Grappling - ruleset preferences and issues (Basic, Pyramid, MA, TG etc.)

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Can you visualize "-2 to ST and DX?"

Well, actually, no. I can apply it as a game mechanic, but I don't have a sense of the causation involved. And if all I'm being told is "you've taken this number of CP, so you're -2 to ST and DX," then the cause is a numerical abstraction that I can't relate to physical reality.

This is kind of important to me. I like GURPS in large part because it has a very strong agenda of "Everything is defined in terms of the physical world." We don't have game inches, we have yards; we don't have rounds or turns, we have seconds; we don't have an encumbrance score, we have pounds carried. In the same way, I found GURPS Vehicles a lot easier to make sense of than GURPS Spaceships, which I've given up on ever using.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gigermann

Could do it this way:
You have a Negligible (-0), Weak (-2), Moderate (-4), Strong (-6) Hold (#=penalty inflicted); and you could base it on the MoS of the Grappling Contest rather than a "damage" roll. Then you have a "narrative" on the surface, but under the hood, you're still using CPs.

And can I use the penalty in the grappled character's next turn, and then forget about it? Or do I have to account for its increases and decreases? Because that's the other problem: Too much accounting.

The thing is, I have no objection if others of you love CP and are eager to use them. But they're an alternative system. (If they became the standard system in a hypothetical GURPS 5/e it would be a reason for me not to buy or use it.) I don't get the impression that I'd like them, and I'm not prepared to spend money on buying a book that I think would be essentially useless without them. And there's no reason everyone has to use or like everything in GURPS.

Bill Stoddard

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Well, actually, no. I can apply it as a game mechanic, but I don't have a sense of the causation involved. And if all I'm being told is "you've taken this number of CP, so you're -2 to ST and DX," then the cause is a numerical abstraction that I can't relate to physical reality.

This is kind of important to me. I like GURPS in large part because it has a very strong agenda of "Everything is defined in terms of the physical world." We don't have game inches, we have yards; we don't have rounds or turns, we have seconds; we don't have an encumbrance score, we have pounds carried. In the same way, I found GURPS Vehicles a lot easier to make sense of than GURPS Spaceships, which I've given up on ever using.

Bill Stoddard

While true, we also have DX, IQ, HT, HP, FP, now CP, Character Points, movement points, plus Luck points, bonus points, and destiny points, just to name a few metagame concepts that really don't map to the real world terribly well. So I'll easily grant you your real-world analogs, but GURPS is and likely will always be chock full of metagame abstractions.

Control Points measure delayed injury or amount of restraint. They are a useful construct for measuring the exchange rate between restraint (which are represented game mechanically by penalties to ST and DX) and injury (which is why CP are actually in the same currency and on the same table as the thrust column of the size and speed/range table).

But I recognize that you're not looking to be persuaded or have the concepts explained. You don't like them, Sam I Am, and that's fine. :-)

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by whswhs

(If they became the standard system in a hypothetical GURPS 5/e it would be a reason for me not to buy or use it.) I don't get the impression that I'd like them, and I'm not prepared to spend money on buying a book that I think would be essentially useless without them.

What makes you think this is likely to ever happen? I'll be very surprised if GURPS ever has a 5th edition.

And there's no reason everyone has to use or like everything in GURPS.

Sure, but I do find it somewhat odd that people complain about the rules and then refuse to consider the published fix for the things they are complaining about.

[Toptomcat]

I'm a lifelong martial artist who's been grappling for years. I grapple three or four times a week, sometimes more. One of the things that attracted me to GURPS is the technical detail in its combat rules: I love the authentic-feeling fiddly bits it gives me to play with.

Technical Grappling is too much bother for me.

I recognize that Basic Set and GURPS MA grappling have some inaccuracies and rough spots: the unreasonable effectiveness of Arm Lock, odd edge cases involving low-ST, high SM creatures, the way everything resolves very quickly in real-world time terms, the generous treatment of Judo Throws and Arm Lock out of parries, the funky non-mutuality of grapples. Still, I found them good enough to play with, and the CP mechanic just seems like a fiddly bit too far for me.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Toptomcat

Technical Grappling is too much bother for me.

I recognize that Basic Set and GURPS MA grappling have some inaccuracies and rough spots: the unreasonable effectiveness of Arm Lock, odd edge cases involving low-ST, high SM creatures, the way everything resolves very quickly in real-world time terms, the generous treatment of Judo Throws and Arm Lock out of parries, the funky non-mutuality of grapples. Still, I found them good enough to play with, and the CP mechanic just seems like a fiddly bit too far for me.

The big problem that I have, that made me want to use Technical Grappling, is that with the normal rules any fighter or monster that is good at grappling is basically inescapable and a successful grab becomes an "I win button".

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Toptomcat

. . . the CP mechanic just seems like a fiddly bit too far for me.

That's a shame. It's no more complicated in mechanics than HP in terms of in-play use, and seems to address each of the issues you brought up with GURPS existing grappling rules.

But each person will make their own decision about what they like, though I do wish that those dismissing the book would do so having actually used it in play.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That's a shame. It's no more complicated in mechanics than HP in terms of in-play use, and seems to address each of the issues you brought up with GURPS existing grappling rules.

It not that it's more complicated it's just as fiddly and unfortunately fiddlyness unyieldingly is additive sot being just as fiddly makes using them together twice and unwealdly to handle and tract in play.

the more pools you have to keep track of in play the harder it is to use.

[Gigermann]

Originally Posted by whswhs

And can I use the penalty in the grappled character's next turn, and then forget about it? Or do I have to account for its increases and decreases? Because that's the other problem: Too much accounting.

I'm not necessarily trying to sway your opinion here—really, this is for the sake of someone who's on the fence that might read this.

If the problem is truly "narrative" then simply saying "you have a weak hold on his arm; he's at -2 to use it" is moreso than using numbers. No different than a standard "Affliction." If the player wants to improve that a step better, he makes an attempt, or if the opponent wants to decrease it, he makes the attempt. The idea here is to never see the numbers, and it's more descriptive than the binary "Grappled" result.

As far as too "fiddly" goes—what I've heard is that it "looks worse than it really is in play." That said, I don't think I could convince my players to let me use it straight up, though I do plan to use PdO's TG-Lite (CP-roll-only) method, and maybe "baby step" from there. I had concerns about all the ST calculations, but I made a spreadsheet to handle it, so it's no problem—I embrace the future :P

[johndallman]

I haven't played anything with TG. It looks as if it would be just fine for combats where there wasn't anything going on except grappling.

Adding it to a combat where there's also space constraints to be visualised, several opponents to keep track of, and ordinary melee and/or missile combat going on at the same time feels as if it pushes GURPS past the complexity that I can easily keep track of.

I have much the same feeling about Action Points. Both systems are doubtless fine if you've practiced a bit with them, and internalised them. However, neither addresses things where I'm perceiving a problem with the game, so I'm not strongly motivated to use a couple of game sessions on learning to use them.

Combat isn't the most important thing in the games I'm running or playing.