So I remade my character in AoR because Talley isn't a Hired Gun. The issue I see is, for extra obligation, which I happily took (in EotE) as we have a large group so I increased his Obligation to match a normal size group, I got 5xp and 1,000 extra credits. Is there going to be an option for those characters to get extra XP or money or something similar? Sure, I might have more access to gear, maybe, I get the option of getting gear to complete the mission only to give it back. That should be done narratively versus mechanically.

Ok sure, for more stress (Obligation), for the character, sure, I can understand getting a bonus to XP and or credits, but when an EotE character gets 2500 additional credits, for a total of 3,000, versus a Rebel characters 500 credits max. And for a human in EotE a possible 120xp versus an AoR human who has 110.

Mechanically speaking, there's very little difference between the Hutt Organization and the Rebel Alliance. You do a job for the Hutt you get stuff (houses, gear, money, whatever), you do jobs for the Rebel Alliance, technically you get a pat on the back, but through that, you have to raise your Duty to acquire the same stuff.

Right now, there doesn't seem like a good reason to choose a career in AoR over an EotE career.

The problem I'm seeing is the Mechanics of the two systems, not the narration.

I think you're tying the careers to closely to the game. If you're going to game-hop, the rules of the other game shouldn't come with you (in theory).

Let's say I'm running an EotE game. A player wants to play a hotshot, generally non-combat pilot. For conversation's sake, we'll call him Hoban "Wash" Washburne. The player initially considers a Smuggler/Pilot, even though Wash ISN'T a smuggler (he's a straight-up citizen who got into a bad situation because of a girl). Then the player spots the Ace/Pilot combo and realizes that's a better fit.

So, as a GM, I let him bring the Ace career into EotE...

But the career he's changing doesn't change the rules of the game. THIS Ace, because he's in an EotE game, does not have access to Duty, but DOES require an Obligation. Even though the career is from AoR, the character creation rules are still from EotE.

Further caveat: I could decide to get trick, though, and allow the two systems to intermingle... but now I'm in uncharted territory. Say I have some PCs who want Obligation but others who like Duty. Will I allow both? Can a single character have both, or just one? (One could argue that in Star Wars, Han Solo has Obligation, and a higher starting value, while Luke and Leia have Duty... by RotJ, it seems like everything has evened out, but in the first movie, at least, Han seems to be of a "higher level" than the other main characters).

Since this intermingling is a HOUSE RULE, I would also very likely either set money equivalently, or find some way/reason to compensate.

Short version: Introduction of a new career does not change the basic character creation rules.

It's not that I'm tying careers to closely to the game it's telling the player during character creation that X player/character gets more money and XP than Y player/character. When player Y asks why does player X get more money and XP, you tell them because they're adding more Obligation to the character. Player Y agrees with the reasoning, then proceeds to ask if there's an option for them to get more XP and money. Your answer is No. Why does Han Solo get more money than Leia? Mechanically, Han has more money and experience than Leia. Narratively, Princess Leia is a member of the Imperial Senate. Shouldn't Leia have a bonus to mechanics as well, because she Is a member of the Imperial Senate?

Why should there be a mechanical difference between the two games? Last time I checked, physics worked the same for soldiers as it did for mob enforcers.

You play AoR because you want to play Rebel scum, and you play EotE because you want to play ordinary scum. That is the difference.

And in a way, that's what I'm getting at.

Additional Obligation Mechanics

+5 or +10 Experience Points

+1,000 or +2,500 credits

Additional Obligation Narration:

Lowering your Obligation (to be free to do what you want)

Duty Mechanics

(Pat on the Back)

(Pat on the Back)

Pay XP at character creation to get a higher duty.

Equipment (after months and months of gameplay and raising your Duty to 100)

Duty Narration:

Raising your Duty (Serving your cause)

While Duty may fit for a character over Obligation, with Obligation, I get a bonus at character creation for more XP and Credits. With Duty I get a nice pat on the back as well as possibly having to spend XP to raise my Duty score. I can do the same thing and take Obligation instead.

What gwek was trying to say was that if you import an AoR career/spec into an EotE game then you should also use the obligation rules for this character. So in your example, player Y also gets to take starting obligation and extra for additional XP and credits.

However, if all the characters are created for an AoR game then you should use the duty mechanic instead, even if you import a career/spec from EotE.

The interesting crossover comes when you start playing EotE and then the characters join the rebellion, potentially using both Obligation and Duty at the same time.

But gwek already said all of this.

But, like for my character, a Rebel, and who has been since the formation of the Rebel Alliance, and the rest of my group continues to play their Smugglers and BHs, I'm SOL? They enjoy playing those fringe characters. Me, depending on the game, don't really. Shadowrun - Fringe, WHFRP 1st or 2nd - Fringe, D&D - Military, SW - Military. And for my early life, mostly played Mage/Wizard like characters, part of an Order. I think there needs to be a comparable option for those that do like playing Duty bound characters.

Sorry Tally but I'm confused, are you playing a game about scum and villainy (EotE) or are you in a group of rebels fighting against an oppressive Empire (AoR)? What system are you playing?

What I'm trying to figure out is why is your Rebel character in a group with Smugglers and Bounty Hunters?

What I'm trying to figure out is why is your Rebel character in a group with Smugglers and Bounty Hunters?

The Rebels often has liaisons with fringe elements, and someone has to bridge the gaps.

Talley is a member of the Alliance, and 2 of the smugglers have Rebel sympathies, 1 smuggler probably uses it as a safe haven from the Empire, 1 of the Bounty Hunters has a Life Debt to the two smugglers, the other Bounty Hunter takes jobs for the Alliance as well as the occasional wanted by both the Rebels and Imperials for crimes against both. 3 Smugglers: Pilot, Scoundrel, Thief; 2 Bounty Hunters: 1 Assassin, 1 Gadgeteer; Commander: Myself; 1 Soldier: Medic

Ok, the easiest thing to do is to create some obligation for Tally based on what prompted her to join the Rebel Alliance, so she can get extra XP at character generation but also might have this aspect of her past rear its head at a later date. And then have duty awarded as and when the group complete jobs for the Rebels, simples.

The game mechanic you use shouldn't be linked to a specific character but to the ruleset you are using, EotE or AoR, but there is nothing to say that you can't use both and this might be encouraged in the AoR core book as good character progression, ala Mr Solo.

It sounds like you have a great narrative worked out and I think you have found a great solution to combining gritty and noble characters.

Supposedly AoR will have rules on Duty-and-Obligation, but there's nothing I saw that requires "making an AoR character" -- which I define as making a new character with an AoR career or adding an AoR specialization to your existing character from EotE -- if you're playing a campaign about anti-Imperial resistance forces.

The thing not getting about AoR is why does it present itself as a separate game? Aside from EotE only coming out like a year ago and most of the public I know still learning that game, why isn't AoR presented more as an expansion model or sourcebook than a new game? It seems using it as gwek does in their 'house rule' setting makes more sense. I like the idea of being able to use both books for a single game (which in the end is what I'll do), plus it allows a character who is a fringer to find their way into the Alliance, or vice-versa. I just don't get the presentation of the material if it's completely compatible. Is there something I'm missing?

Fantasy Flight decided to do three separate games, focusing on the different aspects that people like about the original (and only) movies; The Wretched hive of scum of Villainy, the Rebellion and then the force users.

The reason the games are separate but compatible, is that not everyone likes every aspect of the star wars universe. Some think Luke and Darth Vader are awesome, some love the massive battles and starships, and others just want to play a character like Han and Chewbacca - three complete games, with one ruleset between them, but having different feels. Star Wars fans being what they are (myself included) will most likely buy all the books. Fantasy Flight is a company out to make money. People always seem to get this, yes I'm sure many of the people working products for this license love Star Wars, but first and foremost this is a job and they have to make money, otherwise the license will be revoked. So, the three books are because (we) Star Wars players WILL buy it. I have forseen it.

Smugglers and the like generally have bounties, criminal allegiances and other things hanging over them (think Han's bounty from owing Jabba money). The rebels, for the most part, have given everything up except for the fight against the empire. They get recognition for the deeds they do.

The issue with obligation, though unlikely to come up in most games, is that yes you DO get more money and experience, BUT, you have side effects to obligation. The unlikely part I mentioned before is that if your obligation gets to 100 you can't spend experience. An Age of Rebellion character doesn't have that.

Duty however, will probably take longer to accrue, and thus you won't get as much benefit of it.

So, to sum up:

An Edge of the Empire character can start out with more money and experience, but they will always have a criminal obligation hanging over their head which can make life difficult, where as a Age of Rebellion has to worry about doing daring deeds (possibly done dirt cheap) to be a benefit to the rebellion and strike a blow against the Empire.

I see your point.

But is Tally lacking +10 starting XP really crippling your character compared to the others?

Seems to me Obligation gives you a starting boost, but you later work to reduce it.

Duty doesn't give you that small initial boost, but eventually you get more stuff down the line.

(and, I don't see the issue with having both, as Han clearly did).

Duty and Obligation... I don't see why they wouldn't work together.

Our Tech, BeeDee the *ahem* 'protocol droid' *ahem* has Obligation: Responsibility (droid rights).

If she decides to join the Alliance for some reason, she doesn't suddenly stop caring about the poor oppressed droids. She still stresses over their plight and sometimes they actively seek her out for help. Heck, she's probably lecturing the Rebels now about how 'you should treat those astromech droids like crew, not gear'.

But, she now also starts accumulating Duty, separately. As she racks up the kills (or whatever her Duty is) the Alliance rewards her with stuff, or pats on the back, or whatever.

But her old obligations don't suddenly disappear now that she's fixing X-wings instead of smuggler freighters.

For what it's worth, there's apparently some guidance out there to the effect of such 'combined' games: "there's two tables, roll for both."

This is entirely a job for the GM. For my game, if you want the 10XP, you are making an EotE character and your connection to the rebellion is an obligation. If you are making the character out of the AoR book, you dont get the 10 XP and get to laugh at the silly fringers as they worry about bounty hunters and hutts.

If you want both, too bad.

As for combining duty and obligation, I dont see that any special thought is needed. If EotE characters, you start with obligation, and if you join the rebellion, you can start accruing duty also. If AoR characters, you start with zero obligation and can gain it through normal gameplay.

I don't see why both can not be used, even combined, by characters. Transitioning characters may start with Obligation and gain Duty when they join the Rebellion. Or you may have a mixed group with some characters having either or both.

My thought is generally similar to korjik's, in that you either choose Obligation or Duty to start with, which determines the type of campaign you're running. If using Duty, then the PCs don't get an Obligation and as such can't take additional Obligation, even if using EotE careers & specs, but instead get the Rebellion Resources option. Conversely, if using Obligation, then the PCs don't get a Duty to start with and instead get a free transport rather than picking a Rebellion Resource, even if some of the PCs were built using AoR careers & specs.

That said, I've toyed around a bit with what mouthymerc suggested, namely in allowing AoR characters to take a 5 point Obligation at character creation, reflecting some element of their past that still haunts them and might come up from time to time, in addition to having a Duty to the Rebellion This way, the AoR PCs can pick up a few extra resources (namely credits for extra gear). It's not broken the game, but while I've not had the chance to see if there's any long-term effects, I doubt such a thing would come up.

Technically an age of rebellion character can get more money/gear than an edge of the empire crew. That one age of rebellion character COULD start with a y-wing, lambda shuttle or a base +2500 creds, while the Edge of the empire crew get a communal ship.

Why does Han Solo get more money than Leia? Mechanically, Han has more money and experience than Leia. Narratively, Princess Leia is a member of the Imperial Senate. Shouldn't Leia have a bonus to mechanics as well, because she Is a member of the Imperial Senate?

Your logic is based on false assumptions.

If we're playing an EotE game, Han DOESN'T get more resources than Leia, because Leia also has access to Obligation (likely, Dutybound to the Rebellion).

Narratively, Leia should not receive any bonuses for being part of the Imperial Senate because at the time the campaign occurs, a) the Senate has been dissolved, and b) Leia has personally been labeled "a part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor."

Two other perfectly good reasons for Han to have more resources:

1) Han's player has played longer, and Han has thus accumulated a few extra sessions' worth of experience. (When I started my Saga campaign, one PC transferred over from a "prequel" campaign -- to reward the player for his loyalty to the character and the ongoing storyline, I bumped him up a level to start. Over time, it made very little difference)

2) GM fiat. "Listen, I know you want to play a smuggler type and everyone else wants to be Rebels. I don't want the group to be dependent on the Rebellion for transport, so let's talk about a ship..."

It's a matter of focus, really. See further the "Welcome..." section on page 7 of the Beta for Age of Rebellion. What is interesting to me and what has also clarified in my mind what the game designers' intent was for this collection of RPG tomes was what was written concerning the relation of the three books, Edge of the Empire, Age of Rebellion and Force and Destiny.

For instance, Force and Destiny will focus on 'Force users in the galaxy', while Edge focuses on the the fringes of society and Age, on the members composing the Rebellion. It is only natural to think in terms of obligation and duty when it comes to those outside of normal society and those who 'take the fight to the oppressive Galactic Empire', respectively.

It's a bit of a paradigm shift, nothing more.

If the problem is game mechanics, Duty-as-obligation would be fine.

If the problem is theme, the question is, "Does the DM want to deal with a PC that is part from the party and with different motivations and goals from the main storyline"

So yeah, I don't yet see how the two games are 100% compatible. That being said, this game doesn't seem set up for the Level 1 through 20+ Epic two-year-realtime campaigns I'm used to. I'm kinda glad because it lets me actually play, be done, move on, and play something else, while still getting me RP hit. It is also friendly for the less-dedicated.

A character can have Obligation AND duty. At the beginning of a session there will be two rolls, one to see if any duty is triggered, and a 2nd roll to see if any obligation is triggered. Keep it simple.