TheRPGSite

Has anyone been playing this? If all was right in the world, this RPG would be kicking "spirit of the century"'s ass three ways from sunday.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHas anyone been playing this? If all was right in the world, this RPG would be kicking "spirit of the century"'s ass three ways from sunday.

I tried out the 2nd edition briefly.  It did a number of things reasonably well.  It has better description of the pulp genres than SotC.  It has fairly good GMing advice.  I think the system is OK for a subset of the old pulps, such as the relatively low-power gritty detective stories.  

Really, though, I think most people aren't really interested in playing out old-style pulps.  They want vaguely pulp-like action, which to them means just being over-the-top and not sweating the details.  Spirit of the Century it about fighting gorillas on biplanes.  

Two-Fisted Tales (at least in 2nd ed) has only token nods to the pulp origins, being mostly a gritty system like GURPS Lite.  It has some optional rules for more pulp-like action, but it isn't built in by default.  It is also fairly deadly to PCs -- admittedly so.  In many ways it is more true to the gritty detective stories at the origins of pulp, but I think most gamers are more interested in the immediate action.  I think the design note in the damage system is indicative:

QuoteA Note on Design

Analytical readers will note that it's very easy to get killed in this system, which is true. Others will note, indignantly, that major characters were almost never killed off in the pulps, which is also true. Nevertheless, I believe that this system accurately simulates the action in the pulps.

Very few pulp heroes were confident of their ability to dodge bullets. Even fewer were confident that they could survive a bullet wound through the chest. Even the toughest heroes, such as Doc Savage, would hold their hands up in surrender when confronted with a well-aimed pistol at short range. Classic comic-book scenes, in which superheroes bounce bullets off their chests, or leap merrily into a room of gun-totting thugs, flailing their fists as they go, are inappropriate in a pulp setting. Characters who come in through the front door, with their guns blasting, are liable to end up in the morgue.

In the best of the pulps, the heroes outsmart their adversaries. (In the worst, of course, the heroes rely on dumb luck and the idiocy of their enemies, but there's no reason to follow their example.) These characters use tricks, guile and tactical skill to win the advantage. They wait for the best possible moment to strike, the moment in which they have the greatest possible chance of survival.  Even the most righteous hero in the pulps is happy to fight dirty.

GM's should encourage their players to follow these examples. Encourage them to think their away through a fight, rather than blindly reach for the dice. Not only will they enjoy themselves more, but they'll also be imitating the source material.

I think that this philosophy is limiting, though.  While it is true that pulp heroes would outsmart their foes, they would outsmart them quickly.  In a gritty RPG setup like this, outsmarting the foes means stopping the pacing for a long Q&A with the GM.  i.e. "Well, what is the layout of their camp like?"  "Is there enough room in the gully to the north for us to move quickly?"  etc.  

Spirit of the Century, though in general it doesn't really grasp a lot about the original pulps, at least emulates the fast pacing.  If the players roll well, then the PCs have outsmarted their foes.  You can just describe them getting the drop on their attackers as part of the combat.  I think the buzz suggests that this more "jump to the action" style is more in line with what gamers generally want.

Pulp Heroes, the d20 minigame that came with Dungeon magazine, served me extremely well for my pulp campaign. Right feeling, gritty enough, fast paced as hell, and straight to the point.

Man, the memories... "Kneel before Professor Simon Mesmerus, mortals!" ;)

After I'm finished with the Coyote Trail backup-campaign, I'll be running a Two Fisted Tales backup-campaign.

RPGPundit

I'm a big fan of SotC, but I do like the idea suggested in Two-Fisted tales of more gritty heroes.  It sounds more like the detective radio serials like Boston Blackie.  Much more realistic, but still pretty cool.  Not so over the top.  I'll take a look at it.

Quote from: walkerpI'm a big fan of SotC, but I do like the idea suggested in Two-Fisted tales of more gritty heroes.  It sounds more like the detective radio serials like Boston Blackie.  Much more realistic, but still pretty cool.  Not so over the top.  I'll take a look at it.

Holy crap someone else approximately my age who knows who Boston Blackie is!:highfive:  A couple months ago TCM or some other channel. They ran a Boston Blackie marathon of the movies from the 40's.

Oh yeah, I'm a big fan of old radio shows (so many on the internet now, it's just awesome).  I've never seen any of the Boston Blackie movies. How are they?

See I'm just the opposite. I've never heard the radio shows.
The movies them selves are fun. There not the Maltese Falcon or anything. But they're fun. They got it all, fight'n, and mystery. The whole ball of wax of  detective pulpyness.

That is more along the lines of how I tend to think of "Pulp". Thought I was just weird like that. (Probably am any way.)
My Untold Stories (of the Great Flood) (http://home.earthlink.net/~djackson24/Delbert5.htm) are mostly based on that power level.

(Did drift "higher" as they went because of feedback. Seems like people prefer the "Over the Top" style or at least expect it.)
=

Quote from: Greentongue(Did drift "higher" as they went because of feedback. Seems like people prefer the "Over the Top" style or at least expect it.)

Yup.  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.

Quote from: RPGPunditHas anyone been playing this?

Nope. But if it's anything like Coyote Trail or Hard Nova or anything else P.I.G. does, it's got my vote. P.I.G. produce solid, to-the-point, no BS, RPGs.

I disagree about Two Fisted tales being somehow less able to produce high-power-level play compared to SoTC.

I will be using it to run a "johnny quest"/Tintin/venture brothers kind of game, where the PCs would be globetrotting adventurers getting into all kinds of scraps, and I don't think that there's anything in TFT that would not lend itself to precisely that kind of play.

The 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. I said it in my review a year ago; JKim has just admitted it above, and yet a bunch of Forgies went apeshit in attacking me because of it (and continue to do so; check out the SoTC thread over in my forum right now).

But hey, the truth hurts.

RPGPundit

Critiquing your review and disagreeing with elements of it = attacking you?

Okay.

I think the point made was that high-powered pulp isn't actually pulp in its truest sense.  Although I'm not exactly sure about this, I do like the idea of a pulp setting that is a little less "superhero" and more "tough guy".

But keep dragging the thread back to your war, Pundit.  That's really healthy for the site.

Quote from: RPGPunditI disagree about Two Fisted tales being somehow less able to produce high-power-level play compared to SoTC.

I will be using it to run a "johnny quest"/Tintin/venture brothers kind of game, where the PCs would be globetrotting adventurers getting into all kinds of scraps, and I don't think that there's anything in TFT that would not lend itself to precisely that kind of play.

I think 2FT would be fine for a Tintin kind of game.  (I'm not familiar enough with Johnny Quest or Venture Brothers to comment on those).  When I talked about high-power play, I was thinking higher power than that -- wading through goons, fighting gorillas while standing on the wing of a biplane, and so forth.  

Quote from: RPGPunditThe 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. I said it in my review a year ago; JKim has just admitted it above, and yet a bunch of Forgies went apeshit in attacking me because of it (and continue to do so; check out the SoTC thread over in my forum right now).

I said that Spirit of the Century is an accurate emulation of the source material it cites.  Here is it's source list:

QuoteComics

Alan Moore's Tom Strong and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Warren Ellis' Planetary and Authority

Books

Timetables of History Bernard Grun, Eva Simpson, 2005
The Writer's Guide to Everyday Life from Prohibition Through World War II, Marc McCutcheon, 1995 The Victorian Internet, Tom Standage, 1999

RPGs

Pulp Hero, by Steven S. Long with S. John Ross (Hero Games)
Adventure!, by Tim Avers et al (White Wolf Games)
Pulp Adventures, by Erik Dewey and Timothy Parker (I.C.E.)
Call of Cthulhu, by Sandy Petersen (Chaosium Inc.)
The 1920s Investigators Companions, by Gary O'Connell / Gregory Rucka / Keith Herber / Kevin A. Ross (Chaosium Inc.)
Pulp Era, by James Carpio, Michael Smith, and Jon Richardson (Chapter 13 Press)
Gangbusters, by Mark Acres, Rick Krebs, and Tom Moldvay (TSR Inc.)
Pulp Zombies, by Jeff Tidball (Eden Studios)
Terra Incognita, by Scott Larson (Grey Ghost Games)
Fly from Evil, by S. John Ross (Cumberland Games & Diversions)
Thrilling Tales, by Gareth Michael Skarka et al (Adamant Entertainment)
Two-Fisted Tales, by Matt Stevens (Politically Incorrect Games)
Pulp-Fu, by Daniel Bayn
Seeds: Pulp, by Eric Baranda et al (Expeditious Retreat Press)
GURPS Cliffhangers by Brian J. Underhill (Steve Jackson Games)

Movies and TV

Amazing Screw On Head (2006)
Raiders of the Lost Ark(1981), Temple of Doom(1984) and The Last Crusade(1989)
The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001)
Tales of the Golden Monkey (1982)
Big Trouble in Little China (1986)
High Road to China (1983)
King Solomon's Mines (1985) and Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold (1987)
The Phantom (1996)
The Rocketeer (1991)
The Shadow (1995)
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004)

Web Resources

//www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm
Brian Misiaszek's "Pulp Avengers". Possibly the best single Pulp resource on the Web
//www.miskatonic.org/dent.html
The Lester Dent Pulp Paper Master Fiction Plot
en.wikipedia.org
Probably the easiest source of semi-official information about anything
//www.firstworldwar.com
&endash; is what it says
kclibrary.nhmccd.edu/decade20.html
American Cultural History 1920 -1929
home.earthlink.net/~dlarkins/slang-pg.htm
The Internet Guide to Jazz Age Slang
thePulp.net
A fantastic website full of resources on pulp fiction and characters, especially The Shadow, Doc Savage, and The Spider.
//www.sysabend.org/champions/webdir/Hero_PulpHero.html
The Stuff Heroes Are Made Of Web Directory
//www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7160.annos.html
Jess Nevins' comic book annotations

I do note that none of these are pulp novels from the thirties.  However, films like Big Trouble in Little China and comics like Tom Strong aren't discussions -- they're real sources that are far more popular than reprints of the original pulp novels.  

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

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeNope. But if it's anything like Coyote Trail or Hard Nova or anything else P.I.G. does, it's got my vote. P.I.G. produce solid, to-the-point, no BS, RPGs.

It is! It is an excellent game, Rich!

-clash

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

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.

No, but a licensed "Mummy RPG" where the authors claimed they were making the defining RPG about the "mummy phenomenon" and instead talked a lot about the literary "themes" of mummies and modern interpretations of mummy legends; and cited their main inspiration as Warren Ellis comics, Wacharski brothers films, anything BUT the Mummy, would be pretentious wankery, yes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: walkerpHe should play the game.  It's pretty fun.

If (make that WHEN) I get around to running a pulp game, I'll run Two Fisted Tales. So that I can run an actual, you know, PULP game, rather than engage in pretentious wankery and cheap imitations of Warren Ellis' idiotic mental onanism.

RPGPundit

Man, Fred Hicks and Co. should be afraid. Very afraid. VERY VERY AFRAID of that fine day, which must surely come, when that guy is going to take notice of SotC who used to stalk Bruce Baugh for deviating ever so slightly from pulp canon in Adventure. And Bruce was actually able to cite chapter and verse at him. TO zero avail, of course.

Zoran Bekric. That's the guy.

I can't believe I remember his name.

Pages 1-6 Introduction

Pages 7-275 rules including:
intro basic rules
Chargen
How to do things
Skills
Stunts
Running The Game (basically how to adjudicate skills)

Pages 276-335 Tips and Tricks (mostly non-system specific advice on how to run a fast-paced pulp game)

Pages 336-349 sample adventure

Pages 350-372 setting info

Pages 370-392 stunt packages

Pages 393-394 bibliography

Pages 395-403 sample characters

Pages 404-411 index (important)

The only real mention of theme in there is in the introduction:

QuoteBy a pulp game, we mean a game influenced by the pulps - serial adventures of the early Twentieth Century starring iconic characters like Doc Savage and The Shadow and echoed today in movies such as Raiders of the Lost Ark and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.  While the pulps themselves have run their course, their influence can still be felt in contemporary film and television.  If you're not familiar with what the pulps are, then we strongly suggest reading Brian Christopher Misiazsek's spectacular article The Pulp Avengers at:  http://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavenger.htm.

Further down they say:

QuoteWe seek to capture the spirit of the pulps - a spirit of simplicity, two fists of fury, and little introspection.

That's little introspection, not a little introspection.

In the section that is the closest I can find to anything remotely near the literary pretension you claim the book is "laden" with, the section where they talk about optimism, the final sentence says this:

QuoteIn the end, the question for a character is simple.  The world can and should be a better place.  What are you doing about that?

I really am hard pressed to find anything in this book beyond that that is not direct genre emulation.  So your entire argument rests on the bibliography and some vague allusions in the first 6 pages.

And TFT sounds great.  It's existence is not some righteous slap in the face of SotC. They are both slightly different approaches to what can always be an excellent meal.  While we're at it, let's not forget Pulp Hero, Adventure!, GURPS Cliffhanger and many other great RPG interpretations of pulp.  I consider myself a lucky gamer.

Quote from: RPGPunditAre 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?

Your 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?

Quote from: J ArcaneWell, 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.  

Chandler is not pulp.  And many purists consider him to be fairly pretentious and fruity when compared to Hammett.  Do some learning and then come back to the discussion.  Actually, don't come back.

Let me continue to slap this little bitch around, since he decided to jump into the deep end of the pool.

Quote from: J ArcaneNo, 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.

May I disrespectfully ask you to do the same, then please fuck off to the hole where you were hiding these last pleasant weeks.

Read again what Pundit said:

Quote from: RPGPunditThe 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.

Quote from: RPGPunditengage in pretentious wankery and cheap imitations of Warren Ellis' idiotic mental onanism.

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.  

Quote from: RPGPunditI 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.

Now go away.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityZoran Bekric. That's the guy.

I can't believe I remember his name.

Umm... How, exactly did I "stalk" Baugh?

I live in Australia. Have done so all my life. As far as I'm aware, Baugh lives in somewhere in North America. That pretty puts an entire hemisphere between the two of us. My interactions with Baugh were spread over four fora, all of which I joined either before he did or in complete ignorance that he was a member.

Still, I suppose I'm in good company. I understand that the RPGPundit has also been accused of "stalking" Baugh.

If you want to accuse me of committing a crime, then please be prepared to back it up by presenting some evidence. Otherwise, I'll thank you keep your slanders to yourself.

OMG.

That was quick.

Just four fora.

I loved those Adventure review threads. How you liking SOtC, Zoran?

Quote from: jhkimI tried out the 2nd edition briefly.  It did a number of things reasonably well.  It has better description of the pulp genres than SotC.  It has fairly good GMing advice.  I think the system is OK for a subset of the old pulps, such as the relatively low-power gritty detective stories.  

Really, though, I think most people aren't really interested in playing out old-style pulps.  They want vaguely pulp-like action, which to them means just being over-the-top and not sweating the details.  Spirit of the Century it about fighting gorillas on biplanes.  

Two-Fisted Tales (at least in 2nd ed) has only token nods to the pulp origins, being mostly a gritty system like GURPS Lite.  It has some optional rules for more pulp-like action, but it isn't built in by default.  It is also fairly deadly to PCs -- admittedly so.  In many ways it is more true to the gritty detective stories at the origins of pulp, but I think most gamers are more interested in the immediate action.

I'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?

And what do you mean by "pulp-like action"? Action like that which appeared in the pulps? Or something else? As far as I can tell, if the action is like that which appeared in the old pulps, then it is, by definition, "pulp-like action".

Any pulp game is only going to represent a subset of the old pulps. They were a medium and covered a lot of ground. The highest selling pulp was Street and Smith's Love Story Magazine, and neither TFT or SotC covers the material presented in that magazine very well. It's like doing a RPG based on movies; it will only be able to cover a subset of movies. An action movie RPG probably won't do comedies very well.

The 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. I'm tired of people trying to sell me games by claiming they're "pulp" when they obviously aren't.

Now, you may well be right when you say that the type of material SotC covers is more popular than the original pulp novels and that more people prefer to play games based on that material, but that doesn't make the new material or the games based on it "pulp". And it's dishonest to claim that it does.

If, for example, a game advertises itself as being anime, but it turns out to be focused on emulating the old Supermarionation shows by Gerry Anderson -- Thunderbirds, Stingray, Captain Scarlet and the like -- then I think anime fans would be quite right to complain that the game isn't really about anime. And sneering that they are just being purists for wanting an anime-based game to actually have something to do with the material presented in Japanese movie and television animation isn't particularly helpful.

This isn't to say that a game based on the old Supermarionation shows would be a bad thing, but trying to sell it as "anime" because "anime" has better market recognition or whatever would be wrong. And anime fans would be quite right to complain about such misrepresentation.

If the designers of games like SotC don't actually want to cover the material in the old pulps -- because it's not as popular as the material they do reference -- that's fine. But I don't see what they gain by claiming what they're doing is pulp when it isn't. Except for fooling people looking for an actual pulp game into buying their product under false presences.

Quote from: walkerpChandler is not pulp.

Actually Chandler's earliest stories appeared in Black Mask -- which was, indeed, a pulp magazine. The same stories he later cannibalised for his novels.

QuoteAnd many purists consider him to be fairly pretentious and fruity when compared to Hammett.

Perhaps. And many fans didn't care for either Hammett or Chandler, preferring Carroll John Daly or Erle Stanley Gardner. They all appeared in the pages of the same pulp magazine, though. Which makes them all pulp writers and their work pulp.

Quote from: J ArcaneWell, 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.  



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?

As a side note, despite Mr. Kim being involved in this thread, I had to go to his website to find out that it is, indeed, the same author at least, as the TFT game I downloaded all those ages ago.

However, based on the descriptions I have read of the current version, I can only assume that it was completely rewritten since the original freebie version.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI loved those Adventure review threads. How you liking SOtC, Zoran?

Haven't read it. It's on my list of games-I-want-to-get-someday, but it's not very high on that list. The reviews of SotC suggest that it's not necessarily the type of game I'd enjoy, so I'm interested in it as something that I probably should be familiar with given my interest in pulp games, but not something I'd actually like to play.

I was part of subset of gamers that were interested in pulp games before pulp became fashionable. The old days when the games people talked about were Daredevils, Justice, Inc., The Adventures of Indiana Jones and even Crimefighters (from Dragon magazine #47). I think Adventure! was the first of the new wave of "pulp" games and I thought it would be in the tradition of those older games; that is, it would try to emulate the type of material that appeared in the pulps rather than concepts from the work of Warren Ellis. In a somewhat brutal learning experience I discovered that wasn't the case. Somewhere, some marketing guru had decided that "pulp" now had a new meaning and that those who were actually aware of the old pulps were a bunch of old fogies who need to be shouted down so this brilliant new conception could flower.

As a consequence, I still keep an eye out for RPGs labeled "pulp", but I've learned not to expect that the game will actually have anything to do with the pulps. Or that anyone will care if someone points out that it doesn't.

Very interesting, Zoran Bekric (kind of freaky the way you just popped out of nowhere at the mention of your name, btw).  Could 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?

I think I agree with what you are saying, but my reading is limited so I'd like to see some specific examples.

While 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.

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:

(http://www.conventionofassassins.org/blog/Reid.jpg)

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.


.

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 (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/) 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 (http://www.amazon.com/Mammoth-Book-Pulp-Fiction/dp/0786703008/ref=sr_1_1/103-5003201-5108659?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193914354&sr=8-1), The Mammoth Book of Pulp Action (http://www.amazon.com/Mammoth-Book-Pulp-Action-Books/dp/0786709200/ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_img_4/103-5003201-5108659), American Pulp (http://www.amazon.com/American-Pulp-Edward-Gorman/dp/0786704616/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5003201-5108659?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193914675&sr=1-1), Pure Pulp (http://www.amazon.com/Pure-Pulp-Edward-Gorman/dp/0786707003/ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_img_2/103-5003201-5108659), and [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Pulp-Masters-Ed-Gorman/dp/0786708735/ref=pd_sim_b_shvl_img_1/103-5003201-5108659]Pulp 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(http://www.conventionofassassins.org/blog/Reid.jpg)

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. :D

-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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destroyer) series by Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir, the Executioner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Executioner_%28book_series%29) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Strong) and Planetary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_%28comics%29), and films such as the 1985 version of King Solomon's Mines (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0089421/) and its sequel Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0092534/), the 1996 version of The Phantom, (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0117331/) as well as The Rocketeer, (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0102803/) The Shadow (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0111143/) and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0346156/).

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.

Quote from: Zoran BekricOf 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.

That is EXACTLY what I mean by Neo-Pulp. Thank you, Zoran!

-clash

I agree and disagree, all at once.

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

-clash

Absolutely, but given you asked the question perhaps I should again, sometimes one just gets the wrong impression after all.