Hi folks,
I think the key issue here is whether you use the rules to "simulate" a world, or simply as a means of defining conflict.
For the first group, of course its impossible for the character with lower abilities to fit into the game, because the ratings correspond to a sense of "realism" in the game world and have no room for change or difference. "We're fighting Giants!" = 10W5 rating and there you go. If you can't hang, then you will get slammed.
For the second group, the types of challenges and conflicts can be produced on the spur of the moment, and are appropriate to the characters involved. The Narrator comes up with appropriate conflicts for characters based on their focus and ability levels. So maybe the warriors are fighting the giants, while the character with other focused abilities might do challenges that are lesser rated but appropriate to the conflict. ("I know, I'll climb up his leg while he's distracted, and cut the giant's belt! That'll mess with him", "Ok, that's your Climbing vs. 5W2, cause he's moving around and stuff")
If you are decided how all the elements in gameplay are going to fall out, and treating them as a "world in existance", with no room for flexibility, then yeah, you're going to have a narrow focus of characters and ability ratings will be a requirement.
If you are willing to improvise on the fly(and the rating chart in the back makes it very easy), there's room for any kind of character, regardless of rating. This is one of the reasons I believe the system in HQ is capable of doing Lord of the Rings without batting an eyelash- you can have a Frodo and Gandalf player character running around doing things without any problem. There is challenge for everyone, and no uber-ability is going to squash the game.
Chris
Powered by hypermail