Well, not everybody likes Anime...

I just find that to be about as interesting as if the Doctor had a talent that let him decide that an opponent had a medical condition that suddenly flared up.

GM: Mr. Bad steps up to...

Doctor PC: I use Bad Health to trigger a stroke in Mr. Bad.

GM: Uh, okay...

I just find that to be about as interesting as if the Doctor had a talent that let him decide that an opponent had a medical condition that suddenly flared up.

GM: Mr. Bad steps up to...

Doctor PC: I use Bad Health to trigger a stroke in Mr. Bad.

GM: Uh, okay...

That talent could get icky and awkward quickly......

I just find that to be about as interesting as if the Doctor had a talent that let him decide that an opponent had a medical condition that suddenly flared up.

GM: Mr. Bad steps up to...

Doctor PC: I use Bad Health to trigger a stroke in Mr. Bad.

GM: Uh, okay...

That talent could get icky and awkward quickly......

Indeed. It might be one thing if the Doctor had to actually do something to the target to cause the condition to manifest, but just looking at them and having some flaw mysteriously manifest doesn't appeal to me at all. Returning to Mechanic and Bad Motivator doesn't change my feelings on it at all: spontaneous system failure without interaction is a blow to my suspension of disbelief.

Yah I agree the Mechanic has to do something, involving the object and causing some kind of condition for the failure to occur. To me the difference with sabotage is that's just straight up breaking something that is working fine, this talent should be quicker and easier and be something the Mechanic notices and can cause a condition to induce the failure easily. In the repulsor failure example, maybe narratively the way to handle that would be the Mechanic hears the repulsors making a god awful noise he knows means their magnetics are about to fail and fail big, so he overloads his scanner to discharge its power cell in a way to induce the failure and tosses it under the speeder, then, roll the dice.

Lets not for get that on the order 66 podcast one of the developers for edge descriped a situation in which the mechanic stares down a land speeder that is about to slam into the party. The mechanic asks the GM if he can make a Bad Motivator check, GM agrees, mechanic succeeds and the repulsor lift on the land speeder brwaks causing the speeder to tumble out of control saving the party. It was awesome, cinematic, and the mechanic did it without being anywhere near the speeder.

But WHY is that awesome? The character did nothing. Effectively, he is saved by blind luck or a comedic blunder on the part of the adversary. That doesn't make the character look awesome at all in my eyes.

If you're speaking as a GM, then I don't think you get to decide what makes a player's character look awesome.

Lets not for get that on the order 66 podcast one of the developers for edge descriped a situation in which the mechanic stares down a land speeder that is about to slam into the party. The mechanic asks the GM if he can make a Bad Motivator check, GM agrees, mechanic succeeds and the repulsor lift on the land speeder brwaks causing the speeder to tumble out of control saving the party. It was awesome, cinematic, and the mechanic did it without being anywhere near the speeder.

But WHY is that awesome? The character did nothing. Effectively, he is saved by blind luck or a comedic blunder on the part of the adversary. That doesn't make the character look awesome at all in my eyes.

If you're speaking as a GM, then I don't think you get to decide what makes a player's character look awesome.

I kind of have to agree that that particular example is a poor one. The Mechanic should at least have to spout out a bit of technobabble about how that model of speeder was made for cities and taking it off road is a terrible idea. Direct action isn't necessary in my mind but finding a plausible "why" is essential. The droid shorted out because its motivator was bad, some idiot overcharged the blasters power cell, one of the screws in that scaffolding was stripped and the recoil from the heavy repeater made it shake loose and bring the whole thing down.

Lets not for get that on the order 66 podcast one of the developers for edge descriped a situation in which the mechanic stares down a land speeder that is about to slam into the party. The mechanic asks the GM if he can make a Bad Motivator check, GM agrees, mechanic succeeds and the repulsor lift on the land speeder brwaks causing the speeder to tumble out of control saving the party. It was awesome, cinematic, and the mechanic did it without being anywhere near the speeder.

But WHY is that awesome? The character did nothing. Effectively, he is saved by blind luck or a comedic blunder on the part of the adversary. That doesn't make the character look awesome at all in my eyes.

If you're speaking as a GM, then I don't think you get to decide what makes a player's character look awesome.

That's not true. The GM is as much a participant in the game as the players are.

I can see the point though. To the outside world, the Technician did nothing to make that speeder fail, whereas OOC everyone knows the Technician did it, but can't respond to that IC without metagaming.

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.

The once per session aspect really needs to be stressed.

Honestly I hate "Once per session" as a restriction. depending on session length and what's going on this can mean your character is using it in-universe 4 times in an hour (major battle that takes a lot of real-world time or just very short sessions), or only once in three months if there's an extended downtime.

I think it is a "fun thing" more than anything else.... You do it once per session to have your moment in the spotlight but without hogging it. Of course it is not realistic but I wouldn't think using it more than once in 4 hrs of gaming would be a lot of fun...

Compared to the combat guys who are in the spotlight during combat all day and all night with no real limited uses on their combat powers?

I cannot believe that is what you are taking away from what I wrote....

I mean, the fact that you can't believe it doesn't take away from the fact that that was part of what I took.

I kind of have to agree that that particular example is a poor one. The Mechanic should at least have to spout out a bit of technobabble about how that model of speeder was made for cities and taking it off road is a terrible idea. Direct action isn't necessary in my mind but finding a plausible "why" is essential. The droid shorted out because its motivator was bad, some idiot overcharged the blasters power cell, one of the screws in that scaffolding was stripped and the recoil from the heavy repeater made it shake loose and bring the whole thing down.

In the podcast the developer did mention that that was his character's reasoning. He used his mechanical knowledge to spot a fault in the speeder. There was narrative flavor to go along with the roll.

My apogolies I paraphrased the account the mechanic did mention noticing one of the couplings holding the repulsor lift to the speeder was loose and Deus Ex Machina the speeder broke flipping and screechs to a halt at his feet while the rest of the party looks on in disbelief.

But WHY is that awesome? The character did nothing. Effectively, he is saved by blind luck or a comedic blunder on the part of the adversary. That doesn't make the character look awesome at all in my eyes.

If you're speaking as a GM, then I don't think you get to decide what makes a player's character look awesome.

That's not true. The GM is as much a participant in the game as the players are.

I can see the point though. To the outside world, the Technician did nothing to make that speeder fail, whereas OOC everyone knows the Technician did it, but can't respond to that IC without metagaming.

I never said the GM isn't a participant in the game. I said that the GM doesn't get to decide if the player thinks their character looks awesome or not.

GM : "The Bad Motivator check succeeds. The speeder's repulsorlift fails and the vehicle digs nose-first into the terrain, spilling the occupants in every direction."

Player : (laughing) "Ha! That was awesome!"

GM : "No it wasn't. You did nothing. You all stood there and did nothing. That's not awesome."

Players : "..."

GM : "..."

Player : "Let's go watch True Detective again. I've got HBO Go at my house."

Players : "Sounds awesome!"

But let's not ignore what Kshatriya said because it bears repeating. "The GM is as much a participant in the game as the players are." The GM and the Mechanic should decide together how the Bad Motivator action shapes the narrative and, most importantly, makes awesome, fun, memorable things happen.

Player : "I use Bad Motivator on Darth Vader's legs!"

GM : (chuckling) "No, let's not do silly things like that. You think a leg cramp is going to stop Darth Vader from killing all of you with his lightsaber?"

Player : "I see what you mean. (winks) I use it on his lightsaber, then!"

GM : "Ehhh... Let's not. Besides, he'd just force-choke you all to death. Shouldn't you be thinking, oh... About how to run for your lives instead of trying to defeat an unstoppable sith lord?"

Player : "Good point! Hey, how about that ungrounded power coupling? It could explode and arc bolts of electricity all over the place. That should... Slow? ... Him down?"

GM : "Oh, you mean this power coupling? (uncaps a dry erase marker and scribbles something onto the map) Yeah, that might do the trick. Make the check."

Player : "Three success and one threat. (in character) Hey, big helmet guy! This may come as a... shock to you... but the insulation on that power coupling looks rather worn and that could be dangerous to all those delicate electronics."

GM : "Sure enough, the coupling explodes in a shower of sparks and blue arcs of electricity across the width of the hallway. The smell of ozone stings your nostrils. In his cold, black, unflinching electronic eyes you see the bright flashes of reflected light. He pauses. And raises a single gloved hand... And suddenly you find it most... difficult... to breathe."

Player : " (in character) Ack... gerk... haaaccccgggrrhh~~ "

GM : "That sounds awful. Stop. You take one strain but are otherwise fine."

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.

The once per session aspect really needs to be stressed.

Honestly I hate "Once per session" as a restriction. depending on session length and what's going on this can mean your character is using it in-universe 4 times in an hour (major battle that takes a lot of real-world time or just very short sessions), or only once in three months if there's an extended downtime.

I think it is a "fun thing" more than anything else.... You do it once per session to have your moment in the spotlight but without hogging it. Of course it is not realistic but I wouldn't think using it more than once in 4 hrs of gaming would be a lot of fun...

Compared to the combat guys who are in the spotlight during combat all day and all night with no real limited uses on their combat powers?

I cannot believe that is what you are taking away from what I wrote....

I mean, the fact that you can't believe it doesn't take away from the fact that that was part of what I took.

Plus, the hired gun spezialisation has a lot of "once per round", "once per encounter" and some "once per session" skills as well... That is just the way this game works I suppose.

Edited: for rudeness

Lets not for get that on the order 66 podcast one of the developers for edge descriped a situation in which the mechanic stares down a land speeder that is about to slam into the party. The mechanic asks the GM if he can make a Bad Motivator check, GM agrees, mechanic succeeds and the repulsor lift on the land speeder brwaks causing the speeder to tumble out of control saving the party. It was awesome, cinematic, and the mechanic did it without being anywhere near the speeder.

But WHY is that awesome? The character did nothing. Effectively, he is saved by blind luck or a comedic blunder on the part of the adversary. That doesn't make the character look awesome at all in my eyes.

It is awesome because it is cinematic, it is awesome BECAUSE the character did nothing and still influenced the game to such an extend, it is awesome because it could be blind luck or a comedic blunder (what is star wars without a sense of humor), it is awesome because it doesn't have to be blind luck or a comedic blunder, it is awesome because it puts a tool in the hand of a player that is without it's equal in the world of gaming, it is awesome because as a player you get to influence the game world to a larger extend then before, it is awesome because I as a GM have been surprised by it and had fun because of it.

It is awesome but it is not for everyone, as is clear from reading the very traditional views on "characters doing things" I engage here and I am all for the whole "It's your table do as you please" but don't critique people who play a RAW and very much enjoy it and understand why it was written by stating your way "the proper way" when you are going off RAW.

They made a talent and people and many people love it as it is, apparently some people don't but I don't believe the fault is with the rule.

My comment - the one you quoted - wasn't a critique; it was me expressing why I don't consider that approach to the talent as making a character awesome. It veers into pure metagame, and that's something I don't like. It is a traditional RPG mindset (and the reason that I can't stand FATE games), but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are large parts of FFG SW that are very traditional.

Mind you Happydaze, I don't consider your way "wrong" I consider your critique wrong.

It is awesome because it is cinematic, it is awesome BECAUSE the character did nothing and still influenced the game to such an extend,...

I find that cinematic in the way Michael Bay movies are cinematic...lots of noise and pretty graphics, but in the end empty and pointless. That is one reason it is not awesome. The other is it is a player loophole that has no bearing on the plot, character development, or anything that goes into a good story...hmmm, just like Michael Bay...again.

... it is awesome because it puts a tool in the hand of a player that is without it's equal in the world of gaming, it is awesome because as a player you get to influence the game world to a larger extend then before, it is awesome because I as a GM have been surprised by it and had fun because of it.

This is where I'm torn. I'm all for this added player agency. Deve had a better example of use, but it would be better yet if the PC narrated some involvement, like "I shoot the coupling as Darth Vader passes it..."

I just find that to be about as interesting as if the Doctor had a talent that let him decide that an opponent had a medical condition that suddenly flared up.

GM: Mr. Bad steps up to...

Doctor PC: I use Bad Health to trigger a stroke in Mr. Bad.

GM: Uh, okay...

Or like the much vaunted talent that lets the medic simply rewind time and make a critical not happen? What do you mean your arm got shot off "*Ahem* It's not that bad." *rolls* "See, your arm is still there."

I just find that to be about as interesting as if the Doctor had a talent that let him decide that an opponent had a medical condition that suddenly flared up.

GM: Mr. Bad steps up to...

Doctor PC: I use Bad Health to trigger a stroke in Mr. Bad.

GM: Uh, okay...

Or like the much vaunted talent that lets the medic simply rewind time and make a critical not happen? What do you mean your arm got shot off "*Ahem* It's not that bad." *rolls* "See, your arm is still there."

It is awesome because it is cinematic, it is awesome BECAUSE the character did nothing and still influenced the game to such an extend,...

I find that cinematic in the way Michael Bay movies are cinematic...lots of noise and pretty graphics, but in the end empty and pointless. That is one reason it is not awesome. The other is it is a player loophole that has no bearing on the plot, character development, or anything that goes into a good story...hmmm, just like Michael Bay...again.

... it is awesome because it puts a tool in the hand of a player that is without it's equal in the world of gaming, it is awesome because as a player you get to influence the game world to a larger extend then before, it is awesome because I as a GM have been surprised by it and had fun because of it.

This is where I'm torn. I'm all for this added player agency. Deve had a better example of use, but it would be better yet if the PC narrated some involvement, like "I shoot the coupling as Darth Vader passes it..."

I'm done discussing this with you. You play a Star Wars game but something straight out of the first Star Wars game is now a Michael Bay element? This is just getting silly.

I am glad that my players are enjoying themselves with a talent that is influenced directly by A New Hope and my patience ends when I am now all of a sudden being told the rule is more akin to Transformers.

I love Bad Motivator as written. The fact that the Mechanic doesn’t “do anything” is brilliant and shows off what a narrative game system can do. He’s just noticing that something is about to break. It’s no different than Utility Belt or spending a Destiny point to acquire a piece of equipment that was previously undocumented on the character sheet. Or do GMs force the player to come up with a list of stuff that they pack away in their Utility Belt and can only pull from that list?

I think the speeder example is a cool one. It’s all in how you roll play it.
GM: The speeder is coming right for you. It’s obvious he’s trying to run you over.
Party: Everyone scatter.
Mechanic: I stand there and lock eyes with the driver and dare him to run me over. <Rolls dice> The repulsor lift breaks to send the speeder into a ditch. I don’t flinch.
Party: ****. I loved how you stared him down. How did you know he wasn’t going to hit you?
Mechanic: Well, you see. After he took that last turn towards us I noticed a slight wobble in the rear quarter panel which is indicative of a bad repulsor lift.

Or like the much vaunted talent that lets the medic simply rewind time and make a critical not happen? What do you mean your arm got shot off "*Ahem* It's not that bad." *rolls* "See, your arm is still there."

I believe that talent requires the medic to at least treat the wound to determine that it isn't as bad as it first seemed.

I'm AWB, but I could've sworn INTB has no distance limitation. You have to roll it when the crit happens. It would be ridiculous to require the Medic to be Engaged with the person who just received a crit. If they had to be Engaged then the party would swarm around the Medic in a protective doughnut each session until someone gets a crit bad enough for INTB. The talent gets to be awesome and not have a range and “rewrite history” because it is a once per session talent.

Which, honestly this is how we fluff all damage. When my character gets shot up and is at Wound Threshold, I envision that the blaster shots were through his important parts and that he’s near death. After the Medic looks at him, applies stimpacks and a Medicine roll to remove all wounds, I envision that my character realized that the blaster shots were just grazes and flesh wounds. Nothing that a few bandages couldn’t fix.

To recap: there are so many examples of the narrative system that don’t “make sense” in the traditional Role Playing sense. That’s the point of this system. Bad Motivator points out a fault in a system. It’s Not That Bad allows a Medic to stop a crit from across the room. Schrödinger's Utility Belt holds every small item in the game until you run out of Destiny points to retrieve items. On the rare occasion when a gun does actually run out of ammo, the Extra Reloads item or Spare Clip talent never does.

Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't, but I made a very positive statement about a skill that a lot of people here seem to be looking at from a ttraditional RPG mindset (the same people here who always look at this game with a traditional RPG mindset I might add) and tell you that it is not a "once per session" skill for nothing which you answer with some statement about "Combat guys getting to do cool stuff all the time". It just seemed so counter to the thing I was saying...

Plus, the hired gun spezialisation has a lot of "once per round", "once per encounter" and some "once per session" skills as well... That is just the way this game works I suppose.

Edited: for rudeness

I see your point. Sorry for changing the goalposts, and though I didn't see your pre-edit post, I also appreciate your editing away any rudeness. i didn't intend to be rude to you and am sorry if it came across that way.

I'm done discussing this with you. You play a Star Wars game but something straight out of the first Star Wars game is now a Michael Bay element? This is just getting silly.

Get real. Are you telling me George Lucas meant to imply that R2D2 actually did something from afar to make the other droid spit smoke? Now *that's* silly.

You're conflating a movie scene with a game mechanic. Bad Motivator was entirely a fiction invented by FFG. The Talent has a great name, meant to invoke that scene *as if* R2D2 had done something ... but you can't claim it's "straight out of Star Wars" when it's a retrofit of an scene meant to convey an RPG concept. And despite the Talent's great name, using it that way is...yeah, Transformers.

I don't object the basic concept of player agency, but it has to involve PC agency. I'd even settle for retroactive PC agency if it's narrated well.

I'm done discussing this with you. You play a Star Wars game but something straight out of the first Star Wars game is now a Michael Bay element? This is just getting silly.

Get real. Are you telling me George Lucas meant to imply that R2D2 actually did something from afar to make the other droid spit smoke? Now *that's* silly.

You're conflating a movie scene with a game mechanic. Bad Motivator was entirely a fiction invented by FFG. The Talent has a great name, meant to invoke that scene *as if* R2D2 had done something ... but you can't claim it's "straight out of Star Wars" when it's a retrofit of an scene meant to convey an RPG concept. And despite the Talent's great name, using it that way is...yeah, Transformers.

I don't object the basic concept of player agency, but it has to involve PC agency. I'd even settle for retroactive PC agency if it's narrated well.

Honestly I always imagined that R2 did sabotage, not just that astromech, but all the ones on the sandcrawler in easily repairable ways so that he would be purchased and have a chance to find Kenobi ASAP.

Love the power though, again with the technobabble caveat. A simple "three, two, one *shuttles landing gear fails* "Yeah I saw the hydraulics leaking" is plenty though.

I just find that to be about as interesting as if the Doctor had a talent that let him decide that an opponent had a medical condition that suddenly flared up.

GM: Mr. Bad steps up to...

Doctor PC: I use Bad Health to trigger a stroke in Mr. Bad.

GM: Uh, okay...

Or like the much vaunted talent that lets the medic simply rewind time and make a critical not happen? What do you mean your arm got shot off "*Ahem* It's not that bad." *rolls* "See, your arm is still there."

It bears mentioning that the scene that inspires It's Not That Bad doesn't actually show details of a wound.