It's good because it's an objective way to track a PC's behavior vis-a-vis the Force that resists being gamed to some degree.

Except this mechanic is totally gameable. In both directions.

Yes, yes, every system in the universe can be gamed, but the random element makes it that much less predictable. We've been over this n+1 times...

I was going to respond to your other post but in the interest of streamlining our discussion, I think I've found the crux of the argument I'm trying to make.

A close kin to Motivation. It's not obvious why you need a mechanic for that .

Oh, you totally don't. But the FFSW games seem to be fond of doing it anyway (see Obligation/Duty) and it does provide a nice mechanism for forcing players who may not be familiar with narrative roleplaying to consider their character's motivations. My issue with Morality is not that its an awful option (as mechanics go) in itself, but rather that it doesn't really do the same thing as Obligation and Duty. Obligation and Duty provide a very broad concept of what influences the decisions your character makes in a context that makes sense for their specific settings. Morality makes sense to the specific setting but it doesn't seem to influence your character since it instead tracks the decisions the character makes. "Destiny" on the other hand seems to make sense to the setting, provides that same broad spectrum of stories, and is something that influences the decisions your character makes.

The bolded portion is at the heart of my argument. The rest is important but mostly in that it frames the thesis. If you disagree with that statement, we're probably at an impasse but I'm certainly willing to entertain the conversation further.

Yes, yes, every system in the universe can be gamed, but the random element makes it that much less predictable. We've been over this n+1 times...

I consider it completely predictable in that I can predict I'll either gain or lose, maybe not exactly how much, but I can narrow it into those two fields. From there it's roughly 5 sessions to hit LS Paragon from 50 (as long as statistics hold "true"), or as few as you want to hit DS*.

As such, totally gameable .

* As I've mentioned, my had we been using these rules and had my Jawa been a Force User I'd likely have hit negative something by the end of our second session... of course I also would have made a different choice (unless I really wanted to go Dark and never, ever, come back).

Oh, you totally don't. But the FFSW games seem to be fond of doing it anyway (see Obligation/Duty) and it does provide a nice mechanism for forcing players who may not be familiar with narrative roleplaying to consider their character's motivations.

No, I actually like the Duty and Obligation rules. Perhaps if you actually described the Destiny mechanic you want (sorry, but your OP doesn't make it really clear), your argument might be more compelling.

I consider it completely predictable in that I can predict I'll either gain or lose, maybe not exactly how much, but I can narrow it into those two fields. From there it's roughly 5 sessions to hit LS Paragon from 50 (as long as statistics hold "true"), or as few as you want to hit DS*.

As such, totally gameable .

Um, that's not gaming -- that's the system working as intended. Gaming the system would entail consistently doing evil and having your Morality score climb at a nice pace regardless. The random die roll means there's the possibility such gaming could backfire. It's a balancing act between being too ruthless (q.v. WEG) or too lenient and having folks game the system in between.

No, I actually like the Duty and Obligation rules. Perhaps if you actually described the Destiny mechanic you want (sorry, but your OP doesn't make it really clear), your argument might be more compelling.

Thanks for the advice. I edited the OP to do just that. Let me know what you think. I'll pick this up tomorrow.

I like the Morality mechanic, but I don't love it. I really like Obligation, and I dig the idea that came about early on of having a Dark Side obligation that Force-Sensitive characters can accrue. The Morality mechanic gives me a pretty good yardstick of how I might do that.

I consider the slippery slope a feature, not a bug.

Don't forget that dark pips have a 7/12 chance of being rolled; light pips, only 5/12. You're less likely to spend strain if dark pips are native. I figure that's why they compensate by adjusting the strain threshold, otherwise, why not go Dark?

Regardless, if you don't like the Morality tracking mechanic, simply don't use it. Just arbitrarily determine when and if a PC falls to the darkside or merits a gold star based on the narrative. Problem solved.

Don't take what I said as a negative, I like the system. I was trying to point out that there are hidden penalties for falling to the darkside, that people may not see immediately. The 7/12 chance means MORE conflict, and a faster fall. I rolled that player's Morality trigger for tomorrow's game, so we'll see how that plays out.

If it's "working as intended" and people like that, then it is a good thing. Most people have experienced, in one way or another, the heavier handed mechanics in other games and were disappointed. If people enjoy the lighter touch of Morality then the mechanic is doing its job. I'm sure there are people, such as yourself, that either dislike and/or won't use it. Many people enjoy the light touch it has with its light mechanics.

Morality makes sense to the specific setting but it doesn't seem to influence your character since it instead tracks the decisions the character makes.

Doesn't tracking the decisions the characters make influence future decisions? Or can they not? Seems to me that the mechanics of each iteration can influence one way or another. The degree varies according to the players.

Many people enjoy the light touch it has with its light mechanics.

You'd think I've gone over my point of view enough that I wouldn't have to say this again, but let me do it anyway. I don't see that a mechanic is necessary to reflect this aspect of gameplay. In fact, based on experience with a breadth of different RPGs and how they handle similar situations I think it is actively disruptive that it treats the fall to the Dark Side as a mechanic. That said, I don't really mind it being there as an option for people who want to use it. What I care about is that there will be a page count limit on the final book and in the Beta alone they've dedicated something like 4 pages to this mechanic and it still seems lackluster. I would rather see those four pages dedicated to fluff about the Jedi/Sith/etc codes than have a mechanic I don't see as useful or good.

That leaves a gap in the motivation department, however, so I am proposing an alternative mechanic to fill that gap. Which people would be free to use or not use. It would be entirely more useful for people to say "I want Morality to stay in." or "I don't want Morality to stay in but I don't think Destiny is a good substitute" or any other variation than it would be to continually tell me "some people like it" and "I'm free not to use it". Obviously I know I'm free not to use it. It was in my original post (until not so long ago) and has appeared several times in my responses. But I've also already talked about why it is important to me that the book change so it seems I must assume that people aren't actually reading anything I wrote. I am the walrus. Goo goo gajub.

Doesn't tracking the decisions the characters make influence future decisions? Or can they not? Seems to me that the mechanics of each iteration can influence one way or another. The degree varies according to the players.

Ok, sorry. That got a bit ranty. Tends to happen when I'm writing the same thing for the 5th time. To answer your question, I would not generally consider that true, no. This is a narrative game, so either a character considers it worthwhile to take a certain kind of action (eg: Using a "Dark Side" power in defense of another, outright Murder, etc) or they do not. Unless one is metagaming you will tend to find a natural equilibrium, descend, or ascend explicitly.

This is actually one of those major things that bug me about the mechanic, though. It encourages metagaming, which influences the decisions the player makes instead of the decisions the character would. What bugs me is that a character who tortures people on occasion for fun can be considered a light side character as long as they don't do it too often, while a character who does everything else right can fall to the Dark Side as an incidental result of using a Dark Side power. Falling to the Dark Side should be an intentional character plot point, not everyone's default story. Making a mechanic of it this way takes away what is unique and interesting about that story and since it is F&D's motivation mechanic it is in some sense the only story you're supposed to pursue.

If you don't want to use it and don't like it drop it. You think it's not a good mechanic, but the fact that "it's working as intended" for many others means that it is a good mechanic for them. It is easily dropped by those that do not want it. So if you want to role-play a descent into darkness or rise into the light, you can do so rather than use the mechanic. Or you can adapt the other mechanics that do work for you and have an Obligation to the Dark Side or a Duty to the Light Side instead.

Submit your thoughts and if they feel it is warranted they may make changes. I'm sure we may see some changes over the course of the beta with the feedback.

Submit your thoughts and if they feel it is warranted they may make changes. I'm sure we may see some changes over the course of the beta with the feedback.

... What did you think the point of this post was?

Also apparently I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. Sorry about that. "Working as intended." is developer speak for "It's not a bug so I don't have to fix it. Neener neener." The problem is, as soon as you go there you've missed the point which is that the way it works is not a good way for it to work. I know you don't agree with me on that but I didn't expect everyone to.

Um, that's not gaming -- that's the system working as intended. Gaming the system would entail consistently doing evil and having your Morality score climb at a nice pace regardless.

By "evil" I mean 1-4 Conflict per session and nice pace being "average of +1 Morality per session". So Qui-Jon slowly moves towards "Paragon of the Light" even if he's consistently shady.

Understand that I know many of you consider this a "feature, not a bug". I see it as a bug.

... What did you think the point of this post was?

Why haven't I helped? I have no answers for you. The Morality mechanic is deeply flawed and I'm tossing it out wholesale. I'll be rolling dirty (Narratively) for my games.

The mechanical problem with Morality is that it interferes with the narrative rather than aiding it. Giving a bonus for being a Light Side Paragon gives people a reason to stick to good deeds. Likewise, applying a penalty to Dark Side extremes gives people a reason to stay away from "immoral" acts. While we generally think of these as good things for the heroes to do anyway, the problem is that it makes certain choices more appealing without any sort of player input . In other words, it removes player agency.

I disagree. All I have is anecdotal evidence too. I have discussed adding Morality to our games with my players and they have said it would have little impact on their behavior. However, the Force sensitive in the group did say it would be a nice gauge to see where he falls on the scale. But the aspiring crime lord said he would not reign in his actions to fit a scale.

However for an alternate take on Morality something like this could work: if you have earned Conflict throughout the session roll and resolve as normal. Except if you roll over your conflict score you do not increase your Morality score by the difference. If you have not earned any conflict during the game session then you gain X number of Morality points to move you up the scale.

X can be whatever. This way those who do evil do not have a chance to move up, while those who do no evil actually move up.

This would make sense for a lot of games I think because there are often times in my game where there are little to no chances to earn conflict. It also makes becoming a light side paragon more difficult in my opinion.

However for an alternate take on Morality something like this could work: if you have earned Conflict throughout the session roll and resolve as normal. Except if you roll over your conflict score you do not increase your Morality score by the difference. If you have not earned any conflict during the game session then you gain X number of Morality points to move you up the scale.

X can be whatever. This way those who do evil do not have a chance to move up, while those who do no evil actually move up.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

This is a quote that is regularly attributed to the Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke, but history is unclear on whether or not he ever said exactly these words.

IMO, if all you do is avoid doing evil in the world, then that doesn’t make you a good and moral person. If you want to be a good and moral person, then you have to actively do good deeds, and you have to actively avoid doing evil deeds.

Of course, being sentient, sapient, and imperfect beings, we can’t always manage to avoid doing evil deeds. And some days the evil we might accidentally do is bigger than the evil we might intentionally choose to do on other days.

I believe that our moral compass is largely determined by where we fall on average, although if we should happen to perform a particularly evil act I believe that could easily wipe out any good that we have ever done, or could ever hope to do.

Now, if the purpose of the Morality mechanic is to act as a measure of our moral compass and to give us feedback on what we have done and where it looks like we are going, that’s fine.

If the purpose of the Morality mechanic was to give us a way to provide additional plot hooks into the story, along the lines of Obligation or Duty, then it seems to me that the way it is currently designed it fails to achieve that goal.

So, speaking only for myself, I would like to hear from the FFG Developers what their plan was with regards to this mechanic, and if it’s something they feel should be applied across the other FFG SWRPG games (or characters from those games), or if this is something that should be unique to Force users in the F&D game.

Submit your thoughts and if they feel it is warranted they may make changes. I'm sure we may see some changes over the course of the beta with the feedback.

... What did you think the point of this post was?

This is what you want then. Here all you will get is debate with other fans.

Also apparently I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. Sorry about that. "Working as intended." is developer speak for "It's not a bug so I don't have to fix it. Neener neener." The problem is, as soon as you go there you've missed the point which is that the way it works is not a good way for it to work. I know you don't agree with me on that but I didn't expect everyone to.

Ah I see. So it is a bug if you have to fix it. Now you are being clear.

This is what you want then. Here all you will get is debate with other fans.

I'm doing that too but the forum is the only way to assess how other people feel about it. And importantly to understand why they feel that way (and possibly convince them otherwise). My current understanding is that people mostly like Morality because it's more even-handed than older versions morality mechanics and are hung up on the idea that a morality mechanic needs to exist (for a reason I have yet to comprehend). Seriously, though, it's like people think the Beta mechanics are inviolable or something...

I'm doing that too but the forum is the only way to assess how other people feel about it. And importantly to understand why they feel that way (and possibly convince them otherwise). My current understanding is that people mostly like Morality because it's more even-handed than older versions morality mechanics and are hung up on the idea that a morality mechanic needs to exist (for a reason I have yet to comprehend). Seriously, though, it's like people think the Beta mechanics are inviolable or something...

It's not so much that people think the Beta mechanics are perfect, there was a fair amount of debate on Morality when GenCon's Beta books got out and if you look now, certain topics are being greatly debated (modding lightsabers, what should and shouldn't be in certain Specializations, what values need to be tweeked, etc.). It's more of just that Morality is sort of necessary because while some groups are fine and able to agree with "well, you did a lot of wrong recently, so you're a darksider now", for many groups it'll become a difficult thing that'll bring about arguing. Morality is necessary to track the progress, and provide a way that adds in a little bit of randomness to help prevent too much system gaming.

Maybe people want a mechanic but just not a heavy handed one. Maybe they want a scale to measure with but don't want one that interferes with or forces certain play. Sure you could not play with it and role-play everything. You could do the same with Obligation and Duty too. Some want a gauge to play with.

Maybe people want a mechanic but just not a heavy handed one. Maybe they want a scale to measure with but don't want one that interferes with or forces certain play. Sure you could not play with it and role-play everything. You could do the same with Obligation and Duty too. Some want a gauge to play with.

If they want a gauge to play with, then there are lots easier ways to do that. The GM could just hand out Light Side and Dark Side force points, and you wouldn’t need a complex mechanism that takes four pages to explain how it works.

Points have been used before. Maybe they wanted a mechanic of their own.

The thing is that the way it is now it gives you a pause when using you force pips. do you use the darkside pips and accomplish what you are trying to do and take some conflict?

I see nothing in the rules that make you do certain things. But actions do have consequences. And that is something FFG has been saying all along. The came is about choices and the consequences of those choices. I see nothing wrong with making mechanics for those goals.

Frankly I see a lot of those whining about it being the type who want to do what ever they want and to not have consequences for those actions.