Quote from: jhkimWhat's pathetic here is that you're arguing for some sort of theoretical purism rather than what people actually like to watch and play.

Hi John:

What people like to play is D&D - period. EVERYTHING ELSE is small potatoes. Being a small potato, I'm very aware of that fact. What fraction of a fraction are you talking about here as "people like to play?"  IMO, the difference is lost in the noise of hype.

As for what people like to watch, that's silly. Those are recent movies. You can't compare the audience with recent audiences for books and movies of sixty and seventy years ago. Apples and pineapples. What people watch is what is being made, and what is being made is not pulp. It's retro-pulp. It's pulp without the innocence and with the knowing smile, or in the worst cases, the knowing smirk.

-clash

I love pulp in virtually all of its manifestations, and I have to say that Tarzan is pulp, and from the proper time period, and fighting a gorilla on a biplane is in no way outside of the type of thing Tarzan might do. He is also nearly impossible to kill.  Gonzo over the top pulp is not some sort of new invention.

Quote from: flyingmiceAs for what people like to watch, that's silly. Those are recent movies. You can't compare the audience with recent audiences for books and movies of sixty and seventy years ago. Apples and pineapples. What people watch is what is being made, and what is being made is not pulp. It's retro-pulp. It's pulp without the innocence and with the knowing smile, or in the worst cases, the knowing smirk.

I agree that it's retro-pulp.  I also enjoy reading the original pulps and listening to the old radio broadcasts, just like I enjoy reading Beowulf or Icelandic sagas.  

However, I can say that the retro-pulp style is more popular with modern audiences than original pulp style is.  That doesn't mean it's better or even that I like it, but it's the reality of the market.

Quote from: jhkimI agree that it's retro-pulp.  I also enjoy reading the original pulps and listening to the old radio broadcasts, just like I enjoy reading Beowulf or Icelandic sagas.  

However, I can say that the retro-pulp style is more popular with modern audiences than original pulp style is.  That doesn't mean it's better or even that I like it, but it's the reality of the market.

What I'm saying is that it's more popular because there is no new pulp being released. Comparing it to stuff released sixty plus years ago is disingenuous. If there was retro pulp being made today which actually worked like real pulp, then we could see which is more popular, but saying that the only flavor of pulp being released today is more popular today amounts to a tautology.

-clash

QuoteA Note on Design

*snip*

Well, I'm sold.  That sounds a fuck of a lot more like the Raymond Chandler novels I read than any of the over the top nonsense that tends to get called "pulp" on RPG forums these days.  

QuoteThe simple fact is that what SoTC does isn't really an emulation of Pulp. Its an emulation of the discussions people like to have about pulp and shit like that.

Exactly.  


Query though, is this at all related to the freebie "Two-Fisted Tales" that used to be on the internets once upon a time?

Quote from: J ArcaneExactly.  

Seriously now, J Arcane, have you played or read SotC?

John, I do think its quite an interesting point you make about SoTC's bibliography; it makes it clear that the game isn't really about pulp as it is about "interpreting" pulp.  I think it adds weight to my argument, and to the ludicrousness of this game being held up as the hallmark for the pulp genre in RPGs.

Now, you've made a counterpoint that somehow Two Fisted Tales isn't capable of handling high-powered play. I think that's just absurd, and an effort to try to claim that somehow TFT isn't as usable as SOTC. From everything I've seen, TFT is capable of running anything from film noir/maltese falcon kind of stuff to Doc Savage/the Phantom/Mandrake the Magician/Johnny Quest kind of high adventure, no problem. And with no pretentious philosophizing and blatant point-missing to sully the experience.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditJohn, I do think its quite an interesting point you make about SoTC's bibliography; it makes it clear that the game isn't really about pulp as it is about "interpreting" pulp.  I think it adds weight to my argument, and to the ludicrousness of this game being held up as the hallmark for the pulp genre in RPGs.

Well, that's because you're a moron.  I directly contradict you and clearly show that your statement is wrong -- and you claim that it adds weight to your argument.  

Your claim was that SotC was about discussions of pulp rather than pulp itself.  You can take that back if you want, but as it was stated that is bullshit.  

SotC has real source material -- source material that is popular, action-packed entertainment like Big Trouble in Little China and Tom Strong.  Snooty purists may turn their noses up at this as not "real" pulp, but that's either arguing about the label or stuffy elitism.  

Even if you don't like them and prefer the original pulp novels, I think it is rank stupidity to claim that Big Trouble in Little China or The Mummy are airy, theme-laden philosophizing.  That just don't fit.  Take back what you said and find another way to insult them.

Quote from: jhkimYour claim was that SotC was about discussions of pulp rather than pulp itself.  You can take that back if you want, but as it was stated that is bullshit.  

This is Pundit's fantasy, because it's the only way he can find to attack SotC.  He realizes it walks too thin a line to be truly attacked for forgie behaviour, so he goes for the more vague criticism that it is somehow literary and removed from the actual source material.

You've got him on all cylinders, JHKim.  By his logic, a license of the Brendan Fraser The Mummy would be pretentious, theme-exploration.  Actually, by his logic, the movie itself is pretentious theme-exploration, same for Raiders.

He should play the game.  It's pretty fun.

Quote from: flyingmiceWhat I'm saying is that it's more popular because there is no new pulp being released. Comparing it to stuff released sixty plus years ago is disingenuous. If there was retro pulp being made today which actually worked like real pulp, then we could see which is more popular, but saying that the only flavor of pulp being released today is more popular today amounts to a tautology.

-clash

I'm not sure where it falls on the pulpometer, but Sin City is the kind of pulp game I'd like to run; over-the-top, but still dark and gritty.  

Pete

Quote from: walkerpYou've got him on all cylinders, JHKim.  By his logic, a license of the Brendan Fraser The Mummy would be pretentious, theme-exploration.  Actually, by his logic, the movie itself is pretentious theme-exploration, same for Raiders.

He should play the game.  It's pretty fun.

Well, I doubt he'd change his mind since he seems pretty set in his preconceptions.  

Still, I'm playing a campaign using it now, and it is pretty fun.  Probably not in my top ten, but it is at least a solid design.  I do have a number of criticisms of it, but none of them match Pundit's comments.

Quote from: jhkimStill, I'm playing a campaign using it now, and it is pretty fun.  Probably not in my top ten, but it is at least a solid design.  I do have a number of criticisms of it, but none of them match Pundit's comments.

I'm curious of those criticisms.  Would you mind sharing?  I had a few myself, but my mind is now focused on Aces & Eights and I haven't thought about it so deeply for a while.  Maybe post them over in Pundit's review of SotC so we don't hijack this thread anymore (though we are spinning off a seed planted by Pundit himself).

QuoteWell, that's because you're a moron. I directly contradict you and clearly show that your statement is wrong -- and you claim that it adds weight to your argument.

Your claim was that SotC was about discussions of pulp rather than pulp itself. You can take that back if you want, but as it was stated that is bullshit.

No, you're full of shit.  You're ignoring the actual point he was making in favor of niggling semantics regarding the specific words he was using.  

It's very damn clear to me that what he was getting across was that SotC is about the modernized version of "pulp" that gets talked up on message boards, as opposed to the pulp that was actually printed in that historical era in literature.

You instead just chose to pick one single word and yammer on about it like a twat.  And by quoting a list of references, most of which are of relatively recent appearance, you only supported exactly the point he was making.

I suspect you need to just chill the fuck out and read what he was actually saying, instead of going into knee-jerk semantics and making yourself look like an ass.

Quote from: jhkimWell, that's because you're a moron.  I directly contradict you and clearly show that your statement is wrong -- and you claim that it adds weight to your argument.  

Your claim was that SotC was about discussions of pulp rather than pulp itself.  You can take that back if you want, but as it was stated that is bullshit.  

I said it was an emulation of those discussions. Obviously, in SoTC people don't just sit around and talk about pulp; my point was that the game is not based on pulp; its based on wacked out ideas pseudointellectuals have about the supposed "themes" of pulp and trying to make those ideas come alive, rather than just smashing nazis. Its theme-focused rather than an actual emulation of the genre itself.

Your bibliography-quoting confirms that statement because it demonstrates that the authors were not particularly interested in emulating the genre, they were interested in addressing how people think "about" pulp.

QuoteEven if you don't like them and prefer the original pulp novels, I think it is rank stupidity to claim that Big Trouble in Little China or The Mummy are airy, theme-laden philosophizing.

Of course it would be rank stupidity to claim that.
Its perfectly valid, however, to claim that the kind of people whose gaming bibliography was limited to those kinds of movies isn't really all that interested in emulating pulp and is more interested in showing off contemporary hipness.

QuoteThat just don't fit.  Take back what you said and find another way to insult them.

Are you going to take back your ridiculous claim that TFT somehow can't handle high-powered "superhuman"-level pulp?
Are you going to at least address this massive bit of mudslinging on your part?

RPGPundit

Quote from: pspahnI'm not sure where it falls on the pulpometer, but Sin City is the kind of pulp game I'd like to run; over-the-top, but still dark and gritty.  

What I forgot to say is that I would use TFT for a Sin City type of game.  

Pete