I have two players who have each taken a 15 point obligation (Responsible) for each other. I don't want to ban it outright as I find the idea of two characters dedicated to each other to be endearing, but I am having trouble coming up with scenarios in which one player feels compelled to go out of their way to "take care" of the other with a noticeable detriment to the other player. I am considering just group their obligation into a 30 point (bad things happen to you two) obligation.

For reference, the players are a Father and Son. The father is playing a Bothan doctor and the son is a Wookie Scout.

Obligations are things that you owe to NPCs or organizations. This is used to be the reasons that the characters are looking to get money...either they owe someone or are looking to provide for others or hiding from someone. Having your best buddy next to you is not going to be weighing on your mind or forcing you to do something that you do not want to do.

They could have a motivation to keep each other alive

I know how it's "supposed" to work. I'm trying to find a creative way to bend the rules.

And I think I just thought of something. Since they are obligated to each other all I have to do is ask one player to make a demand of the other every-time it is triggered. I get to veto the demand but basically one player demands that the other go out of their way to do something exclusively for their own benefit.

I've pondered having interdependent PC-on-PC obligation before, but I cant see it as anything but winding up a clusterF. I would probably avoid it unless there is a VERY compelling reason.

I prefer to keep it the inter-PC dynamic narrative, and encourage them to pick an external source for their obligation.

Ultimately, its your game. I agree with the two suggestions above.

You could have them add a second obligation that "triggers" the original obligation. For example, the Bothan Doctor owes a debt to some crime lord who comes a-calling. The Doctor demands that the Wookie scout focus on nothing but helping him or vice versa. But that even that seems kind of messy to me.

The premise of being responsible to each other does fall better under motivations, specifically the Relationship motivation. The Doctor could roll an opposed Coercion, Charm, Deception, etc against the Scout to determine whether or not the Scout falls under the sway of the Doctor when the Doctor needs the help of the Scout.

I would expect the players to elaborate a bit more on how the two characters came to be "responsible" for each other.

Did the doctor save the scout's life, so now the scout owes a Wookie life debt?

Did the scout survey a planet that Bothan Spynet is interested in, and they want the Doctor to make sure nothing happens to him?

Do they perhaps have some background like military service, membership in an organization? Did they make a blood brother pact?

I think demanding something from each other would fall under owing a favor. You can be responsible for someone, and not have to meet their demands. (The father probably understands this, already.)

Some obligation triggers result in danger to the character carrying the obligation. This can peripherally affect the rest of the party. This responsibility to each other could mean that the other person is directly affected in some way. For example, if the Doctor's Obligation triggers, you could start the session with the Scout returning from a Recon mission with a strange illness he encountered. Now the Doctor has a responsibility to find the source and cure for the illness, but in the meantime, the poor Wookie is suffering setbacks, and everyone else needs to make Resilience checks to avoid getting it, too. (Not to mention, I hear that there is nothing more miserable than a sick Wookie)

You could also go the other direction, if the obligation triggers. When reading about the obligation, it made me think of Spock and McCoy in Trek. As Starfleet Officers, they have a duty toward each other's safety, but it goes farther than that. Either one would risk or sacrifice his own life to protect the other. And yet, most of the time, they just can't seem to agree on anything, or cooperate.

On some occasions, you could say that a triggered Obligation gives rise to similar tension between the two otherwise dedicated friends. For that session, they cannot benefit from boost dice or upgrades from each other's dice rolls. If player A rolls an advantage and passes a boost die to the next, and B is the next player in initiative, the boost actually passes to player C. I wouldn't use this mechanic every time, but once in a while could be interesting.

While this is a neat idea, and a good narrative, it really does not work with the game mechanics as written. It's great you are trying accommodate them, but in a sense, they are using Obligations (to each other) in the wrong way, essentially gaming the system. They can still be as devoted as they want to be to each other, with no mechanic involved. The obligation mechanic is something owed to an NPC for a little extra money or XP, when it triggers, they come calling that old favor in. The way you have it now, if it triggers, is one PC going to demand something form the other one?

Also, I don't understand why anyone would ever have 15 Obligation. Maybe you are using a house rule, but per RAW, the Additinal Obligation can't be greater than the Starting Obligation. In a nutshell, what ever Additional Obligation you take, you have to double that number for your Obligation total. So, if someone were to take the 5 AO for the 1,500 credits and the 10 AO for the 10 XP, they wouldn't have 15 Obligation, they would have 30, since the Additional Obligation can't be higher than the Starting Obligation. It is a touch confusing, and I have met more people who don't use it the way the is written than do, and that is ok, it's your game, but players shouldn't be thought the wrong way either. --When I told a player not to "Count down" his Wound Threshold/Strain Treshold, he basically told me I was wrong for counting up, and his other three GM had all counted down, so I must be the one to be wrong...

Sorry, I'm all for teaching people to play the game using the rules. But yeah, this is your game, you can do what you want with Obligations, and the numbers. Like in most matters of life and gaming, go with the simplest solution for you.

While this is a neat idea, and a good narrative, it really does not work with the game mechanics as written. It's great you are trying accommodate them, but in a sense, they are using Obligations (to each other) in the wrong way, essentially gaming the system. They can still be as devoted as they want to be to each other, with no mechanic involved. The obligation mechanic is something owed to an NPC for a little extra money or XP, when it triggers, they come calling that old favor in. The way you have it now, if it triggers, is one PC going to demand something form the other one?

Also, I don't understand why anyone would ever have 15 Obligation. Maybe you are using a house rule, but per RAW, the Additinal Obligation can't be greater than the Starting Obligation. In a nutshell, what ever Additional Obligation you take, you have to double that number for your Obligation total. So, if someone were to take the 5 AO for the 1,500 credits and the 10 AO for the 10 XP, they wouldn't have 15 Obligation, they would have 30, since the Additional Obligation can't be higher than the Starting Obligation. It is a touch confusing, and I have met more people who don't use it the way the is written than do, and that is ok, it's your game, but players shouldn't be thought the wrong way either. --When I told a player not to "Count down" his Wound Threshold/Strain Treshold, he basically told me I was wrong for counting up, and his other three GM had all counted down, so I must be the one to be wrong...

Sorry, I'm all for teaching people to play the game using the rules. But yeah, this is your game, you can do what you want with Obligations, and the numbers. Like in most matters of life and gaming, go with the simplest solution for you.

If you start with 10 Obligation, you can choose to only take 5 extra (for XP or credits), giving you 15 Obligation.

The thing about Obligations is that they are supposed to be a hook for the GM, where the players are telling the GM “I am explicitly choosing this weakness so that you can use it for story purposes”. They are explicitly choosing to expose a flaw in their armor, in exchange for some more money or more XP, and to give the GM an additional tool that can be used to help make the story more “interesting”.

So, with two players that are Dedicated to each other, how would the GM use that to increase the pressure on what might otherwise be a fairly normal scenario?

Maybe the PCs in question are chemically or electronically dependent on being physically close to each other, and the further they get apart the more sick they get? But their skill mix is such that they are sometimes required to be separated by significant distances? What if one is male and the other is female, and they have to go into a club that is exclusive to only one gender — absolutely, positively no one allowed to come in if they aren’t properly “equipped”?

Or maybe they are in love with each other and desperately need to be close, but in some way they act as “Kryptonite” for the other? So, the closer they get to each other the sicker they get?

Maybe they only have one good kidney between them, so they have to keep having to have surgeries to have it moved from one to the other and back again? And cyber-kidneys or transplants from anyone else can’t be used for some story-reason?

If you can find a way to put the PCs in conflict with their own interests over the Dedication to each other, then that might work as an Obligation. Talk to the players and see if they can help you come up with ideas to create a valid “flaw” for their armor in this space.

Otherwise, I don’t know.

EDIT: Substitute the word “flaw” for the word “c[h]ink”, which would otherwise get identified as a “forbidden” word and replaced with asterisks. Sigh….

@Happy, yes I realize you could start with 10, and then take 5 additional. With most of the players I have had, most don't even want an additional 5 Obligation, let alone 5 points of Obligation that give them no extra bonus. So while it can be done, I don't understand why someone should choose to do it though. For me, if I was going to have 15, might as well take that extra 5 to get that other small bonus then. But, people can build their stuff however they want to.

As most already said:

what your players want is just a motivation, but no Obligation.

obligation are to make the players problems thanks to theire former deeds.

So I for example would ask the players to use this motivation to construct theire obligations.

e.g. Since the Bohtans are a strongly clan orientet, the father got kickt out of his when he decided to adopt the wookie child (or even interbreeded with a female wookie), to his clan, his race and society he is seen as a traitor, and since his clan can´t afford to have someone like him in theire lineage they decide that he should...disapear into nothing.

And the son, he never learned the culture of his kind, other wookies don´t trust/ stand the halfblood, he always feels lonley when apart from his father (using rules for drugs and give him setbacks) since he can´t blend in anywhere else.

@ R2builder: Well some people will do everything for even the slightes bonus in the beginning.

I startet with two players, both startet of with 40 Obligation, (20 Start Obligation in a two player game + 20 as the maximum dubble) to start with 15 extra XP and the extra money therefore they accepted to lose strain in 80% of the sessions (until they could reduce it succsesfully)