Re: fiction

I personally have a fondness for older works - so, for example, my Gothic horror is more likely to draw from Castle of Otranto rather than Interview with a Vampire. However, it's nonsense to say that the older works are "right" and the newer ones are "doing it wrong". Genres change, and they always have. Someone in the 1930s probably complained that new-fangled stories like Doc Savage were doing pulp completely wrong, compared to the older penny dreadful pulps.

So, yes, The Princess Bride and subsequent popular cape-and-sword movies changed the perception of the genre - as another step to how Errol Flynn movies changed the genre decades earlier. Change happens.

Perception of what is pulp today draws more from Indiana Jones than from the most popular 1930s pulp magazines like Blue Book and Argosy. That said, I don't think that the issue of deadliness has changed all that much. Heroes in pulp adventure stories aren't bulletproof, but they will often face down armed opponents. In The Maltese Falcon, for example, Sam Spade punches out someone holding a gun on him. The Shadow would taunt his criminal victims as they shot at the sound of his voice.

Quote from: S'mon;750278Good genre-emulation mechanics are mechanics that encourage the PCs to behave similarly to the way the protagonists in the genre fiction behave (assuming we are emulating the activities of the protagonists). So eg good rules for Conan genre should encourage Conanesque behaviour - which includes a lot of running away, and even surrendering.

I think it's overstating to say that Conan does a lot of running away. He will run away sometimes, but he will also sometimes fight seemingly unwinnable fights against all odds. For example, in Queen of the Black Coast, he first fights against overwhelming odds against Belit's men only to be unexpectedly spared by her - and later fights the monster that killed her only to be unexpectedly saved by her spirit.

I think a pulp RPG should allow for a moderate amount of this sort of risky behavior, rather than encouraging PCs to constantly be cautious and tactical.  For example, the d20 Conan RPG had a reasonable rule for this, I thought, which was a "left for dead" rule - that you could lose some fights a limited number of times and survive while left for dead.

I don't have enough experience with 1e D6 Star Wars to comment on that example.

Quote from: The Butcher;750256Protagonists don't survive because it's their story. It's their story because they've survived.

Quote from: Omega;750229Conversely some just cannot grasp that Conan, Doc Savage, The Spider, etc Do come very close to death quite often. BUT. They are the adventurers that survived and thus we are reading their tale as opposed to reading about soon-to-be-dead-adventurer #55.

That's why running a game like it is a story is boring as hell to me, except as a convention one-shot or something.  It's playing the game with the cheats on, ensuring victory.  The story comes after, just like the books and comics.

Quote from: S'mon;750278Good genre-emulation mechanics are mechanics that encourage the PCs to behave similarly to the way the protagonists in the genre fiction behave (assuming we are emulating the activities of the protagonists). So eg good rules for Conan genre should encourage Conanesque behaviour - which includes a lot of running away, and even surrendering.

and even taking mortal wounds, saved only through magical healing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;750359That's why running a game like it is a story is boring as hell to me, except as a convention one-shot or something.  It's playing the game with the cheats on, ensuring victory.  The story comes after, just like the books and comics.

Personally, if I want a game where victory isn't assured, then I generally draw from fiction where the main characters sometimes lose or even die - which there are plenty of.

This is one of the reasons why I like running Call of Cthulhu, because it sets up the expectation of loss as a strong possibility. It feels backwards to me to claim something as a pulp game and suggest something like Conan or Doc Savage as inspirational material, and then have the game be completely different from the fiction.

Still, even in more light-hearted genres, there can still be plenty of challenge. It's just that the challenge isn't about not dying or the world being destroyed. Instead, the challenge is about getting a more positive outcome rather than a more mixed outcome. My superhero games never had permanent PC death, but the players really struggled to thwart the villain thoroughly and capture him - rather than just interrupt his biggest crime and force him to flee.

Quote from: jhkim;750385It feels backwards to me to claim something as a pulp game and suggest something like Conan or Doc Savage as inspirational material, and then have the game be completely different from the fiction.

It ISN'T different from the fiction though.  In Conan fiction, Conan lives, everybody else frequently gets killed.  So if you're not Conan, why would you expect Conan's Plot Immunity?

If you are playing Conan, and assuming Conan's plot immunity, then you won't play as Conan and the ONLY similarity to the fiction is that you will live.  Conan runs, hides and ambushes, climbs around instead of kicking in the door. He gets captured, he gets crucified, and gets beaten.  He loses...then moves on.

It feels backward to me to claim we're going to play a roleplaying game, and then hang back, genre savvy, in OOC observer mode.

Quote from: jhkim;750385Personally, if I want a game where victory isn't assured, then I generally draw from fiction where the main characters sometimes lose or even die - which there are plenty of.

Pulp characters lose all the time.  No character in fiction can die until the author pulls the trigger.  Even a fictional form where I know the character is probably going to die, like a saga, I know he's not going to die until the end.  Even Game of Thrones, where characters drop like flies, you know Daenerys isn't going to die unless it's the final conflict.

Protagonist immunity has nothing to do with any form of genre convention.  That's always been a weak argument.  If Howard didn't need the money he could have killed off Conan and it still would have been a Conan story and still would have been pulp.

Quote from: jhkim;750349However, it's nonsense to say that the older works are "right" and the newer ones are "doing it wrong".

Then it's a good thing that I didn't say anything remotely fucking close to that, with the exception of noting Robin Laws' lack of knowledge of The Three Musketeers.

What's really nonsense is to look at the current perception of the genre and say, 'THAT is the genre!' My argument isn't that current perceptions of swashbuckling are "doing it wrong" - my argument is that the genre is broader and more inclusive than just comedic cinema swashbuckling, in the same way that The Castle of Otranto and Interview with a Vampire are both Gothic horror.

Or would you argue that CoT is suddenly no longer Gothic horror because Twilight?

Quote from: The Butcher;750127I posit that true-to-source pulp gaming not only admits but requires actual danger. Not "ZOMG I took a punch and lost my girlfriend LOL this game is so sweet". Without the threat of grave and irreversible consequences hanging over every daring escapade, there's nothing "daring" about undertaking them and every victory becomes hollow and mechanical. What's awesome about jumping over a five-meter-wide chasm with bubbling incandescent lava below if you can emerge unharmed at the other side by spending a Magical Brownie Point?

I'd totally agree with this.  And I play Fate, which is obviously the game that this is pointed at.

Hell, I'd argue that any game without a possibility of real failure is kinda pointless.

(BTW, a Fate GM allowing a Consequence of "I lost my girlfriend" as a result of taking a punch is pretty lame.  Consequences and the like should be directly tied to what's happening, not non-sequiturs.  So I guess we agree that "I took a punch and lost my girlfriend" sucks.)

Quote from: Ravenswing;750219
I was asked more than once, IC, whether I was afraid, and I honestly had to say No.  Being wounded was a momentary inconvenience.  Being killed was a temporary inconvenience.  The worst depredation of the Big Bad would be set right in the end -- if not at this event, then eventually.  Getting torn asunder and made unrevivifiable?  Even that could be fixed, and I was one of the very few people who could do that.  Exactly what did I have to fear?  Evil winning the day?  Bah; you did a tactical retreat, you regrouped, and you came back swinging.

I just couldn't create a suspension of disbelief strong enough to be afraid, strong enough to override my character's common sense observation, powered by years of play.

And this is why any game worth playing has *real* consequences to player actions, and *real* stakes.  Things need to be at stake.  Some consequences need to be irrevocable.

In a game I'm running, the UN group dealing with an outbreak of crazy-Cthulhoid/reality warping stuff is about to nuke Portland (well, actually Blue River, OR, but close enough).  This may happen.  If the PCs are in the blast radius, they will die.  If the PCs run off and allow it to occur, the area will be gone, and there will be nasty side effects.  This will fundamentally alter the political landscape as well.  Of course, the PCs may be able to convince the guys at the UN to not nuke the site.  They may be able to disarm the bomb... but even *that* will have irrevocable consequences in the game.

Games without real, lasting, often irrevocable consequences are kinda pointless.  That's not even a sytem-level thing, it's a GM-level thing.

Quote from: jhkim;750349it's nonsense to say that the older works are "right" and the newer ones are "doing it wrong".

Who said that?

I'm the one taking issue with restrictive interpretations of what a genre or medium "is all about."

Quote from: CRKrueger;750411Protagonist immunity has nothing to do with any form of genre convention.  That's always been a weak argument.

Plot immunity makes for boring games, and that is the only mortal sin in game design.

Quote from: CRKrueger;750411If Howard didn't need the money he could have killed off Conan and it still would have been a Conan story and still would have been pulp.

Conversely, crazy ol' Moorcock killed off Elric, allegedly because he was sick of the character, and doomed himself to write prequel upon prequel when editors started rubbing fat checks up and down his twat face.

Quote from: jhkim;750349I think it's overstating to say that Conan does a lot of running away. He will run away sometimes, but he will also sometimes fight seemingly unwinnable fights against all odds. For example, in Queen of the Black Coast, he first fights against overwhelming odds against Belit's men only to be unexpectedly spared by her - and later fights the monster that killed her only to be unexpectedly saved by her spirit.

Funny, Queen of the Black Coast was the example I had in mind of Conan surrendering - to Belit.
The Conan Fate Points can be used to create outcomes similar to the stories, but they're a Narrativist meta-mechanic and rather dissociative - they tend to wrench the player out of immersion. I don't know if maybe a high chance of PCs being KO'd and a % chance of left-for-dead in the rules might be better than FPs.

Quote from: jhkim;750349I think it's overstating to say that Conan does a lot of running away. He will run away sometimes, but he will also sometimes fight seemingly unwinnable fights against all odds. For example, in Queen of the Black Coast, he first fights against overwhelming odds against Belit's men only to be unexpectedly spared by her - and later fights the monster that killed her only to be unexpectedly saved by her spirit.

You're mischaracterizing Conan, there.

In Queen of the Black Coast, Conan pretty much knows he's going to die in that first fight; he's the last fellow on his side standing, he's overwhelmingly outnumbered, against pirates with a reputation of giving no quarter.  ("Then as they lifted their spears to cast them, and he tensed himself to leap and die in the midst of them ...")  He just figures he's going to take as many of the sumbitches to hell with him as he can. Heck, he's on that boat in the first place because he's running from the Argosean guard, in hot pursuit.

Fighting against the monster, that's just pure vengeance, and as his words at the end of the story imply, he really doesn't give a damn whether he lives or dies ... so long as he chops that monster up.

But quite often, when Conan's overwhelmingly outnumbered, he'll run if he can, and surrender if he can't ... and doesn't have the expectation that he's going to be killed out of hand.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;750420Then it's a good thing that I didn't say anything remotely fucking close to that, with the exception of noting Robin Laws' lack of knowledge of The Three Musketeers.

What's really nonsense is to look at the current perception of the genre and say, 'THAT is the genre!' My argument isn't that current perceptions of swashbuckling are "doing it wrong" - my argument is that the genre is broader and more inclusive than just comedic cinema swashbuckling, in the same way that The Castle of Otranto and Interview with a Vampire are both Gothic horror.

Or would you argue that CoT is suddenly no longer Gothic horror because Twilight?

I would say that Castle of Otranto is still in the wide umbrella of Gothic horror, but it is now near the edge of the umbrella rather than being at the center. I don't think there's anything sudden about this, or that it has anything to do with Twilight. The Castle of Otranto was published in 1764. In the 250 years since then, the Gothic horror genre has evolved to be different than it was at the start.

Regarding Black Vulmea's essay on cape-and-sword genre, I don't agree that The Princess Bride has made "the caricature became the reality". The genre has been evolving for a while. I think Errol Flynn and Robin Hood did more to promote light-hearted swashbuckling than The Princess Bride. Robin Hood was the touchstone for a generation of kids.

Quote from: S'mon;750493Funny, Queen of the Black Coast was the example I had in mind of Conan surrendering - to Belit.
The Conan Fate Points can be used to create outcomes similar to the stories, but they're a Narrativist meta-mechanic and rather dissociative - they tend to wrench the player out of immersion. I don't know if maybe a high chance of PCs being KO'd and a % chance of left-for-dead in the rules might be better than FPs.

When Conan is fighting - Belit rushes forward and offers to him, "Take me and crush me with your fierce love! Go with me to the ends of the earth and the ends of the sea! I am a queen by fire and steel and slaughter--be thou my king!" Taking her up on that offer doesn't exactly seem like surrendering to me.

Quote from: Ravenswing;750513In Queen of the Black Coast, Conan pretty much knows he's going to die in that first fight; he's the last fellow on his side standing, he's overwhelmingly outnumbered, against pirates with a reputation of giving no quarter.  ("Then as they lifted their spears to cast them, and he tensed himself to leap and die in the midst of them ...")  He just figures he's going to take as many of the sumbitches to hell with him as he can. Heck, he's on that boat in the first place because he's running from the Argosean guard, in hot pursuit.

Fighting against the monster, that's just pure vengeance, and as his words at the end of the story imply, he really doesn't give a damn whether he lives or dies ... so long as he chops that monster up.

I don't see how this is disagreeing with me. You just seem to be repeating the same thing that I said - that both of those fights were unwinnable, but he fought them anyway. Conan will run away sometimes, but sometimes he will fight against overwhelming odds - only to be saved by unexpected coincidence.

For gaming, the question is: what if the players behave similar to Conan? Sometimes they are practical and run away, but sometimes they fight against the odds or even against overwhelming force. Do you kill them off when, like Conan, they grit their teeth and just try to take out the enemy without caring if they live or die?

My answer is that I will absolutely kill them off - but only if I haven't sold the game as a Conan game and/or a pulp game. If I sold the game as a Conan game and/or a pulp game, then if they behave in a pulp heroic manner, then the results should be similar to results in pulp adventure stories.

For me, if I sell a game as pulp, that doesn't just mean that it is set in the same world as pulp stories. For example, suppose I have an idea for a game set in Hyborea, where the PCs are scholars searching for ancient mysteries in their monastery similar to Ars Magica. I wouldn't sell this as a Conan game just because it is set in the world of Conan, because the action isn't similar to the stories.

I agree that pulp games can be gritty. And some pulp action games are grittier than others (HEX is noticeably grittier than SotC).

I don't agree that you can't have drama without "real" risk of PC death, but I do agree that creating the perception of risk to the lives of the PCs is a very useful drama - inducing tool.

Quote from: jhkim;750641For me, if I sell a game as pulp, that doesn't just mean that it is set in the same world as pulp stories. For example, suppose I have an idea for a game set in Hyborea, where the PCs are scholars searching for ancient mysteries in their monastery similar to Ars Magica. I wouldn't sell this as a Conan game just because it is set in the world of Conan, because the action isn't similar to the stories.

Yes, setting != genre.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;750649I agree that pulp games can be gritty. And some pulp action games are grittier than others (HEX is noticeably grittier than SotC).

A lot of it also depends on how you define "gritty".  Some people define it as "any fight has a high percentage chance of killing you."  I define it more as "characters get hurt and suffer".

A game where you come out of a brutal fight where you were at the edge of death, and are JUST FINE the next minute isn't gritty.  A game where you carry your wounds with you for some time, to me, is.

Quote from: jhkim;750641For me, if I sell a game as pulp, that doesn't just mean that it is set in the same world as pulp stories. For example, suppose I have an idea for a game set in Hyborea, where the PCs are scholars searching for ancient mysteries in their monastery similar to Ars Magica. I wouldn't sell this as a Conan game just because it is set in the world of Conan, because the action isn't similar to the stories.

That's because when you say a "pulp" game you include with it genre-savvy meta-awareness on the part of the players and GM, which is how people who enjoy narrative games usually look at it.  Not all of us do, however, and I'll say again Literary Protagonist Immunity is NOT part of the pulp genre.  That is a completely different thing.  Any character in any genre has Literary Protagonist Immunity right up until they don't. Period.

You can totally do "pulp" through 100% atmosphere and IC attitude, no meta-level thinking, and definitely no meta-level mechanics required.

"Pulp Fiction" didn't become "Fiction" when John Travolta died.