I will agree with Hamlet and say that the Obligation system does seem a bit forced in this style of narrative game, HOWEVER, what it does do is get players to be good players and create interesting back-stories for the GM to work with and it gets the GM to be a good GM and utilize his players back-stories in his campaign.

I think the other thing the Obligation system does is present players with choices. Are they going to use the money they just got to pay down their debt or to pump some upgrades into that starship they are obsessing over? Will they attend that family wedding or go after the bounty that will gain them additional fame? (the wedding idea is brilliant by the way Northman, I will for sure utilize that in a campaign. Perhaps the wedding gets crashed by the boys in white and all hell breaks loose)

When they are in the middle of an adventure and suddenly faced with a legitimate decision (more than just, do we talk our way or fight our way out of this situation) that will have a large impact on the direction the story takes then suddenly the involvement level of the players has spiked. Now they are more invested in the story since they are having a direct influence on it.

However I think the single greatest thing about the system is the ebb and flow that will naturally come with it. Did your character just pay down some of that Favor obligation by diverting a shipment to his friend in need? Now perhaps he has gained some Debt Obligation owed to whoever the original recipient of the shipment was supposed to be.

I do agree that some of the Obligations are certainly harder than others to determine how one could pay them off, perhaps the final book could have this section enlarged slightly with a table of options on how to do that (similar to the one that gives some options for spending advantages).

It could include things like:

Addiction: Obligation is payed off when the player severs ties with his drinking or spice buddies. Obligation is payed off by eliminating members of the drug ring she was formerly involved with. Obligation is payed off by offering advice or financial aid to others struggling with addiction.

Betrayal: Obligation is payed off when the character eliminates people who participated in his betrayal. Obligation is payed off when the character puts trust in the people around him (sort of vague but this could be other party members looking after his equipment or something of that nature). Obligation is payed off when the character lets go of his betrayal and passes up opportunities for vengeance.

Obsession: Obligation is payed off when the player chooses an activity other than his obsession. (Conversely you could also focus Obsession in the opposite direction and the more you give in to your Obsession the less of a problem it becomes) Obligation is payed off after significant time is invested by the player in the object of his Obsession. Obligation is payed off when the character performs a service for the subject of his Obsession.

That is just a couple ideas for a few of the ones I have found harder to integrate into the game (2 of my players have Obsession and Addiction)

I totally agree with Obligation being a great way to create interesting back stories and get the players creative juices flowing.

I just think the dice mechanic could use an overhaul. The percentile system is a little disjointed from the other resolution system, and, as it has been pointed out, does not scale with the addition or subtraction of players.

If it shifts to a narrative dice resolution mechanic, I think it would actually enhance the use of Obligation in the game.

Well despite agreeing with you on your earlier point I don't think the system warrants any addition of a dice mechanic. It is part of the narrative and should stay that way, if you are making obligation rolls throughout an encounter your are simply going to slow the action down. One of the selling points of this game is that the pacing is done very well, combat moves quickly and is action packed and you can then slow down during the more analytical and social parts of the game.

I like the simple roll at the start of each session to determine what players obligation is triggered. In fact to be perfectly honest I don't even think you need that. In my groups I will probably simply rotate through the different PC's obligation using whatever one fits best with the session that week. Of course I will make it seem random so they don't know who's obligation is happening each week but I think it is more of a GM tool than anything else and something to get the players more invested I don't think you need to add any more rolling into it.

More than new players, new characters can have more impact on obligation. Both non-player characters and player characters can bring package with them along with their skill set. For example, a second hand droid may be more problem than it's worth. A PC turned NPC stayed on as part of the crew still has obligation.

More than anything, the ship should have its own obligation. The ship has a name after all. It is part of the crew. Sometimes it needs some attention. I think setting some of the starting obligation for the ship makes a lot of sense.

I like the simple roll at the start of each session to determine what players obligation is triggered. In fact to be perfectly honest I don't even think you need that. In my groups I will probably simply rotate through the different PC's obligation using whatever one fits best with the session that week. Of course I will make it seem random so they don't know who's obligation is happening each week but I think it is more of a GM tool than anything else and something to get the players more invested I don't think you need to add any more rolling into it.

I'm not saying to add more dice per roll -- just that first Obligation roll shouldn't be based on a percentile dice roll -- use the narrative dice to determine how Obligation is going to play a part in the current session/adventure.

[This forum's interface leaves something to be desired…]

Having now read the sections on Obligation a couple of times I have the following compliments and criticisms:

The idea of the obligation mechanic is an excellent way to inject the desperation of a game set on the fringe into the game play experience. The idea of strain, and the idea of Obligations "coming due" rock.

That said, I really dislike using Obligation as a form of reputation or infamy. First, it doesn't really make any sense. A man that owes a Hutt a truly astounding amount of money isn't likely to be particularly famous because of this fact. It also prevents someone that might secretly owe Jabba a large amount of money from keeping that fact a secret, which ruins certain character and npc concepts. Furthermore, a character that's legendary throughout the galaxy, a la Boba Fett, would presumably have a very high obligation even though this doesn't really fit with cannon, nor does it make sense given that he would be unable to advance, as advancement is capped when you reach an obligation score of a hundred or more.

The simple solution is to disconnect the two. The Shadowrun 4E reputation system does an excellent job of conveying this. Simply use a fraction of a character's base xp total as a starting score that is then modified by his obligation and any particularly noteworthy actions. It would be a much more sensible option.

So is there any existing rule on how to order players on the Obligation chart? I've seen some folks offering suggestions here, but I was wondering if there was an established order that people were riffing on.

DailyRich said:

The week one update stated to list them in order of largest to smallest.

One thing that i feel needs to be addressed is the lack of obligation that comes from the players being given a ship at the start of the campaign.

I would suggest that when assigning obligation that the party is counted as having one extra player, so a party of 4 counts as a party of 5 etc, and then the extra obligation (for this extra player) is assigned to the group for being given a ship, and this would be set as something appropirate such as Criminal, Debt, Favour etc

This would mean that each players obligation is slightly lower, the party obligation is the same and having a ship becomes a big part of the obligation narrative options for the GM.

What do you think?

lupex said:

I actually like that idea. It gives the ship a bit more plot importance than just "means of transporation" the way most ships tend to end up in Star Wars games, and can be used for plot hooks while also giving the group a bit of a break on their individual Obligation.

Though perhaps instead of just a blanket Obligation, the ship comes with either a Debt Obligation, representing the loans (legal or otherwise) the party took in order to finance their purchase) or a Favor Obligation, indicating the party is beholden to some larger group in exchange for being provided with a ship.

lupex said:

One thing that i feel needs to be addressed is the lack of obligation that comes from the players being given a ship at the start of the campaign.

I would suggest that when assigning obligation that the party is counted as having one extra player, so a party of 4 counts as a party of 5 etc, and then the extra obligation (for this extra player) is assigned to the group for being given a ship, and this would be set as something appropirate such as Criminal, Debt, Favour etc

This would mean that each players obligation is slightly lower, the party obligation is the same and having a ship becomes a big part of the obligation narrative options for the GM.

What do you think?

Nice idea, in my play test all of my players maxed out their obligation, most of them for extra cash so they had a starting total of 100.. this would go some ways to stop this from impacting so much .. plus mean that they all have a shared obligation.. the ship.. helping players make their own obligations more personal and ensure no one ties their obligation to the ship and 'claim' ownership

I have a clarification request:

On table 2-3: Additional Obligation Bonus, do the players gain both of the benefits listed under each Obligation increase or can they select only one benefit (Credits OR XP)?

Donovan Morningfire said:

Already thought of that mate.

I think that a good GM could be creative with some other obligations such as 'criminal' as their could definately be narrative based around havinga stolen ship?

Nirth''erev said:

They only get to select one benefit. I don't have the book handy, but I think it does explain in that general page area that's one or the other.

Don't feel bad, as a lot of folks (myself included) made a similar mistake in the early going.

I'd say this would be another case where a brief example of building a character would be nice, just to make things like this clear for new players.

Donovan Morningfire said:

I could be wrong, but I thought they could select from each row once, but they only get the benefit of that row. I.e.: +5 obligation to get 5 bonus XP, and +10 obligation to get 2500 bonus credits (for a total of +15) is legit, but +5 obligation to get +5 XP and +1000 credits (for a total of +5 obligation) isn't. Nor is +10 obligation to get 2500 bonus credits, plus another +5 obligation to get +1000 credits (for a total of +15 obligation).

gribble said:

That was how I was reading it. Anyway, I think this should be clarified in the final book.

OB-1 said:

I guess you could also get a +10 Obligation to get +5 Exp and +1000 creds

My 5th session was last night. My group's Obligation is at 105. I rolled for Obligation at the beginning at the session and the he result being our Wookie Hired Gun Marauder.

His Obligation is Betrayal. A long time ago he was in a fight circuit (picture MMA type fights) where he toured the galaxy. One day, he came out of a fight to be attacked by slavers. The manager had betrayed their trust and sold every member of the fighting troupe into slavery. A short while ago, he escape slavery and is now looking for revenge.

So, in last nights session, the group found out that our Wookie's manager was promoting another Wookie in a fight taking place on the planet they are on. They watched the fight, our wookie getting angrier and angrier as time went on. Some of the character noticed that the manager had drugged the wookie which caused him to lose the fight. After the event, the characters were outside and notice a group of armed thugs forcing the Wookie into an airspeeder. Escorting the group, were the manager and another "business" type person.

A battle ensued. The manager escapes and but they save the wookie from the would be slavers.

At the end of the battle, I reduce the Wookie's Obligation by 1.

So, long story short, I don't know if it will happen, but I would like to see more guidelines/examples of how much to reduce Obligation by.

nobble said:

That's my reading of the rules, yes.

Fechik said:

Cool - nicely done!

I'd probably make it a bit more generous than 1 obligation - after all, the Wookie almost got his revenge (which would presumably entirely or at least mostly wipe off the obligation entirely), and presumably has a good lead/trail on the ex-manager now. I'd probably reduce it in the 3-5 range, depending on how good the PC was at following up on the ex-manager and how good the leads he has are (and especially given how high the group obligation is - it wouldn't hurt to be generous).

Of course, you can always decide that getting revenge won't actually help - as the ex-manager was coerced into the betrayal, so the only way to reduce the obligation is to forgive the manager, get his story and track down the real culprit - in which case the obligation reduction should be more modest to hint to the player that they aren't on the right track (perhaps in the 1-3 points range).

That's one of the cool things - it's really up to you as GM (and your players), what paying off the obligation really means in your game.

Still, I agree some better official guidelines would help.

nobble said:

I guess it could also be said that it is ultimately up to the GM as well. As a more generous GM, I'm willing to let my players get an early jump in the game.

However, I think the layout needs some adjustment, with all the pertinent rules in one place. For example, rulings on systems like Obligation should be covered just in that chapter, without having to jump back to the intro section of character creation or forward to another section for a minor mechanical clarification. Or maybe having reminders on some of the more confusing aspects of the Obligation starting bonuses. This way when creating a character the player doesn't get distracted by some allusion to a later benefit which they will probably forget as more things like Species, Career, Specialization, and Motivation take up the greater part of their attention. I don't have my book on hand, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm not recalling everything in the right order/layout. This (the layout issue) has just been nagging at me the further I go into the book.

The way I explained it is that there are four "slots" of bonus Obligation: +5 XP for +5 Obligation, +1000 credits for +5 Obligation, +10 XP for +10 Obligation, and +2500 credits for +10 Obligation. You can take any combo of slots that add up to your starting obligation, but you can only choose a given slot once. That seemed to snap it into place for them.

It was brought up earlier but I didn't really see it addressed: how are people handling adding players? I did initial creation with 4 players, so they started with 15 Obligation. Then I had a 5th join, and, not wanting to make everyone else go back and tweak their characters, I allowed the new guy to also start with 15. Three of the players only took an additional 5 Obligation, but two others maxed out, which means we're starting with 120 Obligation! I don't plan on dinging them with the Obligation threshold right out of the gate, but there has to be some way of integrating new players, or accounting for a player missing a session.

Chrislee66 said:

Additionally, for certain character types they wouldn't want their Obligation to drop since they would, in theory, lose out on some of the swagger they've built up with their black market dealings.

I like the reputation system in Shadowrun, but I think that reputation ( whether illicit or legit ) in this version of Star Wars may work out better if it is dealt with in the same fashion as it deals with characters falling to the darkside. Rather than having some scale that can be gamed by talents and skill checks, just have it be under the control of the GM and the group. The actions of the characters, or the details of their backstories ( which may be attached to their obligation as the case may be ) should affect and inform their reputations. That's not to say I'd shy away from a new reputation sub-system. I just don't think there is a good way to attach rep to obligation without things getting crossed up at some point.

Legendary doesn't necessarily mean liked or even respected. You're just well known wherever you go. I'd call it notoriety more than reputation.