Then they can call them different things. Dusk Leaping Feats or whatever.
Considering the ease of improvising new feats (ie if you don't like what the description of a feat does, you can always improvise a new feat that does what you would like it to, and call that by your new name), and that the feat names are not supposed to be what the Gloranthan call the feat (well, if they are, some of them are awful odd), I see no reason to make feat names ambiguous.
Considering how easy it is to improvise new feats, just consider the list in HW to be the 'ready to go' list. If you don't like it, add to it.
> This should, however,
>be made clear in the rules, that the referee and players are expected to
>discuss a meaning that their characters and cultures attach to these
>phrases.
This seems to me to be the worst possible situation - its not really ambiguous in play, just in the rulesbook, but we aren't going to help you, we are just going to tell you that we deliberately didn't settle these obvious questions and went out of our way to make sure that our ready to play suggested feats are not ready to play.
Sorry to be so dismissive - but I really cannot think how this would actually help the situation, both reducing the in play improvisation AND annoying those like me who want consistency and relatively clear rules. Well, I guess its cool if you want to spend more time in Gloranthan scholarship rather than play (which many of us have been guilty of from time to time, including me, but I am not sure it should be encouraged).
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail