Hehe. Yeah, along those lines… it's just hard to imagine when you'd *need* PPP on your heavy milspec, nevermind how you even got milsepc in the first place. I certainly thing SR in more fun closer to the street level than the elite military level.

Because the Bear Suit is yesterdays business . .

Some ppl's idea of fun is to be at street level carrying elite military gear, though... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

have you seen Jin-Roh?

True, snowRaven, but they're *them*. I think we can mathematically prove that's only fun for the first 3 seconds: power creep hurts everyone.

In other news, I managed to spell 'think SR is more fun' as "thing SR in more fun". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Oh yes. Definately *them*!

I almost cried when I read that, the semi-colon is so misunderstood I'm glad someone else knows how it is supposed to work.


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif)

















I was obviously doing something wrong to get the error, but...what.

This.

Again.

I really have to laugh about all that talk about semicolons making the parts entirely seperate (like they were completely unrelated in every possible way), when they are merged together by the word following right after the semicolon (and the encumbrance part is also in the part following the semicolon, anyways, by reference). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Bye
Thanee

Well, it is prohibited purely for balance reasons.

Bye
Thanee

Dumpshock Forums: Syntactics and Punctuation Discussion

The thing about RPG writing is that it's not like just regular day-to-day writing. There are certain expectations and internal structures, assumptions that are present. One of these being that once a general rule or definition has been established, it takes precedent unless specifically altered by an exception. It's a bit like programming, really.

There are some items that are noted as being not considered separate armor for purposes of encumbrance, unlike rules-standard armors.

At this point an exception has been created. They are "not separate armor" for this specific purpose. Under RPG writing structures, it does not HAVE to "specifically say that is the only way they are not armor", because you automatically fall back to the general rules for all other purposes.

Mil-Spec armor forbidding the wearing of all other worn armor is an "other purpose". If PPP is supposed to be "not other worn armor" for wearing with Mil-Spec armor, it needs to be specifically stated as being so.

Essentially, you establish a state where something is true. If you want to have a specific case where it is not true, you need to clearly and explicitly call it out. State changes need to be clearly defined, not extrapolated and guessed at from other text.

The whole "PPP is considered part of the armor it's worn with so doesn't count as 'other armor' when worn with Mil-spec" is a reasonable extrapolation of the text. However, extrapolations are not RAW.



-k

It's not that reasonable, either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's *possible*.

And it is the same as 'normal' writing: 'for the purposes of encumbrance' does not imply for any other purposes in everyday communication, either. On the contrary, the fact that it's mentioned implies that it's the only purpose for which they're not *considered* separate.

Too bad I crapped all over grammar at the end of that post. I blame the nyquil and flu that's had me laid up the last couple of days and appears to be on track to ruin my weekend.



Eh, but it functionally does though. It's actually akin to a trick politicians like to use...forgive me for not remembering the proper name of this as it's been years since I was in a class for such, but the essence of it is where you stick to sentences side-by-side and allow people to assume that they are related, like
Republicans stood against this bill; I am a Republican.
Joining these sentences by way of a semicolon does not in any way change the meaning. These are actually two disjointed statements because even if the person saying this is a Republican and this person supported the bill in question, this sentence is still true. The lack of a conjunction or disjunction in the sentence leaves its meaning ambiguous. Reading the beginning of the second sentence as being more restrictive because of the leading "instead" is still a mistake because there's no indication that the cited example is the only, unique way it is different:
Frogs are not classified as birds; instead, these creatures have no feathers." (an awkward construction, I realize--but I also would have never written the original sentence in this form)
This statement does not imply that the only difference between frogs and birds is the presence of feathers, just maybe that an important difference between frogs and birds is the presence of feathers. By going any further, we find ourselves having to make assumptions, which takes us away from RAW and into RAI. The words themselves do us little help, especially considering the shifting of terminology with respect to what "armor", "separate armor", and "other armor" specifically means. Were the second sentence subordinated, or really any of these three phrases specifically defined or further clarified this would not be the case, but as is we've got to make assumptions to make an interpretation, which is RAI not RAW.

Balance, I don't think I actually believe in with a game like Shadowrun. Being rules consistent yeah, but balanced? Well...maybe just a different kind of balance, but that's probably a discussion for another time and place.


I actually agree with your overall point, but not your conclusion. My stance is that this internal consistency is not present at a precise enough degree to consider either interpretation not RAW. In rules, for conventions the likes of which you're referring, to be consistent the terminology must be used in a consistent manner. The modifiers "separate", "some", and "other" change the meaning of the term "armor" without doing so in a necessarily obvious manner. Moreover, "armor" itself is used in different senses. This isn't like Magic: The Gathering where you've got rigorously defined ruleswords, but one where we're forced to rely on context which we plainly do not have here.

thenightaflame - I like you.

OK, to all those forlornly clinging onto that darned semicolon as a reason to declare that helmets, shields, PPP and (according to some) FFBA are somehow not considered armour, a simple question:

Why does the description for Mil-Spec armour specifically mention that only a helmet can be combined with Mil-Spec armour?

If Mil-Spec armour cannot be used with other worn armour, and helmets, shields, PPP and FFBA are somehow "not armour", then the clause in the Mil-Spec armour description stating that only helmets can be worn with Mil-Spec armour is completely redundant.

With ever-present editorial considerations such as clarity (glitched often, obviously!) and word-count, the devs specifically expressed that helmets (and NOT "helmets and shields") could be worn with Mil-Spec armour.

Ergo, by RAW shields, PPP and FFBA are out.

(Side note: While common-sense would state that shields as a "held" item might stack with Mil-Spec, there is the in-game question as to why. Talk about bark being worse than bite, I have an insane picture in my head of a bad-ass soldier kitted out in mil-spec armour and riot shield with a pea-shooter of a heavy pistol in his free hand ... )

How often do you start (as in, having said nothing before it) to say something with "Instead..." ?

Bye
Thanee

Like I said, it says in the text that PPP is armor and that you wear it.

That alone should disqualify it for addition to milspec armor.

Well, that part doesn't fit with their interpretation, so it is fluff.

I'm not forlornly clinging to anything. To my mind the argument hinges on whether or not "armor" in the case of the milspec entry refers to the generalized "any item that provides x/y or +x/+y" or "any item that provides x/y". The items that act as armor modifiers are differentiated in the rules enough that the term "armor" is not clearly defined to the point where you can make a RAW determination.
Irrelevant. Trying to go down this path of reasoning is RAI, not RAW. With RAW, we can only look at specific usage in the rules and the grammar. Your post, as I was accused of earlier, making an extrapolation, which is not RAW. We might as well be asking why it did not say it could only be worn "by itself or with a helmet" and avoided all of this.

Except for the fact, it could have been made clear with a smaller number of words (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But again, your entire post is an attempt to seek out RAI, not RAW.


Quite frequently, although generally I immediately follow it with a prepositional phrase, but then again, I also use some pretty screwed up constructions too. In this respect, this is actually another example of how these sentences are poorly constructed for clarity.


I'm not saying it's not armor, just that it's not necessarily the same kind of armor as is referred to in the milspec, and we have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't as written.

If you pull back ever so slightly from the requirement of "as written" and allow just a little reasoning, I think that inferences can be made as to what is meant, but then that's still RAI and not RAW.

Since this board seemingly has a diverse group of nationalities, and by extension people who speak different languages: how are these rules handled in other language versions of the texts, just out of curiousity.

Also, under either interpretation (this debate's getting old and neither side will ever agree, just like basically any rules argument you ever come across), would it be possible for an elf to wear mil-spec, acquire a set of troll milspec, then get say, an air spirit to hold the troll milspec in place around (but not touching) himself?

And so, we're back to the actual point: there is no way of knowing if the RAW says they're armor or not, because the RAW simply doesn't say it. That's the absolute end of the RAW argument: no conclusion possible.

From that worthless endpoint, you go directly to RAI (nothing wrong with that): barring positive evidence that they're *not* armor, assume they are. Given that they're referred to as separate pieces of worn armor several times, it's just a slam dunk. You have to actively choose to believe that they're not.

Simple answer: it does not say that at all.



Since "are intended to" does not equal "can only," your argument falls apart. We also covered this a couple pages back.

What? No. 'Intended to' means *can be* used with a helmet. 'Cannot be combined with any other worn armor' is the part that adds up to 'can only'. You have to use both parts. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And, again, if you use both parts, you cannot wear helmets with MilSpec, under your interpretation. You can only wear helmets with MilSpec if helmets, like shields and PPP, are not considered "worn armor."

This is a very circular argument.

Not at all. One is an explicit exception, in the same paragraph. There's no reason to assume the writers were *that* bad. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And the equivalence of helmets, shields, and PPP for the purposes of 'other worn armor' is far from clear. They are only equivalent for the purposes of encumbrance. As before, I don't care if shields are allowed with milspec (I mean, seriously?), but there's ample reason to consider shields not-worn if you do. There is no problem: the helmet is okay, the shield is okay, and PPP isn't.