Grapple Houserule/possible clarification

[wyvern]

I'm wondering if the choice of the "Grapple" term might not have been a great idea. The thing that comes to mind immediately is one guy wrapped around the other guy on the floor, but I don't think that image is really appropriate to the mechanic.

That's an interesting point.  Many of the pins and holds that one might normally think of as a grapple, are actually much better modeled in-game as the result of a concession or take-out.

[sinker]

Or a compel.

Even the example in the book sort of gives you the idea of a different kind of...close combat. A thug grapples Harry, and then attempts to create the aspect of "Pinned" or whatever. If Harry is grappled (again the image of Harry completely locked) then why does the thug need to pin him?

[Sanctaphrax]

I see no solid reason why it should be easier to shoot someone who's being grappled. If anything, it would be harder because you'd be likely to hit the grappler.

Also the mechanical fairness of having blocks affect defences is highly questionable.

Anyway, I don't think there's any such thing as a Might action specifically to break a grapple. The way I understand it, any action which could reasonably break a grapple does so if successful.

[Tedronai]

I didn't say they wouldn't get to roll defense, or that the defense would automatically fail, just that the grapple would reduce the defense (someone rolling at 7 to defend while under a 4 strength grapple would effectively be rolling from 3 instead).

Except that blocks don't ever do anything even comparable to this.  The mechanic you're looking for is called armour.

[Mr. Death]

Armor would defend the target from the attack, not lower the target's defense. Besides, I'm not in favor of that any more for the reasons pointed out--it's dicey at best when it comes to the rules as written. If/when it comes up in my game, I'll go with the 'tag/compel one of the aspects to keep them from rolling Athletics as defense' option.

@Sanctaphrax: That would be a great compel for the grappler, particularly if the grapplee manages to break the hold and roll a successful defense. That said, it doesn't have to be shooting: It could be one guy grabbing another, while a third kicks him in the nadgers.

And why couldn't you use Might to break out? They rolled Might to put you in it, you should logically be able to use Might to overpower the block. Look at the grappling example: Harry's action that last turn is Athletics, described just to squeeze out of the grapple, not any other action. Speaking, again, as a wrestler, just breaking yourself out of a hold is a worthwhile move in and of itself.

That said, the point of the stunt was that you could only establish the reversal if you were using Might to break out, because Might is what sets grapples in the first place.

As for the terminology, none of you guys have wrestled, have you? Grappling doesn't solely mean pinned to the ground. It could mean that the thug has just grabbed Harry's wrist and throat. Or has his arms pinned in a bearhug. "Grappling" just means grabbing the guy, there's dozens of different ways this could happen, not all of them having to put the guy on the ground first. Think of Metal Gear Solid. Any time you grab a guy in a choke hold is a grapple block without having him already on the ground.

[Tedronai]

Armor would defend the target from the attack, not lower the target's defense.

Armour is the mechanic that reduces an affected roll regardless of whether or not that roll exceeds the armour value.
A Block is the mechanic that stop an affected roll from succeeding if it fails to at least match the block value, and sets a bar from which additional success is measured (stress in excess of weapon values, etc).

And why couldn't you use Might to break out? They rolled Might to put you in it, you should logically be able to use Might to overpower the block. Look at the grappling example: Harry's action that last turn is Athletics, described just to squeeze out of the grapple, not any other action. Speaking, again, as a wrestler, just breaking yourself out of a hold is a worthwhile move in and of itself.

You CAN use Might to break out of a grapple.
For any action that would be affected by the block, if that action's roll exceeds the value of the block, the block is broken.

That said, the point of the stunt was that you could only establish the reversal if you were using Might to break out, because Might is what sets grapples in the first place.

No stunt is needed.
The only opportunity, by RAW, for such a stunt to 'allow' reverse grapples is by obviating the need for an aspect to be tagged/invoked representing the opportunity to engage in the grapple.  And given the likely ease with which a declaration could be made to satisfy that requirement, the usefulness of such a stunt is highly questionable.

[Mr. Death]

You CAN use Might to break out of a grapple.
For any action that would be affected by the block, if that action's roll exceeds the value of the block, the block is broken.

I know. I was responding to Sanctaphrax when he said, "Anyway, I don't think there's any such thing as a Might action specifically to break a grapple."

No stunt is needed.
The only opportunity, by RAW, for such a stunt to 'allow' reverse grapples is by obviating the need for an aspect to be tagged/invoked representing the opportunity to engage in the grapple.  And given the likely ease with which a declaration could be made to satisfy that requirement, the usefulness of such a stunt is highly questionable.

Not necessarily. "I'm being grappled," the example given before, isn't really an aspect that justifies you being able to reverse it on its own. It would take a lot of the bite out of the initial grappler's action and is, frankly, unrealistic unless you're a skilled grappler, which would be reflected in the stunt.

If someone tried that kind of declaration, I don't think a GM should allow that aspect alone to justify initiating a grapple. It'd be like, "So, your declaration is establishing that, as stated, he's got your arm pinned behind your back, and he's got his arm around your windpipe, and somehow this gives you enough of an advantage to put him in a grapple?"

If anything, without the stunt I'd rule you'd need to actually maneuver to create an aspect on the opponent giving you the opening to reverse the grapple on a later turn, which would mean you're breaking the grapple anyway by succeeding at the maneuvering roll. You could maybe guess/declare one of the target's aspects, like, "I roll Fists to declare he has SLOPPY TECHNIQUE," but otherwise, just declaring, in essence, that you're at a disadvantage shouldn't cut it.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Tedronai: I don't think it's sensible to balance against the assumption of Declarations. But even if you were to do so, any aspect that can be invoked to justify a grapple can be invoked to give +2 to a grapple roll. So the stunt remains useful.

@Mr. Death: I've wrestled a little, but not often and not well.

You can use Might to break a grapple, but I don't think that there is a such thing as a "break grapple" action. Breaking a grapple is a side effect of another action.

And my point about hitting your friend is that I see no reason to penalize the defence of the grappled. Depending on the narration, being grappled could hinder or help one's defence. So penalizing the defence of the grappled doesn't really make narrative or mechanical sense.

[Mr. Death]

There's nothing in the rulebooks saying that breaking the grapple is only the side effect of another action--and as I pointed out, in the book's example, Harry's action that breaks the grapple is only described as doing that: He's not sprinting to another zone, or putting a maneuver on his attacker, he's just using Athletics to slink out of the hold. It's like a counterspell--it's a very specific usage of the skill, but I see no reason it would be invalid.

And I can see plenty of narrative and mechanical reasons why a grapple would hinder someone's defense.

If someone's a speedster, and their bread and butter is acrobatically leaping and running about to avoid attacks with their Epic speed rating, then yes, someone grabbing him and holding him down really ought to keep them from leaping and running about to dodge.

Or if someone relies on their Superb Fists skills to parry and counter punches, it makes mechanical and narrative sense if someone grappling them and pinning their arms behind their back prevents them from using it.

Or if someone is a sword-and-board warrior, and your grapple is to grab onto their shield-arm and pin it at their side, that should prevent them from blocking with the shield.

It's honestly harder for me to imagine situations where being grappled would not affect someone's defense in some manner.

[GryMor]

If someone tried that kind of declaration, I don't think a GM should allow that aspect alone to justify initiating a grapple. It'd be like, "So, your declaration is establishing that, as stated, he's got your arm pinned behind your back, and he's got his arm around your windpipe, and somehow this gives you enough of an advantage to put him in a grapple?"

It's not establishing that you are at a disadvantage, it's establishing that you already have the close physical contact needed to establish a grapple, like the GRABBED aspect. The fact that your reversal has to breach the opponents grapple (and defense?) to have any chance of working is a rather significant disadvantage over the initial grapple that only had to overcome your defense.

Also, as a side note, I thought the aspect used to justify the grapple still gave the +2? The examples I've found in the book seem to indicate that.

[Mr. Death]

Being grabbed and grappled is a disadvantage. The whole point of grappling someone is to put them at a disadvantage. Just having "close contact" isn't, in my opinion, enough to justify setting a grapple. The aspect that helps initiate a grapple has to narratively justify the idea that you're grabbing and restraining someone. Just being close to one another wouldn't cut it, in my opinion, and if you're already being grabbed and restrained, as the target of a grapple, you're generally not going to be able to reverse it without particular training (the stunt), or if the other guy's sloppy (declaring "he has NO TECHNIQUE" instead of "We're close to one another").

And as I understand it, no, the tag just lets you establish the grapple, it doesn't give you the +2. And initiating the grapple doesn't have to get past your defense--there's no defense roll against a block; the block is established, and then you have to break it.

[computerking]

Just a thought, but perhaps using Might to attempt to break a Grapple is an attempt to place an aspect on yourself, like "Free and Clear", or on the grappler, like "Lifted off His Feet", representing using Might toward getting out of the grapple and having some positive outcome from it. Narratively you were trying to get out of the grapple, but in a Meta sense you're rolling an attempt to do something that represents your freedom from GrappleTown.

[sinker]

As for the terminology, none of you guys have wrestled, have you? Grappling doesn't solely mean pinned to the ground. It could mean that the thug has just grabbed Harry's wrist and throat. Or has his arms pinned in a bearhug. "Grappling" just means grabbing the guy, there's dozens of different ways this could happen, not all of them having to put the guy on the ground first. Think of Metal Gear Solid. Any time you grab a guy in a choke hold is a grapple block without having him already on the ground.

I find it odd that you have this view of grappling, and yet feel that a grapple should hinder a defense. My point was all about the fact that we're assuming that a grapple means complete and total control over the other person, when I would think it's considerably less effective. Like grabbing someone in general (not having them in a lock or similarly controlling position).

For example, I'm a thug and I grab some person by the wrist. They are grappled. They still have plenty of room to maneuver in though, considering the length of my arm, their arm and the fact that I'm probably not rooted to the ground.

If someone's a speedster, and their bread and butter is acrobatically leaping and running about to avoid attacks with their Epic speed rating, then yes, someone grabbing him and holding him down really ought to keep them from leaping and running about to dodge.

This is what I'm talking about. We should explore this exact example but in mechanical detail. I grapple this person on my action. I have a hold on them, but the assumption that they are instantly "held down" is a false one. During the next turn it does not effect their defense because they are free to maneuver, but not quite as much as they might normally be capable (no moving to other zones) because they are grabbed. On my next turn I use a supplemental action to put the aspect "Held down" or "Pinned" and I tag it for effect. Now it does effect their defense, mechanically because they are compelled, but also because the narrative states that they are "Held down."

There's nothing in the rulebooks saying that breaking the grapple is only the side effect of another action--and as I pointed out, in the book's example, Harry's action that breaks the grapple is only described as doing that: He's not sprinting to another zone, or putting a maneuver on his attacker, he's just using Athletics to slink out of the hold. It's like a counterspell--it's a very specific usage of the skill, but I see no reason it would be invalid.

If you look at the example Harry is actually counter-maneuvering to escape the grapple. He is using an athletics maneuver to remove the aspect "Pinned." Since the mechanical impact isn't as important they simply didn't focus on that fact. But since the person will likely already have the aspect used to initiate the grapple they would also be able to escape a grapple in such a manner. The only weirdness is if they used a fragile aspect. Then the grapple would actually be a little more difficult to get out of.

[Mr. Death]

I'm more or less in agreement with you on the first two bits, since I've abandoned the "grapple strength as block against defense" position. Yes, the initial grapple wouldn't affect the defense--the grappler would have to spend their supplemental action to really pin the guy down to actually do it. Though I'd argue that just grabbing a wrist might not be good enough for a grapple, but that sort of thing is probably left up to the strength of the rolls and how the GM and players narrate it (grabbing a wrist might be the result of a Fair grapple roll, while a Superb one might be a headlock, for example).

As for the last bit, I'll have to recheck the rule book, because I seem to be remembering it differently. That said, I still don't see why Might can't be used just to escape the grapple. Sure, you wouldn't get any other effect aside from that, but getting free of a grapple to start fresh is a viable move on its own. If just maneuvering to remove an aspect is a viable action (you take a full action just to remove a disadvantage), why using the skill used for grappling to break a grapple (taking a full action to remove yourself from a disadvantaged position) not?

Related question: What about a third party breaking the grapple? Say, in the book example, Billy Borden is there and decks the thug--does that break the grapple? Does Billy have to overcome the grapple's strength to break it (after all, it's a block specifically on Harry)?

And what about just really bad rolls? Say the thug in the example, with an apparent Might score of 3, rolls abysmally and ends up with a -1. That'd automatically break the grapple, right?

[Tedronai]

And what about just really bad rolls? Say the thug in the example, with an apparent Might score of 3, rolls abysmally and ends up with a -1. That'd automatically break the grapple, right?

No, it would not.  It would mean that the grapple almost guaranteed to be broken on the grapplee's turn (they could still roll a -2, after all), but the grappler would still be capable of taking their supplemental action to land some automatic stress, or place an automatic maneuver, etc (though doing so would lower the grapple's strength to an effective -2, further ensuring its short life expectancy)