Skip to Content
 

(CCG) Card wording: Card referencing itself?

15 replies [Last post]
snowdrop
Offline
Joined: 07/13/2012
i6nXK4qTToRDD.jpg

I would be grateful for help with this one: How would you express, in the shortest, clearest and most casual way, that a card is referencing itself? Check out the spectre text in the attached image. ( http://www.bgdf.com/sites/default/files/images/i6nXK4qTToRDD.jpg )

In MtG for example they usually put out the whole name. For example for a card called "bird's revenge" the card text could say "When bird's revenge comes into play then bird's revenge gains bla bla..." To me that sounds too clunky, not natural or smooth, and it can at times also eat a lot of space.

Sometimes I have seen people write {this} when typing up card text in forums etc, but it also looks strange and isn't formal. My only idea this far has been to start using an abbreviation for "this card", simply TC, and just ask the players to learn it., but I'm sure there are better solutions as I'm not a native English speaker...

(Btw: We need people that like wording and this side of development. If you happen to be interested please send me a message at snowdrop at wtactics dot org)

shoeboxer
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2012
Sidestepping the issue...

I'm not too sure about a general rule, if only because I think the way MtG does it is the best, but in the case of the Spectre card you could try (and I most likely got this wording from MtG):

Whenever combat damage would be dealt to Spectre, that damage is prevented if... (conditions).

Awaclus
Awaclus's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2012
~

I think ~ could do pretty well, if you're sure you have to go with something less space-eating than "this card". Anyone who's used Magic Set Editor for custom MtG card creation is already familiar with it, it's the easiest thing ever to translate into other languages, it's easy to learn and difficult to confuse with anything else.

However, that's something you have to mention in the rules. Unless you have other stuff like that (symbols, abbreviations, etc) already in need for their own section in the rules, I recommend pondering if it's worth having a longer rulebook instead of longer card text. After all, everyone probably has time to read the cards when you play, but if reading the rules takes a long of time, some people have tendency to lose interest and walk into the kitchen or something while you're reading them.

EDIT: I noticed how the Spectre says "--or if you can reveal a Ghost in your hand". I believe you should change that to "--and/or if you reveal a Ghost in your hand". I interpret the original wording so that revealing a Ghost is mandatory if one is in your hand, but unless the contents of players' hands are visible to all players, there's no way to guarantee that someone who has a Ghost in hand, but for any reason wishes to leave the Spectre unprotected, will actually reveal it. In my version, not revealing the ghost would be allowed, so cheaters wouldn't gain an advantage. This isn't probably very relevant - Dominion got away with the same mistake printed to Throne Room in the base set, but they did fix it for King's Court in an expansion. I don't know anything about your game though, my advice here could be completely wrong.

ReneWiersma
ReneWiersma's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/08/2008
Well, "this card" would

Well, "this card" would technically work, but it breaks the spell of illusion. After all you are summoning a "Spectre Madji", not a piece of cardboard. At least, that's the illusion you want to keep in tact. There's a reason why MtG is as it is.

Stuff like ~ and {this}, that's all too nerdy, geeky and computery, which will turn of casual players.

Try to avoid words like "it" and "this" and "that" because they can be ambiguous in some situations. You have to be very precise with the wording to avoid ambiguities, but at the same time you want to avoid being too verbose. That's a pretty tough line to walk sometimes.

gabrielcohn
Offline
Joined: 11/25/2010
Or...

I also tend to think the MtG version works well. However, you could also come up with a symbol (of your own creation) to represent the concept "this card" or "this creature." I'm thinking about Race for the Galaxy here a bit. In RftG on the trade part of several cards there's a symbol that shows something like "+$3 if you sell a blue good" AND there's also a way to symbolize "+$3 if you sell a blue good from THIS WORLD ONLY" (which is the original symbol in a grey circle). Perhaps you could make a symbol that means "a creature" and then a version off that symbol which means "this creature" or something like that.

oh...and, btw, nice art!

GreenO
GreenO's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/14/2011
First person

Spectre Madji
Spirit

"Whenever combat damage would be dealt to me, I am protected from it if the top card in your discard pile is a creature, or you can reveal a Ghost card from your hand. "

Unequipped. "I may never be equipped."

SWB
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2012
Another option

One option I have used to some success is referring directly to the type of card instead of its specific name, or just "this card". For example, if using a Magic card, it would say something like "This Creature gains +1/+1." It gives you the clearness of using "This Card" without reminding people its a card game so bluntly, and is a space saver compared to spelling out the Cards entire name.

This only works though if the Card in question actually has an in theme card type in your game. I would suggest staying away from symbols to denote "this card". While more experienced players may have no problem with that approach, it would provide a barrier to people new to your type of game and be a point of confusion to younger or less experienced players.

Good luck on your game!

SWB
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2012
Undead Archer

Here is an example of what I mean using one of your Cards:

Undead Archer

This Creature is protected from all combat damage dealt to it by Equipment.

3: Return this Creature to your hand from the discard pile if it perished in battle this turn.

I would also suggest removing the larger font of the first letter in each card. It makes things a little difficult to read and takes up extra room that could be used for better explained rules or flavor text.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
I think the MtG idea of

I think the MtG idea of naming the specific card is probably best, but you could reorganize the text to minimize the number of tims you need to say it:

Spectre Madji
Spirit
If the top card of your discard pile is a creature, prevent all combat damage dealt to Spectre Madji.
Reveal a Ghost in your hand: Prevent all combat damage dealt to Spectre Madji.

It might be clearer to separate those two conditions rather than trying to cover both in the same clause. I highly recommend AGAINST using "and/or" - I tried that for the Eminent Domain card Improved Colonize and it was a disaster! Fortunately I was able to change it before the game went to print!

HandwrittenAnthony
HandwrittenAnthony's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2011
Naming the thing.

I agree with the folks who say to use the card's name over nicknames and symbols. You want your rules to be as clear and unambiguous as possible: naming the card specifically removes all doubt from the players' minds which card your rule is meant to affect.

sedjtroll's suggestion is good advice. You will want to make sure your syntax is consistent across the whole game though. In the above example, despite the result of invulnerability being the same, the environment effect (discard pile) is a passive ability for the Spectre, and the action effect (reveal) is an active ability. If you follow this, then all cards with an action ability should follow the ACTION: EFFECT sentence structure.

Kris Knives
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2012
I can't see {this} working in Fantasy

The only way I can see the {this} approach working is in a CCG with something like a cyberspace theme where appearing more technical in the description could be considered adding to the flavor of the game.

With fantasy I think you are limited to "this card" or the card name as other people have suggested.

Awaclus
Awaclus's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/17/2012
HandwrittenAnthony wrote:I

HandwrittenAnthony wrote:
I agree with the folks who say to use the card's name over nicknames and symbols. You want your rules to be as clear and unambiguous as possible: naming the card specifically removes all doubt from the players' minds which card your rule is meant to affect.

In my experience, it adds confusion. What if you have two Undead Archers and activate the "3: If Undead Archer perished in battle this turn it is moved back to hand from the discard pile" ability once? Does it mean it returns both cards then, or just one?

HandwrittenAnthony
HandwrittenAnthony's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2011
Nouns!

Awaclus wrote:
HandwrittenAnthony wrote:
I agree with the folks who say to use the card's name over nicknames and symbols. You want your rules to be as clear and unambiguous as possible: naming the card specifically removes all doubt from the players' minds which card your rule is meant to affect.

In my experience, it adds confusion. What if you have two Undead Archers and activate the "3: If Undead Archer perished in battle this turn it is moved back to hand from the discard pile" ability once? Does it mean it returns both cards then, or just one?

It very much comes down to how you use your nouns.

In the Undead Archer example:

Quote:
3: If Undead Archer (singular noun) perished ... it (reflexive pronoun) is moved back to hand...

The singular noun makes it clear that the card is referencing the single copy of itself. The reflexive pronoun means that the following action applies to the previously outlined noun, which has already been established as singular and not encompassing any other card.

An example of getting the nouns mixed up and allowing for confusion could be:

Quote:
3: If Undead Archers perish in battle, they are moved back to hand from the discard pile.

Although technically correct, it is a lot more ambiguous for a single character card. I wouldn't fault a player for wondering if all instances of that card are affected by the ability.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:Well, "this card" would

Quote:
Well, "this card" would technically work

In c++ programming language, you can use the "This" keyword to reference the object you are currently in.

I think card name a la MTG works well unless the card names are very long which is the case of MTG since every cards name needs to be unique.

KAndrw
Offline
Joined: 08/20/2008
HandwrittenAnthony wrote:3:

HandwrittenAnthony wrote:
3: If Undead Archer (singular noun) perished ... it (reflexive pronoun) is moved back to hand...

'It' is not a reflexive pronoun - the reflexive version of 'it' is 'itself' - but I agree that the language is fairly unambiguous in almost all cases.

Personally, I also favour using the card name when the card refers to itself, and have changed card names purely to make the game text better fit into the space available. In cases where that's not possible, I favour using 'this [noun]', where noun is a game term like 'Fighter' rather than the generic 'card'.

As an example, I've been working on a space game for far too many years:
http://scatteredfleet.com/html/factions.html

Escort cards record the info for one ship, so abilities use the ship's name:
"Penumbra cannot be targeted during a Retaliation combat"

Fighter cards record the info for two uniquely named instances of a ship:
Mutiny & Treason: "... This Fighter has +X Accuracy..."

HandwrittenAnthony
HandwrittenAnthony's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/01/2011
KAndrw

KAndrw wrote:
HandwrittenAnthony wrote:
3: If Undead Archer (singular noun) perished ... it (reflexive pronoun) is moved back to hand...

'It' is not a reflexive pronoun - the reflexive version of 'it' is 'itself' - but I agree that the language is fairly unambiguous in almost all cases.

My bad! I was under the impression reflexive pronouns were any pronoun that served as a self-reference to a previous noun, regardless of its form. I wasn't previously aware of the "-self" rule, but you are correct.

KAndrew wrote:
In cases where that's not possible, I favour using 'this [noun]', where noun is a game term like 'Fighter' rather than the generic 'card'.

That's a good point too. Using sub-classes for groups of cards can be useful for defining effects across multiple unique cards, eg. "Fighter", "creature", "elves". This then means when a unique card name is referenced, in the context of the game you know that it is talking about that specific card, and not multiple instances. MtG make good use of this style of grammar.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut