Bad Motivator allows a Mechanic to select a device (subject to GM's approval) to fail by either deliberate sabotage or because he noticed it "was about to fail anyway," This latter part is what I'm wondering about. Is it intended to allow, for example, a Mechanic to take a scan of an enemy starship and say,"So, I can't help but notice that their hyperdrive has overheated."

I'd say the limits are "within reason based on the situation." Which probably varies by group and GM.

On Order 66, I think it was Andy Fischer who said that, in their office game, his character had an airspeeder's engine fail as it was careening toward him, so your starship example above seems to fit IMHO.

They should have had one of those guys at Alderaan. "So, that Death Star... I can't help but notice that their superlaser has shorted out."

Or one on the Death Star. "That x wing speeding toward the ehaust port? I couldn't help but notice the torpedo launchers are broken."

I think for starships, it would be fair to add the cost of a Destiny Point, if the skill doesn't already call for one to be used yet. Otherwise that's a tad too convenient by narrative standards to simply notice that a ship chasing you is blowing up for no reason caused by the players other than Bad Motivator.

Speeders and other planetary vehicles I can understand without a Destiny Point, but nothing quite as big as a starship.

But that's how I'd GM such a question during one of my games.

Of course, should I think that such an event would be hilarious at the time, I would let it happen and happily watch the fireworks.

I think I'd let landspeeder-sized vehicles be the upper limit for the talent. Using it on starships makes it a little too powerful, in my opinion.

"Subject to GM approval" is pretty much key here. On many starfighters, an astromech might be their navicomputer equivalent. I have no problem with a PC saying, "that R2 unit has a bad motivator!" And having it affect a starfighter or even a larger starship.

Perhaps some posters are thinking that "hyperdrive overheating = ship exploding." I doubt this was the OP's intent. Rather, in the OP's example the ship would simply not be able to enter hyperspace, or perhaps could only do so with their backup hyperdrive which might be 5-10 times slower.

Destroying a starship outright is a tad too powerful for most circumstances, I think, but causing a single system to fail is entirely within the scope of he talent.

It's not a matter of the machine's physical size, it's a matter of how great the impact of a particular malfunction will be on gameplay and the narrative.

The problem with starships is not that they're "big", it's that the practial effects of a malfunction on a starship are often massive.

A typical starship encounter, for example, could involve the PCs' ship in a running firefight with a faster, more powerful ship which they need to either disable or escape (both of which are supposed to be challenging tasks to accomplish). Although there are probably numerous characters involved in the scene, there are really only two participants in the encounter - the PC's ship and the enemy ship. So in this case, saying, "I can't help but notice their engines are about to fail," is equivalent to saying, "I can't help but notice we're about to win this encounter with no further thought or effort on our part." The issue is not that the target ship is "big", it's that affecting it in this way undermines the whole encounter, which is unbalanced and boring. It would be akin to having a fistfight between a PC and a big, threatening opponent and having the PC say, "I can't help but notice he's about to fall unconscious and I'm about to win by default."

Using "Bad Motivator" on a starship should be fine, as long as you properly adjudicate its usage. For example, you should not allow a PC in the above scenario to simply say that the ship's engines fail and that the encounter is over. You could, however, reasonably allow him to say that their forward laser cannon is about to overheat, allowing him to neutralise one of their weapons (but presumably not all, which is part of the point) for a few rounds (but probably only for a few rounds until they "correct the issue"). Likewise, you might even allow something as potent as disabling the engines on a starship if, for example, the target ship is merely one single TIE Fighter in a squadron of six. In this case, disabling its engines is a significant effect; but it's not overwhelmingly since five functional fighters still remain.

And the same goes for any device, regardless of size. The ability to affect it should be based on the GM's ruling of whether or not the effects on gameplay and the narrative will be reasonable or unreasonable.

It's not a matter of the machine's physical size, it's a matter of how great the impact of a particular malfunction will be on gameplay and the narrative.

The problem with starships is not that they're "big", it's that the practial effects of a malfunction on a starship are often massive.

Actually I think on a starship they would be less significant. One motivator blows on a Speeder then that could kill the whole engine. On a starship they normally have multiple engines and redundant systems so that if one part fails it doesn't normally result in a catastrophic result.

You use that on a star destroyer and at worse one of it's main engines dies, it still has two good engines and 4 other emergency engines cut into compensate and it barely notices the change in power.

Even an X-Wing has 3 other engines and can probably automatically adjust power to each of them to compensate, so at worst it gets a drop in maneuverability.

That's how I would play it. Maybe you get one turbo laser to fail on a star destroyer, but you are still toast from all the others. Now use it against a TIE fighter and you could probably take it out of the fight, either indefinitely, or at least for a few rounds while emergency systems kick in (depending the level of tension the GM wants to keep).

I think the PC should need to be able to interact with the device in some way to make it break. Give it a hard slam, or shoot it. I think of this talent as a ***** in the armor.

I think the PC should need to be able to interact with the device in some way to make it break. Give it a hard slam, or shoot it. I think of this talent as a ***** in the armor.

Note that the PC doesn't actually need to interact with the device. He could, by the explicit wording of the talent, just "notice" that it's about to break.

YMMV, but that's how the talent is written and I likes it

I think the main keys are "subject to the GM's approval" and most importantly "device."

On the word "device," I get the feeling that the intent was "something a character can hold and carry," including such things as comlinks, blaster pistols, medpacs, grenades, datapads, vibroswords, and so forth, and that droids, vehicles and starships were off limits to this talent since those three aren't something the character can generally hold and carry. After all, how ticked would a droid PC be if the party mechanic decided to invoke Bad Motivator in retort for the droid doing something the mechanic didn't like? It'd be the groundwork for a future "When Good Games Go Bad" segment.

Since it doesn't cost the player any resources to activate the talent (such as flipping a Destiny Point or suffering Strain), then if you as the GM feel that a player's attempt to use Bad Motivator doesn't make sense, then you can simply disallow it. Just be wary of exercising GM fiat too often in preventing the player from using this talent. Or, require them to give a good explanation for what breaks on the target.

I think the main keys are "subject to the GM's approval" and most importantly "device."

On the word "device," I get the feeling that the intent was "something a character can hold and carry," including such things as comlinks, blaster pistols, medpacs, grenades, datapads, vibroswords, and so forth, and that droids, vehicles and starships were off limits to this talent since those three aren't something the character can generally hold and carry. After all, how ticked would a droid PC be if the party mechanic decided to invoke Bad Motivator in retort for the droid doing something the mechanic didn't like? It'd be the groundwork for a future "When Good Games Go Bad" segment.

Since it doesn't cost the player any resources to activate the talent (such as flipping a Destiny Point or suffering Strain), then if you as the GM feel that a player's attempt to use Bad Motivator doesn't make sense, then you can simply disallow it. Just be wary of exercising GM fiat too often in preventing the player from using this talent. Or, require them to give a good explanation for what breaks on the target.

Lol, I'm looking forward to THAT When Good Games Go Bad story

But yeah, I agree, get your players to give a good description. Anything to get them more involved in the narrative is a good thing IMO.

And then it's easier to say, "I like that, but how about this..." and then tweak their suggestion so it still does something similar to what they want, rather than flat-out denying.