OK, it is hard to run episodes that counteract the unbalancing.
Your last two examples are poor:
...
> - a thief steals the magic sword
> - the owner magic sword gets bad breath which gives her a -20 on all
> politics rolls
...
Remember that the player has played fair and square by the rules. It is not at all right to introduce arbitrary events just to 'punish' the player. They bought an ability, using an HP. They did not buy ab ability with a linked disadvantage ('Liable to be Stolen', 'Causes Bad Breath'). Of course, if the item is an ambiguous reference, attaching disadvantages to the item can be justified (Moon Rock, anyone?). Repeatedly singling out the player for retribution in this way is plain nasty. And why is is necessary? Its just trying to counteract a problem with the cementing rules by punishing a player. Why not alter the cementing rules so there is no problem in the first place?
Powered by hypermail