Gonna be starting up a F&D game for my roommate, and I'm planning on using my collection of Imperial Assault stuff to map out battles rather than abstract narrative (like we usually do in RPG's; I have always hated the arbitrary nature of deciding ranges in gunfights in most narrative RPG sessions).

Anyone have some good guidelines for (or even know of "official" ones) for ranges, movement, etc. on grids for the FFG SW rpg's?

Right now I'm just thinking of brawn + agility in squares being standard movement range and short/medium/long being 6/12/18+ squares for gun ranges (extreme can be "if you can see it, you can shoot it").

Hmm, going by DnD feet and squares for me, I'd say in a building:

Short's around 25 feet / 5 squares max

Medium's around 50 feet / 10 squares max

Long is 75 feet / 15 squares max

Extreme is 100 ft / 20 squares max.

For more outside places, maybe multiply by 5. And with really expansive places, multiply by 10?

Maybe meters could work out, too.

Trying to turn this narrative system into a strategic system is going to cause you all kinds of problems that the system isn't designed to handle/address.

You put down a grid and assign movement and players are going to want to start five foot stepping, and delaying actions, and flank, and do all the things that this system doesn't value. And it's gonna waste table time and it's gonna make ppl angry that it doesn't do what it's not supposed to do.

Youre making a very poor decision in not accepting the game for what it is and learning how to use its very powerful and clever mechanics on their own terms.

Good luck with that.

10 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Trying to turn this narrative system into a strategic system is going to cause you all kinds of problems that the system isn't designed to handle/address.

You put down a grid and assign movement and players are going to want to start five foot stepping, and delaying actions, and flank, and do all the things that this system doesn't value. And it's gonna waste table time and it's gonna make ppl angry that it doesn't do what it's not supposed to do.

Youre making a very poor decision in not accepting the game for what it is and learning how to use its very powerful and clever mechanics on their own terms.

Good luck with that.

A not unexpected bit of arrogance, sarcasm, and presumption on your part. It was inevitable that someone would demonstrate your particular bias. You managed to do it with conceited aplomb. The Sith in me is almost impressed.

However, never presume to tell me what I can or can not accomplish. If you've nothing positive, helpful, and good spirited to contribute, you're welcome to hold your tongue.

2 hours ago, satkaz said:

Hmm, going by DnD feet and squares for me, I'd say in a building:

Short's around 25 feet / 5 squares max

Medium's around 50 feet / 10 squares max

Long is 75 feet / 15 squares max

Extreme is 100 ft / 20 squares max.

For more outside places, maybe multiply by 5. And with really expansive places, multiply by 10?

Maybe meters could work out, too.

That's a good notion. For some reason it slipped my mind to consider some of D&D's conventions.

2 hours ago, Deathseed said:

Gonna be starting up a F&D game for my roommate, and I'm planning on using my collection of Imperial Assault stuff to map out battles rather than abstract narrative (like we usually do in RPG's; I have always hated the arbitrary nature of deciding ranges in gunfights in most narrative RPG sessions).

Anyone have some good guidelines for (or even know of "official" ones) for ranges, movement, etc. on grids for the FFG SW rpg's?

Right now I'm just thinking of brawn + agility in squares being standard movement range and short/medium/long being 6/12/18+ squares for gun ranges (extreme can be "if you can see it, you can shoot it").

There is nothing official.

Rule of thumb is to keep it as simple as possible, as the narrative combat system isn't well suited to trying to specifically map stuff out. Rather than worry about specific "meters" or "feet" per square I would suggest:

Same square (e.g. 0 squares) = engaged

1 square = short

2 squares = medium

3 - 4 squares = long

5 - 6 squares = extreme

A Move maneuver allows a combatant to move 2 squares. I would not tie movement to stats at all. This unnecessarily punishes non-physical/non-combat characters.

Just remember, the FFG SWRPG system isn't designed to be a tactical simulation. It is at its root a narrative RPG system. Typically if there is a fight, it is because it is part of the story, and there is an objective for the PCs that goes beyond "Kill them all until they are dead and loot their stuff!"

6 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

There is nothing official.

Rule of thumb is to keep it as simple as possible, as the narrative combat system isn't well suited to trying to specifically map stuff out. Rather than worry about specific "meters" or "feet" per square I would suggest:

Same square (e.g. 0 squares) = engaged

1 square = short

2 squares = medium

3 - 4 squares = long

5 - 6 squares = extreme

A Move maneuver allows a combatant to move 2 squares. I would not tie movement to stats at all. This unnecessarily punishes non-physical/non-combat characters.

Just remember, the FFG SWRPG system isn't designed to be a tactical simulation. It is at its root a narrative RPG system . Typically if there is a fight, it is because it is part of the story, and there is an objective for the PCs that goes beyond "Kill them all until they are dead and loot their stuff!"

As a regular Fate player, that I'm well aware of. We're not looking to go full simulationist with it. We're plugging in Just enough functionality (and by that I mean literally just a range and movement function) to manage encounters in a slightly more organized format.

11 hours ago, satkaz said:

Hmm, going by DnD feet and squares for me, I'd say in a building:

Short's around 25 feet / 5 squares max

Medium's around 50 feet / 10 squares max

Long is 75 feet / 15 squares max

Extreme is 100 ft / 20 squares max.

For more outside places, maybe multiply by 5. And with really expansive places, multiply by 10?

Maybe meters could work out, too.

If those are going to work they would need to be increased, quite a bit. 100 ft is a silly short range for extreme, that's almost inside of close combat range. With turns being a fluid amount of time, covering 100 ft in one turn is more than feasible, while the rule system doesn't let you go out to extreme in one turn. **** you need two movement maneuvers just to get out to get out to long from Medium. When we're talking about extreme range, at least for my table, we're talking about hundreds of meters up to a km or more. Extreme should be extreme, people hitting someone at those ranges should be **** good at what they're doing or have specialized equipment. If you need that to hit someone from 100 ft away then you should have your blaster privileges revoked, because you're clearly a danger to everyone and everything.

11 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

If those are going to work they would need to be increased, quite a bit. 100 ft is a silly short range for extreme, that's almost inside of close combat range. With turns being a fluid amount of time, covering 100 ft in one turn is more than feasible, while the rule system doesn't let you go out to extreme in one turn. **** you need two movement maneuvers just to get out to get out to long from Medium. When we're talking about extreme range, at least for my table, we're talking about hundreds of meters up to a km or more. Extreme should be extreme, people hitting someone at those ranges should be **** good at what they're doing or have specialized equipment. If you need that to hit someone from 100 ft away then you should have your blaster privileges revoked, because you're clearly a danger to everyone and everything.

Well, we could just multiply it by 10 and slap meters on it instead of feet for 250m / 500m / 750m / 1000m, there's your 1km extreme shot.

Again, that was just a proof in concept, and not a hard and fast rule I've seen in play.

23 minutes ago, satkaz said:

Well, we could just multiply it by 10 and slap meters on it instead of feet for 250m / 500m / 750m / 1000m, there's your 1km extreme shot.

Again, that was just a proof in concept, and not a hard and fast rule I've seen in play.

0-5 meters for engaged, 5 to 25 meters (around the range for CQC) for short, 25 to 100 for medium, 100 to 500 for long and 500 to 1500 is what I would go with for the different ones. Although putting clear numbers and time-frames on it just invites unnecessary math. A grid and a map is nice to have, but I wouldn't clearly state that this many squares equals this range in every case.

I wouldn't bother counting squares or measuring distance for the most part, rather I¨'d make a set of rough guidelines like so:

Short - In the same room

Medium - In the same building or across the street

Long - the next block over, farther than you could sprint at full tilt all they way there. You could hit it with a rifle, but it'd be tricky without a scope.

Extreme - you probably need binoculars to see someone.

If you´'re using a map scaled for Imperial assault minis (about 28mm scale?) all of the action should probably occur within short and medium range. Possibly reaching into the lower end of long if you're using a very large table or the floor. Extreme would be, scale wise, in the next room over from the miniature's perspective.

15 hours ago, Deathseed said:

A not unexpected bit of arrogance, sarcasm, and presumption on your part. It was inevitable that someone would demonstrate your particular bias. You managed to do it with conceited aplomb. The Sith in me is almost impressed.

However, never presume to tell me what I can or can not accomplish. If you've nothing positive, helpful, and good spirited to contribute, you're welcome to hold your tongue.

Lol! Yes, I'm clearly the arrogant and conceited one...

Certainly I'm not the one who's been playing this system for years now, and has seen post after post by people just like you wanting to do what you want to do.

People complaining, and wondering, how to do Delayed Actions, and Attacks of Opportunity, and asking How to know exactly how far a PC can jump with a given check/Power, and needing range tables, when they put down a grid and started assigning definitions to all these things hat aren't meant to have definitions in this cinematic system. Certainly that's not me.

I never presumed you couldn't do it, I've just seen the waste of time that it is to do it.

Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean it's not helpful, positive, or good spirited.

Thats what the sarcasm was for

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

Lol! Yes, I'm clearly the arrogant and conceited one...

Certainly I'm not the one who's been playing this system for years now, and has seen post after post by people just like you wanting to do what you want to do.

People complaining, and wondering, how to do Delayed Actions, and Attacks of Opportunity, and asking How to know exactly how far a PC can jump with a given check/Power, and needing range tables, when they put down a grid and started assigning definitions to all these things hat aren't meant to have definitions in this cinematic system. Certainly that's not me.

I never presumed you couldn't do it, I've just seen the waste of time that it is to do it.

Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean it's not helpful, positive, or good spirited.

Thats what the sarcasm was for

Let me just put it this way, your experiences and opinions do not in any way constitute an objective reality of gaming. They are every bit as subjective as my own. Also, let me state that I'm old enough that I've been playing RPGs since the 1983 D&D Basic Set, and the one undeniable thread I've seen woven into the very tapestry of tabletop RPGs is that players play the way that works for them. No rules are inviolate, no systems or ideas are inviolate. People can and should play however they and their friends like. That's been my experience of the hobby.

You just can't seem to accept the subjectivity of the medium and assume that your experiences and observations will undeniably apply to everyone else.

Is such an endeavor a waste of time to (and for) you? Fine. That's your experience. You're welcome to tell me that's your experience. Do not presume to exercise control or determination over mine by telling me it will be mine.

I asked for ideas regarding implementation of ranges, not for your commentary on its virtues (or lack thereof).

I use wotc miniatures an maps printed in pieces on 17 x 11 inch sheets of paper (the durable paper, I get stuff printed at office max/depot). Moving anywhere on the same 11 x 17 inch sheet of paper is one maneuver as is moving one sheet of paper over. Then I convert maneuvers to range bands according to raw, so anywhere on the same sheet of paper (sheet zero) is short range, 1 and 2 sheets of paper is medium range, 3 and 4 sheets of paper is long range. Since my "that's not a coffee table it's a dinner table for Hobbits" coffee table is 56 by 34 inches, extreme range is literally "off the table".

Having set distances when it comes to certain things (looking at you weapons) will end with poor result. You mean to tell me that my super-mega-ultra-Sniper 5000 rifle can only shoot 75 feet?

For a Real World comparison the effective range of the M-16A2 (5.56mm round out of a 20" barrel) is 550 *meters* aka ~1500 feet. Trying to say that a long range weapon has a max range of 75 feet is silly.

If you were to attempt a feet/meter to range band conversion it would probably look more like Short: 20 - 75 feet. Medium 75 - 1500. Long 1500 - ?? Extreme ???? - ????

1 hour ago, ASCI Blue said:

Having set distances when it comes to certain things (looking at you weapons) will end with poor result. You mean to tell me that my super-mega-ultra-Sniper 5000 rifle can only shoot 75 feet?

For a Real World comparison the effective range of the M-16A2 (5.56mm round out of a 20" barrel) is 550 *meters* aka ~1500 feet. Trying to say that a long range weapon has a max range of 75 feet is silly.

If you were to attempt a feet/meter to range band conversion it would probably look more like Short: 20 - 75 feet. Medium 75 - 1500. Long 1500 - ?? Extreme ???? - ????

Range/difficulty also depends on how much clutter you have between you and a target, since most combats don't take place on a featureless infinite plane, having shorter increments makes sense.

After the first ground combat I ran with this system, we did find it hard to keep track, in our heads, who was at what range to whom, since it's all relative. So for future combats (that go beyond one enemy) I'll be using minis and maybe/maybe not a map (since clearing space for a map amidst the books and snacks and character sheets is always a challenge). But really, I'd just abstract it out the way the game does. Engaged is base-to-base contact, short is not, medium is farther than short, long is farther than medium.

19 hours ago, Deathseed said:

Let me just put it this way, your experiences and opinions do not in any way constitute an objective reality of gaming. They are every bit as subjective as my own. Also, let me state that I'm old enough that I've been playing RPGs since the 1983 D&D Basic Set, and the one undeniable thread I've seen woven into the very tapestry of tabletop RPGs is that players play the way that works for them. No rules are inviolate, no systems or ideas are inviolate. People can and should play however they and their friends like. That's been my experience of the hobby.

You just can't seem to accept the subjectivity of the medium and assume that your experiences and observations will undeniably apply to everyone else.

Is such an endeavor a waste of time to (and for) you? Fine. That's your experience. You're welcome to tell me that's your experience. Do not presume to exercise control or determination over mine by telling me it will be mine.

I asked for ideas regarding implementation of ranges, not for your commentary on its virtues (or lack thereof).

You didn't have to waste the keystrokes for that OG D&D posturing, anyone could surmise as much based on your desire to make the narrative strengths of this system more safe and familiar like your d20.

And what you can't seem to accept is that there is more than your or my subjective experiences to discuss here.

This is a community forum where you broached a subject for community discussion. The community benefits from a full view of the subject at hand. Similarly the community benefits from a common set of rules that can be assumed to function similarly at any table. Which in this digital age of gaming, experiencing a wide swath of tables/GMs is more and more common.

What you do doesn't matter to me. I don't care how you waste your time (and you are wasting your time).

But you're not the only person who's gonna read this thread. And it does matter that the community has an informed look at he subject.

The Range Band mechanic is more than just a way to track movement and range. It is a "dial" that the GM can use to easily adjust the Difficulty of any given encounter on the fly. All the posts you see about "I can't figure out how to balance encounters", is because they haven't bothered to learn how to use the Range Band system. And, heres what happens when you put down a grid. A PC jumps or shoots 100' on your grid this one time, and it was an Average check. Next time, the situation is higher stakes - more treacherous terrain, fire fight, darkness, whatever - and that jump that you've mapped out to be 50', or that shot, which you intended to be harder in this higher stakes situation you say it's a Hard Dif, but you've disarmed yourself of the narrative flexibility of the system to use your Difficulty dial when all your PC has to do is day "50' is at least just Average, if not Easy, I did 100 last time". And when your blaster rifle is shooting Long Range at 1500', and your PC is like, "I have the Longe Range Jump upgrade, I can jump 1500'", you've disarmed yourself of the ability to differentiate between those two relative ranges on the fly. Now take a variation on these issues and apply them to everything that has a Range Band.

Again, you're welcome to struggle against this powerful narrative system for the sake of your d20 safety blanket, but the game objectively does not benefit from it. At best it's a lateral move, towards making the game require more and different planning/mapping. And indeed the community benefits from this discussion on what is being lost to this very poor idea.

First problem I see with using minis is that a round of combat has a narrative length of time. It is not consistent or set amount of time. The book clearly says a round can be anywhere from a couple seconds to a couple minutes. I've heard second hand that the authors definition of the length of a round as being "the amount of time it takes for a character to do something cool". This leads into the problem of placing a mini on a map is not properly showing where that character is, as they simply are all over the place during the course of a round. You might be on "that side of the room", but your character is still moving around, taking cover, dodging shots, taking pot shots at enemies. Placing a mini on the table leads to a situation where players/GM lack the creativity to consider what that character might be doing, purely because their mini is in that one square for the turn. You will see less creativity with regards to how advantage/threat/triumphs/despairs are used, because players will approach the situation with a more closed-minded approach. Generally, this would be considered a bad thing.

Honestly, if you want to use minis and maps, you're best off just sticking with the idea that the GM adjudicates all range bands, all the time. Strongly encourage and remind players of this and advise that what may of felt like short/medium/long one time might not consistently be the same thing at another time. At the same time, encourage that because the length of a round is narrative, that the placement of minis is more of a placeholder for their general location relative to everything else, not a direct representation of the action. Maps are useful to help paint the scene, and indicate the most likely paths of entry/exit from the area. Showing that map with relative placement of enemies also helps prevents players from making some ill-advised decision simply because they forgot where you said those squads of stormtroopers are coming from.

Kommissar pretty much said it all for me. I use maps and minis, but only to more accurately describe the setting and where everything is. I don't have to constantly answers questions such as, "The cantina's bar is towards the back door, not the front", or "Wait, do you realize if you run across there you are going to be in the line of fire of those Stormtroopers". All things that the PCs should know and easily presented with a very basic map with few details and no grid.

Use a grid if you wish, no one is stopping you. But please consider that some of us have gone down this road and regretted it. While some can't express this eloquently, they may be trying to prevent you from facing the same hurdles they've had to deal with.

5 hours ago, emsquared said:

You didn't have to waste the keystrokes for that OG D&D posturing , anyone could surmise as much based on your desire to make the narrative strengths of this system more safe and familiar like your d20 .

And what you can't seem to accept is that there is more than your or my subjective experiences to discuss here.

This is a community forum where you broached a subject for community discussion. The community benefits from a full view of the subject at hand. Similarly the community benefits from a common set of rules that can be assumed to function similarly at any table. Which in this digital age of gaming, experiencing a wide swath of tables/GMs is more and more common.

What you do doesn't matter to me. I don't care how you waste your time (and you are wasting your time ).

But you're not the only person who's gonna read this thread. And it does matter that the community has an informed look at he subject.

The Range Band mechanic is more than just a way to track movement and range. It is a "dial" that the GM can use to easily adjust the Difficulty of any given encounter on the fly. All the posts you see about "I can't figure out how to balance encounters", is because they haven't bothered to learn how to use the Range Band system. And, heres what happens when you put down a grid. A PC jumps or shoots 100' on your grid this one time, and it was an Average check. Next time, the situation is higher stakes - more treacherous terrain, fire fight, darkness, whatever - and that jump that you've mapped out to be 50', or that shot, which you intended to be harder in this higher stakes situation you say it's a Hard Dif, but you've disarmed yourself of the narrative flexibility of the system to use your Difficulty dial when all your PC has to do is day "50' is at least just Average, if not Easy, I did 100 last time". And when your blaster rifle is shooting Long Range at 1500', and your PC is like, "I have the Longe Range Jump upgrade, I can jump 1500'", you've disarmed yourself of the ability to differentiate between those two relative ranges on the fly. Now take a variation on these issues and apply them to everything that has a Range Band.

Again, you're welcome to struggle against this powerful narrative system for the sake of your d20 safety blanket , but the game objectively does not benefit from it. At best it's a lateral move, towards making the game require more and different planning/mapping. And indeed the community benefits from this discussion on what is being lost to this very poor idea.

Please go paint someone else with your assumptions and prejudices (and at this point, you really are just arguing your prejudices as objective facts). My point was just that this isn't my first rodeo, and I don't need you telling me "the right and wrong ways to play".

I disagree with you, and I will not in the foreseeable future agree with you, end of story. Any attempt on your part to try to be "right" about this is a wasted effort.

No further correspondence between you and I shall occur on this matter.

1 minute ago, Deathseed said:

Please go paint someone else with your assumptions and prejudices. My point was just that this isn't my first rodeo, and I don't need you telling me "the right and wrong ways to play".

I disagree with you, and I will not in the foreseeable future agree with you, end of story. Any attempt on your part to try to be "right" about this is a wasted effort.

No further correspondence between you and I shall occur on this matter.

This sounds like a letter to the editor written by a Victorian gentleman.

Just now, Stan Fresh said:

This sounds like a letter to the editor written by a Victorian gentleman.

(twirls mustache)

I use, sort of, a grid system for the sake of ease for me as a Gm. However I point out that it starts to become more difficult the moment you apply "extreme" and "long" ranges. It can swiftly become problematic.

If you are fighting in a condensed place or position I'd say it's absolutely fine to try something like this. Say for example a base.

You are rarely if ever gonna be at long range with someone unless your in a hangar on the bottom floor in one corner and they're in the opposing corner and at the top floor. It gets a little confusing there.

1 minute ago, Luahk said:

I use, sort of, a grid system for the sake of ease for me as a Gm. However I point out that it starts to become more difficult the moment you apply "extreme" and "long" ranges. It can swiftly become problematic.

If you are fighting in a condensed place or position I'd say it's absolutely fine to try something like this. Say for example a base.

You are rarely if ever gonna be at long range with someone unless your in a hangar on the bottom floor in one corner and they're in the opposing corner and at the top floor. It gets a little confusing there.

I'm the GM, if I rule it a fair shot, it's a fair shot.

My players and I don't bother with rocket surgery. We're narrative first, mechanics second. We use the mechanics we like and ignore the rest. We gravitate towards whatever (for us) streamlines the experience.