[bocephus]

Originally Posted by Boge

I get that it's more realistic being slower and doing less damage than a sword or axe slash, but this is a game. There should be some gameplay balances that make bows a bit more useful.

Conclusion, bows suck in turn by turn combat in Gurps. I made this character because I thought it might be fun or cool, but it's just useless is all.
/rant

I feel for you. (IMO) There are three distinct points in the original post, I'll address them this way because its simpler for me.

First

Conclusion, bows suck in turn by turn combat in Gurps.

**Mechanically speaking in terms of GURPS point distribution **
I don't know what point values you are working with so I will just hang in the 100-150 values that I'm most familiar with using for new characters/campaigns.

An Archer is not something that you can really be as an addon, unless you have more disposable CP than I usually give my players. To clarify, I mean Cinematic Archer as in Legolas, Robinhood, a D&D Ranger, Marvel's Hawkeye, DC's Green Arrow, NOT "I'm able to shoot a bow with skill" said every hunter/woodsman/chivalrous knight since... ever.
IMO Trying to be good at other stuff AND be a Cinematic Archer, translates to an average or below average melee that happens to have a high skill with a bow. You will always be far behind players that commit fully to their chosen specialty.

To have a bow as a primary weapon without committing fully to having a substantial amount of your points dedicated to being an Archer is a recipe for mediocrity or disappointment.
A 125pt character can be good at melee (Mace for instance) and still have plenty of points to be "mostly good" at something else that's melee adjacent (brawling for instance) and skills that aren't DX/ST/HT based.
A 125pt "Archer" is going to have to go really all in on Archery and talents/abilities/skills that make Archery more effective. You may only be able to have a couple non-DX skills. Which might make a decent Default Observer but wont help much in melee/melee adjacent encounters, except where it might help avoid such encounters.

Since it's really more a cinematic idea than "realistic", so you will need GM buy in for the concept. If the game is intended to be more "realistic" you may have to pay for an Unusual Background, if the GM allows it, to compensate the "realistic melee" fighters for your really powerful specialty (eliminating melee before they can close the distance).
The GM must also consider if there are more Archers roaming around, meaning melee may have already established tactics to deal with you. Alternatively, are you a lost/wandering 'Shaolin monk' let loose in medieval Europe where no brawler has a chance against you but an armored knight may prove a great difficulty. Not that he's a particularly skilled opponent but his armor is equally alien to your training and skills.

You're choosing a path similar to a "wizard' where you have to commit to a specific role that could be VERY powerful within your niche, but outside of that you may struggle a little to bring value.
You may be left out at the campfire while everyone else sharpens their swords, you play with your sticks and feathers thinking you can hunt an armored knight like a rabbit.
The melee players may not understand you.
Once they see what you can do, they may not like you if they decide its not an honorable way to kill someone.
They might fear you will do it to them.


Second

I made this character because I thought it might be fun or cool, but it's just useless is all.

This is lack of communication between the GM and the players. When you start a new game, or make a new character, there should be at least a short conversation between the player and the GM to establish what it is the player envisions doing.
I usually do this by saying, "paint me a picture of some cool moments where you think your character is going to shine." If Im lucky the player has given this some thought and will have something for me, if Im unlucky the player hasn't given it any real thought and the GM will have to do some of the heavy lifting here.

I need to know what it is the player thinks he's going to be able to do before I can say:
* "No problem thats sounds like it will be really cool, make a character sheet so I can see how the points work out" (See the first point I made about game mechanics, because this step may have failed as well. This is where the GM should have said "I don't think this character is going to work the way you want it to, and here's why")
* "Ok, Im going to have to restructure some things I had planned, but I think I can make this work"
* "I like part of this, but we need to manage a couple things, for balance, would you be willing to drop X to have Y or the other way around?"
* "I dont think that's going to work for this campaign and I dont want you to end up frustrated." (I had a 'low magic' campaign where the antagonists were a previously unknown tribe of Rock gnomes who were SM-1, blended into the terrain, and high DR {made of "rock"}. All of which would have made a basically non-magic item archer pretty frustrated.)

Your GM should have considered this when he approved your character and taken it into account. This all assumes your GM is proficient and has a good grasp of GURPS, the players are proficient and have a good grasp of GURPS. If either or both are untrue then this can only be corrected with honest dialog.

BTW as a GM, I need to point out, you did the right thing as a good player. NOT THROWING A TANTRUM IN THE MOMENT, in the middle of game play and derailing the session for everyone (someone knows who I'm talking about).
Tell your GM I think you should get a CP award (for all my opinions worth) just for that alone, its worth encouraging grown up behavior and communication.
Take this downtime after the fact to have that conversation with the GM before the next session. Point the GM to this thread so they have the same info you do if you aren't sure what the solution is but you still want to try and make it work.




Now the last bit

I get that it's more realistic being slower and doing less damage than a sword or axe slash, but this is a game. There should be some gameplay balances that make bows a bit more useful.

There are a lot of things that seem to have gone wrong, and its been pretty well illuminated in ALL the other posts in the thread. I have nothing more of substance to contribute there.
All of the suggestions DO require your GMs approval. (I for one don't use the martial arts books, just not my GM style). If your GM lets you take things from these sources, they should be prepared for an onslaught of all the other players wanting stuff from these 'new' sources. Some changes need to be made somewhere though, even if its just letting you make a different character.

Its possible you were just a casualty of a less experienced GM (maybe they have never dealt with archery as a primary weapon before) or an honest oversight. It's possible its just poor communication in that the GM actually wanted this to be an in your face melee campaign and really didn't want to factor ranged into the fights. You wont know till you address it.

Even GMs can get tunnel vision. I know when I do a lot of prep for a "planned" fight I try to consider different ways it might go, so I have at least thought it through and have some sort of base ideas. If the fight goes very much a different direction I sometimes forget to pay attention and just keep "following a script I had in my head" instead of adapting to what did happen. I depend on the players to point out something that seems off. It can lead to interesting moments of chaos that are fun as much as frustrating, but we're all human. Keeping track of ALL the variables and threads is a super human task.