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

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

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).

I'm sure you're aware of the hydra of threads spawning from time to time, all of which are trying to figure how those values correlate to real-world values. For 3e, we had Who's Who as a benchmark of attributes, reputations etc. But conversion of attributes between 3e and 4e is controversial, and so getting those benchmarks into 4e is shaky ground at best.

Your Last Gasp also seems like a move towards trying to get a cleaner correspondence of in-game and real-world endurance limits during combats, running etc.

That being said, things like Luck/Wildcard/Destiny Points are so metagame that they neither can nor need a RW-conversion, unlike e.g. ST/Basic Lift and other Attribute/Attribute-derived stuff.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Toptomcat

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.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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".

Speaking of effectiveness of arm locks and other grappling techniques:
I'm highly suspicious not of the fact that arm locks got nerfed, but how and when they got nerfed:
There was 3e. Then came 4e. Arm Lock kept its +4 to Resist Breaking Free. Kept the cumulative -1 to break free. Kept the -4 to defences (which is twice the usual penalty for being grappled, quadruple for Dodge). Kept the ability to use on a Parry. Kept the passive nature of damage-infliction that doesn't require you to spend actions to maintain it. Martial Arts came, and didn't change that, and even allowed arm locks with one hand (albeit without this +4 to hold and the cumulative -1 to break free).
When people asked questions about the total +9 to resist breaking free when using two hands, the officials said something along the lines of 'Arm Locks are terrifying IRL, game mechanics working as intended, not a bug'.

And then came TG. Which removed all of the aforementioned special effects from Arm Lock. And then added the fact that doing damage with it always weakens your grip. And then added the fact that if you fail an Active Defence against someone's attempt to break free out of the arm lock, then the limb is no longer locked, even if you still have over 9000 CP against said limb (and this makes Committed Attack and All-Out Attacks an even bigger no-no than before, because bye-bye Active Defences, which are required to prevent the target from breaking free in TG).

That's a very sharp turn, totally out of the blue. It would be understandable if arm locks were being nerfed gradually over the course of Basic Set -> MA -> FCCS -> TG. But that was not the case.

Similar thing about the mutuality of grapples: back in the day, officials pointed out that if A got a hold of B's body, that doesn't realistically mean that B got hold of A's body. That if A grappled B, then A enjoys free groin targets on Knee Strikes, but B doesn't. Such as this post (one of the easier to find):

Originally Posted by Kromm

It seems that RPK got to this before I did . . .

I'll just underline that in GURPS, each fighter is responsible for his own grapple. Grapples are not egalitarian or reflexive. While the real-world situation is overwhelmingly that as soon as A grapples B, B grapples A right back, GURPS doesn't force you to do this. For all intents and purposes, if A grapples B and B doesn't grapple back, A "has position," is in control, and is assumed to have any of several holds that, while not fight-ending submissions, are definitely advantageous.

Thus, until B grapples back, A has every advantage over B. In particular, A has no penalties, and can in fact use Knee Strike more effectively and escalate his grapple into an attempt at a takedown, pin, lock, etc.; his sole difficulty is that he must relinquish his grapple to use his hands or to retreat. Whereas B is at -4 to DX; at -2 to Block or Parry, and at -1 to Dodge; can't attack or defend with a grappled limb; can't retreat or use Acrobatic Dodge; and gets no special treatment when throwing a Knee Strike or trying a grappling move.

Once B grapples back, A and B both can use Knee Strike more effectively; try to initiate a takedown, pin, lock, etc.; have -4 to DX; and suffer -2 to Block or Parry, and -1 to Dodge. Neither can attack or defend with a grappled limb, or retreat or use Acrobatic Dodge.

Consequently, it's to your advantage to be the one who grapples first. By initiating, you create a situation where your foe is at a penalty to return the favor. If he isn't very skilled, you can gain control early and dominate the fight. If he's skilled enough to absorb a -4, though, or just willing to make an All-Out Attack, then this advantage is only momentary. If he insists on not grappling back . . . well, that's his problem.

But now we have a 180° turn.

-----

I certainly don't want any approaches to be irresistible IWin buttons. But when something is presented and repeatedly defended as appropriate and realistically reliable, then suddenly gets nerfed down to the ground, that certainly doesn't look like a consisted and thought-through policy.
If something is overpowered, it's reasonable to expect it gradually toned down with relevant supplements, not reinforced several times then retroactively declared the enemy of the state and burned.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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.)

No, we tested something like the heavy critter. We even tested an iron golem that was super heavy but with ST 3 or something. That works OK, IIRC, although it does squeak hard around the edges, as any stupid design like that will. It's really only the reduction absurdity that you get when you slavishly apply rules meant for exciting adventuring concepts to picking up mice and then crying "foul!" that you run into issues.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

And then added the fact that if you fail an Active Defence against someone's attempt to break free out of the arm lock, then the limb is no longer locked, even if you still have over 9000 CP against said limb (and this makes Committed Attack and All-Out Attacks an even bigger no-no than before, because bye-bye Active Defences, which are required to prevent the target from breaking free in TG).

You need to stop misrepresenting the rules. If there are 9,000 CP against a regular person, they're -4,500 to ST and DX. They cannot roll, ergo they cannot escape. That's clearly stated. If your ST is 0 or less, the higher of DX or Skill less then 3, you may not take any actions at all.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm sure you're aware of the hydra of threads spawning from time to time, all of which are trying to figure how those values correlate to real-world values.

That's nice. They are metagame constructs - thanks for proving my point.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

You need to stop misrepresenting the rules. If there are 9,000 CP against a regular person, they're -4,500 to ST and DX. They cannot roll, ergo they cannot escape. That's clearly stated. If your ST is 0 or less, the higher of DX or Skill less then 3, you may not take any actions at all.

Note to self: avoid metaphors.
Actual point: the fact that the arm becomes no longer locked even if there are CP remaining against it is not a reduction of an overpowering bonus, it's a nerf into the ground out of the blue after three books (Basic, MA, FCCS).

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

That's nice. They are metagame constructs - thanks for proving my point.

Luck points are. Basic Lift, Move, and other secondaries/attributes aren't; we do not have metagame Estimated Massiveness Units, Combat Square Units, GURPS-o-turns of unidentified length, we use real-world pounds, yards, seconds etc. The fact that threads trying to benchmark the rest of the system exist is the proof that those aren't purely metagame traits like Destiny Points.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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!

Sorry, this doesn't follow. You can be free and away, or in close combat, or grappled for X CP with (-X/2) penalties to ST or DX, or arm locked on the L or R (you can't use your arm except to break free, and that at a penalty), or at ST 0 or less, DX or Skill less than 3, and unable to roll.

These impacts are all also easy to visualize. And if you say "an 8 CP grapple is about as effective as a regular GURPS grapple at -4 to DX" you have the only equivalency possible in something totally defined by game mechanics.

CP are an abstract quantification of control, like HP are an abstract quantification of damage. If you don't like them, that's fine - but they're a narrative aid, not a hindrance, because they allow wider variety of result than the standard rules. I state this having played the system over and over, and had play reports sent to me, and seen that the mechanic works for what it's designed to do.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Sorry, this doesn't follow. You can be free and away, or in close combat, or grappled for X CP with (-X/2) penalties to ST or DX, or arm locked on the L or R (you can't use your arm except to break free, and that at a penalty), or at ST 0 or less, DX or Skill less than 3, and unable to roll.

You can be in those states. No argument there.

[QUOTE=DouglasCole;1835743]These impacts are all also easy to visualize. And if you say "an 8 CP grapple is about as effective as a regular GURPS grapple at -4 to DX" you have the only equivalency possible in something totally defined by game mechanics.[quote]And this is what I find not to be so easy. I can easily visualise 'A is grappled by B', or, with some greater effort, 'A is in an arm lock from B' or 'A is pinned by B'. I can also convert back from descriptions into game effects, which would result in a grapple, mutual grapple, arm lock, pin etc. For a two-armed human, it seems borderline impossible to confuse a standard arm lock (both arms holding enemy arm in an 'awkward' position) with a standard pin (arms holding the torso, enemy pressed to the ground and immobilised); things get slightly more complicated with addition of full MA rules, but they're manageable.
I find it very hard, likely impossible, to visualise what does it means that 'A has 2 CP vs. B', and how it differs from 'A has 3 CP vs. B'. It's also very very hard, likely impossible, to take a look at a description or video of a grapple and figure how many CPs it has.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

CP are an abstract quantification of control, like HP are an abstract quantification of damage. If you don't like them, that's fine - but they're a narrative aid, not a hindrance, because they allow wider variety of result than the standard rules. I state this having played the system over and over, and had play reports sent to me, and seen that the mechanic works for what it's designed to do.

Yes, they are an abstract quantification, like HP. They're not a hindrance in the sense that they do not prohibit one to use as much narrative description as before. However, the usefulness of that narrative description for purposes of decision-making becomes lower, because now we have an abstract value that can't be figured out of a narrative description alone. They indeed give more variability, but the factors that modify the outcomes of this variability are such that they cannot be easily expressed narratively. That's what I'm trying to say. I don't know for sure, but it seems that whswhs has similar concerns {I hope you're reading this and can tell whether I understand your concerns correctly or not}.

When I hear the GM describe a combat with no numbers, I can usually make sense of what is happening; the missing bits of information are usually HP and Shock, and some other bits (FP is rarely used, though it sure will if choke holds come up).
With CP-based grappling, it becomes much much harder to understand nuances of the situation without switching back to numeric description.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I find it very hard, likely impossible, to visualise what does it means that 'A has 2 CP vs. B', and how it differs from 'A has 3 CP vs. B'.

And you have an easy time visualizing what -4 to DX means? As opposed to -1 to ST and DX with the examples you provide? You can't visualize that the low CP makes for a tenuous hold? OK.

It's also very very hard, likely impossible, to take a look at a description or video of a grapple and figure how many CPs it has.

It is very very hard, likely impossible, to look at all the varieties of grapples and come to the conclusion that -4 to DX is appropriate for all of them.

You're making the assertion that because all grapples are created equal in RAW, that is more easily described because you have no choices in how to describe it. TG provides a sliding scale, by design.

However, the usefulness of that narrative description for purposes of decision-making becomes lower, because now we have an abstract value that can't be figured out of a narrative description alone. They indeed give more variability, but the factors that modify the outcomes of this variability are such that they cannot be easily expressed narratively.

I find this line of thinking utterly unpersuasive. The narrative values allowed here by RAW are "grappled" and "not grappled." If you want to simplify narrative, then you can do so by saying a "weak grapple" is something like 4 CP (-2 to DX and ST), a "normal grapple" is 8 CP (-4 to DX and ST, slightly more impact than a RAW grapple) and a "dominating grapple" will be near the max allowed for a strong fighter, say 16 CP for -8 to ST and DX.

Combine this with facing and position, and you've got many more easily applied narrative tools to bring to bear from a video.

With CP-based grappling, it becomes much much harder to understand nuances of the situation without switching back to numeric description.

With CP you can have nuance at all. You are asserting nuance in the RAW case that simply isn't there.

This discussion has run into the ground, so I'm out.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

...
With CP-based grappling, it becomes much much harder to understand nuances of the situation without switching back to numeric description.

Sorry Douglas Cole has already answered but I just wanted to add I don't get this.

The numeric value is obviously a sliding scale of effect, and thus lends itself to quantifying the nuances of the situation. Certainly more so than the either/or binary state of RAW.

One of the usual criticism of increased detail is that we don't need the extra nuance, I don't think I've ever heard increased detail being a problem of removing nuance?