Has anyone here tried the mass battle rules yet? I haven't, but reading them, they seem a bit odd to me.

1) I can split my army in any number of cohorts, and they do not have individual Strength and Discipline? Why should I not create as many cohorts as possible, as each has its own actions? It's like giving me more attacks without any price.

2) When I succeed in a Cut off the Head objective, the cohorts leader is dead and his army suffers 10 panic, 20 if it was the commander. Why should I not immediately do this to the commanders cohort? 20 panic is more than half of an average army. There is no way to have other cohorts block access to my commander, is there?

3) It seems very lethal to be the commander. Say my average PC party has 5 players, so we say the players army has 5 cohorts and my GM army also has 5, to be fair. In round 1, I send 3 of my cohorts to Cut off the Head. They each make a TN 2 attack, and if two succeed, the character takes a hit with double DLS, certainly at least an unhealable Scar disadvantage. Also, their army is at least halfway to a morale collapse. That sounds like both a very short battle over in about a single round, and if no player would like to be commander.

What are your experiences with mass battles?

PS: I think it would be awesome to have an adventure recreating The Seven Samurai, with the PCs leading a peasant army against attacking brigands, only to have the Asahina Artificier cast Wall of Stone in round one and BAM! Now there is a whole fortress in the village...

The rules are good if you like to unmask while kissing a girl you should not.

Do not look further!

22 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

The rules are good if you like to unmask while kissing a girl you should not.

Do not look further!

With all due respect, "I don't like the rules" is not the most helpful answer to a question in a rules mechanism.

If you prefer free-form play, you are free to play that way. But badmouthing a system you do not even use is a waste of time.

2 minutes ago, Harzerkatze said:

With all due respect, "I don't like the rules" is not the most helpful answer to a question in a rules mechanism.

If you prefer free-form play, you are free to play that way. But badmouthing a system you do not even use is a waste of time.

My experience with mass battle is that it is a broken, unfun mess.

1 minute ago, Avatar111 said:

My experience with mass battle is that it is a broken, unfun mess.

Thanks, that is an information I can use.

I will try myself, sometime, and report.

57 minutes ago, Harzerkatze said:

1) I can split my army in any number of cohorts, and they do not have individual Strength and Discipline? Why should I not create as many cohorts as possible, as each has its own actions? It's like giving me more attacks without any price.

Because you only get cohorts for each character. Essentially, yes, if the GM wants to 'win' then each 'cohort' should basically three guys and be lead by NPC-Never-Heard-Of-You-San and get a million free attacks.

Don't do this, and don't allow your players to do this is all I can suggest. Essentially, PCs get a cohort if they want one, along (potentially) with NPCs, but the GM has the final call in each case.

Also note that Cut off the Head is kind of an antidote to this - if you're fielding lots of cohorts, presumably (in addition to slowing the game down), many of them are commanded by substandard NPCs with low focus and significant vulnerability to being surrounded and killed, and handing far more panic to the army than they'll do you benefits with the extra actions.

59 minutes ago, Harzerkatze said:

2) When I succeed in a Cut off the Head objective, the cohorts leader is dead and his army suffers 10 panic, 20 if it was the commander. Why should I not immediately do this to the commanders cohort? 20 panic is more than half of an average army. There is no way to have other cohorts block access to my commander, is there?

If you think you can, why not? Calling out the enemy leader to single combat is an iconic samurai move, after all. Just bear in mind that the person you end up fighting if you go for a clash might well be the cohort commander's Yojimbo, who might well be better than you.

The extra 10 panic is there because an army suffers 10 panic if the commander is killed, regardless of whether it's Cut Off The Head or not.

As to why launching into this may or may not be a great plan - it depends on how difficult the leader is to corner.

As per rules you can't block access, but that boils down to how much you're going to flesh out the battlefield. Reinforcing a position defines a physical location for a cohort; which can logically block your access to other parts of the battlefield.

Another point (which might or might not be an error) is that Cut Off The Head doesn't require you to succeed at the action. If it did/does, then any sort of defensive position can dramatically rack up the TN needed (Reinforce - and the commander can choose the order of activation, remember - or Air stance)

1 hour ago, Harzerkatze said:

3) It seems very lethal to be the commander. Say my average PC party has 5 players, so we say the players army has 5 cohorts and my GM army also has 5, to be fair. In round 1, I send 3 of my cohorts to Cut off the Head. They each make a TN 2 attack, and if two succeed, the character takes a hit with double DLS, certainly at least an unhealable Scar disadvantage. Also, their army is at least halfway to a morale collapse. That sounds like both a very short battle over in about a single round, and if no player would like to be commander.

Not at all. Because the key thing you're missing is that Commander=/=Leader.

"In addition to a commander, an army has one or more leaders. Depending on the size of the conflict, their ranks might vary from squad leaders to full-fledged generals in their own right. Regardless of the size of

the forces involved, each leader commands a relatively independent chunk of the army called a cohort and must be able to make tactical decisions that serve the commander’s goal without direct oversight."

There is no requirement for the commander to also be a leader, and if the commander isn't a leader, then they have no personal cohort you can declare assault actions against . If a general decides to lead from the front, they have only themselves to blame if they get killed.

Thanks, that helps a lot. Have ypu staged a mass battle jet? Please share your experiences.

- Hmmm. NOT making the commander a leader results in one fewer cohort = 1 fewer attack. That sounds like quite a high price.

The alternative obviously is relying on fortifications and Reinforce, which in turn means that this cohort does not Assault. Depending on how many unsuccessful attacks it draws, this might not be much better than not leading a cohort. Interesting tactical consideration.

- That you do not have to succeed to Cut Off the Head must be an error. I'll treat it like one.

- It is interesting that cohort damage relies on the command skill of its leader, which is a social skill. Many powerful enemies you would expect as a cohort leader (experienced bandit, skillful ronin, loyal bushi, sinister oni) are quite bad at that (which is helpful for players, who usually have other things to spend XP on than Command). But beware of the cohort led by a Crane with a Fan...

- Hmmm. I would probably modify the rules to include movement and a map. For one, that way leaders can protect their commander, and two, moving units about a map feels like it should happen in a mass battle.

1 hour ago, Harzerkatze said:

Thanks, that helps a lot. Have ypu staged a mass battle jet? Please share your experiences.

Only during the beta gameplay (twice; once as part of A Ronin's Path and once as a boarding action between two kobune), and a few things have changed since (most noticeably the concept of one-roll duels and Cut Off The Head being achievable by repeatedly assaulting a cohort), and the loss of an opportunity-spend table specifically for mass battles (which is still there in the beta rulebook if you want to go look it up).

See here and here

1 hour ago, Harzerkatze said:

- Hmmm. NOT making the commander a leader results in one fewer cohort = 1 fewer attack. That sounds like quite a high price.

The alternative obviously is relying on fortifications and Reinforce, which in turn means that this cohort does not Assault. Depending on how many unsuccessful attacks it draws, this might not be much better than not leading a cohort. Interesting tactical consideration.

Fortifications wouldn't prevent Cut Off The Head - they reduce the attrition you suffer from an assault action, potentially to zero, but don't actually make the assault count as having failed.

That's a critical difference because stuff which triggers when you succeed on an assault (like the extra panic inflicted by cavalry cohorts) still applies, even if no damage is done.

Obscuring Terrain would still count, though.

You'd lose an action, but if all the action is is repeated Reinforces to protect your general, are you actually losing anything? Obviously anyone performing an action (in theory) makes checks and hence generates , which is always a good thing, but in turn is presenting an obvious target for Cut Off The Head . On the other hand, you are essentially trolling an obvious target for Draw Them In ...

1 hour ago, Harzerkatze said:

- That you do not have to succeed to Cut Off the Head must be an error. I'll treat it like one.

I would think so. The fact that few characters will ever have a vigilance of 9+ means that three assault actions immediately translating to a free finishing blow seems a bit horrible.

Whilst I don't feel the system is as full of holes as @Avatar111 , I won't hesitate to agree there are some questionable decisions, especially in the design of mass battles. The fact that an army needs to suffer 25% attrition to destroy a cohort regardless of the number of cohorts is another good example of questionable rules.

3 hours ago, Harzerkatze said:

They each make a TN 2 attack, and if two succeed, the character takes a hit with double DLS, certainly at least an unhealable Scar disadvantage

One minor observation (not to undermine the observation about its horribleness) - a 'finishing blow' is a free attack action - that is, you've still got to roll to hit the enemy leader - it's a TN2 check at least, potentially increased by stance, terrain, and temporary disadvantages generated by the enemy spending ; it's not an automatic critical strike.

1 hour ago, Harzerkatze said:

- It is interesting that cohort damage relies on the command skill of its leader, which is a social skill. Many powerful enemies you would expect as a cohort leader (experienced bandit, skillful ronin, loyal bushi, sinister oni) are quite bad at that (which is helpful for players, who usually have other things to spend XP on than Command). But beware of the cohort led by a Crane with a Fan...

Most of those are great fighters , but not great leaders , though. Nine times out of ten, I'd imagine the enemy in a mass battle (rather than a big skirmish) would be someone not a million miles from the Venerable Provincial Daimyo, who has Fire 4/Social 3, and Lord's Command to allow one of their henchmen to use those stats without risking their hide on the front line.

Also note that succeeding at the assault requires tactics, which is a martial skill - so whilst the Seasoned Courtier may have the rhetoric to inspire their troops to properly exploit a victory (social 3), they won't have the battlefield nous to win one in the first place (martial 0).

Doing well on the field generally requires tactics and command, plus (often) a third skill related to your cohort's special ability if it has one (survival for a cavalry commander, for example). You can be mediocre-to-okay with any one of them (or a shed-tonne of void points and a willingness to burn them like prayer incense!), but to be really good usually requires all of them - making it hard to achieve.

1 hour ago, Harzerkatze said:

- Hmmm. I would probably modify the rules to include movement and a map. For one, that way leaders can protect their commander, and two, moving units about a map feels like it should happen in a mass battle

Yes and no. Having a map and moving about it is worth doing, but one thing to bear in mind is that a 'turn' represents hour(s) or more of manoeuvre of hard fighting (six rounds is 'a full day' fighting!); a detachment can move a long way on a battlefield scale in that time, so I'd only limit their ability to move based on a specific position that requires you to actively occupy it and/or force someone to vacate it.

I absolutely agree that one PC should be able to say "my cohort is reinforcing [this point] so you can't attack [that other cohort]"

I ran one mass battle. It's the only conflict type my table (myself included) doesn't like. You can read more about my thoughts on it here . To answer your specific questions though:

On 9/19/2019 at 6:44 AM, Harzerkatze said:

1) I can split my army in any number of cohorts, and they do not have individual Strength and Discipline? Why should I not create as many cohorts as possible, as each has its own actions? It's like giving me more attacks without any price.

I know commanders get to choose their leaders, but I don't think the intent is that they can choose as many as they want. The GM should probably put a cap on it. I like that there isn't a set number though for how many troops each leader should be leading, since it means if you have three characters you want to be leaders, you can make it work regardless of how many troops there are.

On 9/19/2019 at 6:44 AM, Harzerkatze said:

2) When I succeed in a Cut off the Head objective, the cohorts leader is dead and his army suffers 10 panic, 20 if it was the commander. Why should I not immediately do this to the commanders cohort? 20 panic is more than half of an average army. There is no way to have other cohorts block access to my commander, is there?

I don't love Cut Off the Head either. It should be clearer when you can do this. For my game, what's more of an issue is that the enemy leader might be an interesting NPC, and this is kind of a lame way for them to go out. I'd rather it be that this objective sets up a Skirmish. Additionally, I still don't fully understand when this objective is achieved. What does "When the army accrues momentum points equal to or exceeding the difficulty value to corner the leader" mean?

I think this comment indirectly answers my thoughts on your third question too.

On 9/19/2019 at 6:44 AM, Harzerkatze said:

What are your experiences with mass battles?

A little background:
I ran a battle where the PCs were leading ronin and ashigaru to defend Nanashi Mura against a company of Lion soldiers. They knew the opposing commander, and actually kind of liked her. She was filling in for a chui that one of the players had killed in a duel (though only winning because another player had secretly poisoned her blade). I broke Nanashi Mura up into different districts, some with terrain qualities. My thought was this should lead to more interesting, tactical choices. The actual gameplay felt pretty stale.

• For reasons discussed above, Cut Off the Head isn't great. It especially wasn't good for us because it seemed like a really unfun way for the NPC to go out.
• The rules for occupying terrain aren't great, which in turn makes Capture the Position wonky. The Reinforce action lets you claim the terrain/fortifications, but it also says this: "If you choose an unoccupied fortification or piece of terrain this way, you are considered to be occupying it until you narratively leave it or perform an action other than Challenge or Reinforce ." Because of that, it was pretty much ignored in our battle. The bonus just isn't worth not being able to Assault or Rally. Consider too that since only one cohort can occupy each terrain, it just means your opponent is targeting another cohort. Which you share pools of strength and discipline with...
• We tried a Draw Them In, to mix things up, but it seems pretty situational where this would be good. For the most part, if you're using Reinforce to accomplish this, the bonus you're getting is less than if you'd just been Assaulting the whole time.
• Just in general, Reinforce feels pretty useless. There are situations where you might want to, especially with a specialized army, but the vast majority of the time, it seems better to just Assault or Rally someone who can Assault.
• The Challenge mechanics felt awkward for our game. The players had already sabotaged two duels and were representing what seemed like the less honorable side. But if I took it off the table, there are even fewer options for what action to take. I think I ended up just upping the TN for the Command check, but it still felt off.
• My general feeling is this: If you have high command/tactics, always Assault. If you have don't, always Rally someone who can. Specialized armies or specific situations might make another action good, but that usually just means you're going to be always choosing that action instead. There doesn't seem to be much round-to-round choice to make, which doesn't make for a fun system, in my opinion.

I tried to play the rules more-or-less as written for the first few sessions, after which I told the players I'd be making some house rules to better suit our playstyle. I asked them if there was anything in particular that they thought I should be tweaking, and the only response was to change the mass battle rules.

All you need to do is cut off the head. Nothing come close in term of power, like, if it isn't a mistake, it is laughable design.

Otherwise, use a horse and destroy everything because being mounted in mass battle is busted (only you, doesn't matter if your army is!!).

Mass battles are, just, amateur work.

Skirmishes are "ok" but lots of issues in the conditions mostly, but also a few kinks here and there like range.

Intrigues are almost good, but sooo poorly written that it is confusing and unclear without studying and adjusting it how you feel. Still, there is potential there.

Duels are just.. meh. Few issues here and there, especially Iaijutsu duels that are totally broken. But duels to the death are decent. Still, they are only skirmishes in which your composure is overly important, and the two "unique" actions are just pointless...

The conflict/scene chapter is the single biggest design flaw of this game. Because conflicts are so core, that they are badly designed is problematic. One imbalanced technique here and there, or school curriculum issue etc are really not a big deal. But an almost totally screwed up chapter is a bit sad, especially since that one chapter is probably the second most important in the book when it comes to mechanics. I personally have a hard time understanding how they could **** it up that badly despite having good ideas, the execution is terrible and cheap.

12 hours ago, MonCalamariAgainstDrunkDriving said:

Additionally, I still don't fully understand when this objective is achieved. What does "When the army accrues momentum points equal to or exceeding the difficulty value to corner the leader" mean?

The difficulty value to corner a leader is equal to their Focus attribute.

Good to know! I missed that somehow. Where is that explained?

2 hours ago, MonCalamariAgainstDrunkDriving said:

Good to know! I missed that somehow. Where is that explained?

Right in the top of the Cut Off the Head description.

Ok, but if we for now take the rules like they are, what are options to have multiple mass battles that are a bit varied?

I am going to assume that in a campaign where multiple mass Battles occur, the PCs know beforehand and thus can invest XP into appeopriate things like Command, Tactics, Wall of Stone etc., so every player can lead a cohort.

One dimension of variation would be the type of troops they command. Possibly starting with peasant levy and later culminating in different variations of Elite Samurai.

Another ideas for variations:

- Defensive battle: They could fight to defend a town they fortified beforehand, which would mean their troops start Reinforced in fortifications (which quality depends on the fortification roleplay scene set before that). The enemy has to assault, and they PCs can choose to stay there and Challenge the enemy leaders before Assaulting the enemy led by lesser commanders.

- The horde: A mass battle against a horde of skeletons or other mindless monsters. These have no leader (the army is simply assigned an equivalent Vigilance etc), so neither can the PCs Cut Off the Head, nor do the enemies know how to do that. The PCs know the enemy will always Assault to either Grind them down or Capture a Position, so Draw them in can be planned better.

- Time constraints: Either the PCs have to stop the eneny before it can do something (e.g. destroy the scouts before they inform the main force) or hold out (keep the battle going for a minimum of time, e.g. to buy time for a retreat). In the former case, the PCs should have the superior force, in the latter, fortifications.

- Maneuver: It isn't a real battle, the PCs take part in a wargame or training maneuver. Thus, they cannot be wounded by successful Cut of the Head, only incapacitated, and they get extra glory if they did Most Damage of the Day in an attack, reduced an Attack to 0 damage, or whatever else impresses a daimyo. Calculated recklessness might be more impressive that actual sound tactics.

- Set phasers to Stun: A usurper has seized command of an army, and that army must be stopped with as LITTLE casualties to it as possible, because killing those troops will mean you lack them in the next battle. The leader will not lead a cohort. Aiming for Moral Collapse of the enemy is a good option.

- Capture the Flag: The victory condition is that one or more fortified positions of the enemy must be captured. The inverse of the first idea, it may be an option to present a cohort with a very weak leader to tempt them to Assault and thus leave theit fortifications. This is a case where the actions of one PC can have believable consequences: a courtier might so anger the troop with social checks that they are goaded into attacking.

- An option on the edge of the official rules would be to split the party, and have one or two lead cohorts in an attack against a fortified position and have the other run through a short infiltration mission to open the gate or blast a wall, thus negating the fortification. History abounds with examples for that.

Other ideas?

35 minutes ago, Harzerkatze said:

Ok, but if we for now take the rules like they are, what are options to have multiple mass battles that are a bit varied?

I am going to assume that in a campaign where multiple mass Battles occur, the PCs know beforehand and thus can invest XP into appeopriate things like Command, Tactics, Wall of Stone etc., so every player can lead a cohort.

One dimension of variation would be the type of troops they command. Possibly starting with peasant levy and later culminating in different variations of Elite Samurai.

Another ideas for variations:

- Defensive battle: They could fight to defend a town they fortified beforehand, which would mean their troops start Reinforced in fortifications (which quality depends on the fortification roleplay scene set before that). The enemy has to assault, and they PCs can choose to stay there and Challenge the enemy leaders before Assaulting the enemy led by lesser commanders.

- The horde: A mass battle against a horde of skeletons or other mindless monsters. These have no leader (the army is simply assigned an equivalent Vigilance etc), so neither can the PCs Cut Off the Head, nor do the enemies know how to do that. The PCs know the enemy will always Assault to either Grind them down or Capture a Position, so Draw them in can be planned better.

- Time constraints: Either the PCs have to stop the eneny before it can do something (e.g. destroy the scouts before they inform the main force) or hold out (keep the battle going for a minimum of time, e.g. to buy time for a retreat). In the former case, the PCs should have the superior force, in the latter, fortifications.

- Maneuver: It isn't a real battle, the PCs take part in a wargame or training maneuver. Thus, they cannot be wounded by successful Cut of the Head, only incapacitated, and they get extra glory if they did Most Damage of the Day in an attack, reduced an Attack to 0 damage, or whatever else impresses a daimyo. Calculated recklessness might be more impressive that actual sound tactics.

- Set phasers to Stun: A usurper has seized command of an army, and that army must be stopped with as LITTLE casualties to it as possible, because killing those troops will mean you lack them in the next battle. The leader will not lead a cohort. Aiming for Moral Collapse of the enemy is a good option.

- Capture the Flag: The victory condition is that one or more fortified positions of the enemy must be captured. The inverse of the first idea, it may be an option to present a cohort with a very weak leader to tempt them to Assault and thus leave theit fortifications. This is a case where the actions of one PC can have believable consequences: a courtier might so anger the troop with social checks that they are goaded into attacking.

- An option on the edge of the official rules would be to split the party, and have one or two lead cohorts in an attack against a fortified position and have the other run through a short infiltration mission to open the gate or blast a wall, thus negating the fortification. History abounds with examples for that.

Other ideas?

Start that in the Houserule subforum...

But I'll be honest with you, there is soooo much bad in the game, that if you start to add on top of what is there, you will lose everybody.

If you want to fix mass battles, go slowly and directly; remove the worst parts, and polish what is already there. Only a few line of text. Small, concise changes that are very impactful and make the system as intented GOOD instead of broken as it currently is. That is the challenge in fixing this game. Finding the simplest adjustments to make it fun.

Honest answer, from someone who s been working on "fixing" this garbage for a very long time. After many, hundred of iterations, I found the perfect answers within the simplest fixes.

Otherwise, you would need to rewrite the whole chapter and make a pdf.

46 minutes ago, Avatar111 said:

After many, hundred of iterations, I found the perfect answers within the simplest fixes.

Care to share them with the class?

8 hours ago, Harzerkatze said:

Care to share them with the class?

Houserule subforum;

7 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

Houserule subforum;

Those do not seem to concern mass battles at all.

As written, the rules are incredibly loose. Personally, I like having that flexibility so that mass battles can be what I need them to be in my campaign- which has varied from using an intrigue / court scene to recruit units from disparate factions against a common enemy (the actual combat more closely following RAW, but subdividing army strength and discipline among units), to skirmish-esque long scenes that played out like mass battle objectives using momentum points.

In planning the engagements, I made it clear what objectives needed to be completed before actions such as "Cut off the Head" was an available option for the commanders.

16 minutes ago, T_Kageyasu said:

As written, the rules are incredibly loose. Personally, I like having that flexibility so that mass battles can be what I need them to be in my campaign- which has varied from using an intrigue / court scene to recruit units from disparate factions against a common enemy (the actual combat more closely following RAW, but subdividing army strength and discipline among units), to skirmish-esque long scenes that played out like mass battle objectives using momentum points.

In planning the engagements, I made it clear what objectives needed to be completed before actions such as "Cut off the Head" was an available option for the commanders.

The game works when the GM decide how it should work.

Don't know how fun it is for the players, and I think such design that relies too much on the GM to write the rules as they go is total trash.

But it does work...

1 hour ago, Harzerkatze said:

Those do not seem to concern mass battles at all.

Oh, they don't. Sorry for the confusion.

I do not play with mass battle rules, they are the worst of the worst conflict rules (and that is saying a lot since all conflict rules are kind of bad).

20 hours ago, Avatar111 said:

The game works when the GM decide how it should work.

Don't know how fun it is for the players, and I think such design that relies too much on the GM to write the rules as they go is total trash.

But it does work...

I can't fault the designers for creating a framework allowing GMs to use the tools they need for the story they want. Story is the operative word here, because the rules are fine (not perfect) for navigating a narrative mass battle, but the GM needs to have a clear story in mind. There's a fine line between railroading and staying in water stance, so to speak.

If your PCs are creating characters with command ranks, maybe offer them a chance to use those skills. Better yet, create an adventure in which the PCs have the choice of either taking charge of a small army (mass battle), or serve in a squadron (skirmish)- that should help answer your question Avatar111.

I really like the mass battle adventure in the Beta version, and would plan to model more mass combat scenarios after this, but haven't had the opportunity.

Ultimately, the rules are there if you want these stories in your game. Personally, mass battles are L5R thematic and make for diverse challenges when incorporated, but require additional effort to run smoothly.

1 hour ago, T_Kageyasu said:

I can't fault the designers for creating a framework allowing GMs to use the tools they need for the story they want. Story is the operative word here, because the rules are fine (not perfect) for navigating a narrative mass battle, but the GM needs to have a clear story in mind. There's a fine line between railroading and staying in water stance, so to speak.

If your PCs are creating characters with command ranks, maybe offer them a chance to use those skills. Better yet, create an adventure in which the PCs have the choice of either taking charge of a small army (mass battle), or serve in a squadron (skirmish)- that should help answer your question Avatar111.

I really like the mass battle adventure in the Beta version, and would plan to model more mass combat scenarios after this, but haven't had the opportunity.

Ultimately, the rules are there if you want these stories in your game. Personally, mass battles are L5R thematic and make for diverse challenges when incorporated, but require additional effort to run smoothly.

Yes. It is good that there is at least a framework for mass battles. I am also ok with the very narrative driven way they wanted to interpret the mass battles themselves.

My issue is the same as with the other conflict types, the idea and intention are good, but then they added some mechanical ruling on top of them (cut the head, mounted bonuses, or in duels predict/center, or in intrigues no clarification on how the momentum track works (by player or by party), or the "discredit" goal, etc etc. A lot of the added mechanical crunch on top of a really well intentioned system is honestly either messy or awfully designed 😕

It is like a house with an amazing foundation but then built like crap on top. Weird comparison, I know.

As a GM you can definitely start to address these issues or decide what to allow or not, or bend the rules to make it better, but that shouldn't be the case.