Which is Better: Spirit or Letter of a Disadvantage?

[Phantasm]

I'm having a stylistic and game philosophical disagreement with some folks on the irc.sorcery.net #gurps channel right now.

Basically, the guys who I'm disagreeing with are stating that the written letter of the RAW should be followed no matter what, even if just following the spirit of a disadvantage without the minutia gives a better visual or makes more sense for a character.

The case in point: My character had Berserk (9), and was 20 yards away from someone she was aiming at when she was shot in the arm and lost her SC roll by 2. Now, by the RAW, because this guy was at 20 yards away she absolutely had to drop the gun and charge. My mental image was to charge forward while firing the gun until she was in melee range. If this guy had been at 21 yards or more, by the RAW I would have stood there and shot at him until the gun was empty . . . but also not able to charge forward shooting. (I've also been told "why did you take the disad if you don't know what it does?" Apparently, forgetting the minutia during play without having a book on hand to reference is the same as not reading it beforehand in their minds.)

In my mind, the spirit of the disadvantage - that you're seeing red you are so reckless in combat you automatically don't defend - would overrule this minutia if the story calls for it. When I GM, I tend to be a little more loose with enforcing certain rules if they would go against the narratives or a cool visual.

These guys have also said, "if you're not going to follow the minutia of the rules, why are you playing GURPS?" That one makes me raise my eyebrows, for many reasons I won't go into here.

So which in your opinions is better for a game: the spirit of the disad, or the letter of it?

[Mailanka]

I think the question misses the point. There's a reason Rule 0 is "The rules can change."

My preferred model for an RPG is "GM as game-emulator." You tell the GM what you are doing, and he tells you what happens. He uses the rules to determine this in a predictable fashion, but at the end of the day, he's the one who interprets things. What counts as mental stun, for example? What qualifies as "surprise?" Is the darkness sufficient for a -5? Or is it a -6? What is the cut off point? Exactly how much lux is there in this room anyway?

Once you've established that, then you need to realize that the GM creates the game. Not in the sense of he is solely responsible for creating the fun of the experience, but that the GM tends to take on the role of game developer/level designer. He decides what sort of challenges to throw at the players, what traits and tactical choices to emphasize and how.

For example, Dreaming is a pretty useless skill and the Deep Sleeper perk is cosmetic for the most part (it's mostly about waking up quickly if necessary) and the Light Sleeper quirk doesn't really matter much (it's mostly about losing sleep). But what if we ran a game where people could wander dream worlds and learn hidden truths about the world, provided they could figure out how to get past particular puzzles or evade the Guardians of the Dreams, or the Minions of Nightmare. Deep Sleeper obviously grants +2 to remain asleep despite terrors or taking "astral damage," and Light Sleeper obviously grants a -2, and the Dreaming skill certainly grants you insights into what you see in the world of dreams and helps you control your own contributions to that shared world.

Is that in the rules? Perhaps, perhaps not, but what matters is how you're going to view those particular rules and implement them in your game.

Thus, that's what really matters to the interpretation of a disadvantage: Not what is explicitly written, or what is "clearly intended," but how the GM interprets it. Which is why working with your GM is clearly important, so everyone is on the same page.

"Being on the same page" certainly is important, which is why discussing rules RAW is important when on forums or online communities. I had been running Riposte differently and accidentally used that interpretation in a discussion about GURPS Martial Arts, and was roundly criticized when it turned out that many of my strategies were based on "flawed" understanding of the rules. They weren't... but the people in that discussion could not possibly know that, because they don't have access to my notes or my mind or my game. So it was unreasonable (a mistake, a slip of my mind) to expect them to.

So in that sense, "what is written down" matters. Unless, I suspect, he's discussing quality of the rules and trying to prove why a game sucks, or he's trying to push a particularly twinky build. In the latter case, it doesn't matter if the GM is unpersuaded. In the former case, flawed writing is bad, yes, but hardly a death knell to an RPG.

[doulos05]

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

I'm having a stylistic and game philosophical disagreement with some folks on the irc.sorcery.net #gurps channel right now.

Basically, the guys who I'm disagreeing with are stating that the written letter of the RAW should be followed no matter what, even if just following the spirit of a disadvantage without the minutia gives a better visual or makes more sense for a character.

The case in point: My character had Berserk (9), and was 20 yards away from someone she was aiming at when she was shot in the arm and lost her SC roll by 2. Now, by the RAW, because this guy was at 20 yards away she absolutely had to drop the gun and charge. My mental image was to charge forward while firing the gun until she was in melee range. If this guy had been at 21 yards or more, by the RAW I would have stood there and shot at him until the gun was empty . . . but also not able to charge forward shooting. (I've also been told "why did you take the disad if you don't know what it does?" Apparently, forgetting the minutia during play without having a book on hand to reference is the same as not reading it beforehand in their minds.)

In my mind, the spirit of the disadvantage - that you're seeing red you are so reckless in combat you automatically don't defend - would overrule this minutia if the story calls for it. When I GM, I tend to be a little more loose with enforcing certain rules if they would go against the narratives or a cool visual.

These guys have also said, "if you're not going to follow the minutia of the rules, why are you playing GURPS?" That one makes me raise my eyebrows, for many reasons I won't go into here.

So which in your opinions is better for a game: the spirit of the disad, or the letter of it?

That's strictly a philosophical disagreement. It's much like the guy who wants to do just Sword&Board vs. the guy who's looking for a Method Actor game. Put both of those guys in a game and they're going to have disagreements when sword guy wants to kill the dragon whereas the Method Actor wants to negotiate with him because he's decided that there's too much death in this world.

That's a fundamental problem, and it takes a lot of out of game discussion to find common understanding.

I'm with Mailanka, I believe RPGs are best when they're "GM as game-emulator."

[David Johnston2]

Me I'm just wondering how you happened to be at the exact worst range to go berserk at. Statistically that seems unlikely.

[Anders]

Given enough berserkers and enough situations sooner or later it will happen.

[Sam Baughn]

I'd generally say that the spirit of the rules is more important in a roleplaying game.

However, going by the rules as written, the Berserk disadvantage does not say that you can't make a Move and Attack with a ranged weapon if you are within 20 yards. In fact, by the rules as written you must make a Move and Attack if possible whenever you are out of melee range of an enemy. Since a Move and Attack is possible with a ranged weapon, you must Move and Attack.

(Alternatively, since a 'hand weapon' is not defined, you may argue that ranged weapons which are not mounted are 'hand weapons', in which case you must make an All-Out Attack instead of a Move and Attack...)

In fact, going by the rules strictly as written, the second bullet-point under the effects of Berserk is mostly irrelevant, except to cause you to always use your maximum RoF when over 20 yards away from an enemy. Being able to 'attack with a ranged weapon' is irrelevant, since the first bullet point does not prevent you from doing so. Being unable to Aim or reload is irrelevant because you can't take an Aim or Ready maneuver while also being forced to Move and Attack.

Now, someone may try and argue that the sentence saying you may attack with a ranged weapon at a distance of over 20 yards implies that you can't attack with one at shorter range. At that point you can point out they are arguing that you should play by the spirit of the rules.

[WingedKagouti]

The spirit is better as long as both the player and GM are in agreement.

If they disagree the GM's ruling is the only correct one (see Rule 0).

[RyanW]

If the exact wording of the rules mattered more than the spirit, I'd be playing a PC game instead of a P&P game.

I'd say, with Berserk that has triggered:

If (canAllOutAttack)
  AllOutAttack
ElseIf (canMoveAndAttack)
  MoveAndAttack
ElseIf (posture != standing && range > Reach + Step)
  ChangePosture(Stand)
Else
  Move

[Ulzgoroth]

Guess I'll be the one to support the letter...sort of.

GURPS traits don't have completely rigorous definitions, but they do have definitions, and those definitions are the basis for their point costs and so forth. The perceived 'spirit' of the rules, on the other hand, can mismatch their actual substance in ways that may be subtle but important or even quite radical. Placing 'spirit' above text is little different from the well known error of assuming a trait does what its name sounds like it should.

That said, if you want a Disadvantage that is similar to but not identical to the rules for an existing Disadvantage, it's perfectly reasonable to propose the alternative. However, it's not reasonable to put a canon Trait on your character sheet without discussion and expect it to behave differently from the letter of its defining rules.



However, I have to agree that the letter of the rules doesn't actually say what you're being told. Also, frankly, the letter of the rules looks pretty badly written.

-The first bullet point doesn't apply if you are not armed with a "hand weapon". If a gun is a "hand weapon", then you are already in range and are required to All-Out Attack but are not required to run forward. (A gun is probably not a "hand weapon". The term is never defined but it appears to be used to mean melee weapons.)

If you are within 20 yards and armed with a hand weapon, I agree that you're required to charge forward to use it. I don't see anything saying you have to drop the gun, unless for some reason wielding the hand weapon requires that you drop the gun. While the phrasing suggests the author didn't think about this, it arguably mandates that you Move and Attack with the gun during any turns of your charge where you can't reach the enemy with a hand weapon.

Probably errors in the rules: this bullet point is the only part of the text that mandates All-Out Attack. If you are not armed with a hand weapon, nothing anywhere in the Disadvantage actually demands All-Out Attack maneuvers. Also, to be really picky it doesn't say you have to make your All-Out Attack with the hand weapon, just that you have to make one.

-The second bullet point starts out badly. It specifies that under certain conditions you are allowed to attack with a ranged weapon...but it has never been specified that you otherwise cannot, nor does it say anything about overriding the first bullet point! A really literalistic reading seems to me to say that if you have no hand weapon and are at 20 yards or less you are allowed to Aim! Also to do your blazing away with Attack rather than All-Out Attack. And if you aren't using a gun, you aren't even required to attack every turn that you can!

The principle of 'the rules specify things for reasons' suggests that they meant to say that you may not attack with a ranged weapon if not at more than 20 yards. But that really should not be left to a weak implication, it's a major exception to the baseline that needs to at least be strongly implied, preferably stated outright. The other sentences of the second bullet point don't seem particularly problematic.


-----------

So I'd say: following the letter of the rules is important. Following the letter of Berserk requires a panel of judges and may call for lawyers for the plaintiff and defendant depending on your local legal system, and the result is likely to look downright stupid. I would strongly recommend replacing the text of the first two bullet points with something coherent, and then following the letter of that.

[GodBeastX]

RAW = Whatever the GM says it is to me.

If GM says I suddenly become a french poodle in the middle of a Transformers Movie because I took Hamfisted disadvantage, I guess that what happens!