I see once in a while posts that ask "why do I need this and that", "this doesn't work for my style"... First and foremost, this game is built as a closed system with every element in place for a reason. At least in my point of view...

Usually it comes from experienced GMs (and sometimes experienced players) who bring their way of playing from other games. This isn't like other games... "why should I use obligation? I already include the player's background into the story", "this mechanic is broken".

If you play tabula rasa, without presumptions from other games, the game will show you why you need every element in it, especially when using printed encounters and adventures.

This isn't a rant, this is a suggestion how I think you can play the game properly, and enjoy what the developers put out for us to play with... Obviously, if something doesn't work for your group or your style you can always change it, or maybe just maybe, this game isn't for you as intended

If you play tabula rasa, without presumptions from other games, the game will show you why you need every element in it, especially when using printed encounters and adventures.

This. Rid yourself of preconceptions and expectations formed by playing other RPGs and enjoy the game for what it is. Read the rulebook "with new eyes."

Sometimes house rules have unforeseen consequences, sure. I think it's much better to play the game as written before you go in and start changing things or else you won't fully understand what your changes will do. But I also don't see the RAW as some sacred cow that you cannot modify and the developers of any game are far from infallible.

After two campaigns of trying to make Obligation work, for example, I have come to the conclusion that it is a great idea poorly executed and have reworked it to work better for what I want. But because of that this game that me and my friends really enjoy isn't intended for me? That's an awful high horse you've got there regarding what other people do at their tables.

Sometimes house rules have unforeseen consequences, sure. I think it's much better to play the game as written before you go in and start changing things or else you won't fully understand what your changes will do. But I also don't see the RAW as some sacred cow that you cannot modify and the developers of any game are far from infallible.

After two campaigns of trying to make Obligation work, for example, I have come to the conclusion that it is a great idea poorly executed and have reworked it to work better for what I want. But because of that this game that me and my friends really enjoy isn't intended for me? That's an awful high horse you've got there regarding what other people do at their tables.

Check the language in the OP! There's a difference between the OP's deductive truism "This game isn't for you, as intended" and the above inferred "This game isn't intended for you."

I don't think anyone here would treat RAW as a sacred cow. Any GM worth his salt will be able to tweak, break, or completely throw out a rule when needed to bring more enjoyment out of the game for his or her table—that's the reason we have human GMs instead of computers. But I agree with the OP's sentiment that one should try and understand why a rule is there in the first place, or else, as is stated above, changes could lead to unforeseen consequences, which can (for example) take the shape of an endless cycle of tweaks to the RAW simply to make your first house rule viable.

But I agree with the OP's sentiment that one should try and understand why a rule is there in the first place, or else, as is stated above, changes could lead to unforeseen consequences, which can (for example) take the shape of an endless cycle of tweaks to the RAW simply to make your first house rule viable.

100% agree, however, this:

First and foremost, this game is built as a closed system with every element in place for a reason. At least in my point of view...

...is a little too worshipful and suggests a little too much omniscience on the part of the devs for my comfort.

Beyond chargen, I have little use for Obligation. It hijacks my game and IMHO introduces a board-game element I'm not interested in.

I won't vent about the Move power, other than to say I just think it blows.

Jury-Rigged + Autofire...as long as new players are discovering the game, it will be a constant issue.

I love the game. At this point I don't ever want to run another. It's as close to perfect (for me) as a game can get. But nothing is 100%, so when I see that kind of worship and a closing "maybe the game is not for you", I object to the apparent tribalism.

I had a feeling the last sentence would be taken as is, but I stand by my sentiment (although I added an emoticon as the unspoken rules of the internet suggest, to convey some cynical or jest tone).

As for Obligation and other story driving elements, like many games, it is written for people who have no experience with roleplay, system or the genre.

I personally like the Strain reduction, it keep the character on edge, representing how they worry about the debt, their family or their duty. A GM should always observe how an element effects the game and its purpose. I concur that it should not hold the story hostage and I usually use it sparsely... if an obligation was triggered and it has no place in the current trail of adventure, I let it be known through subtle means, and make sure it will effect the narrative when possible, next session (where in that example, obligation will not be rolled next session).

I will paraphrase a recent comment from Desslok:

"No one should tell someone they cannot or should not X."

People are rarely entirely happy with anything/everything as-is. This is why everyone has the option of having pickles left off the Big Mac, not just the people who don't like pickles. So if someone wants to alter or omit something with this game I say let them.

Very likely not the intent, but I view the OP as chiding. There has been a lot of negative feedback to house rule posts recently, getting more disapproving within the past six month in particular, so I think what the OP really wants is to call us to task for that, not for leaving off the pickles.

Besides, there's more than one type of pickle. Just because McD's (FFG) puts "they're brand" pickles (Obligation, Auto-Fire/Jury-Rigged) on the Mac (EotE, AoR, FaD) doesn't mean I can't take them off when I take it home and replace them with spicy butter pickles. That's my prerogative.

And if I want to share that recipe with others I see no harm done. Some will like it, others won't. But no one's making you eat it if you don't like it, and they shouldn't take it away from you either.

Just be open to the reality that everyone has different tastes.

I like chai tea from a tea bag (RAW). You may like Lipton tea (D&D theories of how games work). You may like chamomile tea with honey, lemon, cream, and a sprig of mint (house ruled version). I don't expect you to love my cup of chai, and we can get along as long as you don't call my cup of tea bad or wrong, or try to force me to enjoy your cup of tea.

Don't get pushy and we'll get along fine, and if you ask someone for their opinion on your chamomile tea with all the extras, and they say they don't like lemon, or would rather have spearmint instead of peppermint, don't get offended unless they're being genuine jerks about it. You asked for their opinions after all.

In general, I like the overall sentiment of the OP. I think it is a really good idea that people actually play the game and try the rules out as they are written once or twice first. Like, give them a good solid go and put them through their paces. Once you have actually tried them in an actual play setting you can make a more informed decision about what works for you and what doesn't. I certainly wouldn't suggest people shouldn't house rule things or make changes or omissions or complete rewrites of parts to fit what works for their group.. but I think it's only fair to at least try the unaltered version first to make these assessments as opposed to reading it and theorizing what that might play like and altering them before you even give them a chance.

Myself, personally I really do try to avoid houserules. For me this is for a few reasons mostly it is less book keeping as I don't have to keep track of these houserules.. but more so, because it's just plain easier if I pick up new players. They can look at the books and know what to expect. I have played with other groups who have been playing Pathfinder or D&D together for ages and have a bunch of little houserules.. and as a new member to the group, there is only so much: Oh sorry, we actually don't play it like that.. we have this houserule instead. I can take before it stops feeling like the same game anymore. But again, that is me. For them, they felt they wanted a more gritty, realistic, deadly feel to their games and so they adjusted the rules accordingly, and that's just fine too.