> Let me put on my curmudgeon hat and see what this gives us.
I think there is a danger in breaking this down too far, by taking each statement individually you are giving some too much import. Robin seems to be suggesting not to dismiss the use of scales and even to use tried and tested scales if its helpful to codify the genre, but he is hardly suggesting that you should follow those scales in every instance. Indeed to suggest "loosely quantifying what you get within certain mastery levels", is not quite to advocate a rigid proportional scale, it is just taking the advice in the Genre Pack section to a more fully realised level.
The last point about dramatic ignorance is key, I think this is an approach that can only be achieved through flexibility and by viewing conflicts individually and in context.
Batman v Superman comics were not really about who was strongest, we all knew the answer to that, they were not even about who was the most effective or even more radically who would win in a fight, the situation (usually an extremely contrived context) was the key.
I think you will only really get a handle on this issue through play and perhaps discussing any specific problems here if they arise.
In principle I don't see any difference between this issue and the early discussions about Gloranthan scales.
The Sartar Book and Return to Apple Lane seem to use guidance thus: "In magic and combat she is always a Very Hard obstacle". So one could say "In contests involving brute strength the Incredible Hulk resists at Nearly Impossible unless there is a dramatic reason to be lower".
As for PvP it is possible to rule that one player gets an automatic success based on credibility if the skill choices are so clearly based on spotlight superpowers, that could encourage less direct skill choice.
Jamie
Powered by hypermail