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.

Obligation is a powerful resource that may be spent and bargained with during the course of play. It gives the players an option beyond credits to obtain equipment or services they might otherwise be unable to acquire. - EotE Core Rulebook, page 309.

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

No, it would not add Obligation. It would certainly have consequences, likely including an aggressive response by Imperial authorities, and possibly unexpected responses from the crowd. Obligation is distinct from consequences, but a player may elect to take Obligations linked to consequences when appropriate.

But as a houserule it makes perfect sense to raise it when players do stupid things like that and lower it if they do something that would logically reduce it.

That quote doesn't say it is a "player resource" but my example does not state that it couldn't be used to gain such things.

O course you can bargain, but such bargaining is perfectly allowed to be initiated by the GM.

The developers, on the Order 66, podcast themselves have stated that use along the lines of my example would be perfectly valid.

The developers, on the Order 66, podcast themselves have stated that use along the lines of my example would be perfectly valid.

They have been known to stray from the rules quite a bit on that podcast. IIRC, the starship combat example was particularly liberal with the rules.

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.

Obligation is a powerful resource that may be spent and bargained with during the course of play. It gives the players an option beyond credits to obtain equipment or services they might otherwise be unable to acquire. - EotE Core Rulebook, page 309.

The problem here is I think you're right and wrong. I think you're right in that the quote states "one way" in which it may be used, however the fact is the way DanteRotterdam is speaking of is also another way it may be gained.

In terms of a way to prove this check out the end of the "Jewel of Yavin" story where players may (depending on their actions) gain 5 criminal obligation with no reward and instead the gain is purely a consequence of their potential actions.

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.

Obligation is a powerful resource that may be spent and bargained with during the course of play. It gives the players an option beyond credits to obtain equipment or services they might otherwise be unable to acquire. - EotE Core Rulebook, page 309.

The problem here is I think you're right and wrong. I think you're right in that the quote states "one way" in which it may be used, however the fact is the way DanteRotterdam is speaking of is also another way it may be gained.

In terms of a way to prove this check out the end of the "Jewel of Yavin" story where players may (depending on their actions) gain 5 criminal obligation with no reward and instead the gain is purely a consequence of their potential actions.

If an adventure contradicts the Core Rulebook, then I assume that the adventure is incorrect. This certainly wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

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.

Obligation is a powerful resource that may be spent and bargained with during the course of play. It gives the players an option beyond credits to obtain equipment or services they might otherwise be unable to acquire. - EotE Core Rulebook, page 309.

The problem here is I think you're right and wrong. I think you're right in that the quote states "one way" in which it may be used, however the fact is the way DanteRotterdam is speaking of is also another way it may be gained.

In terms of a way to prove this check out the end of the "Jewel of Yavin" story where players may (depending on their actions) gain 5 criminal obligation with no reward and instead the gain is purely a consequence of their potential actions.

If an adventure contradicts the Core Rulebook, then I assume that the adventure is incorrect. This certainly wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

It's not contradicting it at all though, you've cited a single circumstance in which obligation may be gained, you've not cited a rule stating it is the only way it can be gained. Thus far we've had a offical book and quote from a dev state that such gain is not only possible but intended to be used.

I'm not saying your way is wrong, I'm stating that it seems to simply be one of a few ways obligation may be gained.

The developers, on the Order 66, podcast themselves have stated that use along the lines of my example would be perfectly valid.

They have been known to stray from the rules quite a bit on that podcast. IIRC, the starship combat example was particularly liberal with the rules.

Except when it comes to "Bad Motivator" of course... Oh no wait, everyone else was wrong then too!

I'll try one last time, eventhough having been in numerous discussions with you over the past months should have told me not to go there.... The choice should be with the players at all time, however nowhere is it stated that a GM cannot say "if you go through with this action you will increase your obligation" and examples of just this happening were given in written adventures and by the developers on podcasts when discussing obligation. Players can choose to go along a certain path and thus making the choice to take on the obligation, apparently thinking the reward is on par with the risk or choose not to, thinking taking on the obligation isn't worth 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.

Obligation is a powerful resource that may be spent and bargained with during the course of play. It gives the players an option beyond credits to obtain equipment or services they might otherwise be unable to acquire. - EotE Core Rulebook, page 309.

The problem here is I think you're right and wrong. I think you're right in that the quote states "one way" in which it may be used, however the fact is the way DanteRotterdam is speaking of is also another way it may be gained.

In terms of a way to prove this check out the end of the "Jewel of Yavin" story where players may (depending on their actions) gain 5 criminal obligation with no reward and instead the gain is purely a consequence of their potential actions.

If an adventure contradicts the Core Rulebook, then I assume that the adventure is incorrect. This certainly wouldn't be the first time it's happened.

Perfect ilustration of my point.

You are right and the makers of official materials are wrong. Oh, and "wrong again" for that matter!

Dante, we're not likely to agree on this topic, but there's no reason for this to turn into a fight.

Hey, I'm just calling things how I see them. You have an unpleasant need to be right and basically cannot be wrong, if people point out to you that the rule is not limited to your interpretation (not that your interpretation is wrong mind you, just not limited to it) then they are wrong, if the developers have basically said something that doesn't further your point then the developers are wrong, if someone points out to you that there is an actual official book that contradicts your point then the book is wrong. It is not "turning it into a fight" to call you on this.

Hey, I'm just calling things how I see them. You have an unpleasant need to be right and basically cannot be wrong, if people point out to you that the rule is not limited to your interpretation (not that your interpretation is wrong mind you, just not limited to it) then they are wrong, if the developers have basically said something that doesn't further your point then the developers are wrong, if someone points out to you that there is an actual official book that contradicts your point then the book is wrong. It is not "turning it into a fight" to call you on this.

When you goal is to "call [me] on this" you've stopped commenting on the topic or even my view on a topic and started commenting on the poster (me) directly. That's not appropriate.

If you feel that I'm wrong about the topic, say so and say why you feel that way. I may not agree with your views, but it's okay either way so long as we're addressing a topic within the game and not statements about the other person.

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.

Obligation is a powerful resource that may be spent and bargained with during the course of play. It gives the players an option beyond credits to obtain equipment or services they might otherwise be unable to acquire. - EotE Core Rulebook, page 309.

Hey, I'm just calling things how I see them..

What you mean is you're the first to escalate to mockery and sarcasm.

Hey, I'm just calling things how I see them. You have an unpleasant need to be right and basically cannot be wrong, if people point out to you that the rule is not limited to your interpretation (not that your interpretation is wrong mind you, just not limited to it) then they are wrong, if the developers have basically said something that doesn't further your point then the developers are wrong, if someone points out to you that there is an actual official book that contradicts your point then the book is wrong. It is not "turning it into a fight" to call you on this.

When you goal is to "call [me] on this" you've stopped commenting on the topic or even my view on a topic and started commenting on the poster (me) directly. That's not appropriate.

If you feel that I'm wrong about the topic, say so and say why you feel that way. I may not agree with your views, but it's okay either way so long as we're addressing a topic within the game and not statements about the other person.

I disagree. I feel it is your behavior and your way of discussing these matters that get in the way of having a factual discussion so they directly influence the discussion. Therefor I feel it is perfectly appropriate to „call you on this”. I am not trying to be rude or be an ******* but it is the way you conduct yourself on this topic (and others of its liking) that I wanted to address. Therefor, I did.

I am sure you are still a nice guy.

Hey, I'm just calling things how I see them..

What you mean is you're the first to escalate to mockery and sarcasm.

No, I don’t mean that at all.

I am going to try and end the discussion between Dante and HappyDaze here and return to the topic at hand. I think all we have here is a difference of opinions and hopefully this will clarify and alleviate the discussion. Dante and HappyDaze are both right from THEIR points of view. Dante you are free to have your interpretation and HappyDaze is his. I use this quote below to help clarify my point I will be making later.

GMs are encouraged to use Obligation creatively throut the course of the adventure and campaign. Since the Player characters gain additional XP by taking on extra Obligation, it is partly a player resource that should have a narrative or mechanical cost during the game.

EotE Core Rulebook pg. 307

That is right there under Using Obligation. Now, however, I actually agree with HappyDaze viewpoint that you should not just arbitrarily just hand out obligation like in your example Dante. In fact this is how I would of handled the same scenario.

For example saying the player shot the Imperial agent: "Later on as you are relaxing in a bar/ship drinking your Corellian reserve and speaking on your exploits a coded com call comes to your comlink. It is merely a message from a local Rebel cell/crime lord who is pleased that you took care of an imperial entanglement. He informs you word is out on the street that you did it and a small bounty has been issued against you on that world (5 point Obligation). He would like to reward you with blank credits/piece of gear you been wanting/piece of gear of equal value for your work. He will send it to this coded account/warehouse on this planet for you to pick up."

Now lets say your player didn't shoot that agent:

Pretty much the same thing as above except you get thanked for not killing the agent because he is actually a spy for the crime lord/Rebel Cell and they have worked hard to cultivate him/her. They give the player the reward but inform him a warrant is out for him on that planet for whatever crime they were there committing(5 Obligation again) and to be wary.

The same could be done with Duty that it goes up because of what he did or did not do. Unless the agent was the linchpin of your story there should not be a true 'cost' for killing or not killing him. If you would like other examples of what I am talking about you could look at the EU Tales From (Mos Eisley, Jabba's Palace, or New Republic) as good examples of how someone doing something can set off a whole other chain of events just by doing the act. Killing that imperial agent inspired the local populace that the Empire is not this invulnerable unkillable thing and they rose up and kicked the Empire off the planet. As Duty bound character you did that but the consequence is you might need to go back there and help KEEP the Empire off of the planet.

Then you have if you did not kill the agent, the agent knew you had him dead to rights but you showed mercy something his current employers don't do. He reaches out or covers up your players crimes for as long as they keep showing this gallant behavior. This is also away you could get them off the murder-hobo track by showing them that kindness = weakness.

I just happen to like HappyDaze's viewpoint more then yours Dante because it seems to make more sense to ME as a GM. HappyDaze could also be in a situation where his group also interprets the rule the same way and just went with the flow of consensus in that situation. Dante you may go with whoever's flow you wish to go with in this regard. Opposing viewpoints is not necessarily a bad thing and can lead to (like the example above) to an interesting compromise.

I wish to thank you both for your viewpoints and please do not judge my own too harshly for stealing from both of you and the book. I also Never listen to Order 66 so I have no idea what you are talking about Dante .

In cases like this I guess it really just comes down to the GM. Both approaches make sense, one more mechanically and the other more narritivly, though the lines certainly blur. And both have some level of support in the books themselves.

I never tell anyone how to play at their table and in this case I'd say it's ambiguous enough to not be an issue.

In game there are the 2 choices, start killing players, or give in to the way they want to play and figure out how to have fun with their playstyle. Take the game to an absurd Tarantino level of violence or every session just becomes the Alamo.

All I know is I take back all the terrible things I said about my group. They are upright citizens in comparison to the band of homicidal sociopaths in your group.

Let's remember that the official, RAW phrasing says it's okay to bargain with Obligation. If it's not the GM, with whom exactly will they be bargaining?

And another +1 for "do as you will at your table."

Well I will just say this.

The same people who write corebooks are not always the same people who write modules. And in my experience with a number of game systems, modules often play fast and loose with some of the the corebook RAW.

And at the same time, the concept of Death of the Author pretty much always applies to book rule interpretation. So, while it's nice that the devs chime in on a podcast that I would say most people playing the game do not listen to, I'm not going to give it the same credence as a written response or a FAQ/errata update.

Now on the actual subject of gaining Obligation, I feel like the game is not best served when Obligation is a stick the GM can beat the players with anytime he feels like it, versus normal "consequences" that don't have the possibility to create a not-insubstantial mechanical impediment for the characters more frequently. A lot of times I see "increase Obligation on them!" used as a way for a GM to reign in players who aren't playing the way the GM wants, regardless of whether the players are having fun, or regardless if "GM's desired game style vs players' desired game style" is a conversation better had completely OOC than trying to coerce a game stye change IC using the Obligation mechanic.

I don't think Obligation is best used as a GM tool or without give-and-take. Obligation is Han owing Jabba money as a result of spacing his spice shipment, and that debt ballooning because the Hutt wants to keep people under his control. There was a give an take there (Han got some benefit, in exchange for smuggling for Jabba. The Debt would have been there already but at the least it might have been paid off if Han had delivered the shipment. But he didn't, so the Debt got worse). Obligation is not bounty hunters chasing Luke because Vader sensed a Force-user - that is purely plot-driven consequences (IMO, and also that some of the example Obligations are really terrible for actual increase/decrease of the mechanic - anything abstract is not great, and we've been over how the Bounty obligation is kind of weird as well several times on the boards). Obligation is a consequence of some choices, but not all consequences result in Obligation (for the main reason that the game quickly becomes less-than-playable if so).

And yes, it is frustrating when two sections of the CRB are not in complete agreement (probably because different people wrote different chapters, a common occurrence in RPG book writing, and there was an editing/proofreading failure following that), and then a module basically contradicts one of those sections outright.

Comment moved to new thread

While I understand where everyone is coming from in the "players choose to take obligation, and they get something for taking obligation, it seems to me that outside of character creation it's impossible for a PC to have any obligation other than debt.

Well, here's an example.

You're a FSExile. You want to gain even more power and understanding in the Force. You find a Jedi holocron. The spirit senses your Force potential but will not teach you unless you adhere to the Jedi code, and it can sense if you follow the Light or partake in the Dark. You gain an Oath - Jedi Code obligation. When your Obligation comes up, the holocron tells you that you have to do a certain thing or be in a certain place at a certain time to move on to the next step in your training. (The main problem with this is I don't see one buying down an Oath Obligation, and abandoning it might have few consequences unless the organization you're sworn to sends someone to kill or retrieve you as an oathbreaker...unlikely for the Jedi in this era).

I don't have a good answer for your Bounty Obligation question.