So it says that you can only purchase Duty at character creation. If you have players that want to purchace into talent trees in AoR, would you allow them to purchase into Duty if the character is already made. Atleast until either the actual book comes out next year, or hear back from the developers.

I would suggest not. The idea is that new characters have a back story that might suggest previous duty tours with the rebellion. Most existing characters would not have that back story. If they did, then I would consider it when they "rejoined" the rebellion. But that would be when they actually rejoined in story, not just selected a specialization.

So say in my old star wars d6 game consisted of;

Red the Smuggler,

Lars the tongue-tied engineer,

Walter the Gambler

and

Jamir the Brash Rebel Pilot

When Jamir framed the rest of the crew of the Space Rat ending up getting them imprisoned on a Victory class star destroyer and they escaped turning the launch bay into a TIE fighter missile launcher they were subsequently left with no choice but to join the Rebel Alliance but because Jamir was responsible for why the rest of the group got in that mess he gets to add initial points to his Duty to the Rebel Alliance since he started off as a member...

I guess you can say yes to that example copperbell. Though the rest of the group could get some points to duty for themselves as well.

Unlike that game in this one I'd expect the gm to pay attention to deeds like that... such that a while after the events of Empires Strikes back the crew of the Space Rat are once again captured and imprisoned in a cell only to learn Darth Vader is coming personally for a chat

In the d6 rules my engineer pulled a Vila (Thats a Blake Seven reference for those that don't get it! ) and dismantled said cell using the door as an impromptu shield and then making full use of the ship's onboard sensors to maneuver completely around the approaching Darth Vader and after stunning the dark side version of Luke (don't ask I didn't agree with this and it wasn't necessary ) and then had to escape in Darth Vader's personal shuttle after Luke took off the front landing strut of the Space Rat...

And no the gm didn't even make any use of that event in the following adventure...

This is why I like Fantasy Flight Games new Star Wars rpg... the actions of any PC do count for something!

^---Luke would have started out with Obligation: Oath (Vengeance) I think ( the film minutes leading up to the barbequeing of his auntie and uncle count as back story, imo ). Then he picked up Duty: Personnel ( as his commitment to the survival of those around him was paramount to even his own safety or willful progression of his Destiny: Reckoning ).

By the end he's still got a desire for vengeance against the empire ( for Beru, Owen, Obi Wan, Biggs, Dak, and many others off screen ), whilst trying to keep his friends ( and new family revelation ) alive. He finally accepts that he has to confront Vader to accomplish his Duty, settle his Obligation and achieve his Destiny. All in one pinnacle encounter. That ---- is epic.

I'd say Luke doing his Duty was to turn himself in. He knew that if he stayed with Leia and Han then Darth Vader would track them down. With Luke occupying the Emperor and Vader it allowed the Rebels turn the tide of the battle.

I do agree though that having an encounter that allows a PC that culminates all three types would be seriously epic!

Does anyone else feel that more guidance would be useful on Duty rewards?

At present, every time the group hits/exceeds 100 Duty total, their duty resets and they get rewarded with kit by the Alliance of Rarity 3+the # of times their Duty has reached 100 & reset and no Restricted items. Now depending on how much Duty a group accumulates and how quickly, they could in short order find themselves being 'given' a CR90 Corellian Corvette.

Should there be additional restrictions of some sort to the Duty reward? Like the value of the Alliance-supplied kit is less than nn credits? Or the vehicle/vessel cannot require a crew larger than the group. I had mentioned elsewhere that the Dreadnought -class Heavy Cruiser should likely be Restricted since it's a warship, but if that doesn't get changed, the RAW would allow a group to be given a Heavy Crusier after they hit their fifth (500+ total) Duty award. It does make one wonder where a group would get the 16,000 crewers required, or at least 2,000 crewers if it was slave-rigged like a Katana Fleet Dreadnought...

I doubt you'll see FFG offer a hard credit value. The reward is up to the GM, if the GM wants to give their players a CR90 to tell a specific story, then it is within that GMs power to do so.

I would allow my players to offer suggestions, and if it sounds reasonable, then chances are I will go with their suggestions.

I'd like to see better guidance on duty increases, and options for how to differentially raise it other than "player missed the session and his character didn't factor in."

Perhaps earned duty should be on two piles - one for personal contribution, and one for group contribution.

As in,

When the group's duty table hits 100 total, everyone adds their duty magnitude into a personal success magnitude. When personal success magnitude reaches 100, the character may have a personal contribution rank, which can be used to requisition personal assigned gear, exactly like how the group contribution rank allows the group to requisition gear for the group. Actions that would cost duty immediately reduce all personal success by the same amount; if it goes negative, reduce personal contribution rank by 1, and raise personal success by 100 points.

And I explicitly give the guys at FFG permission to use that if they see fit.

I think it would be an excellent optional rule. It would be especially valuable for cases where players drop in and out.

I doubt you'll see FFG offer a hard credit value. The reward is up to the GM, if the GM wants to give their players a CR90 to tell a specific story, then it is within that GMs power to do so.

I would allow my players to offer suggestions, and if it sounds reasonable, then chances are I will go with their suggestions.

From my reading of the rules, it's already expected that the Alliance will supply a group with specific needed equipment for missions on an as-needed basis. Which means that if a particular mission requires a group to use a Corellian Corvette, one will be provided from either the Alliance Fleet, or from local Alliance sector forces.

What I can see some players doing (and any of my players attempting this will get walked all over...) is to request the most expensive piece of kit they're able to 'get' from the group's Alliance Duty reward and then turn around and sell the item. Then pocket the credits or use them to purchase something else.

Using the RAW for the Dreadnought -class Heavy Cruiser, after the group hits 300 Duty points (cumulative) the Alliance could 'give' the group one. Which the group could decide to turn around and sell for 7.2 mil. credits... There are circumstances where I'd let a group get their hands on that many credits, but they are fairly rare.

Two other areas where some additional guidance on Duty rewards I feel would be good have to do with availability. Right now, RAW the limit starts out with items of Availability 3, with Availability going up one point per 100 Duty points (cumulative). As an aside, I think it would be very good for FFG (argh! keep thinking this means guided-missile frigate) to develop & put out PDF of the group Duty tracker, including space to track the # of times group Duty reset back to zero. What isn't mentioned about the Availability for the rewards is whether that's modified by group location, like it can be when purchasing an item normally. I can see arguments for both keeping it as normal like purchasing items because the Alliance could purchase the kit more easily based off availability, or I can see it not making a difference, because the Alliance can operate more easily in more remote or less trafficked area. I would be good to know which way FFG has in mind though, because again using the RAW Dreadnought -class Heavy Cruiser as an example, a group operating in the Core could be 'given' one potentially after their first 100 Duty points...

Firstly, I doubt the Rebellion has their hands on many Dreadnought-class Cruisers. Even if they could find or afford them, they wouldn't be able to man them. They are known in universe for being incredibly inefficient as far as manpower goes.

Secondly, if, for some reason, my players got their hands on a Dreadnought-class Cruiser via Duty and decided they wanted to sell it, I'd tell them "good luck". Where would you unload such a thing without immediately facing the wrath of the authorities? Finding a buyer would be an adventure itself! And what about the crew? The players would immediately find themselves the victims of a mutiny, and the Alliance would turn its back on the characters as well.

I could see myself supplying PCs with up to a MC80 and crew with enough acquired Duty. But the moment they start to abuse it, they'll have the Alliance on their behinds to get it back.

I could see myself supplying PCs with up to a MC80 and crew with enough acquired Duty. But the moment they start to abuse it, they'll have the Alliance on their behinds to get it back.

That is sort of my point. I'm more inclined to providing a group an item so large, expensive, and involved to have narratively rather than because a game mechanic says they can get it.

If a mission requires that the group have a certain type of vessel, or piece of equipment, then I generally do one of two things. Either the Alliance provides the vessel, vehicle or item for the mission with it (or a very good explanation for why it hasn't been) returned after the mission is over. More commonly though I'd have a early subplot where the group has to acquire whatever is needed for the mission first.

No, I mean I'd give them a MC80 to command on a permanent basis once they reached the appropriate level of Duty/Contribution. Or a crack squad of SpecForce commandos. Or whatever composition of fighter squadron, complete with backup wingmen and support staff, they end up designing. These wouldn't be case by case through Duty, they'd have their "reward" as a recurring resource. I'd imagine that Luke kinda scored Rogue Squadron in a similar manner. The Alliance will only take it back if the PCs really start going rogue, which I imagine they won't, knowing my players. But hey, it could make an awesome story for some groups. Apocalypse Now and all that.

I still would reserve the right to introduce resources on a case by case basis, but the Alliance will put Duty related rewards under their permanent care.

Funny, that. We're both getting to basically the same place but via different methods. If the group wanted their campaign to be about naval combat vs. the Imperial fleet, privateering or piracy, then the game would be arranged so that they'd have what they wanted or needed to have that sort of game.

It just wouldn't take or involve a Duty reward to get there. My reservation about the Duty reward is that a group could use/abuse it to get themselves something not in line with the direction of the campaign. Sticking with the capital ship theme we've had going, the group could request an Escort Frigate or other equivalent. Then the group would start to use that as a mobile HQ/home base to operate from.

Doing so is fine and makes sense if the theme of the campaign shifts to a more naval or space combat oriented one, a la the WEG Far Orbit Project. If they're requesting it because they want the home base to be harder to find and better defended, as well as to be able to call it in if they get into trouble as they go about with their missions just like before... I see the potential for abuse.

I see what you're getting at, but from the way I interpret the Duty mechanic I don't have any issues. The way I see it, the GM should design or modify adventures to fit the history of the campaign. This means that as a GM I should be excited that my players now have a MC80 scale capital ship to call their home base, and I should design encounters that allow them to utilize their new resources and still challenge them. Say they are involved with a ground assault on a secret Imperial laboratory. Instead of getting inside to blow the prototype up, the mission is now to disable the shield generators so that the MC80 can bomb the whole lab from orbit. Both are cool missions, but in the second one the players feel powerful and they feel that their previous efforts have paid off directly.

Duty is just a way to track how close players are to that next big step. As GM, it's up to me to limit where they go with it.

You could theoretically run the exact same story in an EotE game, complete with debts to pay off, bounty hunters just around the corner, and a chronically ill sister to take care of back home, without the Obligation mechanic. The mechanic is there to provide some subtle mechanical flavor to go along with what in other games would be purely fluff. Pay off your Obligation and you no longer have to worry about that Hutt in the story, but you also don't have to worry about having your strain threshold dinged 4 points every session. You could easily drop the mechanical bit and it would still be fun, but the players and GM wouldn't have guidelines on where to go next with the story if they get lost.

Same with Duty and its rewards. Sure, you could do away with them. But by allowing players to accumulate Duty points, they can see and guide the benefits of their work. It gives them a little reason to high five at the end of a session if they did well. And after a few sessions, they can cash in and grab a sweet, GM-approved prize. I think that's tight, since it gives the players agency in a setting where they'll mostly be taking orders.

I agree that, as presented in the Beta book, Duty and Contribution Rewards are a bit too vague and some GMs could end up in situations where they've allowed their players to overstep to the point of damaging the fun of the game. But then again, many thought that Obligation had similar vagueness problems during EotE's beta too, and now most folks love it. I think once they clarify how to use Duty in the final edition, it will be just as powerful of a mechanics-story bridging tool as Obligation is.

Regarding using both Duty and Obligation in the same game, here's my system. (I'm playtesting this tonight, so we'll see how it goes.)

Characters can have Duty or Obligation. Starting as an EotE class gives you starting Obligation, but you can take Duty as well. Conversely, starting with an AoR class gives you Duty (even Duty 0 counts), but you can take an Obligation as well.

Why? Well, it costs XP to get Duty, but you get XP for taking Obligation. So even though Obligation will saddle you with negative consequences, it might be a worthy trade-off for starting characters. Plus, while having Duty will give you bonuses, it costs valuable starting XP that could be used elsewhere.

At the beginning of play, I'll make one roll, using the values of combined Duty and Obligation separated by their values (as demonstrated in the rule books). If the roll comes up with someone's Obligation, everyone suffers the related penalty; if it comes up with someone's Duty, everyone gets the benefits as described. In doing so, I think it'll help motivate my players to grow together as a team.

Or something. Really, I'm just using them as guinea pigs and they have to suck it up.

CaptainRaspberry,

Not sure if you're aware of this given your post, but a PC's starting Duty has been significantly re-worked as of the Week 3 Beta update. Instead of starting at 0 and spending XP to increase it, it starts at a fixed value not unlike Obligation does for EotE PCs (smaller groups have a higher starting Duty per PC than larger groups), and you can opt to reduce your starting Duty value (to a minimum of 0) to either get more XP or more starting credits (the inverse of taking more Obligation to do the same in EotE). The update also has a whole section on running games using both Duty and Obligation as well.

There should be a link to the Week 4 update (the last one) which also covers all the prior updates in the sticky thread over in General Discussion.

CaptainRaspberry,

Not sure if you're aware of this given your post, but a PC's starting Duty has been significantly re-worked as of the Week 3 Beta update.

Ah. No, I was not aware. Thanks for the update, I'll go check it out.

Okay... so to throw a real monkey wrench into the conversation, I have to ask for a judgement call.

Can a player take the Obligation "Dutybound to the Alliance" and Duty "random duty type"? I mean, his Obligation is a measure of how important his commitment to the Alliance is and his Duty is a measure of how successful his service to the Alliance is. The Obligation is a measure of his personal feelings, while his Duty is a measure of how others rate his success.

Okay, take a breath, count to ten... ... ...and... GO!

Okay... so to throw a real monkey wrench into the conversation, I have to ask for a judgement call.

Can a player take the Obligation "Dutybound to the Alliance" and Duty "random duty type"? I mean, his Obligation is a measure of how important his commitment to the Alliance is and his Duty is a measure of how successful his service to the Alliance is. The Obligation is a measure of his personal feelings, while his Duty is a measure of how others rate his success.

Okay, take a breath, count to ten... ... ...and... GO!

Sure! It means that sometimes, he's amped by the mission (duty triggered), but other times, finds the duty onerous (obligation triggered).