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 05-01-2011, 05:50 AM   #1
Johan Larson
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Default confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

I am having trouble interpreting the sentence, "Thaumatology is a prerequisite for any Path skill, and no Path skill can ever exceed either the caster’s
Thaumatology skill or (12 + Magery level); theoretical knowledge is just as important as magical power." This is on page 32 of MH1:Champions.

Does this mean "no path skill can ever exceed max(Thaumatology skill, 12+Magery level)" or "no path skill can ever exceed min(Thaumatology skill, 12+Magery level)".

I suspect the latter interpretation is what is intended. If that is true, I would suggest rewriting this text, perhaps as follows.

Path skills require theoretical knowledge of magic, represented by Thaumatology skill, and inherent magical power, represented by Magery level. Theoretical knowledge is just as important as magical power. Accordingly, every Path skill of a caster must be less than or equal to the lower of Thaumatology skill and (12 + Magery level).
Johan Larson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 06:05 AM   #2
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan Larson View Post
"Thaumatology is a prerequisite for any Path skill, and no Path skill can ever exceed either the caster’s
Thaumatology skill or (12 + Magery level);"
Okay, parsing that . . .

(Path <= Thaumatology) || (Path <= (Magery+12))

The statement is true whether at least one of its components is true.
If you want to check this:
(Path<=min(Thaum,Mag+12))
you should write "Path skill can never exceed both Thaumatology and Magery+12". Which is the same as
(Path<=Thaumatology && Path<=(Magery+12))

Of course, I'm not a telepath, so I don't what the author wanted to write.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 06:08 AM   #3
Dinadon
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan Larson View Post
I am having trouble interpreting the sentence, "Thaumatology is a prerequisite for any Path skill, and no Path skill can ever exceed either the caster’s
Thaumatology skill or (12 + Magery level); theoretical knowledge is just as important as magical power." This is on page 32 of MH1:Champions.

Does this mean "no path skill can ever exceed max(Thaumatology skill, 12+Magery level)" or "no path skill can ever exceed min(Thaumatology skill, 12+Magery level)".

I suspect the latter interpretation is what is intended. If that is true, I would suggest rewriting this text, perhaps as follows.

Path skills require theoretical knowledge of magic, represented by Thaumatology skill, and inherent magical power, represented by Magery level. Theoretical knowledge is just as important as magical power. Accordingly, every Path skill of a caster must be less than or equal to the lower of Thaumatology skill and (12 + Magery level).
Not really necessary. Cannot exceed X is simply a shorter way to say less than or equal to X. It has exactly the same meaning, so it's more just a case of familiarity with its usage.
Dinadon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 06:20 AM   #4
Kuroshima
MIB
Pyramid Contributor
Mad Spaniard Rules Lawyer
 
Kuroshima's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The ASS of the world, mainly Valencia, Spain (Europe)
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

It's the later option, complicated by the fact that the default you get from Thaumatology can not exceed 12, forcing you to actually purchase the skills if you want more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster Hunters p.32
no Path skill can ever exceed either the caster’s
Thaumatology skill or (12 + Magery level)
(Emphasis in the original)

The sentence should be parsed as Path_skill<=min(Thaumatology,12+magery).

Note the italicized either word. It's what makes it turn from A OR B into A AND B. There's an implicit "whichever is lower".
__________________
Antoni Ten
MIB3119
My GURPs character sheet
My stuff on e23
Kuroshima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 08:30 AM   #5
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroshima View Post
It's the later option, complicated by the fact that the default you get from Thaumatology can not exceed 12, forcing you to actually purchase the skills if you want more.


(Emphasis in the original)

The sentence should be parsed as Path_skill<=min(Thaumatology,12+magery).

Note the italicized either word. It's what makes it turn from A OR B into A AND B. There's an implicit "whichever is lower".
O_o At most, (either x or y) constructs imply an exclusive or. I'm not sure why you're parsing 'either or' as an 'and'.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 08:36 AM   #6
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

"Can never exceed X or Y" very clearly means "Can never be (>X OR >Y)", which is the same as saying "Can never be >X AND Can never be >Y".
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 08:42 AM   #7
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
O_o At most, (either x or y) constructs imply an exclusive or. I'm not sure why you're parsing 'either or' as an 'and'.
as an exclusive or, the result is "either x or y can be the maximum, and we provide no guidance as to which to use", which is the result that means we can't determine the maximum. As a result, we have to reject the hypothesis that it's an exclusive or, and parse it the other way (which produces a sensible result).

English does use "either X or Y" in both ways - exclusive or inclusive - but it's an inherently ambiguous construct when used for an inclusive or. I personally prefer to avoid ambugity by using "and/or" instead of "or" for inclusive or, but I'm a programmer. Ambiguity in statements meant to produce a true-false value makes me seriously uncomfortable. :P


To put it another way, if either can be a constraint on maximum skill value, then by definition both must be constraints on maximum skill value at the same time. The alternative requires significant additional verbage explaining which to use under what circumstances, which wasn't provided.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
A neglected GURPS blog
Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 08:54 AM   #8
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
as an exclusive or, the result is "either x or y can be the maximum, and we provide no guidance as to which to use", which is the result that means we can't determine the maximum. As a result, we have to reject the hypothesis that it's an exclusive or, and parse it the other way (which produces a sensible result).
Which is why I said 'at most', and didn't recommend this interpretation. But it is a more logical interpretation than treating 'or' as interchangeable with 'and'. It just seems absolutely inappropriate in context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
English does use "either X or Y" in both ways - exclusive or inclusive - but it's an inherently ambiguous construct when used for an inclusive or. I personally prefer to avoid ambugity by using "and/or" instead of "or" for inclusive or, but I'm a programmer. Ambiguity in statements meant to produce a true-false value makes me seriously uncomfortable. :P
So now that we agreed that a xor is totally inappropriate, let's expand the sentence:
Path cannot exceed either Thaumatology or Magery+12
is the same as
Either path cannot exceed Thaumatology or path cannot exceed Magery+12.
So, the following statement must return True for the character to be rules-legal:
((P<=T) || (P<=M+12))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
To put it another way, if either can be a constraint on maximum skill value, then by definition both must be constraints on maximum skill value at the same time. The alternative requires significant additional verbage explaining which to use under what circumstances, which wasn't provided.
Inclusive or makes perfect sense, just like many other prerequisites, e.g. Magery 1 or Empathy for Lend Energy. As I mentioned before, if we are to produce a prerequisite where
(P<=T) && (P<=M+12),
we should've said and instead of or.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
vicky_molokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 09:02 AM   #9
Johan Larson
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
"Can never exceed X or Y" very clearly means "Can never be (>X OR >Y)", which is the same as saying "Can never be >X AND Can never be >Y".
What is clear to you is not necessarily clear to everyone. Natural languages can be rather fuzzy, which is why computer programs are written in formally defined artificial languages, and legal documents are written in in a formalized dialect that people love to make fun of. Writers who are working in domains where formalisms are not available need to be very careful to avoid misinterpretation.

In particular, logical constructs such as AND, OR, and NOT often work a bit differently in natural languages than they do in logic class. They can even be ambiguous. For example, in the sentence "I like to eat apples and pears", the things I like to eat is the union of two sets, whereas in "I like my sex-partners young and female", the natural interpretation is an intersection, yet both sentences are using an "and".

With this ambiguity in mind, I think PK would be well advised to find some way of phrasing his rule that avoids use of a negated OR. NOT(a OR b) == NOT(a) AND NOT(b) is great set theory but can be confusing in natural English.
Johan Larson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2011, 10:07 AM   #10
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: confusing language in Monster Hunters 1

It actually seems pretty unambiguous to me. Consider the parallel construction, "no cow's high jump can exceed either 6 times its length or the current distance to the Moon."
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
monster hunters, ritual path magic

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 03:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.