Re: Digest Number 131

From: Bryan Thexton <bethexton_at_...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:05:39 -0700 (PDT)

From: Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_...> wrote:

"That sucks. We are not playing scrabble. This is no way to run a
FRP. Either it's an adjective meaning "swift" or it refers to actual
crackling stormfire, and I want to know."

Gee whiz, and I don't. I like the challenge to think of different ways that the feat names can be applied, and I find it encourages me to go and look to the myths for examples.

Obviously, as the saying goes, you can't please all of the people all the time. The nebulous feats was obviously a design decision of the rules. It is totally fair for you not to like the ambiguity, and you are free to define the feats more tightly for your own use, but I totally fail to see how the fact that you don't like the ambiguity is a rules issue.

The standard rule is: The feat can be what you can make out of it. If you want to propose alternate rules that some groups might like, then why not suggest a tighter definition that might be appropriate. Simply complaining about it doesn't seem to, to me, to do anything to either enhance our collective understanding of the rules, or to offer a useful variant for those who may prefer one.

It takes enough time to read these lists as is, without a lot of non-constructive criticism clogging them up.


Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger.

Powered by hypermail