GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I spend a fair amount of time on the RPG Stack Exchange, and it's clear from the questions and answers there that the hermeneutics (methods of rules interpretation) of different RPGs vary quite a bit.

So it seems interesting to try to describe what hermeneutics we use here, given that we have considerable input from the line editor, his assistant and quite a few of the writers, on their intentions. There's also a refreshing willingness to admit mistakes and own up to lack of clarity.

First, we have Rule Zero: the game assumes that there is a GM, and that their rulings will be sensible, at least for their desired game.

We also have the principle that if you want benefits you should buy them, rather than trying to contort rules into giving them to you for free.

An appeal to reality, or at least Occam's Razor for things that are not real, is generally worth considering.

What else?

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

The biggest mental disconnect I've seen might be summed up as "it is not expected that everything from all published GURPS4e supplements, or even everything in the core rules, will be available to characters in any given single campaign".

This overlaps somewhat with Rule Zero but I think it goes usefully further.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Extending on this: "Some rules are mutually exclusive" - not only are they not really expecting you to do everything at once, you really can't do some things at the same time.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I'd argue that the "ABC" rule in Powers - that ability builds should first be Accurate (that is, model what you're trying to describe), then Basic (they should use the least convoluted build possible), and then Cheap (if multiple approaches are viable, use the one that costs the least points) is a pretty useful guideline for GURPS in general.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

"If it doesn't limit you, it's not worth points" and the corollary for advantages and enhancements.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

For rules interpretation, as opposed to use, I've always considered a central tool to be presuming that the rules say what they mean to say, and if they do not say a thing it is because they mean to not say it.

I have never thought of that as being GURPS-specific...

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I think for most of us there's a lean away from semantic rules-lawyering. I usually try to interpret the rules as meaning what they seem to intend in simple English, in the context they are presented in. I occasionally see people trying to parse specific word choices from different rules, well separated in the books, in a way to support an interpretation that allows what seems to me far-fetched or contrary to what appears the intent of one of the rules. This kind of approach feels more appropriate to seeking out exploits and synergies between Magic the Gathering cards or D&D-type feats and talents.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I see GURPS rules as a giant toolbox (as Roger mentioned above), and that any good ruleset will contain the bare minimum rules from that toolbox to create the desired kind of gameplay. This ties into the ABC rule from Powers. A concise summary of this might be:

Use exactly as many rules as you need, and not one more.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Agreed. Despite having a passionate commitment to their fiddly rules, GURPS fans tend to be wide open to different interpretations, implementations, and play styles. The term "RAW" turns up on these forums, for example, but it has not been weaponized. Perhaps because GURPS is a toolkit and perforce every campaign must use a subset of rules, it's often assumed that every group will make different calls about how all the pieces fit together.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Moreover, I think that the toolkit approach leads to greater acceptance of house rules.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

That every GM uses some of the optional rules but no GM uses all of the optional rules. Before you join a game with a new GM, make sure that you are comfortable with the optional rules he or she is using before you commit so that you can minimize conflicts between yourself and the GM. Before you make a new game as a GM, clarify which optional rules you are using and make sure to not change the optional rules in the middle of the game so that you can minimize conflicts with your players.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

There's also the corollary going the other direction: "If it does limit you, it is worth points."

This doesn't come up often as a concern, but I'd like to think it's a principle of modern GURPS. I refer specifically to a minor grumble I had about older books occasionally slapping PC races with real limitations but under the Taboo Traits label. "You can't swim – which means that, unaided, you sink and die in any pool, lake, river, moat, dungeon cistern, or 3/4 of the Earth's surface. Taboo Trait, 0 points, try to stay out of the water."

Not a fan of that. : )

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Pay for the effect, not for the fluff.

This is a guiding principle when building abilities.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I'm glad when people realize this. I experience a huge face-desk moment every single time somebody starts analyzing why we used, say, "may" instead of "can," or "may" instead of "might." Answer: To avoid echoing the same verb over and over. In American English in 2017, there's just no useful difference 90% of the time. When people start reading rules intent into diction, I reach for the whisky.

Needless to say, after being a writer and editor for 23 years, I know there are formal differences between certain choices of words and phrases. But ordinary people speak and write informally, and that's our house style. We actively seek not to write "legalese" even if that would make the rules clearer to the minority who didn't fall asleep reaching the end.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Very important! People constantly ask why Altered Time Rate doesn't give bonuses to defenses. "If I move twice as fast, surely it's easier to defend?" If that matters to you, you can use the second of every two maneuvers you get for All-Out Defense. Now you can Attack, Concentrate, or even All-Out Attack and still defend better than slower people! But that's the effect . . . the fluff is some meeble about being very fast, which is "Like, whatever, dude." It isn't what matters.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

In any case, it's usually cleaner and simpler to keep discrete effects discrete. It's easier to put things together in a package than it is to separate them out of one because you don't have to remember which package the thing you wanted was in.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

I think another base assumption is that the GM and players are on the same "team" unless playing a specific genre (which would be discussed and agreed upon by the same players and GM). I see people trying to come up with stuff so as to ambush the GM with their "concoction" while this is a definite style of play I assume it isn't the assumed default.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Or buy a couple of levels of Enhanced Defenses in addition the ATR

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

After a while, it makes you want to ban ATR, and it is one of the reasons why I tend to require people to buy Enhanced Defenses +1 per level of ATR.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Another thing with GURPS is that it is not only a universal role playing game (which already means that the GM will have to define which advantages, disadvantages, skills and equipment are or are not allowed in his game world) but GURPS is also a generic one.

Thus, for a given situation, they are often several RAW answers (depending on the level of realism, how much detail and the optional rules the GM wants).

Newcomers may be very surprised when they come to that forum, ask a quite simple question and ... get different answers to solve their problem.

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?")

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

- GURPS' ruleset tends to revolve around more social mechanics and character-defining traits than some newcomers expect. Adventures such as "Caravan to Ein Arris" reflect such an emphasis on non-combat encounters. As a result, a character sheet aims to be descriptive as well as featured, to the point where players are encouraged to write a summary about their characters before committing them to point values.

- Research is primarily derived from 20th century adventure fiction and "deeper cut" examples from genres that may be unfamiliar to modern audiences. This is done in the interest of promoting a stronger knowledge of foundational tropes in storytelling so that GMs have a powerful toolset for creating adventures. The intent is game design-specific as well as educational, which is why you're as likely to see The Scarlet Pimpernel referenced as Firefly or Mass Effect.

Re: GURPS Hermeneutics
 

Here's an attempt to pull all these ideas together:

Rule Zero: the game assumes that there is a GM, and that their rulings will be sensible, at least for their desired game. A GM does have to establish what kind of game they want to run, and it is assumed that the overall game objective is fun for the players and GM. Enabling adversarial play is not a priority, nor is ensuring that play will comply with a specific authorial vision.

GURPS is a toolkit, not a game-ready-to-play. It is not expected that everything from all published GURPS 4e supplements, or even everything in the core rules, will be available to characters in any given single campaign. Some rules are mutually exclusive, on the grounds of different assumptions about genre and play style. For example, the gritty-realism martial arts or shooting rules likely have no place in an anime campaign set in a Japanese high-school. "Use the rules you need for your game, but no more."

It is quite normal for campaigns to have some house rules, or conventions about which optional rules will be used. Changing these during a campaign is best done with player agreement, if at all. Do not expect different GM's campaigns, or even two campaigns run by the same GM, to be completely compatible.

GURPS is a point-buy system, and if you want something, you should buy it, rather than trying to contort rules into giving it to you for free. Disadvantages are only worth points if they will cause you problems, likewise limitations on advantages and other traits. Buy the effect, not the description: the description and special effects can be defined later.

The "ABC" principle, that abilities should be Accurate, to your vision, Basic, in that it uses the least convoluted of the possible ways of buying it, and Cheap, in that if there are several viable ways of doing something, use the one that costs the fewest points, is a good guideline, but not an iron-clad rule.

Character design involves social mechanics and personality-defining traits, as well as combat abilities. The game mechanics don't ensure that every character has something to contribute to every problem, that's a matter for character design.

The rules are written in informal language, and are not intended to support legalistic interpretation, especially across multiple books. They say what they mean to say, and if they do not say something, that should be viewed as intentional. They are not written to be proof against exploits and rules holes: dealing with those is part of the GM's job.

Because there are many optional rules, there may be several RAW answers to a question. Deciding how things work is the GM's job, although suggestions from players should be considered. More recently published rules are intended to take priority over older ones. Specific rules override general ones. Generalising specific rules should be done with caution, if at all.

The default play style assumed in the rules writing is "realistic cinematic." Characters need to make plans, assemble resources, and use good tactics. Things that are difficult in reality are difficult in the game, and it is assumed that players, guided by the GM, will make reasonable efforts to find bonuses for equipment, taking time, and so on to improve their odds of success. Characters should not assume that everything they might want to do will be possible for them; finding the easier way to cope with a problem is sensible.

The source material for the game is quite varied. Because the game is intended to be generic and universal, it concentrates on the basic foundations of storytelling, rather than current fashions. You're as likely to see The Scarlet Pimpernel referenced as Firefly or Mass Effect.

An appeal to reality, or at least Occam's Razor for things that are not real, is generally worth considering. Using rules interpretations that make sense and are fun is more important than sticking to the letter of the rules.

How's that?