Grapple Houserule/possible clarification

[InFerrumVeritas]

I've decided to add a houserule (or possibly a clarification) to the grapple rules that I'd like to vet on here before sending it out to the group:

The target of the grapple has the option to reverse the grapple.  They may roll Might against the strength of your block.  If the roll succeeds, the target is now blocked at your Might result and grappled.

I don't actually think this is a houserule, but find it easiest to describe it as such.  Basically, on YS211:

However, the target is not lacking in options when he gets grappled—he can still roll to attempt any action. If the target cannot beat the block strength of the grapple, it’s assumed that the grappler is still holding onto him, giving the grappler his entire set of supplementary options next round. If the target beats the grapple strength, however, the action succeeds. Additionally, if the action is something that could reasonably break the grapple—an attack, a spell, even a threatening look—the grapple is automatically “released.”

Emphasis mine.

So I see no reason why the target cannot attempt a grapple of its own.  I think this would break the grapple (as the opponent is now at a disadvantage).

As far as the appropriate aspect goes...well I see that as something which is a given if someone is grappling you, but could see a Fists, Alertness, etc. declaration being necessary.  I just probably wouldn't make the difficulty very high.

What do you guys think?

Also, I allow weapon ratings of certain weapons (knives, claws, etc) to apply to the single stress hit, but may require a declaration to justify it (like using a staff to strangle an opponent).

[Adin]

Like you said, i wouldn't call it a house rule so much as a clarification of the existing rules, but I like it!  There is no reason that reversing the grapple shouldn't be one of the stated options for the one being grappled. 

[wyvern]

Hm.  I like it.  Definitely a houserule if you don't require a declaration - and, er, I don't think a declaration is really appropriate here (unless, say, you can declare that they're trying to use a joint lock all unknowing that you've got extra joints you shouldn't have...)

Just keep in mind: a grapple is still a block.  So if they establish a grapple at 4 shifts, and you beat that with a 5 shift counter-grapple - they're only grappled at 1 shift of effect.

[Tedronai]

Just keep in mind: a grapple is still a block.  So if they establish a grapple at 4 shifts, and you beat that with a 5 shift counter-grapple - they're only grappled at 1 shift of effect.

No.  A block is not armour.  It provides a minimum level of defense/resistance, but does not stack with 'active' defenses such as subsequent opposed rolls.

[InFerrumVeritas]

No.  A block is not armour.  It provides a minimum level of defense/resistance, but does not stack with 'active' defenses such as subsequent opposed rolls.

This.

[computerking]

Does anyone else think it's odd that the grapple rules don't mention a specific roll to begin a grapple, only that an Aspect needs to be tagged?

Are GM's supposed to run grapples that way: Tag an apropriate aspect, then roll Might to see the block level?

If so, than reversing a grapple means establishing an appropriate taggable aspect (Even a fragile one), then tagging it, right?

[Sanctaphrax]

The only houserule I see here is removing the aspect-invocation requirement for grappling people who are already grappling you.

Which sounds reasonable enough to me.

[InFerrumVeritas]

The only houserule I see here is removing the aspect-invocation requirement for grappling people who are already grappling you.

Which sounds reasonable enough to me.

I guess I mostly see not removing this as becoming a situation of:

"I roll Alertness to declare that the octopus is grappling me." 
"Okay, you have the aspect Grappled by Octopus."
"I tag it to initiate a grapple on it."

Or other similarly absurd declaration based lip-service and extra step that simply complicates the process.

[wyvern]

No.  A block is not armour.  It provides a minimum level of defense/resistance, but does not stack with 'active' defenses such as subsequent opposed rolls.

I agree with your second and third sentences, but fail to see how they are in any way relevant - neither armor nor active defenses are involved.  A block, very simply, prevents actions with fewer total shifts, or reduces (by the block strength) the effective shifts of an action that beats the block.

For example: You use a gun to lay down covering fire, establishing a four shift block against people trying to move out of some zone.  I decide to take a sprint action, and get five shifts on my athletics check.  End result: I get to move one zone (spending most of my effort vaulting over your line of fire), not five.  This does not break your block, however, and anyone else trying to move still needs to contend with there being a hail of bullets in the way.

Example Two: You grapple me, establishing a four shift block against everything.  I decide to attack you, and get five shifts on my fists roll.  Because this is an attack, you also get to roll defense - say you get a three on fists to defend.  Those three shifts don't stack with the block from your grapple - you take just the better result for your defense, which in this case is the four shift block.  I hit for one shift (plus any weapon rating I might have from, say, Claws, and minus any armor you might have).  This also breaks the grapple.

Example Three: You grapple me, establishing a four shift block against everything.  I decide to counter-grapple, and get five shifts on my might roll.  Because this is not an attack, there is no active defense - but my effort is still reduced by your block, resulting in a one-shift grapple on you.  This also breaks your grapple.

[Tedronai]

Your third example is wrong.
The result is a 5-shift grapple opposed by a minimum of 4 shifts (which, since it doesn't exceed the block, ultimately means nothing).

[InFerrumVeritas]

From YS210, emphasis mine:

If he meets or exceeds the block strength, the action resolves normally, with benefits for extra shifts if the roll beats the block strength by a wide margin.

To put it another way, the block provides a minimum level that an action must achieve to surpass it.  It isn't a reducing effect, that's what armor does. 

Attacks are a bad example because stress is calculated by the number of successful shifts. 

[wyvern]

From YS210, emphasis mine:

To put it another way, the block provides a minimum level that an action must achieve to surpass it.  It isn't a reducing effect, that's what armor does. 

Attacks are a bad example because stress is calculated by the number of successful shifts.

Your own quote doesn't support your opinion.  Look at the second half - "with benefits for extra shifts...", etc.  So, a maneuver that beats the block strength just succeeds - maneuvers don't benefit from extra shifts.  Blocks, attacks, and movement do - they're measured by the number of shifts you get, so those extra shifts matter.

[Tedronai]

Wyvern, perhaps you'd like to dig up a reference that supports your position?

[wyvern]

InFerrumVeritas already found the one quote that (I believe) supports my position.  Given that he posted it with the claim that it supports your position instead, I suspect we're at an impasse.

I haven't found (with admittedly only a few minutes spent searching) anything else that would support either of our opinions - the two examples in the book feature a block being broken by an attack (one of two instances where we agree on the mechanics), and a block being broken by a maneuver (or, technically, counter-maneuver - but in either case, it's a binary action that makes no use of the extra shifts, and thus the other case where we agree on the mechanics).

So - unless you can find anything that supports your opinion, I think this discussion is probably done.

[Tedronai]

The use of the term 'wide margin' in IFV's quote does not seem to follow as the basis for an interpretation where each and every shift above the block value contributes benefits.