Engineer vehicle type

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by cosmicfish

Good catch, I missed that in the thread. It is curious that the general discussion of optional specialties in RAW discusses only non-specialized skills while Artist specifically discusses them in combination. Were the two sections written at different times or by different people, such that each was written with a different understanding in mind? Or was the general discussion simply written in an inconsistent manner?

I suppose it could be argued that Artist is an exception to the rule, but I really don't care - I prefer the flexibility that extending the availability of optional specializations provides.

I don't think they actually are inconsistent. Not in terms of strict formal logic.

You've got a general rule (you can take optional specialties) that applies in a particular case (there are no required specialties). That doesn't actually define a rule for a different case (there are required specialties); it leaves it open. And if we have an example of that different case (Artist skill) where the rule also applies (as it does), then it is possible in principle to apply the general rule in that different case.

We tend to assume that "if A, then B" implies "if not A, then not B"; but logically it doesn't. The more specific statement "A if and only if B" implies both the preceding statements; but they don't imply each other. And the general discussion of skills doesn't say "optional specialties if and only if no required specialties."

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

It is in Social Engineering, for example, an amazing book if you ask me, which treats with many subject from politics to fame, business ventures and romantic pursues.

Actually, complementary skills came from GURPS Action. I just borrowed it because it was so damned useful.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Actually, complementary skills came from GURPS Action. I just borrowed it because it was so damned useful.

I like more social engineering, the truth. The most useful thing I found in the other were rules for parkour, but I have not paid much attention to that book though (?). My scenes are of little combative action and more "feelings", if it can be said that way (?).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Alonsua

I like more social engineering, the truth. The most useful thing I found in the other were rules for parkour, but I have not paid much attention to that book though (?). My scenes are of little combative action and more "feelings", if it can be said that way (?).

Sure. My campaigns are relatively low in action too. I just don't want to be given credit for a rule I didn't invent.

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

So nobody is able to help with my questions? Would Low-Tech Companion 3 help me?