@Silidus and @Archellus , I agree with both of you. Usually I love the RAW for combat, but every once in a while I get the itch for tactical and it seems like it would be helpful to have the option to switch to a grid or hex map on the fly to help ground the action a little more concretely.

19 hours ago, Archellus said:

Each table is different i guess so if your group like this use it. But 15 additional pages for something the RAW cowers just fine seem a bit much

But i can understand why. I still have 1-2 players that are unsure what they can do and how to move. They still freeze sometimes on their turn trying to overthink it to gain and advantage. But your extra rules puts a lot of restrictions to yourself as a gm and the players but again if you have a group who like more tight defined rules and it helps them there nothing wrong with adding your own.

Ha, yeah my group definitely likes having better defined rules, which is why I threw together the document in the first place, as we are totally the kind of people that get frustrated by inconsistent rulings or things that worked 5 sessions ago, but now don't.

I think my biggest issue (as the GM) usually comes from the deadliness of the combat, the squishy-ness of Nemesis npcs, and the players love of ranged weapons. Having NPCs dying to give exposition standing next to bodyguard rivals to increase the difficulty of checks against them is all great, until the PCs fill him with arrows because 'narrative' LoS is such a pain. (And I as a GM hate saying 'no you cant because I said so'). Using minis and LoS rules works out much better because I can make it clear to the PCs that LoS is not possible without spending a lot of time explaining why.

I've described ranges to new players like this:

Engaged : Us at this table.

Short : Other side of this dining room.

Medium : Out in the street.

Long : Next block or more.

It gives them a good real-world visual plus expresses the narrative, nothing is exacting, nature of the range bands.

Perhaps it's because I played Traveller during my youth (first system with range bands that I recall) that I've never had an issue with the ranges or seeming lack of tactical-ness. Traveller personal combat was very, "tactical" and still used similar range bands.

7 hours ago, Sturn said:

I've described ranges to new players like this:

Engaged  : Us at this table.

Short : Other  side of this dining room.

Medium  : Out in the street.    

Long : Next block or  more.

I like your examples, particularly for a faster-paced combat round than Genesys suggests. They give a relatable visual, and demonstrate the scale nicely.

But for the suggested one-minute combat round; I think the range bands are a lot larger than that, given the example on page 107; which uses the radius of a "huge hanger" for a combat begining at medium range. Even small hangers are quite large, so a huge one is a truely boggling amount of space. Also note that a human can cover a fair distance in a one-minute-sprint (aka double maneuvering).

Engaged: Whoever Bruce Lee is currently hitting with chucks.

Short: Whoever is in the ring around the fight waiting to be hit by chucks.

Medium: The boss on the balcony above watching his guys get hit by chucks.

Long: The on-set physician in his trailer outside taking care of the guys who actually got hit by chucks.

Not sure I'd really labor over how long a round is. It's exactly one plot tick.