Jump to content



Photo

Bad Motivator talent


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#21 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 01:22 AM

The range restriction is pretty reasonable, maybe short is ok too.  I don't think it requires extensive examination though, since the talent implies the Mechanic notices the flaw, seems like the examination is reflected in the hard difficulty.

We don't go with Short because we ruled that, even though the talent allows you to notice an existing flaw, you still need to take action - even if relatively minor and not something that appears to be obvious sabotage - to cause that discovered flaw to activate. We have overwritten the text that has the item just 'coincidentally fail' at the time of the character's choosing. The advantage of Bad Motivator in our game is that it allows for quick and covert sabotage (as opposed to the work you would normally do with Mechanics, not to mention the obviously destructive methods of blasters or explosives).


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#22 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 01:34 AM

I can see the range restriction but I guess my question would be is the talent so literal you have to act on the piece of equipment to cause the failure?  For example, if you see the droid's wheel is wobbling, why couldn't you loosen a deck plate it's about to run over that would knock it off?  Or a blast door that is squeaking bad and sounds like it is about to break, so you set off the fire alarm and cause it to slam shut causing it to fail in the closed position.  Couldn't you notice the flaw and do something environmentally that would cause the device to fail.  Just some thoughts.


Edited by 2P51, 10 May 2014 - 01:34 AM.

  • whafrog likes this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#23 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 01:48 AM

I can see the range restriction but I guess my question would be is the talent so literal you have to act on the piece of equipment to cause the failure?  For example, if you see the droid's wheel is wobbling, why couldn't you loosen a deck plate it's about to run over that would knock it off?  Or a blast door that is squeaking bad and sounds like it is about to break, so you set off the fire alarm and cause it to slam shut causing it to fail in the closed position.  Couldn't you notice the flaw and do something environmentally that would cause the device to fail.  Just some thoughts.

Those all sound pretty reasonable. The range we work with assumes you have to touch the device directly, but your examples have convinced me that there are exceptions that could be allowed with appropriate description.

 

Yes, you have changed someone's mind - on the internet!

 

I will still require that the character actively DO something to make the failure happen.


  • PatientWolf, whafrog and 2P51 like this

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#24 DanteRotterdam

DanteRotterdam

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 04:53 AM

I will still require that the character actively DO something to make the failure happen.


To me that seems very much counter to what the talent represents and approached fom a traditional rpg mindset, it sort of takes the fun away from the talent to be honest... Mind you, if it works at your table then who am I to judge.
I find the talent extremely funny and have it seen work wonders at our table as a narrative tool.

"The scouts trooper jumps on his speeder, racing back to the squad he wws deployed from."
"The speeder near the gates?"
"Yeah..."
"The gates we just came through?"
"That speeder seemed broken to me. Something wrong with its steering mechanism.... (Will you allow a bad motivator check here?)"
"Sure, go ahead."
<rolls a succes>
"The scout takes off at full speed and runs straight into an enormous tree tossing the body of the sout into the air like a ragdoll!"
"Awesome!!!"
  • Kshatriya, Dex Vulen, Joker Two and 2 others like this

#25 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 05:32 AM

 

I will still require that the character actively DO something to make the failure happen.


To me that seems very much counter to what the talent represents and approached fom a traditional rpg mindset, it sort of takes the fun away from the talent to be honest... Mind you, if it works at your table then who am I to judge.
I find the talent extremely funny and have it seen work wonders at our table as a narrative tool.

"The scouts trooper jumps on his speeder, racing back to the squad he wws deployed from."
"The speeder near the gates?"
"Yeah..."
"The gates we just came through?"
"That speeder seemed broken to me. Something wrong with its steering mechanism.... (Will you allow a bad motivator check here?)"
"Sure, go ahead."
<rolls a succes>
"The scout takes off at full speed and runs straight into an enormous tree tossing the body of the sout into the air like a ragdoll!"
"Awesome!!!"

 

That's the kind of thing I don't want to see. It can lead to the 'comedy of errors' type situations that I don't find awesome at all. It can also lead to extensions beyond what you've shown - including replacing "speeder bike's steering mechanism" with "Death Star's targeting mechanism" ("The Death Star fires but misses Alderaan entirely," most certainly falls into the comedy of errors issue that I dislike).

 

Considering that the talent is dependent upon the Mechanics skill of the user and that it requires an Action to do, it seems reasonable to me and my group that the character should actually have to be doing something to interact with the device it is used upon (although I'm now inclined to be more lenient on the range).


  • whafrog likes this

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#26 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,740 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 05:38 AM

Per RAW, could you use Bad Motivator on Darth Vader's legs?

I'd prefer HD's modified house rule.
  • 2P51 likes this

#27 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 05:40 AM

Per RAW, could you use Bad Motivator on Darth Vader's legs?

I'd prefer HD's modified house rule.

Why not use it on Darth Vader's respirator?


  • whafrog likes this

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#28 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 08:05 AM

I look at it as a Mechanics ability to quickly assess a device and be able to tell from the sound, the brakes are about to fail, noticing the way a wheel is turning, it's about to fall off, or seeing that the access panel to a set of hydraulics is off and the workings appear fouled so that a handful of dirt should do the trick.  That would be the kind of narrative stuff of course.

 

I don't think it need to be direct contact with the device like I said, but it is a combination of observation, and then causing some situation, be it direct manipulation, or creating a condition that leads to a failure.  The Difficulty represents whether or not the given Mechanic's assessment was correct, obviously with a higher skilled one being able to more quickly and accurately determine how a given piece of gear can be made to fail with that quick down and dirty assessment.

 

I do think it requires input in some way, direct or indirect.  The comdey of errors thing I would let anyone do when they are staring at the four Triumphs they just rolled and trying to figure out what happened.  Of course as always to each their own.


Edited by 2P51, 10 May 2014 - 08:06 AM.

  • Lakridspibe likes this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#29 Venters

Venters

    Member

  • Members
  • 97 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 09:09 AM

Would you guys allow Bad Motivator to be used on a group of minion's Blasters?

 

if allowed and successful would only one blaster be broken or all the blasters belonging to the minion group?



#30 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 09:13 AM

I wouldn't allow it in that case. I wouldn't say I couldn't see a scenario where it could be utilized on a weapon in use, but it would likely be some sort of large turret or such where they disable it by cutting a hydraulic line or something.  Not personal weapons in someone's hands being used though.


My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#31 PatientWolf

PatientWolf

    Member

  • Members
  • 100 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 10:04 AM

I wouldn't allow it in that case. I wouldn't say I couldn't see a scenario where it could be utilized on a weapon in use, but it would likely be some sort of large turret or such where they disable it by cutting a hydraulic line or something.  Not personal weapons in someone's hands being used though.

 

I can see cases where it could be used on weapons that are currently in use.  The mechanic whispers over his group's commlinks, "Hey guys I noticed that the light repeating blaster that one stormtrooper is using has a cracked thermal discharge coupler. Draw his fire and I'm sure that thing will overheat when he tries to use it". 


  • awayputurwpn, Kshatriya, kaosoe and 1 other like this

#32 Lakridspibe

Lakridspibe

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 10:29 AM

 

I will still require that the character actively DO something to make the failure happen.


To me that seems very much counter to what the talent represents and approached fom a traditional rpg mindset, it sort of takes the fun away from the talent to be honest... Mind you, if it works at your table then who am I to judge.
I find the talent extremely funny and have it seen work wonders at our table as a narrative tool.

"The scouts trooper jumps on his speeder, racing back to the squad he wws deployed from."
"The speeder near the gates?"
"Yeah..."
"The gates we just came through?"
"That speeder seemed broken to me. Something wrong with its steering mechanism.... (Will you allow a bad motivator check here?)"
"Sure, go ahead."
<rolls a succes>
"The scout takes off at full speed and runs straight into an enormous tree tossing the body of the sout into the air like a ragdoll!"
"Awesome!!!"

 

While the outcome as worded here is a little silly for the flavor of my game, this is excactly how I want the talent to work. Happy Daze's hack is absolutely fine but it shifts the talent away from the indie-freeform school of co-narration and into more conventional rpg territory. What I adore about EotE is the integration of a freeform sensibility into a campaign-friendly system. 


  • Kshatriya and ianinak like this

#33 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 10:50 AM

 

I wouldn't allow it in that case. I wouldn't say I couldn't see a scenario where it could be utilized on a weapon in use, but it would likely be some sort of large turret or such where they disable it by cutting a hydraulic line or something.  Not personal weapons in someone's hands being used though.

 

I can see cases where it could be used on weapons that are currently in use.  The mechanic whispers over his group's commlinks, "Hey guys I noticed that the light repeating blaster that one stormtrooper is using has a cracked thermal discharge coupler. Draw his fire and I'm sure that thing will overheat when he tries to use it". 

 

I think that kind of a use begins to usurp the Sunder effect and weapon damaging options for multiple Advantages and Triumphs.


My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#34 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,740 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 10:52 AM

While the outcome as worded here is a little silly for the flavor of my game, this is excactly how I want the talent to work. Happy Daze's hack is absolutely fine but it shifts the talent away from the indie-freeform school of co-narration and into more conventional rpg territory. What I adore about EotE is the integration of a freeform sensibility into a campaign-friendly system.


I love that aspect of EotE too, it's why I play the game. However, I think blanket "I say so" Talents aren't the place for it, I prefer to limit it to dice rolls and as the result of player actions. Maybe this is selfish on my part, but GMing can be a lot of work, and it's frustrating to be at the mercy of some loophole in an otherwise well crafted scenario. If the players invent a way to exploit the loophole then fine, but to just "make it so" seems both overpowered and a potential detriment to the game. Part of my thoughts on this are also driven by the sense that by the time a character has the BM talent, a "Hard" Mechanics check is usually going to be successful.
  • 2P51 likes this

#35 Agatheron

Agatheron

    Member

  • Members
  • 509 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 12:30 PM

I think the safeguard for Bad Motivator is that it needs GM approval, which would prevent spontaneous explosions of death stars or super weapons. The extreme examples that HappyDaze mentions would be things I wouldn't allow anyway, but the speeder example I think is a perfect one. Besides Bad Motivator is a once per session type thing that isn't game breaking from my point of view. Listening to Andy Fischer's comments on it is that it is intended to work precisely as the speeder example shows. However, it really is up to GMs to choose what works best for their campaigns.
  • Rikoshi and 2P51 like this

Official Contributor: Age of Rebellion: Stay on Target


#36 DanteRotterdam

DanteRotterdam

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 01:33 PM

I will still require that the character actively DO something to make the failure happen.

To me that seems very much counter to what the talent represents and approached fom a traditional rpg mindset, it sort of takes the fun away from the talent to be honest... Mind you, if it works at your table then who am I to judge.
I find the talent extremely funny and have it seen work wonders at our table as a narrative tool.
"The scouts trooper jumps on his speeder, racing back to the squad he wws deployed from."
"The speeder near the gates?"
"Yeah..."
"The gates we just came through?"
"That speeder seemed broken to me. Something wrong with its steering mechanism.... (Will you allow a bad motivator check here?)"
"Sure, go ahead."
<rolls a succes>
"The scout takes off at full speed and runs straight into an enormous tree tossing the body of the sout into the air like a ragdoll!"
"Awesome!!!"
That's the kind of thing I don't want to see. It can lead to the 'comedy of errors' type situations that I don't find awesome at all. It can also lead to extensions beyond what you've shown - including replacing "speeder bike's steering mechanism" with "Death Star's targeting mechanism" ("The Death Star fires but misses Alderaan entirely," most certainly falls into the comedy of errors issue that I dislike).

Considering that the talent is dependent upon the Mechanics skill of the user and that it requires an Action to do, it seems reasonable to me and my group that the character should actually have to be doing something to interact with the device it is used upon (although I'm now inclined to be more lenient on the range).
Again, and this has been pointed out to you before in tis thread, you can do whatever you want in your game, however you're not using the rules as written when you make these allusions to extensions as the talent is always used with the GM's fiat.

"The Death Star points its giant lasers at Alderaan."
"I think there might be wrong with the targting system. (Will you allow a bad motivator check?)"
"(No, I won't the machine is impeccable)"
"(Alright)"

No idea why that would lead to weirdness.

Edited by DanteRotterdam, 10 May 2014 - 01:34 PM.


#37 Grimmshade

Grimmshade

    Member

  • Members
  • 430 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 03:30 PM

I love this Talent as it stands. I don't read it to mean you have to mess with the "device" in some way, it's more of a collaborative roleplaying Talent (and I love those!)

I mean, just from the name of the Talent, we can assume R2-D2 used this Talent when Owen bought the other droid and R2 was being left behind. By succeeding at the roll, R2's player was able to say the droid broke down due to a bad motivator and then C3PO's player was able to point out R2 as a suitable replacement.

 

(Unless it was in a highly roleplaying, story driven context, I wouldn't allow it to be used on another PC Droid)


  • ianinak, DanteRotterdam and 2P51 like this

#38 Kshatriya

Kshatriya

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,686 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 03:36 PM

Per RAW, could you use Bad Motivator on Darth Vader's legs?

RAW is too vague to even be counted as a rule. The explicit GM discretion clause would put it up to him, and if that's the kind of game he wants to run, so be it.

 

 

I wouldn't allow it in that case. I wouldn't say I couldn't see a scenario where it could be utilized on a weapon in use, but it would likely be some sort of large turret or such where they disable it by cutting a hydraulic line or something.  Not personal weapons in someone's hands being used though.

If you go up and cut a hydraulic line to a weapon you pretty much have done all the work to disable it without actually needing to use the Talent.


Edited by Kshatriya, 10 May 2014 - 03:38 PM.

  • DanteRotterdam and Aservan like this

#39 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 949 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 08:55 PM

As far as weapons or even viechles are concerned I wouldn't allow effects like "the tie bombers fall from the skies" or "The barrel melts", maybe "The power stutters and the pilot is more concerned getting his thrusters working properly to do anything before receiving orders to pull out for repairs" and "The gun jams and the trooper needs to make an easy meechanics as an action to fix it".



#40 JP_JP

JP_JP

    Member

  • Members
  • 171 posts

Posted 10 May 2014 - 11:07 PM

When you design an encounter for your players, you should take the time to look at your players skills so you dont leave open loopholes for them to exploit... or put another encounter just before to have them use those talents they have...

For weapons, it could be feasable to allow it on minions groups... let's say your players are on Tatooine and start a fight with a group of thugs... the group tech rolls his bad motivator skill (success) and says "guys, those pirates are using old DT-3000 blasters, they're notorious for failing in dusty dry environments.... " ,,, and the next round, their blasters stop working because of all the dust.... Remember that rounds are abstracts, so you could say, as the GM, that your players exchange shots with the pirates for a 1-2 minutes and a few wind gusts later, their blasters stop working.

 

I love that your players can really take the game into their own hands... it gives them power and also discharges the GM from providing ALL the fun... just make sure your players use it to have fun and give narrative explanations to make it worthwhile.

 

Later


  • Vonpenguin and Kshatriya like this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS