In a recent thread I was reminded that as in most RPGs Ive played the action in particular turn are actually more than the "I move here and shoot once at this guy" variety. Over the course of several seconds at least its assumed there a great deal more occurs, perhaps nothing so major as to warrant another roll but certainly worthy of inclusion in the GM and player's narrative.

I was also reminded that its a rare occurrence indeed with either GM or player actually use this approach as we all tend to fall back on exactly what the 'rules' indicated as our understanding of what happened during that period of time.

After reading I decided to make a concerted effort to address this in our upcoming campaign (days away now for kickoff) and describe the action appropriately. I feel this lends itself better to the narrative style of game FFG StarWars presents.. less focus on specific ruling detail more on the drama and story.

I do however have a player that is one of those min-maxers that is quite proficient at utilizing the rules of any game to win. He's quite adept, has a head for rules systems and wins most competitive games we play. I felt this sort of approach might throw him off, so I discussed it with him and we tested it out.

We threw down a small random combat and instantly ran into a snag. I'd like your opinion on it.

PC is sitting in the cantina when three tough guys (minion group) walk in. They point, whisper to one another then move toward him. He notices and the combat starts. The PC gets initiative

PC: I make a maneuver to draw my pistol, then use my action as a maneuver to jump the bar for cover.

GM: Ok, the toughs draw their blasters. One of them shoves a table aside blasts the bar above you, spraying sparks everywhere, while the other fans off a bit toward the back exit and the third guy waves his blaster around firing a couple while shots into the ceiling as he shots for everyone to scatter.

"My attempt here was to introduce some color and drama into the adversary turn. Rules wise they drew their weapons and shot at him, missing, but as its supposed to have taken several seconds I tried to fill in the time with some interesting action, etc. But....

PC: Uh, how'd they do that. They all act as one right? Minions?

GM: Yes but basically that's all they did, shot and missed.

PC: But they didn't, only one shot, the other guys performed other maneuvers or actions.

GM:Well for dramatic flare only, in effect it makes no difference, they didn't close range or anything, just reacted with their environment of whatever.

PC:But that's a separate maneuver, they already drew weapons, did you charge them Strain?

GM: No, cause it wasn't a maneuver per say, it was just, well a bit of color to make the scene cool.

PC:But one guy moved to the exit to block my escape route, the other guy is clearing people out, people I might have used for cover.

GM: ugh

Im realizing that introducing your own color and such into a combat narrative is trickier than you might think. Anything you add might well be viewed as an action or maneuver by a player and therefore allowing the adversaries an edge.

"The Stormtroopers fire back, a couple of them diving for the door while the others try to pull back behind the access ramp" - Hey, they are splitting up? They aren't a group anymore?

"You fire on the pirates, hitting one while the other 2 fire back, kicking up dirt in front of you. Then they move toward the fuel cells, shots coming your way.. (rolling dice)" - Wait, they already fired! They get to fire again? GM: No, the previous shots were just for color, no chance of hitting. PC: Oh, so I can do that too, fire anytime I want out of turn to keep their heads down as long as it cant really hit them?

Im beginning to think this is going to be a real pain.

Well, I probably wouldn't other with the 'shooting into the air a lot,' but that's just me. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but if you're getting a headache over it maybe change the approach. In your last example with the pirates, I would probably not narrate it that way.

As for minion groups, remind everybody that they are not all joined at the hip, nor are they backup dancers, all moving in perfect sync. I'm AFB, so I don't remember how close minion groups are supposed to be, if it says it at all, but if, say, they have to be engaged with each other, that's a pretty flexible distance.

Your problem is not your approach. Your player is the problem. He's trolling you. He's smart enough to know the rules and he's testing your boundaries on enforcing them.

I'd respond with a show of force. Inform him that you are narratively describing the scene and that he may do so as well as long as he doesn't try to game the system. Then stand firm. Absolutely no interuptive debates are allowed during sessions.You'll have to make calls and let him know that he's not allowed to challenge them until after the session.

He's an excellent competitive gamer and like most really good gamers he's not just playing he game he's playing his peers as well. If you need this guy at your table you're going to have to teach him to play cooperatively. Enforcing your role as the Game Master is a hard necessary first step.

I like your descriptions. I really appreciate that kind of flair when I play. Your player should ease up. Remind him that flavor text works both ways. As long as what is described provides no mechanical benefit or detriment, then it's all good in my book.

I like your descriptions. I really appreciate that kind of flair when I play. Your player should ease up. Remind him that flavor text works both ways. As long as what is described provides no mechanical benefit or detriment, then it's all good in my book.

I forgot to mention this earlier, it sounds like you're a great GM.

I'd take the tack that any "flavorful description" of actions don't have any mechanical benefit.

For your example, shooting at the ceiling and "spreading out" are flavorful and, for mechanical purposes, the civilians were no more induced to leave by the shots at the ceiling than they were by the shots at the bar and the minions are all still mechanically within engaged range to one another.

-What- mechanically happened is constrained by the rules. -How- that happened is what narrative is all about. We know the moral of the story, but how its conveyed is what's the most fun anyway.

I've only just started GMing but I did notice that both me and my players tended to narrate combat dice rolls pretty mechanically. I think it may just be an effect of learning the rules - ie we're still trying to figure out exactly how the mechanics work, leaving less time/mental energy to think about flair.

I'll remember this when I GM the next session. Sounds like it would make it a lot more fun.

I'm going to be devil's advocate and suggest that your "flavour" sounds a lot like tactical elements or even extra actions. The descriptions can be fun, but they're somewhat arbitrary. The narrative and tactical axis is Advantage/Threat. That's what you use when you want to cut someone off, shoot out the ceiling lights, etc. These become setback against the player (all that glass flying makes it harder to hit one of the minions) or a boost for the minions (one of them moves to a more advantageous position).

I also disagree with turning "failure" into something else, like the minion shooting into the air to get the patrons to scatter...that smells like a coercion check, a separate intentional action all to its own. You can group and ungroup minions any time you want, so you could easily have split them up for that turn, with one shooting (all green dice, no upgrades), one herding the patrons out, and one moving to cover the exit. Then group next turn for a single upgraded shot.

Stick with the narrative dice results for flavour, that's what they're for, unless you're making it totally clear that there is no advantage or disadvantage to be gained by your description. But then...don't be surprised if the player leverages the fact that there is glass flying all around. Once you introduce a narrative element, a player like that will find a way to make something of it, and it would be tedious to try and keep track of which elements are "flavour" and which can actually be used.

Thanks for the compliments and support. I have a bit of writing experience (not that you would know it from my original post up there, I was posting from my phone and well... reads like Id been drinking) and really enjoy that aspect of gaming. Colorful descriptions, detailed environments, playing the roles of the various personalities are the best part of the gaming session to me. (Preparing for a game is probably the most rewarding overall though, I just love making all the background stuff up)

As we are new to the system Im sure we will be having some 'in game' rules discussions and probably refer to game mechanics more than normal but I hope to advance beyond that as soon as possible. There is nothing worse in my view that telling a player they have been 'hit with 4 wounds' or that their next action has a setback dice without a colorful explanation of how it applies realistically. I cant imagine playing without it.

The player I spoke about is a great guy and Im sure he will come around, to a point, but it will take some getting used to for him. The others will probably never notice between side-bar giggles and chips and just enjoy the ride.

Whafrog - I hear you and understand completely, your hitting on exactly my concerns. Frankly I don't mind if one of my colorful descriptions ends up adding something to the game mechanically, especially if the players take advantage. (They need all the help they can get typically) but I don't like the idea of my players feeling they are cheated somehow when I throw something in with the intention of just making it more interesting. I don't like having to second guess my creative instincts either. If I want a crate to fall down across the path of the fleeing player characters I don't want some guy asking me "Where's the Despair that cause that?"

The dice are a great way to stimulate creative energy in the game but I certainly don't depend on them.

Whafrog - I hear you and understand completely, your hitting on exactly my concerns. Frankly I don't mind if one of my colorful descriptions ends up adding something to the game mechanically, especially if the players take advantage. (They need all the help they can get typically) but I don't like the idea of my players feeling they are cheated somehow when I throw something in with the intention of just making it more interesting. I don't like having to second guess my creative instincts either. If I want a crate to fall down across the path of the fleeing player characters I don't want some guy asking me "Where's the Despair that cause that?"

The dice are a great way to stimulate creative energy in the game but I certainly don't depend on them.

In that case, you could always flip a Destiny Point and say "there".

This is an easy one. My answer to him would be they weren't deployed as a single formation when they entered so they can all act independently. Whether they are grouped, if they are grouped, when they group and un-group, is always up to you. If he want to really be one with the rules, attack him with all the minions separately. When he can only attack one target and is attacked by three he might be encouraged to stop rule lawyering.

There is no range restriction on minions acting in concert. I just use the ever elusive common sense rule, in that they need to have some capability to both interact with one another (coms) and the ability to be able to support one another in combat (weapons with range), along with a level of clarity of what they are facing and where each other are (quasi line of sight).

So a squad of Stromtroopers have com links and blaster rifles, in an open enough setting there is no reason they couldn't be deployed at long range from one another imo. They can talk to one another, see each other, and have weapons that range one another.

I agree some narrative description of shots into the ceiling or such is no big deal and need not be covered by any crunchy number elements. People running for the doors is a likely natural reaction. Now I think he would be fair in asking if this affects combat and you could say that all ranged combat checks will have a setback for the first two rounds because of the Gungan fire drill going on as the bar empties out, and then at round 3 it's more or less empty. The setbacks would be on everyone though.

This is an easy one. My answer to him would be they weren't deployed as a single formation when they entered so they can all act independently. Whether they are grouped, if they are grouped, when they group and un-group, is always up to you. If he want to really be one with the rules, attack him with all the minions separately. When he can only attack one target and is attacked by three he might be encouraged to stop rule lawyering.

There is no range restriction on minions acting in concert. I just use the ever elusive common sense rule, in that they need to have some capability to both interact with one another (coms) and the ability to be able to support one another in combat (weapons with range), along with a level of clarity of what they are facing and where each other are (quasi line of sight).

So a squad of Stromtroopers have com links and blaster rifles, in an open enough setting there is no reason they couldn't be deployed at long range from one another imo. They can talk to one another, see each other, and have weapons that range one another.

I agree some narrative description of shots into the ceiling or such is no big deal and need not be covered by any crunchy number elements. People running for the doors is a likely natural reaction. Now I think he would be fair in asking if this affects combat and you could say that all ranged combat checks will have a setback for the first two rounds because of the Gungan fire drill going on as the bar empties out, and then at round 3 it's more or less empty. The setbacks would be on everyone though.

So if one of your Stormtroopers is at short range, and one is at long range of me, what is my difficulty for shooting them and how does my damage "bleed over" from one to the next? Assuming you are keeping them a single group?

We'll split the difference and call it medium.

I think "engaged" is a bit too close as a provision more minion grouping but I don't think I'd want guys separated by a football field to be grouped either under normal circumstances. I guess it would depend on the situation, without anything else to go on rules wise.

4 troopers firing from atop opposite walkways (50 meters apart) above the hanger your running through? Sure, Id group them.

4 troopers firing from different spread out locations (50 meters apart) along a congested and irregular settlement street? Probably not

I think "engaged" is a bit too close as a provision more minion grouping but I don't think I'd want guys separated by a football field to be grouped either under normal circumstances. I guess it would depend on the situation, without anything else to go on rules wise.

4 troopers firing from atop opposite walkways (50 meters apart) above the hanger your running through? Sure, Id group them.

4 troopers firing from different spread out locations (50 meters apart) along a congested and irregular settlement street? Probably not

Exactly. Common sense is your ruler.

Also meant to say, you're in charge of when play transitions from narrative to structured. So in your example you could just say the three baddies walking in, spreading out while casually drawing blasters and taking up positions was narrative and not governed by structured rules. You let your PC have the same lattitude to get up n make a move or two prior to the sh*t show commencing in the bar.

I was running some scenarios through my head this morning while otherwise unoccupied. (Sitting in church. Yeah, yeah crucify me, you know you've done it too!)

I can see this coming up more often than not and is definitely something Ill have to clarrify early.

"The Gamorrean comes in swinging, the massive axe whistling deadly arcs. It misses twice then connects, smashing into your armored shoulder, quickly followed by a strike from the handle to your chest, jarring you to the bone." (1 attack and hit for 13 wounds)

WAIT - so he got to attack twice? Did you run my armor for each? Did I get soak off both attacks? Is jarring to the bone a critical?

"The Interceptor screams in, laser cannon ripping into your hull. It rolls beneath your ship as it passes. The lights flicker in your cockpit and in the adjoining corridor, several alarms sound." (Ship hit by 9 points of Hull trauma)

WAIT - was that a critical? The alarms? Do I have a system failing? He didn't roll a single Advantage? If he passed beneath me then he must have his rear aspect facing me now, can I get a shot off before he turns?

All are perfectly reasonable questions but are in response to me, as GM, just describing the action. I think Im going to have to be very careful with this.

EoE pg 389-390

"GMs can use minions as adversaries either as individuals or in groups. However, unless the minion has relevant characteristics of three or higher, individual minions are more likely to fail than succeed on all but the simplest combat checks. GMs should only do this if they wish to pit their characters against an easy combat challenge."

So... the book says he should have had an easier time dealing with them individually. His mentality was self-defeating, b/c he saw them acting independently and didn't realize they would actually be weaker for it.

"Minions can fight as a group. As noted previously, the GM does not have to deploy minions in groups. However, deploying them in a group has several advantages. It simplifies combats and makes minions more dangerous while allowing GMs to include large numbers of adversaries."

This is more of a battlefield technique, to speed up combat taking place on more of a grand scale. There is absolutely no reason why you should treat a barroom brawl as a group activity, unless you're planning on treating the PCs as a group as well. A roll here, a roll there, and the group that rolls better walks out the front door. But otherwise, close quarter brawls like this don't make sense with grouped minions. They don't all shatter a beer bottle and take a swing. Nor do the others stand back and watch while a single guy swings the bottle. They're all going to be doing something different, trying to land a blow. Like the book says, they won't be very effective. But they aren't synchronized robots either.

The problem I see is that it seems your player is still in a very "D&D"-esque mindset, not a narrative one, especially worth regards to movement. There is no "5-foot step," no limit on moving before and after your attack, and nothing that prevents an opponent from moving after their turn is over. They simply can't change their relative range between you when it's not their turn.

In d20 and other map-based systems, where a character is is clearly defined as within a 5-foot square, and any movement they make is within that square. With this system, that is not the case at all, and people are constantly moving to gain the advantage. In the example of the TIE Interceptor, by the time your player has come around to bring his weapons to bear, the TIE has likely already banked off to prepare for another attack run.

What I would do is try to merge the two: do your narrative description, and then describe mechanically what happened. That should head off questions of "was that a crit?" Because it's not until you say it is.

With attacks, have him watch a martial arts movie when the hero faces off against the big bad. They throw dozens of attacks, but most of them are blocked or dodged. Remind him that not every punch or kick is an attack roll. Say every five or six are. Were all six avoided? Then the roll missed. Did one strike get in? A hot with one success. A whole flurry get through and the target reels back? Lots of success, probably some advantage, and maybe a crit.

If he thinks a firefight with minimal cover includes all combatants standing perfectly still relative to each other with brief bursts of movement to change location, and only firing their weapon once for an entire minute, he needs to rethink his idea of combat.

As for the Gamorrean, an attack roll in combat is not to be considered one swing of the ax (unless the weapon has the limited ammo quality or it's a stealthy sniper shot).

As far as ship combat goes, it's even more abstract than ground combat so narrative descriptions really make space combat.

One thing that might help is to avoid talking about things like Minions, Rivals, Nemesis, etc…. Every time the player asks a question, remind him that this is Star Wars and not D&D, and you’re sticking to a narrative description of events.

So that whole thing about a Gammorean swinging multiple times and doing whatever damage is narratively considered to be just one attack, with one result.

I would try to avoid “punishing” this player for thinking the way he does, because I’m an old-time D&D munchkin myself. I like to think that I’m mostly reformed, but sometimes I do slip back into my old ways.

Instead, encourage him to be more narrative in his description of what he does, and focus less on precisely how he does it. Maybe give him additional XP on-the-spot when he does a particularly good role-play narrative description, or at least tell him on the spot that this will result in additional XP for good role-play.

Give him positive reinforcement for the kinds of behaviour you do want to encourage, and at least initially try to avoid negative reinforcement for the kinds of behaviour that you don’t want to see. Later, you might have to also get the stick out to join your carrot, but I would encourage you to hold that in reserve for the times when you really need it.

Maybe this player will come around, and maybe he won’t. But you can at least try to help.

Ultimately I think it comes down to a discussion of what your players want. You clearly enjoy the narrative, non-mechanical aspects of roleplaying, which is one of the big draws of a system like this over a more tactical combat sim style RPG like D&D. Do your players want the same experience? Or are they really hoping for a very narrowly defined blow by blow reality simulator? Or do they not actually know what they want?

If players are objecting to narrative flair because it's unfamiliar to them, and they assume that all actions have to have mechanical purpose, then have patience with them but keep reminding them that in this system the rules are there to be subservient to the story, not the other way around. If there's a narrative reason to break the rules, it's probably encouraged. You may have to be clear and up front with them about what the actual mechanical effects are so that they don't get confused (making sure that you are also announcing the effects you kept in brackets above), and beyond that simply encourage them to add flair to their actions when they act, possibly allowing them a little more leeway if they get into it. I'm usually more than happy to give a player a boost die or a single Advantage for adding something colourful into their description of how they're trying to accomplish something, as long as it's appropriate.

It's also possible that they're reacting this way because they're concerned that they're getting screwed, having to face opponents who are clearly taking more actions than fair, or being denied opportunities to react with attacks of opportunity or firing arcs. Again, being clear and up front that you're focusing on narrative over and above the mechanics, not on adding bonus mechanics onto every piece of narrative, may help. It's easy for players from systems where every action is carefully moderated to feel that if the mechanics don't allow them to explicitly do something, they can't.

Ultimately, if they want a very detailed combat sim, this system isn't for them. But if they're okay with extensive storytelling and simply not in practice, talking about it with them, reassuring them and helping them through it will probably work for everyone.

The burning empires RPG, specifically calls out that colour defeats colour. Meaning that the a player or the GM can narrate anything they want but unless it is paid for in some way (either part of the character or as part of a dice roll) it can simply be narrated away by someone else. I think one example they use is a player who has not paid for a gun being attacked by an assassin and saying he draws a pistol. The GMs response is that the assassin knocks it out of his hand. Of course the GM does not have to narrate it away. They could allow the player to keep the gun if they want, for a turn or two at least...

So in the example in the OP, one minion blocks the exit, but it is pure narrative so the player could just describe them dodging round him, or distracting him in some way. 'I fire a couple of wild shots in his direction forcing him to dive to his right and then make a break for the door'. I would see this as a single maneuver. If the player wanted one of the shots to have a chance of actually hitting then it is an action followed by a maneuver.

I apply this rule a lot. Want to describe you attack as knocking the other guy down, but don't have any mechanical way of making it happen. No problem the guy goes prone, but suffers no bonus or penalties for it and is back on his feet by the start of his next turn.