Page 1 of 1

Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 19:04
by Mulzaro
First time I played this game I had no idea what the word "susceptible" meant. I wonder why it can't be just "weak to X" or "vulnerable to X", this would make it much more clear.

Just a small proposal from a non-native English speaker.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 19:11
by Sar
fr: all Crawl text rewritten in basic English

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 19:26
by Siegurt
Susceptible and Vulnerable are synonyms that are roughly equal in complexity and in common-ness of use, that you would know one and not the other isn't something that anyone other than the person who taught you English could predict.

"Weak" is definitely less complex, and more common than either of the other two, however it usually tends to have a slightly different connotation, a native English speaker would say something is "weak against fire" not "weak to fire" because weak implies a lack of ability (in this case a lack of ability to resist) not a specific vulnerability. An English speaker wouldn't say (When speaking about vampire lore, not this specific video game) that a vampire is "weak against sunlight" (or even worse "weak to sunlight") because sunlight isn't something that you normally have to resist, it's just a thing that exists in our ordinary world view, 'susceptible' or 'vulnerable' implies that they have a weakness against something in an unusual or out-of-the-ordinary way, not merely an inability to fight against it.

I'm not sure if the connotation should be changed (even if only slightly), but it wouldn't bother me if it was.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 19:27
by HardboiledGargoyle
It is more accurate to say "susceptible" because it means easily harmed by a thing if that thing is applied whether or not it is present; vulnerable also means in danger due to that thing, so that threat has to be there. e.g. most people are susceptible but not vulnerable to getting eaten by wild animals.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 19:29
by Siegurt
HardboiledGargoyle wrote:It is more accurate to say "susceptible" because it means easily harmed by a thing if that thing is applied whether or not it is present; vulnerable also means in danger due to that thing, so that threat has to be there. e.g. most people are susceptible but not vulnerable to getting eaten by wild animals.

Also true, and a native English speaker would never say that somone was "Weak against being eaten by wild animals" that actually sounds slightly ridiculous :)

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 19:36
by Mulzaro
I have never seen the word susceptible used in any other game I have played (and I have played lots). This is why it's weird in my opinion.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 19:37
by crate
"it takes more damage from fire"

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 20:00
by HardboiledGargoyle
It takes less damage from electricity, much less damage from cold, and no damage from negative energy.
It takes more damage from fire.

Hm, a little problematic since some resistances protect you from getting statuses, not just damage.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 22:50
by ion_frigate
The descriptions for positive resistance are fine as-is, in my opinion - there's no need for perfect symmetry. "It is resistant to X" conveys both the decreased damage and potential resistance to status effects.

The problem is that there's no similar word that works well for negative resistance - and I think "It takes more damage from X" is probably the best solution, as has been suggested. So my suggestion is to leave the positive resistance descriptions alone, and change them for negative resistance.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 23:11
by pubby
Why the poopy can't the game just say rF- or rF+? It's like I'm in a madhouse.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 23:20
by HardboiledGargoyle
Never use a pip or number when you can use a word. ;)

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 23:33
by HisMajestyBOB
Mulzaro wrote:I have never seen the word susceptible used in any other game I have played (and I have played lots). This is why it's weird in my opinion.


Earthbound for the SNES used the word "susceptible." That's how I learned it.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 23:37
by Hurkyl
HardboiledGargoyle wrote:Never use a pip or number when you can use a word. ;)

We should replace text descriptions with videos of someone describing/explaining things.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 23:40
by dpeg
As a fellow non-native English speaker, I think the proper reply is this: be grateful that you can learn English from playing a game! In fact, large parts of my English vocabulary are from video games (and quite a few from Nethack in particular). Given how many native speakers have trouble with ziggurat, it seems even they can learn from playing Crawl.

tl;dr: No need to simplify language in Crawl.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Sunday, 10th April 2016, 23:42
by neil
IMO a roguelike that doesn't make you use a dictionary at least once in your playing career isn't a good roguelike.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Monday, 11th April 2016, 01:25
by ontoclasm
pubby wrote:Why the poopy can't the game just say rF- or rF+? It's like I'm in a madhouse.

Because if you've never played Crawl, "rF-" is a meaningless string of symbols, whereas "susceptible to fire" is perfectly clear.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Monday, 11th April 2016, 02:48
by WingedEspeon
As a native English speaker, vulnerable seems like a better word because stuff with no for resistance is still plenty killable with fire, although this feels like nitpicking and I really don't care that much.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Tuesday, 12th April 2016, 21:14
by Lasty
It is doubleplushurt by fire.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Tuesday, 12th April 2016, 22:48
by Siegurt
Lasty wrote:It is doubleplushurt by fire.

I initially misread that as "doublebutthurt by fire"

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Wednesday, 13th April 2016, 04:33
by Quazifuji
WingedEspeon wrote:As a native English speaker, vulnerable seems like a better word because stuff with no for resistance is still plenty killable with fire, although this feels like nitpicking and I really don't care that much.


I agree with this. I would say "susceptible" only implies that fire is effective against a creature, not that it is more effective than usually. A creature with neither rF+ or rF- could still be considered susceptible to fire.

Whereas I think "vulnerable" does a better job conveying that the creature is weaker than most to fire. It it's extra susceptible, essentially.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Wednesday, 13th April 2016, 08:32
by yesno
Siegurt wrote:
Lasty wrote:It is doubleplushurt by fire.

I initially misread that as "doublebutthurt by fire"


the true newspeak of our age

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Wednesday, 13th April 2016, 17:50
by dowan
I agree that vulnerable is slightly clearer, although at the same time I'd say I am both vulnerable and susceptible to fire damage in real life, but I don't think I'm any less fire resistant than average.

Still, I think vulnerability is a pretty widely used video game convention for "Especially weak against", so if it were to change, I'd agree with vulnerable.

And I disagree that it's always a good thing to learn words from video games. Crawl could be far more verbose and use more complex words and phrases, and would be a worse game for it. It's a game to play for entertainment, not to learn english words that stopped being used in the 18th century.

Doublebutthurt would obviously be an acceptable alternative.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Wednesday, 13th April 2016, 17:54
by ydeve
If most monsters don't mention being "hurt-able" by fire, and you see that one is susceptible (can be hurt by) fire, and you can't figure out that it's weak to fire, it really isn't the dev's fault.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Wednesday, 13th April 2016, 17:58
by Tiktacy
I don't think I've ever seen all 4 of you guys post in the same thread before.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Wednesday, 13th April 2016, 19:11
by Lasty
dowan wrote:Crawl could be far more verbose and use more complex words and phrases, and would be a worse game for it. It's a game to play for entertainment, not to learn english words that stopped being used in the 18th century.

Which words in this thread you believe stopped being used in the 18th century?

That question aside, I don't really understand your attitude here. Are you against learning words in general? Does learning a new word make an experience less fun for you? Do you go out of your way to limit the obscurity of your own words to avoid accidentally teaching others a new word? When a less common word is more clear, would you rather use the more common and less clear word instead? Would you rather use more words than use an obscure word -- "a tall, square-stepped triangle-shaped building made of stone" instead of "ziggurat"?

Personally, I find learning words to be fun, and if I have the option between doing something and doing the same thing while also learning a new word, I'll choose the latter.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Wednesday, 13th April 2016, 20:43
by Sprucery
The number of useful words and phrases I've learned from roguelikes (as a non-native speaker of English) is substantial. "Let's quaff some booze!" "You caitiff!"

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Friday, 15th April 2016, 15:43
by dowan
Lasty wrote:
dowan wrote:Crawl could be far more verbose and use more complex words and phrases, and would be a worse game for it. It's a game to play for entertainment, not to learn english words that stopped being used in the 18th century.

Which words in this thread you believe stopped being used in the 18th century?

That question aside, I don't really understand your attitude here. Are you against learning words in general? Does learning a new word make an experience less fun for you? Do you go out of your way to limit the obscurity of your own words to avoid accidentally teaching others a new word? When a less common word is more clear, would you rather use the more common and less clear word instead? Would you rather use more words than use an obscure word -- "a tall, square-stepped triangle-shaped building made of stone" instead of "ziggurat"?

Personally, I find learning words to be fun, and if I have the option between doing something and doing the same thing while also learning a new word, I'll choose the latter.


I'm just saying the purpose of text in a well designed game (that isn't a puzzle game, or educational) is to clearly inform the player of something. Not to teach them a new word. If it happens naturally, that's fine of course, but it shouldn't be the purpose of the game. I wasn't saying that this particular example was especially bad that way, I was disagreeing with
IMO a roguelike that doesn't make you use a dictionary at least once in your playing career isn't a good roguelike.


I've never used a dictionary while playing crawl, so by Neil's definition it's a bad roguelike. I disagree with that statement.

I choose not to respond to the rest of the weird insinuations in the rest of your reply, as the only purpose is to suggest I'm being anti-intellectual or something. I very clearly stated that I find "vulnerable" to be MORE clear than "susceptible", which I explained in the post you ignored in your haste to construct a strawman.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Friday, 15th April 2016, 15:57
by crate
I would support making all gameplay-relevant text as simple and precise as possible. Keep the flavour to the flavour text, imo.

"Takes more damage from X" is actually both simpler (more-commonly used words) and more precise (rF- does not, for instance, increase the success rate of inner flame, a fire spell; rF- is purely about damage) than the current situation.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Friday, 15th April 2016, 22:03
by archaeo
For what it's worth, I think a game that is heavily text based should have beautiful text. It should be functional and precise but also entertaining to read and aesthetically satisfying. Crawl falls short of that quite a bit, but it's a good goal to have.

I don't really have an opinion on this otherwise. I think "Takes more damage" is an ugly phrase compared to "susceptible," but it probably is more precise.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Monday, 18th April 2016, 13:38
by dowan
You know what was a great place to put esoteric words you wish to teach the players of the game, without impacting functionality?

Spellbook descriptions
https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=19681

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Monday, 18th April 2016, 18:07
by Quazifuji
crate wrote:I would support making all gameplay-relevant text as simple and precise as possible. Keep the flavour to the flavour text, imo.

"Takes more damage from X" is actually both simpler (more-commonly used words) and more precise (rF- does not, for instance, increase the success rate of inner flame, a fire spell; rF- is purely about damage) than the current situation.


I agree with this. Super flowery language that teaches new words is great in flavor text, because not knowing the words doesn't impact someone's ability to play the game. If someone's never heard of a ziggurat before, that doesn't stop them from being able to do ziggurats in DCSS. IF they don't care what a ziggurat is, they ignore the word, if they're curious, they look it up and learn an awesome new word.

But for gameplay purposes, I think it's best if the goal is to convey information in a practical manner. Maybe we don't need to go out of our way to avoid using any obscure words, but I don't think using obscure words in gameplay-related text should be seen as desirable.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Monday, 18th April 2016, 22:37
by prozacelf
Hurkyl wrote:
HardboiledGargoyle wrote:Never use a pip or number when you can use a word. ;)

We should replace text descriptions with videos of someone describing/explaining things.


I think we should just return to the idyllic days of explaining everything in terms of chokos!

"It is 3 choko fire resistant."

(I know this was never literally the case for anything except spell/ability hunger)

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Tuesday, 19th April 2016, 14:26
by Lasty
Quazifuji wrote:But for gameplay purposes, I think it's best if the goal is to convey information in a practical manner. Maybe we don't need to go out of our way to avoid using any obscure words, but I don't think using obscure words in gameplay-related text should be seen as desirable.

I agree (and I suspect more or less everyone in the thread agrees) that selecting words in gameplay-related text specifically for obscurity is a bad choice. I think gameplay-related text should strive for clarity and accuracy above all else. But neither clarity nor accuracy is on the same axis as obscurity -- you can be perfectly clear and accurate while also using an obscure word, because a word's obscurity is either based on its frequency in mass/every day communication, or based on a subjective feeling. What's obscure for mass/every day communication may well be perfectly common when discussing a certain topic (for example, medical terminology; e.g. amniocentesis); what's perfectly common may feel obscure when one runs into it the first time (I was criticized by some college students when I referred to something as "palatial").

A word is obscure when it's unknown or used infrequently. Using it more frequently makes it less likely to be unknown. When someone takes issue with the obscurity of a word (as opposed to how well that word plays its role in a sentence), they are taking issue with encountering something unfamiliar. If you start trying to eliminate everything in a public work that's unfamiliar to someone, you end up greatly reducing your palette to no good end. There's a lot to be said for deliberately trying to encounter the unfamiliar, but that's getting into another discussion entirely.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Tuesday, 19th April 2016, 18:01
by duvessa
oh my god. people avoid obscure words to make their writing easier and faster to read. it's not some anti-intellectualism or social conservative thing.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Tuesday, 19th April 2016, 18:13
by ydeve
The point is "obscure" is relative.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Tuesday, 19th April 2016, 20:02
by dowan
Lasty wrote:When someone takes issue with the obscurity of a word (as opposed to how well that word plays its role in a sentence), they are taking issue with encountering something unfamiliar. If you start trying to eliminate everything in a public work that's unfamiliar to someone, you end up greatly reducing your palette to no good end. There's a lot to be said for deliberately trying to encounter the unfamiliar, but that's getting into another discussion entirely.


On the other hand, when someone suggests there is a better, clearer, and less obscure word that does a better job, and you don't want to use it because you want obscure words, you're making your writing less palatable to no good end just to stroke your own ego. It seems like this is getting into some weird judgements of people's character when it's really just a discussion about whether there's a word that does a better job at conveying a piece of information.

I take issue with the idea that you should deliberately use obscure words instead of deliberately using clear words for the purposes of teaching players those words. However, the word "Susceptible" is not unfamiliar to me. I don't think anyone has suggested removing everything that isn't familiar to everyone, just that it's generally best to shoot for something that will be familiar when you're using it to describe something unfamiliar.

E.G. A new player doesn't know what a mummy is in the context of crawl. You wish to convey to this new player that the mummy takes more damage from fire. The new player is learning about mummies in crawl, you don't want to gate that behind other unfamiliarity if it can be easily avoided.
You could say "These mummies were embalmed using highly volatile chemicals" This does convey in a very indirect way that fire should hurt them more than most. It might also teach them the word volatile, who knows?
You could say "These mummies are harmed by fire" This is true, although it doesn't do a great job conveying the idea that they take more damage from fire than an average monster. This is one of the complaints about the word "susceptible".
You could say "Mummies have rF-" But now the player has to find out what rF- means. It's useful knowledge for playing dungeon crawl, but maybe this isn't the best time for teaching that.
We currently say "Mummies are susceptible to fire" But maybe there's a clearer, better way to say this. Not because we hate learning and knowledge and words, but because we like clarity.

Don't ban me for saying this please

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Tuesday, 19th April 2016, 21:06
by Lasty
dowan wrote:On the other hand, when someone suggests there is a better, clearer, and less obscure word that does a better job

Right, so the point I was making is that "better and clearer" are all the reason you need to make a word swap. Bringing word obscurity into the discussion just obscures things. The point should be the clarity of the sentence, not the obscurity of the individual words. I absolutely support everyone in the thread who is debating which is the most clear and effective way to represent information, regardless of whether the choice they're arguing for includes what anyone considers to be an obscure word.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Tuesday, 19th April 2016, 21:12
by ydeve
Vulnerable is better than susceptible. Weak against sounds like you're playing pokemon.

Re: Susceptible to X

PostPosted: Thursday, 28th April 2016, 08:56
by 4Hooves2Appendages
I'm a bit torn on this topic. On the one hand clarity, accuracy and readability are important. On the other hand I enjoy playful language. A phrase like 'takes more damage from fire' feels clumsy. On balance I'd prefer to keep 'susceptible', even though I can't spell it every time.

In regards to crate's point that vulnerability only affects damage, the word can just be added: 'susceptible to fire damage'.

Regarding some of the dev comments, I enjoy learning new words and games have been good for that. However, clearly not all, or even most, players share that enjoyment. To many it is tedious having to look up a word in a dictionary (although pretty quick these days). It's hard to say where the balance lies.