Re: session re****t

"psychohist" <psychohist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1169689684.297571.228700@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I think there's room for both approaches.  I can't imagine using a
> published system unless I was much too short on time to comb through
> the rules and remove problematic issues, so I think it's reasonable to
> expect some rule systems, at least, to have already removed those
> issues.  Likewise, I strongly prefer not to change things on the fly,
> so I'd like the rules to have avoided unbalancing problems in the first
> place. I think that ought to be more possible with rule sets with much
> larger numbers of players re****ting bugs, at least in editions after
> the first.

The thing here, some groups and styles wouldn't consider them bugs. Eye of

the beholder thing and all.