Re: Holmes in HQ

From: L.Castellucci <lightcastle_at_...>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:17:19 -0400

Assuming all the classic "deductive reasoning" stuff is just improvised off the keyword (we assume it is subsumed in there if we wrote it out) then yes.

I might make the argument that "master detective" might not be right? (Just detective, no qualifier) The master would be his high number of masteries in the keyword, yes?

Certainly, I wouldn't say anything egregious has been left out. Anything that I can think of is something you can argue comes under detective (although some GMs would probably not give it to you - like his disguise abilty)

LC

On April 3, 2007 04:16 pm, Robin Laws Mail List Only wrote:
> I'm working on a section analyzing the simplicity of iconic characters
> for the HQ book, which uses the conveniently public domain example of
> Sherlock Holmes. Does anyone want to argue that I've left anything
> egregiously out of his ability list?
>
> * Keyword: master detective
> * sidekick, Dr. Watson.
> * contact: Scotland Yard/Inspector Lestrade
> * contact: his mysterious brother, Mycrof
> * brusque and dismissive
> * confirmed bachelor
> * violin
> * pipe
> * casual cocaine user
> * trained in fisticuffs