Quote from: The Traveller;709054Unfortunately if you try to translate that into game mechanics, you just end up with a lot of dead PCs, leaving you with a gritty realistic game.

I'm fine with that. PCs should have the means to succeed, but it should never be certain. If danger is made into an "illusion", I feel that all the élan you're trying to capture goes down the drain.

I'm OK with the idea that they're a cut above the rank and file. I'm staunchly opposed to the idea that they're deathless. "Badass" is a title that should be earned, never taken for granted.

Quote from: The Traveller;709054Pulp is the art of making superheroes seem human, so when the dice start rolling you need to have the advantages in place to emulate this central feature of the genre.

Again, pulp is a medium that encompasses several genres, and genres within genres. Characters like The Shadow or Doc Savage blur the (artificial) frontier between "pulp" and four-color comics, and I feel adventures in this vein would be better handled with an actual supers RPG.

Quote from: The Traveller;709054You're saying you want gritty realism but with the survival and success rates of pulp  - that's not going to happen by itself.

I never said that. That's your assumption entirely. In my games, emulating fiction takes a backseat to what makes a game interesting. And doing away with danger may do wonders for genre emulation, but makes for a duller game.

Quote from: The Butcher;709061I never said that. That's your assumption entirely. In my games, emulating fiction takes a backseat to what makes a game interesting. And doing away with danger may do wonders for genre emulation, but makes for a duller game.

Totally get that and totally agree, our tastes in gaming are very similar it seems. However if you do away with genre emulation you can't really claim you're playing a genre-specific game. There are other identifiable tropes in pulp which might compensate somewhat, but at the end of the day larger than life heroes need more than a swagger to pull off their feats.

Quote from: The Butcher;709010It always makes me a bit sad when people complain that a game "doesn't do pulp" because it's too lethal or dangerous.

First, because pulp is a medium and not a genre in itself (a bit like anime).

Second, because in pulp men's adventure (Doc Savage, Sailor Steve Costigan, El Borak, Khlit the Cossack, etc.), the genre people typically conflate with "pulp", the draw of the story was about extraordinary men braving extraordinary danger. Remove danger from the equation and you're just going through the motions.

I'm not crazy about the idea of imitating the form (zeppelins! gorillas! Nazis! Thuggees!) without the essence (life-threatening danger at every turn).

I really am OK with the idea that the PCs are larger-than-life übermenschen a cut above ordinary folk. But I'd tread carefully around any proposal to mitigate lethality.

Still, I don't think it'll hurt any game to add a few options for different modes of play.

I'm doing quite a bit of "ditto" here but I really feel like this nails it, as far as I'm concerned.

What is RoR supposed to do that White Wolf's Adventure or SotC did not?

Characters in novels tend to have plot immunity because that's how you sell the next Conan novel...by having Conan survive. Moorcock killed Elric and then realized he still needed to pay rent so we get the long list of Elric prequels.

If a popular character dies...no more rent checks. If a PC dies...just roll up a new one.

Also, what definition of "pulp" are the author's using?

Quote from: The Traveller;709064Totally get that and totally agree, our tastes in gaming are very similar it seems. However if you do away with genre emulation you can't really claim you're playing a genre-specific game. There are other identifiable tropes in pulp which might compensate somewhat, but at the end of the day larger than life heroes need more than a swagger to pull off their feats.

Like I said, I'm OK with starting PCs being competent. But there's a lot of excluded middle between "more than swagger" and "danger is an illusion". I don't think that disqualifies a game as "pulp" especially since, as I've pointed out a few times already, I feel the label is widely misused anyway.

Games that overdo "plot immunity" are killing a big part of the thrill while not necessarily bringing anything else to the game table, other than session reports that better confirm to certain literary tropes which are perceived as "pulp".

Which is as valid an approach as any, just not one I'm crazy about. I'll even go out on a limb here and say that this sort of concern for genre faithfulness might be better served by storygames.

Quote from: The Butcher;709107Like I said, I'm OK with starting PCs being competent. But there's a lot of excluded middle between "more than swagger" and "danger is an illusion". I don't think that disqualifies a game as "pulp" especially since, as I've pointed out a few times already, I feel the label is widely misused anyway.

Well perhaps we need a new genre then, RPG Pulp, where PCs start out tougher and more skilled than they otherwise would, in the name of two fisted adventure. It's far from the first time that this hobby has broken new ground.

Quote from: The Butcher;709107Which is as valid an approach as any, just not one I'm crazy about. I'll even go out on a limb here and say that this sort of concern for genre faithfulness might be better served by storygames.

With no snark intended, yes. I agree storygames would serve these types of design goals better.

To me, "pulp" is something I saw in a movie not that long ago.

There were two protagonists (unarmed), suddenly facing a large group of bad guys with guns.

Did they surrender? Run? No, they charged. And won the fight.

Something pulpy should allow that. Not make it easy, mind you, but make it possible.

I'd prefer the pulp be more tied to the campaign focus rather than mechanics. Personally, I'm not all that into the pulp in the first place, at most a feeling of "noir." But a lot of the time I hear pulp the explanation comes off as more gonzo + "Continue? insert coin 9, 8, 7..."

Since I don't want mechanics like "insert coin" or HP/stat bloat, and definitely not want plot immunity shields, I'd just prefer GM guidance on what makes a game pulpy. Like, less nazi gorillas on zeppelins and more detectives shadowing suspects v. researching in the library. Things on how to set a pulp atmosphere and which encourages (rewards?) risk-taking.

This is more along the lines on XP rewards design. How do you encourage PCs to go into the dungeon and yet not fight everything to the death? I think that is where this design question will be answered.

Quote from: The Traveller;709109Well perhaps we need a new genre then, RPG Pulp, where PCs start out tougher and more skilled than they otherwise would, in the name of two fisted adventure. It's far from the first time that this hobby has broken new ground.

*shrug* I'm not much for genre label hairsplitting. If your RPG has the trappings of the pulp men's adventure genre, I'm OK with calling it a pulp RPG.

Quote from: JeremyR;709131To me, "pulp" is something I saw in a movie not that long ago.

There were two protagonists (unarmed), suddenly facing a large group of bad guys with guns.

Did they surrender? Run? No, they charged. And won the fight.

Something pulpy should allow that. Not make it easy, mind you, but make it possible.

GURPS is famous for being lethal, but I once had a character fall off a speeding truck and get shot point-blank in the head, and survive. This was GURPS 3e RAW, no bells or whistles or houserules.

It is possible to survive this sort of crazy shit in GURPS, and in BRP, and in real life for that matter (I'm a doctor and I've seen people survive some fucked-up shit). Most of the time, though, it will get you killed.

Some games use action/hero/drama/story/fate/etc. points as a compromise (i.e. you get to save your PC's ass from certain death this many times). I am also OK with that, as long as it's a scarce resource to be used only rarely, when the stakes are at their highest. Handing out too many Bennies was one of my mistakes as a Savage Worlds GM and doubtlessly contributed to my gripe about SW not hurting PCs ever.

Quote from: Opaopajr;709135I'd prefer the pulp be more tied to the campaign focus rather than mechanics. Personally, I'm not all that into the pulp in the first place, at most a feeling of "noir." But a lot of the time I hear pulp the explanation comes off as more gonzo + "Continue? insert coin 9, 8, 7..."

I like to think of that as the RPGnet definition of pulp. Not because RPGnet is the Great Satan or swine or whatever, but because it's a big forum with a low signal-to-noise ratio on some things (witness their constant confusion on TSR-era D&D as an example).

Quote from: Opaopajr;709135Since I don't want mechanics like "insert coin" or HP/stat bloat, and definitely not want plot immunity shields, I'd just prefer GM guidance on what makes a game pulpy. Like, less nazi gorillas on zeppelins and more detectives shadowing suspects v. researching in the library. Things on how to set a pulp atmosphere and which encourages (rewards?) risk-taking.

This is more along the lines on XP rewards design. How do you encourage PCs to go into the dungeon and yet not fight everything to the death? I think that is where this design question will be answered.

Excellent point. Rewarding risk-taking has become synonymous with removing the threat of death for a lot of designers, which had the effect of voiding these games of excitement (for me).

XP rewards are a great idea if you're running a game that uses them. Giving out XP bonuses for PCs that throw themselves in harm's way and survive. Maybe even XP for HP lost/Wounds sustained/etc.?

The XP design area comes back to me as a place ideally removed from the mechanics of the PC's capacity, and more towards the PC's development/progression. Now, that's not always something available in-system. And "leveling up" isn't something I find particularly necessary or conducive to adventurous investigation, a la RoR's pitch.

So I guess it comes to a soft benefit idea. Like soft tethers are the setting mores and expectations limiting your PC, a soft benefit would be those setting clues and connections empowering your PC. So to reward shadowing a perp v. pouring over microfiche, instead of XP (or mechanical stuff like fast HP regen, high stats, kewl toys, etc.) give out clues faster, or open up new allies or locations. Give more setting and investigation progress as rewards.

Basically playing it safe goes slow and narrow, and playing it loose goes fast and open. If you tack on a time element (and when was the last time you played a CoC investigation without one?) suddenly it becomes player prerogative to floor it or ease up on the gas. Caution sees less, but has better survival; risk sees more, but can bite off more than it can chew.

The trouble with that is serendipity doesn't usually work like that. But who knows? Could be explained to GMs as a fixture of pulp atmosphere, where fortune (or Elder Gods) favors the bold.

Quote from: CRKrueger;708906Both are fine.  Personally I would prefer a less "Indiana Jones" pulp especially since when most people say Indiana Jones they really mean a Bugs Bunny version of Indiana Jones.

So like, the Crystal Skull, right?  Where a 60something Indy was swinging from tree-to-tree in impossible feats of CGI foolishness clearly put into the movie solely to form a level on the upcoming video game?

RPGPundit

Quote from: The Traveller;708907It depends, sometimes I want thoughtful horror, sometimes I want The Mummy Returns. Having options for both is the best road to take. One thing I can't handle though is nihilistic grimdark "no matter what you do you're fucked" stuff.

That's exactly what we're not doing in RoR; like the poster after you said, our take is "if it bleeds we can kill it". And, I'd add, "if it doesn't bleed, we can try to Banish it".

RPGPundit

"Emulation of Genre" is a longstanding element of RPG game design: its where you make the mechanics try to fit the world-rules of a particular genre.

This is different from the way a storygame handles 'genre' where there its all about putting in some kind of superficial similarity and dealing with the right "themes".

So no, I think that Emulation of Genre is something RPGs have done and do quite well. But they're not meant to allow you to imitate the type of "stories" you see in a certain genre, they're meant to allow you to imitate the type of WORLDS you see in those genres.
(and by 'worlds' I mean both in the sense of places, and in the sense of universal 'rules'/physics)

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;709446That's exactly what we're not doing in RoR; like the poster after you said, our take is "if it bleeds we can kill it". And, I'd add, "if it doesn't bleed, we can try to Banish it".

You know I'd almost buy it just to register my approval of the sentiment. I recently finished a short story by Alastair Reynolds, wherein our heroes go through too many jumpgates and end up at the edge of the universe - subsequently mentally disintegrating because their saviours look different.

It's up there with HP Lovecraft's "Vader pulls his helmet off to reveal James Earl Jones, so Luke the cornfed whiteboy goes mad and chops off his own arm, thus achieving catharsis" efforts. Intellectually lazy stuff.