Sherlock Holmes?

[clsage]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Don't forget Contacts' date=' Reputation and possibly follower group[/quote']

 

Hmmmm....As it has been an embarrassingly long while since I have read any of the Doyle stories, I'm not sure how I would write up the "Baker Street Irregulars"....Would they be classified as Followers ? I'd lean more towards a large-ish "contact pool" of some sort....maybe.....

 

-Carl-

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

He uses boxing against a villain in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Solitary Cyclist. And yes' date=' it was supposedly bareknuckles (although he might have been wearing regular thin leather gentleman's gloves).[/quote']

 

In the time he would have learned to box, it would have been bare-knuckled. The "sport" form of boxing didn't take to gloves until Holmes' career was well established.

[AlHazred]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Nobody's ever going to do a version of Holmes that everybody can agree on, similar to how there are 250-point and 1500-point versions of Batman floating around. I think the main idea to go with a writeup is to consider things Holmes is reputed to have done, versus things you actually see him do.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Nobody's ever going to do a version of Holmes that everybody can agree on' date=' similar to how there are 250-point and 1500-point versions of Batman floating around. I think the main idea to go with a writeup is to consider things Holmes is [i']reputed [/i]to have done, versus things you actually see him do.

While true, no one version will ever please everyone, I think it's possible to create one(s) that is(are) objectively more accurate to the original source material than others.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Nobody's ever going to do a version of Holmes that everybody can agree on' date=' similar to how there are 250-point and 1500-point versions of Batman floating around. I think the main idea to go with a writeup is to consider things Holmes is [i']reputed [/i]to have done, versus things you actually see him do.

 

Very true, but I don't think of that as a bad thing.

[tkdguy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

He uses boxing against a villain in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Solitary Cyclist. And yes' date=' it was supposedly bareknuckles (although he might have been wearing regular thin leather gentleman's gloves).[/quote']

 

The first video I posted was that particular scene in The Solitary Cyclist.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Hmmmm....As it has been an embarrassingly long while since I have read any of the Doyle stories' date=' I'm not sure how I would write up the "Baker Street Irregulars"....Would they be classified as Followers ? I'd lean more towards a large-ish "contact pool" of some sort....maybe.....[/quote']

 

'Contact Pool' sounds right to me.

[tkdguy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

I agree. The Baker Street Irregulars would be more like contacts, as would Scotland Yard.

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Now doubt. Contacts in 6e....spread over several venues would work well for Sherlock.

 

~Rex

[Cancer]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Treb, I'm interested in how you're going to use Holmes in a game. A PC based on him? An important NPC?

 

My experiences with trying to play a super-detective sort of character in a couple of different pulp campaigns have been less than enjoyable. I've been told that this is a GM problem, but I suspect it's more structural, and that super-detectives in pulp are like oracles or soothsayers in fantasy: they are more or less impossible for any GM to work them into a campaign, because their powers can take control of events and the entire thrust of the PCs' actions.

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Nah it's a GM problem. The only time you run into "Super Detective Issues", is when the DM is one of those sorts that doesn't understand, Mystery, at a core level, and has an inate issue with the subject. I run into this all the time in my current game, albeit on the opposite side of the fence, where the Players, who are so used to "Roll Spot...ok you see a *this* doing *that*....have issues conceiving of the structual design, of a GOOD mystery.

 

On the DM side, it tends to pop up where the DM is not really "into" the kind of things, Holmes, Dupin, Poirot, Cannon, hell, even the likes of Rockford, Columbo, or The Bat-Man himself would be into. The Step by Step layering required for a Good Detective layout is mind boggeling for a lot of people, and essentially, it's a lot of work.

 

That's why Doyle's works are still prevalent today, because that kind of Story, is exceptionaly difficult to lay out, and does not play well to the Lowest Common Denominator of thinking (which is my player issue right now, essentially, if there is more then three layers they are to lazy to try and figure it out, and that's the "detective" player... ) ....

 

A Detective in a Pulp setting is extremely EASY to provide for, and easier yet to avoid the Fortune Teller Soothsayer or Oracle aspect, provided that the game is structured to incorporate "stuff" and "depth". If the game is simply shelled behind thin curtains and what not, of course the Detective Player is going to smash things. However, a GM that Understands Great Detective stuff, should have little to no issue keeping that from happening and providing a good time for all provided the rest of the table isn't of the "If it moves I kill it if it doesn't move I pick it up and kill it." mentality.

 

Entire Game systems of course have gone along those lines for Decades (DnD is an example of a minimalist, toxic to detective characters type of system; Call of Cthulu for one, would be the opposite of that....it's all about Great Detecting....heh, until you go Crazy)....

 

Many of your greatest Pulp Characters, ARE Detectives, so it's not a subject matter. The HERO system excellently gives you an arsenal of layering for the character, that has built in checks and balances as well. However, the key factor is always the GM, so like we say when you put up a building. If you had the Right Construction Crew (check), the Right Tools (check), and the Building Fell Over.......then the Architect is the guy to blame.

 

~Rex

[DusterBoy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Let me guess Rex, your experience of buildings falling down was from the construction POV?

 

And Perot? I think you mean Poirot.

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Let me guess Rex, your experience of buildings falling down was from the construction POV?

 

And Perot? I think you mean Poirot.

 

True, and I fixed the typo, which unfortunently happens because I tend to use the quick reply and as of late it has a habit of wanting to center it's scroll bar and move the cursor about if I want to look at something else on the screen. Really annoying sometimes.

 

As for the construction POV, it holds true.

 

~Rex

[tkdguy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

I had this idea of creating fan fiction about some of the detectives Holmes worked with, notably Lestrade and Gregson. I'm not good at writing mysteries, though.

 

Edit: There is this series of books: The Adventures of Inspector Lestrade

[AlHazred]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

On the DM side' date=' it tends to pop up where the DM is not really "into" the kind of things, Holmes, [b']Dupine[/b], Poirot, Cannon, hell, even the likes of Rockford, Columbo, or The Bat-Man himself would be into.

I believe you mean C. Auguste Dupin.

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

If I had types out his whole name instead of just the last I wouldn't have typoed it, heh. Dupine is still my favorite of the bunch, but I got to say, there is potential in Cannon.

 

~Rex

[Nothere]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

I'm not sure where my Complete works of Sherlock Holmes has wandered off to, so I'll have to avoid the physical skills portion.

As to knowlede skills remeber Holmes in the books was like the world's first csi so chemistry and a few other forensic science skills. You'd need to include so ks famous crimes, and famous criminals at least. But don't forget you can have some fun with the gaps in his knowledge. In his first story he expressed the belief there was only so much a person could hold in his head. So he planned to quickly forget the earth revoles around the sun after Watson mentioned it to him.

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Heh, Great point.

 

~Rex

[tkdguy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Perhaps you can write that bit up as a Psychological Limitation.

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Yeah it would work as that. Bears some thought at least.

 

~Rex

[BLHarrison]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

If not already mentioned, cramming at what ever level you deam appproprate. In one story he mentioned that he could study a subject to be able to argue objectively with an expert, but after the case was over he found that after a week he remembered little or nothing about that subject

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Hmm.....Cramming would work.....So could an interesting use of Aid I would think....

 

~Rex

[DusterBoy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

So could KS: Trivia and General Knowledge. An everyman skill? Sure, but Holmes seems to have it in spades

[Midas]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

In October '84 White Dwarf published a Champions scenario called Strikeback, based on a Saberhagen Berserker short story. The heroes travel back in time to team up with Holmes and Dracula against Frankenstein the 3rd, Nemo, and a time travelling Berserker.

 

Here is the (1st ed) stats for Holmes as given in that scenario.

[tkdguy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes?

 

Cool, although I'd consider Watson a follower rather than a DNPC.