Firearm TL differences in modern day campaigns: how strict are you?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by safisher

We don't have unlimited time, and this post-argument complaint that "only the line editor's answer will do" is frustrating. Why bother asking this here if you wanted Sean Punch's opinion? You could probably e-mail him or PM him and get an answer from him. Not a very helpful way to go about things, friend.

Only an editor, or an original author, can really answer 'yes, this is what we intended when we wrote the rule' or 'yes, this is the official interpretation of what was written'. You can't do that unless you're talking about something that you wrote or if you actually discussed this with someone else. You did not write the Basic Set. Therefor, I don't think your opinions on what is or is not the correct interpretation of the rules as written in the basic set have as much weight as, for example, Kromm's or Rev. Pee Kitty's. This does not mean your answers were not helpful, nor do I think I wouldn't use them in my games. What it does mean is your answers on stuff to do with the Basic Set, that you have not discussed with one of the authors of the Basic Set or one of the editors of the game, have roughly the same weight as a house rule. An individual GM can say 'no, I don't agree with that interpretation of the rules, and that guy isn't an authority on the subject, so I can say we're going with my interpretation and still say I'm playing a 100% RAW game'.

I think your ideas have merit. The fact your wrote a GURPS supplement is a big boost to your credibility, too. But I still don't know if what you were saying is the official interpretation of the rules or simply your own personal interpretation.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by safisher

I read this as two different pieces:
1. "Technological skills based on attributes other than IQ" which means Guns.
2. "For skills like this, apply a flat penalty of -1 per TL" which means our whole Guns skill, as it were, is at -1 per TL.
3. "As an optional rule, the GM may treat a TL penalty for a DX-based skill as if it were an unfamiliarity penalty rather than a default penalty for a different-TL version of the skill. This exemption doesn’t extend to other skills, or even to IQ-based rolls for DX-based skills!" which means we can, optionally, quickly improve the DX-based parts of Guns/TL but not the IQ-based.

All of that is correct.

—

For doubters: Which type of TL modifiers apply is always assessed on the basis of the skill's controlling attribute, whatever score you might later float a particular roll onto. Tech-Level Modifiers (p. B168) talks about "IQ-based skills," and we use the terminology "X-based skill" and "X-based roll" carefully and prescriptively, as distinct terms of art. Thus, armourers and engineers who modify and design guns have -5/TL for their IQ-based Armoury and Engineer skills, while ordinary shooters have -1/TL for their DX-based Guns skill – even when making IQ-based rolls for maintenance and so forth. And as I, too, said – admittedly, in this thread's Paleolithic – there's a clear optional rule for watering even this down to a mere familiarity concern for DX-based rolls if the GM feels it's too harsh. Taken together, it means that firearms as a field of technology have -5/TL, firearms as end-user tools have -1/TL, and the specific subset of tool use known as "shooting" might not even have this much.

Originally Posted by safisher

As I have said that you need to read "an improved or obsolete version of something with which the hero is already familiar" and "it’s extremely common for gadgets to be used and even improved at higher TLs, long after they’re introduced." That would catch several of the issues protested about in this thread.

Absolutely. Looking back at the last bit I wrote, I think it would be entirely fair to say that both a TL8 improvement on a TL6 design and a TL6 version of something still in use at TL8 would give no penalties to any TL6-8 shooter, by invocation of that optional rule. There would probably still be a -1 or -2 penalty for IQ-based rolls to take proper care of the thing, but that's all.

—

And FWIW, Shawn and Hans do speak the final, official word on guns in GURPS Fourth Edition. I wouldn't have contracted them if I didn't want that outcome. In theory, when they answer questions in the forums, it saves me time . . . they're very much the highest court on guns. I might be primus inter pares here, but I'm not positioned to overrule them. So I'd rather not see arguments that descend to the low of "Well, you're just the author. I want to go over your head." That's plain rude to authors and gyps me of an opportunity to save a little time.

[Langy]

Thanks Kromm! That clears things up nicely.

Originally Posted by Kromm

And FWIW, Shawn and Hans do speak the final, official word on guns in GURPS Fourth Edition. I wouldn't have contracted them if I didn't want that outcome. In theory, when they answer questions in here, it saves me time . . . they're very much the highest court on guns. I might be primus inter pares here, but I'm not positioned to overrule them. So I'd rather not see more circular arguments that go, "Well, you're just the author. I want to go over your head." That's plain rude to authors.

The argument wasn't 'your just the author'. It was 'you aren't the author, and I don't think you have clearance to give official sanction to this' - I was specifically talking about something in the Basic Set, which Shawn didn't write, and that was a lot more generic than just dealing with Firearms in particular. I don't think he, or any other GURPS author, has permission to give official sanction to personal interpretations of what the rules in some book he didn't write say if nobody's brought up the question before. Am I wrong?

[Tuoni]

Originally Posted by safisher

The author of the book you were asking questions about [...] has answered your questions at length.

Just an observation, but it would be awesome if authors could get the books they've worked on listed under their name, like Kromm's "Line Editor".

I don't post much, but I lurk a lot and tend to internalize a lot of the rule debate -> resolution topics. Knowing that a post on a topic is from an author of a relevant book would be most informative. Because while I respect the amount of work that goes into writing a book, remembering who is an author for what book is way beyond the reach of my pathetic memory. I have a hard enough time remembering the names of my co-workers.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Langy

I was specifically talking about something in the Basic Set, which Shawn didn't write, and that was a lot more generic than just dealing with Firearms in particular. I don't think he, or any other GURPS author, has permission to give official sanction to personal interpretations of what the rules in some book he didn't write say if nobody's brought up the question before. Am I wrong?

In this case, Shawn was speaking in the context of firearms. I read his posts and don't think he was generalizing unduly. But I'll add that I chose my words ("Shawn and Hans do speak the final, official word on guns in GURPS Fourth Edition") carefully. I didn't say "in GURPS High-Tech, Fourth Edition" for a reason. When a writer creates what's essentially a core rulebook for the game, yes, he absolutely does get to interpret the Basic Set in the specific context of his book. To my eyes – which are fairly educated at reading, given my profession – this is what Shawn was doing, no more and no less.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Tuoni

Just an observation, but it would be awesome if authors could get the books they've worked on listed under their name, like Kromm's "Line Editor".

Any writer who would like this perk need only ask! I don't do it unbidden because not everybody likes to advertise.

[Tuoni]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Any writer who would like this perk need only ask! I don't do it unbidden because not everybody likes to advertise.

You heard it here folks! For the low low price of writing a book, you too can have a nifty tag!!!

And now, we return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kromm

And FWIW, Shawn and Hans do speak the final, official word on guns in GURPS Fourth Edition. . . . they're very much the highest court on guns.

As much work as I've done on GURPS and ballistics for GURPS, I STILL defer to Shawn and Hans and the rules published in High Tech, and the sekrit formulae that are slightly different from mine, in terms of official stats.

My formulas and Pyramid article is a strong rule of thumb, but it ain't gospel...their numbers ARE.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

My formulas and Pyramid article is a strong rule of thumb, but it ain't gospel...their numbers ARE.

Doug was lead playtester on High-Tech, so he knows all the inside dirt on the project, like where we buried the bodies. In addition he serves as sort of second systems engineer on many GURPS weaponry-related projects, because, well, he's an engineer. So you see Dougs influence on a lot of gun heavy projects, like Loadouts: Monster Hunters. If it's a question of gun physics and stats Doug and Hans often do collaborate. In fact there's a lot of collaboration on the creative side of making an RPG project (one of the most insanely fun elements, in fact), and some of it is even productive! The idea that only the author might know exactly what you are asking about is not entirely true because sometimes other folks around were in on that discussion from the start . . . in this case folks like Doug even know the process and how it all came to pass.