Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8171270" data-attributes="member: 6785785">So this is an interesting look at it. And it kind of raises a question in my mind. And this is just something that popped into my head reading the above, I don't mean this as a question specifically for you, [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] , though I am interested in your take, too!How does a player feel like Sherlock Holmes? How do we try to portray that in play?There's the idea with this kind of mystery that there is information that's been intentionally obscured, and Holmes is going to find it, right? That's kind of the essential element. Is the best way portray that in a game to be to try and replicate it? By that I mean, have the players be searching for the clues that are hidden in hope of finding them? Or is there some other way? Because to be honest, Holmes stories sometimes require major intuitive leaps made by the character because he is a fictional character allowed to make those leaps......it's all the product of one author, and so Sherlock can make these crazy proclamations and he seems amazingly intuitive and observant. But it's all artifice. I would think that trying to replicate that would either see the players fall short because their crazy intuitions will not likely be right, or the mystery itself would be simple in comparison to those of the kinds Holmes tends to get involved with. Would that still make for an engaging game? Very possibly. Or would it feel more Holmesesque if the players had some kind of ability to steer things beyond simply finding what's there? Would that feel more like Holmes? If we think of his deductions as being class abilities and Doyle as his player......maybe there's a case for approaching mysteries in another way. Not that I have any idea how you would do that. But just some thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification