Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Ulzgoroth · 12-17-2014, 12:35 PM

I'm pretty strongly on the literalist side of things (including serious discomfort with the idea of using AoA Double to represent 'stab-and-cut' actions).

However, I think it's a serious mistake to treat GURPS terms of art as having any strong relationship with the regular English meanings of the words. For instance, even for a humanoid with a 1-yard step I don't see any reason to assume that a Step is a single stride, and for lots of other characters that use the same Step mechanic it obviously can't possibly be a single stride because they don't even use legs, have a Step longer than their entire body, are flying or swimming, etc.

12-17-2014, 12:35 PM	#9
Ulzgoroth Join Date: Jul 2008	Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things I'm pretty strongly on the literalist side of things (including serious discomfort with the idea of using AoA Double to represent 'stab-and-cut' actions). However, I think it's a serious mistake to treat GURPS terms of art as having any strong relationship with the regular English meanings of the words. For instance, even for a humanoid with a 1-yard step I don't see any reason to assume that a Step is a single stride, and for lots of other characters that use the same Step mechanic it obviously can't possibly be a single stride because they don't even use legs, have a Step longer than their entire body, are flying or swimming, etc. __________________ I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.