Quick Question on 'Less Than 1/3 HP'

[TJA]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Untrue. "HP/3 or less" would give for HP 12 the following: 12/3 = 4, so "4 or less." "Less than HP/3" would give 12/3 = 4, so "less than 4" or "3 or less." The latter is what's intended and used in all of the examples in the game.

That´s right and confuses me more :)
But please read me posting above where i try to motivate my reasonings.

[Kromm]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying, but I do understand what I wrote in the Basic Set. I'm afraid Andrew is right -- I think this is more a language-comprehension issue than a math or rules issue.

[TJA]

Originally Posted by Kromm

So you do this:

11/3 = 3 2/3
N < 3 2/3
N is an integer
N ≤ 3

The problem is that you're taking the integer part of the right-hand side immediately. This is incorrect.

This helps a bit.

But still, from the books, this is NOT clear!

Would be great to include such a clarification in the next printing and/pr PDF ...

I mean, we talk about a game system that is already quite old - and that there are people who *still* have a different interpretation is not a Good Thing.

:)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by TJA

The book does not tell this, at least not to me - honestly!

I've never seen anyone else have trouble with it. I was a math major, I do arithmetic for relaxation (things like taking square roots and computing correlation coefficients by hand), and I earn my living as a copy editor specializing in scientific publication. I never had a moment's doubt that it meant what Kromm says it means. I'm afraid I think your reading is quirky.

As i wrote above, a better wording would be "HP/2 or less" for this special rules.
Or, the part on B9 would need to be changed somehow ... no idea how.

"HP/2 or less" would not mean the same thing.

HP HP/2 [less than HP/2] [HP/2 or less]

10 5 4 5
11 5.5 5 5
12 6 5 6

(using [K] to mean the greatest integer that falls within the defined range)

Using the "or less" wording produces a different meaning for every even N.

Bill Stoddard

[TJA]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying, but I do understand what I wrote in the Basic Set. I'm afraid Andrew is right -- I think this is more a language-comprehension issue than a math or rules issue.

Maybe.

But please follow me to this point:

As i wrote above, you can have
1) "less than <x> HP" or you can have
2) "exactly <x> HP" or you can have
3) "more than <x> HP".

Would´nt you say that these should be three different amounts?
Neither "Less than <x>" nor "more than <x>" should be equal to <x> itself.

When <x> is 11, then
1) is something up to 10!
2) is 11, of course and
3) is 12 or more.

Quite clear, or not?

Now try the same with "HP/2" instead of "HP"

----

IF that is a language issue, why did "mook" from USA ask this question?
It seems, that not only foreigners may have problems with this wording and calculation ...

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by TJA

As i wrote above, you can have 1) "less than <x> HP" or you can have 2) "exactly <x> HP" or you can have 3) "more than <x> HP".

Would´nt you say that these should be three different amounts?

When <x> is 11, then
1) is something up to 10!
2) is 11, of course and
3) is 12 or more.

Quite clear, or not?

Now try the same with "HP/2" instead of "HP"

The problem is not with this reasoning. The problem is that you are rounding too soon. Page B9 gives examples of possible roundings, not a prescriptive "you must round this immediately." So, if you have 11 HP:
1) less than HP/2 means less than 11/2, which would be 5.
2) exactly HP/2 means 11/2, or 5.5, which you then round down to 5.
3) more than HP/2 means more than 11/2, which would be 6.

I don't know why Mook misunderstood, but I know that I've misunderstood clearly written things from reading carelessly. It would be a fallacy to blame the writing every time I failed to comprehend.

[TJA]

I give up :)

Still, please keep in mind, that - at least - foreigners may have problems with some wordings and at least try to make such important things more clear.

One example would even suffice ...

[mook]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

I don't know why Mook misunderstood, but I know that I've misunderstood clearly written things from reading carelessly.

Oh, no, no - I didn't misunderstand, see, I was ... um ... vigorously examining the text for the purposes of ... comprehensively testing ... uh ...

Yeah, I misunderstood. :)

The really weird thing is I've never had that particular confusion in any actual play of GURPS, it's just when trying to read the rules like a textbook that I start to overthink things.

It's good though, one more thing for the growing list of 'things I am now absolutely, 100% without a doubt sure of'.