Feats and the OSR - "Mother, May I?"

The idea of "character feats" is perfectly compatible with old school games/OSR games.

As examples of cool OSR games that contain feats, I can mention LFG, ACKS, B&T and WWN (other than my own games).

I defended this idea here, addressing the most common concerns: slow character creation, complex games, power creep.

Feats do not cause ANY of these things, necessarily, but you should take measures to avoid that.

But I missed one very popular objection: "Mother, May I?" feats.

I.e., the idea that the existence of a feat stops characters that don't have it to attempting an action.

For example, let's say you have a "disarm" feat, but the fighter chooses another feat. Does that mean that he can never disarm people now?

This sounds like a problem... but it is not real.

And, even if the problem exists, it has nothing to do with feats.

For example: considering that thieves have a talents such as backstab, hear noise, find traps, etc., can other PCs attempt similar actions?

The answer is either yes (and a similar response would apply to feats) or no (and the problem would exist even if feats didn't).

Once you think of it, there are only TWO kinds of feats that apply to most cases (some feats might include aspects of both, but the distinction is clear enough). The examples are from my Old School Feats.

- Quantitative feats give you a bonus that applies to an action (or save, HP, AC, damage, hirelings, number of languages, etc.).

Example: "Willpower. You get a +4 bonus to saves against spells that do not cause damage or death, in addition to any Wisdom bonus."

- Qualitative feats give you a special power that other PCs simply do not get.

Example: "Aura of fear. You can turn humanoids and ordinary animals in addition to undead. You cannot destroy them, however. Humanoids can choose to flee or stay, but cannot approach or attack you."

These are the "mother may I" feats - if you don't have them, well, you cannot generate an aura of fear!

That sounds obvious - this is how the game already works! 

If you are a fighter, or even a mage that hasn't learned a "fireball" spell, you simply cannot attempt it! If your 3rd level AD&D fighter has no extra attacks, he only attacks once per round.

But what about disarming?

Just look at 3e - the first edition to include feats in the core:

Improved Disarm - [...] You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to disarm an opponent, nor does the opponent have a chance to disarm you. You also gain a +4 bonus on the opposed attack roll you make to disarm your opponent. [...]

This contains both qualitative and quantitative aspects, but it is completely obvious that it doesn't preclude other PCs from disarming.

Let's take a harder example: 5e has a feat that lets you get a -5 penalty to attack in order to get a +10 bonus to damage. But what if you don't have his feat, and want to do something similar (say, "aim for the head")? 

It is up to the GM. Maybe he allows you to get -5/+5 (and notice that, in this case, the feat indicates HOW to make a ruling), or maybe he says it is impossible. 

Either way, this is not caused by the existence of the feat, but by the absence of a rule/ruling for that specific situation.

Could there be a game where only people with special powers can do ordinary things such as disarming? 

Sure. 

In D&D 4e, for example, there is no explicit disarming except for a fighter encounter power. This is not a FEAT problem - it isn't even a feat - it is a 4e problem.

[In 5e, curiously, disarm is both a feature of the battlemaster AND an optional rule that anyone can use, but the methods are completely different IIRC].

The only way a feat can forbid someone to try something is if it contradicts a previous rule/ruling that allowed it. 

For example, in the RC, backstab doesn't work with bows. In B/X, there is no explicit rule either way. If the GM decided that this is allowed, adding a feat specifically allowing that indicates that it is now impossible for other thieves. It is up to the GM to allow this feat or not - but that applies to everything.

In short, feats are usually not there to indicate IF the PCs can try something - this is either already in the rules or it is up to the GM. 

Feats are there to indicate HOW you can do something that is not already included in your character. How can a magic-user use swords? How can a cleric get better at hunting and foraging? How can you learn multiple languages even with low Intelligence? Etc.