Our group just started WHFRP3 few weeks ago. It seemed to us at the first reading of the combat rules that FFG didn't went far enough on the abstract side. We also didn't like the "relative distance" system, neither to fool around with tokens to represent distances. So here's what we did :

First, we draw a rough map of the encounter (on a sheet of paper or on a vinyl mat). If it's in a tavern, for example, the GM draws the walls and the doors, a staircase, a bar, some tables and maybe few things of interest in or around the room without going too much into details. [sidenote : The details go into the narration of the environement and the creativity of the players; if a player decide that his character swings around on the chandelier, well there's a chandelier even if it wasn't in the description).

The relative distance between characters and locations is let to the interpretation of the GM (we don't use tokens to track distance), but follows roughly those guidelines :

- Characters whose stand-up's base touches are Engaged.

- Characters in the same room or in proximity are in Close range.

- Characters out of the sheet of paper, but close to it, or with some distance between them are in Medium range.

- Characters far enough that we don't put their stand-up on the table are in Long range.

- Extreme ranges are use only narratively since the only weapon that can fire at this distance is the longbow. Characters who spot ennemies at this distance will either try to close-in, flee or sneak, or let them close-in while firing at them with their longbows. Neither require map or stand-up.

I'm confused. You talk as if you would have liked FFG to have abstracted the game more... but then you use exact maps and tokens, instead of handling that abstractly? What?

How is what you're doing a houserule at all? It sounds exactly like the rules as written, except for drawing a map, which is an extra flourish.

Juriel said:

Exact map? No. Really, it's a rough map, like I said. More like something sketched in few seconds (no square counting nor anything done to the scale). The point is to eliminate the RAW system of "relative distance" that couldn't represent the distance between each characters, only the distance between every characters and a specific point of reference. For example, by RAW, the PCs group start at long range from the Lost Ruins were lies few squeletons. One squeleton moves on the side (not toward PCs) to medium range. RAW, you can't know what is the distance between the pcs and the squeleton that moved on the side, you only know the relative distance between the ruins and the PC, then from the ruins to the squeleton. With the little sketched map, you always know the average distance between each element.

Tokens? We're NOT using tokens at all to track distance. It was implicit, but maybe it wasn't clear. I'll add it explicitly in the OP.

RAW, the rules says to track distance with tokens and you have to track distance relatively to a single "central" point (which can be a character, so not always static). Still, you can't possibly put trackers between each character in relativity to each other. You'll only find yourself filling up the table with tokens from every character to each location and character in the fight, which would be silly.

Actually, it sounds like you're using the exact system that the game is, only you aren't using token to separate the ranges, but another method to represent it.

Engaged:
Bases touching = the same for both

Close:
FFG -> 1 token
Yours ->Standups in same room

Medium:
FFG-> 2 tokens
Yours -> Standup not on sheet of paper

Long:
FFG-> 3 tokens
Yours -> Standup not on table

You're not more abstract, really, you're just tracking the distances/ranges differently.

What you're doing is still exactly RAW. Distance handling for cases as you present, where instead of everyone being at one of two locations, they're spread all over, just falls down to GM fiat.

Using tokens for tracking paths and distances is just an example (the rules say 'you CAN use tokens to represent distance' etc). Obviously that is impossible to do for every possible path between combatants.

What I'm curious is still if you wish to find a way to make the combats MORE abstract? Because maps aren't that.

Well, this is what I've said it is. A more abstract way to calculate distance than having to use tokens. It is nothing more than that. So, no it isn't RAW, even if it's not that far from it (it was the idea in the first place, more abstract than tokens, but still not too far from the rules as written).

I've no intention to go all the way abstract and don't use stand-up at all, that would be only narration.

I don't see the problem you're trying to point out (if any).

Maps could be replaced by only location cards if you wish. In fact, we use both little sketched map and location cards.

@ dvang, yes you could put it that way.