Just starting this so as to avoid clutter in the Errata/FAQ thread.
When it comes to zone based games I found the players who had the hardest time adapting is those who try to conflate zones (which is a narrative based system) with range (which is a tactical based system). Doing so invariably leads to trouble as people ask “last game I ran across an entire open field and this game it takes just an action to move upstairs”. Zones are deliberately nebulous and narrative focused. Each GM can do things differently. While I may say that a raider hideout has each room as a zone to create a more claustrophobic environment with more movement necessary another GM may say that the outside is a zone and then each floor of the hideout is a zone, creating a more open environment allowing for faster movement and target acquisition.
For me a zone may be different when you shoot and different when you move. Example: PC is standing 10m from the building. On the roof of this building is NPC enemy. When you shoot it is close range, but when PC want to go on the roof, he has to go through the window or door, then through bulding, stairs and finnaly he is on roof. So for movement action it can be Medium or Long, but for shooting it is close. Personally I like more numerical ranges of weapons. If GM says enemy is 50m from you, everyone just look at their sheets and knows the modifier for their weapons for that distance.
This is the benefit of zones - each GM can interpret them differently.
I’d have the zones laid out as follows.
Outside
Inside
2nd story
Roof
So far the same but I’d include in my notes that the roof and the outside are adjacent (Medium range) and it’s a AP 3 (or more) Obstacle or Hazard (falling damage) to move from the outside to the roof.
Yeah. I try to keep zone big until necessary. @Grendel I think we both hit on this before on this forum. When most of my encounter is focused inside a building, the out side zone will be one zone for each side (if a PC or NPC decides to run around or target something outside.) but if they were to shift their focus to an outside big zone, I would then break it up to smaller need zones.
I’ll usually aim to include different terrain features as either their own zone (if it’s something to be climbed on or hidden in) or as a marker for a zone.
In my game, a Zone is relative to who or what is active. Using 12 inches as a zone (any manageable length is ok- shorter length for smaller scale and vice versa). Therefore, anything within 12 inches of a particular character is in close. 11 to 24 would be medium and so on. This puts extreme, for the most part, off the map. Extreme being off the map is practical because I rarely use extreme. Movement can be modified regarding difficult terrain by spending 1 AP or move half).
Whatever length you use is arbitrary but each zone is always that length. The key is that ZONES are always relative to Who/what is active.
Finally we don’t split hairs. If you get close you’re in contact. We do use measuring tape but we are lighthearted about it because the game is designed that way.
I believe this is so much easier and, in my opinion, should’ve been the way the game was designed.
Like I said, this is my opinion, yours may vary. Peace and happy gaming.
