12-26-2014, 01:55 PM | #41 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
I don't think this is the case, sometime the nerf will be realistic, sometimes the buff will be realistic. Sometime on balance neither will be appropriate and the current RAW will be most realistic. But importantly those decisions will not be based on what other ones are (i.e well we're up to 15 nerfs and 10 buffs so far so we need a buff here) but on what is right for that situation. I think you looking for a system related pattern here when people to ore closely model reality, but the only pattern is that they are trying to more closely model reality (within the bound of reasonable playability as they see it) We've had a few threads like this recently, and you seem keen to draw a wider meaning for GURPS 'core RAW' out of much smaller things. Speaking for myself my double taking at describing stab and push as a rapid strike is just that, not my opening argument for where I stand on RAW literalism and where it sits on a realism/abstraction sliding scale. Because there's no one answer to that, because RAW literalism doesn't occupy the same place on that scale for everything situation it explicitly covers (let alone for the ones it does not). Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-27-2014 at 02:32 AM. |
|
12-26-2014, 02:17 PM | #42 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
I'm condensing branches again.
Quote:
|
|
12-26-2014, 02:33 PM | #43 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
I don't think TSh players/GMs/authors want to make realism more difficult, but make some actions difficult. Not saying it is wrong - I'm mostly convinced the intent is right, even though I have some gamist disagreements about the execution of the intent (but which are difficult to address outside either Alternate GURPS or an edition change). I think 'more nuance' usually goes hand in hand with 'more literalism'. E.g. all the new Techniques in MA imply that the player gets to make more precise choices about what is happening. A spinning kick is no longer a fluffy description of an AoA or a kick - it is now invoked if the PC takes the Technique, and it has precise modifiers and effects. |
|
12-26-2014, 02:45 PM | #44 | ||||||
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
Quote:
It's a side note about why I was leery of making normal Attacks rarely-desired as per TSh. Quote:
Boxes with Harsh Realism are a fraction of changes that largely have a 'make certain things more difficult' vibe. (And I'm saying this neutrally - sometimes things do need to be more difficult, sometimes they don't.) Quote:
The word 'demand' was used within the context of a rule, as in 'the ruleset demands that character does X by method Y', roughly comparable to 'the ruleset requires that ...'. Or similar to the function of 'the prerequisite to doing X is first doing Y'. That sort of thing. I'm not saying SJG will send Men In Black down the door of anyone not following the newest book. ^_^ Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
12-26-2014, 02:49 PM | #45 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
For the record: I don't see 'nerf' and 'buff' as necessarily bad words. |
|
12-26-2014, 04:59 PM | #46 |
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
"Nerfing" is something that's normally done in the context of game balance, not realism. From that perspective, it might be fair to say that changing a maneuver or other rule to better reflect reality isn't "nerfing" even if the end result is to make that thing less powerful or effective.
This eliminates the ambiguity, though you'll have to adjust your vocabulary. |
12-27-2014, 02:37 AM | #47 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
|
|
12-27-2014, 02:42 AM | #48 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
|
|
12-27-2014, 02:45 AM | #49 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
Cheers TD |
|
12-27-2014, 03:16 AM | #50 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things
Quote:
As for follow-up shots, it's a mystery (to me) why at the beginning of 4e the mechanic was ditched: back in 3e, I remember there being a mechanic for keeping most of a gun's Acc on following turns. Last edited by vicky_molokh; 03-30-2017 at 02:22 AM. |
|
Tags |
abstraction, combat, rules |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|