It's my opinion that people complicate things needlessly. One example of this is Charm rulings in Exalted. Some of the things I've seen, and my interpretations on these, follow.
Extra Action and Simple or Supplemental activations in Combos
The issue in a nutshell: Imagine a hypothetical Solar Extra Action Charm, which allows the player to make a single attack roll and apply it to any 10 targets he chooses. Put this Charm into a Combo with (say) Hungry Tiger Technique, which costs 1 mote per activation and is Supplemental. Question: Do you spend 1 mote to activate HTT, or 10?
The Combo rules say:
- If there is a Simple Charm in the Combo, the character must use it a number of times equal to the number of dice actions the Extra Action Charm would normally have granted. In this case, the Extra Action Charm does not grant extra dice actions.
- If there are Supplemental Charms in the Combo, they must be used to benefit every action the character makes, be it a normal dice action or an action-type Charm.
Let's count the number of dice actions involved in this hypothetical EA Charm. You make a single attack roll, so... the answer is 1.
Consequence: Extra Action Charms whose effects radiate to more targets than the number of dice-actions suggests are more powerful. EA Charms which have more dice actions than targets are less powerful.
It's easy to get caught in the trap of "I know this is unbalanced just by looking at it!" If so, you are considerably more skilled than any professional game-developer. They rely on extensive playtesting and user feedback to establish what is or is not balanced. Before you leap up and point fingers at Charms or rulings, yelling "this is broken!", consider how much evidence you have to support that conclusion, and consider how much of that evidence is anecdotal or hearsay. If your playtesting actually reveals an imbalance, correct it. But be wary of trusting your gut instinct.