Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-27-2014, 06:34 AM   #51
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
There's the reason and the effect. The reason for wanting to make these actions more difficult was the wish to make them more realistic.
I think difficult is the wrong word to use and implies a gamist POV. There is not positive relationship between difficulty and realism here, there's a positive relationship between reduced spatial awareness and sighted shots. Just as there's a positive relationship between speed and unsighted shots.

Again I think you have to separate difficulty form realism, they are only inherently connected because your inherently connecting them. One is system/gamist* quality, the other is a genre preference/simulationist* quality.

We already have cites from people who were part of the this process telling us that increased difficulty was not a factor in this rule.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
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 the being a mechanic for keeping most of a gun's Acc on following turns.
Well what ever the reason is it certainly effects the game balance of making sighted shots a AoA:D

*all is lost if we're citing GNS theory I suspect.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2014, 02:30 PM   #52
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I think difficult is the wrong word to use and implies a gamist POV. There is not positive relationship between difficulty and realism here, there's a positive relationship between reduced spatial awareness and sighted shots. Just as there's a positive relationship between speed and unsighted shots.

Again I think you have to separate difficulty form realism, they are only inherently connected because your inherently connecting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xplo View Post
"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.
Okay, let's see the expanded list of possible change categories. I'm not sure how to adjust the vocabulary to make them all fit:
  1. Making something more powerful for reasons of realism.
  2. Making something less powerful for reasons of realism.
  3. Making something more powerful for reasons of balance.
  4. Making something less powerful for reasons of balance.
  5. Making something more powerful for reasons of simplicity/playability.
  6. Making something less powerful for reasons of simplicity/playability.
  7. Making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of realism.
  8. I do not think there is ever a point of making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of balance. I suppose something like getting rid of an exponential effect (buffing lows and nerfing highs of the same thing) might qualify, but that's two changes in one, IMHO.
  9. Making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of simplicity/playability.
I thought that 'nerf' covers #2, #4, and #6, while 'buff' covers #1, #3 and #5. I don't think there are special words to distinguish #3 and #5 from #1, or to distinguish #4 and #6 from #2. If there are, what are they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
One is system/gamist* quality, the other is a genre preference/simulationist* quality.

We already have cites from people who were part of the this process telling us that increased difficulty was not a factor in this rule.

Well what ever the reason is it certainly effects the game balance of making sighted shots a AoA:D

*all is lost if we're citing GNS theory I suspect.
My acquaintance with GNS is vague and is strongly flavoured by whswhs' tales frustration with trying to understand it. It might be interesting to give it another try, or it might not.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.

Last edited by vicky_molokh; 12-28-2014 at 01:19 AM.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2014, 05:47 PM   #53
Xplo
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Okay, let's see the expanded list of possible change categories. I'm not sure how to adjust the vocabulary to make them all fit:
  1. Making something more powerful for reasons of realism.
  2. Making something less powerful for reasons of realism.
  3. Making something more powerful for reasons of balance.
  4. Making something less powerful for reasons of balance.
  5. Making something more powerful for reasons of simplicity/playability.
  6. Making something less powerful for reasons of simplicity/playability.
  7. Making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of realism.
  8. I do not there is ever a point of making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of balance. I suppose something like getting rid of an exponential effect (buffing lows and nerfing highs of the same thing) might qualify, but that's two changes in one, IMHO.
  9. Making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of simplicity/playability.
I thought that 'nerf' covers #2, #4, and #6, while 'buff' covers #1, #3 and #5. I don't think there are special words to distinguish #3 and #5 from #1, or to distinguish #4 and #6 from #2. If there are, what are they?
Things that are "nerfed" are indeed made weaker, so you could argue that it covers 2, 4, and 6, but defining "nerf" as "make weaker" leads to the ambiguity you lamented. Focusing on intent as well as outcome makes it clear. Likewise with "buff".

As for vocabulary, you've successfully described the variations using common English words, so I'd say you're already set. Admittedly, not all of those situations have single words that clearly describe them, which is a little inconvenient, but that's no reason to confuse matters by tacking extra definitions onto words that shouldn't have them.

As an aside, I don't find GNS confusing, but that's not a state I can readily impart to others. :)
Xplo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2014, 02:25 AM   #54
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Okay, let's see the expanded list of possible change categories. I'm not sure how to adjust the vocabulary to make them all fit:
  1. Making something more powerful for reasons of realism.
  2. Making something less powerful for reasons of realism.
  3. Making something more powerful for reasons of balance.
  4. Making something less powerful for reasons of balance.
  5. Making something more powerful for reasons of simplicity/playability.
  6. Making something less powerful for reasons of simplicity/playability.
  7. Making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of realism.
  8. I do not think there is ever a point of making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of balance. I suppose something like getting rid of an exponential effect (buffing lows and nerfing highs of the same thing) might qualify, but that's two changes in one, IMHO.
  9. Making something different (but neither more nor less powerful) for reasons of simplicity/playability.
I thought that 'nerf' covers #2, #4, and #6, while 'buff' covers #1, #3 and #5. I don't think there are special words to distinguish #3 and #5 from #1, or to distinguish #4 and #6 from #2. If there are, what are they?
There is also making something more realistic for reasons of realism.

You assuming an inherent driving relationship between two separate qualities, that may not actually exist.

"correlation is not causation"

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
My acquaintance with GNS is vague and is strongly flavoured by whswhs' tales frustration with trying to understand it. It might be interesting to give it another try, or it might not.
Personally I wouldn't bother as IME it's so subjective as to meaningless once it is referenced by more than one role player.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2014, 02:32 AM   #55
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
There is also making something more realistic for reasons of realism.

You assuming an inherent driving relationship between two separate qualities, that may not actually exist.

"correlation is not causation"
Assuming making it more realistic neither make it easier nor harder, it falls under '#7. Making something different. A change has to make something more powerful, less powerful, or neither. A change caused by wishing to make something more realistic is the cause; an increase, decrease, or neither, in power, is the outcome.

You yourself say it's done for reasons of realism, and then proceed to hint that the relationship lacks causation. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2014, 06:51 AM   #56
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Assuming making it more realistic neither make it easier nor harder, it falls under '#7. Making something different. A change has to make something more powerful, less powerful, or neither. A change caused by wishing to make something more realistic is the cause; an increase, decrease, or neither, in power, is the outcome.

You yourself say it's done for reasons of realism, and then proceed to hint that the relationship lacks causation. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
You seem to assuming that there is causal relationship between realism and changes to game mechanics. You then go on to infer things like intent and preference based on this causal relationship.

In short those who want more realism therefore want more complex rules (or certainly rules that deviate from literalist RAW more), that is dependent on causal relationship.

I'm suggesting that there is only a correlation between the two, and that even more importantly it's not uniformly in just one direction. This makes your following inferences less relevant to the process.

I.e Those who want more realism just want more realism and are not actually thinking in terms of more or less complexity or even making actions harder or easier. Again while Sighted shots might be more restricted they get the follow up buff, unsighted ones now get a buff.

The example given was making Sighted shots AoA. You posited that there was an aspect of this precess where those involved had looked at this from a game balance point of view. Only that wasn't the case they had only looked at it from a realism point of view. It was deemed more realistic to make Sighted shots AoA, that was the be all and end all of the process. There was no ulterior or even obvious motivation in regards restricting them by the game system.

Now it's been pointed out that this change has acted to distinguish between those making sighted accurate shots having to take more defensive position, which means that those who don't have to fill more aggressive roles. But again that is a point about realism not game balance, even if it has corollary effect on game choices.

Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-29-2014 at 03:02 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 03:55 AM   #57
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
You seem to assuming that there is causal relationship between realism and changes to game mechanics. You then go on to infer things like intent and preference based on this causal relationship.

In short those who want more realism therefore want more complex rules (or certainly rules that deviate from literalist RAW more), that is dependent on causal relationship.

I'm suggesting that there is only a correlation between the two, and that even more importantly it's not uniformly in just one direction. This makes your following inferences less relevant to the process.

I.e Those who want more realism just want more realism and are not actually thinking in terms of more or less complexity or even making actions harder or easier. Again while Sighted shots might be more restricted they get the follow up buff, unsighted ones now get a buff.

The example given was making Sighted shots AoA. You posited that there was an aspect of this precess where those involved had looked at this from a game balance point of view. Only that wasn't the case they had only looked at it from a realism point of view. It was deemed more realistic to make Sighted shots AoA, that was the be all and end all of the process. There was no ulterior or even obvious motivation in regards restricting them by the game system.

Now it's been pointed out that this change has acted to distinguish between those making sighted accurate shots having to take more defensive position, which means that those who don't have to fill more aggressive roles. But again that is a point about realism not game balance, even if it has corollary effect on game choices.
I'm postulating a causal relation ship because 'making things different (more realistic)' involves changing game mechanics one way or another. I'm not sure how you can, at all, add realism without changing game mechanics. At a minimum, it requires changing some modifiers.
It also seems to be the case that adding more realism tends to add complexity more often
than the opposite. Conversely, adding cinematicism seems much more likely to reduce complexity, similar to the whole 'Roll and Shout!' and '. . . With Spikes!' attitudes. This isn't to say that cinematic rules can't be complex - they can; they're just as likely to be simpler too. I don't think I've ever heard anyone move from MA to Basic or from Basic to Lite, to improve realism. I did hear of people moving to both more and to fewer books when striving to achieve a cinematic feel.

That people wanting more realism don't think in terms of game mechanics as an end goal doesn't cancel the fact that the end result will still involve certain changes in game mechanics.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 04:03 AM   #58
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
....

That people wanting more realism don't think in terms of game mechanics as an end goal doesn't cancel the fact that the end result will still involve certain changes in game mechanics.
And when it comes to intent, that's the difference between correlation not causation. Especially as the correlation is not in any one direction, but a side effect of the realism not of making things more difficult.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2014, 04:58 AM   #59
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyv, Ukraine
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
And when it comes to intent, that's the difference between correlation not causation. Especially as the correlation is not in any one direction, but a side effect of the realism not of making things more difficult.
A can cause B without it being intentional.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
Also, GURPS Discord is a nice place for (faster) Q&A and overall GURPS dicussion.
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2014, 06:46 AM   #60
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Literal vs. Abstract interpretation of GURPS combat and other things

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
A can cause B without it being intentional.

Yes but your arguing the A effect on B is intentional and generally in one direction (despite examples to the contrary). Moreover you suggesting a two way causal link between realism and difficulty.

"Cause" and causal are not synonymous here. You seem to be looking for links that aren't there or haven't been proved

It's been a long time since I did serious stats, but I do remember one the core things is it's a lot easier to show correlation than it is to show causation.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abstraction, combat, rules

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.