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

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Language can be funny like that. "Current" could mean "this editions' core rules" as easily as it could mean "the most current supplement on the subject." :-)

It can. But in context, it was used to mean 'the non-current stuff is non-applicable to the game-mechanical resolution of the discussed action'.
And this is why I get so up in arms to defend my Kromm-given right to bear MAs. ^_^

[Yako]

After following this rather interesting thread - and not having much to add to the basic topic than stating that I also do not really feel won over by technical grappling despite liking rule crunch in general, thus being most of all in vicky mookh's camp - I did want to invite more attention to the issue of the last few posts of grappling and concentration, and thus allowed myself to make the thread below:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...83#post1836483



I think it is a sufficiently important topic to have it specifically addressed, I would be happy if anyone interested in that discussion would have a look at it.


Otherwise...


Maybe it would be useful to make a "technical grappling to Basic Set / Martial Arts" conversion of some of the rules and ideas, I did in particular like that it had some input on telekinesis, grappling and the effect of being lifted into the air as I myself had been discussing it on here.

If I get to it, I may read Technical Grappling more thoroughly myself and make notes on any good concept or rule that can be added to the Basic Set approach to grappling.

I myself have used quite a bit of grappling in my time and I must say, unlike thing such as the slam rules (which indeed produce headaches on table and away from it), grappling did seem very workable to me, I rarely encountered any problem aside maybe from extreme cases only ever popping up in theory (human grappling dinosaur and imposing a dex penalty at all, regular contest pins being highly dependent on when you apply the "mutual reduction" of strength and such).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Yako

Maybe it would be useful to make a "technical grappling to Basic Set / Martial Arts" conversion of some of the rules and ideas, I did in particular like that it had some input on telekinesis, grappling and the effect of being lifted into the air as I myself had been discussing it on here.

If I get to it, I may read Technical Grappling more thoroughly myself and make notes on any good concept or rule that can be added to the Basic Set approach to grappling.

I myself have used quite a bit of grappling in my time and I must say, unlike thing such as the slam rules (which indeed produce headaches on table and away from it), grappling did seem very workable to me, I rarely encountered any problem aside maybe from extreme cases only ever popping up in theory (human grappling dinosaur and imposing a dex penalty at all, regular contest pins being highly dependent on when you apply the "mutual reduction" of strength and such).

That's an interesting direction of thought. The whole idea of finding ways to handle some of the events that TG started handling, but in a B+MA framework, using the components that B+MA uses and without rewriting the fundamental rules. E.g. with the human-vs-dinosaur thing, make the DX penalty smaller if the grapplee's ST exceeds that of the grappler by some amount, e.g. reduce the penalty by 1 for each full 25% of ST+LiftST that the grapplee has over the grappler.
Now, mutual reductions of ST in Regular Contests might require some reworking of 'when to' criteria, which slightly changes a fundamental mechanic, but that's probably the worst one that the approach will have to deal with.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It can. But in context, it was used to mean 'the non-current stuff is non-applicable to the game-mechanical resolution of the discussed action'.
And this is why I get so up in arms to defend my Kromm-given right to bear MAs. ^_^

I honestly read Icelander's post as the latter from my post. Maybe that's because I like to think the best of people.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I honestly read Icelander's post as the latter from my post. Maybe that's because I like to think the best of people.

By "the latter" I take it you mean the second of

"Current" could mean "this editions' core rules" as easily as it could mean "the most current supplement on the subject."

I actually wouldn't take it as either. I would take it as something like "the assumed standard set of rules for a given topic in the current edition of GURPS." Which, in point of fact, TG is not; as I understand it, it's quite explicitly presented as an alternative set of rules for players and GMs who want more detailed realism on this particular topic. I assumed that Icelander was thinking "This is such a tremendous improvement on the Basic Set that there's no reason anyone would ever actually use the Basic Set treatment again." But perhaps he did mean just to say "The most recently published material on the topic" and chose a phrasing that didn't convey that.

My basic position is kind of a "third force" one. I don't find the Basic Set rules satisfactory; I don't have a clear visualization of what exactly is being done in each of the described moves, or of how they flow together, and I'd like to understand it better. But the prospect of having to do bookkeeping for one more set of variable points during a combat scene, especially if it's not just points for the whole character but points for each body segment, is just impossibly daunting. What I'd really like is a systematic treatment of grappling combat that opens out what's in the Basic Set into something I could use with better understanding. Unfortunately I'm not the right person to do this, both because I have no relevant experience, and because I'm not far enough along in figuring out the material even to be able to formulate specific questions.

Bill Stoddard

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by whswhs

By "the latter" I take it you mean the second of

That's what I understand the word means, yes. :-)

Originally Posted by whswhs

I actually wouldn't take it as either. I would take it as something like "the assumed standard set of rules for a given topic in the current edition of GURPS." Which, in point of fact, TG is not; as I understand it, it's quite explicitly presented as an alternative set of rules for players and GMs who want more detailed realism on this particular topic. I assumed that Icelander was thinking "This is such a tremendous improvement on the Basic Set that there's no reason anyone would ever actually use the Basic Set treatment again." But perhaps he did mean just to say "The most recently published material on the topic" and chose a phrasing that didn't convey that.

I didn't say the "assumed standard," Bill. I said "the most current supplement" using the literal meaning of current, as in "this is what has come out last on the subject."

Originally Posted by whswhs

My basic position is kind of a "third force" one. I don't find the Basic Set rules satisfactory; I don't have a clear visualization of what exactly is being done in each of the described moves, or of how they flow together, and I'd like to understand it better. But the prospect of having to do bookkeeping for one more set of variable points during a combat scene, especially if it's not just points for the whole character but points for each body segment, is just impossibly daunting. What I'd really like is a systematic treatment of grappling combat that opens out what's in the Basic Set into something I could use with better understanding. Unfortunately I'm not the right person to do this, both because I have no relevant experience, and because I'm not far enough along in figuring out the material even to be able to formulate specific questions.

You do realize you don't need to actually use TG to get a understanding of what grappling means, right? It's a more unified system - but it's also a treatise on the subject boiled down into simplified terms. As for tracking other things in combat, do you use Energy Reserves in your campaign? That's not in the basic set and adds another layer of complexity. Control Points are just as simple in my experience.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

That's what I understand the word means, yes.

The post I was responding to did not actually quote the earlier post that I quoted subsequently, so there was a possible ambiguity of reference here. In fact I originally read you as using "the latter" to mean Vicky's line about "the non-current stuff is non-applicable to the game-mechanical resolution of the discussed action," because I assume that "the latter" points backward to the closest set of words. Since we're talking about correct understanding of what was written, I thought I should clarify.

I didn't say the "assumed standard," Bill. I said "the most current supplement" using the literal meaning of current, as in "this is what has come out last on the subject."

Of course you didn't say it. When I wrote that "I actually wouldn't take it as either," I was explicitly saying that my understanding was not one of your two interpretations. In context,it seems to me the most natural interpretation of "current" and it was certainly the one that first occurred to me.

You do realize you don't need to actually use TG to get a understanding of what grappling means, right? It's a more unified system - but it's also a treatise on the subject boiled down into simplified terms. As for tracking other things in combat, do you use Energy Reserves in your campaign? That's not in the basic set and adds another layer of complexity. Control Points are just as simple in my experience.

I'm not sure what you're recommending here. Are you proposing that I should buy TG, not to use it, but simply to read its analysis of how grappling works?

In point of fact, I don't often use energy reserves, or even fatigue points; keeping track of them is just too much bother and seldom dramatically interesting. But I'd also say that CP seem to me, as they've been described, to be substantially more complication than FP. You have one FP score per character; but it sounds as if you have to have a separate CP score for the head, for each arm, for each leg, for the torso, and perhaps for other body segments. And I'd also point out that even if I did use FP/ER, which is two scores to track for each character, I wouldn't necessarily want to go from two to three. There are issues of increasing costs and diminishing returns.

Bill Stoddard

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The post I was responding to did not actually quote the earlier post that I quoted subsequently, so there was a possible ambiguity of reference here. In fact I originally read you as using "the latter" to mean Vicky's line about "the non-current stuff is non-applicable to the game-mechanical resolution of the discussed action," because I assume that "the latter" points backward to the closest set of words. Since we're talking about correct understanding of what was written, I thought I should clarify.

Ok. Makes sense.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Of course you didn't say it. When I wrote that "I actually wouldn't take it as either," I was explicitly saying that my understanding was not one of your two interpretations. In context,it seems to me the most natural interpretation of "current" and it was certainly the one that first occurred to me.

Whereas I thought of it as "the most recent supplement dealing with the subject." It's just different views here, I guess.

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not sure what you're recommending here. Are you proposing that I should buy TG, not to use it, but simply to read its analysis of how grappling works?

Well, if you have the spare income - sure. You said you weren't familiar with the subject and Doug, well...is. It comes across in his writing. I have no formal training in hand to hand, but I could relate my experiences with his work in a way that gave me a damn good idea of how grappling works. Just like you are considered an expert on philosophy, history and so on, Doug is considered an expert on fighting, bows, etc. I trust your opinion on the subjects your knowledgeable on as much as I trust his in his areas. Basically, Bill, Doug knows what he's talking about, and if you want an insight into how grappling works I suggest you buy his book.

Originally Posted by whswhs

In point of fact, I don't often use energy reserves, or even fatigue points; keeping track of them is just too much bother and seldom dramatically interesting. But I'd also say that CP seem to me, as they've been described, to be substantially more complication than FP. You have one FP score per character; but it sounds as if you have to have a separate CP score for the head, for each arm, for each leg, for the torso, and perhaps for other body segments. And I'd also point out that even if I did use FP/ER, which is two scores to track for each character, I wouldn't necessarily want to go from two to three. There are issues of increasing costs and diminishing returns.

The fact that you don't use FP often says to me that combats must be a ton easier/quicker. I keep track of everything, especially back to back fights or low FP thanks to starvation, missed sleep, and so on. FP Thresholds can make a combat more difficult than it otherwise would be. I also will happily admit that Control Points can (over)complicate things if you're not careful, and it certainly can be too much for some GMs. But, like all things GURPS it can offer the detail some folks want. I also cheat by using an Excel spreadsheet, just like I cheat using a calculator for calculate using cube roots. Sure, I could do it by hand, but that is not fun (mostly) and slows down gameplay. It's the same reason use Excel for tracking combat (or a pad and pencil) when I could do it in my head. I'm all for keeping a game moving and the GM (and players) happy.

[Gigermann]

Originally Posted by whswhs

You have one FP score per character; but it sounds as if you have to have a separate CP score for the head, for each arm, for each leg, for the torso, and perhaps for other body segments.

Just a point of correction: there's no need to keep score on (FREX) the arm unless someone actually grabs it—just like damage. Also, like damage, you could just ignore the limbs as a separate entity.

Also, you don't need to purchase TG to learn what's in it, and how it might help in your own situation—you just discuss it with someone who has.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Gigermann

Also, you don't need to purchase TG to learn what's in it, and how it might help in your own situation—you just discuss it with someone who has.

Okay, explain to me how grappling works, at a conceptual level, step by step, and how each of the different moves fits in. By the Horse, I think I have been asking for nothing else for an entire thread. . . .

If you feel that you yourself understand it well enough to explain it, of course.

Bill Stoddard