wrote:
> --- Peter Larsen <peterl_at_a...>
>
> > >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?
You're confusing me. This sounds like something out of Chuang Tzu.
A person who is Small 6 is not very small.
A person who is Big 6 is not very big.
Noel Montealegre
HughLong_at_...