[Component Only] Testing out various adjectives for use instead of numbers

[iankevinmcdonald]

Hi,

I'm not sure exactly which forum to post this in. I'm choosing playtesting because:

• It is playtesting, it's just that most people don't playtest a single component of their system by itself (like experimenting on a cell culture instead of a whole animal)
  [li]
I tried to think myself into the place of someone who was thinking of making a game using adjectives, and where they would look for information about which ones to use.[/li]

I hope this is the right place. Apologies if it's not.

We were interested in using words instead of numbers in RPGs, so that the whole game conversation would feel more 'natural language'. So we went out and tested all the words that you might use to describe how Strong you are, or how well you insulted that ambassador, asking people to quantify and order a jumbled list of 24 such words.

This tests whether, for example, we could use "Fair" and "Middling" in the same game, and which one would sound better to more people. Only using a jumbled list let us test all 226 combinations.

The result is this article:
http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/storytelling/lichert_article.htm

Here is the summary:

Several role-playing games use adjectives instead of numbers to rate attribute or skill levels. In order to help game designers pick adjectives which are easy to remember, we surveyed English-speakers in the UK and US, including non-native speakers. We present our survey results, and a list with as many items as possible for which our respondents have a consensus order. Our suggested list is "Abysmal, Awful, Bad, Poor, Mediocre, Fair, Good, Great, Excellent, Amazing, Phenomenal".   

[joepub]

Cool stuff, Ian.
And welcome to The Forge.
I think that's pretty similar to the kind of adjective lists found in Fudge or FATE, hey?

You say you have people quantify them...
I am assuming this means "quantify them from highest to lowest, in terms of which ones are better."

Did you ask questions like "quantify them from highest to lowest, in terms of which are the most powerful and provocative words"?

Because I would really like to know THAT information.

[iankevinmcdonald]

It's absolutely that kind of adjective list (in fact, Fred Hicks is one of the authors). Not that Fudge and FATE are the only games to use adjectives in that way.

The actual questions in the survey were of the form "How would you rate a XXX driverf" and "You should put the words in order from best to worst (either with numbers from 1 up to 24 or by rewriting the list)".

We deliberately went for as simple questions as we could manage, whilst putting the question squarely in the real world.

[joepub]

Cool stuff, Ian.

Are you planning to do any more surveys like this in the future?
This has got me thinking now, and there are some questions I would love to know the answer to:

What words are most provocative from an adjective list (not just a best to worst list... like a list of "strong" synonyms, or a list of "smart" synonyms, for example)

What words are the least understood/grasped from a list (is a word like dexterity really understood by people playing d&d, for example?)

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Love your sci fi work! ;)

I am struck by how useful this is in many other endeavors, not the least of which is teaching composition. I once had the (foolish) dream of writing a "Ranked Thesaurus" which would do very much what you have done for the term quality, but for every significant term with many "synonyms." [I use quotes around synonyms because I hoped to prove that, in fact, there are no absolute synonyms in a thesaurus--just degrees of rank of a relative handful of root concepts.]

I have since come to realize what a huge research task it would be to rank even a mere 40,000 common terms, based on usage data and surveys. [Not to mention cross-indexing the roots, when a "synonym" is actually expressing a qualified relationship to another root concept.] Seeing how much of your (great!) effort went into analyzing only 24 terms, I am glad I backed off on that Master's Thesis.

So... do you hope to translate this ranking system to other root concepts? Right now, you can use your Eleven for quality, efficacy, and other applications of accomplishment. Would you consider doing so with, say, emotional root concepts (e.g. loyalty, morale, attraction)? Or with something less clearly related to efficacy? For instance, "frightening"--or any root concept which most folks presume to be negative--doesn't quite map to your ranks in a natural language way (e.g. "excellently frightening"). You will want to, at least, make the "bad" version of these ranks, yes? Hmmm... also, in general, would you need a different rank system for adverbs?

Another quick question: did you look at Marvel Super Heroes at all? It uses an adjective system... which breaks down into numbers usually, in play. In general, do you feel folks would really, naturally use these adjectives rather than the numerical meaning? Not to beg the question, but it is actually "natural" to commit these adjectives to memory, with their rankings and their associated numerical applicability--rather than just use the number from start to finish? This regards IN PLAY applications, of course, not publishing and narrative applications.

For instance, an excellent application of your Eleven would be for all folks wanting to write setting and situation material, but with no interest in system (or who use some kind of "translation" system to help folks convert to their favorite system in play). There's quite a few on The Forge at the moment--I hope they notice this thread!

Looking forward to more;
David

[slade the sniper]

While I like the use of adjectives instead of numbers for narrative reasons, I continually find that it will always become an issue regarding mathematics.  One thing that I am interested in is how you can relate an objective adjective to a subjective trait such as wisdom or charisma and then what is the quantifiable difference between a person who is Amazingly Wise and one who is Excellently Wise (I apologize for the exceedly poor grammar, but to present the point, I hope that I am forgiven by my instructors).

-STS

[abjourne]

An admirable endeavor,
Unfortunately, I like the respondent before me believe & have found that linguistic analogies to statistical definements only sound appealing because both the deduction & application of the terminology would still require numerics and all they really accomplish is wasting time & space on players' record sheets.

As for one persons request, been there, done that, here ya go:

Strength/Mass      Health/Constitution      Dexterity/Agility
Punny         Sickly         Pitiful
Small         Poor         Clumsy
Average         Average         Average
Large         Hearty         Nimble
Massive         Vigorous         Extraordinary


IQ         Will/Spirit         Leadership
Dumb         Despairing         Contemptuous
Low         Weak         Unconvincing
Average         Average         Average
Clever         Potent         Persuasive
Genius         Mighty         Charismatic

[slade the sniper]

Another problem is that linguistic analogies will only be useful when comparing similar items.  Thus a Superbly strong halfling (as compared to other halflings) is NOT the equivalent of a Superbly strong rock troll or elephant.  Also, while it is wonderful to have a list of adjectives that serve to modify the description of Strength, in the end, when comparing differing items/creatures a numerical designation will still be much more functional than a description.

This may be one of those instances where the optimal result has been reached with a numerical value and an adjective modifier.  The numeric value is actual value, and the adjective will be a descriptor as it relates to their race...

Therefore a halfling would have a default/average strength of 7 (versus a human default/average of 10) and Iron Eyes the halfling rebel has a strength of 8, it could be denoted as 8/Above Average on his character sheet.

In closing, linguistics can be used to modify/describe the numeric values, but probably not replace them, at least not without a step system or a chart somewhere describing how those modifiers shift depending on the situation.

-STS