I've got my new F&D campaign (my first, after 4 EotE campaigns) pretty much written and ready to go (and am hoping to post some content here for community review), but I'm getting really hung up on the Conflict and Morality systems. I know many people don't like them, and have developed workarounds or alternate systems.

I think my biggest problem is that players are too compelled to metagame their decisions around Morality and Conflict -- and the GM becomes a very nitpicky presence in judging their actions (nickel-and-diming Conflict points, especially). Beyond the narrative desire to be a "paragon" of Light or Dark, there's little reason to explore either side of the Force -- beyond the fact that the system is clearly set up for the players to aim for the Light.

Strain and Wound bonuses are, frankly, dumb and not at all interesting.

I did hear while listening to a Dice for Brains episode that they grant XP for experiencing or overcoming Conflict. Does anyone know how this works?

I originally had intended on coming up with a quick and dirty house rule for Conflict and Morality -- something like:

• Keeping the Threshold bonuses/penalties (Bonus Wounds/Strain Loss for Dark Side; Bonus Strain for Light Side)
• The Power of Experience: At the end of a session, for every point of Morality "decrease" (swing towards the Dark Side), the character takes the points accumulated and divides by 2, rounding down, and the resulting number is the amount of XP generated. (Minimum result of 1, regardless of conflict.) So if Artho the Jedi's Morality decreases by 3, he will gain 1 bonus XP for that session. Maximum XP gainable per session: 5.
  • Rationale: in some senses, the Dark Side is largely about the power of accumulating sensations, experiences, and power. If the Jedi are largely about denying themselves, the Sith were about the opposite. As such, it seems conceivable that a Dark Side user might have had more experiences than someone else of their "campaign age". (I tend to associate this with Slaanesh from 40K). At lower levels, this gives some positive effect and even temptation besides getting more Wounds. This would conceivably make the prospective slide towards the Dark Side more also about becoming more powerful in a range of areas -- "knowing more" as its own end.
  • Possible problems: Encourages murderhoboing. Proposed XP amounts are also quite small. On the other hand, another negative outcome should a player start murderhoboing is that they will outpace the other characters by generating substantially more XP. (This will be a problem over time, rather than at the start.)
• Trust in the Force: At the end of a session, for every point of Morality "increase" (swing towards the Light Side), the character takes the points accumulated and divides by 2, rounding down, and the resulting number generates a "free" Light Side point usage on a Force check. (Minimum result of 1, regardless of conflict.) So if Artho the Jedi's Morality increases by 5, he will gain 2 bonus "free" Light Side points. NOTE: Bonus Light Side points MUST be used in the following session, or they will be lost. Only ONE of these points may be used at a time. Maximum Light Side points gainable per session: 5.
  • Rationale: Unlike Dark Side users, Light Side users tend to be more preoccupied with balance and trusting in the Force, rather than themselves. Their attunement with the Force makes them a vessel for its usage, and their trust in it allows them to overcome the temptations of the Dark Side. This bonus would allow a player with bonus points to overcome the temptation of the Dark Side with greater ease. I liken this to a kind of "absolution of the self" -- where the player entrusts themselves totally to the Force.
  • Possible problems: Encourages highly conservative gameplay or do-gooding. Is not TOTALLY loreful, in that many Dark Side users also surrendered themselves to the Dark Side as a means of becoming more powerful -- and that they "trusted" the Dark Side just as much as a Jedi. (Thinking especially of Darth Bane.)

What do people think? The reason I like doing something like this is that it gives a little incentive to act in certain moral directions -- and it's a dynamic system, in that one does not think of the swing towards the Dark exclusively as a penalty, nor the Light as a pure reward.

Feedback appreciated!

This requires goodwill and good intentions from the players, but I like it. It isn't great for broad consumption though, due to that need.

Your "power of experience" is... not a good idea. Rewarding players for bad behaviour is just... backwards. And no good will come of it.

The "trust in the Force" thing, like you say yourself, just does not make any sense at all for the reasons you mention.

Both options share the same flaw that they provide 0 benefit to somebody who is below 2 or above 98 morality.

1 hour ago, micheldebruyn said:

Your "power of experience" is... not a good idea. Rewarding players for bad behaviour is just... backwards. And no good will come of it.

The "trust in the Force" thing, like you say yourself, just does not make any sense at all for the reasons you mention.

Both options share the same flaw that they provide 0 benefit to somebody who is below 2 or above 98 morality.

I don't exactly see ALL accumulation of Conflict and dark morality as "bad behaviour". It would be a bit dogmatic of me as a GM if someone roleplayed something well and it required them, say, stealing something that was necessary for a plot point. It might be legitimately dark side-inducing behaviour, but I shouldn't frown on it as a GM if it's good storytelling. And that's kind of what this is all about, for me: storytelling. I do want to reward that whenever I can.

I'm very open to suggestions for ways to adjust the current system. Unless you think it works well? (That's certainly a legitimate perspective, though I know few players OR GMs who are in this position.)

All three of the core mechanics require a certain amount of meta gaming, so that’s not really an issue. The Duty mechanics require you to look for opportunities to increase your character’s duty at any available chance, while an EotE character’s Obligation hangs over his head, even when the current scenario has nothing to do with that Obligation.
Morality simply handles the F&D character’s struggle with the Dark Side.

So the vanilla Conflict/Morality system is designed so that the Player basically always gets to decide who their character is. Light, or Dark.

That's it.

It's not supposed to be some "Gotchya! Naughty player!" system. Just like Obligation/Duty, it's a mechanic to help the Player tell the story of their Character, and to complicate their gameplay, some.

That's what all 3 of those mechanics are designed to do, and will do, if you use them as designed.

That's why the metagamey aspects. It's a meta-mechanic.

16 hours ago, GreyMatter said:

Beyond the narrative desire to be a "paragon" of Light or Dark, there's little reason to explore either side of the Force -- beyond the fact that the system is clearly set up for the players to aim for the Light.

Not true at all. In my experience, if you use the Force Power mechanics for any length of time, it's a very marked difference in how much easier it is to regularly get dark pips. It's easier power, hands down. Just like it's supposed to be, conceptually. It's easier to power your Powers with the dark side. Noticably.

That, and the moral latitude to deal with your problems however you want, is a tremendous draw of the Darkside in my experience. Particularly because standard "adventurer" behavior is pretty dark, really. AND once you start upgrading powers, it becomes hard to basically ever do what you want without doing into the dark, until you get... what... more than 3 FR?

16 hours ago, GreyMatter said:

What do people think?

They're horrible mechanics, and unnecessary. They take the Mortality staten from something that is supposed to do something analogous to Obligation and Duty - help the Players tell their story and complicate their characters lives, and it makes Force Users more powerful.

It does what every other Star Wars system has done for Force Users, it makes them better play options.

That sucks.

You've missed the point completely.

There really isn't much incentive to be a Lightside user, and their shouldn't be, mechanically. Jedi are Jedi because it's "the right thing to do".

And so long as, as GM, you allow the Force Powers to achieve awesome things and you allow Conflict-worthy actions to create shortcuts through challenges OR to have easier Difficulties?

There is absolutely no need for it.

Players will send toward the Darksiders in their own.

The problem is GMs who clutch too tightly to "their story" and don't allow the Force or Conflict-worthy actions to be easy power in the game.

2 hours ago, emsquared said:

/snip

They're horrible mechanics, and unnecessary.

That sucks.

You've missed the point completely.

/snip

Gotcha.

Thanks for the feedback.

Any alternative ideas, then?

43 minutes ago, GreyMatter said:

Any alternative ideas, then?

Yea, like I said, use the Morality system as it was designed:

1. Ask the players to engage the Morality system just as they would Obligation or Duty. i.e. to use it to tell their character's story.

2. Tempt players to use the darkside on Force Powers by showing them that it's worth it. That it gets results.

3. Tempt them to do Conflict-worthy things by showing them that it's worth it. That it gets results.

4. Use the Fear mechanics (which can cause Conflict).

5. When you notice players are angry, or experiencing other string emotions, ask them if their Character is feeling that way, and if so, if they think they should take some Conflict.

Your complaint is that they don't have any reason to be darkside.

Butyou're wrong, the system works as designed, when you ... give... them a reason to use the darkside.

And the easiest way to do that is essentially trading Conflict for results/power over the situation.

47 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Yea, like I said, use the Morality system as it was designed:

1. Ask the players to engage the Morality system just as they would Obligation or Duty. i.e. to use it to tell their character's story.

2. Tempt players to use the darkside on Force Powers by showing them that it's worth it. That it gets results.

3. Tempt them to do Conflict-worthy things by showing them that it's worth it. That it gets results.

4. Use the Fear mechanics (which can cause Conflict).

5. When you notice players are angry, or experiencing other string emotions, ask them if their Character is feeling that way, and if so, if they think they should take some Conflict.

Your complaint is that they don't have any reason to be darkside.

Butyou're wrong, the system works as designed, when you ... give... them a reason to use the darkside.

And the easiest way to do that is essentially trading Conflict for results/power over the situation.

Thanks again. I understand how it works. As I said, I don't think the vanilla system is interesting as is and the thresholds are almost meaningless.

Guess I'll keep looking around for an alternate system.

41 minutes ago, GreyMatter said:

I understand how it works.

Do you though?

You initially stated that your main problem was that it was too meta of a decision.

And your "fix" was to dangle a very meta mechanic as a carrot at both ends of the spectrum...

You also said that there was no reason to "explore" either end of the spectrum (not even acknowledging the storytelling aspect). Again, your "fix" to that - having "no reason" to tell a complex or dramatic story - was the meta-carrots.

It seems like your "understanding" of the Morality mechanic is that Dark or Light is a mini-game to be played, or something players should be compelled to pursue for mechanical reasons.

Meta reasons. Not story telling reasons...

Again, I think that's clearly missing the point. I think that you demonstrably don't understand what the Mortality mechanic is for.

The struggle between Light and Darkside is a storytelling mechanic designed to create difficult choices. Just like Obligation and Duty.

And there is plenty of reason to explore the Darkside, which is capable of creating really interesting storytelling and gameplay (difficult choices) when used as designed in a campaign where the general assumption is that the characters are heroic people.

What you are going for does not seem to be a storytelling mechanic, which means it's not an alternative to the Mortality system. It's something different completely. A power and gameplay/"build" mechanic.

If you understood the vanilla mechanic, you would understand that.

14 minutes ago, emsquared said:

Do you though?

I didn't come here looking for an argument. I came looking for feedback and alternative ideas. I don't need you to be condescending and tell me why I'm liking or disliking something for the wrong reasons.

I came back to this board after several years away thinking it would be the constructive place it was back then. Maybe that has changed.

24 minutes ago, GreyMatter said:

I didn't come here looking for an argument. I came looking for feedback and alternative ideas. I don't need you to be condescending and tell me why I'm liking or disliking something for the wrong reasons.

I came back to this board after several years away thinking it would be the constructive place it was back then. Maybe that has changed.

Eh, there are a couple gripes, but most are fairly helpful. He makes some good points though, and has somewhat changed my opinion on the matter. While I am not as willing as he is for my players to do depraved things in the name of Conflict as I prefer the PCs to have a lighter tone, he gives some good advice on it. He's just a bit rigid.

I'd be providing more feedback and suggestions, but this isn't really my cup of tea and I don't have many ideas or opinions on it. I think your thing is an interesting idea, but it certainly has its pitfalls.

1 hour ago, GreyMatter said:

I didn't come here looking for an argument. I came looking for feedback and alternative ideas. I don't need you to be condescending and tell me why I'm liking or disliking something for the wrong reasons.

I came back to this board after several years away thinking it would be the constructive place it was back then. Maybe that has changed.

Look. The thing is, I (and I think a lot of ppl) primarily game in this system with people pulled from a random pool of complete strangers, online.

Therefore, I have a vested interest in the rules and systems of this game being understood by the community-at-large in a consistent and ideally "RAW" (or close to) state. Because that/RAW is our "common language"as a community, right, going into a game with strangers?

I like to know that I can reasonably expect the rules to be handled in a consistent way, no matter what table I'm at, or who my players are. I like to be able to have some level of confidence that a character concept will play as I expect them to. Everyone I think likes that.

So when ppl come to the forums, pushing ideas on how something like Morality doesn't "work", or is broken, or whatever. That can negatively impact my gaming experience if it persists or becomes a common view (and isn't true).

That's why I am compelled to speak both about the ways in which RAW does work (when it does), and to point out the faults of homebrew rules as I can see them.

So don't take it personal when I speak out so strongly. But I see it basically as a necessary community service.

And don't get me wrong, I love exploring house-rules when there's a convincing need for them.

And in this case, I just don't feel like you've spoken convincingly about the problem you're having, nor why your proposed house-rule does anything to address it.

What exactly is the problem you are having with Morality? What is the issue you're trying to address?

Being a Paragon/Darksider isn't mechanically compelling (or powerful?) enough for you? Fine. Then say that.

But don't pretend it's a problem with the Morality system, because that's not what the Morality system does. Being a Paragon isn't supposed to super-charge or give your PC some significant advantage. There's no indication from the canon media even that it should be that way. If you want that in your game there's ample ways to do that 100% outside of the Mortality mechanic, or any mechanic at all.

All you need is to implement an in-game, narrative-based reward when someone hits it. Doesn't need to alter a RAW mechanic.

1 minute ago, emsquared said:

So don't take it personal when I speak out so strongly. But I see it basically as a necessary community service.

Yeah, well, you're quite ad hominem in your "community service".

3 minutes ago, emsquared said:

And in this case, I just don't feel like you've spoken convincingly about the problem you're having, nor why your proposed house-rule does anything to address it.

This isn't a court. I don't need to "convince" you of anything. I simply said I didn't like the rules and I thought it would be fun to try something else. I invited comment. You provided comment. I thanked you for it. I asked for alternatives. You reiterate that I need to use RAW, and that I don't understand the RAW, and that my motivation for not using the RAW was flawed.

But it doesn't matter what my motivation OR my understanding is. I was looking for alternatives. Apparently you don't have any. That's fine. But please spare me the sermons.

4 minutes ago, GreyMatter said:

This isn't a court. I don't need to "convince" you of anything.

If you don't wanna be exposed as not having any clue about what you're trying to talk about, ya kind of do.

5 minutes ago, GreyMatter said:

I asked for alternatives.

I gave you alternatives.

You want it to be interesting to be a Dark or Lightside user? Then... you make an interesting narrative surrounding that.

That's how you do that.

7 minutes ago, GreyMatter said:

But it doesn't matter what my motivation OR my understanding is.

For ppl to judge the value of your house rule (which is clearly "none", here), it does matter.

Again, if you want the Morality mechanic to be interesting, or for Paragon to be special? You already have every too you need to do that.

It's called story telling.

46 minutes ago, GreyMatter said:

Yeah, well, you're quite ad hominem in your "community service".

This isn't a court. I don't need to "convince" you of anything. I simply said I didn't like the rules and I thought it would be fun to try something else. I invited comment. You provided comment. I thanked you for it. I asked for alternatives. You reiterate that I need to use RAW, and that I don't understand the RAW, and that my motivation for not using the RAW was flawed.

But it doesn't matter what my motivation OR my understanding is. I was looking for alternatives. Apparently you don't have any. That's fine. But please spare me the sermons.

I think you need to relax a bit and just let it slide. He can be a bit abrasive, but he's like that to everyone (including me), and I don't think he really means anything by it, that's just how he comes across.

How about you articulate what exactly your issue with the mechanic is, and what you hope to achieve by an adjustment to it. Just to make sure we're all working from the same base. That way we can all more easily either help you see something you're missing, or provide feedback as to how you may desire to change it.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I think you need to relax a bit and just let it slide. He can be a bit abrasive, but he's like that to everyone (including me), and I don't think he really means anything by it, that's just how he comes across.

How about you articulate what exactly your issue with the mechanic is, and what you hope to achieve by an adjustment to it. Just to make sure we're all working from the same base. That way we can all more easily either help you see something you're missing, or provide feedback as to how you may desire to change it.

Appreciate your feedback (really), but I think coming back might have been a mistake. I wasn't expecting "git gud at RAW" (from more than him, too) in my question about an alternate system, tbh, but maybe I should have.

Best to leave it here I think.

Have fun everyone. 👋

3 minutes ago, GreyMatter said:

Appreciate your feedback (really), but I think coming back might have been a mistake. I wasn't expecting "git gud at RAW" (from more than him, too) in my question about an alternate system, tbh, but maybe I should have.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but, well... RAW is the standard system. Deviation from the baseline isn't going to automatically be popular as you're going against what people are used to.

It would help if we had more specifics. I'd like to work with you on it, even if just to get a better feel for the Morality rules myself. I'm never comfortable with something until I've dived into its guts and tried to modify it (sometimes discovering that it doesn't need said modifying).

2 hours ago, GreyMatter said:

I wasn't expecting "git gud at RAW"

As far as you explained your goal, it seems the system can already do what you want it to do... Why create a new, complicated rule to do what can already be done without a new rule?

If it upsets you to have that pointed out to you, I don't think that's on anyone but you.

And it really wasn't (and still isn't) clear that you did know how to use RAW (and narrative) to achieve your goals without creating new complicated rules.

So, believe it or not, at least before you started being intolerant of the idea that you could have possibly overlooked something about your problem and refused or were unable to elaborate on the problem further, I was trying to help.

I'd still honestly love to hear a more clear description of what you want to achieve for your game.

On 9/22/2020 at 5:11 PM, GreyMatter said:

I've got my new F&D campaign (my first, after 4 EotE campaigns) pretty much written and ready to go (and am hoping to post some content here for community review), but I'm getting really hung up on the Conflict and Morality systems. I know many people don't like them, and have developed workarounds or alternate systems.

I think my biggest problem is that players are too compelled to metagame their decisions around Morality and Conflict -- and the GM becomes a very nitpicky presence in judging their actions (nickel-and-diming Conflict points, especially). Beyond the narrative desire to be a "paragon" of Light or Dark, there's little reason to explore either side of the Force -- beyond the fact that the system is clearly set up for the players to aim for the Light.

Okay, so first off, it sounds like the issue is less with the mechanics themselves and more with the GM and to some extent the players.

As a preface, I will admit that I've thrown a few portions of the Morality system into the waste bin, such as the "roll at end of each session" (I instead have the PCs roll at the end of each adventure, which makes Morality gains a good deal less swingy) and that I treat Emotional Strength/Weakness more as RP tools, granting bonus XP to players that do a good job of portraying their character's Emotional Strength and Weakness during a session.

The issue on the GM side is that they are being overly nitpicky, and the best solution there is to simply have a chat (preferably away from the table and NOT during an actual game session) about how this attitude is not making things fun for the players. I've seen this "overly strict attitude" in prior Star Wars RPGs, which got particularly problematic in those systems where dark side points had a far more drastic consequence (such as losing your character in the d6 and Saga Edition games). I think if your GM relaxes a little on "what should earn Conflict?" that will help improve the mood at the table. Based on the limited information provided, it feels like the GM has fallen into the mental trap of how some rather harsh DMs of D&D systems past would go out of their way to screw over Paladin PCs by putting them into situations where they were assured to fall and thus lose their Paladin abilities (so glad that 4e and 5e pretty much expunged that whole "lose your powers" aspect of the class).

As for the alleged issue of whether to go full Light, full Dark, or simply stay in the middle, the system was designed so that all three choices are viable options, which is a considerable contrast to prior RPGs which had a rather narrow "you're either good, or your evil" stance (influenced by WEG adopting that outlook which was carried through WotC's line and into a great many fan made system hacks).

Now, no lie that LS Paragon does offer the most benefits (extra LS Destiny Point, more Strain), but hinges on the PCs sticking to the "straight and narrow" path and generating little to no conflict from session to session, which also means that any usage of black pips on the Force dice is done sparingly. DS Paragon is very much stick and carrot, in that the penalties (loss of a LS Destiny Point, reduced strain) are nothing to sneeze at, but on the flip side you can freely use the more commonly occurring black pips when rolling your Force dice, and get some additional Wounds (though not enough to really make a huge difference). Sticking to middle of the road on the Morality scale means you can take actions that generate Conflict a little more freely; think Batman (who will do questionable things when necessary) as opposed to Superman (Big Blue Boyscout aka LS Paragon) or your garden variety of 90's "guns, buckles, and pouches" anti-hero (DS Paragon), but you don't get any immediately tangible benefits.

It's something of a paradigm shift, and to be honest if the players aren't enjoying that aspect of Morality, you can just throw the whole thing of tangible mechanical benefits to being at one end of the Light/Dark spectrum and it won't break the game. I know of at least several GMs that have done this (in effect, reverting back to how EotE and AoR handled things) and their games (some of where very much heavy on the Force) ran just fine. Heck, for a few years the Force system ran fine without having the full Morality mechanics, with a large number of players having fun playing Force Exiles/Emergents, so it's not like deep-sixing Morality as a whole is going to radically derail the game.

As for "aiming for the Light," bear in mind that the source material generally paints going to the dark side as a Very. Bad. Thing. Anakin went full dark in the final act of RotS, and spent the next quarter century as a miserable shell of the man he'd once been. Ben Solo embraced the dark side as Kylo Ren, and I doubt anyone would say that he had what most rational folks would consider a "good life" while under Snoke's thumb. If anything, the prequels show the issues of going full zealot in regards to the adhering to the light side of the Force. Even going out into Legends, fully embracing the dark side generally doesn't end well for the person, with Palps maybe being the only one to really evade the Karma Houdini for any substantial length of time, and even that could be taken as a mixed blessing. So in that respect, if FFG's Morality system as designed tends to encourage the PCs into going towards the Light Side end of the Morality spectrum, then it's at very least in keeping with the source material, which at it's core is ultimately a fairy tale set in space where the good guys/light inevitably triumph over the bad guys/darkness.

58 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Okay, so first off...

This is an extremely constructive response. Thank you.

21 hours ago, GreyMatter said:

This is an extremely constructive response. Thank you.

You're welcome.

I will add that in almost every case of someone posting "here's my alternative to the Morality system," said "solutions" tend to A) not really address the core issue, B) add excessive (and frequently unnecessary) complexity for minimal (if any) actual benefit to the game, or C) are easily abusable by players, including by the very person suggesting the alternate method as a means to "suit their concept," which itself is almost code for "OP wants to munchkinize the heck out of the system but not make it look like OP is being a munchkin." So in all bluntness, threads that crop up claiming "here's my fix for the Morality system!" don't have the best track record, even if the OP has good intentions behind it.

As has been said, the Morality mechanic is a system in this game that requires buy-in from both GMs and players, but it also requires a healthy degree of trust from both parties. It's a fairly stark contrast to Obligation and Duty, which can largely be run autonomously from the players' perspective, so long as the players don't try to game the system by selecting Obligations that won't cause them any serious problems or interpreting Duty options to make them very easy to fulfill based upon the campaign (such as picking Combat Duty for a Spec Ops assault team and trying to justify it as being fulfilled anytime the team defeats a group of Imperials). Much as with campaigns played without using Morality, I've seen and heard of a few that largely trivialized Obligation (which got treated more as a story hook than something that could penalize the players), or relegated Duty to just being a secondary type of Motivation, again with no mechanical impact on the players. So ultimately, all three (Duty, Morality, and Obligation) are just tools, and if they're not working for your group, then they can be set aside without totally derailing the game.

In a homebrew system I have something like a destiny pool that I call a karma pool the number of chips in it are equal to 2 times the number of players (including the gm). Unlike the ffg destiny pool the karma pool does not reset between sessions. But to represent the changing cast of characters controlled by the GM two chips (one black and one white if available otherwise two white or two black are removed) karma chips are removed from the pool and replaced with one white and one black chip at the start of each session. Gm spends black, players spend white.

And Evil actions flip white to black.

3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

And Evil actions flip white to black.

Do good actions also flip black to white?

1 hour ago, micheldebruyn said:

Do good actions also flip black to white?

In practice no. You can't balance out bad action by saving a puppy or helping old people across the street . Something hugely self sacrificial and altruistic for example, a normal human taking a bullet without a vest to save an innocent or adversarial NPC when they and the people they care about don't benefit from it.

But the karma pool isn't meant for nickle and dime bad stuff either.

Not sure if this is the most current version but

The Karma Pool
In your game universe, there might be an all-powerful, primal, dualistic good and evil, semi-aware, mystical energy field created by all living things that binds the universe together. It could also be that there is a supreme being who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. Or maybe, conservation of Karma is a natural law like the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. Which, if any of these, is true might be the subject of a fierce debate among the inhabitants of the game universe. Whatever the reason, the simple fact is that what goes around comes around, and this is represented in game by the Karma pool. Although Karma, or whatever you want to call it, nominally affects all inhabitants of the game universe equally, the Karma pool is a game mechanic/narrative device that is associated with the player characters. NPCs do not have their own Karma pool because they are not the protagonists of the story, but NPC Karma is included in party’s Karma pool. The primary narrative purpose of the Karma pool is to represent the PCs’ relationship with the universe/supreme being.

At the beginning of the campaign, the Karma pool starts with 1 white chip and 1 black chip for each player (not character), plus 2 more chips (1 white, 1 black) to represent all (not each) the NPCs under the GM’s control. Using Othello® game pieces which have one white side and one black side is recommended, but you could also use any other type(s) of token that is/are visually easy to distinguish. Note that the Karma pool carries over from session to session; it does not get reset between sessions. There are 2 exceptions to this.

If a player misses a session (or (all of) that player’s character(s) get replaced), reduce the Karma pool by 1 black chip and 1 white chip (if they're all black remove 2 black chips, if they're all white remove 2 white chips); when the player returns (or when they introduce the replacement character(s)) you add back in 1 black chip and 1 white chip regardless of what was removed because the player missed the session. Likewise you add one white Karma chip and one black Karma chip when a new player joins your group. Note that there are always exactly 2 Karma chips in the Karma pool for each player (including the GM) participating in the game.

At the beginning of each session 1 black chip and 1 white chip are removed from the pool (following the same rules as for missing PCs), and 1 black chip and 1 white chip are added back in. These 2 chips represent the changing cast of NPCs under the GM’s control; however, the removal and addition of 1 black and 1 white chip is done even when the GM uses an identical cast of NPCs from session to session.

The GM can spend black Karma chips which changes them to white, the players can spend white Karma chips which changes them to black. If a player does something dastardly, that can change one chip from white to black. Note that the GM is REQUIRED to EXPLICITLY warn players, something as clear as “If you do that, you will get a black Karma chip,” when the players declare their intent to take an evil action that would cause a Karma chip to change from white to black. If the PCs do something truly heroic and self-sacrificial, that can change one Karma chip from black to white. The GM is the final authority on what is or isn’t worthy of changing a Karma chip from white to black and vice versa but here are some general guidelines:

Blatantly Evil Acts should change a Karma chip from white to black. This includes deliberately killing or injuring another character who hasn't done anything wrong or who honestly seeks redemption for evil acts performed in the past.

Questionably Evil Acts might change a Karma chip from white to black. Some acts, while seemingly cruel, aren't necessarily evil. The Game Master should consider the intent behind the action before deciding to change a Karma chip from white to black. For example, deliberately killing or injuring (or allowing someone else to kill or injure) a character who is known to have committed evil acts without remorse, but who is otherwise helpless. Only one Karma chip can turn from white to black as a result of a single action; for example, if one member of the party kills the helpless character who is known to have committed evil acts without remorse and the other members of the party know about his/her intent but do not try to stop him/her that would cause at most one Karma chip in the pool to turn from white to black (if they spent another white Karma chip to score an automatic critical on the attack, then that would be a total of at most 2 Karma chip turning black but only one would be due to the "questionable evilness" of the act). The execution of criminals who have been given a fair trial by a legitimate authority and sentenced to death will not cause a white Karma chip in the party's pool to turn black.

Dubiously Evil Acts should probably not change a Karma chip from white to black, unless the Game Master feels there is good cause to make an exception, i.e. only when the act is out of proportion to the situation. In most cases, a single incident of a dubiously evil act performed by the players does not warrant turning a Karma chip from white to black, but multiple instances may indicate that the character(s) has/have an unconscious cruel streak. For example a hero who kills an opponent in combat while ignoring opportunities to end the situation without the loss of life might warrant a black Karma chip, but a specific situation might not appear so clear-cut.

The following distinction may be important. If the PCs kill a villain who surrendered because they were losing a fight it’s a questionably evil act. But if the PCs kill a villain who sought out the PCs out in order to surrender to them and did not start a fight with the PCs, that’s a blatantly evil act.

Remember, just because some action is “illegal” or goes against some formal code of conduct does NOT make it “evil.” “Evil intent” inferred from an action that is not inherently evil (such as drawing a weapon) does not deserve black Karma. Moreover, “Evil intent,” such as PCs planning a murder, that is not acted upon either directly or indirectly (e.g. hiring or ordering someone else to do it) does not deserve black Karma. Only actions (including failed attempts at them) that are inherently “evil” deserve black Karma.

Players can spend white Karma chips to do any of the following

Score a critical hit on an attack or a critical success on a check. Note that the only benefits of a critical hit are that it automatically succeeds, that the damage is double the first die (rather than the sum of the second and third dice), and that damage ignores DR. Note that rolling the maximum result on all three dice is the normal method of scoring a critical hit; it is NOT a benefit of scoring a critical hit.

Cause an attack (or double attack) by any character to miss. This will change any attack, even critical hits (whether they were caused by spending a Karma chip or not) into a normal miss (not a critical or automatic failure). Note that spending a Karma chip to cause an attack to miss TRUMPS spending one to hit; so the rules allow your GM to spend a black chip to cancel out the white Karma chip that you spent to score the critical hit against the Big Bad Evil Guy (BBEG), but you are NOT allowed to spend another white Karma chip to turn it back into a critical hit. Also note that Karma chips change color AFTER the attack or other action is resolved, so if you don't want your GM using a black Karma chip to cancel out a white Karma chip that you spent to score a critical hit against the BBEG, then make sure you don't have any black Karma chips in the pool.

Turn a critical failure into an automatic failure. The GM has the option of turning a white Karma chip black, instead of dictating an on the spot EPIC FAILURE when a PC rolls a critical failure; one reason a GM might want to do this is to get black Karma to make an attack against a PC’s Social Defense.

Gain an extra die roll to be used immediately (even if it’s someone else’s turn).

Forcefully alter the narrative. A good example is the scene from the movie "The Matrix" in which Neo is fighting Agent Smith in the subway. After Neo and Agent Smith do the flying jump midair wrestling with guns, Agent Smith says "you’re out" (of ammo) which could have been the result of the GM spending a black Karma chip. Then Neo’s player spent a white Karma chip and said "You are too." The player can spend a white Karma chip to make the bad guy run out of ammo, have their weapon jam, etc.

Destroy an item held by another character, for example cleaving the wand of the wicked witch in two with your sword (note artifacts like “the one ring” from J.R. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy can only be destroyed at the place where they were created) or breaking your opponent’s sword during a duel.

Miraculously survive what should be certain death, e.g. a massive explosion or falling off a cliff, and have the opposing side says “no one could have survived that” and either not look or not find the supposedly deceased character. The supposedly deceased character will wake up later, perhaps after being pulled out of the water by a fishing boat while unconscious. A character that spends a Karma chip in this matter will not drown or die by another method while unconscious or trapped.

Magic using PCs, can also spend Karma to enchant items, the benefit of this is that the item gains the enchanter’s die for Magic. In the basic case, the item can’t be used to cast spells; instead its Magic die either replaces, or can be used in place of, one its regular dice. The equipment chapter discusses the details of this for specific item types.

GM’s can spend black Karma to accomplish those same things. Also, to have NPCs attack the Social Defense of one or more players, for example a law suit, criminal trial, or smear campaign, the GM must spend one black Karma chip per player character under the attack. The Black Karma is spent to make the attack, not to move the PCs down the Social Condition Track, so the PCs get the white Karma even if the attack fails. If the GM doesn’t spend black Karma then the attack automatically fails (e.g. they are found innocent, not at fault, etc.). If there’s enough black Karma for some but not all of the PCs, then the GM has the option to spend what black Karma there is on a subset of the PCs. Only this subset could potentially move down the Social Condition Track, but the other PCs could still be the defendants in a murder trial and held without bail for the duration of the trial.

Critical Hits Against PCs and White Karma

There’s something else that needs to be said about Karma; every time an NPC scores a critical hit on a PC, one black Karma chip turns white. If the GM spent a Black Karma Chip to cause a critical hit, the PCs still only receive 1 white Karma chip (not 2). NPCs can still score critical hits on PCs via the dice roll method when the Karma Pool is already all white and in the GM does NOT incur a Karma debt to the players; the number of chips of a particular color Karma is always non negative.