Grapple Houserule/possible clarification

[Mr. Death]

Indeed, RAW does not allow this. An ambush isn't a block, it's an ambush.

A block is an action made to prevent someone from doing something, with the roll result being the difficulty the target has to overcome. An ambush starts with an action made to prevent someone from detecting you, with the Stealth roll result being the difficulty the target has to pass to overcome it. Sounds like a block to me.

PS: Why do you use the words "one last chance"? So far as I can tell, there's only one chance to oppose the block.

Mostly mirroring the wording of the Ambush rules, but I also meant that the roll to break the block would be in addition to the actual dodge roll (so you might roll to break the block with Might or Fists, then if successful use Athletics).

[Sanctaphrax]

There is no dodge roll against a block. Blocks don't work that way.

And while ambushes are similar to blocks, they are not the same thing. Lemons and limes are both citrus fruit, but one's a lemon and the other's a lime.

[sinker]

You make some interesting points Death, but it's not an interpretation of the rules that we're talking about, it's direct RAW.

When you create
a block, the block has to be specific and clear in
two ways: who it’s intended to affect, and what
types of action (attack, block, maneuver, move)
it’s trying to prevent. Generally speaking, if the
block can affect more than one person, it can
only prevent one type of action. If the block only
affects one person, it can prevent several types of
action—up to all of them—as context permits.
You can’t use a block to prevent someone from
making a defense roll.

[Mr. Death]

That passage is talking about preventing someone from rolling at all. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that it would lower what the roll is made from, not that it would stop you from rolling.

@Sanctaphrax: Where did I say anything about a dodge roll against a block?

[ways and means]

Sanctaphrax is right by the raw you can't block defences rolls, (though you could rules lawyer it by stating your blocking a skill, aka athletics whilst still leaving the target other options for defence).  Though I agree with you the main point of a grapple in media is either to knock the enemy unconscious (better done with a direct attack) or to hold them down for someone else to beat on (can't be done with the current rules) making the grapple rules a bit sub par in my opinion.

[Sanctaphrax]

Mostly mirroring the wording of the Ambush rules, but I also meant that the roll to break the block would be in addition to the actual dodge roll (so you might roll to break the block with Might or Fists, then if successful use Athletics).

Given that you said that you were mirroring the ambush rules, I assumed that you meant to allow two chances to defend. Because that's how ambushes work.

And given that no block can ever prevent a roll, I'm pretty sure that sinker is interpreting correctly. I'm prepared to reinterpret the word making to prove that may opinion is RAW if necessary.

[sinker]

Two things, firstly having someone defend at zero (I.E. without the benefit of their defense roll) is preventing a defense roll. I don't know how you could be more clear. If you are suggesting that they would still get a roll, but not the benefit of their skill then you're just making rules up (which isn't a bad thing, just isn't something you can stand on in a rules discussion), because nothing else does that (maybe a maneuver/invoke for effect, but that's not enumerated in the rules either).

Secondly if you read the earlier part of the passage (I included it intentionally) it states that a block must prevent an action. A defense is not an action, but is actually a part of the opponent's attack.

[Mr. Death]

If you are suggesting that they would still get a roll, but not the benefit of their skill then you're just making rules up (which isn't a bad thing, just isn't something you can stand on in a rules discussion), because nothing else does that (maybe a maneuver/invoke for effect, but that's not enumerated in the rules either).

Ambushes do exactly that, as I said.

Secondly if you read the earlier part of the passage (I included it intentionally) it states that a block must prevent an action. A defense is not an action, but is actually a part of the opponent's attack.

Alright, fair enough.

[ways and means]

You can block skills veils are a block vs alertness. They also happen to represent a block against a non-direct action (seeing).

[sinker]

Ambushes do exactly that, as I said.

Ahh, you're right, my apologies. Shows how often I use the ambush rules.

They also happen to represent a block against a non-direct action (seeing).

....Seeing is still an action taken on your part though. Strictly speaking you decide to roll perception (though we mitigate the necessity to roll constantly by having the GM tell us when it is pertinent), you do not decide to roll defense.

[ways and means]

Ahh, you're right, my apologies. Shows how often I use the ambush rules.

....Seeing is still an action taken on your part though. Strictly speaking you decide to roll perception (though we mitigate the necessity to roll constantly by having the GM tell us when it is pertinent), you do not decide to roll defense.

If that is the case then you can't choose not to defend which is just silly. Also seeing is mostly passive rather than an action ( you can do it without it taking up your turn or requiring a roll).

[sinker]

But it's actually the way it works. Think about it, your defense is necessary for an attack to be resolved. You can't determine stress dealt unless there is a number to compare the attack to. You can choose how you defend, or to defend at zero, but you can never choose not to defend.

[Orladdin]

But it's actually the way it works. Think about it, your defense is necessary for an attack to be resolved. You can't determine stress dealt unless there is a number to compare the attack to. You can choose how you defend, or to defend at zero, but you can never choose not to defend.

But your description is rather silly.  If I want to be hit, I should "not defend" against getting hit.

Let's say I'm an actor in one of those old-timey movies.  My costar throws a banana cream pie at me.  I want to be hit by it.  How would I do this if not for "not defending" myself?

I am going to offer no resistance to the outcome.

[sinker]

It's the way it's described in the book. A while back we had a discussion about this very same topic and I went looking for a description of defense. You want to know the only place it describes defending? Under attacks. Specifically under resolving attacks. You can't resolve an attack without a defense of some kind.

Let's say I'm an actor in one of those old-timey movies.  My costar throws a banana cream pie at me.  I want to be hit by it.  How would I do this if not for "not defending" myself?

You would choose to defend at zero. You still have to have a number to compare the attack to. Although if you want to get technical he's not attacking you. His goal isn't to cause you stress, it's to effect another target through comedy. You and he together are probably making unresisted maneuvers to increase the quality of the film.

[Mr. Death]

A better example for that would be one of those, "Give me a black eye so it doesn't look like I gave up without a fight," deals, like Mal talking to the bank guard at the start of Serenity.