How long does it take to Astrogate?

Well, I have a house rule that it takes the number of rounds equal to the ship silhouette for the navicomputer to compute the hyperspace jump, with every two additional successes reducing the time by one. So in a YT-1300, it would take 4 rounds with one success, 3 rounds with 3 success, 2 rounds with 5 success, or 1 round with 7 success.

Also, don't forget that it gets harder the more damage the ship takes, if the character is doing the check under stressful situations, if there are obstacles nearby. Furthermore, once the course has been calculated, they still need to get to the jump point.

Basically hyperspace shouldn't be the 'get out of trouble instantly' card that most players immediately assume it is.

So there are no actual rules, despite the talent tree for the Pilot career?

Outside of combat situations, aka narrative gameplay? Whatever the GM says. In combat, aka structured gameplay? Read page 204 of EotE: Perform a Skill Check. Basically, whatever the GM says. If you have a Galaxy Mapper, half as long (and with less Setback dice).

Yes, the whole astrogation thing has been left a bit wanting in this regard, not that I find it to be a problem, but some guideline would've been nice at least. I think there was something about this in the beta, but I may be wrong. I always assumed somewhere between 3 and 5 minutes, but I've realised that's not in the book.

Considering that it takes 5-15 minutes to travel from a planet's orbit to a safe hyperspace jump distance (see table 7-12 EotE CRB) one could use that as a basis in some way perhaps... if it makes sense to the plot and encounter.

Suns of Fortune and Fly Casual adds a few tidbits of stuff. Worth a look.

In all situations.

Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.

In all situations.

Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.

Same with Utinni!

Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.

It has a second benefit. Which is reliant on the GM giving out Setback dice, by the way.

That is just how it is, the GM gives out Setback dice and sets the time, and then Galaxy Mapper interacts with that in both regards. I fail to see how interacting with what the GM says is interacting with nothing.

Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.

It has a second benefit. Which is reliant on the GM giving out Setback dice, by the way.

That is just how it is, the GM gives out Setback dice and sets the time, and then Galaxy Mapper interacts with that in both regards. I fail to see how interacting with what the GM says is interacting with nothing.

because the rulebook should include these things.

Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.

It has a second benefit. Which is reliant on the GM giving out Setback dice, by the way.

That is just how it is, the GM gives out Setback dice and sets the time, and then Galaxy Mapper interacts with that in both regards. I fail to see how interacting with what the GM says is interacting with nothing.

because the rulebook should include these things.

Why?

In all situations.

Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.

As pointed out above, that's not true. It does interact with something, it's just not laid out on a table in the book.

On the other hand, giving GMs advice on how long such a task should take would be nice to have included. I agree.

Most of the time Astrogation checks need only be rolled when in a tense moment, like an encounter, where time translates into how many rounds it takes to complete. There are other scenarios (in some of the adventure modules, I think) where a long lasting encounter (over X number of rounds) changes events later in the adventure (such as letting the bad guy get away, or letting the Imperials reach where you're going before you get there). So if you're group is in a freighter attempting to escape some Imperials and need to jump to lightspeed. The GM can say that it normally takes about five minutes to astrogate, your party has to survive at least 5 rounds before they can make the jump. The talent can halve the number of rounds it takes to get away. The climax of the EotE beginner's game adventure book uses this, with rounds dedicated to fixing the hyperdrive, prepping it to go and then jumping -- look there if you can for a point of reference.

Not much point to including this talent if it interacts with nothing.

It has a second benefit. Which is reliant on the GM giving out Setback dice, by the way.

That is just how it is, the GM gives out Setback dice and sets the time, and then Galaxy Mapper interacts with that in both regards. I fail to see how interacting with what the GM says is interacting with nothing.

because the rulebook should include these things.

Why?

To be clear, are you asking me the rulebook should include complete rules and not have talents that reference rules that don't exist?

To be clear, are you asking me the rulebook should include complete rules and not have talents that reference rules that don't exist?

The rules say the GM sets the duration. So claiming that rules do not exit is obviously false. You want a different rule and I asked for your reasons. Seems pretty easy and clear to me.

To be clear, are you asking me the rulebook should include complete rules and not have talents that reference rules that don't exist?

The rules say the GM sets the duration. So claiming that rules do not exit is obviously false. You want a different rule and I asked for your reasons. Seems pretty easy and clear to me.

For myself, I'd appreciate consistency in the rules, rather than GM fiat (which this rule expressly allows). If the GM agrees and wants to provide consistency, then they must develop a consistent set of rules to adjudicate something that, in most systems with star-travel, is usually incorporated into the base, published, RAW ruleset.

While enterprising GMs might develop something really awesome (see much of the player resources on this forum), it's still not RAW, supported by the designers of the game, and/or run through formalized player testing as would be rules published by FFG.

I realize that there is a lot of narrative latitude allowed by this system (it's one of the reasons I like it as much as I do), however, it needs to have a similar amount of crunch to back up the fluff if players aren't to be frustrated when the GM contradicts himself (as he is wont to do if the rules for something as common as astrogating aren't written down somewhere).

Just my .02 credits.

To be clear, are you asking me the rulebook should include complete rules and not have talents that reference rules that don't exist?

The rules say the GM sets the duration. So claiming that rules do not exit is obviously false. You want a different rule and I asked for your reasons. Seems pretty easy and clear to me.

I think you're referring to the travel times.

I'm referring to the time it takes to make the calculation: the astrogation check. Not the time the journey takes.

I think you're referring to the travel times.

I'm referring to the time it takes to make the calculation: the astrogation check. Not the time the journey takes.

I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I even gave you the page of EotE which contains the rules about performing skill checks in combat, aka in structured gameplay. To paraphrase again, the GM determines how much time a skill heck takes.

For myself, I'd appreciate consistency in the rules, rather than GM fiat (which this rule expressly allows). If the GM agrees and wants to provide consistency, then they must develop a consistent set of rules to adjudicate something that, in most systems with star-travel, is usually incorporated into the base, published, RAW ruleset.

Well, that I can understand. My old gaming instinct works like that, too (which is probably due to playing Rolemaster a lot). But I have to come to understand that the narrative approach is just as valid. Both ways of handling things can be fun, of course, there is no right or wrong. For us, the narrative approach works great, because it captures the feel of the Star Wars movies, at least how we experienced them.

The Star Wars RPGs from FFG use the narrative approach (in many instances; there is a surprising amount of crunch in other parts). This means that anybody who wants tables and lots of pre-defined stuff needs to do some work, because the system itself is not built like that. But that is how it is when you use gaming systems that do not do exactly what you want. That is not a failure of the system itself but simply the fact that no system will work for everybody all the time.

To be clear, are you asking me the rulebook should include complete rules and not have talents that reference rules that don't exist?

I don't see the need for exhaustive astrogation rules when the game engine is already fluid enough as it is to cover what you need. Why cant a GM go "Hmmm, there's plenty of orbital traffic and a pretty dense asteroid field further out system. Oh, and that blaster shot you took to the flight deck is causing some general CPU slowdown. Lets say . . . 6 rounds to pull the computations!"

or

"You've got pretty open skies on a major trade route and the nebula is coreward while you guys heading the other way towards the rim. Call it 2 rounds to lay in the course."

There. Was that so hard?

To be clear, are you asking me the rulebook should include complete rules and not have talents that reference rules that don't exist?

I don't see the need for exhaustive astrogation rules when the game engine is already fluid enough as it is to cover what you need. Why cant a GM go "Hmmm, there's plenty of orbital traffic and a pretty dense asteroid field further out system. Oh, and that blaster shot you took to the flight deck is causing some general CPU slowdown. Lets say . . . 6 rounds to pull the computations!"

or

"You've got pretty open skies on a major trade route and the nebula is coreward while you guys heading the other way towards the rim. Call it 2 rounds to lay in the course."

There. Was that so hard?

I've no idea, was it?

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I asked though.

I asked about rules written by the designers. Sure I can invent my own stuff, so what?

I think you're referring to the travel times.

I'm referring to the time it takes to make the calculation: the astrogation check. Not the time the journey takes.

I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I even gave you the page of EotE which contains the rules about performing skill checks in combat, aka in structured gameplay. To paraphrase again, the GM determines how much time a skill heck takes.

For myself, I'd appreciate consistency in the rules, rather than GM fiat (which this rule expressly allows). If the GM agrees and wants to provide consistency, then they must develop a consistent set of rules to adjudicate something that, in most systems with star-travel, is usually incorporated into the base, published, RAW ruleset.

Well, that I can understand. My old gaming instinct works like that, too (which is probably due to playing Rolemaster a lot). But I have to come to understand that the narrative approach is just as valid. Both ways of handling things can be fun, of course, there is no right or wrong. For us, the narrative approach works great, because it captures the feel of the Star Wars movies, at least how we experienced them.

The Star Wars RPGs from FFG use the narrative approach (in many instances; there is a surprising amount of crunch in other parts). This means that anybody who wants tables and lots of pre-defined stuff needs to do some work, because the system itself is not built like that. But that is how it is when you use gaming systems that do not do exactly what you want. That is not a failure of the system itself but simply the fact that no system will work for everybody all the time.

Nothing wrong with a narrative approach at all, but I notice that word is being used a lot to cover all sorts of aspects found within the game, including rules issues or omissions.

The rules written by the designers is, generally speaking, it is the liberty of the GM and his group to set whatever works best for them. Probably the reason why they didn't set hard rule on this particular subject is because it's not something you see much in the films or the other Star Wars mediums, as everything moves at the speed of plot; the only time when they even focus on the issue is 4-5 minute, max.

See my previous comment, but time is normally only counted narratively, or during encounters, where more rounds = more time spent. For the most part, Astrogation is going to be used in two occasions: first is when the party has to get out of a place fast, and the astrogation check takes several rounds before they can jump (this is where the aforementioned talents come in), so the players have to survive until then, or when they party is mapping an unusual hyperspace route, and the variable success/advantage/triumph/failure/threat/despair results matter, but time is not an issue.

I think you're referring to the travel times.

I'm referring to the time it takes to make the calculation: the astrogation check. Not the time the journey takes.

I am not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I even gave you the page of EotE which contains the rules about performing skill checks in combat, aka in structured gameplay. To paraphrase again, the GM determines how much time a skill heck takes.

For myself, I'd appreciate consistency in the rules, rather than GM fiat (which this rule expressly allows). If the GM agrees and wants to provide consistency, then they must develop a consistent set of rules to adjudicate something that, in most systems with star-travel, is usually incorporated into the base, published, RAW ruleset.

Well, that I can understand. My old gaming instinct works like that, too (which is probably due to playing Rolemaster a lot). But I have to come to understand that the narrative approach is just as valid. Both ways of handling things can be fun, of course, there is no right or wrong. For us, the narrative approach works great, because it captures the feel of the Star Wars movies, at least how we experienced them.

The Star Wars RPGs from FFG use the narrative approach (in many instances; there is a surprising amount of crunch in other parts). This means that anybody who wants tables and lots of pre-defined stuff needs to do some work, because the system itself is not built like that. But that is how it is when you use gaming systems that do not do exactly what you want. That is not a failure of the system itself but simply the fact that no system will work for everybody all the time.

Nothing wrong with a narrative approach at all, but I notice that word is being used a lot to cover all sorts of aspects found within the game, including rules issues or omissions.

It does, actually. And that is the point of a narrative system whether you are willing to admit it or not. The whole point of being a GM is to interpret the rules and apply them in a fashion that makes sense to the situation even if they contradict some aspect of the rules. You might say 'what is the point', then? Well, in the long run it doesn't matter. What I interpret at the gaming table for my players matters little to what you might interpret. I understand wanting some more to some of the rules, sure; however, the designers made a conscious choice in allowing for a wider band of interpretation in some cases over others. I have no issue with this. And if they have covered some defects or omissions, so be it. Many systems are far, far worse and have had more glaring errors.

I understand the frustration, but this issue is not going to get resolved unless you ask the designers what their intent was in rules for Astrogation. I am satisfied with the rules to a point. Sure, I tinker with some but certainly within the narrative framework. In the end, whatever works for you and for your table is the best rule to apply to any situation. That may not be correct or even satisfactory to you, but it has worked for me and for many others. I hope you can find some resolution that works best for your group.

Nothing wrong with a narrative approach at all, but I notice that word is being used a lot to cover all sorts of aspects found within the game, including rules issues or omissions.

Um ... the narrative approach is the rules? This is clearly not a rule omission, since there is a rule for skill checks in structured time, page 204 and all that. You do not seem to like the rule for Astrogation and want something more defined. That is cool, but the rules system as such has a different approach. No harm in making something up from easy (Astrogation checks take 10 rounds minus successes (5 minus successes with Galaxy Mapper) to the complex (based in distance and whatnot). It seems a bit as if you want the system to be something else than it is, to be honest. Which, again, can certainly be cool, but it will require some work.

I understand the desire to have more concrete definitions in terms of rules. There is a bit of dissonance in the design of this game where the rules are specific in one regard and vague in another. Just as an example, there aren't any clear rules (aside from GtA) that determine which side of a ship is facing an enemy's attack; it's left open to the narrative. However, there are plenty of rules that determine increasing defense in particular defense zones and not in others, making it seem like it is something that should be carefully monitored.

In any case, my players prefer more rigid rules when it comes to things like this. I've come up with a simple system for determining how long it takes to plot in hyperspace coordinates:

• Starting with the round in which the astrogator makes their Astrogation check, it takes 10 rounds to successfully plot a hyperspace route. This is the 'clock' for how long it takes for the navicomputer to do its job.
• Each success on the Astrogation check subtracts one from the 'clock.'
• If an astromech droid or navigation droid brain is present, the 'clock' starts at 5 rounds rather than 10.
• The astrogator can rush the calculations and subtract 2 from the 'clock' if they upgrade their Astrogation check once.
• For Advantage, Threat, Triumph, and Despair, I use the table from Fly Casual.

It's a tad clunky, but it has successfully added tension to a lot of the firefights we've had. Also it adds definite weight to some previously vague or interpretation-based talents.

I understand the desire to have more concrete definitions in terms of rules. There is a bit of dissonance in the design of this game where the rules are specific in one regard and vague in another. Just as an example, there aren't any clear rules (aside from GtA) that determine which side of a ship is facing an enemy's attack; it's left open to the narrative. However, there are plenty of rules that determine increasing defense in particular defense zones and not in others, making it seem like it is something that should be carefully monitored.

In any case, my players prefer more rigid rules when it comes to things like this. I've come up with a simple system for determining how long it takes to plot in hyperspace coordinates:

• Starting with the round in which the astrogator makes their Astrogation check, it takes 10 rounds to successfully plot a hyperspace route. This is the 'clock' for how long it takes for the navicomputer to do its job.
• Each success on the Astrogation check subtracts one from the 'clock.'
• If an astromech droid or navigation droid brain is present, the 'clock' starts at 5 rounds rather than 10.
• The astrogator can rush the calculations and subtract 2 from the 'clock' if they upgrade their Astrogation check once.
• For Advantage, Threat, Triumph, and Despair, I use the table from Fly Casual.

It's a tad clunky, but it has successfully added tension to a lot of the firefights we've had. Also it adds definite weight to some previously vague or interpretation-based talents.

And that's great if it works for you but you have had to make adjustments for the lack of specificity in the rules. And I do like some of those mechanics btw

Really, this whole discussion seems to have stemmed from a lack of specificity in the rules... but last I checked we are not discussing X-Wing, Armada or Imperial Assault. Roleplaying, to me, warrants if not requires a little improvisation and compromise. If the rule is unclear... improvise. By all means come up with something that works for you. I'm not going to report you to Disney or FFG. If you don't like something... change it. The rules, in a good game, should be of secondary concern, to help the story along. I personally feel FFG got it right with this game. I have run my sessions with very few skill checks and have run some with many but it has never felt like I was leaning too much on the rules.

In the end, I just love running Star Wars. How I get from point A to point B really should not matter to anyone but my players.