Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

The problem with Altered Time Rate is that it's a force multiplier but isn't priced relative to the damage you can deal out.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

To take that a step further, I always assume that if there are two possible interpretations, which one makes the most sense is a far more important criteria than which one more closely matches the actual text.

For example, in the Mass Combat rules, fortresses seem to have a defense bonus that can never be claimed (they only give a defense bonus to a bunkered force, a force can only claim a defense bonus if it won initiative, a force that is bunkered cannot win initiative). Adding an unwritten "or" clause to who can claim a DB into the rules make it make sense, and is completely at odds with what the rules actually say.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

That sounds like an actual erratum to me.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I find it quite useful to be able to distinguish "acts a lot" from "has many actions, is hard to hit even when just standing there, and can move heaps while acting lots". Thus ATR is fine so far as I'm concerned. All ATR is, and all it pretends to be is "You get to have an extra 'turn' of actions on your turn per level, costing 100/level".

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I think the thing with ATR is that a lot of depictions of what many think or assume ATR is is in GURPS terms actually ATR plus some other advantages. I.e. ATR is one building block in several, different builds involving moving and acting very quickly and enjoying an advantage in combat due to that.

Which if I think about it is kind of a thing in GURPS in general.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I have an impression that the principle that the specific overrides the general, but that when a specific rule is written the assumption is that it doesn't apply to other areas/the general, is important in understanding some parts of the system's rules philosophy.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

There are a few things like that:

• The rules version in the most recent release takes precedence in the official interpretation, even if individual gamers won't all have it.
• The specific overrides the general.
• Changes and exceptions made for special cases aren't meant to taken back into the rest of the system, even if they look like they might work just fine there.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Difficult things are difficult. It is assumed that the players, guided by the GM, will make reasonable efforts to make use of bonuses for extra time, equipment, and so on, when they're trying to do something hard.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Although this is less strictly a GURPS thing (and indeed doesn't apply to all GURPS games), I think it's correlated with GURPS: some challenges are simply too hard for the current PC group, and they don't necessarily have a sign on the door saying "you must be at least 300 points to enter".

By "challenges" I mean both whole adventures and individual combats. This is not the game where fights are tuned so that a standard party will just barely prevail. (Well, you can probably do that in DFRPG.)

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Yes. When I use "RAW" in the context of GURPS, I use it to mean something a long the lines of "You may run it this way, and I may run it that way, but for the sake of common ground and so everyone knows what we're talking about, technically, the rule-as-written works like this." I get a sense in some other RPGs that a game that does not adhere to the norm is considered the exception, while GURPS is the other way around. Likewise, I've seen other games where the expectation is that you can move from one group to another with the same character and nothing will change, while I think any GURPS GM would give a hearty guffaw at the thought of doing that (though Campaign Frameworks make that sort of thing easier, and you'll see people less reluctant to try this in GURPS DF, but even there, you get a lot of questions about "But what houserules do you use?")