lupex said:

Actually, I think the base level of obligation (shown in the chart) is the obligation which covers the ship they're given at the start of the campaign.  Especially since I don't think you get bonus XP or credits for those points.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Just wanted to pipe in before feedback was closed about Obligation.  I think that obligation should be changed slightly from being such a detrimental thing.   I don't know why having a family makes you a huge crime villain, or keeps lawful organizations from dealing with you.   Perhaps there should be some clarification about obligations, such as some being a criminal debt, because I see future books adding more obligations such as Jedi Order (or other monastic/force using orders), Basically the chart on page 191 automatically assumes high obligation is bad, but this should just be example of say having Obligation of Criminal Favours.  Rather than, as I mentioned, having a family (not necessarily a crime family). 

It's a small thing, but a slight change and clarification opens up many more possibilities.

 I've been meaning to post this for a while, but unfortunately school's conspired to make it difficult.  It's the system that I've been using since week two, and it's worked quite well.    

Problem:  The current obligation system, while great in concept, sucks in execution for the following reasons:

1:Scaling functions poorly in larger parties, and limits the mechanic's overall impact.  

2: Increased Obligation leads to increased screen time, leading to the "drama mama" effect, which is detrimental, at least in my opinion, to the overall role-play experience.

3: The source and effects of obligation aren't clearly defined, leading to some confusion among players.  

4: Using obligation as a form of reputation simply doesn't work logically.

Proposed solutions:

1: Obligation now runs from 1- 100 for characters, independent of other characters.  Obligation is now begins at 30, and an additional 15 is added per tier of additional exp or starting cashing, providing a total range of 30-90 for starting characters.

Obligation ratings are now broken down into tiers:

1-30: Minor

31-60: Moderate

61-90: major

91+: Extreme.

To determine if a character's obligation is selected at the beginning of each game, simply role a percentile.  Any character that has an obligation score equal to or exceeding the die roll can be selected for an obligation event.  Randomize via a die roll, with an equal chance for each character.  If a 1 or any doubles are rolled, the obligation event affects the entire party that is eligible for an obligation event.  Obligation events still trigger lowered strain thresholds.

A character with an obligation of over a hundred is prevented from spending xp until it's lowered.  

An alternative to this would be to simply average the party's rating and then randomize with an equal chance if an obligation event is generated.

The severity of the obligation event is indicated via the obligation tier, meaning that characters with lower obligation scores will suffer less severely.

In play a character's obligation can raise or lower depending upon the events of the game.  The characters can receive goods or services equal to 500 credits by increasing their score by one, subject to the availability rules and price modifiers.  Particularly extreme or immediate needs may double the cost, as per GM discretion.  Similarly, characters can lower their obligation by donating goods or services, at a rate of 2000 per point, depending upon the relative need of the items in question.   

Additionally, the GM may offer certain favors for an increase in obligation.  (I.E., release from prison, star ship repairs, medical services, etc, at whatever cost he feels is appropriate.)

Obligation sources:  Due to the rather nebulous nature of the sources of obligations, we've codified them into criminal organizations, political organizations, corporate organizations, or individual patrons.  This selection affects the sorts of goods and services that a character can receive or turn in, as well as the sorts of obligation events that are triggered.  

Reputation is now largely a function of GM Fiat with, with total earned exp playing a role.  I've considered actually systematizing it, but it hasn't been necessary thus far.

That's about it.  I'm sorry if it's not in the most easily digestible format, I was typing fairly quickly.  If nothing else, the general concepts should be readily apparent.  The above system is definitely a lot more interesting the the RAW, and I'd highly recommend giving it a shot.

That Blasted Samophlange said:

I don't think it's that having a family makes you a villain, it's just that *nice* people are less likely to want to put someone with a family into the sorts of positions where obligation might increase.  Take, for example, a US Marine who has a wife and 3 kids, but his wife gets hit by a car and killed.  He's now significantly less likely to be deployed into a combat zone because doing so would potentially leave his kids with no family.  Correspondingly, Senator Organa is less likely to want to send you out on missions if he knows your family may be exposed to danger as a result.  On the other hand, criminal folks might use your family as *leverage* to get you to do something.  Remember a receiving a favor from a crime lord is very likely to be equivalent to doing a favor *for* that crime lord.

Basically, obligations ('good' or 'bad') are things which interfere with your ability to just do whatever you please.

Voice said:

In your example case of a marine, if any of his children's  grandparents are alive, he's just as likely to be deployed as before… but may be offered a "compassionate discharge" as an option… but that also means not making retirement, losing the reenlistment bonus, and other such issues.

aramis said:

You'll notice I didn't mention any grandparents available to watch over the kids.  I also didn't mention any aunts, uncles, etc.  And I also didn't say it was an absolute.  (But neither is the way high obligation makes the 'good guys' more reluctant to deal with you.)  Also, your own example of a 'compassionate discharge' is another example of an 'out' that is offered to the person with the higher 'obligation score', even in real life.  The fact that the 'out' kills your retirement, and other bonuses and the like is also an indication that obligation is, as I said, something that interferes with your ability to just do whatever you please.

Of course, there are scenarios where an obligation shouldn't factor in negatively.  For example, if a character has a Duty obligation to the organization in question, say the enlisted marine.  That shouldn't negatively influence his ability to interact with the Marines, but it certainly can (for a wide variety of reasons) make his life more difficult in other ways.

It seems to me that at the end of the day, obligation is merely a tool for the GM to reinforce the notion of the "seedy scumbaggery" of the party and where and who they are.  First and foremost a GM's job is to make sure everyone is having fun and a good story is being unfolded throughout the session.  If you have a GM that so coldly enforces things to the letter that someone, or the entire group isn't having fun, then you need a new GM.  Just sayin..

But let's look at page 32 under obligation, because I think a key paragraph is being lost:

"Ultimatly, even though the mechanical effects always come into play, it's up to the GM as to how this affects the characters narratively.  One thing the GM should not feel obligated to do, however, is disrupt his own narrative or story in order to represent a triggered obligation.  Remember, the effects of a triggered obligation can always be mental."

Obligation doesn't have to be some gamebreaking, harsh caning of the players, EVERY single session.   There are many ways to use obligation as a DM that reminds the players of the "Obligation" without making things painful for them.  Another quote from page 32:

"For example, a local politician may not be willing to meet with a group whose Obligation is more than 60, but a local crimelord may not trust a group whose Obligation is less than 50."

Obligation is also something a good GM can wrap a story around creating a campaign.  If you know your players obligations, or even if you just use the prefab choices and plug in the appropriate names and characters when running the game, you can have a great story arc that almost makes itself.  I don't understand all of this handwringing over obligation.  The  game system gives the GM the "what", but ultimately it's up to the GM do decide the "how & why".  It seems like such a vague and useful tool for the GM, it's not something hard and fast like damage mitigation or something.  Am I missing something here?

djext1 said:

I agree with this guy.

I came on here today to find out how you're supposed to grant obligation and take it away as part of quests/quest rewards, and haven't found a solid answer, but I have realized a few things by reading through this thread.

1) This game is made to be narrative at it's core, but everyone is looking at it as though it weren't, specifically with Obligations. Obligation (I believe) is a system set in place so that the narrative can carry on in a natural way, just like the stories do in the movies and games. I see many posts on how obligation is too much, or that it's bad, but that's the intention. Someone mentioned earlier that crises drive a story, and that's what obligation is meant to be: a problem (or opportunity) that can turn into a crisis. For example, Luke's starting obligation in Ep. IV could have started as relationship (Aunt and Uncle). As time went on, his obligations changed (they die, he wants revenge, wants to be Jedi, etc). In game, this would be represented by Luke taking on more obligation (and mass exp) over time. His obligations, and fulfilling them, made him stronger. Not fulfilling them (leaving his training early) caused some negative consequences.

2) It sounds like a lot of the problems are stemming from GM/DM/Players who are used to very strictly enforced rulesets and settings, and they're having trouble adjusting to a more freeform game. This may or may not be true, as I'm just an observer. I think much of this can be fixed by taking things a bit more slowly, and not focusing so much on the preconceived stories or backstories. Instead, I would suggest allowing discussion of the events (past or active) to unfold at the table, with the GM and players discussing what some great options for the story or scene would be. I'd also suggest letting players know that just as the world in real life is constantly changing, so is their Star Wars game. Depending on exactly when you're playing, Han could still be hanging out with Lando, and Alderaan is just chilling peacefully, and then, out of nowhere, Alderaan goes up in smoke or you run into to Millenium Falcon. Random thins can and will happen, especially with a half decent DM and this style of game; be prepared to have your character's plans change.

Also, I'm typing this from my phone, so I apologize if it's a bit disjointed.

Rikoshi said:

You're not even thinking of all the wonderful ways that you can play with Obligation. It's a credit card for the PCs- one that they know will eventually bite you in the ass later on. Any time the player says "I can't deal with this right now!" there the GM is, with obligation, like the dark side, trying to seduce. 

Can't afford that massive bribe? Go see the Hutts. They'll loan it to you. Welcome to a 10 point obligation. But that's yawn-worthy.

We need to jury-rig this poor ship RIGHT NOW so we can GTFO. I don't have time (or money) to sink into her, so let's just hope that primary buffer panel doesn't fall off the gorramn ship. I'll take a 5 point obligation to the ship to keep her in the air. Now that's getting a little better.

We need to get inside the Hospital, so I'm going to try to charm/seduce the guard over here. Only I fail. A lot. But the GM will let me succeed anyway if I really push things and use him/her. Jilted lover as a 2 point obligation. Now we're talking! Especially if we can only buy off an obligation completely by directly dealing with it.

Don't think of Obligation as something to be avoided, think of it as an extremely high-interest credit card that leads to a lot of fun sessions. And dangle how easy it is to put things on the Never Never plan in front of your group *constantly*. 

Also, for adding people into the group (that's people, not characters), I was thinking about it. I'd probably give a 3-5 point "refund" to the players, as their problems get shuffled into a bigger pile, but at the same time I *totally* don't mind the idea of, in character, the party saying "dude, can we *really* afford to bring on another person and their baggage?". When a PC dies/leaves/drops out, their obligations should go, opening up the party's obligations again. 

The introductory adventure alone, if successful, knocks 15 points off of obligations right off the top. That's a *lot*. Even divided 4 ways, that's a significant reduction. If it takes an adventure or two to get the PCs under 100 points, that's a fine mini-adventure. 

Instead of thinking of ways to nerf obligation, first try to think of ways it can enhance the game. Let's face it, we don't play the game to see everything go according to plan, we play the game to see how everything goes to hell and then gets salvaged along the way.

I have mixed feelings about the whole Obligation mechanic.

I support the attempt at driving the story, but I doubt it has to be quantified so explicitly.  The "jilted lover" example by Rikoshi is nice, but it's not something I want written on my character sheet.  Stuff like that belongs in the GM's notes instead.

Many other RPGs have "disadvantages" that you can take on in return for "moar XPs".  However, those are usually clearly defined with actual consequences.  All the EotE book offers is a tiny table listing vaguaries such as "Betrayal" (who betrayed who here?), "Blackmail" (what happens if I don't pay?) or "Dutybound" (what happens if I say "screw it"?) without so much as a sentence of clarification.

As both a player and a character, I really don't want to deal with anything so intangible as Obligation Magnitude during the course of roleplaying either.  If I owe someone money, I just want to know how much I owe them.  I understand that owing a favor is not as quantifiable, but isn't that the whole point?  How do you roleplay a negotiation involving Obligation points anyway?  I imagine the following nightmare scenario:

NPC: "Just so you understand, if I do this for you, you'll owe me a big favor."
Players: "How much Obligation is that?"
GM: "10 points."
PCs: "No way, a big favor is too much.  We'll do it for a medium-sized favor instead."
Players: "(5 points.)"
NPC: "Well, how about a medium-sized favor plus a relatively small favor?"
GM: "(8 points.)"
PCs: "Deal!"

Moreover, one of our players took offense at the idea that his character had to have an obligation at all.  He used himself as the example of someone without obligation; no family depending on him, no outstanding debts, nothing.  If a spaceship were to pick him up tomorrow, there would be nothing he would [i]have[/i] to come back for.

I myself didn't really get the problem with taking on max Obligation.  Sure, my character will get harassed twice as often as other party members, but that's still only one in 5 sessions on average, and on the flipside I get "teh XPs" and I'll be less likely to sit on the sidelines while some other player gets to engage in his character's story.  I'm here to roleplay and my own character's backstory is more interesting to me than that of the others.  I don't think the system should encourage such egocentric behavior, though.

Our group was also not impressed with the "your Strain Threshold is reduced by 1 for this session" mechanic.  Strain is so easy to recover that they just don't care about that at all.

The final, and perhaps biggest problem is with Motivation.  About half the instances of Obligation listed both in the book and in this thread could be argued to be Motivations instead.  Some examples:

The book, page 31 sidebar said:

Pash owes his old mentor for setting him up as a smuggler

Mentor is a Motivation [Relationship].  Moreover, in many RPGs, having a mentor is considered an advantage that you actually have to pay points for.  Which is better?  Obligation: Redneck Aunt and Uncle making you do all kinds of chores, or Obligation: Jedi Master mentoring you in the secrets of the Force?  Well played, Luke Skywalker!

starkanine said:

For example, Luke's starting obligation in Ep. IV could have started as relationship (Aunt and Uncle).

(Foster) parents are a Motivation [Relationship].

The vagaries allow for player choices, tho' I agree some better examples could be very useful.

For example, I put the question to the player who rolled betrayal - did you betray an employer, or do you owe a debt that will result in you betraying the party? He chose the latter. Now, he's got a moral quandry since the party is on to him. (All the players knew. Their characters just figured it out, however, and that group is great about separating player vs character knowledge.) So, whom does he betray, how… his family, held hostage, his motivation (the crew) or both?

Vague advantages and disadvantages are normal old school and indy… Obligation is a very "indyish" mechanic.