I think trying to map RPG conceits to movies as a means of making rules arguments isn't the way to go. The ruleset is designed to make for a fun, playable, balanced game; it's inspired by what we see on the screen, but it isn't meant to explain it on a 1:1 level.

When the question becomes, "How do I handle Duty and Obligation when I have one AoR character, one EotE character, and two characters who straddle the line?" you've officially made things too complicated, IMHO. The GM needs to decide what the group theme is, and stick to that. After all, if one player makes a character who's a spice-running smuggler out to make a buck and keep his own neck safe, that doesn't mesh well with a group of three other people committed to being a Rebel saboteur squad--regardless of the Duty or Obligation mechanics.

Agree.

"When the question becomes, How do I handle Duty and Obligation when I have one AoR character, one EotE character, and two characters who straddle the line?", the GM has failed some extent, or at least has not thought things through.

Many of the d20 games are essentially compatible (admittedly, not as compatible as EotE and AoR), but if I'm GMing a group that has a Jedi from Saga, a Bard from 3.5, and a Fast Hero/gunslinger from d20 Modern, of COURSE there are going to be inconsistencies.

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.

As many have stated, it is possible to mesh the two systems. I sat with my crew and discussed the differences and The Table came up with something we could all live with in regards to the starting character costs. Since then I haven't had any issues with the two systems (obligation and duty).

What we did: As GM, I authorized a character bump for beginning AoR characters on a x2 payback scale allowing them access to the +5 or +10 build points, the same as the EtoE toons. To balance this against the indebtedness of the EtoE characters, I make them pay back the rate they borrowed at 200%, paying me half the duty they earn until the 10/20 duty is paid. I do not actually make them suffer ill side-effects of low duty, for this particular expense, as long as the player (in character) isn't ignoring their "duty", but I will if I feel it is being taken for granted. This allows them builds on par with the EtoE toons, with virtually the same negatives. As experience is a separate issue entirely, they stay balanced build wise.

It’s not perfect, but it was a table decision and one everyone is currently happy with it.

Another option would be to just not allow any extra points, regardless of reasons. Logically speaking the duty drops would end up being for the whole group, anyway, so it isn't like the EtoE characters are going to be hurting for gear for very long.

Eventually they all go one way or the other, in our case, the characters are working off the obligations while working for the rebellion. Like Han, they all plan on becoming rebels.

I make the objectives of the missions gel with obligations, when I can. For instance, rebellion wants you to free prisoner x from imperial instillation z, it just so happens that The Black Sun, has a job for you, assassin. Zug, a prisoner at z instillation, needs killing. Obligation served, while conducting a rebellion mission.

What’s stopping your character, Talley, from being a “recruiter” in the outer rim and acquiring obligation? Becoming an addict? Forming and administering cells? Etc… To get anything done, on The Fringe, you’re going to have to grease some palms. Then think about the Imps, that's a gold mine for the rebellion... loose lips, corrupt, etc... It’s the star wars equivalent to being stationed in Siberia. They aren’t there because they were the best and brightest the Empire had to offer. And a lot of them are bitter about it.

You could almost ditch the duty, entirely having your obligation worded towards the Rebellion. As you’re in the outer rims, it’s not like duty is going to logically be a huge bonus. Hard to explain a drop, in the remote regions of Tat, or Hoth, or Honoghr, that’s calling in some serious favors, as they are so out of the way.

May not work for you, but I hope they help some.

I've detailed my setting in another thread, feel free to take a look.

For me, it seemed like a great idea, 3 different books, 3 games, all compatible. But clearly, if we're all having to talk about it this much, they're not really uber compatible are they? Being that they're only 1 year apart, I see no reason there should be such difficulties in incorporating the different books. Now talking about D&D 2.0 to 3.0, there's a decade or something in-between, so inconsistencies, I get. Call me a whiner, but just friggin make an expansion that has the info we want in it, and either let us decide how to implement the system (which is what we're having to do anyway in this case) or create a contingencies chapter that shows how to transfer characters back and forth? I don't want to have to get bogged down in this minutia just to move my group's characters from EotE to AoR should they decide to join the rebellion, or vice-versa. Seems to 'overdone' in order to be 'original.'

I don't want more original. A brand new dice set and the very interactive player involvement in the narrative is plenty enough 'original' for me. Can we not make my simple little head explode as well? I just wanted a deeper game, not a whole new twist on it. Now I am done typing, flame me as you wish <3

Seems to me some people are overthinking this. Play the game you want. If you are playing an EotE game, use Obligation. Any of the careers from both EotE and AoR will work with it. If you want to play an AoR game, use Duty and any career from the two books. If you want to run a more comprehensive game, use both Obligation or Duty and all the careers. Characters can choose to have either or both of Obligation and Duty. It doesn't look all that complicated.

I make the objectives of the missions gel with obligations, when I can. For instance, rebellion wants you to free prisoner x from imperial instillation z, it just so happens that The Black Sun, has a job for you, assassin. Zug, a prisoner at z instillation, needs killing. Obligation served, while conducting a rebellion mission.

See, I must be an evil, evil GM, because my first thought was "And upon arrival at Installation Z, the players learn that Prisoner X and Zug are the same being .

Cue maniacal laughter.

I just figured that Obligation would be used for characters with an Edge bent, Duty would be used for characters with an Age bent, and both could be used for a character if a player so desired. For example, a Soldier/Medic who has a Personnel Duty to the Rebellion and also happens to be addicted to spice. (Obligation)

Maybe an Imperial Ace/Pilot has a Space Superiority Duty to the Empire, but is also being blackmailed by an ISB agent. (Obligation)

And of course, there's the classical example of the Smuggler/Pilot or Smuggler/Scoundrel who owes a Debt Obligation but also has a Duty to the Rebellion.

If the party were using both Duty and Obligation, I'd simply have two tables to roll on before each session. Presumably, Obligation and Duty could both trigger and either coincide nicely or put members of the party at cross-purposes. If Obligation tops 100, the whole party has to make sure it gets reduced if they want to spend experience points, but the whole party also benefits from the increase in the Duty score. At least, that's how I plan on doing it now.

I make the objectives of the missions gel with obligations, when I can. For instance, rebellion wants you to free prisoner x from imperial instillation z, it just so happens that The Black Sun, has a job for you, assassin. Zug, a prisoner at z instillation, needs killing. Obligation served, while conducting a rebellion mission.

See, I must be an evil, evil GM, because my first thought was "And upon arrival at Installation Z, the players learn that Prisoner X and Zug are the same being .

Cue maniacal laughter.

I debated that as well, and it may indeed one day occur that way. Depends on my players choices. For instance if the bounty hunter starts taking Imp contracts then it's very likely that targets and objectives may be the same person. Heck, if the parties obligation/duty get out of hand, other party members may become targets.

When the party first started we had a force exile, the imp rewards offered for the capture or kill of known force users just prooved to great for the party and they wound up collecting the bounty on the other player character.

I think the only issue is the inability for AoR characters to gain the +5-10 XP. Sometimes that extra 10XP lets you pick up one more characteristic bump, and with the only way to get characteristics post-character creation being with dedication, that can really matter.

I know that technically since they aren't meant to be in the same game, the difference doesn't matter, but I personally prefer the symmetry of starting characters in the two games to have the same baseline.

An easy way to fix it is just to say that the 5-10xp from obligation is considered post-creation xp. But that is going backwards into EotE which isn't what we are here for I guess.

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.

I agree with this. However, until I've playtested for a group that includes characters with a mixture/combination of both, I won't know how fluid a process and experience this will be.

Also, a thought on the reasons behind why Duty shouldn't provide benefits to stats from the outset: whilst Obligation is designed to hinder a character by bringing about difficulties (meaning that a player should be given a benefit for taking on MORE Obligation), Duty is designed to help the character - rolled their total, or within their total, increases their Wound Threshold, whereas Obligation lowers Strain.

The benefit, therefore, isn't in a +5/10 XP increase or credit boost, but in the fact that you've got a better chance of being harder to kill, should you roll within those numbers. And that can mean all the difference in a campaign geared towards civil war.

It is only potentially an issue if you are running a game that combines both options, Obligation and Duty. And if you are combining them then there should be no reason that any of the starting characters can't use the option of taking on Obligation to gain extra cash or xp. If you deny it for some but not to others, then yes it is an issue. But it is an issue of your own making. If everyone has the same access to the same options then there should be no issue.

Alternatively, one could tell players that they can take either obligation, duty, or both. If you take duty, obviously you can't increase your starting xp, but you're exempt from all mechanical effects of obligation. (Not on the obligation table, if obligation is triggered for the session, don't suffer the penalty to strain threshold, perhaps narratively they have an 'out' for any in-game consequences).

I haven't tested this, but I think when I eventually run a combined game, that's what I will do.

You bring up an interesting point that any GM considering using both should take into account: technically, a mechanic, once introduced, can impact the entire group, so if even one player has an Obligation, if doubles come up, it can impact EVERYONE.

You bring up an interesting point that any GM considering using both should take into account: technically, a mechanic, once introduced, can impact the entire group, so if even one player has an Obligation, if doubles come up, it can impact EVERYONE.

Actually, it flares for the entire group if any person flares. Doubles just make it much worse.

Hasn't FFG said that Beta AoR doesn't have everything in it relating to mishmashing EotE with AoR in it?

The reason being, as I remember, is that they want to beta AoR standalone, without interference from EotE.

I imagine that in the retail AoR book that rules for mixing the two systems will be present.

For me, if I ever get a campaign rolling, mixing the two without real rules is simple. Does the Rebellion folks want to focus on fringe activities? Then drop Duty all together and let them build the class as an Edge character. Or, alternatively, do the Fringers want to join the Rebellion? Then they have to buy off their Obligation before they can even begin to earn Duty, while the Duty of Rebellion characters still has an impact - thus using both tables until that Obligation is bought off and they start accruing Duty.

Until the retail AoR comes out, that's how I'm doing it.

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.

Not quite. It's a group decision, not an individual one.

It's half a Y-wing, or a Shared Lambda, or a shared base of operations - only the base provides extra credits (Cr2500 each)

As for Why an AoR character?

1) Duty is a benefit, not a penalty. That's the big one.

2) being part of the Alliance at start is also a benefit in and of itself - you have resources for missions most of the time. Not always sufficient, but you won't need to go buy parts to repair your ship between missions

Not quite. It's a group decision, not an individual one.

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.

It's half a Y-wing, or a Shared Lambda, or a shared base of operations - only the base provides extra credits (Cr2500 each)

I AM aware of this. The reason I was saying technically is because, if they two games are their own line (which they are), one COULD argue that if they make a character using only Age of Rebellion or Edge of the Empire, they COULD as a singular person, choose one of the listed starting packages for their character - under the auspice that they are an Age of Rebellion character, and since they are not using obligation to get more experience or money, this would be a viable option.

It is from the standpoint that an Age of Rebellion character could be considered inferior, because you cannot start with either more experience or money (save for the base option). Personally I do not think a character with less experience or money is inferior. They have to be frugal for what they spend experience on.

That being said, I wouldn't allow that unless there was a REALLY good justification for the case. Such as a player that can't show up regularly playing a rebel operative in a y-wing, and they disappear for a mission when they can't make it. Extenuating circumstances only. Someone trying to play the system, I'd say NO.