What's so Hard About Grappling?

[Skyscraper]

I think that the number of threads on grappling and content thereof are proof of the complexity of the rules in themselves (this thread included).

The question is not whether grappling rules are too complex to learn. Anyone can learn the grappling rules. The question is that grappling rules use a different ruleset than normal combat rules and since they are not used as often as the usual combat rules by most players, said most players do not remember them when they show up.

Also, grapple rules have unresolved issues that relate to natural attacks, as noted by other posters. This is a problem recognized by WotC, i'm not taking it out of my hat. For example, it is not specified in rules or errata whether it is the number of attacks as per BAB or as per number of natural attacks that would determine how many "actions" you can take while grappling.

So yes, these rules are uselessly complex for one thing, and include loopholes for another. And this is not the first thread where someone claims that they are simple, to degenerate into an endless argument that prooves yet again that they are complex.

Sky

 

[Jackelope King]

I actually don't mind grappling. I've got the rules down and I'm the one to guide my group through it most of the time. But I can still see that there are problems, since all of them understand how to perform other strange maneuvers. The problem with grappling has already been explained in this thread:

1. Too many steps. All other combat subsystems in d20 break down to "Attack Roll, Resolution Roll", where the attack roll lets you know if you hit, and the resolution roll lets you know how much damage you did or of the bad guy saved or if you tripped the bad guy or what have you. Grappling doesn't.

2. Too many exceptions. Especially when you throw monsters in on it, there are just too many weird conditions that only come into play in this one subsystem, and of course, very few of them follow the core d20 + modifier vs DC system.

3. Too terrifying. Couple the above moderate complexity with the fact that most of the time, someone being grappled isn't optimized for it, so the player doesn't know the rules when the giant tentacled beast starts grabbing his character. It's an "Oh no, oh no, what do I do?" moment. And then this "Oh no" moment is stretched out across several rolls (which the player is making blind, with only a faint idea if they're rolling well or poorly relative to the enemy), and usually ends with some ability that the player's never heard of before severely injuring the character. End result: "grappling is bad" becomes ingrained in the player's mind.

The solution? Figure out some way for grappling to follow similar rules to everything else. Call is "grab" instead of "grapple" if you have to, but make it work the same way as things players are familiar with so at least they'll know what they're doing when Grabby McTentacles comes lunging at their characters.

 

[Kosh]

Have any of you read the SWSE grappling rules? They are much simpler and more balanced. Our group used them, and we were able to fully understand them in a minute r so, and we never had to go back to the book to reference.

Even after playing 3.x since it came out, I still need to look up the rules for various special cases when grappling. Also, I often forget a step along the way unless I have the book out in front of me.

Our group most often forgets the part about moving into the defender's square. It's a huge part of the rules, and it changes the tactical situation. Also, I can't even remember now how larger creatures moving into smaller creatures' squares works.

In my opinion, the grappling rules have a lot of extra complexity that doesn't need to be there. I think SWSE did a good job streamlining grappling, and I hope 4e does the same.

 

[Celebrim]

I think that the number of threads on grappling and content thereof are proof of the complexity of the rules in themselves (this thread included).

The question is not whether grappling rules are too complex to learn. Anyone can learn the grappling rules. The question is that grappling rules use a different ruleset than normal combat rules and since they are not used as often as the usual combat rules by most players, said most players do not remember them when they show up.

No, the question isn't whether or not the grappling rules are complex. They are indeed complex, and no one denies it.

The question is are they too complex for what they do?

My answer to that is, "No." Yes, the grappling rules could be simpler. But, simpler rules would involve more abstraction, and most of the special case questions which make grappling actually complicated would not in fact go away. Or, if you could make them go away, the result would be something that didn't have alot of the features one would expect grappling to have.

I've seen several 'simplified' versions of the grappling rules. Not surprisingly none of them manage to capture the essence of grappling and do so with fewer rules. I mean, if simple was all you cared about you could just write - '+8 melee grapple (1d6)' - and reduce grappling entirely to flavor. No doubt some people would prefer that sort of streamlining. However, you can't claim that system is 'equivalent to the current system and also simpler' which is what I think most people want. Then when you really get to questioning them you find out that they aren't just upset at how complicated the rules are, but also the fact that they are so limiting.

They want rules that provide more detail and more options AND are also simplier and easier to remember.

I personally think that the existing rules are pretty good at what they do. They need some clarifying. They could be written in a manner that's easier to understand. They could use some minor tweaking. They probably need to handle some intuitive things that they don't. But the overall approach is generally correct.

I think the real solution is to offer a very streamlined set of rules for people that don't carry about simulation, and then some optional 'advanced rules' in a special section for people that want a stronger link between the mechanics and the fluff.

 

[mattcolville]

The issue is one of proportional complexity.

It's no good to say "I understand it" or even "it is comprehensible." The issue is; is it too complex for what it's trying to do?

Now, your opinion, "you" being any designer including me, doesn't really matter here if the people reject it. And with grapple I think its fair to say they have.

In Red Alert! the Star Trek disk game I worked on a million years ago, I made ramming A: difficult and B: more likely to screw them person doing the ramming. Because we didn't want it to be something people did. We even said so in the rules.

Grapple, effectively, does this but without being explicit. It's complexity and the likelihood of success (minimal if you're not a Super Grappler) means people, as a rule, just don't do it.

People want the game to be fun. Don't give them non-fun, pain-in-the-butt options unless you WANT to discourage them.

 

[Celebrim]

Grapple, effectively, does this but without being explicit. It's complexity and the likelihood of success (minimal if you're not a Super Grappler) means people, as a rule, just don't do it.

Is it that it is too effective, or is that it is not effective enough?

Should it be more effective than a sword, so that everyone drops thier swords and 'rassles the monsters? Should it be so ineffectual that only 200' tall tentacled horrors bother?

I hear alot of complaints about the system. People are clearly unhappy.

I see very few solutions people are going to be happy with.

 

[mattcolville]

Is it that it is too effective, or is that it is not effective enough?

Given how complex it is...that seems a loaded term, let's say "robust." Given how Robust it is, it would have to be very, very effective to motivate the players to wade through all the rules.

But that's not my main point. My main point is; it's so robust as to be discouraging. Most players don't want it to be so robust. They want it simpler, less detailed, less realistic, and more fun.

If you, as a designer, believe people should not be grappling, then the rules as written are fine. That's why I used the example I did. I didn't want people in Star Trek to consider the sacrifice of hundreds of lives to be a valid combat decision, so I discouraged players from doing it.

 

[billd91]

I find there aren't many ways to be prepared for grappling. Max STR, max Escape Artist, figure out a size modifier (Enlarge, etc), then get Freedom of Movement. There are a couple non-core feats, but that's a pretty limited set.

In other words, there's nothing you can do.

PS

It doesn't have to be a single character doing all the prep. Wands/scrolls of enlarge person, gaseous form, freedom of movement. A wizard in the party with dimension door. One of the big things is to plan ahead as a coordinated party for it and spend the money so that you have something you can put to use.
The number of times I've seen a character without any plans whatsoever, who just rely on their own resources, or who are so set on their own tactical decisions that they won't break out the help for a grappled buddy boggles the mind.

 

[Rechan]

Grapple is real difficult for me. But then, Turn Undead makes me squint and get out a calculator. (And yet, I could play HERO just fine).

But I have to agree with an above poster: PCs who get grappled by monsters are just boned, period. The monster has a hefty grapple bonus, and it's either a STR check or Escape ARtist, which no one ever takes.

Once had two ochre jellies surprise the PCs. Two were grappled. The Barbarian hit one with his axe. It split. This resulted in three PCs being grappled. It was a hard, hard fight - the rogue went down to negative numbers because of the constrict/acid damage.

 

[Mark Hope]

Have any of you read the SWSE grappling rules? They are much simpler and more balanced. Our group used them, and we were able to fully understand them in a minute r so, and we never had to go back to the book to reference.

Even after playing 3.x since it came out, I still need to look up the rules for various special cases when grappling. Also, I often forget a step along the way unless I have the book out in front of me.

Our group most often forgets the part about moving into the defender's square. It's a huge part of the rules, and it changes the tactical situation. Also, I can't even remember now how larger creatures moving into smaller creatures' squares works.

In my opinion, the grappling rules have a lot of extra complexity that doesn't need to be there. I think SWSE did a good job streamlining grappling, and I hope 4e does the same.

I looked over the SWSE grapple rules just now. Some good stuff there, some not so good. was surprised to see that they kept the initial touch attack (unarmed attack in SWSE, iirc), as this is one step that I feel could be dropped without hampering verisimilitude. And I didn't like the inclusion of feats into the mix. You need a feat to pin someone? Daft and adds more fiddly.

However, I did like the way that the feats collapsed the grapple+pin (for example) into a single move. I can see myself using that in 3e. So instead of rolls to grapple, then make more rolls to pin, you could just announce "I grapple to pin him" and encompass the whole thing in your opposed grapple check. I also like the fact that you could apply your Dex bonus to your grapple check if it is higher than your Str bonus. Pretty cool.