So!!!

Does anyone here use any kind of grid, hex mat or anything else to represent character/enemy placement during combat?

I see no rules in the book for this, except for the personal and planetary distance scales.

There was some kind of printable ruler on a website I found, but that's it.

I guess by the general way the book is written, we're not supposed to be so precise, right?

Like I remember annoying situations in D&D combat where you'd count how many squares a character or NPC could move in a round and then as a GM I'd have to do that sort of math quickly when I wanted NPCs to run from players, and if I had them run too fast I'd get rules arguments like "But a wolf's base move is 30 feet, how can they run double that distance in a round if they're so wounded blablabla"

I guess this system is avoiding precision placement on purpose, right?

But how do we deal with situations where distance between things in the battlefield might be important, like when using "Blast" weapons and such?

This system purposely avoids grids and things like that. The distances here are more abstract and exact numbers are not given. The numbers for the range bands that are given are more suggestions than hard fast rules. As for Blast .... it affects people who are engaged with the target. Anyone who is not engaged with the target of Blast doesn't take damage unless the GM deems otherwise, such as the room being really small to begin with.

Yes no specific distances, and every time I have tried to use them it's got strange.

My rule of thumb for getting it sorted is;

0-2 m Engaged (just say yards in the US)

2-10m Short

10-25m Medium

25-100m Long

100-2km Extreme

This is based on the conversation based description that is given in the books and melee combat experience.

I remain flexible within those numbers however, for example under those guidelines you cannot do a 100m sprint in a round by the rules.

The key idea is using the ranges to establish the narrative and not worry so much about the specific distance, the numbers I gave above are ones I keep in mind for establishing narrative and not used as a hard and fast thing.

Yeah. Cool, I can see how this abstractness is going to make combat much faster. So for Blast, it's "engaged" yes and anything else a no (except if maybe the explosive item being used specifically states it reaches further than engaged range, right?). Awesome. Thanks guys!

Most explosives won't say they reach further than engaged. The aspect that gives them the big damage radius is the Blast trait. And the trait itself states that it only affects those engaged with the target, except for when the GM might deem otherwise as is appropriate for the given scene taking place. It pretty much boils down to if it makes sense in the moment to extend the damage beyond the engaged band.

You mean like, explosives that would be used to destroy a building? When a building goes up in flames, I guess that would be a situation where blast damage would extend beyond engaged range. Hmmm ok.

When the explosion happens the building itself is already in engaged range.

When the explosion happens the building itself is already in engaged range.

Yeah, but I mean stuff outside the building. I'd guess that if it's a big enough explosion, people would have to be farther away than say, short range to be safe from the blast, right?

When the explosion happens the building itself is already in engaged range.

Yeah, but I mean stuff outside the building. I'd guess that if it's a big enough explosion, people would have to be farther away than say, short range to be safe from the blast, right?

It would have to be a really big explosion to extend further than Engaged. I'm not saying it's impossible but you can fit a lot of stuff into the Engaged band as is. Short range is several meters away. Several is subjective of course but that means that there is room for more stuff to be in the Engaged band than you're used to from other games. Most things close to a building or directly outside of a building would be in the Engaged range band.

Explosions in this game aren't all that big in general. Dangerous to be sure as Blast trait can get pretty high on some weapons but they're not ..... big (this isn't a Michael Bay movie after all).

But logic and narrative come first. So if it makes sense for more stuff to be hit then more stuff is hit. But by the rules .... you're safe from a blast if you're at Short range.

Thermal detonators have a blast radius larger than engaged, iir its short

You mean like, explosives that would be used to destroy a building? When a building goes up in flames,

Unlike what you see in movies, explosives that bring down a building are strategically placed to bring down the support columns. Then the building falls, that is a result of the explosives and generally does not have the theatrical fireball.

Also, while you are at it, please disregard the scene from Commando where Arnie demolishes the barracks by placing Claymore mines outside of the buildings....that was is pure Hollywood fantasy.

1) the mines were placed incorrectly (with the business end facing away from the building)

2) they have a small explosive charge designed to propel several hundred BBs over a wide area, so even if they were placed correctly, the end effect would be shooting the buildings from PB range with several shotgun rounds.

As others have said this is a narrative game that allows for more role playing more than combat. It's supposed to allow you to have a heroic moment(s). I tend to be a little loose on range bands but there are rules for those who want to be by the book.

I have a chart I use for general range bands distances. On personal scale, it's as follows:

Engaged: 0 to 3 meters;

Short: 2 to 15 meters;

Medium: 10 to 50 meters;

Long: 40 to 500 meters;

Extreme: 400 meters + .

You'll notice there is an area of overlap in between each range band. Someone who is 45 meters away may be at Medium range in some circumstances or long range at others. I built that overlap in on purpose to both reinforce to my players the fuzziness of the range band system, and to allow myself some wiggle room during play.

The reason the issue of who's Engaged or not usually comes up with Minion groups so it's how you describe them is going to be the key. If your group is spread out a bit or not all behind the same bit of cover then they aren't Engaged. If they are in marching order or behind the same cover or in a small room/hallway/ally without cover, then they should probably be affected. If I'm not sure, I didn't fully describe the situation before the attack, I'll go with if they are in cover they aren't Engaged.

Yes no specific distances, and every time I have tried to use them it's got strange.

My rule of thumb for getting it sorted is;

0-2 m Engaged (just say yards in the US)

2-10m Short

10-25m Medium

25-100m Long

100-2km Extreme

This is based on the conversation based description that is given in the books and melee combat experience.

I remain flexible within those numbers however, for example under those guidelines you cannot do a 100m sprint in a round by the rules.

The key idea is using the ranges to establish the narrative and not worry so much about the specific distance, the numbers I gave above are ones I keep in mind for establishing narrative and not used as a hard and fast thing.

technically engaged is the distance you can attack someone with a melee weapon... which would be at least 21 feet if you consider the tueller drill.

Yes no specific distances, and every time I have tried to use them it's got strange.

My rule of thumb for getting it sorted is;

0-2 m Engaged (just say yards in the US)

2-10m Short

10-25m Medium

25-100m Long

100-2km Extreme

This is based on the conversation based description that is given in the books and melee combat experience.

I remain flexible within those numbers however, for example under those guidelines you cannot do a 100m sprint in a round by the rules.

The key idea is using the ranges to establish the narrative and not worry so much about the specific distance, the numbers I gave above are ones I keep in mind for establishing narrative and not used as a hard and fast thing.

technically engaged is the distance you can attack someone with a melee weapon... which would be at least 21 feet if you consider the tueller drill.

Speaking of the 21-foot rule; this is what a double Despair does to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wzAGE4quWU

Oh, yeah: Warning, it's a tad graphic.

Yes no specific distances, and every time I have tried to use them it's got strange.

My rule of thumb for getting it sorted is;

0-2 m Engaged (just say yards in the US)

2-10m Short

10-25m Medium

25-100m Long

100-2km Extreme

This is based on the conversation based description that is given in the books and melee combat experience.

I remain flexible within those numbers however, for example under those guidelines you cannot do a 100m sprint in a round by the rules.

The key idea is using the ranges to establish the narrative and not worry so much about the specific distance, the numbers I gave above are ones I keep in mind for establishing narrative and not used as a hard and fast thing.

technically engaged is the distance you can attack someone with a melee weapon... which would be at least 21 feet if you consider the tueller drill.

Speaking of the 21-foot rule; this is what a double Despair does to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wzAGE4quWU

Oh, yeah: Warning, it's a tad graphic.

sadly blocked in the US due to fox...

I would advise against you ever using or thinking in measurable distance terms with this system. And if/when your players do, say "I don't know, but it's close/a ways off/far/etc."

No more feet, meters, miles, no metrics - stick to concepts. The designated engaged, short, medium, long, extreme for combat, but this extends beyond combat too. Travel, communication, sight, do not try to apply or come up with metrics, it's simply going to complicate your life as GM. The flexibility of just using conceptual terms will liberate you (which probably goes for your D&D and PF-style systems too for that matter).

You're no longer micro-managing tactics or shooting for a military precision feel, you're telling a story as if viewed through the pages of a graphic novel or screen. Try to attain those "tones" or "feel".

Which is great, and I agree to a point. However, that isn't easy for a lot of people, especially a group of programmers and engineers who have spent their entire roleplaying career with games based on tactical wargaming.

Saying, "Just free form it!" Does those kinds of people (which includes my players, and used to include me) a huge disservice, and can potentially turn them off of this game. Which is why I designed my charts the way I did: there is an inherent fuzziness to the range bands that I can show them with numbers, and once they get used to it, we can blur the lines even more. But it also allows me to have a reference frame, which can be helpful.

Actual quote from this Friday's game:

"So the guy's in the tower you mentioned right? I use through my range-finder to get a better look. How far away is he?"

"Well, your range-finder is reading 61.38 meters. That's a bit further than we normally have medium range be, but you guys are still hyped on adrenaline and wishing upon stars*, and you've got a good line of sight, so we'll call it medium. The people in the tower may have to call it long, though!"

*Our Guardian is a Verpine with the Emotional Strength of Hope. The Jiminy Cricket jokes never stop~

Which is great, and I agree to a point. However, that isn't easy for a lot of people, especially a group of programmers and engineers who have spent their entire roleplaying career with games based on tactical wargaming.

Saying, "Just free form it!" Does those kinds of people (which includes my players, and used to include me) a huge disservice, and can potentially turn them off of this game. Which is why I designed my charts the way I did: there is an inherent fuzziness to the range bands that I can show them with numbers, and once they get used to it, we can blur the lines even more. But it also allows me to have a reference frame, which can be helpful.

Eeeeehhh it only does them a disservice if every game is meant to play the same way. Different games work by different rules and I don't think any game is obligated to build to include all possible players. Frankly the games I've enjoyed most over the years are the ones that simple say "this is the kind of player we cater to so deal". Those generally have a more solid grasp on their design concept and a more focused set of rules than games that try to cater to all types of players.

If you want to add more technical stuff more power to you. But I don't think FFG's "just free form it!!" answer is a disservice to anyone since they aren't really obligated to make the game for everyone. They are very open about what kind of game they are building and the kind of gamers they are gearing this towards and so long as they are open and honest then ultimately ..... the lack of more technical rules is an issue with the players and the group and not this game.

Which is why it's good that we have 3 other versions of Star Wars to play with if FFG's vision doesn't work for you.

Any RPG that claims it's "all things to all players" has a creator that's 100% full of crap. I agree with Kael that the best RPGs are the ones that say up front "this is the type of experience we're looking to present, and if that's not your bag, that's okay."

No RPG, not even the great-grandpappy of RPGs that is Dungeons & Dragons is going to suit everyone's preferred style of play. I think 4th Edition proved that and then some, given the significant backlash it suffered.

There were plenty of folks complaining about how WotC's d20 systems were way too gritty, and that they were much too heavy-handed in "suggesting" that people also buy their SW minis in order to play the game, with Saga Edition getting hit pretty hard with said complaint given how distances were noted in squares rather than meters that prior Star Wars RPGs had used.

FFG opted to go with a much lighter touch than WotC used in terms of crunchiness, harkening back a bit to WEG which wasn't super-crunchy, which some old time SWRPG fans appreciated.

Which is great, and I agree to a point. However, that isn't easy for a lot of people, especially a group of programmers and engineers who have spent their entire roleplaying career with games based on tactical wargaming.

Saying, "Just free form it!" Does those kinds of people (which includes my players, and used to include me) a huge disservice, and can potentially turn them off of this game. Which is why I designed my charts the way I did: there is an inherent fuzziness to the range bands that I can show them with numbers, and once they get used to it, we can blur the lines even more. But it also allows me to have a reference frame, which can be helpful.

Actual quote from this Friday's game:

"So the guy's in the tower you mentioned right? I use through my range-finder to get a better look. How far away is he?"

"Well, your range-finder is reading 61.38 meters. That's a bit further than we normally have medium range be, but you guys are still hyped on adrenaline and wishing upon stars*, and you've got a good line of sight, so we'll call it medium. The people in the tower may have to call it long, though!"

*Our Guardian is a Verpine with the Emotional Strength of Hope. The Jiminy Cricket jokes never stop~

My group has 2 software engineers, 1 finance guy, and 1 scientist amongst the 6-7 that regularly sit down for a game. We were that table... until we weren't.

"It's hard", so what? Maybe there is value - especially for a new system - in trying something new when you're trying something new? Especially when that new thing is built around new things. And actually, it's not hard at all, if you just talk about it as a table and make an effort. It may be a little uncomfortable or feel weird, for the first session or two. But when you no longer have to explain why "This guy is a little beyond our 'normal' medium range.." or any nats-ass minutes like that again, It's so so so worth it. Every scene is its own scene, the ability of PCs to control situations, and the differing metric circumstances that must be reconciled in a more representationalist system, that can allow PCs to be more one-dimensional (predicting and controlling range, movement and what exactly encompasses a turn) are fluid here and allow the GM to more easily push PCs outside of their comfort zones, or to hand wave "inconvenient details" that can otherwise bog-down combat.

I think emsquared brings up an excellent point.

I've heard a lot of folks crap on this system without having done anything more than look at the books, with the top two complaints being "funny dice" and "no Jedi at the outset," though this last one's been mitigated with the release of Force and Destiny. Though I'm sure there are still folks that aren't happy that Force and Destiny requires the PC to earn their power instead of having it pretty much handed to them on a platter from the start.

But at the same time, there are just some folks that don't or can't venture out of their "comfort zone" when it comes to RPGs. My personal experience, there's a lot of gamers in my immediate area that outright refuse to let go of d20 systems, especially Pathfinder, simply because other RPGs don't offer the same tacti-crunch rules-heavy experience that 3.X does.

From the outset, Jay Little and his team of game designers set out to create a system that wasn't super-heavy on rules, and has GM Chris noted, they made a "Big Box Company RPG with an Indie RPG feel." And that's not going to be everyone's liking. I've run and played in demo sessions for this system where some of the players simply didn't care for it, though they admitted that they did have fun, with one couple saying the only reason they're not picking the system up was that they'd already invested a whole lot of money in getting as many of the out-of-print WEG SWD6 books as possible.

And because this game has more of an indie mindset, in which rules are by intent a lot more open so as to give GMs more creative freedom in adjudicating things (a stark contrast to 3.X and the "rules for everything" mindset). And for some folks, that sort of mindset just doesn't work for them, or they simply aren't willing to make the shift to something outside their norm.

Throw off the shackles of oppression and embrace narrative play

All this talk of "rules-lite" falls flat in the wake of splatmania. The range bands, at their foundation, are descriptive game terms. Terms that any ninny can remember after a few sessions, yet some players still don't "get" them.

How many GMs have said "Target X is a short distance from you" only to have the player respond with "How many meters is that?" Clearly more than three, so they and those in similar situations "add" something so their players don't hitch and stall every time a range band is mentioned. AND THAT'S OKAY!

What *I'm* getting really sick of around here is someone's "crunchy" suggestion being demonized, especially because all the new widgets, gizmos, doohickeys, and talents spread throughout thirty some-odd books literally SCREAMS crunch.