Ever since I read Penny Arcade's write-up of the Beginner Box, I've been waiting with baited breath to give this game a try. But before I do, I have one last question, a question that I haven't seen answered: just how compatible is this game with map-based play?

As a DM, I've only run 4th edition DND so far, and the main feedback my players have given me is that they REALLY like using the maps I make. So is this book dedicated only to theater-of-the-mind type play, or does it have rules for map play, or does it do both?

I'm likely to get everything anyway (my players want to try a sci-fi system, and people seem to sing this one's praises) but I'd like to know just what I'm getting into beforehand.

Ever since I read Penny Arcade's write-up of the Beginner Box, I've been waiting with baited breath to give this game a try. But before I do, I have one last question, a question that I haven't seen answered: just how compatible is this game with map-based play?

As a DM, I've only run 4th edition DND so far, and the main feedback my players have given me is that they REALLY like using the maps I make. So is this book dedicated only to theater-of-the-mind type play, or does it have rules for map play, or does it do both?

I'm likely to get everything anyway (my players want to try a sci-fi system, and people seem to sing this one's praises) but I'd like to know just what I'm getting into beforehand.

You can absolutely use maps when running encounters (and in fact, I'd recommend it in a lot of cases).

The major difference between this system and your typical d20 system is that movement is way less rigid. You don't have defined squares and movement rates, per se, just the concepts of 'short range' or 'medium range.' Having a visual reference is often very handy, even when you don't need to measure out distances in super-finite detail.

It's perfectly compatible with maps. But you won't be getting the specific square-based movement and tactics you find in 4E D&D. SWFFG is very much a more abstract combat system.

You could, however, figure out distances for the range bands and go with those consistently. Character speeds will be much higher than they were in Saga and the other D20 systems, though. Maybe the single range-band maneuver is closer to a PC's 3E run speed than standard move speed. That would make better sense.

I've been considering working on that, but I'm not too motivated to really do it. The system as it's written is perfectly usable, but it doesn't allow for the extremely tactical nature that you're going to get from 4E or 3E or a minis skirmish game.

Using maps works fine, just decide upon max range, for instance in most of my encounters the distance from one end of the map to the other is usually medium - as this is up to "several dozen meters" - unless the group is outside, in the jungle, in the city or the like; at this point max range is at least long, but I try to keep my encounters limited in area for ease of play.

You could use a map, but with the combat system being so abstract, it tends to lend itself better to not using rigid character models/markers, etc.

Very well, in my opinion. My D&D 3.5 group (we use maps all the time) decided to play the Beginner Box and the tactical map came out basically as habit. We more or less started with using Close range as being within 30ft and moved out from there going to other ranges depending on what felt right.

Close, or Short range is "several meters", in my games about 10 to 12 meters, so about 30 feet sounds good. Medium is basically anywhere from 10 to 50 meters, so 30 to 150 ft or thereabouts, if not even more. Long is beyond that, and extreme is out of range in most cases (unless attachment or talent to increase range on rifle exists in the group).

This game is for role players, not to wanna be wargamers, some think its good that way, other feel the need for maps and combat tactics, i like minis, like maps and tactical combat, so im gonna stick with saga movement until i can figure out something better.

When my group played the Starter Kit, we made some quick conversions.

Engaged: from point of origin, 1 square (5ft.) (Melee)

Close: from point of origin, 1 - 4 squares (20ft.)

Medium: from point of origin, 5 - 8 squares (20-40 ft.)

Long: from point of origin, 9 - 12 (40-60ft.)

Extreme: from point of origin, beyond 12 squares (60ft and up.)

While movement is slightly faster than a pure stock D&D character, it keeps things roughly the same. Even still, it's more important to have these scales for the purposes of factoring weapon ranges. This allows all weapons ranges to have a function on the same map without making things complicated.

I don't know if this is the best way to have converted it, but it might help you get an understanding of how this can convert.

This game is for role players, not to wanna be wargamers, some think its good that way, other feel the need for maps and combat tactics, i like minis, like maps and tactical combat, so im gonna stick with saga movement until i can figure out something better.

Not having played Saga myself, is the movement/ranges any different from, say, 3.X D&D?

We mostly stuck with close range being 30ft. as a frame of reference from 3.5 given the feats like Point Blank Shot and the Rogues Sneak Attack radius when using a ranged weapon. Given our groups comfort zone, that seemed like a good start.

its a simple version of 3.x movment.

I'd like to ask anyone's advice on combat in this game.

I've only played a couple times, so we're still figuring it all out. We used to play D&D 4e all the time, and also some of the D&D board games (Ravenloft, Dungeon Command), which all use very similar grid-based tactical combat.

I like the freedom that EotE provides, however, we're having trouble making the combat more...dynamic, I guess. Most fights end up being both sides hunker down behind cover (in most situations, cover seems to be assumed as available, unless in, like, an open field, which we never are) and shoot it out until the enemies die. Every maneuver is just an AIM, but everybody is in some form of cover. So, everyone gets a advantage die and a setback die.

We haven't really figured out WHY you'd want to move around through the different range bands, assuming the PCs aren't escaping. I suppose if you got into a position where the player is flanking the enemy, the enemy would either lose the bonus due to cover, or the PC would gain an advantage die, or something like that....but is that it?

Any tips for making combat a little dynamic? Not just for roleplaying something exciting, but mechanically as well.

I'd like to ask anyone's advice on combat in this game.

I've only played a couple times, so we're still figuring it all out. We used to play D&D 4e all the time, and also some of the D&D board games (Ravenloft, Dungeon Command), which all use very similar grid-based tactical combat.

I like the freedom that EotE provides, however, we're having trouble making the combat more...dynamic, I guess. Most fights end up being both sides hunker down behind cover (in most situations, cover seems to be assumed as available, unless in, like, an open field, which we never are) and shoot it out until the enemies die. Every maneuver is just an AIM, but everybody is in some form of cover. So, everyone gets a advantage die and a setback die.

We haven't really figured out WHY you'd want to move around through the different range bands, assuming the PCs aren't escaping. I suppose if you got into a position where the player is flanking the enemy, the enemy would either lose the bonus due to cover, or the PC would gain an advantage die, or something like that....but is that it?

Any tips for making combat a little dynamic? Not just for roleplaying something exciting, but mechanically as well.

I have given this a lot of thought since I played the Starter Kit. The full game might go into more detail, though, I'm not sure.

Anyway, the way I handle this is take a handful of D6's and throw them onto the mat at random.

1-3 is med cover. (apply setback die to attacker's pool)

4-6 is high cover. (upgrade dice of attacker's pool)

(NOTE:: this isn't a fully tested resolution; it's just to give you an idea how to make things more dynamic.)

There is no "use a maneuver for cover" since the cover is now represented on the mat and is no longer a hypothetical thing. Also, the character occupies the square where the cover is. It is assumed that he is protected from all angles - just to keep this simple, yet dynamic.

Now create some flanking rules:

1. flanking occurs when a character has opposition on both sides of his equilibrium.

2. flanking against medium cover removes all cover bonuses.

3. flanking against high cover reduces the cover to medium cover.

This is basically how I predict I will end up running all my campaigns with this system. I have no idea how the game actually handles this, but I doubt it does anything like this. I feel like this is going to end up being a house-rule portion.

Lastly... throw grenades. They'll move.

I'd like to ask anyone's advice on combat in this game.

I've only played a couple times, so we're still figuring it all out. We used to play D&D 4e all the time, and also some of the D&D board games (Ravenloft, Dungeon Command), which all use very similar grid-based tactical combat.

I like the freedom that EotE provides, however, we're having trouble making the combat more...dynamic, I guess. Most fights end up being both sides hunker down behind cover (in most situations, cover seems to be assumed as available, unless in, like, an open field, which we never are) and shoot it out until the enemies die. Every maneuver is just an AIM, but everybody is in some form of cover. So, everyone gets a advantage die and a setback die.

We haven't really figured out WHY you'd want to move around through the different range bands, assuming the PCs aren't escaping. I suppose if you got into a position where the player is flanking the enemy, the enemy would either lose the bonus due to cover, or the PC would gain an advantage die, or something like that....but is that it?

Any tips for making combat a little dynamic? Not just for roleplaying something exciting, but mechanically as well.

I have given this a lot of thought since I played the Starter Kit. The full game might go into more detail, though, I'm not sure.

Anyway, the way I handle this is take a handful of D6's and throw them onto the mat at random.

1-3 is med cover. (apply setback die to attacker's pool)

4-6 is high cover. (upgrade dice of attacker's pool)

(NOTE:: this isn't a fully tested resolution; it's just to give you an idea how to make things more dynamic.)

There is no "use a maneuver for cover" since the cover is now represented on the mat and is no longer a hypothetical thing. Also, the character occupies the square where the cover is. It is assumed that he is protected from all angles - just to keep this simple, yet dynamic.

Now create some flanking rules:

1. flanking occurs when a character has opposition on both sides of his equilibrium.

2. flanking against medium cover removes all cover bonuses.

3. flanking against high cover reduces the cover to medium cover.

This is basically how I predict I will end up running all my campaigns with this system. I have no idea how the game actually handles this, but I doubt it does anything like this. I feel like this is going to end up being a house-rule portion.

Lastly... throw grenades. They'll move.

Thanks for the tips. I've been considering using different 'types' of cover myself. Well, not so much types, but an action describing how to use cover. Like, just plain being behind cover would be how the book describes it. A setback die against the attacker.

Then I thought, what if that person just totally ducks down behind that cover, completely breaking line of sight. I figured, this would give him greater defense (or maybe even untargetable, I haven't decided), but his only method of attacking would be blindfire.

So, upgrade the difficulty for shooting at him, but he'd experience a setback die, or maybe greater difficulty in returning fire too.

Also, flanking would work roughly to what you've described. If flanked, then no cover (or degraded version). I've also considered the possibility of destructable cover. Like, if you're in an alley, hiding behind crates, then if you took too many threats or dispair, your cover would be gone.

But I feel like there should be more to it than just cover and flanking. The other alternative would be to get close and engage in melee, but I imagine most folks don't want to fistfight a stormtrooper (even just narratively, if not mechanically) unless you're a wookie.

The way I see it, there are no attacks of opportunity in this system, and that's really the most important part of grid play that doesn't factor over. You've still got ranges and all, according to the range bands. Why restrict movement at all? If the pcs want to run 12 squares to dive into cover, who cares? I say open up the map to free movement and let the players move themselves all over the place. Enemies can do the same, of course. I am definitely gonna use maps and minis, but instruct my players to ignore the grid, and make sure I state the range bands of the map each time. That way the narrative system stays intact and doesn't break down into counting exact yards to restrict movement.

Oh wow lots of d20 thinking here.

You have the threat and advantage system here for a reason. You roll 2 advantage, then destroy that cover the NPC was hiding behind. Someone rolls a despair, have a fire start near their location or have enemy reinforcements turn up behind the PCs to catch them in a (narrative) flank.

Also character use cover they don't break LOS, imagine them peaking around the corner of a wall to shoot at their target. The target is going to shoot back at that wall corner (hence the setback dice) and if they roll really well maybe they catch the shooter as he peaks out or blows that corner of the wall away, removing the cover.

I played many years of D&D and GM'd a lot of 4e. 4e's combat, while very cool and tactical, took hours because players spent so much time trying to set up crazy levels of coordination because the game system rewarded or expected them to do so.

After switching to mostly a narrative/abstract system it is so much more liberating and faster. Don't overthink the combat mechanics, just keep in mind not everything has to be equal, apply a description or narrative and then build the dice pool. If someone is being flanked and from the narrative situation there is no cover from that direction (e.g. hiding behind a wall) then don't give them cover from the flanking attackers, if there is a narrative solution (e.g. hiding in the middle of several barrels or containers) then give them the cover.

The simple cover rule I tend to use is, if it's 360 cover it generally is lighter (1 setback die) than directional cover (2-3 setback dice)

To answer the OP - yes maps do work fine, just don't make the game a slave to the map. I invested in some SW Minis and one of those wet erase vinyl mats, I freehand the maps and use the minis for reference for the range bands. It keeps the game dynamic and quick which is one of the main strengths of this system's combat mechanics.

I'd like to ask anyone's advice on combat in this game.

I've only played a couple times, so we're still figuring it all out. We used to play D&D 4e all the time, and also some of the D&D board games (Ravenloft, Dungeon Command), which all use very similar grid-based tactical combat.

I like the freedom that EotE provides, however, we're having trouble making the combat more...dynamic, I guess. Most fights end up being both sides hunker down behind cover (in most situations, cover seems to be assumed as available, unless in, like, an open field, which we never are) and shoot it out until the enemies die. Every maneuver is just an AIM, but everybody is in some form of cover. So, everyone gets a advantage die and a setback die.

We haven't really figured out WHY you'd want to move around through the different range bands, assuming the PCs aren't escaping. I suppose if you got into a position where the player is flanking the enemy, the enemy would either lose the bonus due to cover, or the PC would gain an advantage die, or something like that....but is that it?

Any tips for making combat a little dynamic? Not just for roleplaying something exciting, but mechanically as well.

I don't see why enemies couldn't destroy the cover the pcs are using, forcing them to scatter. Grenades and other area effects are useful for flushing from cover. Watch any action movie with Bruce Willis and see how they handle cover. I remember fifth element where an explosion knocked him out of cover, for example.

Close, or Short range is "several meters", in my games about 10 to 12 meters, so about 30 feet sounds good. Medium is basically anywhere from 10 to 50 meters, so 30 to 150 ft or thereabouts, if not even more. Long is beyond that, and extreme is out of range in most cases (unless attachment or talent to increase range on rifle exists in the group).

Mine is... Close: 12m. Medium 32m, Long 72m... have not offically designated extreme as it has not come up yet. The distance used is somewhat irrellivant as long as party and NPCs use same distances. I also am planning on giving a small boost to distance if the person moving has a target (ie get around this corner.) This will kind of represent having an actual "focus" causing the character to move a bit further than normal. Of course, we are talking another meter, perhaps 2 at most. This nicely gives it the game's "free form" feel.

When we played in person we did not have these defined, but now that we are testing playing with Google+ and Roll20, we needed to define these for the maps. On the maps however, I have turned off grids. The pieces can be moved freely. We used "Engaged" being shown by the tokens slightly overlaped.

If I was using a printed map and minis, I would take some thin Dowel rods (I guess string could work too)... cut them down to size and use them as range finders.

I use maps in WFRP3 and in EotE. I just use a location map and then slide chits/coins/popcorn/bellybuttonlint around on the map to help everyone visualize the space.

It's also important to remember that you can take fights vertical in this abstract movement system a lot easier than in a grid for grid movement system.

I'd like to ask anyone's advice on combat in this game.

I've only played a couple times, so we're still figuring it all out. We used to play D&D 4e all the time, and also some of the D&D board games (Ravenloft, Dungeon Command), which all use very similar grid-based tactical combat.

I like the freedom that EotE provides, however, we're having trouble making the combat more...dynamic, I guess. Most fights end up being both sides hunker down behind cover (in most situations, cover seems to be assumed as available, unless in, like, an open field, which we never are) and shoot it out until the enemies die. Every maneuver is just an AIM, but everybody is in some form of cover. So, everyone gets a advantage die and a setback die.

We haven't really figured out WHY you'd want to move around through the different range bands, assuming the PCs aren't escaping. I suppose if you got into a position where the player is flanking the enemy, the enemy would either lose the bonus due to cover, or the PC would gain an advantage die, or something like that....but is that it?

Any tips for making combat a little dynamic? Not just for roleplaying something exciting, but mechanically as well.

I had my PCs doing this exact same thing in combat. They're D&D players and tend to be the mix / max type so it's hard to adjust to such an open system. After the first encounter of the night was 25 minutes of aim > shoot > aim > shoot I wrote up some instructions to help get them to understand the flow of the game a little better.

You can find the write up here... (minor spoilers for PCs who are going to be starting the Long Arm of the Hutt beginner adventure.) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SL9BclB8sQVoas92ZLY-l6C3HIGtXvmScdGQF4hjRJQ/edit?usp=sharing

The key to this game is recognizing that this isn't a game that's all about stats and numbers. This game is unique in that the custom dice provide for some really fun and interesting role playing action. Think about how a Star Wars movie plays out. Characters are generally doing interesting / borderline unbelievable things on a regular basis. This game allows you to be one of those characters, and perform those heroic feats!

Anyway, it'll take a little while for your players to adjust (mine are still getting used to really utilizing the engine), but they'll get there.

The way I see it, there are no attacks of opportunity in this system, and that's really the most important part of grid play that doesn't factor over. You've still got ranges and all, according to the range bands. Why restrict movement at all? If the pcs want to run 12 squares to dive into cover, who cares? I say open up the map to free movement and let the players move themselves all over the place. Enemies can do the same, of course. I am definitely gonna use maps and minis, but instruct my players to ignore the grid, and make sure I state the range bands of the map each time. That way the narrative system stays intact and doesn't break down into counting exact yards to restrict movement.

Well that's my goal, is to NOT restrict movement. No one's restricting it, we just haven't figured out ways to incentivise doing it. The "simplest" solution to a combat encounter is hunker down and open fire. I'm trying to think of creative ways to encourage the group to move around, essentially giving them reasons or incentives for doing so.

The ideas about flanking, destructible cover, fires breaking out, explosions, etc are all great ideas. Thanks all

I think your partly right, Rookhlem. The suggestions mentioned are all great but are direct results effects of rolls though. To get players moving around they need a reason to, otherwise the best chance they have is to hunker down and fire like you said.

As a GM, we need to give those players more to do than simply cover and shoot, by placing enticing environmental parts in the scene that they can use to sway the course of battle. I'm always drawn back to the idea of a large vehicle parked nearby. Getting to that vehicle and escaping or using it ro run down your enemies can get the players at least thinking of moving out of cover to break for that vehicle.Thats just one example. Think about what movement could do in a low g area with various "levels" and platforms. Getting the high ground or something similiar could be interesting, but maybe your players just need to be nudged in these directions with a subtle hint..."If you were able to get the high ground on those troopers who have superior cover, you could probably gain some advantage."..ok that was not so subtle but i'm sure you get it.

Maps are certainly fun, as long as they don't get too restrictive... but fortunately in the game they aren't necessary. A map would be very difficult if doing a chase scenario, for example, where the range bands are effectively set in relation to each other, but the scenery is screaming by. Maneuvers are carried out to indicate if one gains or loses ground in a situation, but it'd wouldn't work on a grid map.

I've been thinking that one could handle range bands reasonably easily by having a series of columns or arcs on a piece of paper, and the space between the columns or arcs be used to mark where combatants are in relation to each other. Since it is player focused, most often the characters would be in the close/engaged band, while opponents would start wherever appropriate. The players or opponents would only move their tokens if they changed their range band relative to their target.

If someone says "I duck behind cover" presume that there is cover to duck behind. Even on an open docking platform or in the middle of a desert the act of ducking and rolling might effectively work like cover for a single round... or the ducking for cover has them drop prone... There's lots of room for improvisation here. It also helps to create a dynamic space where things are constantly on the go. Don't forget, if the players can duck behind cover, so can opponents.

Its interesting to me that people have been having just firefights a lot. There's a lot of reasons to force people out of cover. Grenades, Flanking manuevers by enemies (to deny them their cover), particularly dangerous melee opponents flushing them out, environmental effects (such as a fuel container explosion/fire,, cover being destroyed, etc). Use those threat/despair dice results!