I'm not sure that both sides are not now losing track of this argument
by attempts to counter the other sides position.
However hopefully it has exposed an area Robin might want to talk
about. It seems to me that a broad summary.
I would have thought that we could agree the following:
1: We compare ratings in contests (Sword and Shield 17 vs Master
Swordsman 17 is just 17 vs 17)
2: We may give bonuses or penalties for especially applicable abilities
(Convince Chieftain may be better than Persuasive where the goal is to
convince the chieftain).
A summary of what seems to be at issue is:
1: How do we estimate the resistance
To which there seem to be two schools of thought
- The narrator makes up the numbers on the fly according to the
level of tension he wants to create. The difficulty of reaching
Stonegate on time is 5W...
- The narrator uses some yardstick of difficulty to provide
internally consistent resistances. Let's see Stonegate is 7 miles away
and you need to get there in an hour, 7 miles an hour is forced march
which has a difficulty of 7W.
2: Does the rating 'measure' the ability
Again there are two schools of thought
- No the rating quantifies how good you are at using the ability. You
can be 50' tall but only have Large 13 because being 'large' is not a
key part of how you work in the story. You could be human-sized and
Tall 8W because using your tallness, e.g. Little John, is part of your
schtik
- Yes some abilities are quantifiable as opposed to qualitative and
must be handled seperately with ratings matching physical abilities.
i.e. no human can ever have a run of 10W, because that is beyond human
capabilities, unless the ability is defined as magical or superhuman.
If that is a reasonable summary maybe we should consider the issues
documented and move on. Note that I'm not trying to support one or the
other just map the landscape.