Hey guys,

So my first game was yesterday and all in all it went FANTASTIC. The players had a ton of fun, it was an all new system that allowed so many variations of incidents to happen that I would have never thought of / had happen in a "success or fail" system alone.

I did, unfortunately, kill a player through his own RP. He kind of got belligerent with a crime lord on Nar Shaddaa and refused to back down. What was even more funny is when they drew blasters on each other, he rolled a Despair to shoot the guy. His character might have been faster on the draw, but as soon as he pulled the trigger and heard his blaster click fruitlessly, he realized there was trouble.

Anyways, so putting aside all the questions that arose, I want to make this thread about the narrative combat of Edge of the Empire.

Basically, we're a group of long time players of many RPGs, that is to say -- Tactical based. Though we had a blast and loved it, it is difficult for us to get rid of the map. I'm trying to encourage my players to think "less tactically" and more narratively and adventurously.

For example, my players were at medium range from the enemies taking cover behind an opened blast door frame. One wanted to run out to the other end of the room and work on the turbolift controls. He proclaimed "I use a maneuver to move over to the controls.", so I responded with "Well, technically it's still in "medium range", so you don't need to use a maneuver to do it."

He had a hard time grasping this as he's used to "Move = Move Action".

What I'm trying to say is, what are some good ideas or methods this collective community has used to help step players away from "tactical thinking" and more into a narrative way?

My players are still hell bent on 1 attack roll = 1 - 3 shots = 6 seconds.

Hey guys,

So my first game was yesterday and all in all it went FANTASTIC. The players had a ton of fun, it was an all new system that allowed so many variations of incidents to happen that I would have never thought of / had happen in a "success or fail" system alone.

I did, unfortunately, kill a player through his own RP. He kind of got belligerent with a crime lord on Nar Shaddaa and refused to back down. What was even more funny is when they drew blasters on each other, he rolled a Despair to shoot the guy. His character might have been faster on the draw, but as soon as he pulled the trigger and heard his blaster click fruitlessly, he realized there was trouble.

Anyways, so putting aside all the questions that arose, I want to make this thread about the narrative combat of Edge of the Empire.

Basically, we're a group of long time players of many RPGs, that is to say -- Tactical based. Though we had a blast and loved it, it is difficult for us to get rid of the map. I'm trying to encourage my players to think "less tactically" and more narratively and adventurously.

For example, my players were at medium range from the enemies taking cover behind an opened blast door frame. One wanted to run out to the other end of the room and work on the turbolift controls. He proclaimed "I use a maneuver to move over to the controls.", so I responded with "Well, technically it's still in "medium range", so you don't need to use a maneuver to do it."

He had a hard time grasping this as he's used to "Move = Move Action".

What I'm trying to say is, what are some good ideas or methods this collective community has used to help step players away from "tactical thinking" and more into a narrative way?

My players are still hell bent on 1 attack roll = 1 - 3 shots = 6 seconds.

Shock therapy? No, I kid.

Keep them describing their actions. Let him say that "he moves over to the controls" and simply say what then? Let them participate as much as they can with the narrative flow of combat. Keep them engaged and having fun. It will simply take time to deprogram them.

Do the first few sessions step by step to build familiarity. Try to introduce smoothly flowing ideas that would have been difficult in the more tactical system.

I was lucky, my players are more used to WOD and FATE than d20 and Pathfinder. While they can handle tactical combat, they haven't been conditioned to it.

I guess the most important thing is to keep them engaged and narrating the action as much as you can.

So my first game was yesterday and all in all it went FANTASTIC. The players had a ton of fun

So why change anything? If your players like sticking to the tactical thought process, it sounds like they're having fun doing it. The whole point of pen and paper is to have the freedom to play a game the way your players like. Don't force them to do something different just for the sake of it.

(Incidentally, your player was right - he needed to "move" to get to the controls. Presumably he was not already engaged with them, and moving to that would require a move.)

So my first game was yesterday and all in all it went FANTASTIC. The players had a ton of fun

So why change anything? If your players like sticking to the tactical thought process, it sounds like they're having fun doing it. The whole point of pen and paper is to have the freedom to play a game the way your players like. Don't force them to do something different just for the sake of it.

(Incidentally, your player was right - he needed to "move" to get to the controls. Presumably he was not already engaged with them, and moving to that would require a move.)

Good point about Engagement.

(Incidentally, your player was right - he needed to "move" to get to the controls. Presumably he was not already engaged with them, and moving to that would require a move.)

If I recall, to move from short to engaged only costs a maneuver if the target is an enemy PC likely to attack you. This represents the person who is moving being careful about not taking any hits. To engage an ally or an inanimate object within short range, is an incidental.

Sure, if the players are having fun, wisdom says you don't need to change. But what I get from Endrek is that perhaps his players could be having more fun if they grasped better the narrative conceits of the game system and its structured encounters. With this in mind, if they enjoy tactics, get them to describe their tactics narratively, rather than in a grid-based manner.

Just lead by example. Describe the NPC actions in such a way that they are fluid and cinematic, and so that there's no way your players could think that everything you described happened in 6 seconds or in a 1.5-meter space.

As the game master, you have the inherent power to set the tone.

I don't want to divert too far from the point of the OP, but check page 208. It's pretty clear that if you're going to interact with an object (i.e. to attack it or to perform an action - something that requires "focusing one's attention"), it's movement. It's only logical, really. There's no reason that pulling a gun from a holster should be more of a maneuver than jumping over five feet to a console, and the rules pretty much back that up.

Sure, if the players are having fun, wisdom says you don't need to change. But what I get from Endrek is that perhaps his players could be having more fun if they grasped better the narrative conceits of the game system and its structured encounters. With this in mind, if they enjoy tactics, get them to describe their tactics narratively, rather than in a grid-based manner.

That's fair, and maybe I'm projecting. I do see a lot of pushback on this forum against people playing this in any manner that uses a little more structure, though. I can empathize with OP's players, since I'm a big fan of tactical play and maps, and this system isn't hostile to it (it blends really well with the dice concept. Really!). The community sometimes, though, does make me feel a little second-rate for not wanting an imprecise movement system, and it's in that vein that I suggest that maybe the OP's players can have fun without forcing something different on them. The fun in this system (at least for me) is from the narrative dice and the variety of action outcomes that spring from that, not in the movement rules.

If I recall, to move from short to engaged only costs a maneuver if the target is an enemy PC likely to attack you. This represents the person who is moving being careful about not taking any hits. To engage an ally or an inanimate object within short range, is an incidental.

I don't want to divert too far from the point of the OP, but check page 208. It's pretty clear that if you're going to interact with an object (i.e. to attack it or to perform an action - something that requires "focusing one's attention"), it's movement. It's only logical, really. There's no reason that pulling a gun from a holster should be more of a maneuver than jumping over five feet to a console, and the rules pretty much back that up.

Sure, if the players are having fun, wisdom says you don't need to change. But what I get from Endrek is that perhaps his players could be having more fun if they grasped better the narrative conceits of the game system and its structured encounters. With this in mind, if they enjoy tactics, get them to describe their tactics narratively, rather than in a grid-based manner.

That's fair, and maybe I'm projecting. I do see a lot of pushback on this forum against people playing this in any manner that uses a little more structure, though. I can empathize with OP's players, since I'm a big fan of tactical play and maps, and this system isn't hostile to it (it blends really well with the dice concept. Really!). The community sometimes, though, does make me feel a little second-rate for not wanting an imprecise movement system, and it's in that vein that I suggest that maybe the OP's players can have fun without forcing something different on them. The fun in this system (at least for me) is from the narrative dice and the variety of action outcomes that spring from that, not in the movement rules.

Actually, you have no idea how much this just helped me.

First, Maveritchell was spot on. My players WANT to get into the awesome nitty gritty of the system, but are having a hard time separating themselves from tactics based turn based stuff. It'll happen one day where we'll stop thinking in terms of Minor-Move-Standard, but I'm an impatient being who was wondering what others have done to expedite the process.

Second, this whole thread has given me great insight! For example, I was (stupidly) using the bad guys as the measure for distance. I'm not sure why I never considered the target of the action the measure of distance. The example above that I gave is perfect. The target the player wants to interact with is the turbolift control panels. They're at short distance right now - Maneuver = Engaged. It doesn't matter that you're Medium moving to Medium in contrast to the bad guys. Jeeze, it's really the small revelations that make you feel stupid.

Also, I've always wondered how certain dice rolls work in comparison to explaining your action first, but I've gone ahead and taken the idea of "just state the absolute basics of your intentions and see what the dice say." I think that would allow for much more narrative story telling instead of describing what your character does in detail THEN rolling.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I like stating very general intentions, then rolling the dice, then narrating. In fact, if a player says they want to do something ultra-specific, I'll give them a low difficulty but then say, "for what you just described to happen, you'll need at least 3 net success" or something along those lines.

If what you're doing doesn't require a die roll, then narrate away. But don't take away from the excellently conceived dice and their symbolism by narrating your action before the roll, and then just checking for success and mitigating Advantage/Threat before moving on. Each die can tell you something about the action you just performed, so that even a failure can be epic if narrated with those dice results in mind.

Right. The only thing I need to work out in my head is Social situations. Those we like to Roleplay out, so you can't necessarily just roll and THEN explain what you talk about.

I'm sure it'll work itself out in time though, just need more experience.

The thing is the players aren't the PCs. So while I might not be the most smooth talker, my character might be. So, I just take what the player is saying as a base (possibly giving a boost or setback die based on that), but what is actually said (and how it was said) is actually determined by the dice roll

Lots of great stuff in here.

With that said... We use maps and minis all the time. Our GM and other players have lots of SW minis and, may as well use them. Scale changes with the scene and it took us a few sessions to stop looking at the grids on the maps. Other than that, no biggie.

The thing we love the most, and hopefully you got to play some with it, is the initiative order. It is so refreshing.

The flow and teamwork that comes from the initiative system is awesome. That and players leaving the table until their turn never happens. Everybody seems so invested in the story it rocks!

Lots of great stuff in here.

With that said... We use maps and minis all the time. Our GM and other players have lots of SW minis and, may as well use them. Scale changes with the scene and it took us a few sessions to stop looking at the grids on the maps. Other than that, no biggie.

The thing we love the most, and hopefully you got to play some with it, is the initiative order. It is so refreshing.

The flow and teamwork that comes from the initiative system is awesome. That and players leaving the table until their turn never happens. Everybody seems so invested in the story it rocks!

We use maps and miniatures too. I own almost $500 in Star Wars miniatures so I'm not going to not use them. Works fine, it gives us the visual to go by. We don't do tactical stuff like d&d 4e more of just a visual of what is happening.

We find it useful because without minis different players see different things and do sine action and then find out player b was somewhere else.

Try this:

Action = "What do you do that's really cool when the camera's on you?"

Maneuver = "What do you do when you're in the background? Or to prep for your camera time?"

Right. The only thing I need to work out in my head is Social situations. Those we like to Roleplay out, so you can't necessarily just roll and THEN explain what you talk about.

This is actually the exact kind of thing the rules encourage. You state your intention, THEN you roll the dice, THEN you narrate/roleplay the results.

Jay Little has talked before about the "social contract" the player and GM strike when the player picks up the dice pool to roll. The player understands the risks going in, and agrees to abide with the result. This means that you could end up narrating your own character doing something utterly foolish. And THIS is why I love this system so much.

No more players playing the iron-willed PCs who never back down from confrontations or never let their emotions get the better of them. These dice really use the mechanics of the game to put the player into the character, which is brilliant.

Of course, there are situations where you don't NEED to roll the dice. And that's okay too. Just narrate and roleplay those out.

Try this:

Action = "What do you do that's really cool when the camera's on you?"

Maneuver = "What do you do when you're in the background? Or to prep for your camera time?"

This is amazing. I think I'm going to go ahead and lay this out as a great starting point for my players.

Right. The only thing I need to work out in my head is Social situations. Those we like to Roleplay out, so you can't necessarily just roll and THEN explain what you talk about.

This is actually the exact kind of thing the rules encourage. You state your intention, THEN you roll the dice, THEN you narrate/roleplay the results.

Jay Little has talked before about the "social contract" the player and GM strike when the player picks up the dice pool to roll. The player understands the risks going in, and agrees to abide with the result. This means that you could end up narrating your own character doing something utterly foolish. And THIS is why I love this system so much.

No more players playing the iron-willed PCs who never back down from confrontations or never let their emotions get the better of them. These dice really use the mechanics of the game to put the player into the character, which is brilliant.

Of course, there are situations where you don't NEED to roll the dice. And that's okay too. Just narrate and roleplay those out.

I like that a lot, and I see how it works for this game, but I feel it's difficult to have some players abide by this. I don't want to step in their shoes and say they WON'T, my players constantly surprise me, but it hurts the heart when you have to play a scared character, or one who is told to put his weapons down and does so immediately.

We'll see how it plays out.