Looking to expand Grappling a bit. First draft of what im aiming for:

Brawler:
Tier: 2
Prerequisites: Unarmed Warrior, Weapon Skill 35, Agility 35
Aptitudes: Strength, Agility
The character is not above getting his hands (and knees and elbows) dirty, and is an experienced brawler. If he is a controller in a Grapple Action without a close-combat weapon, he counts as having the Deadly Natural Weapons trait. He will also do such things as bite opponents, knee them in the groin, throw sand in their faces or attempt to gouge out their eyes, allowing the character the following new Grapple sub-actions:
• Stranglehold: The controller of the Grapple attempts to Damage his opponent with brute force in the hopes of suffocating him by crushing his wind pipes. The controller makes an Opposed Strength Test with the Grappled opponent. If the active character wins, the Grappled opponent must pass a Challenging (+0) Toughness Test to conserve his breath or fall unconscious. For every two Degrees of Success the controller succeeds against the opponent, the Opponents Toughness Test is reduced by one degree of Difficulty (Challenging would become Difficult (-10) for example). If the Grappled Target succeeds the Opposed Strength Test, he may attempt to Damage the controller but with a -20 penalty as he squirms and lobbies for a defensive strike.
• Knee to the Groin: The controller of the Grapple attempts to Damage his opponent with a swift strike to the groin in the hopes of knocking the wind out of his opponent. The controller makes an Opposed Agility test with the Grappled opponent. If the active character wins, the Grappled opponent suffers unarmed damage (1d10-3+SB), doubling the attacker's strength bonus. If the damage exceeds the targets Toughness Bonus, the Grappled Opponent is also considered Stunned.
• Eye-Gouger: The controller of the Grapple attempts to Damage his opponent by prying and gouging out his eyes. The controller makes an Opposed Weapon Skill Test with the Grappled opponent. If he hits, the controller inflicts unarmed damage (1d10-3+SB)

My problem with this is that neither a chokehold or a kick in the groin is an advanced combat manuver known only to experienced brawlers both are learned if not mastered by most people in childhood, as any bloke whose ever been stomped in the nads by some adorable infant, or suffocated by an over-enthusiastic piggybacker will attest.

Kidney punches, eye gouging or use of immbobilising pressure points would be my idea of advanced combat actions but If you need to invent a new talent for grappling just make it reduce the difficulties on these "called shots" kind of actions making them easier to acheive rather than singling out types of attack that are simply off limits without your houseruled talent and writing pages and pages of rules to handle them.

Thanks for you input Askil,

But I have to disagree with your assessment. Getting hit in the nads by an adorable infant is vastly different than getting striked by a person with skill and intent or being slightly suffocated by an over-enthusiastic piggy backer is vastly different than a martial artists or wrestler getting his arms tightly across your windpipes. As a father of a two year old, with experience being on my schools wrestling team and having learned basic hand to hand combat in the military, I can personally attest from my life experience people are generally ignorant of the capabilities they possess in regards to harming others.

Now mechanically, what you suggest would probably represent well an amateur brawler - called shots as a full action wouldn't be able to be combined with grapple, but suit well with the generic unarmed combat rules. As grapple is a full action to maintain each round, it would also prohibit using Called Shots during an established grapple (as well, hell, having no effect, since weapon skill or ballistic skill wouldn't be used past the initial connection).

...and writing pages and pages of rules to handle them.

Now this line seems a bit unfair and gives me the idea your biased against grappling for some reason, or talent based house rules. This is like, a corner of a single page worth of new talent. =P

I'm biased against restricting actions to "unlocking" talents.

I'm also quite sure it was obvious I was being simplistic in my examples, the simple fact is RPGs exist to allow players to attempt any action their character could reasonably acheive and complicating very simple acts with elaborate rules just gets in the way of that.

Grabbing hold of someone and ramming your character's knee into their crotch is not a manuver that should require a special talent and a paragraph of extra rules, it's a matter of narrative effect on a generic grapple/attack action.

Fancy attacks should be handled with increased to-hit penaltlies and a decent narrative description.

I'm biased against restricting actions to "unlocking" talents.

Yeah, I get it, but your coming from this angle as-if they couldn't attempt these things with the system already (that's what unarmed combat is with a standard called shot). Your also coming from an angle this system doesn't already encourage variants displaying untrained skill versus proficient skill (Knock Down action and the Takedown Talent, for example). I have to consider this line quoted above fairly baseless.

I'm also quite sure it was obvious I was being simplistic in my examples, the simple fact is RPGs exist to allow players to attempt any action their character could reasonably acheive and complicating very simple acts with elaborate rules just gets in the way of that.

Thats sorta-kinda true, but not really. There's an entire chapter of elaborate rules to focus on combat in this game, because combat isn't the sort of thing every-man is reasonably expected to accomplish well. Also what you consider complicated, I consider a simple oppossed test. =P

Grabbing hold of someone and ramming your character's knee into their crotch is not a manuver that should require a special talent and a paragraph of extra rules, it's a matter of narrative effect on a generic grapple/attack action.

Your right, it shouldn't. Thats why it's marvelous they can do so already with a Called Shot with an Unarmed attack, outside of grapple. Again, I'm going to emphasize this ruleset is intended for the actual brawler, not the guy just kicking randomly because his weapon was knocked out his hand.

Fancy attacks should be handled with increased to-hit penaltlies and a decent narrative description.

Welp, with that sort of thinking we might as well roll up semi and full auto, since they are fancy variations of shootin' and we could just do with a descent narrative description! =P

(Obviously poking a little fun here, but on a serious note are you really saying something like that in the 'House Rules' forum? You do know out of the tin the Core system is like that already? That this sub forum is to expouse new ideas and variations that suit different needs, wants or requirements?)

As for your point with Takedown I entirely agree, it is an example of an unlocking talent and it really grinds my gears that it got into the game because it just says to anyone without it "nope you can't just tackle a guy to the floor effectively that's only for people with Takedown". Bonus for doing so... fine, a reduction of penalites... fine, but straight up saying no is just a bit pointless.

I'm making the point that allowing characters in a grapple to make close-in attacks to each other with a hefty penalty would cover this rather than having to write extra attacks, talents and lengthy justifications for them.

As for semi and full auto firing they actually do fit with my point of a fancy action that justifies extra effects by a modifer to your role and a narrative description i.e. "I thumb the selector to auto and rip a burst directly into the cultist's face."

Your design philosophy is a bit different than mine Askil. And I'm not quite sure if your at all familiar with the Unarmed Combat / Grappling mechanics. You say:

I'm making the point that allowing characters in a grapple to make close-in attacks to each other with a hefty penalty would cover this rather than having to write extra attacks, talents and lengthy justifications for them.

You do know in a Grapple you can ready a weapon and already make an attack against a now helpless target (provided your grappled opponent doesn't break free)? Why would all of a sudden they receive harsh penalties to do something that by the books, they could do with none (actually, they'd hit automatically)?

Additionally, each of the 'Brawler' descriptors are simply variations of the already existent Grapple options, with just some twists that make them more viable for a competent streetfighter. I was aiming to embrace the concept of altering the Grapple-Damage sub action to inflict status inflictions (Blind, Stunned, Suffocation), although I did forget to write out Eye-Gouger correctly to inflict the Blind concept. The idea here was that an untrained brawler would have to resort to just causing Fatigue to inflict unconsciousness after x amount of turns.

My design philosophy embraces the concept of competent versus non-competent actions. I agree with you the idea that every one should have an opportunity to do something - but if they aren't good at it, they aren't going to get a good chance at pulling it off. That's what the whole experience mechanic is meant for.

I now see your point.

However the same result could be acheived by describing this action and rolling whatever dice the GM should decide.

e.g.

Player: I sneak up on the sentry and drag him into the shadows by his head (grapple) I whisper "the faithless are blind to His glory" and plunge my fingers into his eyesockets from behind him.

GM: You sir are a deeply sick man, I`ll give you a -20 on the grapple for combining the action and an opposed strength to gouge out his eyes.

Player: *rolls* well... I just managed to grapple him, but botched my Strength test.

GM: You drag him out of the light and subdue him but he manages to land a painful bite on one of your hands which scupppers you eye gouge.

in much the same way as,

Player: I thumb the shot selector to manstoppers and push the handcannon into his crotch saying "care to reconsider?"

GM: well there isn`t a crotch location... left or rigt leg? I`ll give you a free aiming action for a called shot to it next turn.

Players shouldn`t need to talk in game mechanics to play (although regrettably most will at some time or another, and this empasis of system over setting is a major factor in powergaming an OOC metagame influencing in game choices.) Describing an action for mechanical interpretation by a GM is the cornerstone of the RPG experience.