Is there a (for lack of a better word) conversion rules fro bringing characters from the last book into the Rebel Alliance. Converting obligation to duty, etc? Sort of like Han Solo. He is a perfect example of what I'm looking for. A fringer who eventually became a integral part of the Rebellion.

No mention of "conversion"/amalgamation rules in the beta book, but apparently it's possible to have both the Duty and Obligation tables and just roll for both of them.

As Chortles said, you just run both tables and roll for each system. It's why they interact with two different thresholds. Someone like Han Solo would have started with a high obligation and a small amount of Duty. Killing Jabba was Han's release from his Obligations so he could focus on increasing his Duty.

Ehhh, my interpretation of RAW is that Jabba's death wasn't a complete Obligation elimination (since by EotE RAW you'll always have some ) but a major reduction thereof.

Is there a (for lack of a better word) conversion rules fro bringing characters from the last book into the Rebel Alliance. Converting obligation to duty, etc? Sort of like Han Solo. He is a perfect example of what I'm looking for. A fringer who eventually became a integral part of the Rebellion.

There's nothing official about bringing EotE material into your AoR Beta games, so if you want to give your party a light freighter instead of an Imperial shuttle as their beginning transport, you can certainly do so.

Also, just because you're using EotE careers and specs in an AoR-centric game doesn't mean that those PCs have come standard with an Obligation. Sam with a PC built using an AoR career/spec for an EotE game isn't required to have a Duty (heck, said PC could be a deserter from the Alliance, having realized that it was a loosing battle and wanting to get out while their skin was still intact).

While EotE does require PCs in that system to always have a minimum Obligation of 5, there's nothing at the moment stopping you as the GM from ignoring that and allowing said PC(s) to reduce their Obligation to zero once they've signed-on whole hog with the Alliance. Admittedly, I think it'd be more interesting to have them keep that minimum 5 points of Obligation, though perhaps changed to a different type than their original Obligation. Such as Han's initial Debt Obligation being dropped to nothing after Jabba's death, but he still has a 5 point Criminal Obligation to reflect his shady history and how it occasionally comes back to bite him at inopportune moments.

Is there a (for lack of a better word) conversion rules fro bringing characters from the last book into the Rebel Alliance. Converting obligation to duty, etc? Sort of like Han Solo. He is a perfect example of what I'm looking for. A fringer who eventually became a integral part of the Rebellion.

While EotE does require PCs in that system to always have a minimum Obligation of 5, there's nothing at the moment stopping you as the GM from ignoring that and allowing said PC(s) to reduce their Obligation to zero once they've signed-on whole hog with the Alliance. Admittedly, I think it'd be more interesting to have them keep that minimum 5 points of Obligation, though perhaps changed to a different type than their original Obligation. Such as Han's initial Debt Obligation being dropped to nothing after Jabba's death, but he still has a 5 point Criminal Obligation to reflect his shady history and how it occasionally comes back to bite him at inopportune moments.

Right this is more what I meant, though in my mind as long as a PC has at least one of the three systems for their character I'd really leave it up to the player how they would want to handle it.

The negative of Duty (Empire trying to kill the PC) is going to overshadow most 5 point obligation entry.

Think Han Solo in Empire Strikes Back.

He had obligation following him around while he was part of the rebel alliance which was why he wanted to leave and take care of that bounty on his head.

If you're mixing games, I think that it might be reasonable to remove the "minimum Obligation 5" clause for any character that has cashed out (raised to 100 and reset) Duty at least once. That's not to say such a character would instantly resolve any of his Obligations, nor that he could not accumulate more, just that he should no longer have to worry about being required to have a minimum Obligation 5 and could reduce his Obligation all the way to 0.

You really don't need to eliminate obligation to have the PCs best friend tell him he's joining the Rebellion and then have storm troopers kill his foster parents. You can keep the obligation mechanic going until they eliminate the obligation naturally WHILE also earning duty.

You really don't need to eliminate obligation to have the PCs best friend tell him he's joining the Rebellion and then have storm troopers kill his foster parents. You can keep the obligation mechanic going until they eliminate the obligation naturally WHILE also earning duty.

I never suggested gaining Duty should reduce Obligation. I did suggest that an EotE character that joins a group that gains enough Duty to cash it in and reset it to 0 might be sufficient cause for the GM to waive the "minimum Obligation" rule,

So... you have a group of characters based on edge of the empire and want in on Age of Rebellion?

Well my first game whilst d6 was pretty much three of us playing effectively edge style characters... smuggler, engineer and gambler who were inadvertedly linked to the rebellion by the gm's npc (and PC when he was wasn't running the game) who was playing the brash pilot.

Easiest way to handle this is have them run a smuggling job that reveals they were making a delivery to a rebel cell except the cell is attacked whilst they're present by an Imperial unit and they're forced to flee but not before being identified as members of the rebel cell and go from there!

Let them decide their Duty afterwards if they want some that is!

If you're mixing games, I think that it might be reasonable to remove the "minimum Obligation 5" clause for any character that has cashed out (raised to 100 and reset) Duty at least once. That's not to say such a character would instantly resolve any of his Obligations, nor that he could not accumulate more, just that he should no longer have to worry about being required to have a minimum Obligation 5 and could reduce his Obligation all the way to 0.

I recommend the opposite. Leveling up your Duty even says that the Empire takes greater notice of you, right? Then, shouldn't raising your Duty actually INCREASE your Obligation? For instance, Mon Mothma likely has 20 or 25 Obligation towards the Rebellion, as one of their major leaders, and has probably leveled her Duty many times. However, Luke Skywalker has 0, maybe 5, obligation towards the Rebellion to begin with, and only a handful of duty. Immediatly ABY, he likely broke that tendancy, and gained some obligation towards the Rebellion, likely because I think destroying the Death Star gets you an automatic +100 Duty. Anything that gets you a reward ceremony like that would probably give you much more than 5 or 10 Duty.

If you're mixing games, I think that it might be reasonable to remove the "minimum Obligation 5" clause for any character that has cashed out (raised to 100 and reset) Duty at least once. That's not to say such a character would instantly resolve any of his Obligations, nor that he could not accumulate more, just that he should no longer have to worry about being required to have a minimum Obligation 5 and could reduce his Obligation all the way to 0.

I recommend the opposite. Leveling up your Duty even says that the Empire takes greater notice of you, right? Then, shouldn't raising your Duty actually INCREASE your Obligation? For instance, Mon Mothma likely has 20 or 25 Obligation towards the Rebellion, as one of their major leaders, and has probably leveled her Duty many times. However, Luke Skywalker has 0, maybe 5, obligation towards the Rebellion to begin with, and only a handful of duty. Immediatly ABY, he likely broke that tendancy, and gained some obligation towards the Rebellion, likely because I think destroying the Death Star gets you an automatic +100 Duty. Anything that gets you a reward ceremony like that would probably give you much more than 5 or 10 Duty.

That can certainly happen. However, since some characters can be totally without Obligation (those created with AoR alone), it would make sense that all characters have the same rules. If mixing the games it could certainly be ruled that all characters have starting Obligation even if they also have Duty. This is likely the way I'll run it myself.

That's what I'm going to do, too!

So going by Andy Fischer's comments in the most recent O66 podcast, the AoR full rulebook will have a section detailing how to bring EotE PCs and their Obligations over to AoR. It's not in the Beta as the design team wanted folks to focus more on the purely AoR-related material... even though most folks at this point are either planning or are already treating AoR as an "add-on" supplement to there existing EotE games.

I'd say it's likely from how Andy viewed Han's Debt Obligation being "wiped clean" with Jabba's death that FFG's stance will be to allow an EotE character that's become part of the Alliance and has taken up a Duty to be able to reduce their Obligation to zero.

There should be some storytelling going on when "Obligation" is zeroed out. There should be a reason why the player's obligations are reduced, and it should play into the story of the campaign.

It sounds to me like if you're planning to add the Age of Rebellion into your campaign you ought to look at reducing the characters current obligation by half during play but before AoR so that you can add Duty without them going over the 100 limit.

Thats if you're going to add them together but until this update regarding how Duty is being dealt with comes out I'll have to see what develops!

How'd they fit, scale wise? Is a EotE Hired Gun as dangerous as a AoR [soldier of some kind]?

Can a character take specialisations from both books?

How'd they fit, scale wise? Is a EotE Hired Gun as dangerous as a AoR [soldier of some kind]?

Can a character take specializations from both books?

As far as "level of dangerousness," the Hired Gun is about on par with the Soldier, though the Soldier has what might be a better option for pure marksmanship (the Sharpshooter) while the Hired Gun's Marauder is the champ of pure melee combat. Hired Gun/Bodyguard can take a hit and help nearby allies not get hit, but the Soldier/Medic is pretty good at patching up allies after the fight.

And a character could take specializations from either book, provided they don't have it already. So you couldn't be a Smuggler/Pilot from EotE and then take the Pilot specialization from the AoR's Ace career, as you've already got the Pilot spec (they're identical right down to the bonus career skills) and the rules state you can't buy the same specialization twice.

It sounds to me like if you're planning to add the Age of Rebellion into your campaign you ought to look at reducing the characters current obligation by half during play but before AoR so that you can add Duty without them going over the 100 limit.

Thats if you're going to add them together but until this update regarding how Duty is being dealt with comes out I'll have to see what develops!

Well, if they are tracked entirely separately (two different charts), then there's no problem with going over the 100 limit, at least in terms of whether an Obligation or a Duty gets activated.

From what I've seen, it seems a lot of players in campaigns tend to focus on "what are ways I can reduce my character's Obligation?", so the GM should have plenty of chances to cut a party's Obligation down through gameplay and as a reward without having to artificially reduce it just to make way for a new mechanic.

Ta!

How'd they fit, scale wise? Is a EotE Hired Gun as dangerous as a AoR [soldier of some kind]?

Can a character take specializations from both books?

As far as "level of dangerousness," the Hired Gun is about on par with the Soldier, though the Soldier has what might be a better option for pure marksmanship (the Sharpshooter) while the Hired Gun's Marauder is the champ of pure melee combat. Hired Gun/Bodyguard can take a hit and help nearby allies not get hit, but the Soldier/Medic is pretty good at patching up allies after the fight.

And a character could take specializations from either book, provided they don't have it already. So you couldn't be a Smuggler/Pilot from EotE and then take the Pilot specialization from the AoR's Ace career, as you've already got the Pilot spec (they're identical right down to the bonus career skills) and the rules state you can't buy the same specialization twice.

Now with Age of Rebellion material available, I've been thinking of going back to one of my old series of convention modules that I used for the various d20 versions of Star Wars and updating them to FFG's system.

Looking at the character concepts for each PC, half the group is best reflected with EotE careers & specs (Wookiee Brawler as Hired Gun/Marauder, Brash Smuggler as Smuggler/Pilot) while others best fit the AoR careers (Young Lieutenant as Commander/Tacticion, Zabrak Merc as Soldier/Commando). The Human Jedi is the odd man out since there's no official Jedi material, though I do have my own Jedi Initiate spec to cover him, though what career/spec to use as his base is a bit trickier.

I could probably do a mix of Obligation and Duty for that group and get some firsthand experience in how the two interact, whether rolled on separate charts or compiled into a single chart for the start of session "whose Duty/Obligation triggers for this session?"

So going by Andy Fischer's comments in the most recent O66 podcast, the AoR full rulebook will have a section detailing how to bring EotE PCs and their Obligations over to AoR. It's not in the Beta as the design team wanted folks to focus more on the purely AoR-related material... even though most folks at this point are either planning or are already treating AoR as an "add-on" supplement to there existing EotE games.

I'd say it's likely from how Andy viewed Han's Debt Obligation being "wiped clean" with Jabba's death that FFG's stance will be to allow an EotE character that's become part of the Alliance and has taken up a Duty to be able to reduce their Obligation to zero.

Hmmmm. That was not my take on his comments.

It seemed to me that while that might have been Han's situation for the movies, Obligation and Duty are very different mechanics that can coexist side by side. They could increase or decrease independently.

So going by Andy Fischer's comments in the most recent O66 podcast, the AoR full rulebook will have a section detailing how to bring EotE PCs and their Obligations over to AoR. It's not in the Beta as the design team wanted folks to focus more on the purely AoR-related material... even though most folks at this point are either planning or are already treating AoR as an "add-on" supplement to there existing EotE games.

I'd say it's likely from how Andy viewed Han's Debt Obligation being "wiped clean" with Jabba's death that FFG's stance will be to allow an EotE character that's become part of the Alliance and has taken up a Duty to be able to reduce their Obligation to zero.

Hmmmm. That was not my take on his comments.

It seemed to me that while that might have been Han's situation for the movies, Obligation and Duty are very different mechanics that can coexist side by side. They could increase or decrease independently.

My post was more to the fact of Han being able to clean his slate in RotJ (the specific example), something that per EotE you can't do since EotE PCs will always have a minimum of 5 Obligation, even if they would have otherwise reduced it to 0.

Not sure how you got out of my post that a PC couldn't have both Duty and an Obligation during gameplay, as was obviously the case with Han, having a Duty to the Rebellion (much as he may not have liked it) and an Obligation to pay off Jabba (which he certainly didn't like).