26 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Don't want to derail this thread, but this sounds like a failure of the GMs (letting the PC roll the d10 when they haven't been in adequate Moral quandaries), not the Morality mechanic.

IIRC the rules state that as long as there was the possibility of gaining Conflict then a Morality roll at the end of the session should be made.

Going with the RAW, that means a single dark side point used with a Force Power is enough to get a Morality roll.

Beyond that, there's no clear definition of what is considered "adequate moral quandries", nor are they a requirement for the Morality roll.

22 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

IIRC the rules state that as long as there was the possibility of gaining Conflict then a Morality roll at the end of the session should be made.

Going with the RAW, that means a single dark side point used with a Force Power is enough to get a Morality roll.

Beyond that, there's no clear definition of what is considered "adequate moral quandries", nor are they a requirement for the Morality roll.

Yep. As long as they actually participate in the adventure, and therefore have the opportunity to potentially gain Conflict, they roll Morality. If they do nothing the entire session, either from being absent, or their characters being “unavailable”, or otherwise “indisposed”, then they don’t roll Conflict.

Staying in the background sounds like, not making any decisions, to me.

But yes, we've all heard the argument ("He passed dozens of people on the street today and didn't kill one! He deserves a Morality roll!"), if you don't want to employ common sense using the rules, of course they will work less effectively.

But it's also RAW that the GM is the adjudicator and interpreter of rules, so playing dumb and saying that, "Morality doesn't work." when you don't try to use it mindfully, is not a valid argument in my book.

9 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Staying in the background sounds like, not making any decisions, to me.

But yes, we've all heard the argument ("He passed dozens of people on the street today and didn't kill one! He deserves a Morality roll!"), if you don't want to employ common sense using the rules, of course they will work less effectively.

But it's also RAW that the GM is the adjudicator and interpreter of rules, so playing dumb and saying that, "Morality doesn't work." when you don't try to use it mindfully, is not a valid argument in my book.

Well, if they don’t do anything at all, not even act, then you’re correct, no Morality roll is warranted. However, if they take any action, use any Force powers, etc. then they should get a roll.

43 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, if they don’t do anything at all, not even act, then you’re correct, no Morality roll is warranted. However, if they take any action, use any Force powers, etc. then they should get a roll.

Yes, and if a player says they use a Destiny Point to have a TIE fighter crash into the BBEG, you have to allow that too.

3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Donovan, I read your last several posts, and this is the only thing of value that I got out of them. Pity you saved this message for last. Perhaps starting future responses from this point would be best.

Pot. meet kettle.

So baring the snide and worthless (as is typical) remarks from the peanut gallery that come just shy of being an out and out personal attack...

Quote

But yes, we've all heard the argument ("He passed dozens of people on the street today and didn't kill one! He deserves a Morality roll!"), if you don't want to employ common sense using the rules, of course they will work less effectively.

But it's also RAW that the GM is the adjudicator and interpreter of rules, so playing dumb and saying that, "Morality doesn't work." when you don't try to use it mindfully, is not a valid argument in my book.

@emsquared has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Most of the alleged "flaws" with the Morality system boil down to the GM and player not really trying to engage with it, or players instead trying to metagame it to get a certain result, be it Light Side Paragon or full-on Dark Sider.

Interestingly, Unlimited Power has a bit to say on the design intent of Morality, as I've stated in other threads, it's a tool that requires both player and GM to work together in making it work, as opposed to the narrative stick that is Obligation or narrative carrot that is Duty. It's also designed so that getting to either extreme (when the system is engaged properly) isn't a cakewalk.

In regards to getting to Light Side Paragon, the GM should be putting meaningful choices in their game so that if the PCs do the right thing (avoid Conflict), accomplishing their goals are more difficult, but the reward is the dice roll is generally going to push them closer to a Morality of 71+. If they also happened to generate a lot of Conflict by using dark side pips to fuel their Force usage, then the character isn't exactly "at peace" with the galaxy or the Force, and thus probably won't gain as much Morality even if they made the right choices and avoided Conflict for their actions. Sadly, it's not spelled out in the book (and probably needed to be), but if the player doesn't make any choices where earning Conflict is a very likely result, then they shouldn't be rolling for Morality to begin with, even if they did earn Conflict from using the dark side, which is likely where the majority of the "sleepwalking to LS Paragon" issues stem from.

For Dark Siders, the game makes a deliberate choice to make it so "accidental dark side fall" is completely averted, as the player needs to take deliberate actions to have their character fall. Per the RAW, the GM is supposed to inform the player "hey, if you do this you're gonna earn Conflict," which reinforces that falling to the dark side is something that is deliberate. And if the GM doesn't include situations to allow a player who wants their character to go full-on dark sider, that's a fault of the GM for fully engaging the Morality system. Then again, not every GM is keen on having dark side players, and the section in Unlimited Power goes out to say that the GM is within their rights to forbid dark side PCs at their game, up to and including having said PC become an NPC; this comes with the caveat that the GM should inform the table of this decision at the outset of the campaign, but then a good GM is transparent with their players about what the intent of the campaign is and what is and isn't allowed.

Granted, it's more difficult in this system than in prior Star Wars RPGs to fall to the dark side, but that's a deliberate design choice on the part of the designers as their general intent is that in a Star Wars RPG, the PCs are playing the good guys, and in F&D more often than not the players are going to take their cues from the Jedi on how to act. Of course, if the player is really gung ho to play a dark sider, there's a starting Morality option to let them start as a dark sider right out of the gate without really having to bother with those pesky Conflict awards or Morality die roll. Same option exists in reverse for PCs that want to start out as a Light Side Paragon, making the progression to ultimate goodie-good that much easier.

6 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Yes, and if a player says they use a Destiny Point to have a TIE fighter crash into the BBEG, you have to allow that too.

Quite true

On 6/3/2018 at 6:49 PM, Donovan Morningfire said:

1. Most of the alleged "flaws" with the Morality system boil down to the GM and player not really trying to engage with it, or players instead trying to metagame it to get a certain result, be it Light Side Paragon or full-on Dark Sider.

Interestingly, Unlimited Power has a bit to say on the design intent of Morality, as I've stated in other threads, it's a tool that requires both player and GM to work together in making it work, as opposed to the narrative stick that is Obligation or narrative carrot that is Duty. It's also designed so that getting to either extreme (when the system is engaged properly) isn't a cakewalk.

2. In regards to getting to Light Side Paragon, the GM should be putting meaningful choices in their game so that if the PCs do the right thing (avoid Conflict), accomplishing their goals are more difficult, but the reward is the dice roll is generally going to push them closer to a Morality of 71+. If they also happened to generate a lot of Conflict by using dark side pips to fuel their Force usage, then the character isn't exactly "at peace" with the galaxy or the Force, and thus probably won't gain as much Morality even if they made the right choices and avoided Conflict for their actions. Sadly, it's not spelled out in the book (and probably needed to be), but if the player doesn't make any choices where earning Conflict is a very likely result, then they shouldn't be rolling for Morality to begin with, even if they did earn Conflict from using the dark side, which is likely where the majority of the "sleepwalking to LS Paragon" issues stem from.

3. For Dark Siders, the game makes a deliberate choice to make it so "accidental dark side fall" is completely averted, as the player needs to take deliberate actions to have their character fall. Per the RAW, the GM is supposed to inform the player "hey, if you do this you're gonna earn Conflict," which reinforces that falling to the dark side is something that is deliberate. And if the GM doesn't include situations to allow a player who wants their character to go full-on dark sider, that's a fault of the GM for fully engaging the Morality system. Then again, not every GM is keen on having dark side players, and the section in Unlimited Power goes out to say that the GM is within their rights to forbid dark side PCs at their game, up to and including having said PC become an NPC; this comes with the caveat that the GM should inform the table of this decision at the outset of the campaign, but then a good GM is transparent with their players about what the intent of the campaign is and what is and isn't allowed.

Granted, it's more difficult in this system than in prior Star Wars RPGs to fall to the dark side, but that's a deliberate design choice on the part of the designers as their general intent is that in a Star Wars RPG, the PCs are playing the good guys, and in F&D more often than not the players are going to take their cues from the Jedi on how to act. Of course, if the player is really gung ho to play a dark sider, there's a starting Morality option to let them start as a dark sider right out of the gate without really having to bother with those pesky Conflict awards or Morality die roll. Same option exists in reverse for PCs that want to start out as a Light Side Paragon, making the progression to ultimate goodie-good that much easier.

I think my views have shifted a little, having spent a couple days to think it over.

1. Maybe I see it differently, Morality seems to be designed to metagame. The entire purpose is for the player to be empowered to tell the story they want to tell with their Force User, which means deliberate choice to pursue Light or Dark. They even setup benefits for obtaining either extreme on the Morality scale to further the idea of making that choice. However, more often than not, players get hung up on Conflict being a penalty. That isn't to say those players specifically are looking to be a "good" only Jedi, they often claim they will do whatever they need to for survival but when push comes to shove, they shy away from Conflict like it's someone with the flu. Maybe that's the fault of the players but I think the system as-is talks a great game about being able to pursue either pathway but the mechanics themselves penalize them for wanting to tell the story of a Jedi falling to the Dark Side.

I'd love to get a look at the new content from the book regarding running games with Dark Side characters and I have heard mention that they offer alternative options in running Morality (such as just giving a positive/negative number without actually having a roll). Maybe I'll pick it up sometime soon.

2. I do put meaningful choices in the way, part of what I was talking about before when you mentioned the "scripted events" of games like KotOR. Sometimes I don't even have to present these situations because the players create the situations through their choices in-game.

The RAW only requires that the possibility of earning Conflict happens in a session, meaning a player need not even earn 1 point of Conflict to get a Morality roll, at which point it would be all positive. In 5 sessions of a campaign I've already had a player reach Paragon who didn't really even intend to go full Light Side but because they didn't do enough "puppy kicking" to level out, that's where they are right now.

3. I think it goes well beyond that. Accidental falling I can see as a problem but intentionally falling requires a lot of d-bag choices. When I look at characters like Asajj Ventress, especially in later seasons of Clone Wars, she was still using the Dark Side but she wasn't consumed by it and murdering people just to fuel her anger. That kind of character choice is next to impossible in this game I'm coming to find.

I can see where my houserule would make intentionally falling even more challenging in some respects, which is the last thing I would want to do. I want to actually do what the game intends, to empower the player to tell the story they want to tell with their Force User.

With that I think it best that I just ditch the Morality system altogether and leave the "Light Side" and "Dark Side" status to a significantly dramatic and powerful choice that the character makes in-game. That would keep it more in line with the franchise I think, because when you look at Luke, for instance, he is on the verge of falling to the Dark Side when he makes his triumphant and powerful stand, declaring himself a Jedi and casting aside his weapon. When you look at the Clone Wars, the Jedi were doing some pretty dark stuff in the name of the Republic and yet they still weren't "full Dark Side" d-bags. Then there's the aforementioned example of Asajj Ventress, who was Dark but was kind of leaning towards the Light without fully tipping over to it in the Clone Wars.

Regarding Asajj Ventress, we only met her after she'd fallen to the dark side, so she's not an example of someone that fell during the course of the series (comic book or TV). Going by her Legends history, she did some pretty unpleasant things (up to and including out and out murder) prior to her introduction, and as a character she didn't hesitate to use those dark side pips on her Force dice, thus generating more Conflict (since even as a dark sider, using black pips generates Conflict for the character). She'd be an example of a Knight Level PC that chose to start with a 29 Morality.

Same can be said of Kylo Ren, who when we meet him he's already gone dark sider, though he's not yet fully committed to the dark side until he murders Han, an act which may well have earned Kylo enough Conflict to immediately push him into the single digits for Morality. Side Note : Unlimited Power does suggest that the GM can choose to completely forgo the Morality dice roll for certain acts, and directly modify the character's Morality on the spot if they feel the situation warrants it, whether positively (sacrificing your life to save your defenseless son from being electrocuted) or negatively (stabbing your defenseless father in the heart after luring him into a false sense of safety).

If anything, Anakin Skywalker is probably a better example of a gradual decline to the dark side, especially if you take the Clone Wars series into account (which due to having multiple seasons to cover the three year time frame allows them to delve more into Anakin's character than the movies' far more limited time frame would permit). But even in AotC, you see signs of Anakin's slide to the dark side, which also helps to highlight how blind the Jedi Order was to the threat of the dark side, as their own Chosen One was coming closer and closer to falling and yet they remained either oblivious to that risk or simply didn't have the proper means to address the issue due to their insular/detached nature. Yoda might have had the wisdom to help Anakin, but he was too obsessed on the big picture to see just how close to the edge Anakin already was at that point.

In game terms, he doesn't just commit one big act that plunges him into the dark side, though the massacre of the Tusken clan in AotC and execution of a literally defenseless Dooku both certainly put a serious dent in his Morality score, but he's also constantly using those black pips to fuel his Force usage, as well as doing a number of other questionable things (such routinely as acting out of anger and/or frustration) that over time add up until he just needed that one final push from Palps to make him finally dip below 30 on the Morality score and go dark side.

2 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

1.  ... The entire purpose is for the p  layer to be empowered to tell the story they want t  o tell with their Force User, which means deliber  ate choice t  o   pursue Light or Dark. 

Yes. A thousand times, yes. Finally. Yes.

This is why I talk all the time about adhering to RAW, and warning the PC when they're about to do something that will cause Conflict. This is why I talk all the time about how important it is to have initial, and continuing, discussions to get player buy-in. To get the players engage with the mechanic - to tell their story. To have them tell me when they think their PC could be feeling or doing something to earn Conflict. To "monitor" their Moral Strength/Weakness. All so that they have (the majority of the) control.

It still bothers me how hung up you seem to be/people get on "the book says 1 roll per session so I have to do 1 roll per session", even tho they can do math and know exactly what the result of that is (the average die result is 5.5), but then say, "well because the book says that thing about 1 session, I can't do anything different".

Yes. You can. The book says you can. So just fix it, IF that's the appropriate tone for your game (PCs truly struggling against "Jedi" Morality). And only allow a roll when an appropriate number of choices (5-6, minimum) have had to be made.

This can include Force Power rolls, Fear checks, and of course narrative choices.

If you talk to your players to get buy-in on engaging the system, and they still treat Conflict like it's hurting their PC even when they don't "want" to be Light, just emphasize the fact of what that result will be when they're making the choice. Make that into a "meta-warning" policy too. "Really, you're not gonna use that dark pip? Obi Wan, Yoda, Luke - all used Dark pips from time to time. It doesn't mean you're evil, it just means you're not yet powerful enough in the Force to have it do what you want all the time, without getting emotional about it."

1 hour ago, emsquared said:

Yes. A thousand times, yes. Finally. Yes.

This is why I talk all the time about adhering to RAW, and warning the PC when they're about to do something that will cause Conflict. This is why I talk all the time about how important it is to have initial, and continuing, discussions to get player buy-in. To get the players engage with the mechanic - to tell their story. To have them tell me when they think their PC could be feeling or doing something to earn Conflict. To "monitor" their Moral Strength/Weakness. All so that they have (the majority of the) control.

It still bothers me how hung up you seem to be/people get on "the book says 1 roll per session so I have to do 1 roll per session", even tho they can do math and know exactly what the result of that is (the average die result is 5.5), but then say, "well because the book says that thing about 1 session, I can't do anything different".

Yes. You can. The book says you can. So just fix it, IF that's the appropriate tone for your game (PCs truly struggling against "Jedi" Morality). And only allow a roll when an appropriate number of choices (5-6, minimum) have had to be made.

This can include Force Power rolls, Fear checks, and of course narrative choices.

If you talk to your players to get buy-in on engaging the system, and they still treat Conflict like it's hurting their PC even when they don't "want" to be Light, just emphasize the fact of what that result will be when they're making the choice. Make that into a "meta-warning" policy too. "Really, you're not gonna use that dark pip? Obi Wan, Yoda, Luke - all used Dark pips from time to time. It doesn't mean you're evil, it just means you're not yet powerful enough in the Force to have it do what you want all the time, without getting emotional about it."

I have said what you quoted in many previous posts, probably not in this specific topic but in others, so that's no new revelation for me. I think the biggest issue is that as much as I explain the reason behind the Morality mechanic, never once has a player fully engaged it like it's often spoken about on the forums. Nobody ever cares that much about using the mechanic to the full, they mostly just get stuck worrying about taking Conflict points or flipping Destiny Points to use the Dark Side. They are too worried about penalties. I have a player that didn't want to go full light hit full light due to the fear of Conflict points. I had a player that wanted to fall for story reasons never make choices that would drop their Morality because of the warnings I was required to give them scaring them off. I get what needs to happen for the game mechanic to work, which is the buy-in and cooperation of GM and Player. It unfortunately just doesn't happen in the case of 35+ players and 2 and a half years of GMing.

I could spend a lot more time trying to make a "fix" for Morality that I'd be happy with, effectively writing up an entirely new mechanic but I think since the game already considers you to basically play light side or get penalized (and it is a huge mechanical penalty no matter how the rulebooks describe it as being "awarded" conflict), it might be best to just go with that thought and remove the tracking of exactly how light or dark a character is.

I believe it was mentioned previously in this topic (or maybe it was the one about antihero PCs) that "you know a dark sider when you see one". We'll just go with that. If a player opts to obtain a new power over saving his allies or agrees to have a Sith train him, that pretty much is a declaration of their intent to fall. Conversely, making a sacrificial play or putting the needs of others above their own at great personal cost is pretty evocative of a Jedi Knight. Until they have their big narrative moment, they can be considered a character that intends to do good and we don't need to get hung up on the punishment Morality system.

I know you know my stance on/approach to F&D's Morality, GG.

I apologize, but frankly the bulk of that comment, as many of my comments are in threads like these, and at a stage in its thread-life like this one is, are made as much or more for the benefit of the community/anyone who might come to this thread looking for some sort of guidance, rather than necessarily yours.

Everything you identify as the system's failings tho just scream of a failure to ever actually get buy-in and subsequent failure to mindfully implement the mechanic. Not the mechanic. It seems like you have basic philosophical disagreements with the mechanic too, which could have lead to half-hearted (or less?) attempts at using it as intended? Just conjecture, but you hold more contempt for it than curiosity. A failure of the RAW guidance? Perhaps that too.

I know those are the problems you identify, you know I say what I've just said. Somehow we've managed to have diametrically opposed experiences with the mechanic.

None-the-less I think it is important to be mindful of the value of both "sides" being represented in such a discussion. Even if it has no value to you, as an individual.

I think it's that after having tried hard to sell the mechanic and never getting the buy in from players, I thought I could adjust it to fit the playstyle that players take and looked to change the mechanic. I asked for help regarding adjusting it and while, yes, there have been a few ideas thrown out, those suggestions were kind of tacked onto posts that were mainly about tearing down my idea and why the RAW is superior.

Probably a mistake to ask for houserule help on the forums, that's on me for expecting a different outcome.

The building contempt is why I've come to the decision today to just throw it out entirely, because it just really doesn't work in my experience. Ymmv, obviously it does for most, it just never worked out in my case. Maybe that's a failure on my part to reach the players with how I explain the mechanic or a failure on them to engage it. It just seems that when we get into game, the costs are too high to consider dark side use and it's too easy to earn a Morality roll. The mechanical penalty really discourages players from telling any story but that of a light side paragon and so they play safe because they fear the Conflict/Destiny/Strain costs. Even the ones that want to fall to the dark side. And if they wanted to play dark side, they'd have to be outright dbag players to do so, which nobody that's sane wants to be.

While I understand there is other sides as far as the current discussion, it was never meant to turn into this. If you read my OP I specifically asked for suggestions on how to improve my houserule, not a discussion of whether I should use the RAW or not. Again, my mistake for asking for anything but RAW on this forum.

In one game we struggled with the concept for probably over 12 months, and it is only now getting embraced in play. I think it is partially related to the baggage that many players have from the fact that historically RPGs are often players vs GM scenario, whereas ideally we should embrace players + GM creating story, and not be afraid of morality.

Maybe the best approach is that rather than trying to bash the Morality mechanic into working for players that don't want to engage with it, is to just simply deep-six the whole thing.

Keep the Emotional Strength/Weakness as role-playing hooks, with an XP bonus to players who legitimately play to them, much like playing to one's Motivation earns bonus XP. But other than that, just go back to how EotE and AoR handled it, in that using black pips generates strain and you have to flip a Destiny Point. This way, you can also decide as the GM when a PC has taken a sufficiently dark action to warrant becoming a dark sider, and when they've done something noble/heroic/selfless enough to warrant redemption from the dark side (pro tip: don't fall down the trap that the 90's EU had where redemption from the dark side was almost casually easy with minimal repercussions, else you cheapen the experience).

A few folks have done just that, running F&D without using Morality, and the game's worked just fine, since the only thing missing is an element that neither GM or player really wanted to deal with.

6 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Maybe the best approach is that rather than trying to bash the Morality mechanic into working for players that don't want to engage with it, is to just simply deep-six the whole thing.

Yep that's what I decided to do for my game table yesterday. I like the idea of keeping the Moral Strength/Weakness around as RP hooks and it makes sense to do so. Thanks for the suggestion!

2 hours ago, Darzil said:

In one game we struggled with the concept for probably over 12 months, and it is only now getting embraced in play. I think it is partially related to the baggage that many players have from the fact that historically RPGs are often players vs GM scenario, whereas ideally we should embrace players + GM creating story, and not be afraid of morality.

Yeah, I've run into this more than a few times with old guard RPG players, who through their experiences have come to see the GM as more the adversary presenting challenges to be overcome rather than a partner in telling a co-operative story.

Then again, seeing as how Gygax (one of the founding fathers of the hobby) could himself be a very adversarial GM (you kind of have to be come up with something like the Tomb of Horrors), maybe that's not too surprising.

Our first campaign (mixed EotE and F&D, lasted maybe 3-4 months), we barely used Morality.

Mainly Conflict just came from Force Power use. This was facilitated by everyone's relation to Destiny. Our table ravenously threw those things around, seemingly nearly every check - often it was very retaliatory/adversarial "You're gonna flip on me? Well I'm gonna flip on you!" - so this is an interesting difference to me. Destiny has never been a valuable resource to our table, but rather a constant tool - a pawn, a low value game-piece ever in-play.

But also - since we/the GM didn't understand yet how to effectively implement the narrative Morality elements, ie as the easy vs. hard-path choice (and really, conceptualizing/framing Morality implementation in these terms was a revelation that I/our table had in just the past year, that really made Morality take-off for us) - we incorporated it into our RP. That came easy. You see the Conflict in Anakin/Luke/etc. in the media when they're pissed or fearful. The player feels when they're getting upset, and translated that to their PC. So it naturally was integrated by the player into their RP. "Oh man, my guy's getting pissed. I should probably take some Conflict/can I roll a Discipline check to see if I take Conflict?" So the lack of great RAW guidance lead us to make it our own.

Ultimately, I totally get how the Morality "metric" doesn't work for some. It does create a nuanced amount of "work"/necessitate a thought process that is otherwise generally not ever needed in an rpg, and that is a significant hurdle to regular use. But "large good/evil actions" are very ingrained in most rpers via Alignment/D&D. "Oh man, that bandit had surrendered. Your Pally just murdered him..." Most of us are "trained" to know evil when we see it, it requires no extra work/or thought. And really, in the Star Wars canon, it's generally one big choice that causes a fall to the Darkside (or ascension to Paragon), so this D&D training fits well into the Star Wars conception too.

I think it's a good choice for your table - and any table that cannot make the vanilla metric mechanic work - to handle it 100% narratively.

6 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Maybe the best approach is that rather than trying to bash the Morality mechanic into working for players that don't want to engage with it, is to just simply deep-six the whole thing...

This is basically what we did in terms of mechanics. Using a dark-side pip does cost strain for light-siders, or in some cases will flip a lightside token, but that's the full extent of mechanistic morality in our games. Instead, we use a set of a Fate-style aspects and the Oath rule from Forsooth! It gives the character a distilled concept with a set of narrative rules to live by and establishes their moral compass. Becoming "forsworn" (violating ones oath) typically represents the start of a slide to the dark side. Whether the character seeks redemption or continues on that path is handled through ongoing discussion. Thus far the players have built characters that have a heavy dollop Jedi Orthodoxy in their DNA. It has worked for us. The RAW system left us cold, but would likely work well for others.

On 6/2/2018 at 10:59 AM, GroggyGolem said:

How can it be tempting to use the opposite aligned Force Pips if there's 3 penalties associated with it? 

It is tempting if you don't roll enough of your favored Force Points and will need to use the opposed Force Points to activate the Power and/or Upgrades you wanted to activate at that point in the encounter. "Only 2 Conflict to heal my buddy so he's not unconscious? Hmm. I can probably get away with it, and we're out of Stimpacks."

On 6/3/2018 at 5:49 PM, Donovan Morningfire said:

@emsquared has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Most of the alleged "flaws" with the Morality system boil down to the GM and player not really trying to engage with it, or players instead trying to metagame it to get a certain result, be it Light Side Paragon or full-on Dark Sider.

Interestingly, Unlimited Power has a bit to say on the design intent of Morality, as I've stated in other threads, it's a tool that requires both player and GM to work together in making it work, as opposed to the narrative stick that is Obligation or narrative carrot that is Duty. It's also designed so that getting to either extreme (when the system is engaged properly) isn't a cakewalk.

In regards to getting to Light Side Paragon, the GM should be putting meaningful choices in their game  so that if the PCs do the right thing (avoid Conflict), accomplishing their goals are more difficult, but the reward is the dice roll is generally going to push them closer to a Morality of 71+. If they also happened to generate a lot of Conflict by using dark side pips to fuel their Force usage, then the character isn't exactly "at peace" with the galaxy or the Force, and thus probably won't gain as much Morality even if they made the right choices and avoided Conflict for their actions. Sadly, it's not spelled out in the book (and probably needed to be), but if the player doesn't make any choices where earning Conflict is a very likely result, then they shouldn't be rolling for Morality to begin with, even if they did earn Conflict from  using the dark side, which is likely where the majority of the "sleepwalking to LS Paragon" issues stem from.

@Donovan Morningfire and @emsquared have it here. But I'll grant that Morality is the hardest of the three book-line unique mechanics to use, in that you have to think about it more.

Obligation? Write it down and forget about it totally as a player... Until it comes up in a session. For the GM, just make a roll in between each session and occasionally add more Obligation for player actions and choices in the world (with or without telling them).

Duty & Contribution Rank? Write it down and forget about it totally as a player, until a mission has an optional objective that relates to you. For the GM, just design your missions with explicit bonus objectives that will up the Duty types for your party members.

But Morality? The books make it less obvious how to tie together Morality, Conflict, and Emotional Strength/Weakness. The between-session prep I use that consistently works is as follows:

When building encounters, have all the characters and their Emotional Strengths/Weaknesses out where I can see them: usually clipped to the GM screen both during prep and the actual session. Think about moments and decision points in these encounters that will put those Strengths and Weaknesses to the test in stressful ways. Specifically...

• Offer rewards for a player to betray her character's Emotional Strength . In this case, if the player lives up to her character's Emotional Strength, assign a low amount of Conflict. But if she betrays that Strength, assign a high amount of Conflict.
• Offer rewards for a player to indulge his character's Emotional Weakness . In this case, if the player indulges his Emotional Weakness, assign a high amount of Conflict. But if he rises above that Weakness, assign a low amount of Conflict.
• Impose penalties for the opposites of above . Make it obvious that living up to an Emotional Strength will make accomplishing a mission harder, though it is doing the 'right thing.' Or make it obvious that indulging an Emotional Weakness will have consequences, either immediately or down the line.

Rewards and Penalties can be narrative, mechanical, or in-game material. I try to have at least one or two such "trying moments" for each character. In the context of encounter prep, such a moment doesn't need to be more than a sentence reminding yourself that "XYZ" trial of Strength/Weakness can happen in a scene.

Low and High Conflict are terms I use in the context of the d10 roll. If a character has an "emotional" trial, like the ones I describe abstractly above, the player receives an initial point of Conflict and may now roll for Morality at the end of the session. Depending on how the player chooses for the character to resolve that trial, I note down either "High Conflict" or "Low Conflict" (usually an up or down arrow). At the end of the session, I look at how many High Conflict and Low Conflict resolutions a character has chosen, and use that to assign additional conflict ad hoc, with "Low Conflict" being 1-4 additional points, and "High Conflict" being 5-8 additional points, clearly slanting the d10 roll in one direction or another, but not necessarily making the role determinate.

Conflict gained from these Emotional Trials is added to Conflict received from activation of Force Powers with opposed Force Points and with Conflict received from specific actions (table of them in the Force and Destiny CRB somewhere). These are sort of house rules, but they're mostly "how I think about and do session prep for Morality, Conflict, and Emotional Strengths/Weaknesses." Would it be nice if the book gave guidelines like these? Yes, definitely, and I consider it one of the few objectively this-is-missing pain points for new GMs.

Just chipping in to say I'm currently looking at reworking Morality for my game, and this has been an interesting thread. Marred a little bit by some unnecessary personal attacks. But a good discussion. Thanks.

I've had a session since I threw out the Morality mechanic. It was pretty nice. Didn't have to distract myself from the narrative with the tracking of "bad guy points" and was able to focus more on keeping things running smooth. I'm still keeping the mechanical benefits of Light Side Paragon and I'm tweaking the Dark Side Acolyte benefits a bit. Giving those bonuses out to players after a significant narrative moment. I have a player who's solely focused on mechanical benefits already try to claim they should be a Light Side Paragon and while I can't knock their effort (saved a lot of NPCs), it should come to a really big story moment such as with Luke with the "I am a Jedi" speech. Conversely, though choosing to remain passive isn't itself full dark side, there are players that seem to be tipping towards the darkness with their actions.

I already use an amended version of one of your other house rules on my table so I found this very interesting. My question is what about darkside users? I have a table playing darkside and so I wonder if you could reverse this table or if that would work.

Well I'm not using anything to track Light/Dark and just giving the title and benefits out after a significant player/character choice in the game. Basically I'm using the EotE/AoR rules for Force Users but with the mechanical benefits coming from significant story moments.