More on LOCK

[Rindu]

Ah, okay, so last night our group got into a huge debate on how LOCK works. I argued for one interpretation of the Lock rules, and pretty much everyone else disagreed with me.

Essentially, the debate centered around whether or it requires additional actions to maintain a lock. I maintained that it does not, but everyone else felt that I needed to actually script "Hold Lock" in order to keep my opponent in a lock, and, if I did not script "Hold Lock" for the action immediately following a successful "Lock," then it is assumed that I let my prey go.

The debate was initiated by the following passage, on p. 88: "After making a successful Lock, the attacker may then choose, on subsequent actions, to hold the lock or increase the pressure." Now, I read this as saying that the player can act or not act, but everyone else read it as saying that the player must act, and he can choose to hold or increase the pressure.

So what's up? I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. If you had to script a Hold, then you could not strike someone at all while Locking them, and that just doesn't make sense. One of the arguments made was that, if you have someone in a lock, then your actions would be limited. I agree with this point: you couldn't script counter-disarm against a different opponent, for example. Maintaining a lock just means restricting the number of things you can script, but it does not dictate what you must script.

[Thor]

Ah, okay, so last night our group got into a huge debate on how LOCK works. I argued for one interpretation of the Lock rules, and pretty much everyone else disagreed with me.

Essentially, the debate centered around whether or it requires additional actions to maintain a lock. I maintained that it does not, but everyone else felt that I needed to actually script "Hold Lock" in order to keep my opponent in a lock, and, if I did not script "Hold Lock" for the action immediately following a successful "Lock," then it is assumed that I let my prey go.

The debate was initiated by the following passage, on p. 88: "After making a successful Lock, the attacker may then choose, on subsequent actions, to hold the lock or increase the pressure." Now, I read this as saying that the player can act or not act, but everyone else read it as saying that the player must act, and he can choose to hold or increase the pressure.

So what's up? I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. If you had to script a Hold, then you could not strike someone at all while Locking them, and that just doesn't make sense. One of the arguments made was that, if you have someone in a lock, then your actions would be limited. I agree with this point: you couldn't script counter-disarm against a different opponent, for example. Maintaining a lock just means restricting the number of things you can script, but it does not dictate what you must script.

Nope. You CAN choose Lock again, if you wish to INCREASE the value of your Lock. Otherwise, you can start doing damage, either with a damaging lock or with strikes. The lock is held until your opponent manages to break the lock (Power test, I believe). Locks are really scary and really effective. Unless you have a really good Power, it becomes really difficult to break the Lock, and that difficulty increases with the value of the Lock. A Great Wolf with its Damaging Lock and its Shake is a terror to behold.

If you increase the Lock to the point that one or more of your opponent's stats fall to zero or below, they're completely incapacitated.

[luke]

Hi Guys.

You're both right.

Once you have an opponent Locked, you maintain those Locked dice unless you actively let go, the opponent reduces the dice with an Escape or you test to increase the Lock on a subsequent action and your opponent wins the test with his Natural Defenses.

A Lock is all about partially immobilizing an opponent and then kicking the shit out of him or tossing him to the ground -- while you've got your hand around his throat.

-L

[foxandwarlock]

On that note, I've got a related question regarding locks. During our last session, I attempted to put a lock on a Goblin. He had dropped his bow and was attempting to pull his knife - and with a very lucky roll I managed to put him in a 1D lock before he was able to script his second Draw Knife. So on the next volley when he did Draw Knife, because there was no test, the lock had no "effect"

We talked about it and basically decided (okay, so I lobbied) that he should make an Agility test in order to execute what would normally be a Ob 0 action. He was superficially wounded and down one die. In short, he rolled really poorly and wasn't able to get the knife out. I used the +4 Ob sprint idea as a foundation for this - that a test is required for "normal" (Ob 0) stuff while sprinting because there is an Ob modifier. Therefore, because he was impeded his "normal" action became worthy of a test. Anybody else have similar situations? If so, how'd you handle it?

[JKahrs]

Fox,

I think you method has a great deal of merit. Whenever penalties are imposed, things that do not require rolls might end up requiring them.

[eruditus]

Absolutely. Tasks that would otehrwise be no problem for a fit and able bodied person become otherwise impossible when you have blood running into your eyes, a broken arm and find it hard to breathe. good luck finding your scabbard, much less drawing the knife :twisted:

Locks would work the same way.

I think I may work on a brawling manuever that allows you to make a hand-to-hand attack without penalty while locked. ie. reverse head-butt, foot-stomp, groin-grab, etc. Hmmm, or maybe the manuever can say that the attack work against the lock dice to free you and any successes above the lock can be applied to damage. I like that better, I think.

Thoughts?

[luke]

On that note, I've got a related question regarding locks. During our last session, I attempted to put a lock on a Goblin. He had dropped his bow and was attempting to pull his knife - and with a very lucky roll I managed to put him in a 1D lock before he was able to script his second Draw Knife. So on the next volley when he did Draw Knife, because there was no test, the lock had no "effect"


Your logic is perfectly in line with BW philosophy. However as GM, I wouldn't have bought it. Unless you scripted and/or stated in the intention of your Lock that you were trying to prevent him from drawing his knife (a la Kill Bill Vol 2 or Twilight Samurai), then I would have allowed the Goblin to draw his pitiful knife w/o penalty. It's a sticky situation, but ask yourself this: As a player, would you have lobbied the same way for a call like this made against you?

-L

PS Tell your GM, from me, next time just have the Goblin use his Jaws/Claws to BITE your ass on the Inside. Not quite as effective as a knife, but it often makes players think twice before Getting Inside of an Orc or Goblin.

:twisted:

[foxandwarlock]

Okay, so the issue here is that my intentions were not clear in my script. If I had scripted better, that would have been a legitimate claim?

As for the biting, no need to worry, Luke - Wuxing is practically synonomous with dirty, face-biting goblins. I average about one crazy goblin attempting to bite my neck per session. :x

So far, no scars.

[luke]

Okay, so the issue here is that my intentions were not clear in my script. If I had scripted better, that would have been a legitimate claim?


Scripting is one way to set it in stone. But the exact details of an action can be left until when you announce it -- who you are Striking, what you are Locking, where you are Avoiding, etc. So even if you said it, that'd be cool with me.

'Cause in my mind, in the tangle of the brawl, your character probably wouldn't have even noticed the Goblin drew his knife. I imagine he scripted this action simultaneously while you were doing something else? If that's the case, those two action happen simultaneously and often independently.

Anyway, doesn't sound like it was a big deal. In fact, it sounds like you guys are taking care of business just right.

-L

[Wuxing]

It's a sticky situation, but ask yourself this: As a player, would you have lobbied the same way for a call like this made against you?

-L

PS Tell your GM, from me, next time just have the Goblin use his Jaws/Claws to BITE your ass on the Inside. Not quite as effective as a knife, but it often makes players think twice before Getting Inside of an Orc or Goblin.

I'm a firm believer in exactly that. We can agree that we'll handle it this way, but when the situations are reversed we will play it the same way. I've said it before, it makes everyone think about what's best for the game not just the player.

Yeah, damn goblins have been trying to bite warlock's character every session it seems like. He's been lucky, or blessed if you happen to ask his character why things have been going his way. :P

[eruditus]

Hmmm, I am torn by this. On one hand its easy to say he grabbed his dagger while you had him in a headlock, his rams are restricted but free enough to do a simple action. However in both reality and cinema the reverse has its place. It is deceptively difficult to do anything other than struggle when locked (especially some choke-holds). The pain and leverage fight against your body in every regard. In cinema we see either circumstance but the guy grasping desperately for some weapon while being held always builds suspense.

Besides, the nature of players would be more to exploit (yeah, yeah, the GM can exploit it too) and then you have people saying "well if while I am locked I can use my hands freely for something then I should be able to use other limbs without penalty. Then you get into keeping track of what locations are locked. I think applying the lock to all locales and actions is the simple, clean and realistic way to approach it.