I was wondering if anyone could help clarify what the PC's are able to do in a given turn, and in what order . You know, actions, maneuvers, skill checks, combat... Is the order driven by the narrative, or is it pre-set like in the LCGs? The core book went into it in some detail, yet I feel like I didn't quite get it.

Thanks!

On a given players turn they may normally take 1 action and 1 maneuver. They can do them in any order they wish. They can always downgrade an action to a maneuver, getting two for the round. They can also suffer 2 strain to gain a second maneuver...allowing them two double maneuver and do an action in a single round.

Great, thanks!

The combat section lays out in enumerated order a combat check. That can more or less be applied to any Skill check in structured play.

Typically skill checks ARE actions. This has a lot to do with how the symbols are handled. If for instance a perception check was a maneuver, I could easily max out my perception check, spend a maneuver to look around for the purpose of fishing for triumphs and advantages in order to buff up myself or my party.

It took me a few sessions to realize that those things where I normally would call for a secondary roll for, I now give those things to my players when they generate advantage/threat/triumph/despairs on their main action.

30 minutes ago, kaosoe said:

Typically skill checks ARE actions. This has a lot to do with how the symbols are handled. If for instance a perception check was a maneuver, I could easily max out my perception check, spend a maneuver to look around for the purpose of fishing for triumphs and advantages in order to buff up myself or my party.

It took me a few sessions to realize that those things where I normally would call for a secondary roll for, I now give those things to my players when they generate advantage/threat/triumph/despairs on their main action.

So much this!

Don't get bogged down by the Maneuvers/Actions/Incidentals. Allow the player to describe the effects they want to impose on the scene and then deliberate on what is "too much" and what is not. The game is Narrative and meant to be Cinematic. Some things will bend the rules in that regard. Ultimately, your table controls your rules/play.

However, I feel I must tell a story. One thing I like to do is understand how a designer is thinking/inspired when creating a game/rules. Genesys is the third generation of RPG to use the Narrative Dice System. The first was Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play 3rd edition and then Star Wars. When I started playing WFRP, I got to demo the game, and then ask a lot of questions of the designer, Jay Little. When it came to actions and maneuver, I always think of a story he told me.

"I wanted a game where if someone wanted to run down the hall, jump off the balcony, grab and swing from the chandelier, and then crash down upon the bad guy running out the door, they could and do it all with one roll. In other games, there'd be a roll for dexterity, an athletics check, a strength check, and then an attack roll, but also be denied because it was too many actions to take. With this system, it could easily be explained that 2 strain for an extra maneuver was taken. Then, coming to the crux of the action: the attack. So, I'd build the action around the attack roll, this being a Brawl for the tackle. Then, I'd modify the check with Boosts, Setbacks, and Challenges (usually through Point use). Setback for the exhausting sprint, upgrade for the improvised use of the Chandelier to attack, but a Boost for the cool, unique, and unexpected attack, and maybe another Boost for a Talent or because they were trained in Athletics, making them better at the physical exhaustion. Then we'd roll the dice, work the results, and go from there. And with this type of action, you have a lot more variables to work in advantages, threats, despairs, etc. Success with a Despair, landed on the bad guy, but broke an ankle. Failure with Advantage, missed the guy but landed in a "runners stance", giving a boost to the next action. Triumph allowing the hero to block the door, cutting off the bad guys escape. etc..."

29 minutes ago, ApocalypseZero said:

Don't get bogged down by the Maneuvers/Actions/Incidentals. Allow the player to describe the effects they want to impose on the scene and then deliberate on what is "too much" and what is not. The game is Narrative and meant to be Cinematic. Some things will bend the rules in that regard. Ultimately, your table controls your rules/play.

However, I feel I must tell a story. One thing I like to do is understand how a designer is thinking/inspired when creating a game/rules. Genesys is the third generation of RPG to use the Narrative Dice System. The first was Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play 3rd edition and then Star Wars. When I started playing WFRP, I got to demo the game, and then ask a lot of questions of the designer, Jay Little. When it came to actions and maneuver, I always think of a story he told me.

"I wanted a game where if someone wanted to run down the hall, jump off the balcony, grab and swing from the chandelier, and then crash down upon the bad guy running out the door, they could and do it all with one roll. In other games, there'd be a roll for dexterity, an athletics check, a strength check, and then an attack roll, but also be denied because it was too many actions to take. With this system, it could easily be explained that 2 strain for an extra maneuver was taken. Then, coming to the crux of the action: the attack. So, I'd build the action around the attack roll, this being a Brawl for the tackle. Then, I'd modify the check with Boosts, Setbacks, and Challenges (usually through Point use). Setback for the exhausting sprint, upgrade for the improvised use of the Chandelier to attack, but a Boost for the cool, unique, and unexpected attack, and maybe another Boost for a Talent or because they were trained in Athletics, making them better at the physical exhaustion. Then we'd roll the dice, work the results, and go from there. And with this type of action, you have a lot more variables to work in advantages, threats, despairs, etc. Success with a Despair, landed on the bad guy, but broke an ankle. Failure with Advantage, missed the guy but landed in a "runners stance", giving a boost to the next action. Triumph allowing the hero to block the door, cutting off the bad guys escape. etc..."

Wow, thanks! That is exactly what I felt like doing naturally. Cool!

2 hours ago, Caleb Smedra said:

Wow, thanks! That is exactly what I felt like doing naturally. Cool!

You mean you naturally felt like interpreting rolls that way, or you naturally felt like Goomba-stomping people from a second-story balcony?

Ha! No, I just felt intuitively like incorporating the dice results into the story. That's what I like about Fantasy Flight's RPGs.

13 hours ago, ApocalypseZero said:

Don't get bogged down by the Maneuvers/Actions/Incidentals.

Silly situations might arise: "I run to the door (two move manoeuvres), hoping it's locked, so I can open it with a Skulduggery check (action) instead of just turning the handle (Third manoeuvre? Not possible, so sorry!)."

On 12/9/2017 at 5:50 AM, Grimmerling said:

Silly situations might arise: "I run to the door (two move manoeuvres), hoping it's locked, so I can open it with a Skulduggery check (action) instead of just turning the handle (Third manoeuvre? Not possible, so sorry!)."

Why would "Turning the Handle of a Door" be a maneuver? While I know there are people in real life that may struggle with opening a door, it's usually because of some sort of impairment or distraction. Since Range is subjective, as long as the Door is within the 2 Maneuvers for the Character, allowing an Incidental to open the door would be nothing. In fact, this would allow for the "The Door is Locked" to create the tension to make the skill check to open the door. Or, the door is unlocked. The character moved their 2 maneuvers, opened the door, and stands there looking back. (or perhaps a Perception into the next room/hallway?)

I understand silly or awkward or less than ideal situations will arise. You'll have players wanting to essentially make 3 maneuvers and 2 actions, etc. This is where, as a GM, you work with the player to craft their turn. While everyone is about the "Yes, and", there is a time for the "No" to be used. And each Table/GM will do things differently. The big takeaway is that this system isn't like the others that came before it. While it uses some similar terms, it's not a rigid set of rules that can't be bent or broken without ruining everything.

Then again, if someone wants to run their table that way, they most certainly can.

1 hour ago, ApocalypseZero said:

Why would "Turning the Handle of a Door" be a maneuver? While I know there are people in real life that may struggle with opening a door, it's usually because of some sort of impairment or distraction. Since Range is subjective, as long as the Door is within the 2 Maneuvers for the Character, allowing an Incidental to open the door would be nothing. In fact, this would allow for the "The Door is Locked" to create the tension to make the skill check to open the door. Or, the door is unlocked. The character moved their 2 maneuvers, opened the door, and stands there looking back. (or perhaps a Perception into the next room/hallway?)

I understand silly or awkward or less than ideal situations will arise. You'll have players wanting to essentially make 3 maneuvers and 2 actions, etc. This is where, as a GM, you work with the player to craft their turn. While everyone is about the "Yes, and", there is a time for the "No" to be used. And each Table/GM will do things differently. The big takeaway is that this system isn't like the others that came before it. While it uses some similar terms, it's not a rigid set of rules that can't be bent or broken without ruining everything.

Then again, if someone wants to run their table that way, they most certainly can.

Page 101 lists opening or closing a door is a maneuver. Remember that its not just turning a door knob or pressing a button to open the door, there's also the act of the door moving. Even if it's happening automatically, it still takes time (and sometimes effort) to do. That's wy its a maneuver and nit an incidental.

You can do what you want in your game, but that is RAW.

3 minutes ago, DarthGM said:

Page 101 lists opening or closing a door is a maneuver. Remember that its not just turning a door knob or pressing a button to open the door, there's also the act of the door moving. Even if it's happening automatically, it still takes time (and sometimes effort) to do. That's wy its a maneuver and nit an incidental.

You can do what you want in your game, but that is RAW.

Outside of something "More than a Door" (Like Blast Doors, Vault Doors, or Simple Doors with a Complex Lock, etc.), I've never used this. Not once in the past 8 years of WFRP & SW..... In fact, it seems almost absurd. Given the example above by Grimmerling, the player would be better off making an Athletic check to break the door down. I could see some variables to count "normal doors" like this: Crowd at the door, Hands full, etc. But again, more Impairment and Distractions. This almost seems nitpicky.

If this I am wrong, I don't want to be right.

19 hours ago, ApocalypseZero said:

In fact, it seems almost absurd.

That was the point. If I remember correctly I called it "silly, but I probably would come to terms with "absurd".