It's fair enough to mention, "if you engage that frigate you will incur an Imperial Bounty, a 10 point obligation for each of you since they know all of your names already. Do you proceed?"

It's perfectly okay to fudge the rules a little if it suits the story.

Do they get a benefit for taking on that Obligation? For example, do they get a cash handout from the Rebellion for engaging that Imperial frigate? If there is not a benefit, then there isn't Obligation. There will certainly be consequences to the act of attacking the frigate - including reprisals - but that's not tied to Obligation, and fudging the Obligation rules like you suggest is screwing the player as much as mishandling XP or credits.*

* To which I mean, you don't tell a player that he prepares for a mission and spends 20XP doing so - without having that XP actually do something (skills, talents, etc.). You also don't tell a PC that walking into a weapon shop just cost him 5,000 credits - unless he walks away with something of value.

Last time I gave the group some Obligation was the time they got themselves arrested. Along comes the local crime boss with a generous offer to bribe away their charges. In exchange for services to be named later, of course. They chose the Obligation and now the crime boss owns a piece of them.

The fact that same said crime boss may have been partially responsible for getting them arrested in the first place not withstanding...

Still, they new up front they were taking on Obligation in exchange for the easy way out.

It's fair enough to mention, "if you engage that frigate you will incur an Imperial Bounty, a 10 point obligation for each of you since they know all of your names already. Do you proceed?"

It's perfectly okay to fudge the rules a little if it suits the story.

Do they get a benefit for taking on that Obligation?

Well, to be quite honest they weren't trying to blow it up, they were trying to board and take it over. I didn't say they were smart. But the consequence is the consequence; I can see how it could be made to work around Obligation, but it's just so handy to have that come up when I prep for the upcoming session. Had they succeeded ( they're quite clever sometimes, so there was indeed a chance and in fact they did pretty well until one of them turned coat ) I would likely have increased the Obligation even more.

We did talk about it at my table and agreed, so I don't think anyone feels screwed.

Egads! We've been doing it wrong all this time!

*runs off to re-read the section on obligation*

Last time I gave the group some Obligation was the time they got themselves arrested. Along comes the local crime boss with a generous offer to bribe away their charges. In exchange for services to be named later, of course. They chose the Obligation and now the crime boss owns a piece of them.

The fact that same said crime boss may have been partially responsible for getting them arrested in the first place not withstanding...

Still, they new up front they were taking on Obligation in exchange for the easy way out.

Taking on Obligation to get sprung from prison is an excellent example of how it's intended to work. You got your benefit, but it is going to hang over your head for a time.

OTOH, if the characters had escaped - or even just served their time - then Obligation would not be appropriate since they are not getting a benefit in exchange for the Obligation.

So, for the group I gave up on, we had an Assassin, a Pilot, a Mechanic, a Thief, an Astromech Droid, and an Enforcer.

This group isn't so good at "give yourself motivations and objectives" so I usually have to come up with a million ideas for each character. To stop the Murder-Hobo behavior I added options to each adventure for non-violent solutions featuring each characters skillset and occupation. I also created non-violent objectives (take them alive, find these guys, etc.), and non-combat friendly locations/settings. I split the party whenever I could, to keep them from moving in a murder flock. I used failed objectives, lost rewards, and bounty hunters / Sector Rangers.

In the end they never thought outside of the kill everyone box.

As a GM I try to run with this, hoping that at least the players are having fun, but man it wasn't fun for me.

The last adventure I decided to add something for everyone. They were at an Imperial Research Station on the edge of a black hole. They were there to turn in a pirate they had captured for a bounty. The story was that Doctor Evazan and Pando Baba had hijacked one of the supply ships for the station and landed with a pirate crew to raid the station for supplies for Evazan's experiments.

The PC's saw on the stations video that there were a lot of pirates. They had the last of the Stations defenders/workers trapped in a lab section, and were working on cutting in. The PC's had re-established communication with the Station Commander in the lab, and the Stormtrooper Sgt there.

So... their long list of options included the Thief sneaking around the place via the many ventilation shafts etc. and causing havoc, the Pilot performing a daring airlock rescue of the lab personnel or stealing the pirates ship so they couldn't get off station, the Mechanic hacking into the station systems and locking out doors, turning off gravity, etc., (along with the Astromech droid), and the Assassin and Enforcer taking out key threats and organizing a combined defense with the Base Commander and Stormtrooper Sgt. (These were just SOME of the ideas I had down on paper.)

Instead, the Assassin ran straight to the GIANT group of pirates filling the corridors and opened fire on them (nearly getting himself killed with the return fire), while the rest of the group followed and shot at the pirates too. This "plan" took them so long that the 2 Nemesis broke into the labs, killed all the resistance, and stole everything.

On top of it all, before the group began the murder horde run, the Assassin killed the bounty they were bringing in so he couldn't run away.

I pretty much don't want to play that campaign, and so won't run again with the group. Sometimes a game just isn't a fit for a group. (I still run EotE with other groups.)

OTOH, if the characters had escaped - or even just served their time - then Obligation would not be appropriate since they are not getting a benefit in exchange for the Obligation.

Meanwhile, none of my group's obligation bumps have resulted in a benefit. One time a player killed a local robber baron (it was a long story - but justified) and then threw the corpse over the wall of the ranch to his son and said keep his nose out of town! We all went "**** that's cold" and I kicked the player 5 obligation because **** if that's not going to come bite her in the ass someday.

And then one of the characters started hitting the bottle pretty hard, and we decided that "Yeah, she should probably have 'addict' as an obligation" - but again, it was just because of character growth and not a "give me this thing and you'll owe them" thing.

Well, we may not have been able to help Yoshiyahu's murder hobo problem, but we did straighten me out on some rules. That's worth something!

4) Increases to their Obligation. Suddenly they get over a hundred points and cant spend their experience points? They'll be looking to change their ways real fast!

This is wrong. Obligation is not intended to be used like that:

However, unless the characters frequently ignore opportunities to reduce their Obligation, the GM cannot normally force the players to take on additional Obligation beyond the start. The choice must be theirs as an exercise in risk vs. reward. - EotE Core Rulebook, page 309.

You can inflict consequences, but not Obligation. So you can have a bounty hunter show up, but that's not a Bounty Obligation unless the player accepts such in exchange for a reward of some kind. Likewise a character can make a promise in-game and it's not a Responsibility Obligation - unless the player accepts such in exchange for a reward of some kind.

Interesting. This is a contradiction to page 310 Managing Obligation Settlement where it states:

Obligation must be settled by a character's actions. When their Obligation is activated they should respond to it during the game session Trying to address the Obligation is not a guarantee of reducing it. Ignoring one's Obligation often increases the severity of response the next time the Obligation is activated. If a character ignores his Obligation after three activations, the character's Obligation increases by five.

Well not quite the contradiction, if you read it as increasing already taken obligation is ok, but opening a new one is not. Also at least Jewel of Yavin deviate from this rule if I remember correctly.

I think if the player wants to do something risky and stupid, the "reward" from additional Obligation could be getting to do that stupid risky thing. As long as the player is made a aware ahead of time it will result in Obligation.

I think if the player wants to do something risky and stupid, the "reward" from additional Obligation could be getting to do that stupid risky thing. As long as the player is made a aware ahead of time it will result in Obligation.

That's not a reward, that and the fallout resulting from it are consequences.

So, for the group I gave up on, we had an Assassin, a Pilot, a Mechanic, a Thief, an Astromech Droid, and an Enforcer.

This group isn't so good at "give yourself motivations and objectives" so I usually have to come up with a million ideas for each character. To stop the Murder-Hobo behavior I added options to each adventure for non-violent solutions featuring each characters skillset and occupation. I also created non-violent objectives (take them alive, find these guys, etc.), and non-combat friendly locations/settings. I split the party whenever I could, to keep them from moving in a murder flock. I used failed objectives, lost rewards, and bounty hunters / Sector Rangers.

In the end they never thought outside of the kill everyone box.

As a GM I try to run with this, hoping that at least the players are having fun, but man it wasn't fun for me.

The last adventure I decided to add something for everyone. They were at an Imperial Research Station on the edge of a black hole. They were there to turn in a pirate they had captured for a bounty. The story was that Doctor Evazan and Pando Baba had hijacked one of the supply ships for the station and landed with a pirate crew to raid the station for supplies for Evazan's experiments.

The PC's saw on the stations video that there were a lot of pirates. They had the last of the Stations defenders/workers trapped in a lab section, and were working on cutting in. The PC's had re-established communication with the Station Commander in the lab, and the Stormtrooper Sgt there.

So... their long list of options included the Thief sneaking around the place via the many ventilation shafts etc. and causing havoc, the Pilot performing a daring airlock rescue of the lab personnel or stealing the pirates ship so they couldn't get off station, the Mechanic hacking into the station systems and locking out doors, turning off gravity, etc., (along with the Astromech droid), and the Assassin and Enforcer taking out key threats and organizing a combined defense with the Base Commander and Stormtrooper Sgt. (These were just SOME of the ideas I had down on paper.)

Instead, the Assassin ran straight to the GIANT group of pirates filling the corridors and opened fire on them (nearly getting himself killed with the return fire), while the rest of the group followed and shot at the pirates too. This "plan" took them so long that the 2 Nemesis broke into the labs, killed all the resistance, and stole everything.

On top of it all, before the group began the murder horde run, the Assassin killed the bounty they were bringing in so he couldn't run away.

I pretty much don't want to play that campaign, and so won't run again with the group. Sometimes a game just isn't a fit for a group. (I still run EotE with other groups.)

That is def an example of broken and can't be fixed. We've got all layers of maturity and backgrounds at our table and the older generally do a decent job of reining in the younger. No one is a tantrum issue or suicidal though.

My suggestion seems a bit radical, seeing as I'm posting on an ffg forum but here goes: if the party wants to just play murder hobos with no consequences then buy a copy of paranoia, in my opinion it would sound like a perfect game for them. The other suggestion is that if you want the group to play a game without a lot of combat but if they try to indulge themselves in combat then you need a game where there are consequences to their lives, the game that does that job, in my opinion is shadowrun. Do some homework on these systems and see what you think is best for your group.

Obligation is supposed be a player resource. You take on Obligation knowingly and willingly in exchange for something of benefit to you. This is quite different from the natural (and often immediate) consequences - both good and bad - of one's actions. The GM arbitrates such consequences, but this is separate from the players' stock of Obligation that they can invest beyond their immediate actions.

What page was this rule?

I'm just a bit confused because in the premade adventure "jewel of Yaven" it contradicts that ruling saying that players may come away with more obligation based on their actions at the end (I don't want to give away the story but let's just say it's obligation criminal and not gained by them accepting it but merely by taking specific actions.)

Obligation is supposed be a player resource. You take on Obligation knowingly and willingly in exchange for something of benefit to you. This is quite different from the natural (and often immediate) consequences - both good and bad - of one's actions. The GM arbitrates such consequences, but this is separate from the players' stock of Obligation that they can invest beyond their immediate actions.

What page was this rule?

I'm just a bit confused because in the premade adventure "jewel of Yaven" it contradicts that ruling saying that players may come away with more obligation based on their actions at the end (I don't want to give away the story but let's just say it's obligation criminal and not gained by them accepting it but merely by taking specific actions.)

I pretty much don't want to play that campaign, and so won't run again with the group. Sometimes a game just isn't a fit for a group. (I still run EotE with other groups.)

Thanks for sharing. I'm sorry to hear about your campaign. You did bring up a good point that I don't think I had thought of before, though. You specifically tailored your encounter to account for the individual specialties of your players' characters. That's probably been a weakness of mine in encounter building: if there are no obvious solutions that involve the players' non-combat abilities, it's very easy for them to resort for violence.

4) Increases to their Obligation. Suddenly they get over a hundred points and cant spend their experience points? They'll be looking to change their ways real fast!

This is wrong. Obligation is not intended to be used like that:

However, unless the characters frequently ignore opportunities to reduce their Obligation, the GM cannot normally force the players to take on additional Obligation beyond the start. The choice must be theirs as an exercise in risk vs. reward. - EotE Core Rulebook, page 309.

You can inflict consequences, but not Obligation. So you can have a bounty hunter show up, but that's not a Bounty Obligation unless the player accepts such in exchange for a reward of some kind. Likewise a character can make a promise in-game and it's not a Responsibility Obligation - unless the player accepts such in exchange for a reward of some kind.

Interesting. This is a contradiction to page 310 Managing Obligation Settlement where it states:

Obligation must be settled by a character's actions. When their Obligation is activated they should respond to it during the game session Trying to address the Obligation is not a guarantee of reducing it. Ignoring one's Obligation often increases the severity of response the next time the Obligation is activated. If a character ignores his Obligation after three activations, the character's Obligation increases by five.

Well not quite the contradiction, if you read it as increasing already taken obligation is ok, but opening a new one is not. Also at least Jewel of Yavin deviate from this rule if I remember correctly.

My suggestion seems a bit radical, seeing as I'm posting on an ffg forum but here goes: if the party wants to just play murder hobos with no consequences then buy a copy of paranoia, in my opinion it would sound like a perfect game for them. The other suggestion is that if you want the group to play a game without a lot of combat but if they try to indulge themselves in combat then you need a game where there are consequences to their lives, the game that does that job, in my opinion is shadowrun. Do some homework on these systems and see what you think is best for your group.

I've heard nothing but good things about Paranoia, and I've heard similarly positive remarks about Shadowrun. I might check them out at some point in the future, but for now I'd really like to run an Edge of the Empire game. Like I've said before, the party isn't dead-set on being murder-hobos. I'm just looking for ways to help keep them from sliding into murder-hobo-ism. Grimmshade gave me some really good ideas to help with that. Obviously, I'm still open to more.

Anyways my solution is rather simple, don't handle the players with kid gloves. Now given it's important to let them have fun and in the end do what they want, but I've learned (at least my players) have a level of respect of knowing that the world is dangerous and doing absurd things that will get them killed are going to have consequences which sometimes end up in death depending on how bad what they did was.
I mean if you burn down a building full of people it should never be treated as "no big deal", you've effectively just committed mass murder and property destruction in a single swipe, this means you're going to have anyone and everyone who liked or loved the people in the building after you on top of local authorities and any other vigalante style dogooders that want to bring you to justice. I mean silently killing a guard and taking time and effort to dispose of the body and hide all tracks of your involvement is one thing, slaughtering several people in a none-to-subtle manner is another. It can be rough to kill a player I get that, but I find in most instances that if they're action was severe enough to truly draw that kind of attention they typically deal with it fine and don't hold a grudge (depending on the maturity of the group of course).

In the end though the most important thing to do is to try and talk to your players and emphasize you want to run a story oriented and occasionally give them things to take those out on.

Perhaps introduce more friendly PC's, don't make it feel like everyone is out to get them or swindle them (not saying you do but I've been with GM's that do this and it makes for most players quickly not caring for anyone outside of the party as they decide to no longer wait to be backstabbed and become paranoid hostile psychopaths). Maybe a shop keeper has heard of a good dead they did and decides to give them great deals, or a town celebrates the coming of a group that can help them solve some problem that's been plaguing them and lauds them as heroes, etc. If the players have something to genuinly loose in terms of an NPC(s) they actually care for then perhaps they'd be a little less reckless.

So, for the group I gave up on, we had an Assassin, a Pilot, a Mechanic, a Thief, an Astromech Droid, and an Enforcer.

This group isn't so good at "give yourself motivations and objectives" so I usually have to come up with a million ideas for each character. To stop the Murder-Hobo behavior I added options to each adventure for non-violent solutions featuring each characters skillset and occupation. I also created non-violent objectives (take them alive, find these guys, etc.), and non-combat friendly locations/settings. I split the party whenever I could, to keep them from moving in a murder flock. I used failed objectives, lost rewards, and bounty hunters / Sector Rangers.

In the end they never thought outside of the kill everyone box.

As a GM I try to run with this, hoping that at least the players are having fun, but man it wasn't fun for me.

The last adventure I decided to add something for everyone. They were at an Imperial Research Station on the edge of a black hole. They were there to turn in a pirate they had captured for a bounty. The story was that Doctor Evazan and Pando Baba had hijacked one of the supply ships for the station and landed with a pirate crew to raid the station for supplies for Evazan's experiments.

The PC's saw on the stations video that there were a lot of pirates. They had the last of the Stations defenders/workers trapped in a lab section, and were working on cutting in. The PC's had re-established communication with the Station Commander in the lab, and the Stormtrooper Sgt there.

So... their long list of options included the Thief sneaking around the place via the many ventilation shafts etc. and causing havoc, the Pilot performing a daring airlock rescue of the lab personnel or stealing the pirates ship so they couldn't get off station, the Mechanic hacking into the station systems and locking out doors, turning off gravity, etc., (along with the Astromech droid), and the Assassin and Enforcer taking out key threats and organizing a combined defense with the Base Commander and Stormtrooper Sgt. (These were just SOME of the ideas I had down on paper.)

Instead, the Assassin ran straight to the GIANT group of pirates filling the corridors and opened fire on them (nearly getting himself killed with the return fire), while the rest of the group followed and shot at the pirates too. This "plan" took them so long that the 2 Nemesis broke into the labs, killed all the resistance, and stole everything.

On top of it all, before the group began the murder horde run, the Assassin killed the bounty they were bringing in so he couldn't run away.

I pretty much don't want to play that campaign, and so won't run again with the group. Sometimes a game just isn't a fit for a group. (I still run EotE with other groups.)

To be fair that might partially be a case of the "never split the party" mentality that plagues so many Roleplayers. Even the good ones are hesitant about it, though more because it forces some players to sit out than the reduction in killing power.

I've heard nothing but good things about Paranoia, and I've heard similarly positive remarks about Shadowrun. I might check them out at some point in the future, but for now I'd really like to run an Edge of the Empire game. Like I've said before, the party isn't dead-set on being murder-hobos. I'm just looking for ways to help keep them from sliding into murder-hobo-ism. Grimmshade gave me some really good ideas to help with that. Obviously, I'm still open to more.

Shadowrun is the exact opposite of a murder hobo game, sure you can go, as they say, "pink mohawk" but the way the setting works... well you better hope lonestar finds you before the corp who's building you shot up does.

This sounds good. If it doesn't work, stop asking them to get together for a game, stop answering messages/calls, drop them from Facebook, and start looking for less disturbed people to play with.

I wish I could un-like every post where suggestions like this come up. This is a lot of pointless passive-aggression.

Let's take a look at what some of his group make-believe-did:

They're as likely to burn down a building full of innocents as they are to slay monsters.

...one of the characters was a deranged, mentally unstable Wookiee who would wear the faces of the people he'd killed.

He would also loot the bodies of his victims for family photos and other personal effects, and then show them to his future victims while asking "Do you want to see my family?"

A Jawa "Jedi" murdered a cab driver on Coruscant on a crowded street, in broad daylight because the cab driver astutely noticed that they were trying to avoid attention, and wanted more money for his "discretion."

I don't even want to talk about what they did to a humanoid creature they took captive....

......none of my current players are as bad as one player, who, after rolling up a paladin and killing his first kobold announced, "I **** its corpse." (He's no longer a member of our group.

After successfully accomplishing a rather difficult opposed check, the base's remaining personnel marched outside with their hands up... and were immediately vaporized by the gunners in the Lambda.

"I stab her with my vibroknife, and then carve my initials into her face so she never forgets her mistake."

If this GM was my best friend, I would give him the advice I quoted at the top. It wasn't a snarky reply, but what I truly would suggest. Yes it's make believe, but this is some strange, disturbing stuff that I wouldn't want myself or any of my friends to be part of.

Yes it's make believe, but this is some strange, disturbing stuff that I wouldn't want myself or any of my friends to be part of.

Yeah, it's pretty creepy IMHO, but I know how it is to play with friends where you don't entirely share the same sense of ethics. I have a friend who would pull out all the stops for someone in need in real life...seen him do it many times. But in RPGs he's always the first to suggest killing the inconvenient hostage, etc...not quite murder-hobo, and definitely not "initial-carving" level, but the hint is there. I truly don't know where it comes from, other than maybe he's really wound tighter than he seems and it's just a chance to "let go". The other players reign him in, so it's never become an issue, and he's otherwise fun company. And for our oddball pursuit, sometimes you have to take what you can get.

I've heard nothing but good things about Paranoia, and I've heard similarly positive remarks about Shadowrun. I might check them out at some point in the future, but for now I'd really like to run an Edge of the Empire game. Like I've said before, the party isn't dead-set on being murder-hobos. I'm just looking for ways to help keep them from sliding into murder-hobo-ism. Grimmshade gave me some really good ideas to help with that. Obviously, I'm still open to more.

Paranoia is pretty cool. My only caution regarding Shadowrun is that it is incredibly rules-heavy. But once you get the hang it can be quite fun.

This sounds good. If it doesn't work, stop asking them to get together for a game, stop answering messages/calls, drop them from Facebook, and start looking for less disturbed people to play with.

I wish I could un-like every post where suggestions like this come up. This is a lot of pointless passive-aggression.

Let's take a look at what some of his group make-believe-did:

They're as likely to burn down a building full of innocents as they are to slay monsters.

...one of the characters was a deranged, mentally unstable Wookiee who would wear the faces of the people he'd killed.

He would also loot the bodies of his victims for family photos and other personal effects, and then show them to his future victims while asking "Do you want to see my family?"

A Jawa "Jedi" murdered a cab driver on Coruscant on a crowded street, in broad daylight because the cab driver astutely noticed that they were trying to avoid attention, and wanted more money for his "discretion."

I don't even want to talk about what they did to a humanoid creature they took captive....

......none of my current players are as bad as one player, who, after rolling up a paladin and killing his first kobold announced, "I **** its corpse." (He's no longer a member of our group.

After successfully accomplishing a rather difficult opposed check, the base's remaining personnel marched outside with their hands up... and were immediately vaporized by the gunners in the Lambda.

"I stab her with my vibroknife, and then carve my initials into her face so she never forgets her mistake."

If this GM was my best friend, I would give him the advice I quoted at the top. It wasn't a snarky reply, but what I truly would suggest. Yes it's make believe, but this is some strange, disturbing stuff that I wouldn't want myself or any of my friends to be part of.

Huh, yeah, point. I'd still rather have a conversation than flat-out not responding to phone calls.

Honestly a lot of this **** sounds like the kind of immature stuff that 13-year-old boys would do. But it doesn't help if the GM shows them time and again that actions have no real consequences. You should have shot the Lambda out of the sky with a Star Destroyer after that.

Just a thought, A game like black crusade might be a good way to wean them off of it, it allows the violent stuff but you can slowly integrate inter cult politicking and such in a way that fits the theme.

Just a thought, A game like black crusade might be a good way to wean them off of it, it allows the violent stuff but you can slowly integrate inter cult politicking and such in a way that fits the theme.

The group I run at home actually did exactly this, using Black Crusade to vent college frustrations before moving on to Edge when it came out.

As part of a "Session Zero" I would bring up the opportunity for them to play as "bad guys". If the group is all happy running a "murder-hobo" campaign then embrace it, you don't need to play a certain way if you don't want to. There's no need to change. It sounds like you're really tying their actions into the storyline as consequences, which is as much as anyone can ask from a GM.

There is plenty of materiel to play as ruthless bounty hunters, cutthroat pirates, scheming Black Sun operatives, maniacal Dark Side adepts, etc. The only mechanical change is which pips Dark Side Force-Sensitives use on the Force Die, and which side of Destiny Points players can use.

They don't have to be tied to the Empire or the Rebellion (and will likely end up hunted by both) but there are always corrupt Moffs, cutthroat Hutts, and desperate Rebels who need something done, no questions asked. How long can they get away with it? That's another matter.

There is plenty of materiel to play as ruthless bounty hunters, cutthroat pirates, scheming Black Sun operatives, maniacal Dark Side adepts, etc. The only mechanical change is which pips Dark Side Force-Sensitives use on the Force Die, and which side of Destiny Points players can use.

The players always use the Light Side Destiny Points even when they are playing Dark Side Force-users.

And don't bad mouth bounty hunters like that! They're the long arm of the law in the fringes. There are just as many white hat bounty hunters as there are black hat smugglers.

I think if the player wants to do something risky and stupid, the "reward" from additional Obligation could be getting to do that stupid risky thing. As long as the player is made a aware ahead of time it will result in Obligation.

That's not a reward, that and the fallout resulting from it are consequences.

If the "reward" is too low then they can chose not to undertake the action.

"You come to a large crowded square where an imperial agent is actively looking for you."

"We try to sneak past."

<Stealth check>

"He sees you."

"****... I shoot him."

"Shooting an imperial agent in a crowded square would add 5 obligation to your character."

"Okay... Well we need to move past this point. Either I kill him and add that obligation to my character or we run and he now knows what we look like... Ok, I don't shoot him but make a run for it."

It doesn't state in the CRB that it is a player resource IIRC nor that a reward is something that has to be very benificial, in fact the player can actively decide whether or not he finds the reward of doing an action worth the risk or not so obviously the obligation is indeed only taken on because of their choise. All of it as per the CRB.