I hope FFG are going to support this better than Wizards did; with minis and floorplans.

Wizards biggest mistake they made with D&D and Starwars was making minis really hard to get by only packaging them for their mini's game, with rarities often costing packet to purchase singly. The floorplans had stuff all over them that they were mainly useable in home brew adventures rather than published adventures.

Although you don't need mini's and floorplans to play an RPG they sure create a special encounter or session. So i really hope FFG put out some supporting mini's and generic floorplans.

I think this go around we are seeing a reaction against the battlemap and minis approach of DnD 3/3.5/4 and so they will be focusing on 'the theatre of the mind' and 'narrative' play.

Which does have its advantages. But I kinda think the NEXT go around, people will remember the advantages a map and minis bring to the table in terms of gameplay and things will lurch back in that direction. I feel it may alternate.

So, I don't really expect there will be much of a rush to provide floorplans and minis, as those are so last generation.

The rules are more conducive to narrative play, rather than miniatures and maps like the d20 versions of Star Wars were. With no actual solid ranges for weapons or the distance you can move (the rules use abstract range bands, rather than specifically saying a blaster pistol fires 50m optimal range, etc), plus the fact the rules state that a round covers about a minute or so in-game time, and miniatures and floorplans just don't work all that well with it.

As someone who dislikes using miniatures and floorplans, etc, in RPGs anyway, I hope they don't focus much effort on them, and stick to the books and rules.

I agree with the MILLANDSON and AluminumWolf that it will be much less important to have minis for this game than it was for the previous, heavily grid based editions from West End and WotC. However, I think we will be seeing FFG produce Star Wars minis. During the in-flight report where the game was announced, it was made very clear that, while FFG does not have board game rights, they have rights to publish star wars table top RPGs, card games, AND MINIATURE GAMES (like X-wing).

When an audience member asked if we could be expecting a line of tactical minis, the presenter (I think it was Chris Petersen) said he can't speak about what future, unannounced products may or may not be planned, just that they do have the rights to produce that kind of game.

The audience member then gently pushed for more, asking if it was likely, Chris ordered one of his Stormtrooper minions to level his blaster rifle at the nice man's head.

I'm not making any of that up.

-WJL

Just playing devil's advocate here, but WEG's Star Wars rpg was never grid-based. The option to use miniatures (on a grid-less tabletop using rulers to measure range) was there, but was never a requirement. I ran that game for nine years, and I think I only ever used minis for one combat!

Yeah, i'll concede that it wasn't grid based, but It used discrete ranges and movement, measured in meters, which is close enough for government work.

LethalDose said:

FWIW I think having a map adds enormously to the 'tactical' nature of combats.

Mapless RPG combat, IME tends to be entirely worthless from a gamist point of view, running entirely on GM fiat with no tactics employed what so ever.

Mapless combat does have some advantages though - it is much quicker, and for some reason it seems to be easier for people to convince themselves that they are doing some 'deep interactive storytelling' of 'great intellectual merit' if no battlemap is involved.

AluminiumWolf said:

Since the designers have stated a solid and pre-defined goal of going completely away from "tactical" combats for the RPG, as well as a non-gamist philosopy (narrative, instead), it's clear this RPG is not going to be something you'll probably like, Wolf.

Are you gonna play it?

GM Chris said:

Honestly? I dunno.

I mean, I sort of get the impression the game isn't entirely mapless, having range bands that could be represented with some kinda abstract board, and rules for moving between them, and that might be enough to make the game.

But seriously, I have done a lot of mapless combat and it has always been terrible from a game point of view. We might as well not have bothered having rules at all. Not saying this game is like that, but if it is it can die in a fire.

I short, I think the complete rejection of map combat seen in DnD next and (maybe) this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't like endless map based combat with no roleplaying any more than the next story gamer, but I don't want to go back to completely worthless combat with no tactical play at all.

A happy medium must exist!

AluminiumWolf said:

Maybe.

But having run this game a few times now - I can tell you - this isn't it. Even with range bands - there's NO TACTICAL NATURE to "combat". In fact, combat isn't even the primary focus of the stories the rules support.

For those of us who've grown tired of tactical combat in our RPGs, I guess we'll have to settle on "dying in a fire" (as you put it) with this game.

But you're not gonna like it.

GM Chris said:

Well, is it at least as much fun as playing a quick game of Top Trumps?

AluminiumWolf said:

For you, probably not. But hey, you can always have your own fun playing your tactical-heavy video games while the rest of us are having a blast playing a decidedly non-tactical table-top RPG.

I dunno. I guess I think having a fun combat system is more important than being able to say it isn't like a video game (or whatever).

AluminiumWolf said:

You could expand upon this particular philosophy and say that having a fun SYSTEM in general, that's able to successfully model combat, social interaction, and other story based elements that help make the game FUN!

I really hope concrete ranges are included, or at the very least suggested in future iterations of the rules, or it's going to really turn away a good number of gamers who like to use maps, or terrain and miniatures for their games.

AluminiumWolf said:

If the posts here are any indication, you're idea of a "fun combat system" has nothing in common with the majority of posters' idea of a "fun combat system.' Then again, we've actually bothered to read the rules and give EotE's combat system a try, two things you've admitted to not doing.

Sort of like a person whining about how riding a bicycle is too hard when they've never so much as seen a bicycle.

Actually, I think I'm just going back to my default habit of skipping your posts, as you've long since proven time and time again to have nothing useful to contribute to any of the discussions you've remarked on.

Rassilon said:

This same topic has popped up numerous times over in the Warhammer Fantasy RP threads, and the simplest solution is to just convert the abstract range bands into an equivalent number of squares on a gridded map/battlemat. It's a pretty easily implemented house-rule….which is something I'm noticing both systems have in common, hackability/ease of house rule implementation…..which doesn't require a ton of math, or any kinda official ruling from FF.

Rassilon said:

I don't see it happening, sorry. The game is entirely focused on abstract narrativist style rules, which really doesn't fit map-based tactical combat (ala DnD).

Why don't you try not using miniatures? Is it really that much of a requirement that your combats be mapped out with miniatures for everyone? I'm just curious, since all my experience has shown me that maps and models slows a game down to a crawl, and makes it closer to a TT wargame than a roleplay game (since you can see where enemies are on the map, when your character possibly doesn't know they're there, etc).

MILLANDSON said:

It's hard for some people not to jump to extremes. They hear " gridless combat " and " abstract <anything because they've already begun breathing into a paper sack with a panic attack> " and immediately jump to " massive melee in a complex battlefield where no one knows what range they are and Edgar has just fallen asleep in his bowl of doritos ."

Very few people consider the middle way of using a map and placeholders ( minis, popcorn, beads, push pins, a marker dot, a finger ) to keep everyone up to date with spatial locations of various combat participants. Or that they can simply and easily define range bands specific to that encounter. Maybe you only have Close range in this fight, maybe Medium, and Close…what distance makes sense for a particular range band ( 6", 10cm, a pen length, "that far" )? The important thing is what information is on the map you use, not the scale. Can you determine if a player can get from here to there? Who can they hit? Are there environmental things they can use to advantage or things they need to be warry of? None of that requires a grid. Just a poorly drawn blob on a bit of paper labeled "Sarlacc Pit" with an eraser used to represent the sand skimmer, and a couple push pins to show where C3P0 and Lando fell.

In abstract combat I've seen a map as small as a note card, to one the size of my dining room table. I have used random maps photocopied from old issues of gaming magazines, doodled up maps on some scratch paper, used really cool flip mats, or drawn big complexes on a vinyl mat. For placeholders I've used pins, beads, candy, marker dots, actual bona fide minis, squinkies, a polly pocket, Monopoly pieces, matchbox cars and a chip. All that for the same abstract game.

Or…theater of the mind works too when you forget to bring that lovingly drawn map with you to the game.

GM Chris said:

Man, many's the time I've resigned myself to never rolling another rpg die in recent years… but posts like this get me excited!

Wish my book would show up…

First, Goblyn, thank you for the reasonable response, it's something I am already considering as I really like what I've seen of the rules otherwise.

It's definitely a HUGE improvement on the SAGA system (although I think anything would be).

Second, Millandson, why don't you try playing with miniatures and terrain? Silly question? Yes, just as silly as your condescending question to me that I try playing without them.

YES I have played without miniatures and maps…

In the 80's we never used maps other than the gridded dungeons we drew out, or the reference maps for towns and regions, and I certainly never used miniatures, we very much used the theater of the mind, and I've played other games more recently that don't even use dice or character sheets and are completely story based.

However, for the most part, the circles I play in these days, all use miniatures and terrain, or at the very least tactical maps, and to be honest, in games where combat is an important aspect of the universe (such as Star Wars) and the over all narrative, I prefer to act that combat out on the table top. There are many ways of playing and none of them are more valid than any others.

One could liken it to playing capture the flag in the woods running around willy nilly going pew pew pew, vs. using airsoft or paintball guns and wearing full camouflage and attempting to apply real world squad tactics, I prefer the latter, and that's my personal choice, others have just as much fun doing the former.

I feel like I'm being attacked for having an opinion and expressing it.

Are we not here to discuss a beta and what we might like to see in future iterations of the rules?

Look, I'm sorry that I am new to this rules system, and that the majority of games I've played in since getting back into the hobby have had some form of mechanics that let you spatially represent what is happening in combat on the tabletop.

I'm sorry that a large segment of the people I play with are also miniature wargamers, and I know they are going to poo poo not having a way to play out battles on the table with the miniatures they like to paint and collect.

I'm sorry I chose to hope that there might be some inclusion of something I like to see in an rpg.

I'm sorry that I happen to like using my miniatures and my terrain and that I like to have a spatial awareness of what is happening during a battle.

i don't see what is wrong with questioning the lack of mechanics (even simple ones) for tabletop miniature representation of the game?

Especially when this universe is not aimed at some esoteric, niche group of gamers. I'm pretty sure that as long as FFG has the license for Star Wars, there will be no other Star Wars rpg in production, which means this system, in my personal opinion, should appeal to a wide cross section of RPG gamers.

Also, why is it a stretch to include some form of simple tabletop mechanics when they are releasing X Wing for which many Star Wars RPG players will probably use for fighter combat in their games? I know that is our group's intention.

I don't agree that tabletop combat slows down the adventure, in fact, I think it enhances the experience, maybe you feel otherwise, that's fine, but that doesn't preclude how others feel about it.

Milliandson wrote: "makes it closer to a TT wargame than a roleplay game (since you can see where enemies are on the map, when your character possibly doesn't know they're there, etc)."

This is a spurious argument, if we're in, say, a hanger bay, in which we've all made highly successful perception checks and searched every corner, at that point we're going to know what is in there barring anyone hiding in some unknown location. If we don't know they are there, the GM doesn't put the figure there, If the GM wants to stealth someone into the room, he/she can do that without placing a miniature, and certainly, anything outside our line of sight doesn't need to be placed there, even tabletop wargames can involve hidden movement with either a GM or opposing players moving units on a side map, or by narrative in conjunction with the GM.

Hey, abstract is fine, I just hoped there would be some sort of tabletop mechanics available so our group didn't have to make that extra effort to whip something up that jived with the existing combat system as currently presented.

Maybe FFG won't include tactical combat mechanics in their system, that's fine, I'll deal with it, but that doesn't mean my opinion or my discussion or questioning of their decision is invalid.

There is a possibility, that rules for using miniatures and all manners of tactical goodness will be in the second book, Age of Rebellion. This is where all the soldiers, and warfare is rampant. It would be a logical place to include rules for miniatures, but you would have to wait for it.

This game is going to be a radical departure for many.

That Blasted Samophlange said:

Which may be the source of some of the "griping"* about how this game isn't a tactical combat game. There's a generation of gamers for whom D&D was 3rd edition and/or 4th edition, both of which were extraordinarily heavy on tactical combat. So for them, not having maps and minis and all that is a brand-new thing.

Now while I admit that having maps and minis are nice and can be a fun visual aid, at the same time I'm glad that they're not a requirement. Had EotE simply been a re-hash of WFRP3e, I'd have simply put the book on my shelf and stuck with playing Saga Edition.

*that's about the politest term I could think of that got the point across

Personally I am still doing zeal of the convert the other way.

I have had long and involved conversations about how using minis and a battlemap are the sign of the lesser Roll Player not Role Player and make you and inferior person. I have said that GURPS was good because it was one of the few games with a vaguely realistic damage system.

Then, after years of being stuck firmly up my own arse I tried DnD, found that having a map and minis added enormously to my enjoyment of the combat scenes, discovered I much preferred systems you don't have to fudge out of existence to get results you can use, and after some soul searching decided I would much rather my games play like frigging video games. I like doing the dialogue, I just want to do the dialogue for characters like Kane & Lynch or the guys from Call of Duty, on the grounds that those guys are awesome.

If you care about the wargamey element of the shooty bits AT ALL, having a map really is a massive improvement. I do firmly believe that mapless RPG combat tends to be totally worthless as a game to itself. And that is not a good thing!

I'd actually be happiest with a game much lighter than D20 or Phoenix Command ( http://www.waynesbooks.com/PhoenixCommand.html ) but it should be worth playing as a game in itself!