Quote from: jhkimYup.  It's worth noting that Spirit of the Century's inspiration list is almost all post-1980 "retro" comics and movies like Indiana Jones, the Rocketeer, and so forth.  The purist in me balked at this (i.e. "That's not real pulp.") -- but on reflection I think those do reflect better what modern audiences want as opposed to actual 1930s-era novels printed on pulp paper where the term originates.

This is a really good thread, despite some strands of the conversation, and I found this (which is developed more fully after the post quoted but this was more neatly quotable) very revealing.

I like the original pulps, which Zoran describes so eloquently (in the process quite changing my view of Zoran but I doubt that was the intent, still, kickass post).  The neo-pulp stuff I like ok, but not nearly as much.

And although they're related, hardboiled and noir are related but ultimately they ain't the same thing and if you're looking for one the other won't always do it for you.  Modern audiences want neo-pulp because they think that's what pulp is, personally I want retro pulp as for me that's still what pulp is.

What's useful is knowing what SotC sets out to do, because it evidently does it well but doing well a thing that I'm not so keen on isn't actually useful to me, great as it may be for others.

TFT for me covers a few too many bases actually, I'd prefer it if it focussed more on the gritty end and took out some of the higher powered options.

What are people's views on Hollow Earth Expedition?  To me that looks awfully like Edgar Rice Burroughs the rpg.

Quote from: BalbinusWhat's useful is knowing what SotC sets out to do, because it evidently does it well but doing well a thing that I'm not so keen on isn't actually useful to me, great as it may be for others.

I felt that way about the Buffy RPG. Superb emulation of something I really didn't care for.

QuoteTFT for me covers a few too many bases actually, I'd prefer it if it focussed more on the gritty end and took out some of the higher powered options.

Huh? The default *is* gritty. The other stuff you have to add in, as in "optional." Have you read it, Balb?

-clash

Though Zoran's post was really informative, it didn't totally answer my question.  Maybe I'll frame it more in the context of gaming.  What kind of things would you do as a player in a true pulp game compared to things you would do in a neo-pulp game?

The actual pulps that I have read are of course REH, some Doc Savage (though that was a while ago) and I think that's about it.  I listen to a ton of old-time radio shows, but I think those are much later and more noir and hardboiled.

I've looked at a lot of covers of pulp novels and magazines and they seem to be pretty over the top and fantastically action-oriented. I use those images for inspiration for my SotC games.

Quote from: walkerpYou 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?

This is true of all fiction, not just the stories that appeared in the pulps. So, it's not a problem unique to pulp games.

Broadly, though, I agree with you. Player characters shouldn't be killed arbitrarily. Allow me to suggest a couple of mechanisms, one on the player's side and one on the GM's to prevent that from happening.

Assuming that the game is one emulating the character pulps -- The Shadow, Doc Savage, the Spider, etc. -- then the PCs will be superior specimens. They will be tougher, smarter, stronger, faster than NPCs and may even have abilities unavailable to other characters. This is certainly true to the genre. Given all those advantages and some intelligent play, PCs should be able to avoid death. Only extremely foolish play would be able to squander all those advantages and actually get the PC killed.

On the GM side, don't make death the result of a single roll. One of the features of dice rolling is, no matter how high the chance of success on an individual roll, requiring a string of successful rolls will progressively lower the chance of success. I'm sure you're familiar with this phenomenon; many RPGs end up inadvertently invoking it by requiring multiple climb or swim or hide rolls for a PC to accomplish a goal. This works against the PC.

However, a GM can make the effect work for them. For a PC to die, a string of rolls need to succeed (or fail). Each roll can represent something slightly different, but the underlying mechanism is that each successive roll makes it less likely that the PC will die.

This draws out the process, which reflects how it generally works in fiction; major characters usually have protracted death scenes. It makes PC death less likely without any obvious fudging by the GM -- actually, there's no fudging at all, it's simply applying the laws of probability. And, in my experience, the stretched nature of the process ends up psychologically preparing the player for the worst. If the all the rolls do succeed (or fail), players are much more willing to accept the PC's death. In fact, players end up telling stories about the incredible series of rolls that led to their character's death.

Of course, in the end, this is a question of preference. The above are the mechanisms I prefer. Others may like different approaches. Some may prefer more obvious mechanisms -- fate points or something similar. Other groups may insist on sudden death being a real possibility.

Quote from: jhkimThe 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.

Oh, okay. I think I get you now.

QuoteWhile 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.

Actually, in my experience, when you mention "pulp" to most people, what they think of is the film by Quentin Tarantino. Which doesn't seem all that unreasonable when they can go into their local bookshop and find volumes like The Mammoth Book of Pulp Fiction film, The Mammoth Book of Pulp Action, American Pulp, Pure Pulp, and [URL="[url="http://www.amazon.com/Pulp-Masters-Ed-Gorman/dp/0786708735/ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_img_1/103-5003201-5108659%5DPulp"]http://www.amazon.com/Pulp-Masters-Ed-Gorman/dp/0786708735/ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_img_1/103-5003201-5108659]Pulp[/url] Masters[/URL] sitting on the shelves.

Most people think "pulp" means a kind of gritty, lurid crime drama.

QuoteWhile I regret this, SotC certainly didn't originate this trend, and I don't think it is intentionally deceptive.

I've never interacted with the authors of SotC so I don't know what their intentions are. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume you're right: they're not being intentionally deceptive.

However, I've interacted with various other game designers promoting their "pulp" games and there I'm not so sanguine. They come across as having no interest in accuracy or clarity of communication, instead using whatever label they think will help sell their game, whether it's valid or not. They come across as deliberately deceitful.

Quote from: walkerp

Now, THERE'S a blast from the past.

Ned

Quote from: Zoran BekricThis is true of all fiction, not just the stories that appeared in the pulps. So, it's not a problem unique to pulp games.

Broadly, though, I agree with you. Player characters shouldn't be killed arbitrarily. Allow me to suggest a couple of mechanisms, one on the player's side and one on the GM's to prevent that from happening.

Assuming that the game is one emulating the character pulps -- The Shadow, Doc Savage, the Spider, etc. -- then the PCs will be superior specimens. They will be tougher, smarter, stronger, faster than NPCs and may even have abilities unavailable to other characters. This is certainly true to the genre. Given all those advantages and some intelligent play, PCs should be able to avoid death. Only extremely foolish play would be able to squander all those advantages and actually get the PC killed.

On the GM side, don't make death the result of a single roll. One of the features of dice rolling is, no matter how high the chance of success on an individual roll, requiring a string of successful rolls will progressively lower the chance of success. I'm sure you're familiar with this phenomenon; many RPGs end up inadvertently invoking it by requiring multiple climb or swim or hide rolls for a PC to accomplish a goal. This works against the PC.

However, a GM can make the effect work for them. For a PC to die, a string of rolls need to succeed (or fail). Each roll can represent something slightly different, but the underlying mechanism is that each successive roll makes it less likely that the PC will die.

This draws out the process, which reflects how it generally works in fiction; major characters usually have protracted death scenes. It makes PC death less likely without any obvious fudging by the GM -- actually, there's no fudging at all, it's simply applying the laws of probability. And, in my experience, the stretched nature of the process ends up psychologically preparing the player for the worst. If the all the rolls do succeed (or fail), players are much more willing to accept the PC's death. In fact, players end up telling stories about the incredible series of rolls that led to their character's death.

Of course, in the end, this is a question of preference. The above are the mechanisms I prefer. Others may like different approaches. Some may prefer more obvious mechanisms -- fate points or something similar. Other groups may insist on sudden death being a real possibility.

This is how I built my games, though none of them are Pulp. The PCs have in-built, largely invisible advantages which make the likelyhood of characters dying very low, purely because of the mechanics of the game, although they get injured easily. The games end up feeling far grittier than they actually are.

-clash

And this is how SotC works.  There is no meta-mechanic that protects your character from dying.  It's just that there is a lot of mechanics that they can use to stay alive, which sounds like a similar strategy you employed, FM.

I'm just trying to dispel this erroneous assumption that there is some kind of narrative uber-rule in SotC that protects characters from dying.  There isn't.  But PCs are tough and can survive a lot.  And being taken out does not always mean dying necessarily.

Quote from: flyingmiceThis is how I built my games, though none of them are Pulp. The PCs have in-built, largely invisible advantages which make the likelyhood of characters dying very low, purely because of the mechanics of the game, although they get injured easily. The games end up feeling far grittier than they actually are.

-clash

I also wish to note for the record, and because it's salient as a counter point to walkerp's idiotic storygameish blathering, that the design structure than Bekric describes pretty much describes most every trad TRPG I've ever played.  Most games are built with the base assumption that the PCs are better than the average person, and the point he makes about repeated rolls really is just a natural by product of the standard template RPG combat system, assuming the previous assumption is in play, sheerly due to odds.

And this is exactly how SotC works as well.

Or you could read it.

Quote from: walkerpAnd this is how SotC works.  There is no meta-mechanic that protects your character from dying.  It's just that there is a lot of mechanics that they can use to stay alive, which sounds like a similar strategy you employed, FM.

I'm just trying to dispel this erroneous assumption that there is some kind of narrative uber-rule in SotC that protects characters from dying.  There isn't.  But PCs are tough and can survive a lot.  And being taken out does not always mean dying necessarily.

Walker - Just to be clear, I have not said a word against SotC. I haven't read it, though I had it in my posession briefly - I bought it for JohnieWannabe and sent it along to him. My points earlier in the thread in dispute with John Kim were to do with the comparison of old and neo-pulp's popularity, not the game at all. I have read - and really like - 2FT, which is an excellent pulp game. I'm not interested in writing a pulp game at all. I suspect the audience is small and consists mainly of other game designers, who uniformly love pulp. I'm not interested in a neo-pulp game either, though the ready audience is much larger, because I'm not interested in neo-pulp. It sounds like SotC may be an excellent game, but not to my tastes, as it is definitely inspired by neo-pulp by all accounts.

Cheers!

-clash

clash, my comment wasn't directed at you, but just to some of the misconceptions being thrown out in general on this thread.  I found your first comment very helpful in making my point that in basic structure, SotC is very much a trad game.  One of the elements that makes it such is the mechanics that makes characters tougher than average and allows players to strategically play their characters as heroes.  Your post brought brought that to my attention, so I followed up on it.

Quote from: walkerpclash, my comment wasn't directed at you, but just to some of the misconceptions being thrown out in general on this thread.  I found your first comment very helpful in making my point that in basic structure, SotC is very much a trad game.  One of the elements that makes it such is the mechanics that makes characters tougher than average and allows players to strategically play their characters as heroes.  Your post brought brought that to my attention, so I followed up on it.

OK! Gotcha.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThe PCs have in-built, largely invisible advantages which make the likelyhood of characters dying very low, purely because of the mechanics of the game, although they get injured easily. The games end up feeling far grittier than they actually are.

This is as it should be. When I was young, I didn't like my character dying needlessly because I was attached to the character. Now, that I'm old, I don't like my character dying needlessly because then I have to come up with another character concept and make up another character.

The fact that PCs have an advantage when it comes to survival shouldn't surprise anyone. It's practical. You want your character to have some shelf-life.  Plus, character longetivity usually ensures a better campaign. The exception is if the character is a tool. In one-shots, regardless of the system, players generally take more risks because there is less to lose.

One built in advantage PCs tend to have is quick recovery rates. Again, this is practical because it facilitates game play.

Quote from: walkerpThough Zoran's post was really informative, it didn't totally answer my question.  Maybe I'll frame it more in the context of gaming.  What kind of things would you do as a player in a true pulp game compared to things you would do in a neo-pulp game?

I've been giving this a bit of thought.

Could I have some clarification by what you mean by "neo-pulp"?

I distinguish between what I would call "modern pulp" and what I would call "neo-pulp". This may not be the same as what you mean by "neo-pulp".

By "modern-pulp" I mean books such as the Destroyer series by Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir, the Executioner series by Don Pendleton as well its spin-offs such as Stony Man and Mack Bolan, along with other series from Gold Eagle Books: Deathlands, Rogue Angel, Outlanders and Jake Strait. I'd also include the various romance series from Silhouette Books (who, with Gold Eagle Books, are an imprint of Harlequin Enterprises) and the Mills & Boon books.

I'd also include the various sharecropping series: books based on Star Trek, Buffy, Charmed, RPG tie-in novels and the like.

These all function in the same way the old pulp magazines did. They come out sequentially, they're written by a variety of authors (sometimes under a common pseudonym), they're usually on sale for a limited time, and so on.

By "neo-pulp" I mean things like the comics Tom Strong and Planetary, and films such as the 1985 version of King Solomon's Mines and its sequel Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold, the 1996 version of The Phantom, as well as The Rocketeer, The Shadow and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

All of these have a certain self-awareness about them. They're not just telling stories, they're commenting on their source material -- and, often, that commentary is more important than the story being told, sometimes to the point where they aren't really understandable if you don't get the references. Or, the creators are trying to signal that they're above the material; they know it's silly, but are just having fun.

This isn't entirely true -- there are odd exceptions along the way in each of these examples -- but there is definitely a meta quality to "neo-pulp".

If that's what you mean by "neo-pulp", then I'd suggest the best way to reproduce that in gaming would be to use various mechanisms to create a sense of estrangement between the players and their characters. Get some distance in there.

Make the player's goals different to those of their character. If the character is a detective seeking clues to find a kidnap victim, use a system in which the player gets points for the character going through the motions of an investigation and when they have enough points, they can cash them in to create a "solution" to the mystery which will be valid. That way, what the character is doing and what their player is doing are quite different things. Put a requirement in that the "solution" has to address a theme like "There's a thin line between love and hate" or "The alienation of modern society creates brutes of us all" or whatever.

Give the player resources that exist outside their character's awareness. Fate points and the like are a good example. The player gets to sit there deciding on an authorial level how lucky or what kind of deus ex machina their character will get to enjoy.

That way characters can go through the motions of engaging in an action-adventure story while the players engage in a witty commentary on the stereotypes and conventions of action-adventure stories.

I don't actual enjoy those sort of games (or stories), so my advice in this area is going to be limited. Perhaps those that do enjoy such things will have better suggestions.

Of course, if that's not what you mean by "neo-pulp", then I'm back to asking for clarification as to what you do mean by the term.