwell's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/23/2013
Co-op implementation

questccg wrote:
Like Zap; Burn = Damage, Drain; Heal = Magic, what other categories could there be?

I'm just trying to figure out more examples of this...

In co-ops it can be very useful to guide AI behavior.

Movement:

Hunter: 4
moves 4 spaces toward the closest Hero.

Rooted:
does not move during the movement phase.

=========================================
Targeting Priority:

Bloodlust:
attacks the Hero with the lowest HP.

Retribution:
targets its attack against the Hero who last dealt it damage.

=========================================
Habitual Behaviors/Recurring Abilities:

Spellcaster:
always uses its spell ability when a legal target is present (assuming it also has a melee abitlity or some such alternative)

Pickpocket:
adjacent Heroes lose 1 gold.

=======================================
Just some off-the-cuff ideas. I guess it could be used for most anything, depending on the surround mechanisms:

Negotiator:
purchases cost 1 less gold

Conspicuous:
does not gain stealth bonuses

bbblackwell
bbblackwell's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/23/2013
Final thoughts?

I think I'm going to go this route with it:

This card may have 1 Materials card attached (Materials detached from this card are discarded).

I just wanted to get a final opinion from you guys -- do you think it's clear? It should convey the following information:

-One Materials card may be attached.
-Only one attachment can be on the card at any given time.
-You can replace the attachment with a new one, but must discard the old one.

Players can't do anything outside of their turn, except with a particular keyword ability, so that part of it should be pretty clear without stating it explicitly.

kwasher
kwasher's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/07/2016
This card may have 1

This card may have 1 Materials card attached
(Detach it to discard/replace).

BHFuturist
BHFuturist's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/01/2008
I think this might be solved

I think this might be solved by adding something to the rule book during whatever "phase" of play this happens in. Then you could move to only having a symbol on the card for "minerals slots". From there if the card only has one "slot" icon then it would be clear that only one Mineral can go there at a time. I would only add this to the rules if the attaching minerals action is common enough to justify the space in the book.

In general for games of this type changing "common" card actions from text to symbol is a good idea but only when it is a common action. One or to lines in the rules might tell us how Minerals work on cards in general with a symbol guide for how they can interact.

Just spit-balling/brainstorming

-Eamon

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut