Forgive me if there is a good post about this already, but I just read through a lot of Obligation threads, and none of them really covered what I was looking for.

The Core Book, on p. 309 seems to pretty clearly say that you don't give the players more Obligation (after play starts) without some sort of deal being made. Up until this point, I thought Obligation was added and subtracted by the story as play progressed... the PC's pissed off a Hutt, so now they had a Bounty Obligation. Now I assume that the pissed off Hutt is just a campaign villain that will come after them in future stories, but isn't really tied into their Obligations.

So, my question is, how DO you give the PC's new Obligations? Especially ones like Bounty? And why aren't they worried about Jabba coming after them if they pissed him off after play started?

I'd give it to them when they "find out" about it.

If they accept help from a regional governor to put them under Favor obligation, I'd add that immediately. They know they are accepting the help, thus the obligation that goes with it.

For something like Bounty, I wouldn't tell them until they find out about it. It's rather fun when you trigger bounty that said character is walking around, minding his own business when all of a sudden they come across their likeness on a bounty board.

I agree with the fun of surprising them with a bounty now and then. I'm just not not sure the RAW means for anything that hasn't been bargained by the players to count as an Obligation.

(Obviously they could still have a bounty that was just part of the story, etc.)

I agree with the fun of surprising them with a bounty now and then. I'm just not not sure the RAW means for anything that hasn't been bargained by the players to count as an Obligation.

(Obviously they could still have a bounty that was just part of the story, etc.)

Letter of the law, spirit of the law....

By letter of the RAW, no. But spirit, yes.

As the GM you are going to have to sometimes adjudicate this thing behind the curtain so to speak. Otherwise, how do the players get a bounty on their heads? No character is going to willingly take one. I can't even think of a story reason why a character would agree to something like that.

The same reasoning applies to Criminal as well.

The characters actions defines whether or not the obligation is appropriate. If the character borrows a bunch of money, then Debt is an easy obligation to add. Someone does them a Favor, well, they are now under Favor obligation. But that's an easy one to understand because the characters take on obligation and "get something" for it.

You have to divorce yourself from that theory. They are not entitled to anything when getting obligation. Their actions (or inactions) can dictate if its necessary. If the characters stab someone in the back, then betrayal is the one to add. Someone doesn't like them and tosses a bounty on their heads. Or that someone is in the Empire, and makes them out to be criminals. Or perhaps someone with inside knowledge of the characters actions (or inactions) comes along and starts Blackmailing the PCs.

Just because they don't "get anything" doesn't mean adding the obligation isn't appropriate.

I would add Obligation to my players, but I'd let them know beforehand. Something along the lines of "if you shoot this guy in front of fifteen witnesses, you'll get 10 points of the Criminal obligation". Then it's up to the player whether to follow through or not. Personally I think it's only fair that they should be told beforehand, but I wouldn't say that you can only add Obligation when the players negotiate it. Actions have consequences, and while the characters themselves might not realise it until later, the players ought to be told up front.

I would add Obligation to my players, but I'd let them know beforehand. Something along the lines of "if you shoot this guy in front of fifteen witnesses, you'll get 10 points of the Criminal obligation". Then it's up to the player whether to follow through or not. Personally I think it's only fair that they should be told beforehand, but I wouldn't say that you can only add Obligation when the players negotiate it. Actions have consequences, and while the characters themselves might not realise it until later, the players ought to be told up front.

Nah, I disagree.

Mainly because if the players aren't smart enough to understand if they shoot an Imperial Citizen on Coursant with 15 witnesses that someone might have a problem with it, thats on them. I shouldn't have to hold their hand.

However, some are reactive in nature. Sometimes one event isn't enough to trigger Oblication. Lets take the same example, set it on Tattooine and make it some scumbag smuggler in front of 15 scumbag smuggler/criminal witnesses. Is there going to be any criminal on that one? Probably not. No one is going to care, and furthermore that 15 witnesses is quickly going to be 0, as snitches get stitches. But what if that scumbag smuggler works for a powerful Hutt? The act of pulling the trigger isn't going to be enough to immediately add that Bounty Obligation to the PCs. The Hutt has to first hear about it, then his reaction is going to vary based on his relationship to scumbag smuggler. If he is a favorite scumbag, then the Bounty might be leveled immediately (after the Hutt hears about it). If he isn't a favorite, well then you probably just pissed off a Hutt. Its probably not enough to get him to level a bounty, but the Hutt isn't going to have a favorable opinon of the PCs. So if they disrupt the business plans again, it might get him to the point that a Bounty is leveled.

IMHO, the players should not know the consequences of their actions outside of the immediate effect. The ripples based on said action could be vast, and there is no way to tell exactly how it will play out the second the trigger is pulled. Just as in RL, you have no idea what will happen completely when you do something (or don't do something). It is only after a while that all of the consequences of your action becomes clear to you.

That being said, would I warn the players? I might, depending on the action and the point in the story I'm in. But really, they should be smart enough to figure it out themselves. If they shoot that Imperial Citizen, they shouldn't be suprised when they get arrested for that warrant the next time they are boarded by the Imps.

I'm basically trying to get to the spirit of the RAW. As I said in the OP, I basically thought that Obligation normally accrued due to story consequences/player actions. However reading page 309 makes me think this is not the intended use of Obligation. My question is then what sort of negotiation is meant to add Obligations that aren't the obvious negotiable ones (Bounty being the most obvious)

I'm thinking what Kreiger22 is saying would be close, because it involves at least mentioning it. The RAW seems to expect the PC's to always get something negotiated out of it though.

More examples in the book of post character creation Obligation gains would have been sweet.

I don't think most of the time PCs should be getting obligation heaped on them; it depends on how hungry they're getting, really. If they've already got plenty and they're getting their strain reduced every other session? Leave 'em alone. If they're all sitting at 5 each and are starting to lose reason to actually go gallivanting across the galaxy? Pull 'em back in.

As an aside, my players are probably going to earn some soon; when they do, I plan on doing it through a cutscene at the end of the session (the Hutt they're currently working for has a little chat with the bounty hunter he's hiring to take care of his reckless employees).

Like players deciding to roll a skill check, most Obligation increases should be their choice, not the GM's. Granted, there are appropriate times that a GM will just doll out Obligation because that's what the story calls for, but this obligation should of course come with some silver lining (they get a ship, or they find a pile of gold bullion marked with ancient Old Republic symbols, or they find some crazy Dark Side artifact and choose to keep it, or they witness some heinous crime and are SEEN witnessing it—leverage and obligation in tandem).

But I agree: if my player just up and has his PC shoot a bunch of innocent people in front of witnesses, heck yeah I'd slap a criminal obligation on him.

Now, I am of the mind that player characters are not players, and players are not their characters. A player might have the idea to do something (or not have an idea TO DO something) due to his lack of immersion, lack of experience, or lack of knowledge about the game or the world of the game. This doesn't mean that his CHARACTER would have the same ideas. The GM can use CHARACTER knowledge to make hints to the players: "Now, your character knows that if he does X, it will probably reflect badly on him." Then the player realizes that what he wanted to do would make his character a psychopath and so relents.

It's not for every gamer, of course, but it also doesn't have to be "hand-holding." It can just be the GM helping the players getting a little more immerse in the world of the story.

I would add Obligation to my players, but I'd let them know beforehand. Something along the lines of "if you shoot this guy in front of fifteen witnesses, you'll get 10 points of the Criminal obligation". Then it's up to the player whether to follow through or not. Personally I think it's only fair that they should be told beforehand, but I wouldn't say that you can only add Obligation when the players negotiate it. Actions have consequences, and while the characters themselves might not realise it until later, the players ought to be told up front.

I don't really like that. It's taking a narrative and making it about as meta as it gets.

I would add Obligation to my players, but I'd let them know beforehand. Something along the lines of "if you shoot this guy in front of fifteen witnesses, you'll get 10 points of the Criminal obligation". Then it's up to the player whether to follow through or not. Personally I think it's only fair that they should be told beforehand, but I wouldn't say that you can only add Obligation when the players negotiate it. Actions have consequences, and while the characters themselves might not realise it until later, the players ought to be told up front.

I don't really like that. It's taking a narrative and making it about as meta as it gets.

I'm with Krieger. Especially with something as nebulous as Obligation, I like for them to know the stakes and make informed decisions.

Also, meta isn't a bad word in gaming. It's merely a playstyle, and while it may not fit what you want in a game, there are others who disagree.

Here's another question.

If some things that happen in a story are turned into Obligation, and some are not, how do you explain that to the players?

If they gain no Obligation from performing a successful sting against the Black Sun, even though story-wise the Black Sun is definitely coming after them, but then they later gain 10 Bounty Obligation after killing a Hutt's relative during the course of another adventure... how do you justify the difference?

Or, does Obligation always give the PC's something helpful?

GM - Han Solo, you are about to be boarded by the the Imperials. There is no way they aren't going to find the spice.

Han Solo - Can I dump the spice so they find nothing?

GM - You can, but then you'll have to pick up Obligation until you pay Jabba back, with interest.

Either way, it's a sort of thin line gray area.

I'm with Krieger. Especially with something as nebulous as Obligation, I like for them to know the stakes and make informed decisions.

Also, meta isn't a bad word in gaming. It's merely a playstyle, and while it may not fit what you want in a game, there are others who disagree.

I wasn't saying you should play differently. I was offering my personal distaste for that style of play.

It's not my cup of tea because it makes choices feel more like number crunching than roleplaying to me.

I'm fine if the result of PC actions is "you've pissed off a crime lord" and now, that crime lord might not work with you, or might send an opponent to foil your plans, or they might shortchange you on a job you take for them as a form of petty revenge. That sort of thing, to me, is part of the story and appropriate and doesn't need to be linked to an Obligation trait. "Oh, you killed my favorite henchman? Why would i work with you? In fact I'm going to send a bounty hunter after you" is great narrative, HOWEVER this narrative need not necessarily be paired to either the Obligation mechanic or triggering its effects based on a random d100 roll - it happens simply when the story dictates at the GM's whim.

By contrast, I'm uncomfortable imposing additional mechanical burdens on characters without their knowledge, i.e. one character kills a crime lord's favorite minion and thereby gains a Bounty of 10 without OOC knowing about it, then when it happens it's a total surprise and they feel dumped on or duped. If it has to have a mechanical Obligation effect I'd much rather provide some warning (albeit oblique) that actions can have consequences, i.e. if they are going to get boarded by Imperials while illegally carrying spice, they get to know that dumping it could result in them being in Debt to their employer (which has mechanical effects in Obligation) and not dumping it/killing the inspectors could result in them being labeled Criminals (which has mechanical effects in Obligation).

Actions should have consequences; those consequence need not always have a mechanical effect...but if they do, I think the players should know about it to be able to make an informed choice.

Also, this!

Let me try another tact because I think there are a lot of people who are misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

P.307 First Paragraph says:

"Obligation is a core narrative and game mechanic in Edge of the Empire. Obligation influences both the characters and the adventure, often in unexpected ways. It can introduce new and unplanned alterations to the current circumstances. It also mechanically reinforces the concept that the universe responds to the characters' actions and that their decisions mean something beyond both the GM and the players' immediate control."

Got it? Here, let me highlight the important parts:

"Obligation is a core narrative and game mechanic in Edge of the Empire. Obligation influences both the characters and the adventure, often in unexpected ways. It can introduce new and unplanned alterations to the current circumstances. It also mechanically reinforces the concept that the universe responds to the characters' actions and that their decisions mean something beyond both the GM and the players' immediate control."

In the very next paragraph it says "...it is partly a player resource that should have a narrative or mechanical cost during the game."

What does all this mean? It means if you are looking at obligation merely as another form of currency the characters can barter with to get shiny new stuff, you are looking at it the wrong way. They CAN use it in this matter. That doesn't mean that they get to all the time.

By taking Obligation, they get something out of it, whether or not it is obvious at the time. If they heist a transport ship, they might eventually get a criminal obligation when the powers that be find out about it. What did they get? Well the contents of a transport ship. Hope it was worth it. The important part I'm stressing in this example however is WHEN the powers that be find out. Just because they heist a ship doesn't mean they suddenly get 10 Criminal Obligation. If it was a clever heist they might get away clean. If it was messy, someone is sure to find out and eventually finger the PCs.

Now, do I need to hold my players hand on this one? No I don't, nor should I have to. If they aren't smart enough to understand someone might come for revenge after the deed is done, then that is their problem. At some point this rests on common sense.

However, I do understand the difference between player and character knowledge. If I think a player is treading a grey line, I'll interject and warn them there may be consquences. I'm not entirely an @$$hole. I'll say, hey, your character knows this might not be a good idea. I'm not going to tell him the complete consequences like "you'll get 10 criminal" because their characters don't understand that, and players shouldn't have that knowlege. In a way, you are railroading them by telling them that. However, I have little sympathy for lack of common sense. If you don't understand that murdering the Senator is a bad idea that could have some very serious consequences, that's your problem, not mine. And you can be sure in a few sessions you'll understand exactly how large your problem has become.

So no, telling the players the mechanical bit before their characters even realize someone is gunning for them is a bit premature on the player knowledge side of things.

AT SOME POINT in your adventures, the characters are going to have everything they want. It is harder to "keep them hungry", when they have everything already. At that point it just becomes a maintenance thing to keep up their standard of living. And that is much cheaper then maintaining and obtaining. So how do you keep the story and the players moving?

Obligation.

it mechanically reinforces the concept that the universe acts and reacts to their decisions and indecisions. Imagine the players as a juggler, and each of their obligations a ball he is trying to juggle. As the GM, you're the wise ass that lets him toss a specific colored ball out of the loop when you tell him to. You are also the guy watching his decisions and indecisons, and tossing new balls in based on THEIR decisions. And occasionally you spice things up a bit by tossing in a malfunctioning lightsaber that keeps turning off and on, and when you really want to see them sweat, a thermal detonator with a loose pin.

Does that mean as soon as an action is done they get the obligation? Hell no. Ripples man, ripples.

Remember, everyone works for someone else. So if the PCs steal a shipment of spice from a rival smuggler, what's the obligation? Nothing right now. The deed is done, the PCs got a shipment, and the rival smuggler now has to own up. He's not going to complain to the Imps.... "Hey I got this shipment of spice stolen from me..." so Criminal is out. Doubtful he's going to post a bounty himself, he his a smuggler trying to make is way and all. Bounty is out for the moment because the smuggler will either do one of two things: 1. take the heat and fess up to the boss (unlikely) or 2. Run from his boss. But eventually his boss will find out. And maybe his boss has the means to make something work. So perhaps a few sessions down the line you add it to a characters total. You don't tell him about it, because his character has NO REASON WHATSOEVER to suspect that he's pissed of Gouda the Hutt who the smuggler was working for the entire time. And if he knows the smuggler was working for Gouda, then he should have an inkling that might come back to bite him at some point.

This is the intended use of Obligation. For the most part, if you think about it, it IS the player's choice. It just falls to you the GM to pay attention, take some notes, think about the ripples, and use it when necessary. And I'm not saying just load them up and keep loading them up. I try to avoid it when I can. But I'm also not going to let them get away with stuff for nothing. If they make the call, they get to answer for it later. That is their choice.

If you want to roll the part about pissing someone off naratively immediately, that's fine. In my experence, the best revenge is served cold. Obligation is the best way to do this. If they are hotheaded and want revenge immediately, that's fine, no obligation is neccessary. Enjoy the Rancor. But if the players make an interesting choice you think might have ripples later, take a note. Then pull it out on them later. The players will feel like the universe is really alive and reacting to them.

Sounds like a thing that should be related to a skill check to me. Some people are oblivious to the consequences of their actions until smacked in the face with them. while others know where the line is and when they can and cant cross it. Which skill would depend on what type of obligation is in play:Knowledge:(appropriate spec) or Skulduggery for criminal type actions, cool or streetwise to determine whose thug you might be about to put on carbonite ect.

A military pilot might know what is acceptable to say to a captain, while a thief will know exactly how long they will spend in jail if they are caught stealing this piece of art. A while most people 'know' that doing spice is bad, a doctor might know allot about how to treat symptoms or make them better, no one will know how potent the Addiction is better than the distributor.

As GM you can easily set the tone for the kind of encounter your setting by giving the players a nudge in the direction they should be heading. A single success would/could give an idea for the ramifications of such an action, advantages spent to mitigate or amplify obligation, threats obfuscating details entirely. I'd pair Cunning with reaction based pools and Intellect with planned ones of course.

All this to say I believe that all PC's may traverse the void in spaceships or on planetoids but there are other things in the void with them. In the realm of imagination it's our responsibility as both GM's and Players to illuminate the things we find relevant so others may see what is around them and thereby have a fuller experience. That is why this system is Excellent for Role-playing.

I'm fine with consequences, I just don't like adding a new variable onto that d100 roll so casually when the mechanics need not be applied ever. Course it all depends whether the players know what the result of that roll is...which, in some ways they need to given how it can affect their Strain Thresholds (a mechanic that, IMO needlessly complicates things).

Without that effect, it'd be a lot easier to justify rolling in secret and not telling the players the result. I don't think it'd be fair to roll in secret, secretly note that because you rolled doubles and triggered Obligation, a particular character now has a significantly lower Strain Threshold, and narratively tell them "because of your building anxiety about your debt, you have heightened blood pressure and the stormtrooper's stun shot makes you pass out sooner than you thought" when the player thinks, based on their character sheet, that they could take another shot without having issues.

Also I don't see how adding to an existing d100 mechanic remotely affects or even interacts well with the trope of "the best revenge is served cold." If anything it just turns into "the best revenge is randomly executed." Which can be executed much more smoothly narratively, at a particular climax in the story, rather than on the whim of dice.

I'm fine with consequences, I just don't like adding a new variable onto that d100 roll so casually when the mechanics need not be applied ever. Course it all depends whether the players know what the result of that roll is...which, in some ways they need to given how it can affect their Strain Thresholds (a mechanic that, IMO needlessly complicates things).

Without that effect, it'd be a lot easier to justify rolling in secret and not telling the players the result. I don't think it'd be fair to roll in secret, secretly note that because you rolled doubles and triggered Obligation, a particular character now has a significantly lower Strain Threshold, and narratively tell them "because of your building anxiety about your debt, you have heightened blood pressure and the stormtrooper's stun shot makes you pass out sooner than you thought" when the player thinks, based on their character sheet, that they could take another shot without having issues.

Also I don't see how adding to an existing d100 mechanic remotely affects or even interacts well with the trope of "the best revenge is served cold." If anything it just turns into "the best revenge is randomly executed." Which can be executed much more smoothly narratively, at a particular climax in the story, rather than on the whim of dice.

Who said anything about the d100 roll?

I'm of the opinion that you don't add the obligation until it is set in motion, ie, once the boss finds out you highjacked his shipment and puts a bounty on you. You add it, and roll the dice secretly, or at least I do, at the end of the session for the "next" session. Most of the time, you probably aren't going to hit the new obligation. Game on as usual. However, if you do hit it, I use that as the character "finding out" about it.

It doesn't have to be a "revenge randomly executed". Its more like, the character walks into the cantina and sees his face plastered all over the bounty boards or the holovid. I'd then at that point tell the character to lose the appropriate strain. If it feels like "revenge randomly executed" that is your fault as the GM.

As long as the character doesn't roll it in the first couple of sessions the new obligation is "on the board" so to speak, I'll start dropping hints that something might be amiss. The character can then use his skills or observe clues to figure it out himself. If he ignores the hints, well, it will come and get him eventually.

Its not like the Strain penalties are that big anyway. The majority of the time the 1 or 2 isn't going to make or break anyone's character ever, and even if doubles are rolled, 4 isn't going to pass anyone out either. I just don't understand the complaining. Its not like it takes half or more of your strain. It just makes things uncomfortable for the character, as it should be.

As to your last point about "can be executed much more smoothly narratively, at a particular climax in the story, rather then on the whim of the dice." There is nothing about this dice mechanic outside of the strain effect that has anything to do with the story or more importantly dictates WHEN it happens. If I roll 22 and trigger someones obligation, he suffers the bigger strain effect, but I don't have to do a **** thing about the obligation that was triggered AT ALL. I'm free to choose when and where, and if I want to do it during a climax, so be it.

And if I don't.... well, sometimes $#!T happens. Get over it.

Shadai, you're completely ignoring p 309 (and being unnecessarily rude).

I'm really just looking for a RAW interpretation of when/how to add Obligation after play. I'm not looking for house rules. P 309 makes it seem as if RAW nearly always uses post character generation Obligation gains as a bargaining chip.

The Obligation episode of the Order 66 podcast (which I just listened to) seemed to come to the same conclusions.

This makes some sense, because otherwise your typical PC's would rack up loads of Obligation after just a few sessions.

Actually I'm not, on both accounts.

P309 is the subheading that talks about using Obligation as a resource. So it only talks about obligation as a resource.

P307 is the overview of Obligation, and when/how to add it into play. I'm trying to help, but clearly you don't like my answer. This isn't a "house rule", I'm playing Obligation how I see the rules are written.

And I apologize if you think I'm being rude. I'm really trying not to be. Text is a terrible translator of words when you are reading an opinion you dislike.

Text is terrible for reading intention into things. I apologize if rudeness wasn't your intent!

I'm away from my manual right now, but I'll take another look at p. 309 when I get home. Perhaps I went straight to the text and skipped the header of that page. If it is really only talking about a specific use of Obligation, out of many, then you have totally answered my question, and I thank you!

The way Obligation is written is specifically vague. There is no hard and fast formula for it. Every table is going to have their own way that suits them. Considering how much narrative impact Obligation has, I think that's a good thing.

Forgive me if there is a good post about this already, but I just read through a lot of Obligation threads, and none of them really covered what I was looking for.

The Core Book, on p. 309 seems to pretty clearly say that you don't give the players more Obligation (after play starts) without some sort of deal being made. Up until this point, I thought Obligation was added and subtracted by the story as play progressed... the PC's pissed off a Hutt, so now they had a Bounty Obligation. Now I assume that the pissed off Hutt is just a campaign villain that will come after them in future stories, but isn't really tied into their Obligations.

So, my question is, how DO you give the PC's new Obligations? Especially ones like Bounty? And why aren't they worried about Jabba coming after them if they pissed him off after play started?

Just add the obligation points to his current primary obligation that he started his character with. It gets too muddled if you get concern with the specifics. The character has his primary obligation and every other obligation points he gains just gets added on top.

Keep it simple.

I'm just of the opinion you don't muck with the stats on a player's sheet (which they depend on) unless you tell them. First, because if they know about a change they can keep track of it and implement it where necessary, instead of the GM (always a plus). Second, because I consider it a polite thing to do: if in the heat of battle my GM says to me "btw your strain threshold is 4 lower because of Reasons, so that hit knocked you out," I'd be pretty pissed since I might have, you know, acted differently had I had more information about my character available to me. I mean, GM fudging is one thing, but that just makes it feel like the mechanics are stacked against you from the get-go.

But hey, you think that's not a big deal, I think it is, that's fine. Different tables for different folks. And I'm sorry to the OP is this is a derail.

It sounds like Shadai is doing Obligation in a way that departs significantly from the Core Rules. What is detailed there is that everyone's obligation is totaled together as a chart at the beginning of the session (Highest to Lowest in ascending order) and then the d100 is rolled to see if it hit's anyone's obligation.

What people have been talking about is the option of doing this at the end of the session.

What Shadai seems to be talking about (forgive me if I am mistaken) is rolling for each individual obligation at the end of the session in which it is added.

I like the idea of rolling on the RAW obligation chart at the end of the session because ALL it changes is that everyone knows that so-and-so's Obligation came up before the next session begins, and so it can heighten the tension and expectations.

I'm not a fan of changing up the Obligation rules, though. IMO it's a great system that feels right for the game.