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.

I'm confused. You do realize that the lowering of Strain Threshold from Obligation coming into play does not inflict strain damage right? It just lowers your top end. So if you start the session at 4/12 strain, and I tell you I rolled doubles so you lose 4 strain, you don't suddenly pass out. Instead of 4/12 you are 4/8.

Secondly, I tell you at the beginning of the session, not as a "oh btw" halfway through. That's rude.

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.

Away you are indeed mistaken.

My only departure is rolling for Obligation at the end of session rather then the beginning. I do this for the reasons you stated in addition to the fact by doing it between sessions I can prepare for it if I want to bring it into game.

I do not roll each obligation individually. I just keep my own total of character Obligation, spread it into a d100 chart and roll it once for the entire group. It's not a significant departure at all.

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?

I don't know how I'd justify it. I guess it depends on the story and whether the players are getting something in return, maybe? I mean, if the Empire catches the PCs smuggling, and they become wanted criminals, that might warrent the Criminal obligation. Or it might be "just a thing that happens in the story."

For me, it really comes down to where I/we want to take it. Obligation has very real mechanical effects. Is this something that I want to be able to randomly trigger? Something that will occasionally stress out the PCs? Or is it something I only work in when the story calls for it, and not something the players are bound to feel stressed out over. Also, importantly: is it something they can "work off"?

I'm a bit torn on it. On one hand, it could be kinda cool. Say the PCs rob a bank and (secretly) gain the Criminal obligation. First time it triggers, might be the first time the players realize that a Sector Ranger is hot on their tail. On the other hand, adding obligation for everything my players get up to could easily get into "micromanagement" territory, with all sorts of small obligations obscuring the landscape.

I think, for me, it would have to be fairly significant to count as obligation. Or something the players themselves decide to do. But I'm not really decided on how I'd want to handle it.

I personally think it's the Bounty Obligation that makes it confusing. The word Obligation fits with family, oath, debt, etc. It's easy to see these things being bartered, either in game or meta gamed, with the PC's or the players. It's also easy to see how these Obligations would be paid.

Bounty isn't really an Obligation. It could result from an Obligation, but it doesn't really fit the definition itself. It's harder to imagine negotiating a bounty on the PC's heads as in game currency. It's also what brings into question just what the PC's should gain Obligation for. 

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.

I'm confused. You do realize that the lowering of Strain Threshold from Obligation coming into play does not inflict strain damage right? It just lowers your top end. So if you start the session at 4/12 strain, and I tell you I rolled doubles so you lose 4 strain, you don't suddenly pass out. Instead of 4/12 you are 4/8.

Secondly, I tell you at the beginning of the session, not as a "oh btw" halfway through. That's rude.

I am aware it lowers ST, not inflicts Strain directly, yes. It seemed to me like you said you weren't going to tell the player he had lost the upper end of his ST until an effect occurred that would push him over the lowered ST (even if it may not have pushed him over his normal ST). Thanks for clarifying.

Isn't the mechanical effect of 4 lower ST due to the stress of knowing about the obligation in play? Wouldnt it make narrative sense to not have the ST lower until the initial shock/surprise of the obligations wears off/sets in? Just food for thought.

Isn't the mechanical effect of 4 lower ST due to the stress of knowing about the obligation in play? Wouldnt it make narrative sense to not have the ST lower until the initial shock/surprise of the obligations wears off/sets in? Just food for thought.

It works better if it persists. Even if the Obligation doesn't directly come into play, as a roleplaying cue it weighs on the character's mind. It should be the elephant in the room.

Just to put in my 2 cents, I agree that actions you do should have consequences. You do something, yes you get x bounty placed on you, or you are looked on as a criminal. However those particular results might not be tied to obligation but are just part of the characters story. Obligation however is a driving force behind thd characters story and any addition of it should be discussed before they are added.

examples Hans overiding obligation was his debt and ultimately the bounty on his head from Jabba. So he chooses to stay on with the rebellion rather than pay back Jabba as promised, at this point as a GM you say pay back Jabba or get an obligation of x for bounty. As for him being involved in criminal activity, or anti imperial actions, he is seen as not being bothered by this, these are clearly not something that is linked to his current obligation.

I think that as the negative results of obligation can be quite far reaching mechanically wise (ie not levelling up), it is only fair to make a player aware when his choices would do so.

Playing it where people on an edge of the empire game could get criminal obligation everytime they are caught breaking the law is wrong in my opinion, this gives too much to the gm to choose the driving force behind a players characters 'worries', which in effect is very much what obligation is. Obligation should not be doled out for acting in character (unless IMO that player is using playing in character to be disruptive to other players playing in a group, and even then I would be wary of using obligation as a punishment)

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.

I'm in total agreement with this. In my experience Obligation is similar to Humanity in Vampire: provided the reasons why they're gaining Obligation aren't completely unknown to them ("Wait... that random thug that we shot after he shot at us is the favoured son of a Black Sun Underboss?"), then increases for actions that would bring about obvious inflation to their scores shouldn't have to be constantly warned against and explained.

If you steal from a big-time gangster, or shoot his pet dog in the face because it peed in your shoe, then you're OBVIOUSLY going to incite his ire and have him throw bounty hunters at you.