Discussions around views on card wording

I don't like the way it's handled in general either -- i think "a" should be "each," when applicable -- but that's just the way it is.

Trying to apply meticulous logic to English text, which is often by its very nature ambiguous, is not necessarily useful.

Seriously, though, just putting 'each' would have cleared it right up. 'A' tends to mean 'any,' and that creates confusion here.

True, but in the context of game rules, consistent usage is important for avoiding exactly this type of ambiguity.  It is certainly correct for "a" to mean "any" or "each", but for the sake of clarity, it should always mean the same thing in the context of this game.  The nice thing about English is that while words can have multiple meanings, they also tend to have synonyms which don't, or whose only alternate meanings are necessarily excluded by context.  It is possible to be significantly clearer than they were when writing rules, even when using an imprecise natural language. 

There is no reason two cards with the (essentially) the same wording should work in two different ways.  It is virtually guaranteed to cause confusion, and could easily be avoided.  This was a mistake, pure and simple, and trying to argue that it was due to some unavoidable ambiguity inherent to natural language is frankly, a cop-out. 

That said, the fact that the designers made this mistake is certainly understandable, and given the quality of the game, forgivable.  While it is possible to clearly describe specific effects with English text, doing so in a form terse enough to fit on a playing card is certainly difficult, and takes careful planning.  I suspect that if given the chance, the designers would re-word several cards.  This is not an indictment of the game or it's designers.

English, like all languages, is perfectly capable of conveying precise meaning. Furthermore, it should really be no surprise at all that we would try to parse the wording logically, since the wording lays out the rules of the game.

English often requires context to convey precise meaning.  I have found often that saying something in a way one person thinks is precise will have someone else totally mis-understanding it.

This, as a systems analyst, is my job. Daily. 

We all have our own context, baggage, perceptions, and background. We might not even think words have the same meaning! 

I'm with MigrantP that applying meticulous logic to English is often not the best approach. That is why, when approaching rules for Sentinels, I tend to focus on the intention and not the literal wording. Too many potential mines in that field... 

These are fair points, and I don't dispute that context, background and individual intuition shape the way we understand language.  These and other issues certainly represent a significant impediment to the goal of writing perfectly clear, unambiguous rules.  I would even concede that avoiding all potential sources of ambiguity is likely an unrealistic goal.  However, the general feasibility of writing precisely clear English (or natural-language) rules is not really what's at issue here.  What's at issue is how well the designers of this specific game addressed these issues, and in particular how well or poorly certain specific cards were worded.

I would argue that, while perfect clarity may be unattainable, the wording on many cards in this game could have (and should have) been clearer.  One approach would have been to select a group of common (potentially ambiguous) words and give them precise definitions in the rules.  There really needn't be any confusion as to whether "a" means "each" or "any", and there are other similar issues with other cards that could have been avoided just as easily.  Even if no such set of precise definitions is provided, surely simple consistency is not too much to ask.  There is absolutely no reason two cards which are worded the same way should function in two different ways.  This was an oversight, an error, a screw-up, and general issues with ambiguity in natural language don't make it less so.  Adopting a fatalistic attitude about clarity is an even worse mistake.  Just because some ambiguity is inevitable doesn't mean you should be cavalier with your wording choices.

I know that some of you are tech people so consider the following analogy: it is widely accepted as unavoidable that any software release of significant complexity will have some bugs.  We humans just can't possibly anticipate every edge case and interaction, so some things inevitably slip through.  That doesn't mean that you write sloppy code.  Instead, you go to great lengths to avoid as many bugs as you can.  You follow best practices when writing your code, then you test it against every case you can think of, going through build after build until you've got something that, while not completely bug-free, is in some sense "close".  Different teams do a better job of this, and as a result, some projects are buggier than others.  When bugs are found, though, simply pointing out that all software has bugs is not an appropriate response.

I don't claim for a moment that this game wasn't thoroughly tested.  I know that it was, and I think that's a major reason it turned out to be such a popular and enjoyable game.  In particular, the mechanics and balance are excellent, which makes for exciting gameplay.  However, when it comes to the wording of cards, I don't think the designers did as good a job as they could have.  I think that there are best practices which could have been followed and weren't, and as a result several cards are worded confusingly and ambiguously.  I think there are many games of similar complexity that do a better job of keeping their rules clear.  That said, there are many that do worse.  All in all, Sentinels' clarity problem is not enormous or game-ruining, just moderately annoying, and the good aspects of the game far outweigh it, making for an excellent game on the whole.  I just don't think that clarity issues should be waved off with appeals to the unavoidability of ambiguity.

Well said

You're absolutely right.  In fact, I almost mentioned this, but figured it went without saying.  However, while your ability to fix errors after the fact is diminished (and possibly non-existent) with a physical game, that if anything should provide more incentive to be fastidious about minimizing ambiguity when the game is being developed.  One could argue that in the face of un-changeable official wording, "ambiguity is unavoidable" becomes a somewhat more palatable response to issues with clarity.  However, it still feels like a cop-out to me.  I understand that it is no longer possible to fix these errors, but I nevertheless assert that they are errors.  Appealing to the unavoidability of ambiguity in natural langage reinforces a fatalistic attitude toward clarity in a design team that is still working on content for this and other games.  I would totally get a response along the lines of "There are a lot of cards we would word differently if we could do it over again, and we do our best to clarify intent after the fact when it becomes clear confusion has arisen", indeed I've seen such responses on this forum and been pleased.  Ideally, one would hope that the designers would learn from their mistakes, and adopt practices to improve card clarity in future releases (and other games such as Sentinel Tactics).  Simply throwing up our hands and saying "C'est la vie" may be the best we can do for content that's already been released, but that doesn't mean we should pretend that these errors couldn't have been avoided when many of them could have.

That's not really a problem with the analogy so much as it is a consequence of the difference between software and a physical product. That is a practical concern, and it's important to consider. But that practical issue doesn't change the ability of words, with a complete definition set, to describe the desired effect of each card.

You seem to think that I'm responsible for the wording of the cards; I am not.

I don't.  I understand that you didn't write the cards.  However, I think your comment about applying logic to English attempted to de-legitimize an attempt to hold those who did write them accountable for the lack of clarity, and I think that they are accountable.  The "we" referenced in my hypothetical better response wasn't intended to be you.  It's those actually responsible for the wording of the cards.  If you wish, it could just as easily be replaced with "they".

I certainly don't mean to imply they don't care.  Obviously some effort, substantial effort even, has been made.  I simply think they could reasonably have been expected to do more.  I don't think card clarity was emphasized and prioritized as much as I wish it would have been.  I made no statements one way or the other about fixing ambiguous cards after the fact.  My point is simply that it is legitimate to expect clarity, and saying that English is inherently ambiguous fails to acknowledge the real constructive steps which could have been taken and weren't.

Decided it was time for this to split off. The thread no longer had anything to do with Wrong Time and Place, but the conversation around card wording was still interesting. 

Please continue. 

I think that some of the "you"s above might have been directed at me. So I want to lay out a couple things before continuing the discussion now that we have a dedicated thread.

First of all, in no way did I mean to imply that GtG didn't put a priority on getting things right, or that Handelabra didn't do their due diligence in implementing the card game, or that the playtesters were lax in returning necessary feedback to the game designers. If I came across as meaning those things, I would like to apologize. The vast universe of things this game gets emphatically *right* dwarfs the tiny portion of things it could do better.

Second, there are several reasons why I find this discussion interesting and valuable. A big one is that I'm interested in the game design process, and might like to pitch a design or two one day. Making sure that rules and materials work for the largest set of people possible is absolutely something I would want to know more about! Another reason, a way more long-shot sort of reason, is that as I love this game so much I'd be happy if the discussion helped out the GtG guys in some way, even if it's as small as raising an issue in their minds for the future.

So anyway, while I don't know how a potential "bug" in the physical game could be addressed other than a revised 3rd edition, (1) I'm not going to hold out for that happening, (2) I'm going to keep playing, enjoying, and being passionate about Sentinels of the Multiverse, and (3) I'm going to keep participating in discussions about how this game could potentially be better. I do apologize again if I implied any negativity toward the game designers, playtesters, or forum participants.

Now, then! I understand Christopher favored ambiguous wording in the past, so that players could come to their own conclusions about what was most thematic or sensible. That runs a bit counter to my own inclination, which is to write explicit and specific instructions to try to eliminate all ambiguous wording. I do think that is possible to do. Though difficult, I wouldn't dismiss the idea of writing precise text.

One example might be a card like Flame Barrier. I suggest two possible alternatives.

We now know that the first wording is how Flame Barrier, Combat Stance, etc work, while the second is how Provocateur Tarnis works. What do you think? Did I get rid of the ambiguity successfully?

That wording looks pretty clear to me. And for what it's worth, I think you've done a good job throughout this discussion of making it clear you were trying to help and have an interesting discussion on language in the context of games rather than being critical for no reason.