Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe that tying the morality to a "once per session" calculation is fundamentally flawed. Consider the following scenarios:

Assume we have a character that, through their own actions, failed fear checks, or other conflict accumulations gains 1 conflict per hour, and a simplification that an average 1d10 roll is a value of 5.

If you have a short sessions (2 hours), you're likely to gain 3 morality (5-2), or 1.5 per hour

If you have a normal length sessions (5 hours) then you are likely to remain even on morality (0 per hour)

If you have a marathon sessions (10 hours) then you're guaranteed to lose morality, -0.5 per hour on average.

My games tend to be all-day sessions, so to prevent players from being punished for playing longer it seems that I should split my gaming day into multiple sessions, but that entails quite a few other session transition mechanics (destiny pool calculation, etc) must be re-done as well.

The above assumes that NOTHING changes except for the length of session time. Is it codified anywhere what the length of a session is required to be, or are there just suggestions? It seems that if you're going to have this mechanic that depends on session length, then that session length needs to be codified. Otherwise I think this should be re-thought to be more like the instantaneous calculation of Obligation.

It's an ineresting point, and one my own group will likely run into.

I might keep Morality done at the end of a marathon session, but change the D10 into D12, 2d8, or 2d10, based on session length.

Morality is something that my group has beat to death with little to show for it. "Session" for all intents and purposes is roughly 3 major encounters and several small ones. So if you run marathon games you may wish to establish a few benchmark locations when you calculate Morality, as well as Duty, Obligation, XP, ect. It's not unheard of as D&D 4e had a similar issue with a similar solution.

As for the actual calculations, it works fine. I agree I didn't think it looked right at first, but like many other things in this system, in the long run it does. A guy tryingo t be good will have to work to get paragon, and a darksider will have an easy go (but that's no surprise really), and the middle ground character will go up and down, but typically not too far.

A possible solution is to give them a buffer that you feel is appropriate for the amount of time you've played, e.g. don't count the first 3 or so infractions during a game session (I don't have a copy of the beta, but I think I follow the mechanic).

IMO, I think the issue goes back to FFG's insistence on focusing on "game sessions" as a measure of frequency, instead of "adventures" or "episoides" that are independent of how long groups play. I've had similar problems with when I ran the previous games, and just said "screw it" and pretty much changed all instances of "per session" to "per adventure". Worked well for me.

Just like with XP, It also depends on how rapidly you want their morality to change. Were it me, I would try it as written for the first few times, and adjust it until I am satisfied with it.

As an aside, for my games I want to the climb or descent to be slow. So I would definitely only make the roll as written once per session.

The issue I am highlighting isn't a "rate of progression" issue, but rather a fundamental bias in the calculation -- longer sessions will tend towards decreased morality. If you only roll once per session after a long day of gaming, your morality score could decrease substantially.

Since the morality can increase or decrease, it differs from XP which is a strictly increasing number. I do not believe these things are at all comparable.

Obligation changes happen instantaneously in that you chose to take on more obligation or pay it off during game play. I believe that Duty accumulation / spending happens based on actions as well, though I've not delved deeply into AoR. Morality is the only one that is session time based, and the way its done adds an artificial bias.

I understand that there are ways around it, as I even mentioned so in my first post, but I feel like during the beta we should be looking for fixes, not work-arounds.

Just like with XP, It also depends on how rapidly you want their morality to change. Were it me, I would try it as written for the first few times, and adjust it until I am satisfied with it.

This is pretty important I think. Maybe we should all try playing the game RAW before we spend too much time re-inventing it.

2Pirate51 beat me to it. I don't want to assume how rapidly Sporkley's group will be generating conflict, so I can't offer any advice other than what I already said.

Bear in mind that the design team considers a "session" to be around three to four hours, and that the mechanics in this game are built around that. They're all adults with full-time jobs and/or families and thus don't have the option of doing marathon all-night sessions like a group of college or high-school students would.

instead of trying to hammer in a solution, perhaps instead consider using a milestone system not unlike that used in FATE. Namely, every time the party hits a significant milestone in the story, treat it as "end of the session." This way, you don't have huge amounts of Conflict being stockpiled, and any talents that are "once per session" effects are reset to be used.

As for it being easier to slide to the lower ends of the Morality scale but more difficult to increase your Morality, that fits with the general feel of how the Force operates in the films; remember Yoda's advice to Luke in ESB that the dark path is quicker and more seductive. As Dumbledore advised young Harry Potter, there's a difference between doing what is easy and doing what is right, which again applies here to Morality. Luke was dancing dangerously close to dark side threshold for much of RotJ, and only by sparing Vader did he achieve the degree of understanding to truly make him a Jedi Knight; had he finished Vader off, he would have fallen to the dark side and Palpatine would have a brand new apprentice with all of Anakin's potential but none of the physical limitations.

If your players are acting like your typical band of murder-hobos, then they're going to fall to the dark side pretty quickly, particularly as many of the "go-to" options for resolving a situation that many player groups use will generate Conflict. Becoming a light side paragon should be difficult, and the player will need to work to avoid accruing a lot of Conflict, including running herd on their more bloodthirsty party members.

Bear in mind that the design team considers a "session" to be around three to four hours, and that the mechanics in this game are built around that. They're all adults with full-time jobs and/or families and thus don't have the option of doing marathon all-night sessions like a group of college or high-school students would.

instead of trying to hammer in a solution, perhaps instead consider using a milestone system not unlike that used in FATE. Namely, every time the party hits a significant milestone in the story, treat it as "end of the session." This way, you don't have huge amounts of Conflict being stockpiled, and any talents that are "once per session" effects are reset to be used.

My argument was not just based on long sessions, but short sessions as well. If you get together for 4 hours and only get through one encounter and minimal other story due to normal delays that occur at a gaming table, should you still roll for morality even though people may not have even had the chance to accrue any conflict? Again milestones would dictate that you wait until next session and just carry over the conflict.

As for it being easier to slide to the lower ends of the Morality scale but more difficult to increase your Morality, that fits with the general feel of how the Force operates in the films; remember Yoda's advice to Luke in ESB that the dark path is quicker and more seductive. As Dumbledore advised young Harry Potter, there's a difference between doing what is easy and doing what is right, which again applies here to Morality. Luke was dancing dangerously close to dark side threshold for much of RotJ, and only by sparing Vader did he achieve the degree of understanding to truly make him a Jedi Knight; had he finished Vader off, he would have fallen to the dark side and Palpatine would have a brand new apprentice with all of Anakin's potential but none of the physical limitations.

If your players are acting like your typical band of murder-hobos, then they're going to fall to the dark side pretty quickly, particularly as many of the "go-to" options for resolving a situation that many player groups use will generate Conflict. Becoming a light side paragon should be difficult, and the player will need to work to avoid accruing a lot of Conflict, including running herd on their more bloodthirsty party members.

I apologize if I'm not being clear, but I don't think this is a play style issue, but rather a bug in the system as written. Milestones would go a long way toward fixing it, or even a sidebar about the ideal length of a session and adjustments to make if your sessions tend to run short or long.

I would think that any time the group decides to take a break, if it's been 2 or 3 hours or so, roll up conflict once everyone stis back down at the table. If you're playing all day long, I'm sure there's gonna be multiple times the group will walk away from the table, whether it's a food run or a smoke break or just to stretch their legs.

Personally, if my group can get a full 4 hours played in a row, we consider ourselves lucky. That 4 hour session usually only happens once or twice, very rarely 3 times a month. It is not easy getting games scheduled with my group and now that F&D is out, we're adding another game to the rotation. We'll have 2 Star Wars games and 1 Aberrant game going. Maybe one of those will get finished within a year.

Bear in mind that the design team considers a "session" to be around three to four hours...

...and that the mechanics in this game are built around that.

Note: I only have EotE and F&D to read right now.

...perhaps instead consider using a milestone system not unlike that used in FATE.

For instance the EotE beginner game is "meant" to be played in two sessions, but I wouldn't call the ending of the first half a "milestone" of any sort. Possible end of a "4 hour" session? Sure.

As for it being easier to slide to the lower ends of the Morality scale but more difficult to increase your Morality, that fits with the general feel of how the Force operates in the films...

For a normal group it should be very, very easy to move up the Morality scale.

If your players are acting like your typical band of murder-hobos...

What does that have to do with the timing issue?

I believe for this mechanic to be successful the material should be a little bit more clear regarding the ideal length of a session, and offer alternatives for shorter or longer sessions.

I think that the idea of milestones from other systems makes a lot more sense. Rather than a partition based on time, it's a partition based on plot progression.

Take the EotE Beginner Game, it's "2 sessions" of 4 and 3 encounters each. Likely an experienced group could run it in 1 session of all 7 Encounters "and then check for Conflict"* (which to my mind would work fine with the rules as written and intended). *If you were running Force Users.

My group ran it in one session of 6 Encounters, a break for leveling up (supposed to happen "between sessions") and then 6 more Encounters. We also went radically off the rails... In our case we'd really need to be checking our Conflict twice, once at the "break" and then again at the end. And we'd probably be skidding down the chart. (By my count my Jawa would probably lose around 70-90 Morality in the second session alone... he was a very bad person.)

I run marathon "sessions" of roughly 10 to 12 hours. I split them in intervals of 4 hours regarding XP, destiny pool, talents (once per session) etc.

I also use the splits to move the legs I recommend you to do the same, it is a far easier way to solve your concerns and take a break.

cheers,

Yepes

Seems to me this is a problem that can be fixed so easily it's hardly a problem.

Figure an average "session" (as the word is used in the book) to run maybe 4-5 hours. If you run a marathon session of 10 hours, simply pick a natural spot about halfway through, roll the dice and reset everyone's conflict. Problem solved.

Saying that the morality system is broken because of this sounds like overreacting. GMs should be able to step up and exercise some personal initiative over their own game if something clashes with the RAW. It's like complaining that the XP award rate set by the book breaks the game when all the GM has to do is adjust it on his own. The way GMs are supposed to.

Seems to me this is a problem that can be fixed so easily it's hardly a problem.

Just because work-arounds exist doesn't mean it's not an issue. We're participating in the Beta, which means it's our responsibility to point out things we perceive as bugs. I wouldn't even bring it up if it were in the final print.

Figure an average "session" (as the word is used in the book) to run maybe 4-5 hours.

This is the part I'd like to see codified in the final product - the expected length of a session. Suggestions on how to adjust for shorter or longer sessions would be nice as well.

If you run a marathon session of 10 hours, simply pick a natural spot about halfway through, roll the dice and reset everyone's conflict. Problem solved.

Another possible work-around includes rolling 1d20 or 2d10 instead of 1d10 for longer sessions, so that things like destiny pool and once-per-session talents don't reset but morality progresses as intended for longer sessions.

Saying that the morality system is broken because of this sounds like overreacting. GMs should be able to step up and exercise some personal initiative over their own game if something clashes with the RAW. It's like complaining that the XP award rate set by the book breaks the game when all the GM has to do is adjust it on his own. The way GMs are supposed to.

Effectively you lose Morality if you do "bad actions", but you gain Morality (1d10 at the end of every session) automatically, without doing nothing. It seems... weird to me.

Effectively you lose Morality if you do "bad actions", but you gain Morality (1d10 at the end of every session) automatically, without doing nothing. It seems... weird to me.

I thought this also. It seems to me that it would fit better in the Star Wars philosophy to track both good and bad actions, when a player acts out of fear and anger they gain conflict, and when they are patient, calm, and honourably they gain Morality points. I'd prefer this balanced approach. I know this removes the "random" aspect of rolling the d10; maybe there'd still be a way to add that. But Vader didn't gain Morality back by taking a vacation and not doing evil, he redeemed himself by self-sacrifice. I don't understand why we want to soften the Morality hit for those who take the easy path of violence and theft. I'd rather make the choice hard for PC's by introducing easy Dark Side ways to resolve Obligations or Duty, or by providing a real conflict between what's right and what their Motivations are. Is that too much "tracking"??

Effectively you lose Morality if you do "bad actions", but you gain Morality (1d10 at the end of every session) automatically, without doing nothing. It seems... weird to me.

I agree, or even more oddly, you do nothing but a little bad and then have a high chance to not lower your morality at all or still gain. If all you do is say convert 2 dark side pips then when you do your roll if you roll a 2 or better your morality doesn't even budge or it goes up. If it drops, it only drops one. I think the system does need some polish.

Effectively you lose Morality if you do "bad actions", but you gain Morality (1d10 at the end of every session) automatically, without doing nothing. It seems... weird to me.

Do you mean "without doing anything" or did you intend the double negative, thus meaning "with doing something"?

In either case, doing nothing can gain you conflict: gain 1 conflict when your " PC knows that an NPC or other PC will do something particularly bad (an action that would earn 5+ Conflict points) and chooses not to intervene. " In action will cause you to potentially loose Morality just as with purposeful action, just at a lesser degree.

-EF

I actually like that the "reward" for being a good little Force user is rather subtle rather than a more blatant "gain an immediate +1 on the karma meter!" method that video games like the two KOTOR titles used.

To paraphrase a quote from paladin extraordinaire O-Chul from a t-shirt a I own, "the payment for Good is usually deferred."

If you aren't committing acts that would get a chuckle out of Palpatine, then at session's end you get an increase to your Morality score simply because you have little to no Conflict points.

As LethalDose noted, it seems the core complaint here is with people that are running day-long gaming sessions, and his solution is the easiest to implement: Whenever your group takes a prolonged break, consider that the "end" of the session.

I hope the F&D GMs screen has the chart for conflict on it if FFG chooses to stick with that mechanic.

With the phrase "without doing anything" I intend "not actively trying to stop evil".

For example, passing an enitre session (or more than one if needed) to survive a lethal jungle (or another situation that shouldn't have many opportunities to earn Conflict or to do "good deeds") would increase your "Morality meter" by 1d10 points. It seems... odd to me.

I understand why they want to add randomness to the calculation ("don't want PC's to game the system"), but I wonder if there are other ways to introduce randomness without, as LukeZZ says, simply rewarding a PC for not doing evil things. I wonder if, instead of rolling a d10, that one could roll a difficulty die for every couple of conflict points, perhaps add challenge dice for very evil actions (so 12 conflict would be something like 1 purple + 2 red). But then also add ability & proficiency dice for slightly good and heroic actions done in the game, and the Morality could increase or decrease based on the resulting pool. Treat the advantage/threat as success/failures, and a triumph or despair as +/- 2-3.

It would reduce the current problem where if two PC's don't do anything horribly evil, one that jumps in the way of a blaster bolt to protect an innocent could get a significantly lower Morality boost than the second who may just watch the bad guy shoot (since that's only a couple of conflict) and roll high at the end of the session.

Do you all think that tracking both evil and good actions to be too much? The other consideration is that the path to the dark side is not "evil actions", but actions that result from fear/anger/hatred... I wonder if there is a way to increase/decrease Morality based on the motivating emotions of the PC's... though perhaps that's what the dice are interpreting for us (maybe the PC was not acting out of fear or hatred, even though it appeared to be, or when she stopped the bad guy it was actually anger that drove her).

I don't understand the complaint that the system allows for players to gain lightside points by doing nothing.

If you're running a game and you consistently write sessions where your PCs have no opportunities to act in a heroic manner, you're doing something wrong. An Imperial Moff needs to threaten some innocent lives. The PCs should notice slaves being sold on their current backwater locale. Some mad researcher created the first sentient rancor and the government wants to put it down because its an abomination! Something needs to happen.

Maybe the bigger issue is that with this system Darth Vader couldn't have redeemed himself in one big act of self-sacrifice? I guess I'd like to somehow see intentional selflessness rewarded. I don't mind Morality as written, but I think there could be room for improvement.

*And sure, maybe my GM needs to step it up