Flipping a destiny token to use a dark pip to activate force powers can generate as little as 1 conflict. And the roll at the end of the night has a 0% chance of them going down in morality if they only generate a single point.

Flipping a destiny token to use a dark pip to activate force powers can generate as little as 1 conflict. And the roll at the end of the night has a 0% chance of them going down in morality if they only generate a single point.

That is correct, if that is the only time that happens that session, and they also don't do anything else conflict worthy. Which is why a lot of us keep trying to hammer into people's heads that it's not the end of the world if you generate a little conflict. Hell the developers themselves have said flat out that generating a couple conflict doesn't make you an evil person. It just makes you a person. You had a bad day, you were cranky, sleepy, you just couldn't get that **** Move training session your Mentor gave you, no matter how many times you tried. And you snapped at a local person, told them a lie, or threatened them with a little bluff and bluster to avoid a long, boring conversation that you just didn't want to handle right then. Congratulations, you just earned 1-2 conflict for that, and congratulations, you've basically described every person ever since the dawn of ever.

If your character is the kind of person who for the most part, isn't a liar, thief, bully, murderer, torturer, then yeah, of course your Morality is going to go up. It means you are pretty much the majority of people in the world. Meaning "not a ****". Why would you expect their morality to go down if that's the case?

I came to find that I as the GM needed to change my ways a bit in order to make this work,

Now I write down the names of characters at the start of the adventure and put marks behind their name for every amoral, dubious, etc. etc. And I, in fact, found that i was way too lenient in my earlier sessions. Now we end up with 2 players going up in moral and 2 players going down almost every session.

I like it and I am happy we stuck with it.

Desslok, I feel your pain.

Both Obligation and Duty are solid ways for the players to tell you, the GM, what content they want to see in the game: here are the challenges I want my PC to encounter. That is both great and necessary in a game that is so open-ended.

But Morality feels like the exact opposite: here, GM, is how my character is going to behave. Huh? Don't tell me how you're going to act, just act! It's like alignment in D&D -- superfluous at best, incongruous at worst.

Consequently, I've stuck to using Obligation and Duty as appropriate, and ditching Morality altogether. I just let the narrative tell me whether you've drifted to the Dark side, or if you're paragon. Rarely does that happen -- most PC's just hover in the vanilla light side.

Desslok, I feel your pain.

Both Obligation and Duty are solid ways for the players to tell you, the GM, what content they want to see in the game: here are the challenges I want my PC to encounter. That is both great and necessary in a game that is so open-ended.

Actually, it kind of encourages you to just openly discuss what your players want from your game. All of the SWRPG rules do. Pick a direction and go confidently that way. "I'd like to explore the dark side of ambition," or "I think I'd like to know what happens when compassion gets the best of a force-sensitive." That's not really too much different than, "I want to make sure the Rebellion has guns," or "I wanna blow stuff up," or "I want my character to be on the run from a Bounty Hunter," or "I'm trying to avenge my murdered father." To put it bluntly, this sounds like an excuse for a lack of imagination. Open yourself up to different kinds of questions and understand that morality, as clear-cut as it seems, is not at all. Morality isn't how your character acts, but how they try to act.

Actually, it kind of encourages you to just openly discuss what your players want from your game. All of the SWRPG rules do. Pick a direction and go confidently that way. "I'd like to explore the dark side of ambition," or "I think I'd like to know what happens when compassion gets the best of a force-sensitive." That's not really too much different than, "I want to make sure the Rebellion has guns," or "I wanna blow stuff up," or "I want my character to be on the run from a Bounty Hunter," or "I'm trying to avenge my murdered father." To put it bluntly, this sounds like an excuse for a lack of imagination. Open yourself up to different kinds of questions and understand that morality, as clear-cut as it seems, is not at all. Morality isn't how your character acts, but how they try to act.

You can do all that without assigning some arbitrary number to it.

I left alignment arguments behind in D&D and I trust my players to play their characters properly without me micromanaging it.

If I ever did bother with numbers, I'd skip the 'Conflict' mini-game entirely and just assign Morality directly (as whafrog does).

But even that just seems to cause a rush to one extreme for a small mechanical benefit, and I'd sooner explore the whole concept of a character's extremes.

Actually, it kind of encourages you to just openly discuss what your players want from your game. All of the SWRPG rules do. Pick a direction and go confidently that way. "I'd like to explore the dark side of ambition," or "I think I'd like to know what happens when compassion gets the best of a force-sensitive." That's not really too much different than, "I want to make sure the Rebellion has guns," or "I wanna blow stuff up," or "I want my character to be on the run from a Bounty Hunter," or "I'm trying to avenge my murdered father." To put it bluntly, this sounds like an excuse for a lack of imagination. Open yourself up to different kinds of questions and understand that morality, as clear-cut as it seems, is not at all. Morality isn't how your character acts, but how they try to act.

You can do all that without assigning some arbitrary number to it.

I'd argue very much the same thing for duty and obligation.

Unfortunately when you start a conversation with "this sucks", there is not a way to convince you of any other opinion. You have already made your mind up. I'm not sure posting about how bad it is will somehow make you see something good it in. Statistically Morality works. Having Morality work through narrative is something a GM and players will have to work toward. Alot of people see it as "I'm going dark side!". Which is simply not the case. When your Morality goes down its because of the decisions you have made in the narrative. The kindest old man can let a city burn to save his only son. While he is by all means a good man, he made a decision that killed innocents and gain himself Conflict. This kind of statistic shows how many choices like that he has made. To many "bad" choices and the power of the dark side of the force is dominate with in him. He can still be this kind old man who loves his son, simply now the passion of that love has drove him to act in ways that are not just. The opposite is can be very true. A kill first ask questions later man who loves to murder can turn to the light side of the force. If he directs his love of violence to those who deserve it and is able to protect the innocents who would be "less than worthy of a fight". Morality doesnt all of a sudden turn your Jedi into Sith or nonviolents into murderers. Its just a way to track what they have done during the gameplay. Its up to the GM to offer hard desicions that will make players weigh the cost of keeping their beliefs.

You have already made your mind up.

Yeah, but until I actually used the game mechanic I was not in a position to tender an opinion.

I'm not sure posting about how bad it is will somehow make you see something good it in.

Because it's a discussion forum and I'm discussing my opinion with others?

Having Morality work through narrative is something a GM and players will have to work toward.

In a perfect world, this game would fire on all cylinders at all times, with both players and GMs pulling the narrative cart in the same direction at all times. However sometimes you get lazy players or a GM who is having an off day or any number of perfectly valid reasons why one party or the other is in a more passive state.

Obligation and Duty is pretty easy to set up for the GM. It's pretty simple to offhandedly mention a shipment of military grade shield generators off to one side of a hanger as the players flee the imperial base that the Acquisition Duty guy can jump on. It's simple to have Django the Hunter spot the players across the crowded Cantina floor while they are in delicate negotiations for a passenger charter and starts shooting the place up so he can bring their corpses back to Zorba the Hutt - that's something not in the player's control.

But morality requires more buy in on the players part, stuff that's out of my control as a GM. I can lead them to water, but drinking is up to them.

Morality doesnt all of a sudden turn your Jedi into Sith or nonviolents into murderers.

Never said it did. i fully grok the idea that one or two morality hits here or there wont turn a Jedi into a slobbering monster. What the players do - again, that's not under my control. I've more than explained that morality is suppose to be a fluid thing, that the occasional dark pip usage was designed by the Devs to be used that way.

Its up to the GM to offer hard desicions that will make players weigh the cost of keeping their beliefs.

And even if I set up a moment of decision, there's no assurance that the player(s) will jump on it. So yeah, I stand by my opinion that mentioning side missions of Shield Generators or unexpectedly drawing fire from Django is a much easier to manipulate and stronger story telling device.

Tho i use Morality almost exclusively, it looks like from your examples Duty and Obligation are easy to add to a situation. Morality can be just as easy to throw in as something extra to a scene. Your example of Courage and Recklessness can add things like a clear fast way to accomplish the current goal. He needed to free a prisoner but choose to release all of the prisoners to start a riot? By making the full release the "easier way" this will tempt him into a more reckless route. In the same scene he might have choose to protect the prisoner when the warden came looking showing his courage in the face of danger.

I try to use these strengths and weaknesses alot, and build a relationship as a GM and player. I'm running a Greed character in a game and by getting familiar when this i am able to throw in things like expensive jewelry or art or whatever fits the scene. Its not like i set up these things far in advanced. They only come up when say hes looking through a room for clues An extra advantage might be a good time to tell him about the famous painting on the wall, or the rare material thats its framed in. A little bait like that can send him trying to escape captors while holding a 3x3 painting, quite noticeable.

Another easy one is Curious. If they player is actively curious alot i like to throw in boxes that not to be opened. Smuggle this crate, but don't open it. Can drive a Curious player/character crazy. if they are tempted by this the story still moves on, but he gets conflict and maybe problems later. edit: im thinking of obsession. but they normally go hand in hand

Its not like i set up these things far in advanced.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about Morality when planning a session or improvising a scene.

Similar complaints that I actually have heard are how the mechanic spawns long winded out of character discussions about philosophical and statistical minutiae so inane that the entire discussion becomes morally bankrupt.

Personally, I never had issues with planning the stated emotional strengths and weaknesses into a game. But when working with the numbers associated with Morality, I frequently had to either grind the game to a halt, or ignore smaller infractions, unbalancing the whole concept. I never had this issue with Obligation, but I think that was because my players took complete ownership of the mechanic; they never felt like they had to check with me when it went up or down.

Unfortunately when you start a conversation with "this sucks", there is not a way to convince you of any other opinion.

That's just Mr Penguin for you. A bit of hyperbole is the best way to grab attention

If you read the post, he does argue his point coherently.

But when working with the numbers associated with Morality, I frequently had to either grind the game to a halt, or ignore smaller infractions, unbalancing the whole concept.

Yeah, this. Which is why I use the concept and not the numbers.

I'd argue very much the same thing for duty and obligation.

And I would agree with you. Backgrounds are fine for characters, but this isn't Final Fantasy, and not everything needs a number attached to it.

If you read the post, he does argue his point coherently.

A rare moment of sobriety. Shant happen again!

And I would agree with you. Backgrounds are fine for characters, but this isn't Final Fantasy, and not everything needs a number attached to it.

Now here's where we disagree - I kind of like having a metric for Obligation (sort of) and Duty (I'm really liking this one). Mind you, I've proven that we don't necessarily need either - I ran WEG for two decades with characters that had deep, rich backgrounds full of all kinds of meaty GM hooks and never once had a number to quantify it. Arch Nemeses that fell in love with PCs, recurring bad guys with a beef against the team, family issues galore and never a die roll to tell the GM it was time for The Past to come bit you in the butt.

I think with Obligation when we were doing an all Edge game, that everyone had some obligation attached to their characters but the number never really went up or down. The GM would just used it as the character's "I want This Thing to happen to my character a little bit, and I want That Thing to happen a whole lot" guideline.

I think I'm favoring Duty more because it has a benchmark of importance in an organization. But like I said, we're still in the early days of using it, so the jury is still out on that one.

On the contrary, I have great fun with the morality mechanic. I was running Onslaught at Arda 1 recently with a group of 3 force users and two rebel characters. At the moment they needed to set up the bomb to blow up the base before escaping, I had a 20 minutes arguments between the characters, when I told them that action would be conflict worthy. The rebel character were like "We got orders. Set up that bomb" and the Force users were thorn up between following orders and killing the stoormtroopers and all the people who would not get the chance to escape.

Okay, finally got around to reading Arda 1, so I can comment. That's one of those "boy the GM is being heavy handed" moments I wouldnt like. Yes, you should get pinged for killing someone gratuitously - but getting conflict for blowing up your own reactor when your base is full of stormtroopers in a battle that they started seems not right. That'd be like dumping 40,000 conflict on Luke for blowing up the Death Star*.

*Putting aside that he probably hadn't graduated from his Edge character to a F&D character by that point in his story.

The light/dark pip mechanic actually doesn't depend on the Morality mechanic, it existed in the two previous iterations of the system. You still spend strain and must flip a DP. Also it should be pointed out that the F&D corebook has a list of suggestions for cross compatibility which states:

After taking a couple of weeks off away from the game, some time to consider the matter, I think I'm leaning this way. There's still a quantifiable penalty for using the bad pips, a drain on player resources, but it does not require the GM to micromanage. I'll have to bring it up with the group once my Film Festival is over here in a couple of weeks.

That'd be like dumping 40,000 conflict on Luke for blowing up the Death Star*.

All the movie characters are played by G Lucas, and his GM is his girlfriend, who helpfully handwaves away any awkward Morality issues or nasty consequences...

Okay, finally got around to reading Arda 1, so I can comment. That's one of those "boy the GM is being heavy handed" moments I wouldnt like. Yes, you should get pinged for killing someone gratuitously - but getting conflict for blowing up your own reactor when your base is full of stormtroopers in a battle that they started seems not right. That'd be like dumping 40,000 conflict on Luke for blowing up the Death Star*.

*Putting aside that he probably hadn't graduated from his Edge character to a F&D character by that point in his story.

*snicker* Well that's one way of looking at blowing up the Death Star and Conflict, but in many ways that highlights the issues with 'morality' and 'greater good', yeah Luke killed oh so many Imperials buy blowing up the Death Star, but saved oh so many planets/people by doing so...

Also, I've been thinking lately that Luke started as a Warrior/Starfighter Ace, he was just occasionally using the Force with piloting and not realizing it (putting it down to natural talent/ability) until Obi Wan started teaching him.

I'd argue very much the same thing for duty and obligation.

And I would agree with you. Backgrounds are fine for characters, but this isn't Final Fantasy, and not everything needs a number attached to it.

I'm late to the party but I appreciate your position. The RAW essentially tell you to use what works for you and dump what doesn't, especially if it means more fun and better narrative play. Play your way!

I'm late to the party but I appreciate your position. The RAW essentially tell you to use what works for you and dump what doesn't, especially if it means more fun and better narrative play. Play your way!

The FFG SW game is a really weird eclectic mix of design styles, taking elements from modern, narrative, rules-lite games (like 13th Age, One Ring, D&D5) mixed in with old-school, number-crunching, tables-heavy elements (like AD&D, Runequest, Rolemaster etc).

The former works better for me, so we tend to use these elements.

Desslok, on 03 Jun 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:Desslok, on 03 Jun 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

vilainn6, on 11 May 2016 - 02:16 AM, said:vilainn6, on 11 May 2016 - 02:16 AM, said:

On the contrary, I have great fun with the morality mechanic. I was running Onslaught at Arda 1 recently with a group of 3 force users and two rebel characters. At the moment they needed to set up the bomb to blow up the base before escaping, I had a 20 minutes arguments between the characters, when I told them that action would be conflict worthy. The rebel character were like "We got orders. Set up that bomb" and the Force users were thorn up between following orders and killing the stoormtroopers and all the people who would not get the chance to escape.

Okay, finally got around to reading Arda 1, so I can comment. That's one of those "boy the GM is being heavy handed" moments I wouldnt like. Yes, you should get pinged for killing someone gratuitously - but getting conflict for blowing up your own reactor when your base is full of stormtroopers in a battle that they started seems not right. That'd be like dumping 40,000 conflict on Luke for blowing up the Death Star*.

*Putting aside that he probably hadn't graduated from his Edge character to a F&D character by that point in his story.

I just gave them like 5-6 conflicts for the principe. Great military tactic are not always super moral one. They could have simply escape. They were no need to blow up that reactor. The goal was just to kill 4 batallions of troopers, destroying some Tie and AT-AT and perhaps destroying data and évidences. Not the same case of the Death Star.

I'm late to the party but I appreciate your position. The RAW essentially tell you to use what works for you and dump what doesn't, especially if it means more fun and better narrative play. Play your way!

The FFG SW game is a really weird eclectic mix of design styles, taking elements from modern, narrative, rules-lite games (like 13th Age, One Ring, D&D5) mixed in with old-school, number-crunching, tables-heavy elements (like AD&D, Runequest, Rolemaster etc).

The former works better for me, so we tend to use these elements.

To sidetrack a bit, but I think this is the first time I've heard someone refer to D&D5e as a "rules lite" system. I'll grant you, it's much lighter on rules than prior editions of D&D (3rd edition especially), but still not what I'd really classify as "rules lite," at least not when compared to something like FATE.

The FFG SW game is a really weird eclectic mix of design styles, taking elements from modern, narrative, rules-lite games (like 13th Age, One Ring, D&D5) mixed in with old-school, number-crunching, tables-heavy elements (like AD&D, Runequest, Rolemaster etc).

The former works better for me, so we tend to use these elements.

To sidetrack a bit, but I think this is the first time I've heard someone refer to D&D5e as a "rules lite" system. I'll grant you, it's much lighter on rules than prior editions of D&D (3rd edition especially), but still not what I'd really classify as "rules lite," at least not when compared to something like FATE.

I was going to ask. My group is pondering a co/rotating GM story, and D&D was the only ruleset we could agree upon. But most of the prospective GMs are either rules-averse, or claim to have lives too busy to study the rules. 5e looks simpler than 4e (which kind of bombed in our group, they couldn't get their heads around the cartoony "powers"), but it's hard to know until we play for real.

To sidetrack a bit, but I think this is the first time I've heard someone refer to D&D5e as a "rules lite" system. I'll grant you, it's much lighter on rules than prior editions of D&D (3rd edition especially), but still not what I'd really classify as "rules lite," at least not when compared to something like FATE.

I wouldn't disagree Donovan, but 5th edition does feel a lot more streamlined than what's gone before. Rules like 'Advantage' are a lot easier to use than the plethora of bonuses in 3.5 or the minis combat of 4E.

D&D is never going to be 'rules lite' (maybe 13th Age is as close to that as D&D will ever get) but I think my general point was that many recent releases were moving towards streamlined systems over the complexity of AD&D (with its endless little minigames) and Rolemaster.

This edition does seem to have been designed to be relatively straightforward to play, a return to the 'theatre of the mind' as opposed to the grid combat of the two previous 'editions'.

Us D&D fans take our simplifying wherever we can get it!

(Apologies to OP for taking this thread off on a tangent...)

Compared to prior editions of D&D, 5e has a much lighter and generally simpler touch on the rules, dispensing with a great many of the various bonus and penalty modifiers and streamlining things when and where possible. If nothing else, you can get the basic ruleset (which covers everything you need to run and play) for free off WotC's own website, so at worst you're just out some time from running a one-shot

I'll be honest, I was pretty badly burned out on D&D prior to 5e's release, and prior to them releasing the Basic Rules file for free had zero plans of picking it up. While I've not gotten to play a lot of it (most of it low-level) I must say it plays pretty well. Yeah, it's a binary pass/fail system, so a group that's gotten very much used to FFG's Star Wars system might have some trouble with that conceit, but it certainly runs smoother than prior versions of D&D, even for spellcasters.

Yeah, it's a binary pass/fail system, so a group that's gotten very much used to FFG's Star Wars system might have some trouble with that conceit, but it certainly runs smoother than prior versions of D&D, even for spellcasters.

I've been pondering adding a boost and a setback die to each D20 roll just to get those advantages in there

I'll be honest, I was pretty badly burned out on D&D prior to 5e's release,

Oh, I get that. I wrote an article once called 'My Loser Boyfriend' that explains why I always go back to the same game that's burned me so often down the years (SPOILER: I'm a hopeless romantic and you never forget your first...)

But I like 5th edition, it's the smoothest D&D I've ever played, with a good balance of complexity and simplicity. I just wish they'd release more (i.e. anything ) for it. A single sourcebook in two years isn't good.

As to being binary, that's really where FFG SW shines. Sure, 13 Age tries to get d20 out of the pass/fail paradigm (by treating failures as 'no, but...') but that still feels arbitrary to me.

With this game, you can see at a glance if something is 'Failure with Advantage' or 'Success with Threat' and interpret it from there.

D&D is never going to be 'rules lite' (maybe 13th Age is as close to that as D&D will ever get) but I think my general point was that many recent releases were moving towards streamlined systems over the complexity of AD&D (with its endless little minigames) and Rolemaster .

Aah, 'Tablemaster'. Anyone complaining about large fights getting bogged down with the FFG system has never tried running a combat in Rolemaster with more than two adversaries...