Gorgeous but holy cow that's a small planet   

Harry Harrison.
The Stainless Steel Rat is no more.

http://harryharrison.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/harry-harrison-1925-2012/

Wait, it has Rachel Weisz? (Adds to list of "must sees"

I'm vaguely embarrassed to admit I didn't realise it was (entirely) CGI until about 30 seconds in. Those "human movement" animations are getting really good!

(also vaguely embarrassed that the first Starship Troopers is one of my favourite "brain off, enjoy" movies of all time)

[Edit]

Just spitballing here, some of this may be a bit overpowered:

• The ability to break limbs (ability damage and/or loss of use of limb until healed)
• Choke holds (maybe use the suffocation rules? This one comes pretty close to too good IMO)

Brain freeze. I think those (plus Human Shield, plus what you've listed above) cover everything I can think of

Edit: Completely ninja'd by Sletchman while I was typing that

Threadwatch activated.

Modvoice on.

Keep it civil people.

My apologies. In my defence I was merely using the same tone that had been used previously in the thread without mod comment. I will attempt not to do so again.

Sletchman: Some interesting thoughts there. I'll reply later

All I'm seeing here is complaining about how -- as usual -- a small number of people want to nerf stuff so they won't have to face the occasional possibility of inconvenience.

Mate, I don't know which thread you're reading but it's not the same one I am. No one is talking about nerfing anything, and those that want to make sure grappling doesn't turn into "easy mode" are the majority.

Basically fella, to borrow a phrase, suck it up and realise you are the vocal minority on this one.

[is]

That's because it is easier to put a bullet in someone's head than grab them...

[keep]

I agree with you on Standard vs Special - it shouldn't be any harder to incap a Standard character through grappling than it is through shooting them.

Question for you: Would you be satisfied (given your explanation) if a "Grapple attack" resulted in the defender being "Sprawled" and/or "Prone"? Or is the ability to keep them immobile what you're after? Certainly with them being able to "draw weapons, attack, fight back and cast spells" it seems to me that you're not really accomplishing much of anything.

There is very little difference between "held down" and "totally fucked" though. If you're being held down you can bet you're more than a little fucked.

Sure I get that you want to be able to grab people off the street, slap a bag on their head and zip ties on their wrists and take them somewhere safer. However, you also don't want to make that process too easy - if you do, it becomes "grab them off the street, and put a bullet in their head".

I must confess I don't know at the moment how to solve that problem without extravagant use of subdual damage dealing weapons.

No, the issue is that it's patently ridiculous to try and sell a 1st level character as anything other than fresh meat.

Ideally, a starting character should be capable of a broad range of actions off the bat; leveling shouldn't make them available so much as make them easier.

So the Basics/Mastery/Supremacy feat trees that give you tricks aren't something you agree with?

Where in NZ are you Skywalker? I'm in Dunedin

[and that's all it meant]

Yes, I agree.

If the term "Grab" meant: "The grabbed character (and the one doing the grabbing) loses their attribute bonuses to Armor Class and are flat-footed" - and that's all it meant - would that fix the problem do you think?

[better]

I took his post to mean that a character should be able to do basic (non-pinning, non-debilitating) grapple moves at Level 1, with most if not all builds. I also took his statement to mean that you a character should not be able to perform pinning and/or debilitating moves at the same.

For the purposes of my question, that's the distinction I'm asking about.

Technically speaking isn't that what we have now? A level 1 character is totally able to grab and pin someone straight out of the box (although they're not *good* at it).

Let's assume for the sake of this argument that this is the exhaustive list of things you can do while grappling (it's not, obviously. Bear with me for the sake of simplicity):

Grab
Pin
Trip
Push
Screaming Club (<--- Look! A reference to the original post!)

If your question is, should all of these options be available to Level 1 characters without investment in feats, I'd say no. Grab? Sure. Trip? Iffy, but I'd say yes. Push? Yes. Pin? No, not without special training (feats). Screaming Club? Hell no.

So a Level 1 character could Grab, Trip and Push without specialised training. They could be better at it by taking the appropriate feats. Those feats could also open up Pin and Screaming Club as tricks, or perhaps those abilities would need to have feats of their own.

I think that in a level based cinematic rpg system, a level 1 character can be assumed to be able to do things at what many might call an above average level.
As such, a level 1 character with the appropriate training (proficiency) can throw a lethal punch, use a sword, shoot a gun, or engage in some movie style wrestling (basic grappling)

I agree with all of that.

You become Hulk McSavage grappling master because that is your schtick.

Also, I have great faith in Crafty.

Me too

[virtually]

And (IMO) a system so marginally useful (that is, there are only a very specific set of circumstances where it becomes an attractive option) doesn't deserve to be in the book.

"Marginally useful" and "doesn't deserve to be in the book" certainly says that taking them down alive is a pretty low priority. 

Ah I see the disconnect

My whole post, including the bit I've left quoted in this post, was in regard to your proposed system (where grappling inflicts subdual damage on the attacker). I was not saying that grappling as a whole is 'marginally useful'.

People are weird, especially when it comes to games. They will very seldom take an option which disadvantages them in any way, unless that disadvantage is completely overwhelmed by the results of the action. To take a more concrete example (and I hope you play Magic: The Gathering...): Take City of Brass. It's a land that taps for any colour of mana (very very powerful) but damages you whenever it is tapped. Despite having virtually no drawback in the grand scheme of things, it's not regarded as a good card (I generalise) and is not often used, but other lands, which have less of an advantage but no drawback are used in it's place.

I see your proposed system being the same. The hardcore players will see that your disadvantage is a temporary and insignificant one, while the vast majority of players will look at it and see only that they're getting punished for doing something "right" which is so unbelievably unattractive to them that they'll simply never use it, no matter how good it can be proved to be.