Re: Conversion tables and scales (tricky situations)

From: L.Castellucci <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:10:09 -0400

What Ashley said about heroic vs superheroic without a table.

But I'm also leery of something like the "in love" table below.

Besides the fact that Romeo and Juliet are just an infatuation and not anything I would define as "Love" (the play isn't a love story, it's a tragedy about parents who put their feuding too central in their lives), what if people put abilities in different ways?

"Adores X, Infatuated with X, Obsessed by X, In Love with X, Loves X, Grand Passion for X"

I don't think it gets as simple as your table. Again, any GM might want that table for their own game, of course.

I far prefer something like the "Master and Master's Master" table we saw in the Hero Book (was it?). Best in clan, Best in Tribe, Best in the Land, Best in the World kind of thing. Or Master, Master's master, Heroic, Superheroic, Godlike, etc.

I think that kind of thing would be more useful for me, personally.

On March 11, 2007 06:27 am, Boris yarko wrote:

> Some scales for the menaning of relation, passion and kee-words would
> be great too...
> in love (13) : passing infatuation
> in love (17) : strong love
> in love (5W1) : true love
> in love (5W2) : Romeo and Juliet, overwhelming passion
> in love (5W3) : love through death, telepathic link
> Something like that.
> Babel Demeter

Powered by hypermail