40 minutes ago, Quigonjinnandjuice said:

We like to use a white board for the map. Like dgamal said, I just draw the setting and let my players know what the scale of the area is. This keeps from players misinterpreting the scale for each encounter after. No need for a grid in my experience so far, but I can see it working. Just be clear with the group that a square one encounter may be 5 feet, but for another encounter it could be 20 feet..

To avoid a board or minis entirely due to it being a narrative system, just isn't our style. Minis AND great narrative make for flavor in the game that makes players feel more engaged.. At least with my group.

I agree. Maps make it much easier to react appropriately and keep things straight in your head. It is far too easy for 2 players to come up with completely different layouts to the same description and thus react in ways that dont make sense

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I agree. Maps make it much easier to react appropriately and keep things straight in your head. It is far too easy for 2 players to come up with completely different layouts to the same description and thus react in ways that dont make sense

Definitely, that's really the only flaw of an entirely narrative and imagination driven campaign. Everyone perceives things differently.. Having the layout for surroundings and enemy/player locations, grid or not, is going to help any player.

I just recently used note cards in one of my sessions and it seemed to go over really well.

We were playing through a jungle encounter and came across an encampment. I ripped the note cards into various sizes to give the idea that building A is smaller than building B and spread them out on the table. The players used traditional dice as their minis and placed them around the "map." I would then tell them, this bad guy was about medium range from where they were. If they wanted to move within short, I would point to where I thought that would be.

As the encounter progressed, I let them grab note cards and "edit the map." Especially if they rolled advantage and said, "I want there to be a tree 'here' and it falls over and blocks their retreat." This way we let it be very narrative and they were not limited to what was or was not on the map. It gave the player the freedom to say, "I want to take cover behind a boulder," then we'd rip a small piece of note card and place that boulder on the map. We also established that the minis and note cards were just visual aids and made sure that they narrated their movements and actions as they moved their minis around.

I thought about using pre-printed maps that I have from Saga Edition, but saw on one of the forums that someone else used note cards and decided to give it a try. I felt that this method not only brought over some of the "old" feel of playing through an encounter but also allowed for the freedom of the narrative dice. It helped myself who is relatively new to the system and my players who were struggling buying into this change.

But as has already been mentioned, this is what worked for us and everyone else should feel free to play in a way that works for them.

39 minutes ago, Archangel3000 said:

I just recently used note cards in one of my sessions and it seemed to go over really well.

We were playing through a jungle encounter and came across an encampment. I ripped the note cards into various sizes to give the idea that building A is smaller than building B and spread them out on the table. The players used traditional dice as their minis and placed them around the "map." I would then tell them, this bad guy was about medium range from where they were. If they wanted to move within short, I would point to where I thought that would be.

As the encounter progressed, I let them grab note cards and "edit the map." Especially if they rolled advantage and said, "I want there to be a tree 'here' and it falls over and blocks their retreat." This way we let it be very narrative and they were not limited to what was or was not on the map. It gave the player the freedom to say, "I want to take cover behind a boulder," then we'd rip a small piece of note card and place that boulder on the map. We also established that the minis and note cards were just visual aids and made sure that they narrated their movements and actions as they moved their minis around.

I thought about using pre-printed maps that I have from Saga Edition, but saw on one of the forums that someone else used note cards and decided to give it a try. I felt that this method not only brought over some of the "old" feel of playing through an encounter but also allowed for the freedom of the narrative dice. It helped myself who is relatively new to the system and my players who were struggling buying into this change.

But as has already been mentioned, this is what worked for us and everyone else should feel free to play in a way that works for them.

My FFG GM has a theory he wants to try sometime with this or Genesys, running it without a GM. Based on how the dice work he thinks with some minor modification it could be used as a player only system.

10 minutes ago, ASCI Blue said:

My FFG GM has a theory he wants to try sometime with this or Genesys, running it without a GM. Based on how the dice work he thinks with some minor modification it could be used as a player only system.

As GM I only ever roll when there's combat. So really you'd just have to, as a player only game, roll what would be the "Defense"/"Reaction"/"Negative" pool as the "Action"/"Positive" pool - using Yellow/Green/Blue die - and vice versa for the NPC attack.

I mean this changes the dynamics of combat significantly as the "Action" dice have higher rates of success (resulting in less lethal combat), but it seems workable. Especially since combat is pretty lethal already.

19 hours ago, Archangel3000 said:

We were playing through a jungle encounter and came across an encampment. I ripped the note cards into various sizes to give the idea that building A is smaller than building B and spread them out on the table. The players used traditional dice as their minis and placed them around the "map." I would then tell them, this bad guy was about medium range from where they were. If they wanted to move within short, I would point to where I thought that would be.

Have you played FFG Warhammer? Warhammer had Location Cards which narratively described generic locations (Small Path, Loud Tavern, Deep Jungle, Small Bridge, etc) while suggesting some mechanics for the location (Setback to Perception checks for low light, the Smithy has several makeshift melee weapons, etc). I developed what I called Over-sized Location Cards, which were around note card size. I used a system such as Engaged - mini upon the card, Short - mini on the edge of the card, etc to denote ranges. More cards could be plopped down for new locations while noting the range between them (the Small Bridge is at Medium from the Loud Tavern). So, we still used minis to help with knowing where everything was at, but it was kept narrative enough that players could expand on the details.

1 hour ago, Sturn said:

Have you played FFG Warhammer? Warhammer had Location Cards which narratively described generic locations (Small Path, Loud Tavern, Deep Jungle, Small Bridge, etc) while suggesting some mechanics for the location (Setback to Perception checks for low light, the Smithy has several makeshift melee weapons, etc). I developed what I called Over-sized Location Cards, which were around note card size. I used a system such as Engaged - mini upon the card, Short - mini on the edge of the card, etc to denote ranges. More cards could be plopped down for new locations while noting the range between them (the Small Bridge is at Medium from the Loud Tavern). So, we still used minis to help with knowing where everything was at, but it was kept narrative enough that players could expand on the details.

21 hours ago, ASCI Blue said:

My FFG GM has a theory he wants to try sometime with this or Genesys, running it without a GM. Based on how the dice work he thinks with some minor modification it could be used as a player only system.

I have not played FFG Warhammer. But, it sounds like I did something similar. I had the players explore a crashed ship, and I wrote on note cards the different rooms and hallways and each card had an obstacle or creature with a difficulty rating on the card. I then shuffled the cards and spread them all out face down. Each player would take turns drawing whichever card they wanted and that was the next room or hallway they came across and then had to resolve whatever was on the card (if anything) before being able to press on. I also used a random loot table so if they wanted to search the crew quarters, they would roll their skill check and then based on the result they would roll on the loot table.

It was a very player driven session with me as the GM flipping Destiny points to increase the difficulties or add in new obstacles that were not on the cards. The main thing I contributed was the overall plot idea and then rolled during combat encounters. I'm running another session like this in about a week and if it keeps working out, I may create my own PC and play along with them.

I know it is an old thread, but this is very near and dear to my group. We have basically built a tactical expansion that we plan to release, for free, over the next few months.

Range bands trouble me greatly. I draw 3D products and CNC/3D print them all the time. I cannot conceptualize more than 3-4 items/people on the board with the band system with any accuracy. Also, it allows for wonky distances between items because they are only relative to each other, and not other things at once. With 6 items, you have to track 16 different relative distances to know where everything is. For perspective, that is only 3 players, 2 opponents, and 1 piece of terrain.

We use the grid to keep it all organized. First, we chose to play on a 1" square grid as we already had terrain and minis for it. We typically play on a 36" x 48" grid. Then we defined the bands. 2 squares for engaged. 4 more squares for short. Another 5 squares for medium. 10 more for long. And finally, another 21 squares for extreme. Movement is 5 squares. We made rulers (Dragon Scales TM) that have Short, Medium, and Long ranges marked. Flip the whole thing one time for Extreme. Identifying range and line of sight is super easy with them.

All of this follows very closely with how many maneuvers it takes to move through range bands, as defined by FFG. Melee weapons are great in close quarters. Pistols and carbines have a clear advantage over melee, but are not far enough away to guarantee success. Rifles can do a good job of controlling fields of fire, but terrain often limits their superiority. A sniper with extreme range can reach almost anything from anywhere on the board, but can easily lose line of sight/effect.

We have been fine tuning this for over two years now. You have to want a tactical feel to your game to be interested in it. But if that is what you are looking for, we definitely found a way to add it.

1 hour ago, SBR-13a said:

I know it is an old thread, but this is very near and dear to my group. We have basically built a tactical expansion that we plan to release, for free, over the next few months.

Range bands trouble me greatly. I draw 3D products and CNC/3D print them all the time. I cannot conceptualize more than 3-4 items/people on the board with the band system with any accuracy. Also, it allows for wonky distances between items because they are only relative to each other, and not other things at once. With 6 items, you have to track 16 different relative distances to know where everything is. For perspective, that is only 3 players, 2 opponents, and 1 piece of terrain.

We use the grid to keep it all organized. First, we chose to play on a 1" square grid as we already had terrain and minis for it. We typically play on a 36" x 48" grid. Then we defined the bands. 2 squares for engaged. 4 more squares for short. Another 5 squares for medium. 10 more for long. And finally, another 21 squares for extreme. Movement is 5 squares. We made rulers (Dragon Scales TM) that have Short, Medium, and Long ranges marked. Flip the whole thing one time for Extreme. Identifying range and line of sight is super easy with them.

All of this follows very closely with how many maneuvers it takes to move through range bands, as defined by FFG. Melee weapons are great in close quarters. Pistols and carbines have a clear advantage over melee, but are not far enough away to guarantee success. Rifles can do a good job of controlling fields of fire, but terrain often limits their superiority. A sniper with extreme range can reach almost anything from anywhere on the board, but can easily lose line of sight/effect.

We have been fine tuning this for over two years now. You have to want a tactical feel to your game to be interested in it. But if that is what you are looking for, we definitely found a way to add it.

You dont need a grid. You just need a map and miniatures and to be consistant about approximate ranges. We operate in real life the same way you should in this game. We dont go through life with laser range finders

I'm tempted to print 8 inch x 8 inch terrain tiles. Then the tile your on (1) is short range, tile 2 and 3 is medium range, tiles 4 and 5 are long range, tiles 6+ are extreme. 1 maneuver can move you to the next tile over or anywhere in your current tile. That is 100% consistent with movement and range RAW for ffg star wars.

Quote

You dont need a grid. You just need a map and miniatures and to be consistant about approximate ranges. We operate in real life the same way you should in this game. We dont go through life with laser range finders

That's cute. So you approximate whether you stop before the stop sign? Me, I don't roll into the cross traffic until I am ready. Every. Single. Time. I surely don't approximate whether I fit my butt in the ski lift chair, I make very sure I get into it each time I try.

While in real life we don't actually put a number on it, we don't approximate it at all.

And of course you don't need a grid. Or minis. Or even a table. That is why I labeled it as an option for those looking for a more tactical game.

4 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'm tempted to print 8 inch x 8 inch terrain tiles. Then the tile your on (1) is short range, tile 2 and 3 is medium range, tiles 4 and 5 are long range, tiles 6+ are extreme. 1 maneuver can move you to the next tile over or anywhere in your current tile. That is 100% consistent with movement and range RAW for ffg star wars.

Yeah, this is where I run into a problem with the suspension of disbelief. With 2 tiles by 2 tiles, you could have 2 minis 1" apart or 21" apart and you would say they are both at medium range. Also, the mini could move 1" and be forced to stop moving, or like 10" in the other direction. There is nothing consistent about it.

46 minutes ago, SBR-13a said:

Yeah, this is where I run into a problem with the suspension of disbelief. With 2 tiles by 2 tiles, you could have 2 minis 1" apart or 21" apart and you would say they are both at medium range. Also, the mini could move 1" and be forced to stop moving, or like 10" in the other direction. There is nothing consistent about it.

Who says you stop moving at the edge of a 8x8 inch grid? There isn't a 1 inch sub grid. If you want to engage with someone 1 square over you still have to spend a second maneuver to engage with them, but that's for engaging rather than "moving"

The FFG Warhammer 3rd ed aside from the location cards also had you mark out the relative ranges with the generic tokens which I quite liked. You had a standee for the characters and NPCs and the abstraction was kind of easier with a little bit of a physical aid.

In our SW/Genesys games I still like to use tokens to help sketch out slightly larger fights with the relative bands.

I like the Grid suggestion as well - good aide for the abstraction I think!

I use maps and minature. I actually ink and color my maps. I enjoy the process and my players really enjoy playing on them. I dont use grids however.

I feel grids and rulers puts too much restraint on things. Whereas I can be more loosey goosey with certain things without them. It's more of a visual rather than a science.

For us at least

52 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

I use maps and minature. I actually ink and color my maps. I enjoy the process and my players really enjoy playing on them. I dont use grids however.

I feel grids and rulers puts too much restraint on things. Whereas I can be more loosey goosey with certain things without them. It's more of a visual rather than a science.

For us at least

I would love to see some of your maps.

1 hour ago, kaosoe said:

I would love to see some of your maps.

I'll see if I can get some pictures of them.

On 1/19/2020 at 8:09 AM, SBR-13a said:

Range bands trouble me greatly. I draw 3D products and CNC/3D print them all the time. I cannot conceptualize more than 3-4 items/people on the board with the band system with any accuracy. Also, it allows for wonky distances between items because they are only relative to each other, and not other things at once. With 6 items, you have to track 16 different relative distances to know where everything is. For perspective, that is only 3 players, 2 opponents, and 1 piece of terrain.

We use the grid to keep it all organized. First, we chose to play on a 1" square grid as we already had terrain and minis for it. We typically play on a 36" x 48" grid. Then we defined the bands. 2 squares for engaged. 4 more squares for short. Another 5 squares for medium. 10 more for long. And finally, another 21 squares for extreme. Movement is 5 squares. We made rulers (Dragon Scales TM) that have Short, Medium, and Long ranges marked. Flip the whole thing one time for Extreme. Identifying range and line of sight is super easy with them.

I mean you really have completely missed the point of the mechanic.

It's not designed to be used for measuring or approximating distance. It's not even for tracking where people are on the battle field.

It's a combat encounter Difficulty control mechanism.

Period.

It's a flexible mechanic designed for the prioritization of telling the best story instead of fussing over micro-managing and bookkeeping ranges and distances and things that classically slow down combat encounter gameplay.

I realize that doesn't fit some people's styles, but... just wanted to point that out.

58 minutes ago, emsquared said:

I mean you really have completely missed the point of the mechanic.

It's not designed to be used for measuring or approximating distance. It's not even for tracking where people are on the battle field.

It's a combat encounter Difficulty control mechanism.

Period.

It's a flexible mechanic designed for the prioritization of telling the best story instead of fussing over micro-managing and bookkeeping ranges and distances and things that classically slow down combat encounter gameplay.

I realize that doesn't fit some people's styles, but... just wanted to point that out.

Could you point that out without coming across like a grade A ***@#$%?

'It's not this. It's not that. It's this. It's that. You've completely missed the point. Period.'

Let people do people. Why the need to shoot them down when they want to play differently.

15 hours ago, kaosoe said:

I would love to see some of your maps.

Seconded.

My group an I come from D&D/Pathfinder and enjoy the tactical side of things. Having said that, we find the abstract nature of Star Wars combat refreshing. I decided to go with grid-less maps because having no physical/visual map resulted in there being a different map for every PC and one for the GM (all in their minds). Cue hour-long arguments over positioning and map layout, etc. Talk about slowing down combat.

I ended up using 2’ x 3’ packing paper that I had left over from a move - a super cheap solution. The maps are simple and hand-drawn with a sharpie, nothing fancy. I have measuring sticks for movement/ranges with Short being 6”, Medium 12”, and Long is 24”. We’re very sloppy when measuring. It’s all just to keep some kind of continuity. Of course the scale of the map is different every time. Yes, we play BadWrongFun, but it works for us.

I've used maps and quick sketches on battle maps, upgraded to Battle Systems about a year back and now upgrading once more.
Have a few weeks of printing and painting but this should be my next map - and to stay on topic, I generally keep a general scale per grid like mentioned early on in this thread; Short = 4 squares, Medium = 9, Long 14, Extreme 15+. I don't thing I will have to worry about Long and Extreme on this unless they are firing down the corridor to the cabin

So the pictures are too large. What's the best way to upload them?

https://imgur.com/ and then link them here

https://imgur.com/gallery/MQYqfO7

So there's a couple different things there. A dueling arena on a space station, inside a Cantina. They were facing off against some mandos.

And the cave system with the green spots are actually deep chasms. It's an asteroid. This is the one they are currently working their way through. I use Card Stock squares to cover the map as fog of war.

Its nothing special but they seem to get excited about it