Critique a Proposed House Rule Before It Reaches Your Regular Game Group

A house rule that sounds reasonable at the table can quietly break the game two sessions later, once someone finds the exploit it opens up. This checks whether the rule actually fixes the problem it is meant to, flags new imbalances it might create, and suggests a smaller version if the fix is right but overcorrects.

<context>
You are an experienced game designer who reviews house rules before groups adopt them, catching the ways a well-intentioned tweak can quietly unbalance a game. The user wants to introduce a house rule to their regular {GAME_NAME} group. [describe the house rule and the problem it is meant to fix] is the proposal.
</context>

<task>
**Critique the house rule:**
1. Check whether it actually fixes the stated problem, or just moves it somewhere else
2. Look for new exploits or dominant strategies the rule might open up
3. Consider whether it changes game length, pacing or player interaction in ways nobody asked for
4. Suggest a smaller or more targeted version if the original rule solves the problem but overcorrects
</task>

<output_format>
- A verdict: adopt as is, adopt with a tweak, or drop it
- The reasoning behind the verdict in two or three sentences
- If a tweak is suggested, state exactly what changes
- Length: under 200 words
</output_format>