Apologies in advance for the wall of text.

Let me preface this topic with some background. I currently am the "ever-GM" for a group of four to six people that meets semi-weekly to play various RPGs. Right now, we've been playing Pathfinder for about a year, but prior to Pathfinder we spent a year or so working our way through the Dawn of Defiance campaign for Star Wars Saga Edition. I'm not an inexperienced GM, per se, but I don't have decades under my belt like some people do either.

My players have a problem. They're murder-hobos. Not just a little bit, either. In our current Pathfinder game, the party consistently leaves a wake of destruction behind them wherever they go. They're as likely to burn down a building full of innocents as they are to slay monsters. The phrase "purifying fire will hide our crimes" has been tossed around more than a few times. Usually, the violence has some sort of "greater purpose," but as often as not devolves into wanton murder for the sake of wanton murder. Example: The party's rogue sneaks into a warehouse that they suspect is a base for cult activity. The rogue is discovered by two warehouse workers who question the rogue and ask why he's there. The rogue panics and murders both of them. What happened next was a chain reaction of "hide the bodies" and "no witnesses."

There were no survivors.

This type of behavior isn't isolated to Pathfinder or fantasy settings either. In our Saga Edition game, 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." Dark Side Points were handed out abundantly, but the characters never reached the tipping point, and Saga Edition made it fairly easy to remove Dark Side Points with the sacrifice of Force Points.

The weird thing is, all of them started playing RPGs at about the same time, when they started with Star Wars Saga Edition. My group consists entirely of adults (no teenagers) and is a mix of males and females. None of them had any RPG experience prior to playing with me, and I never ever encouraged the murdery behavior. My games have always emphasized consequences, even long lasting, far reaching consequences. For example, a member of the party stabbed an innkeeper in the foot to prove a point. A few weeks later (in game time) they returned to the inn needing shelter, and the innkeeper attempted to report them to the soldiers that were quartered in the rooms upstairs. (the innkeeper was living in territory occupied by an enemy nation, and would have been a valuable ally had they not attacked him previously.) Their solution? Bar the doors and burn down the inn.

I don't even want to talk about what they did to a humanoid creature they took captive, but were afraid would escape as they made a long and dangerous trek through enemy occupied territory.

That's not to say that the wanton, violent behavior was inherently bad. The slightly insane, accidentally-burn-down-a-village-while-trying-to-save-it thing made for some hilarious and very memorable scenes and characters. For all of their dependence on violence to solve problems, (even the problems created by their use of violence) 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.)

I previously had assumed that the "all problems should be solved with extreme and unmitigated violence" attitude was merely a result of mixing new role-players and a D20 system that awarded experience points for kills. I never handed out XP for innocent victims, but still. We're nearing the end of our Pathfinder campaign, however, and a couple of one-shot previews of the FFG Star Wars system (using the Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion beginner games) have revealed my initial assumption for the falsehood that it is.

Spoilers to follow.

Now, if we do have a "session zero" where I help them create characters, I'm definitely going to discuss expectations for the game, find out what they want to get out of it, and mention my own desires. I'm going to tell them that I want to emphasize a story, rather than kill count. I know they'll probably be receptive, and I know that for the first session or two, things will probably be better. But I also know that old habits and play-styles can be hard to break, and I want to know what to do when and if my players start slipping into that old mindset. I plan to offer real, in-game consequences, like increase obligation for wanton murder and violence, but I don't want to be punitive. I'd just like to discourage the "scorched earth" attitude.

That's not to say I don't want to deal with darker themes or difficult choices. How would a group of Rebel special operatives handle it if the majority of a base's personnel surrendered to them, and taking prisoners was difficult or not an option? That's fine. But the habitual, casual attitude towards murder (along with torture and other issues) is something I'd like to avoid if and when we start an Edge of the Empire game.

So how about you? Have you been in games with murder-hobos? Have you been one yourself? Have you GMed for a group like that? How did you deal with it? Is their behavior a reflection of how I run my games? If so, what can I change so that "Kill them, take their stuff, kill the witnesses, and burn down the building so there was no evidence that we were ever here." isn't the solution to every encounter? Is this just a natural phase in the development of an RPGer? Your thoughts, opinions, and even criticism are welcome.

Trying to think of advice, but can't get past that the thought that your Paladin-man is, at this moment, running around loose out there somewhere...

Structure the game where they have to be subtle and killing yields them nothing. If they have to bring em in alive to get paid that should help. Have them in situations where wanton violence is going to bring down an overwhelming response they can't beat. Honestly though if they just don't want to play that way they won't.

Trying to think of advice, but can't get past that the thought that your Paladin-man is, at this moment, running around loose out there somewhere...

Agreed. I have a hard time separating my impression of the players as people from the characters they play. It's that whole "how much integrity do you have when no one is looking" thing. Willing to engage in violence is one thing, but not even Riddick is a murder hobo.

But *if* they can be rehabilitated (and it sounds like a big if) the only way to restrain them is with consequences. It doesn't really sound like there have been any. Sure, the innkeeper might have been an ally they now don't have, but apparently it was never dangerous enough to actually *need* an ally. And sure burning the inn down is going to get them noticed, but it sounds like that just leads to chases or other conflicts that they end up winning anyway, which only gives them more XP which makes them more powerful, etc. Basically they are winning the war of escalation and it's working in their favour. You need to make them lose (and maybe you have, but it's not apparent in your post).

If I "had to" GM for your players I'd just tell them up front: you guys have been playing murder hobos, but if you try that in this game you won't last long. Then feel free to reinvent the opposition on the fly as needed. That shopkeeper they need the part from that they decide to rob? Turns out he was an ex-commando, and maybe he's old (1 setback) but he's still got it (YYYGG in Brawl and Melee, and Adversary 3), and there are hidden security droids that look like spare parts that come alive when he's attacked. You don't have to kill them right off the first time they go sociopathic, but leaving them penniless and missing a limb can't hurt.

You may of course find they only *want* to play murder hobos. Some people play RPGs just so to release that inner sociopath for a bit...in which case you have to decide whether to find a different group.

I am not sure on how to rehabilitate however it does sound like either they weren't too attached to their characters or there haven't been consequences that rival their wholesale slaughter. Also coming from a D20 system you might want to let your players know that this system is really all about the story and not all that much about the combat though you can run a combat heavy game.

If you burn down a cantina with everyone still alive inside you can be assured that the empire or cor sec or some one is not going to be happy. If they are able to flee the planet now they have bounty hunters chasing them and if the bounty hunters are well skilled things could be bad. If they keep up the behavior things will get to the point where potentially the empire or a crime boss is going to be actively searching for them and the response will be so over whelming it will cause a party wipe.

In the instance of whisper base the alliance needed the base intact enough to get information destroying the command center destroyed the information and that is now a failed op. Also while the alliance is fighting for the freedom of sentients everywhere they occupy the moral high ground and wouldn't sanction the slaughter of prisoners. So they could be kicked out of the alliance if they are too over the top. Without backing they are now resourceless and probably on the empires most wanted list.

Yeah, I second that I.J.

Anyway one of the things you can point out is that such murder-tastic techniques are used primarily by the Empire and in some extreme cases Black Sun and Hutts. So since FFG emphasizes the more tame side of sanity then your players should understand that as characters they are trying to make it through the universe and not end up on the end of bad karma, dark side, or Vader's functional lightsaber. One of the things I like about the game is the way it suggests that players make their characters together and that they collaborate together on making a good story. If you want an even more in depth style like this I recommend looking at the Dresden Files Fate RPG system. Also give them experience and a obligation right out the gate like "You are all from the same colony and the Empire just wiped them out and you are the last survivors (or so they think) and you are out seeking revenge." This lets them get their killing on with those that have done them wrong, however, they still have that strong pain (give them strain) of not wanting to just unleash hell on the galaxy at large. If it is AoR then you should have an easier time as they will be assigned missions where you can assign sub missions that emphasize the character's duty (look at the Operation: Shadowpoint [continuation to AoR Beginner Game]) and just make it where they need to recruit the locals of a planet not burn them to the ground. This should reward not only good roleplaying but present the challenge that 'scorched earth' policies don't exist in the Rebellion except in the case of Imperial Garrisons (like in RotJ when they blew up just the Imperial structure and let the Ewoks live). If it is both and you can blend those two suggestions into something that makes it work.

Also you could point out that even though Rebellion seems to give clases more combat skills all the classes seemed balanced for both combat and non-combat situations.

You may of course find they only *want* to play murder hobos. Some people play RPGs just so to release that inner sociopath for a bit...in which case you have to decide whether to find a different group.

I think a good way to gauge this might be to surround them with really likeable (and vulnerable) NPCs - the friendly old couple who invite them in for dinner, the charming street kid who can show them a shortcut, the shopkeeper who's gonna move heaven and earth to import that piece of gear they want... and then place the PCs' quarry somewhere in this environment. How do they feel about putting these characters' lives at risk?

If they just burn 'em all down again, I think it's time to move on.

As others have said you have to respond with realistic consequences to overcome this type of behavior. As extreme as your group is it sounds as if that might actually require TPKing the lot of them, maybe more than once, to get the message across that this type of play style isn't going to work in the current story.

For example, in the scenario of Pash and Overseer Brynn above even if Pash managed to kill her with one strike I would have just flipped a destiny point and inform the players that a security droid noticed the act and has sounded the alarm which has sealed all of the exits while reinforcements arrive. Once the characters are subdued you could leave them alive but detained until the rest of the party can get them out somehow. If they attempt to break their friends out with the same level of violence you can up the ante and have the very well armed and prepared spaceport security police wipe the floor with them as well. Then tell them it looks like they will have to start over with new characters.

Of course why he didn't he think level 20 bartenders, nothing makes for immersion like the constant over stating of vendors. /sarcasm

From experience Murder-hoboing happens when two things occur. That set off a bunker mentality.

1. PCs have no attachments: If they don't care about the consequences of their actions, or more accurately the consequences of their actions are rewarding. ie If killing things gives you power ups, there is no downside when more things turn up to kill, and bring nice things to you.

2. Looting and pillaging is more profitable than the plot: Often in loot light adventures, where a GM fears that loot will cause an escalation in power, Murder-hobo excessive looting kicks in. When you scrapping very cred, half a dozen suits of armour and weapons are a small fortune. So if you can lure half dozen guards/troopers into a quite spot you do.

So to prevent murderhoboing i suggest doing your best getting them attached to something, anything. An NPC who can get them something, a trade route, hell a ship they can't quite man on their own. And on occasion let them be heros and let them get a reward for it.

I've found that my galavanting crew of murder hobos enjoys that sort of thing, so rather than rehabilitate them, I just give them plenty of minions to plow through. They're not all 100% combat, but when push comes to shove, they're usually the ones doing both. The story continues to be cool and not combat-focused, and the consequence is a 10-point Imperial bounty obligation on each of them that's going to be climbing....

In the end, we're here to have fun so I make my sessions around the fun things.

Structure the game where they have to be subtle and killing yields them nothing. If they have to bring em in alive to get paid that should help. Have them in situations where wanton violence is going to bring down an overwhelming response they can't beat. Honestly though if they just don't want to play that way they won't.

This is an excellent suggestion, and one I will probably end up using. Thank you. That said, I don't think it's that they "only want to play" as murder-hobos, but it's a mindset that they've fallen into, so it's reflexive. "I set it on fire" is as second nature as "I roll for perception." I think giving them a job that requires subtlety and/or bringing someone in alive will help break that mentality.

Agreed. I have a hard time separating my impression of the players as people from the characters they play. It's that whole "how much integrity do you have when no one is looking" thing. Willing to engage in violence is one thing, but not even Riddick is a murder hobo.

But *if* they can be rehabilitated (and it sounds like a big if) the only way to restrain them is with consequences. It doesn't really sound like there have been any. Sure, the innkeeper might have been an ally they now don't have, but apparently it was never dangerous enough to actually *need* an ally. And sure burning the inn down is going to get them noticed, but it sounds like that just leads to chases or other conflicts that they end up winning anyway, which only gives them more XP which makes them more powerful, etc. Basically they are winning the war of escalation and it's working in their favour. You need to make them lose (and maybe you have, but it's not apparent in your post).

Perhaps I should have provided a better example. This behavior has cost them thousands upon thousands of gold pieces, (I'm no Monty Haul GM) brought a few of their characters to the brink of death, cost them opportunities, cost them allies, cost them magical equipment, and there are multiple locations where the party can never show themselves again for fear of total annihilation by the survivors of their antics. Their behavior hasn't cost them their lives yet, but it's cost them everything but.

And while I do want to make sure that they can (and will) be confronted with their behavior, I also want to maintain verisimilitude and avoid capricious or punitive actions. Level 20 shopkeepers and town guards just don't make any sense in the current setting. It would seem contrived. If I'm going to TPK them for criminal behavior ala the Flaming Fist from Baldur's Gate, I might as well just start the encounter with "Rocks fall..."

I don't want to TPK them. Yes, it's an option and a possibility, but then most of my campaign is thrown out as well. If they start doing this kind of thing in a Star Wars setting, I don't want to escalate it too quickly. Sure I could send a bounty hunter after them to warn them back on to the straight and narrow, but it's not going to be Boba Fett. At least, not the first time.

If you burn down a cantina with everyone still alive inside you can be assured that the empire or cor sec or some one is not going to be happy. If they are able to flee the planet now they have bounty hunters chasing them and if the bounty hunters are well skilled things could be bad. If they keep up the behavior things will get to the point where potentially the empire or a crime boss is going to be actively searching for them and the response will be so over whelming it will cause a party wipe.

In the instance of whisper base the alliance needed the base intact enough to get information destroying the command center destroyed the information and that is now a failed op. Also while the alliance is fighting for the freedom of sentients everywhere they occupy the moral high ground and wouldn't sanction the slaughter of prisoners. So they could be kicked out of the alliance if they are too over the top. Without backing they are now resourceless and probably on the empires most wanted list.

This is another reason why I really like the Obligation system in Edge of the Empire. I can start piling on the criminal or bounty obligation, and I have a real, mechanical way of tracking and representing how "unwelcome" my players are in a given system.

I think a sense of transience might also be a root cause. In both beginner games that I ran, the players knew that they were one-shots, so they weren't much worried about the consequences.

I've found that my galavanting crew of murder hobos enjoys that sort of thing, so rather than rehabilitate them, I just give them plenty of minions to plow through. They're not all 100% combat, but when push comes to shove, they're usually the ones doing both. The story continues to be cool and not combat-focused, and the consequence is a 10-point Imperial bounty obligation on each of them that's going to be climbing....

In the end, we're here to have fun so I make my sessions around the fun things.

I suppose that's the bottom line, isn't it? Making sure everyone has fun.

I would like to re-emphasize that this isn't a matter of them refusing to adjust their play-styles. One of my players had the opportunity to join a one-shot EotE game with another group, and he was surprised at how differently the other group approached problems. He even mentioned how he'd like to see other groups play to get a better idea of how to play without being a murder-hobo. It's not a matter of them not wanting to play differently, or not being willing to play differently. I'm just looking for ways to help encourage them to play differently. Structuring an adventure or a campaign in such a way that "kill it with fire" isn't the first option that comes to mind.

I also hope to get a new player or two when (and if) I get an EotE game running. Having new blood and new perspectives might also help.

I pretty much had to end EotE play with one of my groups after they murder hobo'd their way through my roleplay oriented adventures time and again. There was really only 1 combat oriented character in the group, but everyone travelled around in a big mob in each encounter, guns blazing.

The strange things is, in other games, more combat oriented games, they often surprise me by finding non-combat ways to get through encounters. In the end I have decided that they aren't for the type of Star Wars play that I want to run, and ended that game.

(I tried every trick in the book to end the behavior, and I've been a GM since the 70's, so I have a lot of tricks. I just don't get it.)

Did any of your players PC's ever die?

It sounds like they never did. They don't in my games, except for when they become a liability. Killing an innocent cab driver in broad daylight in a crowded city will get you either killed or locked up for life. Not almost killed or almost locked up, try it! Just once. I'm sure it will have an impact! It seems the consequences for such actions aren't realistic enough in your games and players literally get away with murder...

Also, what the hell is wrong with your players???

Did any of your players PC's ever die?

It sounds like they never did. They don't in my games, except for when they become a liability. Killing an innocent cab driver in broad daylight in a crowded city will get you either killed or locked up for life. Not almost killed or almost locked up, try it! Just once. I'm sure it will have an impact! It seems the consequences for such actions aren't realistic enough in your games and players literally get away with murder...

Also, what the hell is wrong with your players???

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.

Did any of your players PC's ever die?

It sounds like they never did. They don't in my games, except for when they become a liability. Killing an innocent cab driver in broad daylight in a crowded city will get you either killed or locked up for life. Not almost killed or almost locked up, try it! Just once. I'm sure it will have an impact! It seems the consequences for such actions aren't realistic enough in your games and players literally get away with murder...

Also, what the hell is wrong with your players???

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. A better idea is telling them something like "I'm not having fun GMing a game where the immediate solution to everything seems to be 'resort to homicidal violence,' so let's either discuss how to trend away from that...or tell me that you don't want to trend away from it, and know that I'm not interested in GMing this game any more."

At the same time, while the GM's enjoyment is critical to the ongoing game, so is the players'. If they're having fun but you're not I suggest bowing out and suggesting someone else take up the GM mantle if they want to keep playing a murder-hobo game.

Seriously, you're adults. Talk about it. Don't just go radio silent. That doesn't solve any issue.

Did any of your players PC's ever die?

Yes, actually. The necro-paladin (fallen paladin?) was killed by a dragon whose lair he desecrated, (and his player wasn't invited back) and the Dawn of Defiance game ended with a TPK.

The Jawa "Jedi" that murdered the cab driver was already being actively hunted by the Inquisitorius. I guess she assumed that her character already had a death mark on his head for waving a lightsaber around in public, so what was a little bit of murder on top of that?

Perhaps that's a bit of the problem too. If you're already going to die when and if you get caught, there's not much incentive to play nice.

I'm also trying to balance their desires and play styles against my own desires for the games we play. I don't want to be the overbearing GM that tells them their grimdark murderfest is wrongbadfun, but at the same time, it's not a situation where I can just "find another group." Please don't misunderstand, I really do enjoy playing with these people. They're my friends, and they're open to trying things differently. I'm absolutely going to be discussing this topic during "session zero," so that everyone's expectations can be made clear before the game even starts.

I've already talked to one or two of my players about it, and they agree, but they've mentioned that it's difficult for them to break that mindset. I'm just trying to get advice on how to structure a game so that it doesn't encourage the murder-hobo approach. A way to guide them back on track without being overbearing or heavy-handed. I hope I'm articulating this well.

I pretty much had to end EotE play with one of my groups after they murder hobo'd their way through my roleplay oriented adventures time and again. There was really only 1 combat oriented character in the group, but everyone travelled around in a big mob in each encounter, guns blazing.

The strange things is, in other games, more combat oriented games, they often surprise me by finding non-combat ways to get through encounters. In the end I have decided that they aren't for the type of Star Wars play that I want to run, and ended that game.

(I tried every trick in the book to end the behavior, and I've been a GM since the 70's, so I have a lot of tricks. I just don't get it.)

Got any examples you'd like to share, and/or tips and tricks that you tried? I'd love to hear them.

Also, what the hell is wrong with your players???

With the exception of the "paladin" with an affinity for corpses, all of my players have been generally well-adjusted adults. When they start playing RPGs, though, all bets are off... And like I said, it's not like they only want to play that way. They just devolved into that type of behavior shortly after they started playing RPGs, and it's a tough habit to break.

In the instance of whisper base the alliance needed the base intact enough to get information destroying the command center destroyed the information and that is now a failed op.

Hadn't thought of that, but...so true! "Good job, guys, you just blew the mission."

Of course why he didn't he think level 20 bartenders, nothing makes for immersion like the constant over stating of vendors. /sarcasm

Well why not? It's not like it's a new trope. We've had characters that have retired to become bar owners or innkeepers and interact with the next generation of PCs. Their story arc closes and they become mentors or even villains. It's kind of fun to have a history.

Anyway, you're kind of focussing on the specific and missing the point, which was that you're not limited to sticking with NPCs as feeble defenceless paper cutouts. You can spring surprises...kind of like when a gang decides to jump somebody, only to have that somebody be an MMA star and the gang gets thrashed. I don't see a problem with doing that if the players are throwing their weight around for no reason.

Now, if we do have a "session zero" where I help them create characters, I'm definitely going to discuss expectations for the game, find out what they want to get out of it, and mention my own desires. I'm going to tell them that I want to emphasize a story, rather than kill count. I know they'll probably be receptive, and I know that for the first session or two, things will probably be better. But I also know that old habits and play-styles can be hard to break, and I want to know what to do when and if my players start slipping into that old mindset. I plan to offer real, in-game consequences, like increase obligation for wanton murder and violence, but I don't want to be punitive. I'd just like to discourage the "scorched earth" attitude.

Actually it sounds like you're about to impliment everything I was about to suggest

Stage 1) Talk to them about getting everyone on the same page, as far as expectations from the game. Tell them that you're uncomfortable with the (frankly) psychotic turn the game seems to be taking and would like to see it dialed back. Make sure that they dont want to be playing Faces of Death The RPG instead. Assuming the group gets on the same page. . . .

2) Gentle reminders 'out of game' when old habits start to come back. "Do you really want to do [atrocious act]?" when they stab that poor Jawa (or whatever). Sometimes it can be hard to get out of mindset after playing one way for a long time, so some prodding from the GM here and there can help.

3) Increase repercussions from their actions. Bounties from survivors, wanted levels from the Empire, angry hutts that they crossed. The game should never EVER turn into GM versus Players, but let them know that their actions in game will have a an effect on them and the universe.

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!

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.

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.

Huh. I've seen a lot of calls on this and the GM board to throw Obligation at players for consequences and am surprised that this is the first time I've seen a book quote basically saying "hey, don't do that."

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.

If that's how they insist on playing you either have to put them on pretty rigid rails or just accept they're not going to play any other way than they want to. It really has to be story driven to get a different kind of behavior. The story needs to not just de-emphasize combat it needs to portray it in a way that leads to failure.

Huh, imagine that - I guess according to the strict letter of the rules, you cant. Of course I've seen the "Increased Obligation for actions" around here plenty of times, so I just took it to be an organic, fluid thing - rising and falling at the whim of the GM and the actions of the players. No reward for increase necessary.

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.