Canon talk:RPG Terminology

LWQW
The problem with Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards is that it's wrong: a level 20 Warrior can slaughter 20 level 1 Warriors without breaking a sweat. The balance WotC declared that it was going for is exponential, which is what we call High balance, I believe. --Foxwarrior (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. The multiplier could be 5, 10, or even 100, but it's still level * multiplier, where a wizard progresses at 2 ^ level.
 * In short, linear does not mean to add +1 per level. Just that it's on a linear graph and is in a straight line--regardless of how steep it is. --Ghostwheel (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so let's say that Fighters are linear because they start at a value of 1 and add +5 per level, yes? So a level 20 Warrior (value 96) now has to fight 96 level 1 Warriors (value 1*96), but only 16 level 2 Warriors (value 6*16), which they can certainly also slaughter.
 * To generalize, if a Warrior's power is the function Power(Level) = m*Level+b, where b >= -m and m >= 0 because level 1 characters aren't worth less than nothing and level 2 characters are stronger than level 1 characters, the number of level 2 characters a level 20 Warrior would have to face cannot be greater than 20 (m=arbitrarily high value, b=negative that) or less than 1 (m=0).


 * And 2 ^ level is exponential, not quadratic.


 * I'd guess that the most accurate description would probably be Quadratic Warriors, Exponential Wizards, where the base of the exponent for Wizards is a tiny bit higher than 2. --Foxwarrior (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that the mathematical terms are mostly just an allegory for how the progressions diverge. Wizards don't have numeric outputs we can quantize and plot. Drawing a numerical power progression from them is hypothetically possible, but has never actually been done with any credible accuracy and is not going to be done because it's a really fucking complicated undertaking. That is, wizards are not actually considered to be quadratic. Nor should they be assumed to be exponential -- or cubic, or quartic, or anything else concrete. The only actual point is to say that a wizard's growth accelerates much more quickly than a warrior's. LWQW. Picture it graphically. Think about the implications on game balance. QWEW. Picture it graphically. Think about the implications on game balance. The implications aren't a whole lot different, are they? So let's not get hung up on literal accuracy here. --DanielDraco (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Would This Be The Place...
So, as per the header, would this be the place to add something like "The Gentleman's Agreement" and "Beer n'Pretzels Gaming"? Not that I'm necessarily qualified to write definitions for that, but I'm curious. --Ganteka Future (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say: Yes. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

General Warning
I'm noticing a trend lately where the recent adds to our list are getting less like RPG terms and more like common tropes. Obviously there's going to be some overlap, but let's try to stay on topic, people. Spanambula (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mostly I put things in here that a new person to "the scene" would not know the meaning of, but is common enough to "the community" to be used as a reference in conversation as opposed to being the topic of conversation. I suppose the danger of a disconnect could/would/does come from what is common in one circle of the RPG community vs what is common in another. CodeGlaze (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)