Ill probably step on a few toes with this one so for those of you who it offends, please forgive me in advance.

A system like Edge of Empire (What do you actually call this game in its entirety? FFG Star Wars?) really reduces the need for detailed maps of combat environments in my opinion and saves the GM from what is typically a constant quest to produce a never ending supply of them.

The combat system is narrative based rather than tactical and therefor allows an approach all but impossible in other games.

"One of the rebels is firing from a hatchway a bit down the corridor as you clear the ramp. You see another disappear down a side passage further on, perhaps to a crew birth or supply room"

The exact specifics of how the area is laid out seem like a luxury, nice if you have it, but certainly not necessary to resolve the situation. Take a typical freighter for example. We all know the general compartments present, basic functions of each etc. A fight inside one would be close quarters, would a map actually be necessary? It would seem not as none of the core books come with them.

Don't get me wrong, if you happened to have one, great! But I can see running a battle through even a Star Destroyer fairly easily without any sort of map at all.

Thoughts?

I really think it depends on the group.

I've played games where the entire scene was described, where everyone was picturing the events in their minds, and halfway through the fight someone describes an action which wasn't possible due to terrain and such. Combat ground to a halt, and eventually we started doodling up the scene so everyone could tell where they were in relation to everything else. Everyone at the table had a different interpretation of the scene, and none of them matched what the GM had been picturing either. So even sitting at the same table, hearing the same descriptions, everyone had a different interpretation of events.

While you don't necessarily need to break out miniatures and rulers, counting off grid squares or hexes, having a general floor plan does alleviate some of the confusion. That's why MUDs evolved into MMOs with pretty graphics. If you show them a vague picture of the scene, they may realize there is more to their advantage. A stack of crates for cover, loose tools in a toolbox for improvised weapons, an exposed conduit you could breach and spray contents on the nearby enemy.

For those lacking maps, I found this site very accommodating.

http://thompsonpeters.com/eote/

At the very least, seeing the rectangular room will remind those players coming from D&D and the like, that there are a limited number of dark corners in which to sit and scowl at the patrons. =)

I agree completely. In fact, in some instances I have found creating maps to be a distraction for the players. In the F&D CRB adventure, for example, there was a university campus on which most of the action took place. I drew a map of it, but my players actually got derailed trying to explore the campus. Not that it's bad that they wanted to explore, but they thought that because a location existed on the map, it was therefore important (in most cases it wasn't).

Also, like you said it is limiting in some cases.

Player: "I want to go to the college bookstore"

Player 2: "There isn't one on the map"

Me: *face palm*

etc

That being said, I still like to use visual aides. Here's an example: The players find a number of strange artifacts that bear examining. I drew each artifact on a blank, unlined note card. It only took a few minutes to do, and then when I was describing each artifact, I put the cards out on the table. This helped the players immensely to visualize them and keep them straight in their minds.

I used to not use maps and people kept having me explain what the layout is... it got tiresome so for the situations in which things can turn into more structured play, I draw simple layouts on mspaint. Seems to help so far.

I've played games where the entire scene was described, where everyone was picturing the events in their minds, and halfway through the fight someone describes an action which wasn't possible due to terrain and such. Combat ground to a halt, and eventually we started doodling up the scene so everyone could tell where they were in relation to everything else. Everyone at the table had a different interpretation of the scene, and none of them matched what the GM had been picturing either. So even sitting at the same table, hearing the same descriptions, everyone had a different interpretation of events.

Yup. That happened in the most recent episode of the F&D campaign that I’ve been running.

We broke out some paper, I wrote down letters (with a circle around them) to represent each player, then I wrote down some more letters to represent the Guards, the Captain of the Guard, etc…. We actually had six different groups to represent.

Took about five minutes. Then we were all back on the same page — so to speak — and we continued the combat.

EDIT: For things where maps and deckplans are more easily available, like certain types of ships, etc… then I will definitely print them off and show them to the players if/when that is appropriate. Same with galaxy maps, if they want to know where they are, where they’re going, what systems are nearby, and how long it will take to get from point X to point Y.

I mean, if nothing else, I was a Boy Scout many decades ago, and that same tendency to “Always Be Prepared” has stayed with me.

But generally speaking, I try to keep the maps and deckplans to a minimum. They can be limiting to the narrative, and lock people into thinking only about the things that they can see on the paper.

2nd EDIT: The irony here is that I am very much a visual kind of guy, and I find maps and deckplans to be extremely interesting and useful to me. However, personally, I find that also tends to lead me back down the old D&D munchkin path, which I want to actively avoid.

So, I tend to use the maps and deckplans to get an idea of how things might happen, and then I try to put them up and not refer back to them unless I absolutely have to.

In the long run, it’s better for me and my narrative if I do things this way. YMMV, of course.

Basic maps seems to be the way to go in my opinion. No grids at all. Just a basic layout. No exacting details either. When you plop down a basic diagram location, you thus aren't being forced to re-describe the locations of people and major objects to players. But, it doesn't need every single object detailed either so as to not infringe upon player use of imagination and/or Destiny Points to "create" things in the environment.

Example I want - PLAYER: "I scoot over and take a seat near the back door of the cantina" (back door is marked on a very basic map)

Example I don't want - PLAYER: "Where is the back door again, I forgot? Is there a back door?"

Example I don't want - PLAYER: "I grab a bar-stool and crack it over the Jawa's head". GM: "Well, according to the painstakingly detailed map I laboriously created last week, you are nowhere near a bar-stool".

A big roll of butchers paper on the side of the table should provide all the maps you need.

Don't get me wrong, if you happened to have one, great! But I can see running a battle through even a Star Destroyer fairly easily without any sort of map at all.

I'd disagree with "fairly easily", depending on how much you can keep in your own head regarding the relative movement and position of all the various players in a scene. It's really tedious without some kind of notation to keep track of "minion group A is short range from PC1 and PC2, but medium range from PC3", etc.

In fact, this:

The combat system is narrative based rather than tactical and therefor allows an approach all but impossible in other games.

...isn't really true as stated. This game is very tactical, just a read of the various maneuvers and the talent trees should tell you that. I think it's more accurate to say that this game provides an easy a mechanic to include a narrative overlay on the tactical elements.

So unless you're a genius and can track all the relative positioning and environmental effects with ease while providing narrative prose (engaging both the left and right sides of your brain at the same time), a form of notation is helpful. And the simplest form of notation is "a map". It doesn't matter how crude it is, whether it's a quick sketch on paper or clearing a section of table to use erasers and dice for scene elements. That's where the narrative comes in. But it will matter to help inform your player's choices, and it will help free up your brain for other (narrative) elements.

I like basic maps or nice deckplans, but the problem with a lot of them is that they are drawn to deal with 1" miniatures which causes tons of weird oddities, like a table and chairs that eat up something close to 200 sqft (table drawn at 1" diameter with chairs in the squares out around it) or cockpits with room for 4 miniatures to stand in when they don't need to be anywhere near that roomy. Think how crowded and close together the characters are in the Millenium Falcon scenes. Chewie and Han can reach the controls they share in common (center console) and reach the outer consoles without standing up, which means the cockpit is only about 6' wide, not 10+.