Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8596781" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Of course my reaction to that is "If its not rare, there's something wrong with your GMing, the system you're using, or both."Hard for me to assess the value as I'm not that big a fan of mysteries that that seems a good reason.I half-agree; I think its better if a system has a built in buffer for this, but if that's absolutely off the table I'd give this one a pass.Eh.  While I think there can be catastrophic failure states, bluntly, if I don't want ones like this to be an issue, don't use a system where its possible.  That sort of decision seems a perfectly legitimate one for events to force to me.Again, sounds like the signs of a broken system in action if there's that much difference.  Patching it after the fact rather than upfront seems a bad reason to do this, and in fact, is a step down the road of turning it into a battle between the player and GM.  Better to have gone "Look, this particular kind of character build is overpowered and is going to make other characters look weak, could you not do this?" when the player started to do it.I agree that fudging is an occasional necessity.  But at least some of these seem like using it a band-aid to avoid fixing other problems.</blockquote>