Grapple Houserule/possible clarification

[Sanctaphrax]

The problem is that a block with low strength is essentially nonexistent.

Also, blocks are never defended against under normal circumstances. They are established, then people try to break them. So where a block normally replaces a defence roll, against a block it creates one (the way you read the rules, at least).

This is a bit of a problem.

[UmbraLux]

The problem, here, is that a grapple is not opposed by a defense roll.

I see...and you're correct. 

The consequence, then, of implementing this interpretation is that the initial grappler gains a substantial persistent advantage, as the counter-grapple's value will be lowered by an unresisted block, which will in turn reduce the resistance to the counter-counter-grapple, etc.

Yep.  Looks like a good grappler is even more of a threat than I'd thought.  Hmm, that makes 'counter-maneuvering' immediately and removing aspects more important. 

Think I'll go make a Jujitsu Master NPC now...   

[Mr. Death]

The problem is that a block with low strength is essentially nonexistent.

That was kind of my point: The stunt would give the guy breaking the grapple options--if he rolls well, but not too well, he can elect to simply break the grapple entirely. If he rolls really well, or his opponent botches his own grapple roll, it'd be like in a wrestling match where someone's weight shifts just the right way, allowing the advantage to shift substantially. It happens quite often in wrestling (I mean, college/high school, not WWE).

Also, blocks are never defended against under normal circumstances. They are established, then people try to break them. So where a block normally replaces a defence roll, against a block it creates one (the way you read the rules, at least).

This is a bit of a problem.

I see it differently, and I think that's why the stunt is necessary. I mean, Riposte lets you reverse an attack, which is normally impossible, so why not reverse a grapple with a stunt?

[wyvern]

All of those things that you listed as not having defense rolls DO have some form of minimum value to determine success, if not an (unrolled) resistance value (ex. zone borders for movement rolls).
The same is not true for blocks.

Actually, if you're going to go that route, blocks also have a minimum value to determine success.  If you try to establish a block and roll zero or less - you fail.

The advantage in the first exchange perpetuates into subsequent exchanges.  In other words, it persists, or is persistent.

Again, different definitions in play - I look at the words "persistent advantage" and read "an advantage that is difficult to remove", rather than "an advantage that has effects in subsequent exchanges."  In fact, I would hold that any advantage that does not have any effect on subsequent exchanges, wasn't an advantage - such as the initial grappler under your interpretation, who is in fact penalized for his aspect tag (by allowing the counter-grapple to happen).

The problem is that a block with low strength is essentially nonexistent.

This depends on what you're blocking.  In the case of a grapple, in particular, even a low block strength can make a large difference - for an example from a game I was in, a mere strength 2 grapple caused a caster to fail to fully control a spell (because the block reduces the margin of success).  Likewise, a low strength block can hamper someone's attempts to flee, making it easier to catch up.

A good example here is two runners, a slow one who got a head start, and a fast one who's trying to catch the other.  The second one, each exchange, sprints to the zone the first one is in - and uses overflow to establish a block against further movement.  In a couple of exchanges, movement will no longer be an option for the slower one, and he'll have to face his pursuer, try some sort of clever maneuver, or otherwise find a way to make the situation stop being a straight race.  Low strength blocks are only useless if they're specifically against attacks and are too far below your normal defenses.

Also, blocks are never defended against under normal circumstances. They are established, then people try to break them. So where a block normally replaces a defence roll, against a block it creates one (the way you read the rules, at least).

This is a bit of a problem.

I don't see the problem - but if you do, see my previous statement on disallowing blocks to block blocks.  Doing so is RAW legal, just (imo) not RAW required.  But out of curiosity - suppose that you just took a consequence in combat, and you're fighting grapple-monster-of-doom - what sort of game mechanic would you use for taking action to try and prevent it from grabbing you?

[Tedronai]

so why not reverse a grapple with a stunt?

Because that's not impossible in the absence of a stunt?

Actually, if you're going to go that route, blocks *also* have a minimum value to determine success.  If you try to establish a block and roll zero or less - you fail.

A block of -1 prevents any affected action from succeeding on a roll of -2 or less.

Again, different definitions in play - I look at the words "persistent advantage" and read "an advantage that is difficult to remove", rather than "an advantage that has effects in subsequent exchanges."  In fact, I would hold that any advantage that does not have any effect on subsequent exchanges, wasn't an advantage - such as the initial grappler under your interpretation, who is in fact penalized for his aspect tag (by allowing the counter-grapple to happen).

A fragile aspect is not a persistent advantage, but a momentary one which may result in some other advantage in later exchanges.

The advantage you propose implementing propagates itself through subsequent exchanges (to diminishing degrees) while also making it easier to achieve other advantages which will persist or not just as those achieved through tagging a fragile aspect.

(because the block reduces the margin of success)

Please provide a quote to back this up.
Do not use an example involving an attack, movement, or the like that inherently is subject to a defense or resistance value which itself 'lowers the margin of success'.

what sort of game mechanic would you use for taking action to try and prevent it from grabbing you?

Choose a consequence that would not be a reasonable instigator of a grapple.

[Mr. Death]

I would argue it should need a stunt, because reversing a grapple isn't something you'd necessarily be able to pull off as easily as establishing one. Anyone can just wrap their arms around someone and hold tight, but it takes some skill and technique to not just break a hold but to turn it around on your opponent. Plus, as mentioned, to establish a grapple you're supposed to invoke or tag an aspect--having a stunt effectively takes the place of that.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Mr. Death: Wasn't talking to you. Sorry for the vagueness. For what it's worth, I like your idea. But I'd need to see the stunt actually written before passing judgement.

@wyvern: Nobody thinks that blocks can't block blocks. It's just that Tedronai and I think that a block which another block unsuccessfully attempts to block should be just as strong as it would have been if no blocking attempt had been made.

Essentially, my position is that a block does not derive its strength from extra shifts. It just has a strength equal to the roll made to create it.

Incidentally, your description of a grapple messing up a spellcaster sounds off to me. Could you elaborate?

[UmbraLux]

Essentially, my position is that a block does not derive its strength from extra shifts. It just has a strength equal to the roll made to create it.

Interesting.  The book does appear to support that position...though I really don't like what that does to play.

Incidentally, your description of a grapple messing up a spellcaster sounds off to me. Could you elaborate?

If you can block the Discipline roll you potentially force the caster to choose between backlash and fall out.  The first will may give the caster one or more consequences even if the spell allows escape while the second may reduce the spell to relative ineffectiveness...though the fall out may be interesting. 

[wyvern]

Hm.  Finally found one thing in YS that actually supports a position: the margin text on YS212.  Unfortunately, it does not support my position.  This has a number of effects that I really don't like:

1) it means that attack actions are special cookies that interact with blocks in very nonstandard ways - which is unfortunate, given that all of the obvious examples of blocks in the book are based off of attacks.
2) it means that weak blocks are in fact useless.
3) it means that using earth magic to put a wall in front of someone either stops them flat or has no effect.
4) it means that certain mechanically elegant solutions (like the two sprinters problem I listed a few posts back) simply don't work, and you're back to the problem of being totally unable to run someone down without GM fiat, as long as they can get at least two zones away every exchange.  (Or three or more if there are speed powers involved, but hopefully you see the point).

For these reasons, I will be houseruling my games to run with blocks actually, y'know, blocking things, instead of being simple pass-fail checks that then get ignored when determining effect of action.

And, to get back to the original topic: Given this, I would strongly suggest not houseruling in a countergrapple ability.  Allowing it as a stunt is fine; allowing it as a default action for everyone makes grappling a vastly riskier tactic.

[UmbraLux]

I'd add a fifth concern - it incentivizes blocks over attacks.  That may just be a personal concern though, I prefer a more action oriented game than one which starts by trying to set up the biggest block you possibly can. 

[Silverblaze]

I have found a seperate concern regarding grapples. They require a maneuver or aspect to use...which sort of balacnes them yes?  The problem is that if applying the aspect is successful, the fate points spent on it are lost even if the aspect is removed or grapple is broken...since the action was successful.  This makes grapples kinda risky in that regard. 

[wyvern]

Well, yes, that too - I'd probably lump that under "weak blocks are useless" - it means that, unless your character is built as a grappling monster of doom, you should probably avoid even trying to grapple, since the target can generally try to break out with whatever their best skill is - which will (unless they used that skill to attack) be no different than if you'd if you'd just burned a fate point to stand around and do nothing.

[Mr. Death]

That page only talks about him controlling the spell--it doesn't mean that the block wouldn't apply to the damage roll. It could be that if Harry rolls a 5 in that example, against the 5 block, he controls the spell perfectly, but the block still acts to block the attack, meaning the thug only takes the weapon stress.

And yeah, weak blocks are useless--and so are weak attacks. Or weak spells. It only makes sense to me that you'd typically try a tactic if you're good at it, so why should grappling be different?

@Mr. Death: Wasn't talking to you. Sorry for the vagueness. For what it's worth, I like your idea. But I'd need to see the stunt actually written before passing judgement.

How about:
Judo Master: You are a master of body position, and are good at turning your foe's tactics against him. When using Might to successfully break a grapple, you may perform a reversal and establish your own grapple equal in strength to the number of shifts gained when breaking the initial grapple.

[wyvern]

That page only talks about him controlling the spell--it doesn't mean that the block wouldn't apply to the damage roll. It could be that if Harry rolls a 5 in that example, against the 5 block, he controls the spell perfectly, but the block still acts to block the attack, meaning the thug only takes the weapon stress.

If the spell was an attack, maybe - but see "attacks are special cookies that interact in a unique manner with blocks."  And it's not clear that it would even then - after all, simply succeeding on the control check might be judged enough to break the grapple - at which point the spell would take full effect.

And yeah, weak blocks are useless--and so are weak attacks. Or weak spells. It only makes sense to me that you'd typically try a tactic if you're good at it, so why should grappling be different?

Weak attacks can rack up stress that slowly whittles away an attacker - this is something I did recently, where I eventually just ran my opponent out of stress boxes entirely - we both had strong defenses, but I didn't have strong attacks.  Weak spells can set up maneuvers (eventually leading to strong spells) or whittle away at opponents with attacks.  Weak blocks just do nothing.  And personally, I'd really prefer a game system where you aren't limited to just the tactic you're best at, and where non-combat characters can still make small but useful contributions if they do end up in a fight.  Maneuvers are one option for this sort of thing.  I would prefer for blocks to be another.

[Vargo Teras]

3) it means that using earth magic to put a wall in front of someone either stops them flat or has no effect.

Wouldn't this be more creating a zone border, and less of a grapple-type block?