Grapple Houserule/possible clarification

[wyvern]

The use of the term 'wide margin' in IFV's quote does not seem to follow as the basis for an interpretation where each and every shift above the block value contributes benefits.

Then what would you interpret that second part to mean?  By your interpretation, it's just totally irrelevant garbage, as far as I can tell.


I think the difference in interpretations is this:

You're looking at it as "Well, I just made a strength 5 block, so his strength 4 block doesn't affect that because it's fewer shifts".  I.E. somehow your counterblock springs into existence fully-formed, and you don't even look at the existing block until your roll is already resolved.  This makes absolutely zero sense to me - it's like saying "Well, that wizard just put a wall in my path (four shift block against movement), but my athletics roll of 5 still lets me move five zones because I beat the block; the wall doesn't even slow me down."

Whereas I'm looking at it as "I'm trying to establish a block, but there's a block against that - I rolled a 5, which gives me a total of one shift of result, so my block strength is 1."

[Tedronai]

If we want to toss out biased comparisons, your interpretation is more along the lines of:
'Well, I've got a block against my opponent's attacks at 5 shifts, and a rolled 4 for defense, so his attack of accuracy 8 and weapon 3 inflicts no stress.'

[InFerrumVeritas]

@wyvern

What about YS230 where it lists a threshold acting as a block and as a suppressor as separate things.  If your interpretation were correct, the second listing wouldn't be necessary.  I'll admit that I'm reaching, but I'd be reaching to find evidence to support your side of the argument as well.  It seems that it is unclear (if it can indeed be read two different ways).

I really do wish that DFRPG were to have official errata every once in a while.

[Sanctaphrax]

Errata is for broken games like Exalted, not for vague ones like DFRPG.

In my opinion.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I see the reason behind this argument. wyvern is arguing that blocks and grapples are performed by default against a defence roll of 0, and that their strength comes from extra shifts. I don't think that this should be taken to be correct, because it's weird and it makes it nearly impossible to block through a block. Better to treat blocks like maneuvers, which just succeed or fail.

[theshrewedshrew]

Is this at the time of the grapple attempt, or is this on that players next turn?

[wyvern]

If we want to toss out biased comparisons, your interpretation is more along the lines of:
'Well, I've got a block against my opponent's attacks at 5 shifts, and a rolled 4 for defense, so his attack of accuracy 8 and weapon 3 inflicts no stress.'

How is that in any way a comparison here?  There is no defense roll involved; there is no double-dipping anywhere.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I see the reason behind this argument. wyvern is arguing that blocks and grapples are performed by default against a defence roll of 0, and that their strength comes from extra shifts. I don't think that this should be taken to be correct, because it's weird and it makes it nearly impossible to block through a block. Better to treat blocks like maneuvers, which just succeed or fail.

I disagree.  And as far as this making it "nearly impossible" - it makes it no harder or easier than doing anything else through a block.  A block is a block, and it does the same thing regardless of what type of action is opposing it - it reduces the number of shifts generated, or completely blocks the action if the shifts end up less than zero.  This is exactly the same thing that happens with any other action that's being opposed by a block - why should an attempt to counter-block get a special exemption?

Now, there is some wording saying that a GM can declare that certain actions aren't blocked by a grapple.  I could see a house rule being that attempts to grapple aren't blocked by a grapple - in which case what you'd end up with is person A is still grappled (block strength 4) and person B is now also grappled (block strength 5).  This would be an entirely legit-by-the-book houserule, but I don't see it as being the default state of affairs.

[wyvern]

@wyvern

What about YS230 where it lists a threshold acting as a block and as a suppressor as separate things.  If your interpretation were correct, the second listing wouldn't be necessary.  I'll admit that I'm reaching, but I'd be reaching to find evidence to support your side of the argument as well.  It seems that it is unclear (if it can indeed be read two different ways).

I really do wish that DFRPG were to have official errata every once in a while.

YS230 is interesting, in that - if you look at it - the second listing is actually mechanically very different from a block; the "suppressor" option seems to function like armor, reducing weapon rating before it affects accuracy of attacks, and having other non-standard effects subject to GM whim & negotiation with affected players.

I can totally agree with that wish; I actually went to look up blocks under the Spirit of the Century online rules, to see if anything was more clear there; no such luck.

[Tedronai]

How is that in any way a comparison here?  There is no defense roll involved; there is no double-dipping anywhere.

There's no movement roll, either, but you seemed to think that a valid comparison.
As to 'double-dipping' and defense rolls, the defense roll against a block is effectively whatever action that block blocks, so yes, there effectively is.

[UmbraLux]

If I've followed the debate correctly, Wyvern is almost correct.  The attacker has to beat the higher of the defender's defense roll or applicable block.  If he does, the difference between the two is the margin of success.  (See blocks on YS210 - the example with Harry veiling Molly makes it reasonably clear.)

So if A grapples B and succeeds enough to set up a block:4, B must beat 4, or A's defense roll if higher than 4, to reverse the grapple.  The reversed grapple's block value is B's Might result minus A's defense (higher of skill or block) just as the initial grapple's value was equal to A's Might roll minus B's defense roll.

Hopefully that's less confusing than it sounds when I read it back to myself.   :/

As for the OP's suggestion - I agree with Sanctaphrax's analysis.  The only difference from the rules is the lack of tagging an aspect.  Personally, I'd simply make declaring "He Grabbed Me!" trivially easy and keep the standard rules.  But either works. 

[wyvern]

There's no movement roll, either, but you seemed to think that a valid comparison.
As to 'double-dipping' and defense rolls, the defense roll against a block is effectively whatever action that block blocks, so yes, there effectively is.

The movement comparison was a simple example of "You take some action, with shifts X.  It is opposed by a block with shifts Y.  Result is action with total shifts = X-Y".

That said, I can finally see where you're coming from, from a game-mechanical perspective - the difference in interpretation, then, is that I don't see a block as something you "defend against", while you see it as an attack that's defended by whatever action the target takes.

And, if you require the guy trying to counter-grapple to have a tag on an aspect (and not just a well-duh "I'm being grappled by an octopus" declaration*) - then I could see using your interpretation.  Otherwise, it just makes the counter-grapple too powerful - the first guy spent an entire aspect tag, and all he gets out of it is to effectively give that free tag to an opponent?  No.

*Footnote: if someone was so foolish as to declare such an aspect in a game I was running, I would laugh maniacally, ask "are you sure you want to do that?" and then, if they proceeded, offer a compel to have them removed from the scene as they get dragged into the depths - because, well, they're being grappled by an octopus.  They just declared it, so it must be true, right?

[wyvern]

Actually, come to think of it, the ability to counter-grapple might make a good stunt; it's a two shift effect (i.e. an aspect tag equivalent) that applies to a limited situation - I'd probably name the stunt something like "Aikido Master" - since that's an art based on turning the aggressor's actions against them.

[Tedronai]

If I've followed the debate correctly, Wyvern is almost correct.  The attacker has to beat the higher of the defender's defense roll or applicable block.  If he does, the difference between the two is the margin of success.  (See blocks on YS210 - the example with Harry veiling Molly makes it reasonably clear.)

So if A grapples B and succeeds enough to set up a block:4, B must beat 4, or A's defense roll if higher than 4, to reverse the grapple.  The reversed grapple's block value is B's Might result minus A's defense (higher of skill or block) just as the initial grapple's value was equal to A's Might roll minus B's defense roll.

The problem, here, is that a grapple is not opposed by a defense roll.

Roll your Might skill (unless you have
a stunt that allows you to use another
skill). The result establishes the block
strength of the grapple.

To paraphrase, the strength of the grapple is determined by the roll of your Might skill.
Note the distinct absence of any 'minus the target's defense roll' or any other resisting numerical value, for that matter.
Blocks substitute for defense rolls or other resistance values if those values are lower than that of the block.
If there is no resistance to an action, blocks do not affect it.


The consequence, then, of implementing this interpretation is that the initial grappler gains a substantial persistent advantage, as the counter-grapple's value will be lowered by an unresisted block, which will in turn reduce the resistance to the counter-counter-grapple, etc.

[wyvern]

The problem, here, is that a grapple is not opposed by a defense roll.
To paraphrase, the strength of the grapple is determined by the roll of your Might skill.
Note the distinct absence of any 'minus the target's defense roll' or any other resisting numerical value, for that matter.
Blocks substitute for defense rolls or other resistance values if those values are lower than that of the block.
If there is no resistance to an action, blocks do not affect it.

Hey look!  Another difference of opinion - though I'd like to point out that you can totally establish a block against things that normally don't allow resistance or defense rolls, such as movement, perception, some sorts of declarations (say, using resources to block a would-be thief from declaring security flaws), and so on and so forth.  Again, I don't see a reason to treat blocks as being special things that get to ignore other blocks.*

The consequence, then, of implementing this interpretation is that the initial grappler gains a substantial persistent advantage, as the counter-grapple's value will be lowered by an unresisted block, which will in turn reduce the resistance to the counter-counter-grapple, etc.

Actually, it only gives an initial advantage, not a persistent one.  Which is fair, given that the initial grappler needed to spend an aspect tag.  You can easily see this if you compare two grapplers where, say, the initial one always gets 4, and the second one always gets 5 - over the course of a few exchanges, the one who is better will eventually entirely overcome that initial disadvantage.  This is much the same as a sprinter gaining an advantage from initiative - the guy who goes first gets an initial advantage, and may win a short race, but over several exchanges will be overtaken by someone who can just run faster.

*Footnote: though you totally can if you want to - the rules are quite clear that it's legit to say "blocks don't work against some things, as determined by the GM / Table" - so if you want to say that blocks don't block other blocks, ever, doing so is entirely RAW legal.

[Tedronai]

Hey look!  Another difference of opinion - though I'd like to point out that you can totally establish a block against things that normally don't allow resistance or defense rolls, such as movement, perception, some sorts of declarations (say, using resources to block a would-be thief from declaring security flaws), and so on and so forth.  Again, I don't see a reason to treat blocks as being special things that get to ignore other blocks.

All of those things that you listed as not having defense rolls DO have some form of minimum value to determine success, if not an (unrolled) resistance value (ex. zone borders for movement rolls).
The same is not true for blocks.

Actually, it only gives an initial advantage, not a persistent one.

The advantage in the first exchange perpetuates into subsequent exchanges.  In other words, it persists, or is persistent.

[Mr. Death]

I think the Stunt idea makes the most sense--think of it like Riposte. Make reversing the grapple an option when trying to break it, but only if you have that stunt. The grapplee might roll a 5 against the guy's 4 and only get a block of 1--or he might get lucky and roll an 8. Or the grappler might blow a roll to renew the block and the grapplee then sees an opportunity to break it and turn the tables.

Point being, if you roll just barely enough to break the grapple, you can just do that instead of creating your own weak block. If any of you guys have wrestled, this makes sense.