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

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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

Didn't you notice that I used the subjunctive mood? "If it became" is the standard verb form for expressing a false-to-fact supposition.

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.

(a) This sounds like the politician's fallacy:

The situation is bad. Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore we must do it.

Not every response to a bad situation is an improvement. Some make the situation worse, or create a situation that's bad in a different way.

(b) I'm not sure that I have ever complained about the published grappling rules. Can you cite a time when I have done so? If not, then your "people complain about the rules" doesn't seem to apply to me. . . .

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

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.

That requires me to spend money on it. My budget for buying new game books is limited; I spend it on books that I either definitely expect to use or find related to a subject that interests me. That forces me to decide not to look at some books, based on very limited knowledge, because the only way to gain more knowledge is to buy them.

Bill Stoddard

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gigermann

I made a spreadsheet to handle it, so it's no problem—I embrace the future

I use Excel to analyze occasional points of game design (I just used it to figure the linear regression of projectile attack bonuses on Dexterity in Superhero 2044). But I can't imagine ever using it in play. Partly because my only computer is a desktop (Apple portables are a bit costly for my budget) and partly because I truly don't get most of the uses people seem to make of spreadsheets.

Bill Stoddard

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by 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.

I thinks that's all fair, I use TG and AP, (and I use most of the GURPS:MA extras as well) but I tend not to use all at the same time not because I arbitrarily chose which one are on at any particular point but because there are not relevant to some combats and can be safely ignored.

However there is no getting around it do have to know all the systems before we sit down at the table.

But my combat tends to be low power so I'm not having to keep track of fancy powers, or really combat magic and psionics very often. Also at that level combat is pretty hazardous to the health so my players are tend to plan combat ahead of time and ambush etc as much as possible so I as GM tend to have a heads up of whats probably going to be useful for the next combat and can prepare mentally in advance.

I.e I'm not running a "you open the door and see (roll dice) 3 kobolds a manticore and a gelatinous cube" type of affair.

But finally I'm also a inveterate note taker, I use a acetate hex overlay on maps, I have combat sheets for combat and track CP and AP (and HP come to that). But I always have for decades so I guess my particular style is well suited to such things.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I use Excel to analyze occasional points of game design (I just used it to figure the linear regression of projectile attack bonuses on Dexterity in Superhero 2044). But I can't imagine ever using it in play. Partly because my only computer is a desktop (Apple portables are a bit costly for my budget) and partly because I truly don't get most of the uses people seem to make of spreadsheets.

Bill Stoddard

TBH I've tried an excel combat record sheet like the one described above but I tend to find a hand written one quicker. What I do have though is an excel table that calculates referred control when it come to grappling (which while it doesn't involve hard maths or anything is fiddly to track manually IMO because one change can have knock on effect).

Buts that's on a laptop that's sits on the table corner. (over here you can basically get free cheap lap top every two years when you renew you mobile contract).

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Buts that's on a laptop that's sits on the table corner. (over here you can basically get free cheap lap top every two years when you renew you mobile contract).

That would only interest me if it were running the Mac OS. I have a PC emulator running on this machine for professional purposes, but using it is really frustrating. I don't think I could endure having to use a Windows interface for everything.

Bill Stoddard

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That would only interest me if it were running the Mac OS. I have a PC emulator running on this machine for professional purposes, but using it is really frustrating. I don't think I could endure having to use a Windows interface for everything.

Bill Stoddard

Fair enough , TBH the lap top in question is really only used to surf the net, run excel and store PDFs (which are actually normally read on a tablet).

I've never cared either way about the OS (well barring the more annoying windows ones), but that's probably because I'm really never doing anything but the most absolutely basic things on a computer and I know nothing about computers!. The lap in question is actually still running Vista, which should tell you how old it is!

[Kallatari]

To answer the original post, I've been using a slightly modified version of Technical Grappling rules since I've ran with it during playtest. My variation basically gets rid of the ability to spend points, turning the control points into simple "grappling damage" rather than a currency to exchange for damage or skill bonus. That option has now actually appeared in a Pyramid article.

As to why I prefer TG. Two reasons that mostly boil down to personal preference as opposed to any real "must use" reasons.

First, I like that it has the flexibility to handle any situation if you put it through the test. I tried some of the more extreme and unlikely racial/ST/mass combinations during playtest, and it seemed to work fine. That really comes in handy in my kitchen sink/anything goes campaign. (Basically, it nerfs a munchkin ST 3 PC being able to Judo Throw a ST 20 giant because he has great skill). Also, I've found that it works great for the huge pile up of people in which everyone is grappling everyone... something Basic can't handle this, but TG does it well (although granted, hard to track).

Second, it view the rules as the "tie breaker rules" if you will. When one opponent seriously outclasses the other, I just go with Basic Set and get it over with (just like I sometimes speed up combat against mooks). It works well enough. When the two opponents are very close in skill or the outcome otherwise unpredictable, or if I want to promote drama/tension, then I prefer the details of TG as it rewards a good choice in tactics to win. Is that really needed? shrug, no more or less than any other non-grappling technique, but I use them as well.

One advantage that I have is that I've programmed the Technical Grappling and control points into my MapTools, so it keeps track of everything for me and automatically adjust the character's stats. I'm not sure how well I'd like it if I didn't have that.

Despite all of the above, I don't think any of my players care one way or the other. They're happy with whatever plays fast. I've internalized the TG rules enough now that it goes really quick, but it was a bumpy transition at first. They use it fine now, they understand the basics, and we just focus on playing.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That one's parallel evolution, by several people. I liked punch/kick/grapple/joint lock as my foursome, because you can throw with a grapple or motivate with a lock.

It certainly seems more generic-universal, but it also means huge point investments for someone who can both punch and kick, let alone is into MMA. If I were doing it, I would try to achieve a 2-way split (skullcracking vs. manhandling, like in Black Ops, but non-cinematic), and then use some sort perky system to unlock special benefits, such as an improved Retreat, ability to ignore Encumbrance, extra damage bonus (though it could just be a Technique instead) etc. But those are the details, and everyone would do it differently.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That seems a rather obvious results of "we're doing this Control Point thing, and have to integrate it with Basic and Martial Arts."

Yes, and my point is that Social Engineering managed to be the advanced rules for social stuff without adding Persuasion Points to track from turn to turn, even though social interaction is no less complicated than grappling IRL. Judging by the posts in this thread, the CP mechanic is the most controversial one in TG, but without CP, most of TG more-or-less falls apart. That's fair enough - CP can say 'I AM THE TG!' and be 100% right. But people who do not appreciate CP will and do at non-TG stuff as the desired ruleset.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That's good, because Peter and Sean's book is totally freaking awesome and I won't entertain for a moment more time (other than writing this sentence) that the books are somehow opposed to each other.

And TG is a totally freaking awesome book/PDF. It's just not for everyone. I sorta get awed by it the same way I am by EvE Online: it's a great concept, and I admire the people who do play it, but I prefer to do it at a distance, because trying to do it feels unfun, particularly as compared how fun those people find it.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

No. You grab the frickin' cat, and say "on my next turn, I pick him up."

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Anyone who makes you roll to pick up a mouse will be beaten to death with Peter Dell'Orto's DMG. And they'll deserve it. :-)

I can do GM Fiat with GURPS Lite alone. When I read the advanced and fiddly ruleset for GURPS, I hope they'll be generic-universal without me stepping in to overrule them.

BTW, it doesn't have to be a cat. It could be an enemy brick who got hit by a Shrinking affliction, or one who has Shrinking (with or without retention of full HP), or a Possessed GI Joe toy. So while my joke about a Depleted Uranium Dwarf is a joke, it's actually something that may happen in games. (Only half-joking: now I expect someone to post a claim that they're calling dibs on using one of these ideas in a campaign.)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by whswhs

use of a mechanic analogous to hit points or fatigue points to measure the effect of a grappling move, sounds like it's kind of the opposite of my preferred direction for mechanics, which is away from keeping track of artificially defined accounting variables. I don't even really like hit points, though so many games use them that I put up with them.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm afraid it still requires me to keep track of CP, which is the big thing I want to avoid. It's not only that they require accounting, though that does make them less appealing; it's also that they're a gaming abstraction that I can't relate to the physical world. I like my narrative to be founded on simulation rather than on game, as much as possible, if that makes any sense.

AFAIK Hit Points aren't even used in all game systems, so it's not like it's not doable to avoid them. It does requires a total combat and partial chargen system rewrite, though.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

True enough. Control Points are "hit points for grappling," an explicit analogy to the basic currency of injury and penetration for GURPS. So if you don't like keeping track of HP, you won't like keeping track of CP even more. For that, you will want to focus on the usual binary "grappled/not-grappled" switch that has given rise to grappling either not being used or a total "I win!" button as it can be in GURPS right now. CP are actually a strong narrative aid, but if you don't like them, you won't like the system.

Originally Posted by whswhs

What I'd like is a qualitative narrative aid that's not point-based. I have trouble visualizing what's going on in the standard GURPS rules, but adding numbers isn't going to help.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

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

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.

Hmm. Let's see if I understand this correctly:
Whswhs wants the 'status effects' to always be easily estimated from a purely non-systemic description. It's reasonably easy to interpret a description such as 'A grabbed the hand of B', look up the effect of being grappled (-4 DX, affecting Active Defenses, can't move away) and apply them; it's also easy to convert the game effect to a description. But 'A has 7 CP on B'? I have absolutely no idea how to describe it narratively in such a way to make it clear that A has neither 6 nor 8 CP on B; and I have no idea how to estimate the amount of CP on a given target based on a narrative description. In a way, Technical Natasha underscores it: you can say what CP values are rolled in a film, but it's mostly guessworks and estimates.

And yes, this happens with HP too, but that's a flaw of HP, not something to be admired. I've recently had trouble describing the narrative effects to a totally systemless player in such a way to make sure that he gets the right picture and performs the right actions. This was further complicated by the fact that he is medically much more knowledgeable than I am, so I was very worried of saying something absurd or being unable to answer a question that will be relevant to picking the right course of action for his character.

What Douglas Cole just called binary effects is indeed somewhat crude, but it's way clearer than CPs, narratively. A character can be free and away, or in close combat, or grappled, or also arm-locked on arm R or L, or pinned, or some combination of such effects. But they're all easy to visualise!

Originally Posted by whswhs

Just as a historical note, that thing about Dvorak keyboards is propaganda. I've read a historical study by two economists who looked into the actual records (it's in Daniel Spulber's anthology Famous Fables). The Wikipedia article gives a decent summary of the matter.

I picked Dvorak deliberately, specifically because some people say it's better, some say it isn't, but there definitely exists a percentage of people with a reluctance to try learning it and compare speeds. And there's a negative skill transition between B+MA and TG, because TG forces one to unlearn large chunks of what one learned during B and MA study.