Quote from: walkerpVery interesting, Zoran Bekric (kind of freaky the way you just popped out of nowhere at the mention of your name, btw).

I believe the phrase is "long time lurker, first time poster".

QuoteCould you lay out specifically what you see as the things that define the real pulp and the new pulp.  What are some specific elements that show up in modern representations calling themselves pulp that weren't actually in the original ones?

Okay, this is a biiiig question. I'm some 60,000 words into a book addressing that very question currently, so what follows is only a brief summary. And focused on what I think is relevant to RPGs.

The main thing that distinguishes the pulps is the audience they were aimed at. One of the ways we can get a sense of that audience is by looking at the advertising that appeared in the pulps. That tells us who the publishers and advertisers thought they were selling to. Of course, the publishers and advertisers may have been wrong, but if they were, they were likely to go out of business.

Most of the advertising that appeared in the pulps was aimed at what I would describe as the aspirational working class. Clerks, shop assistants, door-to-door salesmen -- people who were leaving manual labour behind and moving into the bottom rung of the middle class. This also included immigrants and the children of immigrants who were aspiring to a better life. The ads focused to a surprisingly large and consistent degree on self-improvement: "Improve Your English", "People Judge You By How You Speak -- Make A Better First Impression", "You Can Make Good Money Being a Locksmith (or Electrician, or Hair Dresser or Whatever) -- Learn From Home in Your Spare Time". Contrast this with the ads that appeared in the "slicks" (the upmarket magazines printed on glossy paper). Most of the ads in those were for consumer goods (cars, home appliances), fashion and accessories (watches, jewellery).

The slicks were aimed at members of the middle class; the pulps were aimed at those trying to get into the middle class. Most of the qualities that distinguish the pulps flowed from that difference.

A few of the key features that were consistent over most of the pulps were:

External Characterisation
Most of the aspirational working class were entering positions that required them to interact with a steady stream of new people: door-to-door salesmen, shop assistants, receptionists, etc. This meant they had to learn how to "read" people quickly. A door-to-door salesman doesn't have time to get to know a customer, they need to figure how to approach someone based on minimal cues: what their house looks like, how they dress, how they speak, what they say, and so on.

The pulps reflected this mostly by focusing on externalities. Most characters were defined by details of appearance and action -- not only what they did, but how they went about doing it -- rather than any exploration of their inner life.

Many commentators see this and conclude that the pulps had bad or no characterisation, but that's really not the case. The characterisation was often shallow, but it reflected the way the audience had learned to "read" people.

Character versus Personality
When the pulps did examine an individual in a bit more depth, they tended to focus on character rather than personality. By "character" I mean qualities such as steadfast, reliable, brave, conscientious, loyal, honest, etc. That is to say, how people behave in a crunch; whether or not they could be counted on.

"Personality", by contrast, are the more superficial aspects of an individual: their likes and dislikes, wheather they are agreeable or not, what their conversation and taste is like, and so on.

This aspect is a survival of the primarily rural background most of the audience (and writers) came from. Character is important on farms and logging camps and mines; but personality is important in new organizations built on team-work where everyone needs to be able to get along with everyone else.

To this end, a surprisingly large number of protagonists in the pulps are loners and outsiders. They're not a part of society; they may be part of some small group, but they tend to be outside the social mainstream.

Process Oriented
Pulp stories are often strongly focused on how things work. If a story is set in a restaurant, the portrayal of how a restaurant works would be accurate and detailed. Same thing if a story were set on a Navy ship, or a mining town, or a carnival, or a ranch, or an advertising agency. Pulp writers took pride in getting these details right and, if they got something wrong, the letter columns would be full of complaints.

Even in stories featuring bizarre technological gadgets or menaces, this attitude would apply to those aspects touching on the real world. A tramp steamer may come across the lost civilisation of Atlantis and the readers would accept that, but they would complain if the details of how things worked on a tramp steamer were not accurate.

Basically, the pulps had an attitude that the world was understandable. It was made up of systems that could be described and mastered. If something didn't seem to make sense, it was only because you hadn't figured out what was really going on. Yet.

Despite the big boom in horror films in the 1930s (the Universal monsters), the pulps remained committed to the idea that there was always a rational explanation. A story may feature ghosts and vampires and werewolves and sorcerers, but it would always turn out to be a hoax or drugs or hypnosis in the end. The only exceptions to this were magazines like Weird Tales, Strange Tales and Unknown, but they were always low-sellers, appealing to a distinct minority of the readership.

Fortune
Most of audience of the pulps lived pay-cheque to pay-cheque and so were always on the verge of financial difficulties. This meant they were much more attuned to vicissitudes of fortune. A sudden windfall or unexpected expense affected them much more than they would those with more of a financial cushion.

This was reflected in the stories because luck always played a bigger part than it did in more literary stories. Sometimes this just meant that plots were driven by coincidence, but the actual focus was often on how characters dealt with the vagaries of luck.

Characters would seize a good break. If a character overheard two gangsters discussing something in a speakeasy, they would try to find some way to exploit that knowledge, to build on it. And characters would deal with bad breaks stoically; when a plan didn't work out the way he expected it to, Doc Savage wouldn't pout and curse his luck, he would take it in stride and move on.

In a way, dice in RPGs capture this aspect of the pulps really well. Whenever you roll the dice, you don't know what will happen. Sometimes it's really good and you take advantage of it for all its worth, sometimes it's really bad and you fall back and try something else. If there's one difference between what appeared in the pulps and most of the recent games claiming to be "pulp", it's that the recent games try to protect characters (and their players) against the effects of fortune.

In the pulps, characters were shown to succeed because they weathered the bad breaks and kept going, not because they had the power to over-write or ignore them. They had a sense of mortality.


There's a bunch of other aspects, but I think these are probably the main ones.

QuoteWhile I understand the origin of the term, I'm not sure if defining anything that was actually printed in the pulps as pulp.  If that's the case, the term means simply the same thing as genre fiction today.

Well, modern day genre fiction is descended from the pulps, so obviously there will be elements in common.

The advantage of defining pulp as anything that was actually printed in the pulps is that it's objective. You can go back and check. It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation; if it appeared in a pulp magazine, it's pulp.

Any other approach tends to bog down in opinions and interpretations. The elements that Matt Stevens emphasises in Two-Fisted Tales are different from the ones I tend to focus on when I run a pulp game, but I can recognise where he got them from and acknowledge that they are, indeed, pulp.

Quote from: walkerpYour fury at the suggestion that Two Fisted Tales might run at a slightly more realistic level than SotC is utterly bizarre as well.  The point is made clearly in the rules that combat can be deadly in TFT.  That's a great design choice and makes for a different flavour of game.  There's no value judgement there.  It makes me want to check the game out, as I had said. Why do you see it as some kind of condemnation?

My anger is over the fact that Kim is trying to claim that 2FT runs on a more narrow "range" than SoTC, when in fact 2FT can mechanically do everything SoTC does.

In fact, the publishers wrote an email to me in response to this thread and confirmed that 2FT was SPECIFICALLY made for superhuman "beyond belief" level of play.

So the only conclusion is that Kim has tried an old rhetorical trick:
step 1: claim that "old school" pulp is less popular than "modern pulp", and that "film noir" style realistic pulp is less popular than superheroic pulp.
step 2: Claim that SoTC can do either
step 3: Claim that 2FT can't do the superheroic stuff, and will therefore have less appeal.

But that's bullshit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Zoran BekricStill, I suppose I'm in good company. I understand that the RPGPundit has also been accused of "stalking" Baugh.

Baugh is an idiot, who has apparently made a career out of butchering genres he doesn't like to recreate them in what he imagines to be a more "ideologically correct" mold, the ideology in this case being not so much some political credo (although he's obviously a leftist), but rather the "ideology" of demanding that all RPGs be "serious" pretentious stuffy anti-gonzo games that "address the issues" and "produce art".

Welcome to theRPGsite, Zoran!

RPGPundit

Thanks a lot, Zoran. That's a really fascinating analysis.  Gave me a lot of things to think about.  

You suggested that because pulp heroes rolled with the punches (and your historical explanation of how that appealed to readers on an uncertain income was really interesting), pulp games should not protect the PCs from bad rolls.  However, in the stories themselves, though the characters went through a lot and suffered from the vicissitudes of bad fortune, they never actually got killed, did they?  The bad fortune always existed within certain constraints, as far as I understand.  This is where they are no longer realistic.  I think that's part of what makes the stories appealing, is the fantasy of power despite bad luck or tough circumstances.  So it seems to me justifiable that a dice game would allow the characters to get screwed, but have some mechanism, either on the GM side or the player side to limit it to a rough beatdown, or a falling plane or a dangerous trap rather than actually being burned alive by laval, for instance.

Then why don't we jsut remove any risk of death from any game ever?  I mean, the main characters in more series, novels, movies, etc. etc. ad infinitum than I would care to mention don't die either, so I guess we should just remove the risk of death altogether in favor of watered down player-driven Mary-Sue onanism a la Exalted?

Frodo doesn't actually die in the end of LotR, does that mean halflings should have an "immunty vs. death" bonus in D&D?

You people really are just fucking ridiculous sometimes, you know that?  I mean really, you claim to want fiction and stories, but you don't even seem to understand them at all.

Quote from: Zoran BekricI'm sorry, but this doesn't make a lot of sense.

On one hand you say TFT has a "better description of the pulp genres than SotC" and "the system is OK for a subset of the old pulps", then you say "has only token nods to the pulp origins" and it "has some optional rules for more pulp-like action, but it isn't built in by default".

So, which is it?

The prose description of the genre(s) of pulp is different than the game mechanics.  2FT in my opinion has superior prose describing the genre.  They both have good GMing advice, though not of the same sort.  

The game mechanics are another matter.  

Compared to SotC, 2FT's mechanics are much more gritty.  It is deadlier to PCs, and it is also more focused on individual action.  It has equipment lists where it represents the difference between a .38 and a .44 pistol, for example.  Neither the old pulps nor the new pulp-influenced sources are particularly realistic.  Nevertheless, 2nd edition 2FT is realistic by default and only adds in self-described "pulp flavor" rules as optional.  

In contrast, SotC includes by default resolving groups with a single roll, treating minions as a bonus and buffer for a named villain.  SotC makes it easy to fight your way through a horde of 20 thugs -- which could be deadly, slow, and/or clunky in 2FT.  In SotC, all guns are identical mechanically, unless they're a special gadget.  It is much more fast and loose.  

Quote from: Zoran BekricThe difference between TFT and SotC, as far as I can tell, is that the material TFT covers is a subset of the old pulps, while the material SotC covers isn't even a subset. None of it ever appeared in the old pulps.

Now, I have no objection to what games like SotC seek to emulate, but I do get tired of being told it's "pulp". It's not. And to claim that it is, is basically false advertising.

While I agree with you technically, I don't think that SotC is false advertising in a practical sense.  For most people, Indiana Jones and The Mummy are what they think of as "pulp", and thus SotC matches their expectations.  While I regret this, SotC certainly didn't originate this trend, and I don't think it is intentionally deceptive.  It does better in representing itself and pulp than, say, Castle Falkenstein's laughable characterization of "Victoriana".  

Quote from: RPGPunditSo the only conclusion is that Kim has tried an old rhetorical trick:
step 1: claim that "old school" pulp is less popular than "modern pulp", and that "film noir" style realistic pulp is less popular than superheroic pulp.
step 2: Claim that SoTC can do either
step 3: Claim that 2FT can't do the superheroic stuff, and will therefore have less appeal.

I did indeed claim #1.  I did not claim #2, and I disagree strongly.  SotC cannot do anything less than over-the-top without significant modification.  It would be inappropriate for most old-school pulp.  (Though I think it could do a decent Barsoom.)  

I wouldn't say that 2FT absolutely can't do over-the-top superheroic stuff, but I think it is poorly suited for it -- at least in the 2nd edition that I am familiar with.  So, yes, it appears that I am disagreeing with the authors on this unless the latest edition has significantly changed things in this regard.

Quote from: jhkimCompared to SotC, 2FT's mechanics are much more gritty.  It is deadlier to PCs, and it is also more focused on individual action.  It has equipment lists where it represents the difference between a .38 and a .44 pistol, for example.  Neither the old pulps nor the new pulp-influenced sources are particularly realistic.  Nevertheless, 2nd edition 2FT is realistic by default and only adds in self-described "pulp flavor" rules as optional.

See that right there turns me off of SotC. But the lack of difference between guns, in any game would.

Quote from: walkerpThanks a lot, Zoran. That's a really fascinating analysis.  Gave me a lot of things to think about.  

I'll add my thanks as well.  Good points and well explained, to me.
=

Quote from: J ArcaneThen why don't we jsut remove any risk of death from any game ever?  I mean, the main characters in more series, novels, movies, etc. etc. ad infinitum than I would care to mention don't die either, so I guess we should just remove the risk of death altogether in favor of watered down player-driven Mary-Sue onanism a la Exalted?

Frodo doesn't actually die in the end of LotR, does that mean halflings should have an "immunty vs. death" bonus in D&D?

You people really are just fucking ridiculous sometimes, you know that?  I mean really, you claim to want fiction and stories, but you don't even seem to understand them at all.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jhkimCompared to SotC, 2FT's mechanics are much more gritty.  It is deadlier to PCs, and it is also more focused on individual action.  It has equipment lists where it represents the difference between a .38 and a .44 pistol, for example.  Neither the old pulps nor the new pulp-influenced sources are particularly realistic.  Nevertheless, 2nd edition 2FT is realistic by default and only adds in self-described "pulp flavor" rules as optional.  

So wait, you're saying that 2FT is inferior as a pulp game because it details the differences in types of guns? You've got to be joking...

QuoteIn contrast, SotC includes by default resolving groups with a single roll, treating minions as a bonus and buffer for a named villain.  SotC makes it easy to fight your way through a horde of 20 thugs -- which could be deadly, slow, and/or clunky in 2FT.  In SotC, all guns are identical mechanically, unless they're a special gadget.  It is much more fast and loose.  

"Fast and loose" usually means ill-defined and ill-thought-out.

Also, at the "Fantastic" or "amazing" levels of play (the top half of the four possible play levels in 2FT) your PCs can wade through regular opponents like they were nothing, especially when the "optional" rules are used (and those rules are only "optional" in the sense that they make the most sense for those two levels of play).

So basically, you're now admitting that 2FT has a wider range of play than SOTC, and you're actually trying to claim that its the poorer game for it, because instead of trying to force you to play a certain way, it gives you a toolkit option to personalize the exact kind of level of pulp adventure you want to run? :confused:

QuoteI wouldn't say that 2FT absolutely can't do over-the-top superheroic stuff, but I think it is poorly suited for it -- at least in the 2nd edition that I am familiar with.  So, yes, it appears that I am disagreeing with the authors on this unless the latest edition has significantly changed things in this regard.

The edition Im talking about is the "revised edition" which is listed as "edition 2.0", so I assume its the same second edition you are talking about.

I get the feeling that you have failed to grasp the possibilities for customization that 2FT really has.

RPGPundit

Okay, so just to be clear, playing a game where the characters have some protection against death is badwrongfun?  I thought one of the rules here was that we weren't allowed to look down on other peoples' playstyles.

And J Arcane:

I'd like to hear from the authors themselves.

And Pundit, you are being such a negative ass.  The two games take a different approach to pulp.  I'll have to check out TFT before I can decide how it works for me, but it's clear that JHKim has read it thoroughly and possibly even played it.  The same with SotC.  You have done neither. But you are in some righteous fury because he dares to say that they have different approaches.  It's ridiculous.  It does nothing for anyone.  Stop it.

Quote from: walkerpI'd like to hear from the authors themselves.

And Pundit, you are being such a negative ass.  The two games take a different approach to pulp.  I'll have to check out TFT before I can decide how it works for me, but it's clear that JHKim has read it thoroughly and possibly even played it.  The same with SotC.  You have done neither. But you are in some righteous fury because he dares to say that they have different approaches.  It's ridiculous.  It does nothing for anyone.  Stop it.

Done neither? Um, dude... this all started when I REVIEWED SoTC, so I pretty obviously fucking read it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo wait, you're saying that 2FT is inferior as a pulp game because it details the differences in types of guns? You've got to be joking...

Look, this is getting ridiculous.  Can you please write out the delusional inanity which you attribute to me?  You seem to have a script that you're reading from, where you trot out delusions like "John says that Spirit of the Century can handle all power levels" and now "John says that 2FT is inferior".  

They aren't true.  I didn't write them.  

I have to go work on my pregens for AmberCon NorthWest and then do Halloween stuff.  I'll be gone until after the weekend.  Continue arguing with me until then -- you seem to be able to invent opinions for me just fine.

Quote from: walkerpI thought one of the rules here was that we weren't allowed to look down on other peoples' playstyles.

  I thought one of the features of this place was that we are allowed to look to look down on other peoples' playstyles. And not get banned for it.

And people are free to call us out on it without getting banned themselves.


.