thoughts on the usage of keywords in Vtes.

self wrote:

Dorrinal wrote:

self wrote:

so what say y'all?

Using italics everywhere makes your posts difficult to read.

would anyone like to actually contribute to the thread and not whinge about font?

Funny... you were talking about altering the fonts of cards... and Dorrinal mentioned the fact that your posts are in "italics." It truly is "on topic."

You use bold or italics in order to add emphasis or to distinguish parts of text. When you use italics for an entire paragraph it is difficult to read.

There is no real need to emphasis every keyword. It would be best to avoid using italics for keywords because convention is that less important text is italicized (such as flavor text.)

You find in some of the older cards that (Blood Cursed) is in parentheses. Visually, I think that works for the keywords that might appear at the end of a vampire's card text, or are kinda clan specific. I.E. (Blood Cursed) (Infernal) (Sterile) (Cold Iron Vulnerable) etc.

Also, "+1 intercept" and "+1 bleed" are not keywords. They are simply card text. If you were to make those bold then vampires with a sect and a title and +1 bleed would have all of the text in bold, and therefore indistinguishable from each other.

What is easier to read?
EDIT: it's not a very good test on a computer monitor.

Camarilla Prince of Houston. +1 bleed.
or
Camarilla Prince of Houston. +1 bleed.

If your friend read the rulebook and looked at a decent sample of cards, he'd not have had to ask any of these questions, I don't think.

It's also quite clear that VTES cards are formatted in a certain way, esp. the fact that they are term-dense and designed for adults, in an older-CCG text-based style, and not the "modern" symbol-based "at a glance, I know everything" style.

If his intent was simply to compare VTES to some other CCG, he's missing the point entirely. One should consider a game's quality for its own sake, not in comparison to other games.

But it's true you have a lot of rules to assimilate before being able to play vtes correctly. Maybe a little reminder on card texts would be good too, but playing with a rulebook by your side is wiser !

(kudos to the admin who removed the mess btw )

While I believe that the rulebook is complex because the game is complex, I think that we could take some hints on a better card GUI from that other game that has a Pro Tour and millions of players worldwide.

Juggernaut1981 wrote:

Why: Then most of the vampire's text would be in bold.

Sect and Title have always been bold because those keywords are usually linked (I'm raging on about the problem with one keyword/trait not being linked to the sect but that's another issue).

There are a number of keywords, and to be honest with your new guy, start with the 'mainstream clans' and just let him worry about the Bloodlines guys later. Get used to the main stuff and dabble later in the additional complexities.

Other keywording in VTES should be better done, but its presentation suits me just fine.

my friend and i have been playing periodically since '94 (I've been considerably more involved). He's also got the uncanny ability to casually thumb through the rules of a new game and somehow know how to play. He also served as my warhammer 40k group's Rules Junta for a number of years. To provide some greater insight, we were discussing the use of defined game terms in several games when i brought up the inconsistent approach that Vtes has.

direwolf wrote:

There is no real need to emphasis every keyword. It would be best to avoid using italics for keywords because convention is that less important text is italicized (such as flavor text.)

You find in some of the older cards that (Blood Cursed) is in parentheses. Visually, I think that works for the keywords that might appear at the end of a vampire's card text, or are kinda clan specific. I.E. (Blood Cursed) (Infernal) (Sterile) (Cold Iron Vulnerable) etc.

***

What is easier to read?

I would agree with you on the use of italics to emphasize on crypt cards, and I cannot recall a single vampire that has flavor text on it. However I don't like the inconsistency that some keywords are bold and others not. Parenthesis encapsulating keywords and concepts at the end of the text would also be acceptable provided there would be some consistency (eg. only sect and title would be bold), but I feel that bold keywords is just the better way to go.

Take this, for example:


versus this:

direwolf wrote:

Also, "+1 intercept" and "+1 bleed" are not keywords. They are simply card text. If you were to make those bold then vampires with a sect and a title and +1 bleed would have all of the text in bold, and therefore indistinguishable from each other.

Indeed you are correct, but +intercept/stealth/bleed modifiers are found on numerous vampires; some in addition to other abilities (like Jaroslav Pascek). These 'semi-common' abilities could also be treated as keywords a sense, to no detriment of play. I'm not sure I understand the second issue you're bringing up. There are numerous, numerous vampires that have only a sect and title, and many more that have +1 Bleed as their card text. They're all perfectly distinguishable from each other as far as I can tell. Perhaps you could help me better understand what you were going for?

KevinM wrote:

If your friend read the rulebook and looked at a decent sample of cards, he'd not have had to ask any of these questions, I don't think.

It's also quite clear that VTES cards are formatted in a certain way, esp. the fact that they are term-dense and designed for adults, in an older-CCG text-based style, and not the "modern" symbol-based "at a glance, I know everything" style.

If his intent was simply to compare VTES to some other CCG, he's missing the point entirely. One should consider a game's quality for its own sake, not in comparison to other games.

again, we were discussing defined game terms and how they were used and presented, and there are inconsistencies in the way Vtes has done it over the years. My friend isn't a big fan of the setting, but he does enjoy how intricate the game is and how well the game flows.

KevinM wrote:

While I believe that the rulebook is complex because the game is complex, I think that we could take some hints on a better card GUI from that other game that has a Pro Tour and millions of players worldwide.

that's all I'm really trying to do is see what the community at large feels is acceptable.

@Selfbiased:
I am actually all for using keywords and keyphrases.

+x intercept
+x stealth
+x bleed
(even the conditional variants) are just fine with me.

But I'd want to expand the keywording until it was actually closer to the usage of Strikes.

"Strike: Combat Ends" is a clear functional keyphrase. It tells you that it is a strike, it does not have any particular effects on other minions at range, it does not constitute a hand-strike, weapon-strike or strength-based strike. Simple, elegant.
"Strike: Hands"
"Strike: Dodge"
"Strike: Weapon"
"Strike: Ranged"
"Strike: X"
"Strike: XR"
Then to add descriptors: aggravated, environmental, unpreventable, undodgeable. It then makes the functionality of other cards simpler.

For example:
Immortal Grapple
Combat
Only usable at Close Range before Strikes have been declared. Grapple.
Minions may only choose Strike:Hands strikes. Only one Immortal Grapple may be played each round.
As above, with an optional press. If there is another round of combat it will be Close Range.

This should be transported across to ideas like "Immunity". If a minion cannot be affected by a card (e.g. Reactions), a strike (e.g. S:D), a type of card (e.g. Frenzy, Grapple, etc), a type of action (e.g. diablerie, enter combat actions, etc) and so on then they should be "immune to X".