When you can't see the chart, some things aren't as obvious as they should be.

One of our players took to listing out our Obligations for the GM's initial roll. Someone pointed out that this person was being sneaky! He'd put his 10 points on the list first so that he had no chance of getting a double! He earned himself a double without a roll for trying to "game the system", as my GM put it.

Well, in thinking about it, that chart can't be made fair unless people have more than 10 points of Obligation each. If you have 4 players with 10 points of Obligation or less, you won't even have a double point for each player. At most you would only have doubles on 11, 22 and 33 so that means only 3 possibilities out of 4 players.

I brought t up and was asked to see what people here are doing. How do you fix that?

By RAW, it's supposed to be the person with the highest Obligation on the bottom. So says Sam has 20 obligation, Rena has 15, Shawn has 30 and Alex has 5.

List them in this order:

Shawn 1-30

Sam 31-50

Rena 51-65

Alex 66-70

That is a pretty big issue, though one could argue that no/less chance of getting hit with doubles is a reward of sorts for keeping one's Obligation low. Of course there are rewards for gaining obligation so there is an offset.

To avoid gaming the system for someone with 10 obligation being first on the chart I guess you could count rolling a 1 as a double if you really want things to be fair (so at the start when everyone has the same amount, a 1 is the same chance as a 11/22/33, but once differences emerge than it's no longer about fairness because Obligation management is supposed to be mostly player choice) but the risk of doubles is supposed to rise and fall depending on Obligation, along with it being triggered in the first place.

Or just do what ^he said. The only issue for starting parties IMO and even it's pretty minor.

As a GM I wouldn't do a thing and I wouldn't have punished that player for so-called "gaming the system."

Sometimes people won't have obligation in an amount to be eligible for doubles. Sometimes you'll have players whose characters have obligation that covers multiple doubles. It's not perfect but it's how the system works.

If I were the GM, the fact that the player was helping me out by listing out the entire party's obligation in order, deserves the player that first slot. Someone's gotta be listed first unfairly since they all tie with 10. Gotta choose him/her somehow.

Really, if it causes issues and comes up often somehow, have a roll of 01 count as a double.

Good spot, Hayley.

To be honest, I threw out the whole % system. I want to run a narrative game, and have Obligation come up when I want, not when some random roll says.

The problem I have with Obligation/Duty/Morality is that they feel 'bolted on'. They feel extraneous to the system, rather than part of it, using different dice and an entirely different mechanic. It feels like a throwback to WHFRP3, and its fiddly systems like 'stance' or 'party tension', things that none of my players liked and added unnecessary complications to the flow of play.

Obligation as a role-playing element and helping to define a character's background? Sure.

As a fiddly % system? Not for me, not in this game where we are trying to get away from cumbersome - or completely disassociated - rules.

In a given game session, only 3 of the 4 would have a chance at the doubles, but if you rotate around who is listed first, then each game session will have someone else not on the doubles list. Plus, you only roll once on that chart each session anyways...

As a GM I wouldn't do a thing and I wouldn't have punished that player for so-called "gaming the system."

He admitted doing it... ugh. I know there's a better word for it but he admitted being a sneaky cheater. He wasn't helping to be a nice guy. He was helping so he could take advantage. He didn't try to hide it when he got caught. Just laughed at us for being so stupid... in a goofy way, not mean or anything. Even the punishment was funny. Maybe that wasn't how it sounded but that's how it played out.

I either just go with what feels good narratively, or.

If I do roll I roll a % then if someones obligation comes up I roll a d10 and if it comes up zero then I treat the player with the double roll.

I would just shift it if you're going to keep it. Should everyone have 10, then assign them starting at 10 instead of 0. Really, the roll is there to determine what and who, it's just a range, not necessarily a scale.

Good spot, Hayley.

As a fiddly % system? Not for me, not in this game where we are trying to get away from cumbersome rules.

Thank you!

I don't really know when something becomes fiddly or cumbersome. I don't really have references. I don't know if any of us feel that way so in our group, it hasn't been an issue. The GM generally announces the roll as, "In this episode, the camera is spending a lot of time with..." whichever character gets the roll, if any.

One thing my GM has done is basically said "no roll this session" a few times. It seemed silly to be worried and stressed about the police looking for me half the galaxy away when we're trapped within a dangerous prison mine on an asteroid that was going to blow up.

In a given game session, only 3 of the 4 would have a chance at the doubles, but if you rotate around who is listed first, then each game session will have someone else not on the doubles list. Plus, you only roll once on that chart each session anyways...

This was what I suggested. We must be GENIUSES! Or is that geniui? Genies?

We're SMART!

In a given game session, only 3 of the 4 would have a chance at the doubles, but if you rotate around who is listed first, then each game session will have someone else not on the doubles list. Plus, you only roll once on that chart each session anyways...

This was what I suggested. We must be GENIUSES! Or is that geniui? Genies?

We're SMART!

I vote "genies."

For my table, this wasn't such an issue (or at least I didn't perceive it as such!), since Obligation values changed so frequently.

But yeah, this is a good fix when it's needed!

I just refuse to use the double rules... -2 Strain for a session is plenty to think about... -4 is just ridiculous.

I just refuse to use the double rules... -2 Strain for a session is plenty to think about... -4 is just ridiculous.

Its punishing, but I think its great when its worked in thematically.

Last session when we just joined the Rebellion it came up on my character, who is being blackmailed by a Moff. It was perfect conflict of character.

I ended up skipping the -2 strain and the doubles issue (we haven't had any double anyway) and just went with all story based obligation consequences.

By RAW, it's supposed to be the person with the highest Obligation on the bottom. So says Sam has 20 obligation, Rena has 15, Shawn has 30 and Alex has 5.

List them in this order:

Shawn 1-30

Sam 31-50

Rena 51-65

Alex 66-70

This. the guy with the 10 obligation would be at the the bottom with chances of doubles like everyone else. The order matters,

I have also foregone the % roll and instead have been completely head over heels inspired to expand on each player obligation.

The players came up with their own rationale as to what the obligation was about. I'm expanding on that and since it directly connects with their senses of self their obligations have been more pertinent than the module content I've been running. I have built up so much hidden content on my wiki site that we will have narrative the players are invested in for at least 2015.

The GM can always roll Obligation before the session and come up with a narrative way to represent it.

This. the guy with the 10 obligation would be at the the bottom with chances of doubles like everyone else. The order matters,

Yeah, but my question was specifically aimed at situations where everyone has 10 points or less. It's easy when the numbers cooperate. But sometimes they're pesky.

This. the guy with the 10 obligation would be at the the bottom with chances of doubles like everyone else. The order matters,

Yeah, but my question was specifically aimed at situations where everyone has 10 points or less. It's easy when the numbers cooperate. But sometimes they're pesky.

yes but when you put that person in a different place in the stack you are rolling against they still get doubles.

As a GM I wouldn't do a thing and I wouldn't have punished that player for so-called "gaming the system."

He admitted doing it... ugh. I know there's a better word for it but he admitted being a sneaky cheater. He wasn't helping to be a nice guy. He was helping so he could take advantage. He didn't try to hide it when he got caught. Just laughed at us for being so stupid... in a goofy way, not mean or anything. Even the punishment was funny. Maybe that wasn't how it sounded but that's how it played out.

I still wouldn't have done anything. Someone has to get the immunity, might as well be the guy actually helping the GM do something regardless of his reasons for doing so. I usually end up being the initiative tracker and rule checker because I know my GMs usually give a little bonus XP for it.

Honestly if this situation comes up more than once the planets are aligning or the GM isn't making use of the system the way it should be. After first session there's a very high probability that everyone will have different obligation values, and a certain chance someone will have a higher value. The highest is always listed first, then the next, and the next after that, etc.

Again, it's not a big deal, and it's extremely rare, even at first session to have everyone at the same obligation. Also, remember that not everyone has to have chances for doubles. Even at higher obligation values. The chart wasn't made to be "fair."

As for if everyone has less than 10...same thing. It's rare, it's really not a big deal, and it's possible for someone with 1 obligation to be the only one for chances at doubles because they sit at 11.