Reliability Stat for Starships

[CRMcNeill]

Way back when, during discussions about converting Consumables to Endurance Dice, the possibility of giving starships a Reliability Rating was also discussed, providing a framework for the PCs to deal with various ship's tendencies to break down at inopportune moments. It has since sat on the back burner for some time, but (as many of my brain bugs are wont to do), I circled back around to this one again recently.

Here's a bare bones concept:

1). All ships will have a Reliability Rating, using standard Difficulties. Highly reliable ships that almost never break down will be Very Easy, while maintenance nightmares (like the Millennium Falcon) will be Heroic or higher, with most ships falling somewhere in between.

2). During either pre- or post- game bookkeeping, the ship's owner (or designated mechanic) will roll their Repair skill against the ship's Reliability level. CPs may be spent on this roll to offset unwanted results, and represent added time spent between missions performing standard maintenance and repairs.

3). On a failed roll, apply the difference to the Starship Damage chart and roll accordingly to generate a Malfunction.

4). Once the Malfunctioning System has been determined, roll 1D to determine how the malfunction will present itself:
1-2: The Malfunction has not yet occurred, but will activate on a Wild Fail of either Piloting, the system's particular skill (Shields, Sensors, Communications, etc), or at the GM's discretion.
4-6: PCs are aware of the malfunction and are in the process of repairing it when the next session begins.

I can already see some ways to improve it (such as substituting some of the minor mishaps from Tramp Freighters in place of Shields Blown / Controls Ionized results), but I wanted to get this posted so the discussion ball could start rolling.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Whill]

Sounds like a good premise so far.

[CRMcNeill]