One part of says "be very tough on relevance, make the player explain how it affects this contest" so that tough may be good in a tavern brawl, but may not be relevant in rapier duel (ditto on strong. large would still count because of reach). The good thing about this approach is that it helps make each situation unique, rather than "another combat with the usual augments." The bad part is that it chews up a bunch of time to consider.
The other part of me says "let them load up with whatever is vaguely relevant, and boost the opposition appropriately." The good thing about this is that it is quick and players get to eww and aww about big numbers. The bad thing is that it encourages mini-maxing--one hero is a better fighter than another because he was better at fitting in adjectives in his description.
I suppose it would depend on the group of players, and what brought them the most joy. Probably the ideal solution if players would do is require statements in the form of "I use my strength to hit harder and bash through his defenses, I use my large to take advantage of my reach and height advantage, and I use my tough to let my armor turn blows even though it will bruise and scrape me, so that I can press harder." But I don't know that most players would be ammenable to following such a formula all the time.
--Bryan
Powered by hypermail