Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

Started off on a tangent in another thread (quotes and link below), I got wondering: how do people feel about the literal vs. abstract dichotomy of GURPS, particularly in combat?
Of notable examples, I remember a statement that a Step forward and Retreat back within one second doesn't always represent two full steps, but can also represent shifting one's centre of mass into and back out of the enemy-adjacent hex, without significantly moving one's feet. Another one quoted is the (RAW, as per MA127) idea of a Rapid Strike representing a single thrust with a follow-up motion of the blade before pulling it out of the wound, or of stomping and then grinding, or of hitting two targets with a single swipe.

I used to be pretty literalist about combat rules; now I think I'm undecided. I certainly find it pleasant and entertaining to know which rules are in play, so that when my decisions, I know the possible consequences I'm expecting and betting on.

What about you? How do you view the spectrum/dichotomy? Do you have any different opinions about some particular examples of abstraction/literalism? Etc.?

Thanks in advance!

Appendix A: threadbranch that inspired this thread:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

As for the difference between step-by-step representation, and how it looks in real combat - well, these things can be quite different. For examples, see Rapid Strike representing thrusting with a blade then twisting it, striking both enemy legs with a single blow, stomping-and-grinding etc. (MA127).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Yeah but those tend to be more about flavour text, rather than actual combat value (IMO some of them make no sense, but lets not go there right now).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

And it's meta game one as well. Because people don't complete moving and then then fight, they move and fight at the same time. Now GURPS as a system has to be somewhat step by step just to resolve stuff, but I don't think it best to abuse that. Either way the clarification that facing changes can be taken more freely solves this issue, as does the fact that a CA feint if allowed comes with the CA negatives.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

What I often have problem with, is drawing the line between a honest match of Man-To-Man-'Chess', and abuse of the system. Divining that requires knowing RAI, at the very minimum.
On one hand, I want a ruleset that maps mostly 1:1 to descriptions of events. On the other, it has been stated that what descriptively happens can only be interpreted after all the game-mechanical issues have been resolved within a turn sequence.
I remember a clarification that when the first, third and seventh 'shot' in a beam weapon RoF attack hit, that does not necessarily mean on-off-on-off shots, but rather that at some point within those ten shots, three in a row got on-target.

So . . . separate thread about abstraction vs. literal mapping between system and description?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Cool

I think there's always going to be the competing issue of a playable system that can be followed easily and what would happen in real life in a chaotic everyone going at once combat. For me the best to apply the former with an eye on the latter. Rather than just run the former on the assumption it's also the latter.

So for instance I tend to be careful about rules that hinge on a precise cut off points for actions that can be exploited, because the underpinning ethos of the GURPS combat is while it's completed in a step by step turn based way, it's actually a series of concurrent contiunuums. The example in [Unarmed vs. Knife] thread being when you can and can't change facing, but can for instance leverage a hex of movement (with facing change) of defence response.

IME none of these by themselves ever cause that much of an issue, it when you combine a few of them together you get some pretty odd situations.

Weather this is just clever play within the rules, or gaming reality, is going to come done to that balance I first mentioned. Of course that distinction is going to irrelevant to many genres where the constraints of reality have less bearing (this is a point I should perhaps have made a while back).

But yep happy to discuss that in a different thread some time!