Crypt card redesign

666Raziel wrote:

Sorry if I'm hammering , but what I like about my proposition is that it works very nice with Ke's layout.

Traits goes in the black box (and we now have a good reason tu fully write the clan's name there).

In addition to the other problems I'm mentioned with the idea for a second text box, here's another: You're pre-filling the text space with the clan name, which reduces the avaialble space. From a card design perspective, we have less space to work with, especially with clan names like "Follower of Set" and "Daughter of Cacophony". I have a similar frustration with "Cold Iron Vulnerability" and "She cannot play cards that require Celerity ." They eat up text space and restrict the abilty to be creative with specials.

On top of it, the black box reduces the amount of text space available in the white box, regardless of how much text is used in the black box. The space is much more efficiently used with a single text box, and that allows us to use a larger font for improved readibility.

For example, look at the Bold Traits version of Ur-Shulgi:

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17269164/vtes/layout/text-urshulgi.jpg

There's effectively a blank bar on top of the white text box. Eliminate that, increase the white text box space to include the space occupied by the black bar, and increase the font size.

BenPeal wrote:

Further issues with traits, attributes, keywords, and terms:

Keyword: Not defined or referenced in the rulebook. It's a general term in gaming.
Trait: Only referenced in the rulebook in the rules for the special term Vulnerability. The only trait is Cold Iron.
Attribute: Clan and discipline symbols go in the attribute bar of a crypt card. Attribute is also referenced in the rules for Anarch vampires - the only attribute is Anarch.
Term: Terms are the proposed results of a successful referendum. Special terms are (traits/attributes/keywords/terms) that have special rules associated with them in the rulebook.

All other (traits/attributes/keywords/terms) such as Black Hand, Seraph, mortal, ghoul, animal, and Gehenna are not defined in the rulebook as being a trait, attribute, keyword, or term. We've clearly gotten along just fine without such a definition, but from a hard-coding perspective, it would be good to define them.

I am so glad somebody mentioned the rulebook in this thread. In my mind, trying to come up with a better card layout before giving the rulebook a heavy edit is putting the cart well ahead of the horse. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to CCGs (I only play VTES), but my understanding is that a CCG comprises a rulebook that codifies the rules and cards with text that essentially "breaks" those rules. With that idea in mind, it is not only "good" to define the terms of the game from a hard-coding perspective, it's absolutely essential. The rulebook needs a heavy edit before anything else can be done. Please note that a "heavy edit" is not an overhaul of the rules. It is taking the existing rules and clarifying them better in the rulebook. I believe this is what the rules team is currently doing by coming up with keywords. When the rules team is done, the rulebook and all card text should go through a quality assurance (QA) process to ensure that all text on cards match up with what is outlined in the rulebook/detailed play summary/card rulings, and that everything makes sense. Then we can worry about card layout. Then another QA process needs to happen to ensure that the card layout optimizes the information on the card. From my perspective, it is pretty clear that VTES never went through a proper QA process, and that is why we have a number of the problems that we have today.

I realize this process is a lot of time-consuming work. But if we’re not looking for middle-ground solutions, this is the way to go.

BenPeal wrote:

I propose the following terminology:

Keyword: Remains not defined in the rules. Just a general term in gaming.

I disagree. Not everybody who is introduced to VTES is familiar with general gaming terms. It would take < 50 characters to define what a keyword is in the rulebook. Define it. Especially if the rulebook is eventually going to repeatedly use the word "keyword" in a future iteration.

BenPeal wrote:

Perhaps things like "+1 strength" and "+1 intercept" could be defined as "simple abilities". Thoughts?

That's opening a can of worms. Seeds of Corruption was banned because the term "special ability" was too broadly applicable and not defined appropriately in the rulebook. The same thing is bound to happen with a broad term like "simple ability." If sticking to source material, merits and flaws might work. "Merit (+1 stealth)". "Flaw (-1 strength)".

TwoRazorReign wrote:

BenPeal wrote:

I propose the following terminology:

Keyword: Remains not defined in the rules. Just a general term in gaming.

I disagree. Not everybody who is introduced to VTES is familiar with general gaming terms. It would take < 50 characters to define what a keyword is in the rulebook. Define it. Especially if the rulebook is eventually going to repeatedly use the word "keyword" in a future iteration.

Ah, I meant to say that "keyword" remains undefined and not used anywhere in the game at all. I believe that is currently the case. Rather than have "keyword" and "trait", we can just have "trait" defined.