[TG] A grapple is mutual?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by phayman53

Since technical grappling is a pdf resource that is easily updated, any chance we can get that as an official errata? I try not to have to remember too many house rules if possible...

It's not errata, because the rule is accurate and playable as written; it would be an update.

Honestly, what I would do in a different world is request to make and sell a new edition, updating the entire book mostly for STYLE (I'm a better writer now than when I originally wrote the book) and presentation format. Plus there are some simplifications and improvements that five years of play have suggested, we now have a Dungeon Fantasy game that could benefit from a unified grappling system, etc.

I'll take a look and see what Steven and Sean think, but honestly I doubt it's worth SJG's while for a book that sold maybe 500 copies total.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

If I grab you, and score (say) 4 CP, you're at -2 to DX, -1 to parries, and no penalty to dodge.

Now it's your turn, and your options are to either grapple a new hit location (at the usual "half" penalties), or add control to the thing grabbing you - you don't suffer location penalties to increase control on something you've already grabbed (see the note on p. 21 under Attack maneuver for that tidbit).

Cool, I use it as follows,

A grabs B's Torso with both hands.

B Grabs one of A's arms with both hands with no location penalty (as a prelude to a joint lock)

If A wants to specifically break free of B's grapple on his arm he'll have to disengage that arm from it's own gapple to A's torso, and attempt to break free (or maybe try and shift his grip and/or get more CPs and have enough to win the joint lock QC)





It's just the suggestion you just made seemingly removes Break free as a thing (why would you ever specifically do it when you can just grapple more and allocated the CP as either positive CPs for you or negative CPs for your opponent).
Which wouldn't matter apart for the fact that currently part of breaking free is that you have to disengage any location your trying to break free with which tends to automatically weaken your own Grapple.

I.e before If I wanted to break free of you grappling my arm which I'm using to grapple you, I have to stop using that arm to grapple you (thus reducing my grapple/CP on you)
But with your suggestion it would seem that I can now not only keep that arm grappling you but grapple more with it in order to break free of your grapple of it?

That said I always had the option to grapple more and try and get more CP and active control



Not saying this is a bad thing, but just checking that this is how it would work?
(I may have misread or miss applied it though)


That all said I do see how this suggestion fits in with CPs being a balance that shifts between grapplers

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

yeah. You can reduce their control without breaking all the way out. You can do this while slightly increasing your own control as well.

cool

cheers

TD

[phayman53]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

It's not errata, because the rule is accurate and playable as written; it would be an update.

Honestly, what I would do in a different world is request to make and sell a new edition, updating the entire book mostly for STYLE (I'm a better writer now than when I originally wrote the book) and presentation format. Plus there are some simplifications and improvements that five years of play have suggested, we now have a Dungeon Fantasy game that could benefit from a unified grappling system, etc.

I'll take a look and see what Steven and Sean think, but honestly I doubt it's worth SJG's while for a book that sold maybe 500 copies total.

Well, I would definitely welcome it. I really like TG, but I have only been able to run games with new players so far and it is just too complicated to introduce to them (in the same way, I love Action Points from "Last Gasp", but have not been able to use them yet). If there are options that could streamline it that you have come up with and tested, I would welcome having them in an official form.