In the description of coordination, extra successes may be used to increase the distance traveled during a coordination action by +25% per success, up to four successes. As the distance a character can move is based on maneuvers, and that distance is abstract, I simply do not see the sense of increasing the distance moved by a percentage value. I have no desire to micromanage the distances characters have moved to that detailed extent.

Further, a coordination check that generates two advantage may result in the character being able to make a second maneuver- again, this makes using additional successes to increase distance moved by a percentage value even more baffling. Instead of moving one range band, the character moves 1 (coordination action) +1 (extra maneuver) + X%?

At first, I considered just having three or more additional successes allowing the character to make an additional maneuver (up to the max of two), but then the recommended use of advantage makes it doubly (possibly more so) likely a character will receive a free maneuver.

What gives? Should I just ignore the suggested use of additional successes (as I'm feeling inclined to do), or is there something else going on that I've yet to "lightbulb"?

Just because the system uses abstract/narrative movement rather than concrete distance in meters doesn't mean that all distance is created equal or should be handled equally. Walking 50 feet down the street is not climbing a 50-foot cliff or tightroping across a 50-foot wire. While "walk 50 feet down the street" is probably going from medium range to close and easily accomplished by spending a number of Maneuvers the GM might feel appropriate (probably 1-2), walking across a 50-foot tightrope could take a much longer period of time, even narrative time, because the character would need to be much curer of footing and thus probably much slower. Even if it's crossing the same total distance.

In short, crossing the tightrope or ledge could validly allow the GM to say "it'll take 5 rounds worth of action to cross instead of 2 maneuvers like walking down the street." Exceptional success on that check could greatly reduce that time. One of those situations like Mechanics/Computers/Astrogation checks where the amount of time isn't even defined in the rules and is totally GM fiat, but with Talents the player can affect that fiat ruling more to their advantage.

In the description of coordination, extra successes may be used to increase the distance traveled during a coordination action by +25% per success, up to four successes. As the distance a character can move is based on maneuvers, and that distance is abstract, I simply do not see the sense of increasing the distance moved by a percentage value. I have no desire to micromanage the distances characters have moved to that detailed extent.

That's probably meant to be used in the non-structured narrative movement that takes place out of combat.

GM: "The thin ledge between the two windows on this skyscraper is 8 meters long. It looks pretty difficult (slides three purple dice forward) and you're a long way up from street level (replaces one of the purples with a red). What do you do?"

PC1: (in character) "It's no different than that cliff we climbed when we were on vacation on Talas."

PC2: (in character) "That was a volcano. And that wasn't a vacation. Actually, this is nothing like that at all!"

PC1: (in character, questionably) "YOLO!"

GM: (adds a setback) "You nonchalantly step out onto the ledge and start traversing it hastily with manly, Kate Moss confidence." (decides that each attempt will be 4 meters)

PC1: "Fair enough." (rolls three greens, a yellow, two purples, a red, and a black) "Two successes, net!"

GM: (blinks) "You get 6 meters. The next window isn't far from you and you can barely make out what's inside."

PC1: (in character) "Yeah, buddy! Look at me go! Come on, you know you're just dying to join me out here. It's about time we put those years of circus high-wire training into use."

PC2: (in character) "What? We never did-- You're insane!"

GM: "Next attempt?"

PC1: "Coming right up." (rolls again) "One success, two threat, (pause) and a despair."

GM: "You easily make it all the way to the window and begin searching for a way to open it from the outside when you notice the security guard on the other side. He looks at you, puzzled, for an uncomfortably long period of time before screaming for help over his com."

PC1: (in character) "On second thought, you were right. We should have waited until nightfall to attempt this."

I don't have my book with me at the moment but I believe that anything that requires a roll is an action and not a maneuver. If I remember correctly the section on making a skill check described under Actions talks about rolling coordination. This means that if the character is in a situation where they can only move by making a skill check then they cannot move as a maneuver but have to move as an action instead. So gaining an extra maneuver will not help in moving any further under these conditions.

That was discussed in-depth in a recent thread: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/102461-what-difficulty-would-you-set/?p=1029442

It's not so cut-and-dry. One person says it requires an action but another says the text of the rule says it is only usually an action. Some skill checks only make sense within the context of a maneuver (Piloting, for example) and some printed encounters are impossible with such a strict limitation.

If a player wanted to cross a long, narrow bridge (of course it's over a bottomless pit and has no railings) and toss a grenade at the stormtroopers chasing her I'd ask her to make a Hard Coordination check (upgraded for the danger and with setback for being hurried) followed by a Ranged (light) check like normal. Overwhelming success on the Coordination check means she makes it all the way across in epic fashion. Advantage could be spent on adding setback dice to the stormtroopers' rolls as she cartwheels and backflips to avoid enemy fire. Threat could mean she sprains an ankle, takes strain, and falls prone after reaching the other side. Despair might mean she slips, nearly falls, and is now hanging by one hand and has to decide to either carry through with the Ranged (light) check to throw the grenade or change tactics and spend another maneuver to simply lift herself up and run away or spend some strain to get the extra maneuver and carry through with the intended action as planned.

GM: "You grit your teeth through the blood and the sweat and the dirt, activate the timed detonator and mentally start counting."

PC2: (i.c.) "Sorry boys, it's been a blast but I've got to go." (rolls, does the math) "Laters~~!"

No matter what, you end up with something incredibly epic and exciting and who doesn't want that?

That's probably meant to be used in the non-structured narrative movement that takes place out of combat.

Light bulb.

I've come to the conclusion that the distinction between maneuvers and actions will be based in part by the situation at hand. In combat, a coordination check might be associated with a maneuver, such as traversing a narrow ledge, and the maneuver actually determines the distance covered- the GM might rule that traversing eight meters of rain-slicked ledge requires two maneuvers (as suggested by Kshatriya) rather than increasing/upgrading the difficulty of the coordination check. A particularly advantageous coordination check would provide that second maneuver, getting the character to his/her intended destination without suffering strain (or forfeiting an action) to do so.

The important part- thus quoting Deve- is I was viewing coordination (and most other skill descriptions) through the lenses of in-combat use alone, for which a have duly swatted my forehead with my palm while uttering "Duh."

In the description of coordination, extra successes may be used to increase the distance traveled during a coordination action by +25% per success, up to four successes. As the distance a character can move is based on maneuvers, and that distance is abstract, I simply do not see the sense of increasing the distance moved by a percentage value. I have no desire to micromanage the distances characters have moved to that detailed extent.

Further, a coordination check that generates two advantage may result in the character being able to make a second maneuver- again, this makes using additional successes to increase distance moved by a percentage value even more baffling. Instead of moving one range band, the character moves 1 (coordination action) +1 (extra maneuver) + X%?

At first, I considered just having three or more additional successes allowing the character to make an additional maneuver (up to the max of two), but then the recommended use of advantage makes it doubly (possibly more so) likely a character will receive a free maneuver.

What gives? Should I just ignore the suggested use of additional successes (as I'm feeling inclined to do), or is there something else going on that I've yet to "lightbulb"?

Why not just make it an opposed Corordination check?

Why not just make it an opposed Coordination check?

Opposed against what skill? This is a sincere question.

Coordination vs coordination

Like... a dance-off!