What malapropisms are you thinking of? "Exponent"? Because while a bit striking and not on the beaten path of labels i wouldn't catagorize it as absurd.  Yes overall the offical lexicon is at first quirky. But for the most part it appears to me he has chosen the naming of things purposefully to evoke a certain mindset.  Afterall it is just a name, and not a full description. I would submit that using more common names that are just one of many words in a description actually becomes more misleading because people limit their scope of thought and understanding to the common usage of that word.

Quote from: blakkieWhat malapropisms are you thinking of? "Exponent"? Because while a bit striking and not on the beaten path of labels i wouldn't catagorize it as absurd.  Yes overall the offical lexicon is at first quirky. But for the most part it appears to me he has chosen the naming of things purposefully to evoke a certain mindset.  Afterall it is just a name, and not a full description. I would submit that using more common names that are just one of many words in a description actually becomes more misleading because people limit their scope of thought and understanding to the common usage of that word.

Exponent has a specific methamatical meaning in the real world that bears no relationship to the mathematical meaning it has in the game. If Exponent was not a numerical value in BW, then that would be OK. As it stands, though, the term is a really, really stupid blunder, to the extent that the reader (based on the 5 people I've given the book to skim, myself, and a handful of others) has to contantly edit the term in his head because, if he thinks it's the normal definition, he can actually make errors in learning and using the system.

The term was a stupid, stupid idea. I mean, would you think it was stylishly acceptable for me to call my version of environmental penalties to die rolls "multipliers," because that sounds extra fancy? No -- because it would be stupid for exactly the same reason "exponent" is stupid.

Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that the game is still worth getting. Malapropisms (intentional and otherwise) are actually the smallest problems. BW is hideously organized and its format is horrible for ease of use at the table. Parts of the game are bloated without any return, and the advice about when to roll dice is hideously misplaced. The fact that I *still* recommend this game is indicative of the gems to be found in it, from combat and social ties to its take on fantasy species. Great stuff.

Ah, it is a dictionary/vocabulary problem then.  There was a meaning before mathematics coopted it, and it certainly still exists. Besides in the vein of the mathematical meaning it isn't particularly wrong at all. It is actually quite insightful.

I'm curious about these multiple combatant problems?  Did you look through the threads on the support forum?  I haven't played yet, likely not for a couple weeks yet. But so far i've found the biggest thing to wrap your head around is that you aren't certain about your exact position relative to a given opponent (from a combat perspective) until you try act against them or them against you. That is a huge paradigm shift from the highly ordered 5' grid and precisely measured movement rates of D&D.  BW seems have more of an air of chaos of battle, sort of capturing the feeling of fog of war as it were while still having crunchy rules to follow.

And the rules do seem quite cruchie in that they provide extensive coverage. They just seem to do so in an aiding instead of imposing way. I don't know, maybe my opinion will change once i play it. *shrug*

Quote from: blakkieAh, it is a dictionary/vocabulary problem then.  There was a meaning before mathematics coopted it, and it certainly still exists. Besides in the vein of the mathematical meaning it isn't particularly wrong at all. It is actually quite insightful.

It's wrong both ways. A BW exponent is not a person advocating anything. And the game trait is not a mathematical exponent.

QuoteI'm curious about these multiple combatant problems?  Did you look through the threads on the support forum?  I haven't played yet, likely not for a couple weeks yet.

That's not my issue. The game is pretty clear about using bloody contests for large combats. I think ranged combat is a bit awkward, but it serves.

QuoteBut so far i've found the biggest thing to wrap your head around is that you aren't certain about your exact position relative to a given opponent (from a combat perspective) until you try act against them or them against you. That is a huge paradigm shift from the highly ordered 5' grid and precisely measured movement rates of D&D.  BW seems have more of an air of chaos of battle, sort of capturing the feeling of fog of war as it were while still having crunchy rules to follow.

It's pretty good for that, yeah. You come in with a plan and see how it survives contact with the actual situation.

QuoteAnd the rules do seem quite cruchie in that they provide extensive coverage. They just seem to do so in an aiding instead of imposing way. I don't know, maybe my opinion will change once i play it. *shrug*

As I said, I don't think the ranged combat systems are that hot. The systems for using successes over the threshold are quite good.

Quote from: shooting_diceIt's wrong both ways. A BW exponent is not a person advocating anything. And the game trait is not a mathematical exponent.

Of course it isn't a person, so doesn't it then become obvious to you that it is a personification? Which then fits if you follow to the root word expound. The book is pretty explicit that it isn't intended to be the traditional mathematical definition of exponent, and even gives this too you. Well it doesn't say PERSONIFICATION in big freaking 2" lettering, but really.

As for the mathematical part, when you look at it you see that the power of each additional die is not actually a linear progression.  In that way i think it is a better evoking of it's power.  That might have been incidental though, couldn't say because I've not asked nor seen anything on it.

All in all it would seem you are taking it far too literally for a label. In that sense that is the point, if you take it too literally you've missed the meaning.  But it still has symbolic meaning in that the Exponent is the detail of the rating.

P.S. Sorry, the combat question shouldn't have been for you. It was ment for Scale, and i mixed up the post there.  I was just curious what he was finding because the combat example I saw on the message board with a 3 vs. 4 didn't seem too bad.