>
> But wouldn't he simply stick his own definition on and stick to
that?
> Or at least stick rigidly to the first use he accepted? He would
> probably be very literal in interpreting the wording too, so Sunset
> Leap would have a very limited time window to be used in, and Spit
> Down Wind would be messy...
>
> Wulf
Having had to deal with this sort of thing in play, my guess is that
the player would, when confronted with Feat Descriptions Handed Down
On High would be taken as gospel and carven in stone. We've had a
lot
of different uses for feats in our game, even now we usually get a
new
one popping up on a per-session basis.
I'd hate to see the definition window of some of the Vingan feats. =(
I like Vinga -- she's flexible and clever. Be a shame to have her feats (for example) set in stone.
The writeup in Mouse God for poor little Miz. Z's feats is more for
tactical use -- any good adventure should have a writeup on what the
opposition could/should do in various situations. And Mouse God is
no
exception. Though Velet Bolter DID frighten a Yinkini to death in
our
game. Literally. But he was told not to go by his priest... (and
some bad dreams)
As to Fire being turned into Gold.... I don't know. I think it
would
be a tough, tough thing. Rituals. Sacrifice. Getting a #3 Gripley
AND
a sonic screwdriver. Sunlight might work better maybe?
Jeff
Powered by hypermail