I've been GMing for a few weeks now, and my players are really working off their obligation, but they're actively trying not to get more obligation. They take whatever road not to get obligation. How do I go about this? Can I just give them Obligation when the scene dictates it? Like they screw up an Imperial installation and give them an Obligation to either Empire or Bounty? I'm not saying just handing it out like candy, but thought out. Is this a bad idea? Should I and do I have to give them a choice to either obtain or not said obligation?

Does avoiding Obligation complicate their lives? If so (and usually it does) then avoiding Obligation is serving the same role as having Obligation, so why not just go with the flow.

Use it as a meta currency. You wanna be able to carry disruptors? ZsaZaa the Hutt can get you the permits, but you'll owe her....Need to find a place to replace Doug's missing legs? Doc Xanna can do it, but you'll owe him...etc.

Yes, you can give them obligation due to their actions. Your players will look at it as a punitive action tho, which wont really help their problem.

You might start trying to make gaining obligation as a 'lesser of two evils' sort of situation until they get over their phobia. Make it so they have to chose one situation or the other.

Maybe they only get crappy jobs until they accept a 'working with a Hutt' obligation. Then have that obligation be dangerous as heck, but extremely lucrative. Then after they work off that obligation, have them do boring, low pay jobs until they take some more obligation.

Another idea may be, if their ship gets shot up, have the local repair shop owner not accept money, but have the players take a 'Just this one Job for me' obligation. Pretty much like every quest granter in every video game ever.

Either way, you want to get them to 'learn to love the Obligation' instead of forcing it on them.

Use it as a meta currency. You wanna be able to carry disruptors? ZsaZaa the Hutt can get you the permits, but you'll owe her....Need to find a place to replace Doug's missing legs? Doc Xanna can do it, but you'll owe him...etc.

Dang it, now I want to learn a Zsa Zsa Gabor accent just to have that hutt

How I stick it in the D&D game I am running right now would be the hard part.....

The thing to remember is that Obligation works many ways... you can't get access to the Underworld without Obligation ranks of a certain level, but then legitimate businesses (and the Empire) won't have anything to do with you... naturally, the reverse is true. If they're avoiding Obligation like crazy, then have the Empire come calling with some Anti-Rebel Scum work... which will, naturally, net them Obligation.

There is no escape.

Find the Obligation table in the core book... it's a good starting point for this kind of thing, and mirrors having a rep...

Would the players feel more comfortable working *for* something or someone? If so then you might want to use the Duty mechanic from AoR instead, since it can just as easily be used to represent standing among various Edge interests, and it doesn't have the punitive tone of Obligation.

Use it as a meta currency. You wanna be able to carry disruptors? ZsaZaa the Hutt can get you the permits, but you'll owe her....Need to find a place to replace Doug's missing legs? Doc Xanna can do it, but you'll owe him...etc.

I really dislike the obligation mechanic in the game. I roll at the onset of the game session and slap two strain on the characters where appropriate and move on. I just don't feel like it adds anything whatsoever to the game.

That being said, I believe this approach is the best way to use it.

I really dislike the obligation mechanic in the game. I roll at the onset of the game session and slap two strain on the characters where appropriate and move on. I just don't feel like it adds anything whatsoever to the game.

IMO, if you’re not narrating it and role-playing it, then you’re doing it wrong.

At the very least, you might be adhering to the letter of RAW, but you’re certainly not adhering to the spirit.

This game is supposed to be all about the narration, and role-playing, and if all you’re going to do is honor just the mechanics, then you might as well be playing D&D or some computer game.

I really dislike the obligation mechanic in the game. I roll at the onset of the game session and slap two strain on the characters where appropriate and move on. I just don't feel like it adds anything whatsoever to the game.

IMO, if you’re not narrating it and role-playing it, then you’re doing it wrong.

At the very least, you might be adhering to the letter of RAW, but you’re certainly not adhering to the spirit.

This game is supposed to be all about the narration, and role-playing, and if all you’re going to do is honor just the mechanics, then you might as well be playing D&D or some computer game.

And your post hits directly on why I do not like the obligation part of the game. As you say, and FFL says repeatedly, this is a "narrative based game" which puzzles me because I feel the obligation chart "forces" (for lack of a better SW term ) players into developing certain drawbacks for their characters- essentially tells them why they are flawed. I believe, if the true spirit of this game is "narrative" based, then players should do that themselves during character creation and generation. Experienced GMs can assist them with that as well. I believe the Obligation chart can be very useful to new players who are learning what RPGs are about but ultimately, let the players decide what is wrong with their characters (or at least who they are running from). I can appreciate what FFL is trying to do here, I just think it is forced as a game mechanic, which seems counter intuitive to what they were ultimately trying to achieve.

And yes, I do play DnD, extensively And yes, I have players generate backstories for their characters, highlighting the good the bad and the ugly of their characters. I digest all of that and spring flaws from those concepts into my games at very inopportune times and it adds decidedly to the flavor of the game. "Obligation" is something that has been around for gaming generations and experienced gamers (or even gamers with active imaginations) can crank out "obligation" at the drop of a hat.

Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of EOE but my players love it so I do my best to run them through and they love all the adventures I have brought them through. Truthfully, I have made an effort over my initial post of just slapping 2 strain on the players and it has provided some fun at the table but I do believe "obligation" can be achieved without all the mechanics FFL has integrated into the game. My 2 cents for what its worth.

And your post hits directly on why I do not like the obligation part of the game. As you say, and FFL says repeatedly, this is a "narrative based game" which puzzles me because I feel the obligation chart "forces" (for lack of a better SW term ) players into developing certain drawbacks for their characters- essentially tells them why they are flawed. I believe, if the true spirit of this game is "narrative" based, then players should do that themselves during character creation and generation. Experienced GMs can assist them with that as well. I believe the Obligation chart can be very useful to new players who are learning what RPGs are about but ultimately, let the players decide what is wrong with their characters (or at least who they are running from). I can appreciate what FFL is trying to do here, I just think it is forced as a game mechanic, which seems counter intuitive to what they were ultimately trying to achieve.

The players should be the ones choosing their obligation. And the examples given in the book are just examples and suggestions. Ultimately, this process should be between the players and the GM to help create a more interesting character with appropriate flaws that can be used as story hooks. The result should be something that should be fun for everyone to play, both when things are going good, and when things are not.

IMO, if you’re not doing that, then you’re doing it wrong.

The game mechanics should be there to help the story along, and if they don’t do that, then you should find other ways to enhance and move the story along.

EDIT: Now, when it comes out to giving additional obligation, again that should be a discussion between the players and the GM. And again, it should be built around the story.

And your post hits directly on why I do not like the obligation part of the game. As you say, and FFL says repeatedly, this is a "narrative based game" which puzzles me because I feel the obligation chart "forces" (for lack of a better SW term ) players into developing certain drawbacks for their characters- essentially tells them why they are flawed. I believe, if the true spirit of this game is "narrative" based, then players should do that themselves during character creation and generation. Experienced GMs can assist them with that as well. I believe the Obligation chart can be very useful to new players who are learning what RPGs are about but ultimately, let the players decide what is wrong with their characters (or at least who they are running from). I can appreciate what FFL is trying to do here, I just think it is forced as a game mechanic, which seems counter intuitive to what they were ultimately trying to achieve.

The players should be the ones choosing their obligation. And the examples given in the book are just examples and suggestions. Ultimately, this process should be between the players and the GM to help create a more interesting character with appropriate flaws that can be used as story hooks. The result should be something that should be fun for everyone to play, both when things are going good, and when things are not.

IMO, if you’re not doing that, then you’re doing it wrong.

The game mechanics should be there to help the story along, and if they don’t do that, then you should find other ways to enhance and move the story along.

I agree with you 100%. I just think the way the rules present it can be burdensome- and lead to situations like Zakain is encountering, where players are doing everything they can to skirt around "obligation". In a real world universe that this game is supposed to be simulating, that wouldn't be possible, but, as he or she (Zakain) the players are being wily and creative skirting around the rules of obligation. Metagaming? perhaps but as you say, it does detract from the spirit of EOE- a game in which the focus is on the shadier elements of the SW universe. Ultimately, Im willing to bet that Jabba himself owes some obligation somewhere.

My sole character- an archaeologist who is burdened by a guilty past and likes to imbibe in an alcoholic drink (addiction). These are obligations that I have chosen given his backstory. How could he ever truly be "free" of that obligation? Say he attended therapy during pc downtime, he would still be tempted whilst on the campaign trail. Still would take a strain penalty at some point.

To be truly effective, I think Obligation needs to be a fluid concept, not an end of the road concept. Where one obligation ends, a new one begins (or could begin). Obligation should change and grow as the character changes and grows.

Thank you to everyone chiming in, it's given me a lot to think about. Hopefully next weeks game works out better.

Thank you to everyone chiming in, it's given me a lot to think about. Hopefully next weeks game works out better.

My sole character- an archaeologist who is burdened by a guilty past and likes to imbibe in an alcoholic drink (addiction). These are obligations that I have chosen given his backstory. How could he ever truly be "free" of that obligation? Say he attended therapy during pc downtime, he would still be tempted whilst on the campaign trail. Still would take a strain penalty at some point.

To be truly effective, I think Obligation needs to be a fluid concept, not an end of the road concept. Where one obligation ends, a new one begins (or could begin). Obligation should change and grow as the character changes and grows.

That is one of the key concepts of the Obigtion system and EOTE in general is that a character can never truly be "Free". While it is true and neccescary that Obligation be fluid and changing, something else will always come up that weighs on the character's mind.

Take Han for instance, He prior to ANH, he has an obligation to Jabba to carry spice. As he was forced to space the cargo, this changed to a Debt, which between ANH and ESB turns into a Bounty as he apparently never paid Jabba with the money that Leia and the Rebellion gave him. With Jabba's death in RotJ, these were permenantly satisfied, and for a time (off screen) he really did not have an "Active" obligation, but a more passive one like Adrenaline Junkie or something that being in the Rebllion/ Republic could satisfy for a while. With Ben Solo, killing Luke's training class, Han snapped and went back to his old ways, but this time in addition to debt he also has a low family obligation.

Compare this to Chewie, who pretty much has a "Life Debt" Obligation to Han which spreads to encompass Leia and Luke in ESB and RoTJ, then Rey in TFA

And your post hits directly on why I do not like the obligation part of the game. As you say, and FFL says repeatedly, this is a "narrative based game" which puzzles me because I feel the obligation chart "forces" (for lack of a better SW term ) players into developing certain drawbacks for their characters- essentially tells them why they are flawed. I believe, if the true spirit of this game is "narrative" based, then players should do that themselves during character creation and generation. Experienced GMs can assist them with that as well. I believe the Obligation chart can be very useful to new players who are learning what RPGs are about but ultimately, let the players decide what is wrong with their characters (or at least who they are running from). I can appreciate what FFL is trying to do here, I just think it is forced as a game mechanic, which seems counter intuitive to what they were ultimately trying to achieve.

The players should be the ones choosing their obligation. And the examples given in the book are just examples and suggestions. Ultimately, this process should be between the players and the GM to help create a more interesting character with appropriate flaws that can be used as story hooks. The result should be something that should be fun for everyone to play, both when things are going good, and when things are not.

IMO, if you’re not doing that, then you’re doing it wrong.

The game mechanics should be there to help the story along, and if they don’t do that, then you should find other ways to enhance and move the story along.

I agree with you 100%. I just think the way the rules present it can be burdensome- and lead to situations like Zakain is encountering, where players are doing everything they can to skirt around "obligation". In a real world universe that this game is supposed to be simulating, that wouldn't be possible, but, as he or she (Zakain) the players are being wily and creative skirting around the rules of obligation. Metagaming? perhaps but as you say, it does detract from the spirit of EOE- a game in which the focus is on the shadier elements of the SW universe. Ultimately, Im willing to bet that Jabba himself owes some obligation somewhere.

My sole character- an archaeologist who is burdened by a guilty past and likes to imbibe in an alcoholic drink (addiction). These are obligations that I have chosen given his backstory. How could he ever truly be "free" of that obligation? Say he attended therapy during pc downtime, he would still be tempted whilst on the campaign trail. Still would take a strain penalty at some point.

To be truly effective, I think Obligation needs to be a fluid concept, not an end of the road concept. Where one obligation ends, a new one begins (or could begin). Obligation should change and grow as the character changes and grows.

I think to some degree that is why Brad says you are doing it wrong. Obligation is supposed to be a fluid concept. It is supposed to change and evolve over time. It isnt supposed to be some static thing. But the flip side of that is the unless you want it to. Your alcoholic is a good example. Why would you want to lose the addition obligation? Why do you feel the need to? Having it as a continuing problem is a good thing. That doesnt mean you should be permanently stuck with it tho. Maybe you fix the underlying problems and buy it off. That process should lead to some situation where you find a cause/ make an enemy/ get a dependent or whatever.

Obligation is supposed to be fluid. That is what Zakain's players arent getting

Thank you to everyone chiming in, it's given me a lot to think about. Hopefully next weeks game works out better.

I had few sessions where Obligation wasn't being worked off and accrued every session. If you just sit on it like a mechanical anchor it will be a drag. If you use it as the numerical representation of the group's vicissitudes as they make their way in the galaxy it breathes better.

Avoidance behavior is pretty typical gamer behavior. When I sense players engaging in it, I'll suggest that their characters should probably do something interesting for the sake of the game.

That said, I never really thought to hand out Obligation in game. I typically use it as a character motivation piece rather than as a punishment. The exception is if the characters are well and truly stuck in a situation and can't think of a way out - they're imprisoned, their ship is stranded, they desperately need money - then new Obligation of the debt variety comes into play. It's more of a 'Get Out of Jail with a Debt' card, than a cudgel I use to punish player choice.

And your post hits directly on why I do not like the obligation part of the game. As you say, and FFL says repeatedly, this is a "narrative based game" which puzzles me because I feel the obligation chart "forces" (for lack of a better SW term ) players into developing certain drawbacks for their characters- essentially tells them why they are flawed. I believe, if the true spirit of this game is "narrative" based, then players should do that themselves during character creation and generation. Experienced GMs can assist them with that as well. I believe the Obligation chart can be very useful to new players who are learning what RPGs are about but ultimately, let the players decide what is wrong with their characters (or at least who they are running from). I can appreciate what FFL is trying to do here, I just think it is forced as a game mechanic, which seems counter intuitive to what they were ultimately trying to achieve.

The players should be the ones choosing their obligation. And the examples given in the book are just examples and suggestions. Ultimately, this process should be between the players and the GM to help create a more interesting character with appropriate flaws that can be used as story hooks. The result should be something that should be fun for everyone to play, both when things are going good, and when things are not.

IMO, if you’re not doing that, then you’re doing it wrong.

The game mechanics should be there to help the story along, and if they don’t do that, then you should find other ways to enhance and move the story along.

I agree with you 100%. I just think the way the rules present it can be burdensome- and lead to situations like Zakain is encountering, where players are doing everything they can to skirt around "obligation". In a real world universe that this game is supposed to be simulating, that wouldn't be possible, but, as he or she (Zakain) the players are being wily and creative skirting around the rules of obligation. Metagaming? perhaps but as you say, it does detract from the spirit of EOE- a game in which the focus is on the shadier elements of the SW universe. Ultimately, Im willing to bet that Jabba himself owes some obligation somewhere.

My sole character- an archaeologist who is burdened by a guilty past and likes to imbibe in an alcoholic drink (addiction). These are obligations that I have chosen given his backstory. How could he ever truly be "free" of that obligation? Say he attended therapy during pc downtime, he would still be tempted whilst on the campaign trail. Still would take a strain penalty at some point.

To be truly effective, I think Obligation needs to be a fluid concept, not an end of the road concept. Where one obligation ends, a new one begins (or could begin). Obligation should change and grow as the character changes and grows.

Your alcoholic is a good example. Why would you want to lose the addition obligation? Why do you feel the need to?

Agreed- I don't want to lose it either as it creates Ryxmer's identity. But there are some obligations like "debt" etc that I believe can have a beginning and an end whereas you have something like addiction which is more of an outright flaw- there is a difference to me. Heck, obligation can be a positive thing- there have been many situations where my character is having a jawa juice and then some criminal or what not starts a talk with him and it becomes a job. Heck I can even see Han having a drink at the Cantina when he runs into some other guys who owe Jabba and they get to talking about ways to buy themselves more time and avoiding an unpleasant "disintegration"

Thank you to everyone chiming in, it's given me a lot to think about. Hopefully next weeks game works out better.

Cheers to that and to all who replied. I just want to go on the record and say that I think we all are in agreement in how we understand and implement Obligation. With my group we have a somewhat limited amount of time to game and to take off on even moderately intensive Roleplaying around an obligation trigger can be done but at the cost of actual gaming time. When Obligation triggers in my game, I spend about 2-3 minutes thinking of how to work it into the story arc for the night. If it doesn't fit well, I just slap the 2 strain on and move on. Ideal? No, but it works given the constraints of my group and our time together. All in all, I would say I have been able to spring obligation about half the time and then the other half of the time it is take 2 strain and drive on.

My bigger point is that while I appreciate what FFL tried to do with the Obligation system, I don't particularly like the overall mechanics of the system- do I have a creative solution? No, my job is to just post criticism on Forums! :) I think the way the system is presented now would work better for an adventure rather than on a session by session basis. Sometimes obligation can trigger and it is fun to build up to it playing out- may take more than a session to do that.

The group stole a light freighter starship and killed the crew. This happens in the middle of nowhere. How much Obligation should I give them given the fact the their port of departure was a very small underground-underworld city in the Outer Rim?

They flipped Destiny point afterwards to have the crew not connected with any big organization. So maybe some friends of the former crew will recognize the starship´s ID at some point or someone from that town will remember that the new crw left with the old crew from that town.

I think that the Obligation can be lowered after they change the starship´s ID (transponder´s), but it should be forever as the crew was murdered (lower it to pernament 1 point due to the facts listed above?). Any advice appreciated.

The group stole a light freighter starship and killed the crew. This happens in the middle of nowhere. How much Obligation should I give them given the fact the their port of departure was a very small underground-underworld city in the Outer Rim?

They flipped Destiny point afterwards to have the crew not connected with any big organization. So maybe some friends of the former crew will recognize the starship´s ID at some point or someone from that town will remember that the new crw left with the old crew from that town.

I think that the Obligation can be lowered after they change the starship´s ID (transponder´s), but it should be forever as the crew was murdered (lower it to pernament 1 point due to the facts listed above?). Any advice appreciated.

The group stole a light freighter starship and killed the crew. This happens in the middle of nowhere. How much Obligation should I give them given the fact the their port of departure was a very small underground-underworld city in the Outer Rim?

They flipped Destiny point afterwards to have the crew not connected with any big organization. So maybe some friends of the former crew will recognize the starship´s ID at some point or someone from that town will remember that the new crw left with the old crew from that town.

I think that the Obligation can be lowered after they change the starship´s ID (transponder´s), but it should be forever as the crew was murdered (lower it to pernament 1 point due to the facts listed above?). Any advice appreciated.

Did they accept Obligation? For example, did they get somebody to help them disguise the ship or something? If not, then Obligation isn't appropriate. What they have instead is a complication to their current story or a new story entirely. Obligation is a currency, and while it causes complications, not every complication should be represented as Obligation.

No, we havent discussed the transponder issue yet.

So you say that you dont get Obligation just for the criminal act itself? At the end of the JoY book says that the PCs receive the Bounty Hunter Obligation for the theft of the jewel. My idea came from this example.

The example given in JoY is rubbish. Obligation is a meta-currency that the players get to spend. In exchange for favors, they accept complications. Complications that come about as the direct results of their actions are not Obligation--they are the story.

They can take on Obligation to suppress active complications. An example might be if they agree to take on an appropriate Obligation to buy the silence of the locals of the starport they were last seen before the shipjacking. The other example would be taking on an appropriate Obligation to get an outlaw tech to disguise the stolen ship.

The example given in JoY is rubbish. Obligation is a meta-currency that the players get to spend. In exchange for favors, they accept complications. Complications that come about as the direct results of their actions are not Obligation--they are the story.

They can take on Obligation to suppress active complications. An example might be if they agree to take on an appropriate Obligation to buy the silence of the locals of the starport they were last seen before the shipjacking. The other example would be taking on an appropriate Obligation to get an outlaw tech to disguise the stolen ship.

So instead of letting the Obligation from the JoY to decide when they are going to meet the bounty hunters going after them, this decision should rest fully in the GMs hand and let´s say happen when they roll a Despair in some situation that would warrant the appeareance of the BH?