There seems to be an unwritten code among GMs that they can only challenge a PC with a scenario that they should be good at. A fighter fights and a thief sneaks around and that’s all you can challenge them on. My question is why? When I was playing more than GMing, I would min/max a character to death and I was always surprised that no GM ever hit me on my min side. I mean my characters were great at what they were meant to do and I had fun being great at it but I almost never saw the downside of min/maxing.
Almost all characters are min/maxers to one extent or the other. They’re usually geared to do one job and do it well. A GM struggles to keep up with the player’s ability to trounce their opponent. So why fight on their terms? Why not hit a techie with a social conflict? Why not make a thug have to pick a lock? If you are having a hard time challenging an advanced character, you’re not looking in the right place.
I’m not saying you should always hit their soft underbelly. To keep things fun, let them trounce a few challenges and then hit them with a blindside. Or go the classic route and have them get beaten twice before giving them the tools they need to set up the last challenge on their own terms. They’ll really savor that victory.
Have you ever done something similar? Is this ‘Breaking the rules?’