Archery in this game kind of sucks.

[Prince Charon]

Originally Posted by brianfb

Yeah it is one of my beefs with the core books in general, the crunchy rules bits should have been written by a technical writer, every sentence must be clear and meaningful, the fluff part can be in casual English. This isn't the only rule we have found maddeningly unclear.

To be fair, GURPS is not the only system with that issue. Also, it can be hard sometimes to tell which part of a description is fluff and which is crunch.

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by brianfb

Yeah it is one of my beefs with the core books in general, the crunchy rules bits should have been written by a technical writer, every sentence must be clear and meaningful, the fluff part can be in casual English. This isn't the only rule we have found maddeningly unclear.

And yet I see technical documents, written by very good technical writers, that make sense to some people and not to others. And lawyers love arguing over the meaning of laws, apparently written by lawyers with the intent of being crystal clear and unambiguous.

Context is critical, and so defining the context always impacts the reading of the message, and defining the context without having 4 extra supplements of explanation is the issue.

This current query is a classic example of multiple people insisting that their reading is correct :-).

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Prince Charon

To be fair, GURPS is not the only system with that issue. Also, it can be hard sometimes to tell which part of a description is fluff and which is crunch.

A distinction between fluff and crunch is not mentioned anywhere within the rules, and so any such distinction is perforce an interpolation/opinion by readers. As such, no appeal to a distinction can be asserted on the basis of the rules themselves. Anyone who purports to make such a distinction is making a house rule.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

A distinction between fluff and crunch is not mentioned anywhere within the rules, and so any such distinction is perforce an interpolation/opinion by readers. As such, no appeal to a distinction can be asserted on the basis of the rules themselves. Anyone who purports to make such a distinction is making a house rule.

Which is why it's definitely a GURPS rule that unlike other men I don't give up (GURPS Thaumatology: Ritual Path Magic p. 4). :)

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by brianfb

Yeah it is one of my beefs with the core books in general, the crunchy rules bits should have been written by a technical writer, every sentence must be clear and meaningful, the fluff part can be in casual English. This isn't the only rule we have found maddeningly unclear.

I'm sorry you're having issues with this.

But do please keep in mind that a GURPS book is written by one or more authors, often with some input from their gaming buddies. Then it goes through an editor, who suggests changes and rewriting for clarity. After being rewritten, then it goes to playtest, where several other people go through the book in great detail. Then it gets redone again for clarity. Then it goes through an editor or editors again. Then the author looks over it again.

And frankly, the above is simplifying things--there's more checking and rechecking than that. I've written for universities, Yahoo News, NBC Sports Network, etc., and I've never had anything go through nearly as much review as my first GURPS supplement.

Fortunately, if you do have a question about rules or other interpretation, you do have this forum.

It might help to remember that the second most important rule in GURPS is "The GM makes the final decision." The most important rule (as pointed out to me by "Mook" Wilson), is "Have fun!"

[the_matrix_walker]

Originally Posted by brianfb

Yeah it is one of my beefs with the core books in general, the crunchy rules bits should have been written by a technical writer, every sentence must be clear and meaningful, the fluff part can be in casual English. This isn't the only rule we have found maddeningly unclear.

You betcha. Right there with you buddy. I'm not a fan of extraneous fluff outside of world books, and it really has very little place in a system that's supposed to be generic and universal. I would be thrilled if they started separating out fluff descriptions into their own entry/paragraph distinct from the relevant information (Crunch). Fifth edition goals...

[Eric Funk]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Telescopic vision works like a telescopic sight (without the Acc cap; but this is probably an oversight).

The cap to a peron's Telescopic Vision Bonus is their current level of the Advantage and the fact it takes as many seconds to gain cet Bonus... (B92) : )

EDIT: And also capped by the Acc of the weapon (B364)

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Witchking

It is the whole No 'I' in team thing. For the group to work well usually the players commit to putting the team first.

'Sure today may not be my star turn but next time out...'

I'm reminded of a multiplayer arena shooter I was playing for a while. My stats in one particular round:

Kills: 0
Damage done: 0
Shots fired: 0
Heals: (don't remember the actual number, but it was high)
Revives: (ditto)
XP: (highest on the team by a wide margin)

I don't know if the game's designers deliberately did that to encourage healing, or if they just didn't expect anyone to be so dedicated to it.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by brianfb

Ok I’m convinced. My group has been doing that wrong for ten years, bow guy is gonna be sad. That really is worded terribly lol

A person is squinting to read a far away sign.
“What are you doing?”
“Aiming.”

That’s just special.

We'll, imagine that you're looking through a rifle scope to read a distant sign. That's pretty much an identical action to aiming, with the exception that you aren't following it with a shot (unless you're in Texas, where shooting road signs is mandatory).

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Eric Funk

EDIT: And also capped by the Acc of the weapon (B364)

It doesn't actually say that, you are inferring it, which was my point.

The rules for telescopic vision and for optics are identical except telescopic vision's acc bonus is not expressly limited by the Acc of the weapon.