Since the AoR beta book doesn't cover using it with EotE, but it looks like something that should be tested out. I am wondering how everyone is planning on using duty and obligation. I have come up with a couple of options and decided to run them by you as I await a reply from FFG on this very topic.

1) Decide to just stick with either Duty or Obligation.

2) Use both of them.

- This means that EotE classes will start with obligation and no duty.

- AoR characters start with duty and no obligation.

- Since AoR classes cannot take on anything extra for additional XP/Credits like obligation barring the base of operations choice. Allow the AoR classes take on extra obligation for this. This also will allow the EotE classes to buy extra duty if they want, but up to a limit.

- There will be rolls on both the group duty and obligation chart for this each session.

I am partial to option 2 personally. For it could make for some interesting dynamics to have one character affected by both obligation and duty, or two people to be feeling some kind of pressure from this. Going to try this with a EotE and AoR mixed group this afternoon.

I am interested in hearing what people are planning on doing with combining the two books on this front.

When I start running the AoR beta, my group will be beta testing with it so we will be using just duty. I'm going to allow them to use races and classes from EotE too. I will allow a GSA created document where they have expanded on the list of races in EotE. Beyond that, I'll be sticking to the beta and see what feedback my group can put together for the developers.

Ideally, I would love to run a campaign where the characters start by stealing a ship in EotE, then join up with the Rebellion in AoR, and finally transition into F&D either by playing a force user that has been developed since the start or fight on the side of the Jedi Knights.

Z

I am running multiple groups, one of them wants to do a mixed EotE and AoR campaign to test out the compatibility aspect of it all. Two groups are doing AoR strait up as it is in the beta book. Was just looking for some input for the mixed group.

I figure on using both if I wind up blending EotE and AoR stuff in the same game.

As for how it'd work, my idea is fairly simple. Instead of creating two separate lists, I'd just combine them into a single list, highest to lowest, and make a single roll to see what triggers, be it the penalty to Strain Threshold from an Obligation or a boost to Wound Threshold from a Duty.

So for instance, say I have a party with the following arrangements:

Player 1: Smuggler/Pilot with Debt Obligation of 10

Player 2: Soldier/Sharpshooter with Sabotage Duty of 8

Player 3: Colonist/Doctor with Family Obligation of 15

Player 4: Ace/Gunner with Combat Victory Duty of 6

Player 5: Diplomat/Agitator with Bounty Obligation of 10 (he got in trouble) and Support Duty of 10

So my chart would look a little something like this:

01-15 - Player 3's Family Obligation

16-25 - Player 5's Bounty Obligation

26-35 - Player 1's Debt Obligation

36-45 - Player 5's Support Duty

46-53 - Player 4's Sabotage Duty

54-59 - Player 5's Combat Victory Duty

Now I roll my percentile dice, and come up with a 29, triggering Player 1's Debt Obligation for this session; the loan shark he borrowed all those credits from is looking to recoup the money a bit earlier than anticipated. However, at the start of the next session, I roll a 48 to trigger Player 4's Sabotage Duty this time around; perhaps that loan shark from last time is also a middle-man for an Imperial supply agent, and taking down his operation would put a real crimp in Imperial operations in this sector...

The two are supposed to be separate, from my understanding. In my games, everyone has to have baseline obligation. I don't care who you are. There's something on your mind. Hell, there's a "Duty" obligation, even. If you really want a duty, then you can take that obligation too.

Say I have 4 players. Each one starts with 10 Obligation and takes 10 extra during character creation.

2 of them are using EotE careers and two are taking AoR careers. All of them are going to be working for the rebellion, but the Merc Soldier was an ex-military guy, so he buys 5 duty right off the bat, and the Medic decides to buy 10, but everyone else starts with 0.

Now you have 2 charts. Obligation chart looks like this:

EotE P1 (Merc Soldier) - 1-20
EotE P2 (Politico)- 21-40
AoR P1 (Infiltrator)- 41-60
AoR P2(Medic)- 61-80

Duty chart:

EotE P1 (Merc Soldier) - 1-5

AoR P2 (Medic) - 6-15


Now you make TWO rolls. One for Obligation, one for Duty. Obligation rolls up on a 47. AoR P1's obligation triggers! Now we roll on Duty. It is a 1. EotE P1's Duty triggers!

AoR P1 reduces his strain by 2 and everyone else reduces it by 1, EotE P1 increases his wounds by 2 and everyone else increases it by 1. The GM now has two different things to work into the story!

Endrik,

You're already making a house rule by forcing AoR characters to start with an Obligation, something that per the rules in the Beta they don't have. Consider early-OT Luke as well as Leia; neither of them really have an Obligation hanging over their heads the same way that Han has his Debt Obligation. Luke wants to do heroic things and become a Jedi, but that's a Motivation. Leia was a member of the Imperial Senate, but she had no problem flouting Imperial law to do what was right (her Duty to the Rebellion).

Now that's not to say AoR PC can't pick up Obligation after character creation, or an EotE PC can't start racking up Duty points after character creation, but that's the thing, it'd be after character creation and a result of actions in play.

Also, FFG seems to be aiming for "keep things simple when and where it's possible" with their system, and having a single chart with either the Obligation effect or the Duty effect triggering is the simple solution in terms of adjusting a character's values rather than having to deal with both, to say nothing of the plot values.

Plus, they're both something that drives the character; Obligation driving the character to reduce, Duty driving the character to achieve certain objectives.

The argument can be made that once Luke becomes a "PC" (steps on-screen to buy some wanted droids), he acquires an Obligation along the lines of "Hot Property."

I could see some members of the party having Obligation while others don't.

Duty, on the other hand, isn't designed to be taken piecemeal. Either your party is a Rebel cell/squad, or it isn't. The reason I don't think it works "right" without full group application is that Contribution is measured on a fixed scale that applies to the whole party.

Endrik,

You're already making a house rule by forcing AoR characters to start with an Obligation, something that per the rules in the Beta they don't have. Consider early-OT Luke as well as Leia; neither of them really have an Obligation hanging over their heads the same way that Han has his Debt Obligation. Luke wants to do heroic things and become a Jedi, but that's a Motivation. Leia was a member of the Imperial Senate, but she had no problem flouting Imperial law to do what was right (her Duty to the Rebellion).

Now that's not to say AoR PC can't pick up Obligation after character creation, or an EotE PC can't start racking up Duty points after character creation, but that's the thing, it'd be after character creation and a result of actions in play.

Also, FFG seems to be aiming for "keep things simple when and where it's possible" with their system, and having a single chart with either the Obligation effect or the Duty effect triggering is the simple solution in terms of adjusting a character's values rather than having to deal with both, to say nothing of the plot values.

Plus, they're both something that drives the character; Obligation driving the character to reduce, Duty driving the character to achieve certain objectives.

I'm assuming that when AoR officially comes out, the hypothetical section that tells us how to use the two side by side will tell us to do exactly what I just suggested. XD.

Luke had an obligation. His Aunt and Uncle. Then they got killed. Now he has an obligation that makes him want revenge on the Empire, and to learn more about the force. That leads him to gather more Duty, of course, as he starts working for the Rebellion.

I like the idea of using Duty and Obligation together as seperate but equal things. Duty itself says that each time you "level up" your Duty and drop back to 0, the Empire is going to notice you a little bit more. Guess how you could mechanically handle that? Obligation!

Besides, being a part of an organization isn't always positive. I feel like tying obligation into that is a perfect way to handle that.

I have to say, they pretty much need to be separate. Since hitting 100 has mechanical effects for either. So just using one table is a problem. Especially when Obligation hitting 100 is a bad thing but Duty doing so is a good thing.

What I would like to see in AoR is a brief guide on how to use the two side by side and for transferring from EotE to AoR. Keeping the two separate, as separate rolls and totals, makes sense - the two are not the same thing.

Transferring from EotE to AoR is what concerns me the most. How do parties manage it? You can't just say, "Well, there goes my Obligation! Now it's time for some Duty." Can they just buy down their Obligation to 5 and start accruing Duty as they interact more with the Alliance?

I have to say, they pretty much need to be separate. Since hitting 100 has mechanical effects for either. So just using one table is a problem. Especially when Obligation hitting 100 is a bad thing but Duty doing so is a good thing.

All I'm advocating is that when making that start of session roll to see what triggers, putting them all in one chart is simpler. At no other time should they be combined.

I'm assuming that when AoR officially comes out, the hypothetical section that tells us how to use the two side by side will tell us to do exactly what I just suggested. XD.

That presupposes that there is such a section in the final book. Since they're meant to be stand-alone books that also use the same system, it's possible there won't be any mention of EotE in the final book at all.

I have to say, they pretty much need to be separate. Since hitting 100 has mechanical effects for either. So just using one table is a problem. Especially when Obligation hitting 100 is a bad thing but Duty doing so is a good thing.

I agree on "reach 100" effects need to be kept separate for exactly that reason.

All I'm advocating is that when making that start of session roll to see what triggers, putting them all in one chart is simpler. At no other time should they be combined.

But what if you have 55 Duty and 55 Obligation? Suddenly my d100 isn't gonna quite do the job.

I'm assuming that when AoR officially comes out, the hypothetical section that tells us how to use the two side by side will tell us to do exactly what I just suggested. XD.

That presupposes that there is such a section in the final book. Since they're meant to be stand-alone books that also use the same system, it's possible there won't be any mention of EotE in the final book at all.

Hence my use of the phrase "hypothetical section." ;P. I am a pretty positive individual. I like to think that they are going to do something that would make sense and prove helpful, rather than assume they aren't going to. Especially since they are playing up the "Play your Character through All Three Books!" aspect of it all. I mean, they don't have to have a section like that, but I really think they are going to, even just as one of those side bursts that says "EotE and AoR". I imagine Force and Destiny will have a similar panel, and whatever new Obligation or Duty substitute it has will be able to be played alongside these two as well. You will, I believe, be able to use one, two, all three, or none of the systems, if you prefer. And it will probably be really easy to do so, since that's basically FFG's motto with this system.

Light Side/Dark Side

Light Side/Dark Side

Yea, I'm also assuming it will have something to do with that. And I'm guessing that it won't directly interfere with Duty or Obligation, and that it could be used separately or in conjunction. I feel like FFG thought this out pretty well. That's why Duty is like "Reverse Obligation".

But what if you have 55 Duty and 55 Obligation? Suddenly my d100 isn't gonna quite do the job.

I am interested in hearing what people are planning on doing with combining the two books on this front.

I'm co-running an EOTE game now, and I imagine if we as a group decide we want the characters to eventually join the Alliance, we'll add the Duty mechanic to the characters at 0 and go from there, while at the same time maintaining whatever Obligations our PCs have at the time. I don't see any reason why the two mechanics can't operate at the same time.

I'd keep them separate charts.

If I were to start a new campaign, I'd discuss options with the players. I think the Obligation system is brilliant, and can easily see it being used for both EOTE characters and AOR characters. I'm not really seeing this as two entirely separate games that cannot cross the streams; an AOR character can function with Obligation and an EOTE character can function with Duty.

I'd keep them separate charts.

Until I get an official word from FFG, this is how I'll be handling obligation. It seems to be the least complicated method.

But what if you have 55 Duty and 55 Obligation? Suddenly my d100 isn't gonna quite do the job.

Given that Duty accrues fairly slowly (starts a 0, suggested cap for an adventure reward is 10, and that's for major feats), by the time a group's Duty gets that high, those PCs should have been provided with plenty of chances to reduce their Obligations so that such a scenario is only likely if the GM is either a stingy prick when it comes to reducing Obligations or has been too quick to place extra Obligations on the PCs' shoulders.

Also, even if just using Obligation it's not impossible to have a total party Obligation that exceeds 100 when it comes time to roll, which could lead to at least one PC having a substantially reduced risk of having their Obligation trigger because everyone else has been accruing it. So the situation you're complaining about already has a chance of occurring in a pure EotE game, and might be even more likely if all the PCs decide to take the maximum extra Obligation they can at character creation.

"It probably won't happen" doesn't seem like a good solution, though. I mean, if you're keeping it separate for everything else, why not keep it on a separate chart too?

If they breach 100 Obligation, they can't spend EXP. That's enough incentive for them to start trying to reduce it. At that point, it really doesn't matter if one person's Obligation is going to have a lesser chance to trigger because they're going to be actively trying to reduce it so that their characters don't suck. Alternatively, you could use a dice roller for the extremely rare situations where this could be an issue. I mean, if the party isn't like "Hey guys we might wanna reduce our 95 Obligation some time here soon so we can still spend EXP..." then you might want to suggest they consider it.

If they breach 100 Duty, it goes down again, so that solves that issue.

The only reason I could see you wanting to keep them on the same chart was if you didn't want both to trigger at once (which is possible using separate charts.) While you could just use a dice roller and keep it all together, it seems like it would be more fun to have them separate. I mean, it gives more role play potential to work with as a GM and as a player. I see no reason why having an Obligation and a Duty trigger simultaneously would be negative. I think it would actually make for interesting role playing situations.

I agree on "reach 100" effects need to be kept separate for exactly that reason.

All I'm advocating is that when making that start of session roll to see what triggers, putting them all in one chart is simpler. At no other time should they be combined.

Actually, having both a Duty and an Obligation trigger at the same time could lead to some very interesting effects and combinations. Which I see as a bonus to having two tables rolled on. It can create some conflict, or help give ideas.

I agree on "reach 100" effects need to be kept separate for exactly that reason.

All I'm advocating is that when making that start of session roll to see what triggers, putting them all in one chart is simpler. At no other time should they be combined.

Actually, having both a Duty and an Obligation trigger at the same time could lead to some very interesting effects and combinations. Which I see as a bonus to having two tables rolled on. It can create some conflict, or help give ideas.

Perhaps, but I see the triggered Duty or Obligation as being that particular PC's chance for some spotlight time, as an element of their character history comes into play during the session (hence why I prefer the notion of rolling before the next session so the GM has a little more time to consider how it comes into play beyond the mechanical effects).

With them being rolled separately, there's also a much lower chance of neither of them being triggered, as AoR PCs' Duty will be rather low for several sessions, and there's not quite as much Obligation from the EotE PCs.

Except! The fact conflict could come into play between two different things makes it interesting for me. Or even more interesting when the same PC has both come up, that's when things get really weird.

Steve Horvath of FFG told me at GenCon that a GM would have 2 tables, one for Duty and one for Obligation, and at the beginning of each session, the GM would roll on BOTH tables to determine if any, or both, are triggered.

Steve Horvath of FFG told me at GenCon that a GM would have 2 tables, one for Duty and one for Obligation, and at the beginning of each session, the GM would roll on BOTH tables to determine if any, or both, are triggered.

Fair enough.

But what I'm wondering now is, if you took an Ace: Gunner specialization and then bought a specialization in, say, Technician: Outlaw Tech, would the same character have to have both Obligation AND Duty? Or can you decide which, or both? And is there anything from saying you can't take Duty instead of Obligation for a character career from the EotE book, or vice versa? Can I have a Colonist: Doctor who has no Obligation, but a Duty instead?