nobble said:

I guess it could also be said that it is ultimately up to the GM as well. As a more generous GM, I'm willing to let my players get an early jump in the game.

However, I think the layout needs some adjustment, with all the pertinent rules in one place. For example, rulings on systems like Obligation should be covered just in that chapter, without having to jump back to the intro section of character creation or forward to another section for a minor mechanical clarification. Or maybe having reminders on some of the more confusing aspects of the Obligation starting bonuses. This way when creating a character the player doesn't get distracted by some allusion to a later benefit which they will probably forget as more things like Species, Career, Specialization, and Motivation take up  the greater part of their attention. I don't have my book on hand, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not recalling everything in the right order/layout. This (the layout issue) has just been nagging at me the further I go into the book.

 The way I explained it is that there are four "slots" of bonus Obligation:  +5 XP for +5 Obligation, +1000 credits for +5 Obligation, +10 XP for +10 Obligation, and +2500 credits for +10 Obligation.  You can take any combo of slots that add up to your starting obligation, but you can only choose a given slot once.  That seemed to snap it into place for them.

It was brought up earlier but I didn't really see it addressed:  how are people handling adding players?  I did initial creation with 4 players, so they started with 15 Obligation.  Then I had a 5th join, and, not wanting to make everyone else go back and tweak their characters, I allowed the new guy to also start with 15.  Three of the players only took an additional 5 Obligation, but two others maxed out, which means we're starting with 120 Obligation!  I don't plan on dinging them with the Obligation threshold right out of the gate, but there has to be some way of integrating new players, or accounting for a player missing a session.

Chrislee66 said:

Additionally, for certain character types they wouldn't want their Obligation to drop since they would, in theory, lose out on some of the swagger they've built up with their black market dealings.

I like the reputation system in Shadowrun, but I think that reputation (whether illicit or legit) in this version of Star Wars may work out better if it is dealt with in the same fashion as it deals with characters falling to the darkside.  Rather than having some scale that can be gamed by talents and skill checks, just have it be under the control of the GM and the group.  The actions of the characters, or the details of their backstories (which may be attached to their obligation as the case may be) should affect and inform their reputations.  That's not to say I'd shy away from a new reputation sub-system.  I just don't think there is a good way to attach rep to obligation without things getting crossed up at some point.

 Legendary doesn't necessarily mean liked or even respected.  You're just well known wherever you go.  I'd call it notoriety more than reputation.

Re-figure it by subtracting the difference, and make a new chart.      

darkrose50 said:

Darkrose50, I assume you are talking about adding in new players, right? Because that's the way I would handle it, just adjust the base Obligation.

For our first characters, I've allowed the players one Obligation increase. Mainly because I might be running game for 7 or more players. I didn't really notice the part where you can't double your starting value, but I knew it was going to be high. My players don't mind their past biting them in the ass for more XP, I tell ya.

Reputation wise, I think high Obligation portrays interactions with the more legitimate elements of society, but otherwise…. well, it almost works for me. More scum and seedy types would know of the characters, but that would almost certainly bring on more heat. I'm not fully certain how that would mean that they get audiences with Hutt crime lords etc. Maybe the head honchos take a more direct approach? "Jabba, you're a wonderful human being."

And I love the idea of a ship Obligation, as it ties the group together and makes some story for the ship, like from KoToR where the Falcon-wannabe was an old pirate ship or something and had a reputation of it's own that was hanging over the group as they went to planets and interacted with those in the know. But I don't think it has to be the ship that ties the group together, and it ALMOST seems too superficial for me, so I might make a unified Obligation like how they all owe a debt to Bespin's administrator, or Black Sun's "group discount" bounty on the heroes.

 One ofthe first sentences in the obligation section states that groups can share obligations.  Why not just use this system to avoid all this crap about "base obligation", and set the entire groups base obligation to, say, 40.  Players can still use the RAW to use more obligation to get more starting boosts if they want, and run the risk of drawing personalized grief.  it seems a lot easier than screwing around with constantly changing everyone's "base" obligation based on the night's group composition, anyway.

Example:

Group of 4 characters

Base obligation: 40

A's Obligation 0 (didn't take any)

B's Obligation 15

C's Obligation 5

Line them up as indicated: 40+15+ 5

• If the roll is 1 - 40, everyone takes a strain hit
• If the roll is 41-55, B takes a strain double hit, and everyoene else takes a strain hit
• If the roll is 56-60, C takes a strain double hit, and everyone else takes a strain hit
• If the roll is 11, 22, 33 is rolled, everyone takes a double hit
• If the roll is 44 or 55 B takes a quad hit, everyone else takes 2
• C is safe from double digits… this time.
• 61-00 no effect.

IF you Really feel the need to single someone out on a "group obligation" result, just randomly choose a player.  It'd be similarly random if you did it the old way.

-WJL

Callidon said:

My players like the idea of a light mechanical underpinning, so I think that I'm simply going to come up with a really simple system to to handle it completely divorced from the obligation mechanics.  If they didn't I'd likely just hand wave it.  I'll try to post it when I have the time to write it up.

Wulfherr said:

* Gambling

* Womanizer, getting in trouble with spurned women or their husbands

etc

With supporting links :-)

*Just add some head-tails and some blaster pistols and cantina band music*

* Gambling

* Womanizer, getting in trouble with spurned women or their husbands

LethalDose said:

I sort of like this, but one question: B and C - do they gain bonus XP or cash for taking on those "extra" obligations? I would think so, but I'm not so steady on the whole obligation issue… one of my beta-groups have started with no obligation - I gave them some extra starting equipment but no extra xp, they're supposed to gain obligations through play - like when they take over the ship of their current "employer" that would create a "base" or shared obligation between the three players - whereas the other stuff they gain from through their new benefactor would give them some more obligations… not sure how it will play out but it seems like a fun way to do it.

LethalDose said:

To add to this, the base obligation could reprint the ship itself, so any obligation taken on for the betterment of the ship - repairs, upgrades, etc - could be tacked on to the base and not anyone in particular,

-EF

Noone of the players liked it, everyone even tought it was just a massive hindrance to roleplay and I (GM) totally agree.

Obligation in its current form is nothing but a boat-ancor for your imerrsion of the gameing experience. I have read alot of posts on the forum singing its praise but I can not see any positive aspect of the current Obligationsystem as it is now.

1) The mechanic around Obligation is easy and understandable. But you start of with a value that is based on the number of players in the group. So if we start with 4 each get 20, then two more players want to join in. Do I set their starting Obligation at 6 players or 2 players. Or do I simply reset everyones starting Obligation to match 6 players, or do I… It is confusing at best.

2) A stat with only negative effect. "Before each session, the GM rolls percentile dice and compares the result to the group's current outstanding Obligation." (Page 31). If I roll under the Obligation all characters reduce their strain threshold by 1, except the players Obligation I manage to roll under that reduce his/her characters strain threshold with 2 unless I roll a X1 then he/she reduce the threshold with 4 and all others reduce theirs with 2. This rule makes no sence, followed by having zero advantage to the players durig the adventure. Why just not permanently reduce all players strain threshold by 1 and skip Obligation? It is using narrative implications, it says in the book. Hmm, last time I checked it was the player constructing the character that choose if he/she has any narrative implications on that character, not some rule in a book. Rules in roleplaying games should be there to guide and limit actions to what is reasonable within the gameworld, not enforce "You are addicted this playing session and your ganja smokes so bad everyone else suffer a reduced strain threshold aswell. Thanks Adam!". Anyhow, as we where spewing hate over it a player asked "Since all we will get from this is a penalty, where is the bonus for having it?" After looking about in the book I found its use (Page 191) and it reads; "Group Obligation Threshold Guidelines". I know you all have read it but basically it lets you get hold of illigal goods easier if you got a high Obligation, being more bad ass. And the less Obligation you got the easier it is to deal with the government being more care-bear. So, the Colonist with a huge Obligation towards her family has it easier to get hold of drugs then the Smuggler with very low Obligation towards an Addiction. Again, Obligation makes no sence. But since we where testing we made sure to take advantage of the rule about additional Obligation bonus (Page 31). All players took +10 Obligation for +10 XP an +10 Obligation for +2500 Starting Credits. When I later rolled for the Obligatin I rolled a 98, so it did not kick in.

It is not an "narrative implication" if it mechanically forces players to a negative modification. A narrative implication that has an mechanical modification would be if the player chooses to exploit his/her Obligation, not being exploited by it with no way to hinder or affect it.

-= SUGGESTION =-

One thing all players agreed upon was that the idea behind Obligation was kind of cool. That you have something on the side that either takes up alot of time and/or resources. We think that a complete rewamp of the mehcanic is in order and here is my suggestion.

Every player start of with an Obligation of 1. You can then either choose or randomise your Obligation type by using table 2-1 on page 30. The player can then further enhance his/hers Obligation using the following Table (actually Table 2-3 on page 31).

+5 XP for another +1 in Obligation OR +10 XP for another +2 in Obligation.
+1000 starting credits for another +1 in Obligation OR +2500 starting credits for another +2 in Obligation.

Meaning; a character could either start with just 1 in Obligation or boost up to a whupping 5 by grabing 10 extra XP and another 2500 extra starting credits.

This value can then be used ingame either boost or penalise a particulary difficult roll or situation.

Example in play: The GM o give a player a number of setback dice when confronted with the Oblgation. An Addicct among drugs might have his Obligation value in extra penalty when trying to bargain, a character with Family might get extra dice in penalty when they are threatened o keep cool and so on. This in turn could be countered by the player by taking 1 strain for each Setback Dice they would like to get rid of. Cost per Dice could even be 2.

Hi FFG:

I would suggest that there ought to be included another entry in the Starting (score in) Obligation Table (under the Character Creation chapter) for just one (1) player, which is often the case for some (right now said table starts counting from two (2) players).

Thanks!

L

Ruskendrul said:

Your main complaint about Obligation is that it seems like a negative thing for the characters…and it is. That's what it's supposed to be.

Obligation, by definition, is something that the characters have to do, as opposed to what they want to do. That's what the mechanic is made to represent: these things that the characters have lurking in their backgrounds that they know they need to take care of, but might not otherwise want to or be ready to or be in a position to.

Personally, I think it's a great way to ensure that players put some thought into their characters' backstory.  It's also a great hook for the GM. That smuggler who's being blackmailed hasn't been fulfilling his Obligation to pay off the person asking for the blackmail? Well, now he's got bounty hunters after him. Or maybe the mechanic with an obligation to his family finds out that his sister is being investigated by the Empire, but going to check up on it would mean missing out on a really big score with a job for the Hutts.

The tradeoff, then, for players willingly making their lives suck more, in this fashion, is that they get bonus XP and money to make their characters better. That's the positive side of the mechanic in play.