Has anybody been in a game yet where character managed to totally get rid of their Obligation?

More importantly, how did this affect the game? What did the player(s) do?

I haven't managed to get into a long-term game yet, so I'm curious how Obligation is something that's ostensibly bad but ends up driving a lot of the "story". Obviously a GM could just make up their own story, but in effect that seems like ignoring Obligation rather than working with it.

Not I. But I want to chime in that I've been both giving and taking. My players have lost a bit of obligation, but at the same time, they've picked up additional obligations that cropped up due to story.

I find it difficult to imagine that they'd ever fully buy down.

I didn't think you could get rid of an Obligation, completely (just reduce it to 5).

I don't think PCs completely resolving all of their Obligations would have much of an effect. Eventually, they're bound to sufficiently piss someone off (or whatever - for some reason only the revenge based ones are springing into my mind) that they get new Obligations.

I'm not a fan of the Obligation mechanic, to be honest.

Has anybody been in a game yet where character managed to totally get rid of their Obligation?

More importantly, how did this affect the game? What did the player(s) do?

I haven't managed to get into a long-term game yet, so I'm curious how Obligation is something that's ostensibly bad but ends up driving a lot of the "story". Obviously a GM could just make up their own story, but in effect that seems like ignoring Obligation rather than working with it.

I'm not sure I understand the "ostensibly bad" part of this. While my game is still in the early stages, I don't think there is any reason to look at obligation as bad. Even from a character perspective these are just motivating factors. Certainly a bounty obligation is going to have negative ramifications, but whatever was done to earn the bounty doesn't have to be "bad".

From the GM and player perspective, I see obligation as a great way of weaving back story into the over arching story. Like the CRB says, sometimes it can be something as a little added strain due to stress of knowing the obligation is out there and needs their attention, while other times it can be a huge part of the sessions plot, like a bounty hunter coming after the party to collect on the bounty for one of the members. Even with group obligation, you're bringing up the history of the party and how they've interacted with the galaxy. For me this is a very good thing.

I agree with Zilvar, in that I can't see a party ever having no obligation. At least in EotE, we are talking about the "underworld" type of setting, things are just too easy to run afoul of someone or some organization in this setting to not get more obligation at some point.

I'm not sure I understand the "ostensibly bad" part of this. While my game is still in the early stages, I don't think there is any reason to look at obligation as bad. Even from a character perspective these are just motivations. Certainly a bounty obligation is going to have negative ramifications, but whatever was done to earn the bounty doesn't have to be "bad".

I guess part of my problem (emphasis on "my") is that I have difficulty totally separating character from player. I want the mechanics to signify how my character feels about their motivations and issues. But I'm also a believer in the idea that no mechanic should be un-fun¹. So it's clear to see why I'm hung up on this perceived issue.

I'm also not a fan of how it gets randomly rolled at the beginning of each "session" (I'll probably switch to adventure, since when I run games they tend to run radically different amounts of time). Granted, it probably shouldn't be too difficult to have a list of "What happens when Character's Obligation comes up" events to help mitigate that.

Overall I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around it as a mechanic.

1: Disclaimer for objective/subjective opinions, etc....

In my mind, Obligation drives the character, not the story.

I haven't yet had a player completely buy out their Obligation (in fact, most can't; several have Family, which never goes away, and one has Criminal, which will last as long as the Empire does), but I came up with a policy for it. I allow my players to completely pay off their Obligations, and then they have a choice.

They can keep rolling with a character with no Obligation, but said character will be less and less relevant as the story movies forward -- after all, nobody has time for characters without sufficient motivation. They can pick up new Obligations with that same character (and, since I'm using the Obligation + Duty recommendation from the AoR Beta, if they join the Rebel Alliance they automatically gain the Duty Obligation and start accumulating Duty from AoR). Finally, I can give them an out, in which case they can retire the character and create a new one.

It's not perfect, and I'm expecting I'll revise it (probably after reading subsequent responses in this thread), but it's a starting point. The idea is to make sure players understand that Obligation serves a narrative purpose, and while it's not always immediately relevant to the ongoing story, it's vital I have a hook with which to keep characters involved.

In my mind, Obligation drives the character, not the story.

I haven't yet had a player completely buy out their Obligation (in fact, most can't; several have Family, which never goes away, and one has Criminal, which will last as long as the Empire does), but I came up with a policy for it. I allow my players to completely pay off their Obligations, and then they have a choice.

They can keep rolling with a character with no Obligation, but said character will be less and less relevant as the story movies forward -- after all, nobody has time for characters without sufficient motivation. They can pick up new Obligations with that same character (and, since I'm using the Obligation + Duty recommendation from the AoR Beta, if they join the Rebel Alliance they automatically gain the Duty Obligation and start accumulating Duty from AoR). Finally, I can give them an out, in which case they can retire the character and create a new one.

It's not perfect, and I'm expecting I'll revise it (probably after reading subsequent responses in this thread), but it's a starting point. The idea is to make sure players understand that Obligation serves a narrative purpose, and while it's not always immediately relevant to the ongoing story, it's vital I have a hook with which to keep characters involved.

I think you've got a pretty good policy actually. Your explanation definitely helped me reconsider my take on it.

Obligation is not Motivation. It's not meant to be the reason why your character does what he does - instead it's the complications that have arisen as a result of your character's actions. A character with well-developed Motivation is a must, but Obligation is all bad.

Obligation is not Motivation. It's not meant to be the reason why your character does what he does - instead it's the complications that have arisen as a result of your character's actions. A character with well-developed Motivation is a must, but Obligation is all bad.

I differentiate the two thusly: Motivation is what pulls the character forward, the reason to get out of bed in the morning. Obligation is what pushes the character from behind, the reason she can't stay in bed all day. They both drive the character, but while Motivation is something for the character to strive for, Obligation is what they have to stay ahead of.

Put in a real life example, you work hard at the office because you want that promotion (Motivation), but you have to go to work to pay off your student loans (Obligation).

That said, I do also require my players maintain their Motivations, but it's less of an issue. Also, I'm a lot more lenient with how often they can add or remove Motivations versus Obligations.

Obligation is not Motivation. It's not meant to be the reason why your character does what he does - instead it's the complications that have arisen as a result of your character's actions. A character with well-developed Motivation is a must, but Obligation is all bad.

I used the term motivating factors, but perhaps a better word for obligation is impetus. It is what helps drive aspects of the character's own story within the overall story that the GM has.

Take Han Solo. His debt to Jabba is the impetus that got him to take the charter flight with Obi Wan and Luke on board. That resulted in the rest of the GM's (Lucas' story). Now the impetus could have been a lot of different things, but Han had debts he had to pay. Had Han been a rebel sympathizer maybe that would have been the impetus, or if he had been an Alderaanian maybe he would have gotten involved to help his home world's princess.

Yes, I think you can buy a particular Obligation down to zero, in some cases. Debt might be bought off; Favors could be repaid, Criminal could be exonerated, etc. But things like Oath or Family will never go away: they may get less important if you manage to set up your impoverished father in a great living situation that frees him from all his woes, but there will always be a plot hook there.

And at the same time, if an Obligation goes to zero, something will always pop it up to replace it. Get rid of that Favor? Well in repaying the Favor and helping someone out, you did something to pick up a Bounty, or a Crime, or a Debt, etc.

Obligation and living on the edge of legality are major themes of this system and the players should never be able to fully opt out of them.

RAW you should always have some amount of Obligation. The only exception being that if a character aquires Duty from AoR then they can get rid of it completely. Of course this is just RAW and really is up to the GM.

If you do not allow a player to completely remove an obligation, then the player has little reason to actually try to remove the obligation (except for role playing reasons). I'd hate to be a part of this illusion where a player couldn't do anything about it. If player A works really hard on his obligation and player B doesn't, would you not reward player A? Instead of aiming for players to have completely 0 obligation, you could have your players have differing amounts of obligation, at which point you'd want players to appreciate the difference between having obligation and not having it.

I think the 1,2,4 strain threshold penalty isn't enough to mechanically incentivize lowering one's obligation. I've wanted to change it to "this obligation gains a cumulative -1 strain threshold and a -2 obligation that stays with you every session; a value of 0 obligation does not remove the obligation, it just makes it impossible to roll, and ignore the 1,2,4 penalty" , but the change is so radical that I don't have the balls to do it. The houserule also means that it's both the responsibility of the GM and the Player to work together and remove the obligation.

I think the thing a lot of folks in this thread are missing is that the rules actually specifically indicate that a PC's Obligation can never be reduced to lower than 5.

This doesn't mean that no given Obligation can ever be bought off completely--certainly, a Criminal record can be erased, a Debt can be repaid, and so on--but at the bare minimum, a PC will still have 5 points of 'untyped' Obligation: there's always something in a person's past that can rear its ugly head.

We are resolving Obligation but in the process taking on other Obligation as a result and also using it as a sort of currency, so I'm sure my GM wants it at a reasonable level, but he always wants it there as both a plot hook and a quasi currency with costs associated.

The ebb and flow of Obligation has helped drive a lot of story and sub plots in my ongoing campaign. Neither I nor my players view it as an un-fun mechanic to try and eliminate.

It has enhanced the story more than may have occurred if just left to "you guys owe a crime boss big time" and occasional subplot encounters. Actually having periodic mechanical effects which can also double as impartial prompts for when those sub plots come up has been a boon. Since it's rolled, my players don't think I'm just being a jerk when a doubles result means serious stuff is going down in relation to rolled obligation.

Since they don't feel like I'm just out to get them, they collaborate more with the story as their Obligations come up. Recently they've also started taking on more self-selected "missions" with the goal of reducing their Obligation load. The visual mechanic of having this table of growing values against them has slowly become a big motivator for pro-activeness.

I think the thing a lot of folks in this thread are missing is that the rules actually specifically indicate that a PC's Obligation can never be reduced to lower than 5.

This doesn't mean that no given Obligation can ever be bought off completely--certainly, a Criminal record can be erased, a Debt can be repaid, and so on--but at the bare minimum, a PC will still have 5 points of 'untyped' Obligation: there's always something in a person's past that can rear its ugly head.

Big **** Hero was interested in how removing that last five Obligation would affect a campaign, so that's what we're talking about. Personally, I wouldn't let a character's Obligation (or Duty) remain at zero for too long, either they end up with more somehow or they retire from adventuring. But having it drop to zero temporarily is fine.

I finally talked my group at home into a serious roleplaying campaign. Their characters aren't Rebels, Imperials, or even (mostly) criminals. When they work off their Obligation they'll be able to stop working for their shady employers, which might mean pursuing their own Motivations or even leaving the party and creating a new character. One is even a security guard specifically saving up for retirement.

There's also group obligation to consider. Even if a character pays off their own obligation, chances are, the group will be accumulating their own obligation just by running sessions. There's only so many crime lords, Stormtroopers, and bounty hunters you can off before someone will have it out for your group Pretty much any adventure you run will leave NPCs with a bad taste in their mouths due to character actions.

Also, obligations can be used as a carrot, as well as a stick. So a PC has bought off all of their obligation. But there's that brand new heavy blaster rifle in the shop window that he REALLY wants, but just can't afford. I'm sure the shop keeper could "come to an arrangement" with the character...