General Nomenclature

[Agamemnon]

Since this draft is giving us a lot of room to readjust and revise, I figured I'd throw another thing on the table: nomenclature. What stuff is named. Some of these we're changing because of how the mechanics are changing (the names of an attribute or two, "associated skills" seems to no longer strictly refer to skills, etc). I wonder if we shouldn't change some others while we have the opportunity -- we're changing the name of the game, after all. If we can clarify any other terms or make them a better fit, so much the better.

My most immediate thought drifts to a couple terms we've inherited from elsewhere. Even though I have an obvious bias towards the project, I think it's fair to say we've moved far beyond being a "TROS" clone into its own kind of beast. Story Aspects seems the first bit of terminology that I'd consider changing if a better alternative presented itself. The term has its origins from the very first draft of the game back when the goal literally was "TROS with all the bells and whistles." It seemed clever then because we got to keep the same initials as Spiritual Attributes from the parent game. Now, though, that's clearly not the benefit it once was. In addition, it could be seen as a bit misleading. "Story" implies more of a director stance than the mechanic is intended to take. SAs through application have gone from "what does the player want for this character" to a more deliberate "what is the character's in-character motivation?" 'Aspects' as a word is also now forever associated (in my mind, at least) with Fate (the game, not the metaphysical concept).

The second bit I'm considering changing is "obstacle" or "ob." This was cribbed from Burning Wheel, which is likely not a problem, but all the same we if we came up with a better turn of phrase for "number of successes required" it could only be beneficial. I doubt Luke Crane is going to come down on the issue like the avenging angel of copyright law, but he technically is in charge of game stuff at Kickstarter. Always better to play nice with others.

For the former, I have no idea what you'd change the name to. The only thing to come to mind would be to just take division we already have (ambitions, convictions, passions) and use it as an acronym. You'd refer to them collectively as your CAPs or PACs. Not a bad option, but not one I'm married to.

For the latter, I'm not certain. The obvious would be to call them "Difficulty," as that's what they are used for, but d3 d4 is a confusing notation, especially in a system where it might be useful to be able to say +1d as a modifier for adding a die. Another might be to be just as literal about it and call them Required Successes. RS1, RS2.. or even just r3 r4.

I'm open to suggestions on either of the above, as well as any other piece of nomenclature that you have particularly strong feelings on. I can't guarantee a change will be made, but if there was ever a time to suggest it, this is it.

[dysjunct]

For SAs, I'd go with Drives. I think the Gumshoe system uses those but can't remember. Blade and Mythras use Passions. But I like the idea of driven characters and think it fits well with the themes of the game.

Agree that Difficulty is the obvious choice but I understand the abbreviation problem. You could go with Diff: Diff2, etc. Or maybe email Luke and ask him how he feels about you using Ob.

[nemedeus]

I really don't think you'll find a better term than Obstacle.
And I know you're worried about appeasing Crane, but changing the term for worries of not offending kind of flies in the face of your design decisions from the other thread.


Regarding SA, I tried to have "Spirits" once. I'm not saying that was a good idea but make of it what you will.


On another note... well, that won't be a problem now but, previously, literally half of the attributes started with an S. To me that felt clumsy.

[Agamemnon]

For SAs, I'd go with Drives. I think the Gumshoe system uses those but can't remember. Blade and Mythras use Passions. But I like the idea of driven characters and think it fits well with the themes of the game.

Rather oddly, the more I say "CAPs" the more I actually like it as a thing. It has a good connotation to it. Capstone. To cap off a character. To cap something. Drives/driven is good. Passions won't work simply because we have Passion as a kind of category of things (that we may wind up making more distinct. We're tinkering with the specifics of SAs a bit).

Agree that Difficulty is the obvious choice but I understand the abbreviation problem. You could go with Diff: Diff2, etc. Or maybe email Luke and ask him how he feels about you using Ob.

Ha. That's a thought. Maybe he'd be flattered. He did respond to me on twitter, once upon a time.

I really don't think you'll find a better term than Obstacle.
And I know you're worried about appeasing Crane, but changing the term for worries of not offending kind of flies in the face of your design decisions from the other thread.

Less 'appeasing,' and more 'not intentionally annoying.' Honestly, I don't have any real belief that it would be a problem anyway, but if the thing can be fixed without much trouble, it might as well be. I don't follow the "design decisions" reference though. The name of a thing is a purely aesthetic issue, rather than a design issue. The mechanics don't care what the unit is called.

Regarding SA, I tried to have "Spirits" once. I'm not saying that was a good idea but make of it what you will.


On another note... well, that won't be a problem now but, previously, literally half of the attributes started with an S. To me that felt clumsy.

That's one of the things I was pretty happy about in the attribute re-design. Agility, Brawn, Cunning, Perception, and Will all start with different letters. Trauma and Reflex start with their own letters as well. If we wind up going with what is currently Proposal 2, we may just drop Body as a thing as the 4/7/10 modifiers become a universal concept. As a GM, making notes of NPC stats becomes very easy - A4 B3 C6 P4 W5|T4 R5| CP11.

[nemedeus]

I really don't think you'll find a better term than Obstacle.
And I know you're worried about appeasing Crane, but changing the term for worries of not offending kind of flies in the face of your design decisions from the other thread.

Less 'appeasing,' and more 'not intentionally annoying.' Honestly, I don't have any real belief that it would be a problem anyway, but if the thing can be fixed without much trouble, it might as well be. I don't follow the "design decisions" reference though. The name of a thing is a purely aesthetic issue, rather than a design issue. The mechanics don't care what the unit is called.

Dude, literally every point in both Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 looks almost completely like a carbon copy of Burning Wheel. If this is going to be a problem, changing a name won't prevent it.

[Marras]

While CAP is good it sounds ... wrong to my ear. The feel is far too mechanical when compared to what it intends to do. Just because similar acronym is used in Burning Wheel doesn't mean it's the best

I like the Drive that dysjunct suggested or simply Motivations.

[nemedeus]

I'm also not convinced by CAP. It might be more fitting if it was somehow a LIMITING factor, but they are literally supposed to be the opposite.
As to why you like it more and more every time you say it, that's literally the neurology of familiarity at work and kind of a bad argument (because it's true for almost everything).

I think Drives is good. It's short, single syllable (always a good thing in my opinion), and expresses the meaning well.

[EinBein]

Of course, I'll play in German with my group of players, but when translating some of the terms of BoB into my native language, some had to be changed radically, including Spiritual Attributes. "Spirituelle Attibute" sounds shitty to my ears, so I changed to "Motivationen" (motivations) in my current draft and playtest character sheets. I still think this sounds a bit clumsy though...

CAP

I'm not sold because I think the final term should be somehow in-game-suitable. Even though I cannot think of any situation where characters talk about it, I certainly think that players should also avoid "modern"-day terms. We had a time when some of my players were passionate World of Warcraft players and they began to "tank" enemies (and many more terms that were even more unfitting). Together, we were able to ban this talk again, but it took quite some time and was really annoying...

Drives

I like it. Even though as an engineer, I immediately thought of electrical drives It's my favorite currently.

Passions

Sounds too "enlightened" to me. Not bastardly enuff.

considering changing is "obstacle" or "ob."

How's Challenge? c2, c3 or c+1?

Knockdown & Knockout

I really struggled with these two while translating them into German. I know, they won't be a thing anymore in the draft to come, but I have to say it anyways: I liked the similarity ("knock-sth") and tried to transfer it into our documents... I failed. "Niederwurf" and "Niederschlag" were just ugly patches that were far from being elegant.

Crucial, Extra Crucial and Silly

As we haven't seen any rules on these, I'm not sure how serious those terms are. I took them as a bit comical and translated them in that spirit to "Wichtig", "Extra Wichtig" and "Unklug". But let's see what your thoughts are with those terms when we get the appropriate rules chapter...

Complexity and Placement

I'd like to discuss both terms. Personally, I'd prefer more literal words to the goal of each, like "striking", "hitting" or "scoring" for Complexity and "hurting" or "harming" for Placement. I know, these sound ugly, but maybe a native speaker has better proposals up his sleeve...

[nemedeus]

Of course, I'll play in German with my group of players, but when translating some of the terms of BoB into my native language, some had to be changed radically, including Spiritual Attributes. "Spirituelle Attibute" sounds shitty to my ears, so I changed to "Motivationen" (motivations) in my current draft and playtest character sheets. I still think this sounds a bit clumsy though...

Probably because "Motivationen" may have a bit more of a... negative connotation in German,in the direction of "Conflict of Interest", although i may be wrong about that.

How about "Begehren"?
("Beweggründe" sounds alright to me, but it's a bit off the mark for what it's supposed to be)

Drives

I like it. Even though as an engineer, I immediately thought of electrical drives It's my favorite currently.

Passions

Sounds too "enlightened" to me. Not bastardly enuff.

Exactly my thoughts.

considering changing is "obstacle" or "ob."

How's Challenge? c2, c3 or c+1?

That seems ambiguous to me. In a way. I'm thinking about it in terms of object orientation: A "challenge" has a "challenge rating" or as it was called before "obstacle".

Knockdown & Knockout

I really struggled with these two while translating them into German. I know, they won't be a thing anymore in the draft to come, but I have to say it anyways: I liked the similarity ("knock-sth") and tried to transfer it into our documents... I failed. "Niederwurf" and "Niederschlag" were just ugly patches that were far from being elegant.

The hell did I tell ya, man?

Crucial, Extra Crucial and Silly

As we haven't seen any rules on these, I'm not sure how serious those terms are. I took them as a bit comical and translated them in that spirit to "Wichtig", "Extra Wichtig" and "Unklug". But let's see what your thoughts are with those terms when we get the appropriate rules chapter...

"Belt", "Obstructive", "Overburdened".

Complexity and Placement

I'd like to discuss both terms. Personally, I'd prefer more literal words to the goal of each, like "striking", "hitting" or "scoring" for Complexity and "hurting" or "harming" for Placement. I know, these sound ugly, but maybe a native speaker has better proposals up his sleeve...

Although not a native speaker, i must VEHEMENTLY disagree with the "-ing" proposals. The only one i can even just somewhat imagine finding a better term for would be Complexity. If at all, i recommend "Shot"* and "Penetration", everything else would be... off the mark (sorry).


*As in, "can you make the shot?"

[myanbar]

One thing I believe you absolutely should change is "Phrase." The word is almost identical in spelling Phase and used for exactly the sort of purpose something called Phase would be used for. I guarantee many people will read Phase instead of "Phrase" and call it that in actual gameplay. Additionally, if you were trying to play up the "conversation in steel" theme, you should theme all of your words around it, not just the single term "Phrase." Either you go all in or not at all, and in this case, I believe not at all is the right way to go.

[EinBein]

"challenge rating"

I avoided that because D&D nomenclature

Although not a native speaker, i must VEHEMENTLY disagree with the "-ing" proposals.

Just a first shot. Call it "hit" and "hurt" instead

If at all, i recommend "Shot"* and "Penetration" [...]

I'd use Shot as the higher ranking term, covering both Complexity and Positioning. And Penetration may in future be some characteristic of black powder weapons...

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't connect with "Complexity" and "Positioning". They don't mean anything to me. At least not in the context of shooting. But I'm no native speaker, so maybe that's some technical language used by professional hunters or such kind and I wouldn't know...

[nemedeus]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't connect with "Complexity" and "Positioning". They don't mean anything to me. At least not in the context of shooting. But I'm no native speaker, so maybe that's some technical language used by professional hunters or such kind and I wouldn't know...

I thought it was "Complexity" and "Placement"?? Did i misread it?

[higgins]

Complexity and Placement

I'd like to discuss both terms. Personally, I'd prefer more literal words to the goal of each, like "striking", "hitting" or "scoring" for Complexity and "hurting" or "harming" for Placement. I know, these sound ugly, but maybe a native speaker has better proposals up his sleeve...

Key is, they need to work in a sentence. Right now I can say that something is a Complexity 4 shot or throw. I don't need to mention Placement, as the player will allocate dice "FOR the Placement".

Although not a native speaker, i must VEHEMENTLY disagree with the "-ing" proposals. The only one i can even just somewhat imagine finding a better term for would be Complexity. If at all, i recommend "Shot"* and "Penetration", everything else would be... off the mark (sorry).

*As in, "can you make the shot?"

We also use the same mechanic for throwing.

Crucial, Extra Crucial and Silly

As we haven't seen any rules on these, I'm not sure how serious those terms are. I took them as a bit comical and translated them in that spirit to "Wichtig", "Extra Wichtig" and "Unklug". But let's see what your thoughts are with those terms when we get the appropriate rules chapter...

"Belt", "Obstructive", "Overburdened".

A crucial item is something you can instantly access from your person. Extra crucials are... extra crucial items, but they impose a CP penalty because having too many will start to restrict your movement. Overburdened is a definitely good word for Silly load, which was just meant to be a yes/no field. It was a working title, but we kept it, as it worked perfectly for the "c'mon, that's ridiculous. this is definitely a silly load" situations. We had some ideas about overhauling the encumbrance system, so, not sure if it stays 100% the same. However, I definitely DO think that accessibility of items is quite unfairly overlooked in games, so, it's unlikely that we remove the concept completely.

[EinBein]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't connect with "Complexity" and "Positioning". They don't mean anything to me. At least not in the context of shooting. But I'm no native speaker, so maybe that's some technical language used by professional hunters or such kind and I wouldn't know...

I thought it was "Complexity" and "Placement"?? Did i misread it?

My bad.

Key is, they need to work in a sentence.

"You require 4 successes to hit."
"Okay, I'll invest 10 dice to hit and 6 to hurt."

[thirtythr33]

My general preference for nomenclature is... keep it as simple as possible. Use the words that people will use at the table.

Here's the ones I prefer from suggestions so far as well as some of my own. Favorites underlined.

Story Aspects:
Fortune
Destiny
Fate
Calling
Drives
Motivations
Passions


Passions, Drives or Motivations makes the most sense in that you can most easily rationalize the sudden superhuman performance in universe. If it is meant to be a strictly "meta currency" then Destiny, Fortune or Fate make the most sense to me. Calling kind of sits between the two types.

Obstacle:
Trial T3
Height H3
Complexity C3
Bar B3
Minimum M3
Requirement R3

Target, Pass, Difficulty or Check could be used, but you would have to be careful not to accidentally use those words anywhere else. Personally, I like Minimum or Requirement for a M3 or R3 test. It's simple and explains exactly what it is. The others take a little bit more of a metaphor to follow but would be easy enough to explain in a few sentences.

Complexity & Placement:
Complexity:
Accuracy
Timing
Aim

Complexity is kind of back to front. I don't know why "Complexity" is currently being used to refer to the obstacle that you are required to beat instead of referring to the pool of dice you are rolling against the obstacle. Flip it back around the right way and then Accuracy almost seems like a no brainer replacement for Complexity.

Placement:
Power
Timing
Angle
Trajectory
Precision

Placement is the difficult one. Power is problematic because you have to use the same word for Bows and Guns (how do you shoot a gun harder?). Placement could be the Angle or Trajectory of the missile (if it glances or strikes perpendicular).

Technically, Accuracy and Precision is the most correct way to describe what you are trying to model. The problem is that most people aren't very technical and don't realize there is a difference between Accuracy and Precision and will probably freak out at having to roll the same thing twice.

Phrase:
Phase
Turn
Exchange
Bout

I agree with myanbar that the use of "Phrase" and the title "A conversation in steel" (or something similar) should be a package. Either push the metaphor further or scrap it. Phase and Turn are commonly used time intervals in games whereas Exchange and Bout are used in combat sports. Choice would depend on desired flavor.

Since we are digging into the nomenclature can of worms... Why not pick at some old wounds?
Legerdemain > Sleight of Hand
Sword & Buckler > Fencing / Rapier / Cut and Thrust
Sword and Shield > Arming Sword / Shield Formation / War Sword

Also, how did you end up with no Riposte maneuver?