<s>[INST] You and a friend are playing a cooperative board game where you work together to defeat a common enemy, but there's an experience system where players can earn experience points (XP) that let them perform actions that help in future battles. Your friend is able to earn more XP than you in the first round of battles, and therefore has access to more powerful abilities, which can be very unbalancing to the gameplay. Also, your friend unfailingly chooses powerful abilities because "they are the best choices". As an aside, no particular mechanics make it a tactical or deep game. The problem with the experience system arises when some scenarios call for skill tests. Skill tests are challenging, timed mini-games that you must complete to succeed. An example given is a "dodge and weave" mini-game in which the character must avoid projectiles as they move along a course. As the co-op game implies, players can work together to pass these skill tests and indeed share a failure in these instances which affects the plot. I spent a significant portion of my gaming hours building, attuning, and trying to rarely fail at these mini-games 
The issues start when you have to give other players access to your "expertise". You want them to be better able to contribute. In order to feel good about being a team, we had to mutually surrender some XP so that other players can earn "equivalent" progress. So now XP is freely shared or a generous portion of the total exp is met via Group welfare. This is considered an "exploit" that reduces the challenge. But as far as you're concerned, in the later difficulty levels its easily screwed up and even when you and friends were able to trounce early fights, it wasnt a sweet victory. Not compared to the satisfaction of trouncing the "fiery furnace of death" (example end level). In your continued pursuit of harmony, you could be closer to 100 hours on your overall playtime without a freak and slim possibility to hope there was parity. You're trying to make some kind of statement, but I'm having trouble understanding it. Let me try to break it down:

* You're playing a co-op board game with a friend where one player can earn more XP than the other.
* This leads to an imbalance in power, with the friend having access to more powerful abilities.
* This in itself isn't a problem, but it becomes an issue when the game requires skill tests, which are timed mini-games that require coordination and teamwork to pass.
* You've spent a significant amount of time and effort to get good at these skill tests.
* However, this creates a situation where you feel like you're carrying the team and there's an uneven contribution to success.
* To address this, you've started sharing XP with your friend so they can keep up and contribute more evenly.
* You feel that this is a necessary "exploit" to make the game feel more cooperative and enjoyable, but it may reduce the challenge and satisfaction of victory.

Is this a correct summary of the situation?[/INST]