> >My initial analogy was between a hero's Small 13
> and a small dog Small 12.
> If a dog and a human have the same Small,
> they should be about
> the same size or be able to use their smallness to
> the same effect.
The latter, I think. And I'm not sure if that's a hair-splitting quibble or not.
Though I did just have a headache-inducing thought. If the human has no skill listed for Small, it's at a basic 6, right? Not 0. Therefore, their Big is *also* at 6? So, *if* Big and Small are things that can be translated to pounds and inches, the origin of the scale is at 6, not 0. Ouch...
OTOH, if Big and Small are a measure of how well the hero (or dog) can apply those properties (which seems more HW-like) then what we're looking at is the chances of them getting through a gap with "Tight Squeeze 10" (not "1 foot wide"). And so the physical size of either being does not correlate directly to their Small "skill". And it perhaps makes sense that the same person can have Small (squeeze through gaps) of 6 *and* Big (shut over-full suitcase) of 6.
Is that right, or am I totally confused again? And if I am right, does it make any more sense that a human can have a higher Small than a small dog?
Powered by hypermail