TheRPGSite

Pen & Paper Roleplaying Central => Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion => Topic started by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 08:47:15 PM

Title: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 08:47:15 PM
As many of you know I'm doing a Pulp RPG, well there are not many sites in the interwebs better than The Pulp Avengers https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm (https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm) And it is correct that the Pulp heroes didn't die, and many times neither did the villains. This is a neccessity when you're telling a story, or writting a serial or series of novels. It would be very awkward if The Shadow were to die.

But as an advice on how to run a Pulp RPG I find it perplexing. What's the risk then for the PCs? Why should your players care what happens? How are they going to immerse themselves in your world and take the dangers you present them with seriously?

Which is why the Thread's title is what it is.

Do you agree or disagree? Why? Do you have some other examples of Fiction Tropes that shouldn't make it ever to the rules/table?

Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: This Guy on April 27, 2021, 09:23:26 PM
idk why do you need the threat of death to immerse and why does it perplex you that others don't.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 27, 2021, 09:46:59 PM
You don’t have to kill them. Threaten other things: their reputation, their families, the things usually at stake in these movies.

Pulp and hero genres aren’t challenge contests like dnd and tomb of horrors. They have to play along and take the genre seriously even if they aren’t playing a purely tournament style game.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 09:50:51 PM
You don’t have to kill them. Threaten other things: their reputation, their families, the things usually at stake in these movies.

The GM doesn't kill PCs, they die by their own stupid decisions or bad luck.

So, in every adventure anyone can die, except the PCs... WHY?

Those you mention are the stakes if they fail, what are the consecuences for the PCs if they do stupid things? Zero? Why shouldn't they jump into an erupting volcano? After all they will not die.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Charon's Little Helper on April 27, 2021, 09:57:06 PM
To go with that pulpy vibe, you could still make death possible - just HIGHLY unlikely. Something like needing to drop to a negative HP enough so that it's virtually impossible to go straight from even positive 1 HP to dead in a single hit. And put in GM advice how the villains rarely if ever want to actually kill the MCs - they want to mess with them. Frame them for the crime - see them suffer etc.

Pulp heroes DO get knocked out, captured, and/or deal with serious gunshot wounds (potentially sewed up by a dame) periodically - so that would fit the vibe.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Mishihari on April 27, 2021, 10:01:56 PM
In your place, I would discard the trope that heroes don't die.  It works for books but not very well for games, IMO.

If you decide to keep it, there needs to be the possibility of meaningful loss if the PCs lose.  Things like allies, reputation, irreplaceable equipment, and I think the loss needs to have concrete mechanical effects.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Mishihari on April 27, 2021, 10:02:47 PM
To go with that pulpy vibe, you could still make death possible - just HIGHLY unlikely. Something like needing to drop to a negative HP enough so that it's virtually impossible to go straight from even positive 1 HP to dead in a single hit. And put in GM advice how the villains rarely if ever want to actually kill the MCs - they want to mess with them. Frame them for the crime - see them suffer etc.

Pulp heroes DO get knocked out, captured, and/or deal with serious gunshot wounds (potentially sewed up by a dame) periodically - so that would fit the vibe.

Now that's a good idea.  Most players hate being captured even more than they hate dying.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 10:05:25 PM
To go with that pulpy vibe, you could still make death possible - just HIGHLY unlikely. Something like needing to drop to a negative HP enough so that it's virtually impossible to go straight from even positive 1 HP to dead in a single hit. And put in GM advice how the villains rarely if ever want to actually kill the MCs - they want to mess with them. Frame them for the crime - see them suffer etc.

Pulp heroes DO get knocked out, captured, and/or deal with serious gunshot wounds (potentially sewed up by a dame) periodically - so that would fit the vibe.

That's one way to try and keep the Pulp vibe going, not sure about the HIGHLY unlikely part but maybe just unlikely could work. Negative HP does take care of a PC jumping into an active volcano.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 10:06:45 PM
In your place, I would discard the trope that heroes don't die.  It works for books but not very well for games, IMO.

If you decide to keep it, there needs to be the possibility of meaningful loss if the PCs lose.  Things like allies, reputation, irreplaceable equipment, and I think the loss needs to have concrete mechanical effects.

I'm planning on losing it, unless someone can come up with a good enough semi replacement.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 27, 2021, 10:20:34 PM
You don’t have to kill them. Threaten other things: their reputation, their families, the things usually at stake in these movies.

The GM doesn't kill PCs, they die by their own stupid decisions or bad luck.

So, in every adventure anyone can die, except the PCs... WHY?

Those you mention are the stakes if they fail, what are the consecuences for the PCs if they do stupid things? Zero? Why shouldn't they jump into an erupting volcano? After all they will not die.

Because good roleplaying. The PCs don't know they're characters in a story like that. It would be treating it like a video game.

Or you could just not tell them.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 10:27:38 PM
You don’t have to kill them. Threaten other things: their reputation, their families, the things usually at stake in these movies.

The GM doesn't kill PCs, they die by their own stupid decisions or bad luck.

So, in every adventure anyone can die, except the PCs... WHY?

Those you mention are the stakes if they fail, what are the consecuences for the PCs if they do stupid things? Zero? Why shouldn't they jump into an erupting volcano? After all they will not die.

Because good roleplaying. The PCs don't know they're characters in a story like that. It would be treating it like a video game.

Or you could just not tell them.

So the PCs jump into an active volcano and I don't tell them they died? Or I don't tell them they didn't? I guess you meant the latter, what would be the difference?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 27, 2021, 11:20:00 PM
I meant they shouldn't play like that because it's not good roleplaying.

The characters in the game don't know they're going to live because they're in a pulp story. So the players shouldn't play them as if they're immortals, doing things they normally wouldn't do.

It's metagaming.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 27, 2021, 11:33:08 PM
I meant they shouldn't play like that because it's not good roleplaying.

The characters in the game don't know they're going to live because they're in a pulp story. So the players shouldn't play them as if they're immortals, doing things they normally wouldn't do.

It's metagaming.

Right, so the characters are fighting nazis, and the nazis are using only rubber bullets because reasons.

They go the the lost world and the T-Rex turns out to be what? A guy in a rubber suit?

Only thus far you can put the training wheels before it becomes Scooby-Doo or your players become bored because there's no real risk of them reaching the loosing state of the game.

Why should they care about the characters if they can't die?

This isn't 5e.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 27, 2021, 11:40:48 PM
Pulp heroes didn't die, and many times neither did the villains. ...It would be very awkward if The Shadow were to die.

But as an advice on how to run a Pulp RPG I find it perplexing. What's the risk then for the PCs? Why should your players care what happens? How are they going to immerse themselves in your world and take the dangers you present them with seriously?

Probably the first step to this is to make sure the players are on board with the basic concept. If you're playing a pulp hero, you're not playing in order to test your skill against the rules and the GM in order to make your character more powerful and awesome for its own sake, where the ultimate defeat is your character's death -- you're playing to accomplish badass feats of action, roleplaying and cleverness for the sake of saving the world.  The stakes of failure in a pulp game aren't dying. The stakes are disappointment at failing to be awesome, not saving the day, and not getting the girl. (Or the guy, for the ladies. Or whoever.)

Subsequent to this there have to be a couple of key conventions established:

- Your villains have to be truly despicable, and yet awesome in their own right.  The goal isn't just to beat the villains but to outshine them. The villain doesn't just kidnap the Fair Lady, he does it out from under the PCs' noses while they're desperately fighting off his mooks, shooting skyward on a cable-hook up to his thundering jet-powered airship; this will make the players want their rescue to be even more awesome.

- "Death", or any event that appears to be The End, never kills a PC permanently ... but it does take him out of play for at least one major scene.  The reward of a pulp game is the action and the excitement; even temporary banishment from taking part in this can be frustration enough. For extra tension, make the next scene involve something that would normally be the banished PC's specialty, but which his temporarily bereft comrades have to handle without him!

- As already mentioned, if the players really need to feel a loss or a sense of threat, direct it against something their PCs care about -- their home town, their family, their old mentor. Taking time to build these elements up increases the emotional weight felt when they're threatened, or (for the rare tragic episodes) actually wounded or lost.

Quote
Do you have some other examples of Fiction Tropes that shouldn't make it ever to the rules/table?

This is an example I've brought up before, but I'll repeat it: A lot of the thematic tropes of romantic fantasy, I think, don't work as well in an RPG as one might expect, because the primary dramatic arcs of RF fiction are largely about internal emotional character growth and relationship-building -- stuff that is very hard to codify with rules mechanics and that the people most interested in playing through would probably not want to use mechanics for anyway.

That said, some of the narrative conventions noted above could be adapted for a largely RF story/game just as easily as they could for a Pulp game; premature hero death kills any dramatic plot structure. But Pulp has the advantage that it focuses as much or more on external action -- the kind of stuff that you can and should use skill-rewarding rules for -- as any angsty drama; romantic fantasy which became too dominated by big fight scenes, action set pieces and shocking betrayals or reversals would lose a lot of the atmosphere that most of its readers, in my experience, want from it.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 12:00:44 AM
Pulp heroes didn't die, and many times neither did the villains. ...It would be very awkward if The Shadow were to die.

But as an advice on how to run a Pulp RPG I find it perplexing. What's the risk then for the PCs? Why should your players care what happens? How are they going to immerse themselves in your world and take the dangers you present them with seriously?

Probably the first step to this is to make sure the players are on board with the basic concept. If you're playing a pulp hero, you're not playing in order to test your skill against the rules and the GM in order to make your character more powerful and awesome for its own sake, where the ultimate defeat is your character's death -- you're playing to accomplish badass feats of action, roleplaying and cleverness for the sake of saving the world.  The stakes of failure in a pulp game aren't dying. The stakes are disappointment at failing to be awesome, not saving the day, and not getting the girl. (Or the guy, for the ladies. Or whoever.)

Subsequent to this there have to be a couple of key conventions established:

- Your villains have to be truly despicable, and yet awesome in their own right.  The goal isn't just to beat the villains but to outshine them. The villain doesn't just kidnap the Fair Lady, he does it out from under the PCs' noses while they're desperately fighting off his mooks, shooting skyward on a cable-hook up to his thundering jet-powered airship; this will make the players want their rescue to be even more awesome.

- "Death", or any event that appears to be The End, never kills a PC permanently ... but it does take him out of play for at least one major scene.  The reward of a pulp game is the action and the excitement; even temporary banishment from taking part in this can be frustration enough. For extra tension, make the next scene involve something that would normally be the banished PC's specialty, but which his temporarily bereft comrades have to handle without him!

- As already mentioned, if the players really need to feel a loss or a sense of threat, direct it against something their PCs care about -- their home town, their family, their old mentor. Taking time to build these elements up increases the emotional weight felt when they're threatened, or (for the rare tragic episodes) actually wounded or lost.

Quote
Do you have some other examples of Fiction Tropes that shouldn't make it ever to the rules/table?

This is an example I've brought up before, but I'll repeat it: A lot of the thematic tropes of romantic fantasy, I think, don't work as well in an RPG as one might expect, because the primary dramatic arcs of RF fiction are largely about internal emotional character growth and relationship-building -- stuff that is very hard to codify with rules mechanics and that the people most interested in playing through would probably not want to use mechanics for anyway.

That said, some of the narrative conventions noted above could be adapted for a largely RF story/game just as easily as they could for a Pulp game; premature hero death kills any dramatic plot structure. But Pulp has the advantage that it focuses as much or more on external action -- the kind of stuff that you can and should use skill-rewarding rules for -- as any angsty drama; romantic fantasy which became too dominated by big fight scenes, action set pieces and shocking betrayals or reversals would lose a lot of the atmosphere that most of its readers, in my experience, want from it.

So, because that's how it is in the novels that is how it should be in the game?

Are you trying to live in the game world or to write a Pulp?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: This Guy on April 28, 2021, 12:06:01 AM
this is a real fuckin oblique way of getting to the point of "games aren't books and you shouldn't treat em like books." I mean i agree but just lead with the point instead of a broad rhetorical
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 12:08:04 AM
So, because that's how it is in the novels that is how it should be in the game?

If the desire is to evoke the experience of being caught up in a certain type of story, it seems logical to me that the game should be tailored to encourage that effect.  It may be that for every Shadow, Spider or Doc Savage, there were a dozen fledgeling pulp adventurers who never made it past their first story due to lack of reader interest, but I don't see the point in making the players play through that.

Quote
Are you trying to live in the game world or to write a Pulp?

Ah, that's the great thing about Pulp; there really isn't a difference. :)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Sable Wyvern on April 28, 2021, 12:35:31 AM
I'm a fan of the threat of death.

However, this whole "why would anyone take the game seriously if the PCs can't die?" strikes me as very similar to, "what's stopping you from being an evil, axe-mudering, thieving rapist, if you don't believe in god?"

I'm quite confident it is possible to play a pulpy, action-adventure game where PC death is off the table, without being an arshole who decides to jump in a volcano just to prove a point. If it's only the fact that you'll lose your PC that's stopping you from doing stupid, disruptive things, the problem is you.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 12:46:25 AM
So, because that's how it is in the novels that is how it should be in the game?

If the desire is to evoke the experience of being caught up in a certain type of story, it seems logical to me that the game should be tailored to encourage that effect.  It may be that for every Shadow, Spider or Doc Savage, there were a dozen fledgeling pulp adventurers who never made it past their first story due to lack of reader interest, but I don't see the point in making the players play through that.

Quote
Are you trying to live in the game world or to write a Pulp?

Ah, that's the great thing about Pulp; there really isn't a difference. :)

There needs to be one for the player to care about the PC
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 12:50:37 AM
I'm a fan of the threat of death.

However, this whole "why would anyone take the game seriously if the PCs can't die?" strikes me as very similar to, "what's stopping you from being an evil, axe-mudering, thieving rapist, if you don't believe in god?"

I'm quite confident it is possible to play a pulpy, action-adventure game where PC death is off the table, without being an arshole who decides to jump in a volcano just to prove a point. If it's only the fact that you'll lose your PC that's stopping you from doing stupid, disruptive things, the problem is you.

So you have faith it is possible but have never done it... But I'm the one doing religious arguments?

How many times must your character escape certain death by plot armor before you realize it's Scooby-Doo and stop giving a damn about your PC?

The PCs being impossible to kill might be okay for ONE adventure, a short one too, 3-4 sessions is my bet. Not for ongoing campaigns.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: This Guy on April 28, 2021, 12:55:27 AM
So you have faith it is possible but have never done it... But I'm the one doing religious arguments?

How many times must your character escape certain death by plot armor before you realize it's Scooby-Doo and stop giving a damn about your PC?

The PCs being impossible to kill might be okay for ONE adventure, a short one too, 3-4 sessions is my bet. Not for ongoing campaigns.

so far seven years real-time, but I'll keep you posted if the lack of threat of death makes me stop giving a shit.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 01:06:59 AM
Greetings!

In general, I think it is ok to provide Player's with just a *bit* of mercy--but DEATH should always be ever-present, and distinctly possible. especially so when the Player Characters are just stupid, juvenile, scattered, using poor tactics, going off and getting separated, not paying attention.

Fuck 'em. Let the beasts devour them! Curb stomp the fuck out of them. The Players either get their shit together, or have fun rolling up more characters.

I think it is important to remember that in a strict sense, yes, the DM/NPC's have or can have immense advantages. However, in running a normal scenario--it is the players that inherently possess several large advantages beyond base stats and mechanics which tilt many encounters in their favour--they are a united *group* with greater unity and cohesion, as well as having 3, 4, 5, or 6 different brains working against just the DM. That kind of dynamic translates into a significant advantage, in my mind.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Sable Wyvern on April 28, 2021, 01:07:43 AM
I'm a fan of the threat of death.

However, this whole "why would anyone take the game seriously if the PCs can't die?" strikes me as very similar to, "what's stopping you from being an evil, axe-mudering, thieving rapist, if you don't believe in god?"

I'm quite confident it is possible to play a pulpy, action-adventure game where PC death is off the table, without being an arshole who decides to jump in a volcano just to prove a point. If it's only the fact that you'll lose your PC that's stopping you from doing stupid, disruptive things, the problem is you.

So you have faith it is possible but have never done it... But I'm the one doing religious arguments?

How many times must your character escape certain death by plot armor before you realize it's Scooby-Doo and stop giving a damn about your PC?

The PCs being impossible to kill might be okay for ONE adventure, a short one too, 3-4 sessions is my bet. Not for ongoing campaigns.

Lots of people play without threat of death and claim to have fun. I see no reason to assume they're all liars just because they like something different to me.

I'm willing to guess people have even played Scooby-Doo, and had fun doing it.

But even if these people are deluded and not really having any fun ... why do you give a shit what's going on at their table?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 01:23:25 AM
There needs to be (a difference) for the player to care about the PC.

True enough, in itself. This is the same problem with running PCs in horror games -- one of the critical hallmarks of horror protagonists is that they don't know they're in a horror story, not until it's far too late to get out of it, and even by the time they realize they are in a horror story, they are quite often deliberately written to be less competent than your average gamer (or, for that matter, horror audience member) likes to think himself.

By the same token, even Pulp heroes don't "know" about their own plot invincibility; they evoke fear for their safety from the audience not because the audience genuinely thinks this could be the hero's last story (most know better) but by telling the story so skilfully that those cliffhanger reflexes go off in the audience despite themselves. It's a lot harder for the storyteller -- in this case the GM and the players -- to fool themselves the same way without something of a deliberate buy-in ... but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

That said, I would disagree that the only reason a player has to care about his PC is the fear of losing him. If you like playing the PC enough, playing him should be enjoyable regardless; perhaps a certain pit-of-the-stomach tension is gone, but that same tension never really shows up in James Bond or Indiana Jones films, and I contend they are still enjoyable and keep us caring about their protagonists and about whether those protagonists succeed or fail.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:39:05 AM
I'm a fan of the threat of death.

However, this whole "why would anyone take the game seriously if the PCs can't die?" strikes me as very similar to, "what's stopping you from being an evil, axe-mudering, thieving rapist, if you don't believe in god?"

I'm quite confident it is possible to play a pulpy, action-adventure game where PC death is off the table, without being an arshole who decides to jump in a volcano just to prove a point. If it's only the fact that you'll lose your PC that's stopping you from doing stupid, disruptive things, the problem is you.

So you have faith it is possible but have never done it... But I'm the one doing religious arguments?

How many times must your character escape certain death by plot armor before you realize it's Scooby-Doo and stop giving a damn about your PC?

The PCs being impossible to kill might be okay for ONE adventure, a short one too, 3-4 sessions is my bet. Not for ongoing campaigns.

Lots of people play without threat of death and claim to have fun. I see no reason to assume they're all liars just because they like something different to me.

I'm willing to guess people have even played Scooby-Doo, and had fun doing it.

But even if these people are deluded and not really having any fun ... why do you give a shit what's going on at their table?

Exactly where do I claim someone didn't had fun?

Exactly where do I claim you can't have fun playing Scooby-Doo?

Exactly where do I say anything about what people do at their table?

In case you missed it I'm developing a Pulp game, the thread is in regards as MY game that I AM developing.

But a Pulp game isn't the same as a Scooby-Doo game is it?

Now please go ahead and build another set of strawmen, you're doing a great impression of the flatearthers I used to debate.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 28, 2021, 01:40:51 AM
I don't really get the point of this thread... it's like you started it just to argue against the premise.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:42:39 AM
There needs to be (a difference) for the player to care about the PC.

True enough, in itself. This is the same problem with running PCs in horror games -- one of the critical hallmarks of horror protagonists is that they don't know they're in a horror story, not until it's far too late to get out of it, and even by the time they realize they are in a horror story, they are quite often deliberately written to be less competent than your average gamer (or, for that matter, horror audience member) likes to think himself.

By the same token, even Pulp heroes don't "know" about their own plot invincibility; they evoke fear for their safety from the audience not because the audience genuinely thinks this could be the hero's last story (most know better) but by telling the story so skilfully that those cliffhanger reflexes go off in the audience despite themselves. It's a lot harder for the storyteller -- in this case the GM and the players -- to fool themselves the same way without something of a deliberate buy-in ... but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

That said, I would disagree that the only reason a player has to care about his PC is the fear of losing him. If you like playing the PC enough, playing him should be enjoyable regardless; perhaps a certain pit-of-the-stomach tension is gone, but that same tension never really shows up in James Bond or Indiana Jones films, and I contend they are still enjoyable and keep us caring about their protagonists and about whether those protagonists succeed or fail.

But enjoying a movie, radio serial, tv show or novel isn't quite the same as playing a RPG is it?

I bet you could have fun playing a short-ish adventure where the GM is pulling his punches and gave you plot armor so thick you're immortal...

An ongoing campaign? Somehow I doub it.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:44:24 AM
I don't really get the point of this thread... it's like you started it just to argue against the premise.

As many of you know I'm doing a Pulp RPG, well there are not many sites in the interwebs better than The Pulp Avengers https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm (https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm) And it is correct that the Pulp heroes didn't die, and many times neither did the villains. This is a neccessity when you're telling a story, or writting a serial or series of novels. It would be very awkward if The Shadow were to die.

But as an advice on how to run a Pulp RPG I find it perplexing. What's the risk then for the PCs? Why should your players care what happens? How are they going to immerse themselves in your world and take the dangers you present them with seriously?

Which is why the Thread's title is what it is.

Do you agree or disagree? Why? Do you have some other examples of Fiction Tropes that shouldn't make it ever to the rules/table?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:46:47 AM
Greetings!

In general, I think it is ok to provide Player's with just a *bit* of mercy--but DEATH should always be ever-present, and distinctly possible. especially so when the Player Characters are just stupid, juvenile, scattered, using poor tactics, going off and getting separated, not paying attention.

Fuck 'em. Let the beasts devour them! Curb stomp the fuck out of them. The Players either get their shit together, or have fun rolling up more characters.

I think it is important to remember that in a strict sense, yes, the DM/NPC's have or can have immense advantages. However, in running a normal scenario--it is the players that inherently possess several large advantages beyond base stats and mechanics which tilt many encounters in their favour--they are a united *group* with greater unity and cohesion, as well as having 3, 4, 5, or 6 different brains working against just the DM. That kind of dynamic translates into a significant advantage, in my mind.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yeah, I can see the "need" for a bit of plot armor being codified into the rules due to the Game being a Pulp game. But never thick enough the PCs are immortal.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 28, 2021, 01:56:56 AM
Lethality is pretty easy to modulate in most RPGs. What happens to a character that hits 0 HP?
They're knocked out.
They're dying.
They're dead.
Are the major results, and they sometimes bleed into each other. So for most adventures, I usually say 0 HP is knocked out. If the cause of damage is severe enough (falling into lava etc) I might say it's insta-death. For a Pulp game, you do want a bit of plot armor to emulate the genre. You never want to take character death off the table, except for extreme examples like Toon, because then there is no risk of death and players start to meta game it. But you can put emphasis on failure to accomplish a goal over pure lethality as the primary risk.
There, I think I repeated most of the replies I agree with. :D
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 28, 2021, 01:59:13 AM
So, because that's how it is in the novels that is how it should be in the game?

If the desire is to evoke the experience of being caught up in a certain type of story, it seems logical to me that the game should be tailored to encourage that effect.  It may be that for every Shadow, Spider or Doc Savage, there were a dozen fledgeling pulp adventurers who never made it past their first story due to lack of reader interest, but I don't see the point in making the players play through that.

Makes me think about how I have had entire sessions revolving around shopping and leveling up bookkeeping.
What's fun in an RPG sometimes would make for a very boring story. :)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Sable Wyvern on April 28, 2021, 02:01:06 AM
Exactly where do I claim someone didn't had fun?

Let me quote you for you:

I bet you could have fun playing a short-ish adventure where the GM is pulling his punches and gave you plot armor so thick you're immortal...

An ongoing campaign? Somehow I doub it.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 28, 2021, 02:13:22 AM
Actual pulp RPGs* normally just make death unlikely, so that PCs can act as they do in the stories with a reasonable prospect of success. They don't make death impossible as that would break player immersion ("why am I supposed to feel threatened?") and/or cause the PCs to act very differently from pulp heroes. 'Can't die' is not really a genre *trope* at all I'd say, just a writing necessity. Focus on the in-universe tropes, such that the PCs will act appropriately to the universe. That means reduced lethality, not zero lethality. For an immersive game you want to align player threat perception with character threat perception.

*Savage Worlds obviously; D6 System is another I'm familiar with. Can't remember Spirit of the Century too well but I think it's similar, more Dramatist than genre-Simulationist though.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Mishihari on April 28, 2021, 02:55:16 AM
At the risk of almost repeating myself, I think it's useful to think of what do players hate worse than dying in other games.  The first couple that come to mind for D&D would be being captured, being incapacitated for a long part of a session and not playing, being humiliated by an enemy, and permanent level loss.  Ideally you get the players to go along because "it's the genre," but if not you can leverage these other approaches to make them care, especially the ones with mechanical impact.  Frex, the Joker captures Commissioner Gordon.  If Batman fails to rescue him he's publicly humiliated, people will believe in him less, and he's lost a key ally, which makes it a lot harder to get the needed cooperation from the police.  The key difficulty is finding a varied enough set of potential penalties that it doesn't become repetitive.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 28, 2021, 03:00:25 AM
I remember playing in an Achtung! Cthulu game using Call of Cthulu rules. We felt squishy and played cautiously, eg refusing to go in the U-Boat that looked like a steel coffin; preferring to snipe the Nazi occultists from range than charge in guns blazing. The GM seemed surprised at this - again it felt like a mismatch of rules and genre. If you want Pulp Heroes, use rules that support PCs acting like pulp heroes. They don't act like they *can't* die, but they don't act like most IRL soldiers, either.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 03:43:24 AM
We felt squishy and played cautiously, eg refusing to go in the U-Boat that looked like a steel coffin; preferring to snipe the Nazi occultists from range than charge in guns blazing. The GM seemed surprised at this - again it felt like a mismatch of rules and genre.

Which goes back, again, to the basic paradigm clash: when the players think of what's in front of them as a game, i.e. an exercise in teamwork and use of skill at decision-making within a rules system to cooperatively overcome obstacles, they are fundamentally operating from a different mindset than protagonists in a story, and it will affect decisions they make in ways that will disrupt a desired genre atmosphere unless those mechanics are deliberately structured to channel those decisions into genre-supporting actions.  (Which is why every horror RPG in existence contains rules for how to enforce PCs freaking out the way the actual players never will.)

The question seems to be whether one wants an ultimately classic RPG with pulp trappings, in which, again, genre and actual playstyle are likely to clash (q.v., as I've mentioned before, the World of Darkness games, which were written to be angsty personal explorations of horror and almost without exception turned into Hammer-flavoured superheroes in actual play), or whether one wants an RPG designed to facilitate choices which tend to produce a pulp narrative structure. Both can be fun, but a mismatch of expectations will ruin that fun in either case.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Reckall on April 28, 2021, 06:08:04 AM
A trope I successfully subverted in my 13 years campaign was "Magic Items must scale! Encounters must scale! Monsters must scale! Characters must... well... be balanced!"

- In Lord of the Rings over and over "low-level characters" get from weapons that work against The Lord of the Nazguls to the Ring of Power itself. Also, Pippin is not Aragorn. Also, Pippin meets the Balrog.

- Dragonlance, back in the '80s, already subverted this trope by having you start either as a 3rd level magic user with a weak magic item or as a 6th level fighter with a +3 two-handed sword. The 3rd level MU was narratively more impactful than the 6th level fighter.

- In the "Bourne" movies (one of my two sources of inspiration for the campaign - the other was the Iran-Contra scandal...) the main character has superhuman abilities, true. But he starts alone. But he starts with immense resources.

The last stretch of the campaign, the one inspired by Bourne, saw a group of Harpists (in the FR setting) finding themselves in the eye of the storm of a conspiracy involving an unknown number of the "Gods of Good". They started at 5th level but also with 150 million GPs (don't ask, they almost caused a war between Cormyr and Calimshan). First the Harpists tried to kill them, then the paladins of various Gods. They realised that they had uncovered... something, but they didn't know what. Paranoia ran high - especially when some Gods of Good started... dropping dead?! The group used their immense resources to go undercover and avoid... uhm... divine scrying... At the end it all worked very well. Not that I ever doubted it.

Oh, I forgot about it: "Encounters" don't mean "let's put down the miniatures in a very specific way detailed in the scenario!" If you are 1st level and an ancient red dragon is gliding towards you, RUN! Another reason to ditch your 4E books BTW.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 28, 2021, 06:51:42 AM
and it will affect decisions they make in ways that will disrupt a desired genre atmosphere unless those mechanics are deliberately structured to channel those decisions into genre-supporting actions.

I really feel that ought to be the default game design - I buy a game listed as genre X, I can reasonably expect the game design supports emergent play which resembles genre X. So a Star Wars game encourages PCs to act like protagonists in a Star Wars film. Plenty of games do achieve this just fine; when they don't it's usually a clear rules-genre mismatch, like using Call of Cthulu for pulp adventure. Not that Call of Cthulu for Achtung! Cthulu is *bad* - the game was fine, it just wasn't very 'pulpy'. We won the scenarios and didn't die, which made us happy; we just did it differently than genre norm expectations.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Tantavalist on April 28, 2021, 07:26:00 AM
If you want to have a system that simulates the Plot Immunity of Pulp Heroes but which gives players an incentive not to use it... Well, it's already been pointed out that what you need to do is replace the threat of death with something that players hate as much as or more than losing a character.

What do players hate more than character death?

Losing XP.

There have been systems that turned unspent metacurrency into XP at the end of a session, but that just made player hoard the stuff and not do cool things. I suggest that one option is to tell a player that they get a penalty to XP awarded at the session end for every time Plot Immunity was invoked to avoid a character dying.

Characters are now as unkillable as their inspirations from the 30s. Players will still go out of their way to avoid lethal situations and act like they won't automatically survive.

It's not a perfect solution and it won't work for every group, but that's because a perfect solution that works for every group doesn't exist in RPGs. I'm pretty sure it will work for some groups though.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: spon on April 28, 2021, 07:36:38 AM
To add to what others have said, what's to stop PCs doing stupid things that should lead to their deaths? They FAIL. The scenario ends with the bad guys winning. Sure, the PCs survive (the volcano god recognises the amulet they picked up and mistakes them for some of his worshippers perhaps) but the Nazis escape with the gold (or whatever). The point of a pulp game is to defeat the bad guys whilst doing cool stuff. But it's not guaranteed, that's why we play.
In D&D, the PCs do stupid things, they can die. In pulp, if the PCs do stupid things, they fail. Simples.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on April 28, 2021, 08:32:36 AM
As many of you know I'm doing a Pulp RPG, well there are not many sites in the interwebs better than The Pulp Avengers https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm (https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm) And it is correct that the Pulp heroes didn't die, and many times neither did the villains. This is a neccessity when you're telling a story, or writting a serial or series of novels. It would be very awkward if The Shadow were to die.

But as an advice on how to run a Pulp RPG I find it perplexing. What's the risk then for the PCs? Why should your players care what happens? How are they going to immerse themselves in your world and take the dangers you present them with seriously?

Which is why the Thread's title is what it is.

Do you agree or disagree? Why? Do you have some other examples of Fiction Tropes that shouldn't make it ever to the rules/table?

Subverting tropes is fine (that is part of what made Game of Thrones initially exciting). I think the problem with that arose when it just became this automatic thing that people read as a sign of good writing (subverting a trope can be part of good writing but so can sticking to a trope: it really depends on what you are trying to do; I think someone like Martin used it in a skillful and genuinely surprising way, but there was a period where it was like a list of things writers and directors were subverting and that is where it became a problem. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: tropes can be good, subverting tropes can be good. Neither one on its own makes something good.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 09:53:56 AM
Exactly where do I claim someone didn't had fun?

Let me quote you for you:

I bet you could have fun playing a short-ish adventure where the GM is pulling his punches and gave you plot armor so thick you're immortal...

An ongoing campaign? Somehow I doub it.

Claim: Assert something is or isn't

Doubt: express an ammount of disbelief that x can or can't be.

Do you even English?

Also, you're quoting me from the future expressing doubt, to prove me from the past claimed something...

Do you even logic and linear time?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Sable Wyvern on April 28, 2021, 10:04:12 AM
Also, you're quoting me from the future expressing doubt, to prove me from the past claimed something...

Do you even logic and linear time?

The fact that you proved your position was just what I'd inferred it to be, by proceeding to plainly state what you said you weren't saying, is not a point in your favour.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll concede that, perhaps, you find it extremely difficult to believe anyone can possibly have fun with plot immunity, but you might not feel it's categorically impossible (although I doubt you actually believe it's possible). :)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 10:06:16 AM
Lethality is pretty easy to modulate in most RPGs. What happens to a character that hits 0 HP?
They're knocked out.
They're dying.
They're dead.
Are the major results, and they sometimes bleed into each other. So for most adventures, I usually say 0 HP is knocked out. If the cause of damage is severe enough (falling into lava etc) I might say it's insta-death. For a Pulp game, you do want a bit of plot armor to emulate the genre. You never want to take character death off the table, except for extreme examples like Toon, because then there is no risk of death and players start to meta game it. But you can put emphasis on failure to accomplish a goal over pure lethality as the primary risk.
There, I think I repeated most of the replies I agree with. :D

I already said I agree a certain ammount of plot armor is needed due to the genre, I also already said negative HP looks like the best way to simmulate this.

How the fuck do I codify in the rules the rest?

It's a serious question.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 10:10:06 AM
Actual pulp RPGs* normally just make death unlikely, so that PCs can act as they do in the stories with a reasonable prospect of success. They don't make death impossible as that would break player immersion ("why am I supposed to feel threatened?") and/or cause the PCs to act very differently from pulp heroes. 'Can't die' is not really a genre *trope* at all I'd say, just a writing necessity. Focus on the in-universe tropes, such that the PCs will act appropriately to the universe. That means reduced lethality, not zero lethality. For an immersive game you want to align player threat perception with character threat perception.

*Savage Worlds obviously; D6 System is another I'm familiar with. Can't remember Spirit of the Century too well but I think it's similar, more Dramatist than genre-Simulationist though.

Right, agreed, thing is, how do you codify this into rules?

At the risk of almost repeating myself, I think it's useful to think of what do players hate worse than dying in other games.  The first couple that come to mind for D&D would be being captured, being incapacitated for a long part of a session and not playing, being humiliated by an enemy, and permanent level loss.  Ideally you get the players to go along because "it's the genre," but if not you can leverage these other approaches to make them care, especially the ones with mechanical impact.  Frex, the Joker captures Commissioner Gordon.  If Batman fails to rescue him he's publicly humiliated, people will believe in him less, and he's lost a key ally, which makes it a lot harder to get the needed cooperation from the police.  The key difficulty is finding a varied enough set of potential penalties that it doesn't become repetitive.

I don't disagree a 100% but the problem I have is that I don't see how can anyone codify that into rules, I think that should be up to the GM to handle. Except making negative HP before dying part of the rules.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 10:11:33 AM
and it will affect decisions they make in ways that will disrupt a desired genre atmosphere unless those mechanics are deliberately structured to channel those decisions into genre-supporting actions.

I really feel that ought to be the default game design - I buy a game listed as genre X, I can reasonably expect the game design supports emergent play which resembles genre X. So a Star Wars game encourages PCs to act like protagonists in a Star Wars film. Plenty of games do achieve this just fine; when they don't it's usually a clear rules-genre mismatch, like using Call of Cthulu for pulp adventure. Not that Call of Cthulu for Achtung! Cthulu is *bad* - the game was fine, it just wasn't very 'pulpy'. We won the scenarios and didn't die, which made us happy; we just did it differently than genre norm expectations.

Okay, what's the best match of rules to Pulp genre in your experience?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 10:19:27 AM
If you want to have a system that simulates the Plot Immunity of Pulp Heroes but which gives players an incentive not to use it... Well, it's already been pointed out that what you need to do is replace the threat of death with something that players hate as much as or more than losing a character.

What do players hate more than character death?

Losing XP.

There have been systems that turned unspent metacurrency into XP at the end of a session, but that just made player hoard the stuff and not do cool things. I suggest that one option is to tell a player that they get a penalty to XP awarded at the session end for every time Plot Immunity was invoked to avoid a character dying.

Characters are now as unkillable as their inspirations from the 30s. Players will still go out of their way to avoid lethal situations and act like they won't automatically survive.

It's not a perfect solution and it won't work for every group, but that's because a perfect solution that works for every group doesn't exist in RPGs. I'm pretty sure it will work for some groups though.

I fecking hate meta currency.

I want a way to make it Pulpy without removing 100% the threat of death, I think the PCs should always believe the NPC baddies are trying to kill them or are able to kill them, after you survive enough events of the type "I fell into an active volcano and didn't die" you're liable to start thinking of yourself as the choosen one.

Enough because this will vary from person to person (PC to PC).

Without constantly fudging the dice you simmulate the bad aim/luck of the NPCs by giving them pennalties to hitting the PCs, but sooner or latter they will hit them, you need a way to reduce their chances of dying not of ever doing so, because if not it turns into Scooby-Doo, into Toon.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 10:21:06 AM
To add to what others have said, what's to stop PCs doing stupid things that should lead to their deaths? They FAIL. The scenario ends with the bad guys winning. Sure, the PCs survive (the volcano god recognises the amulet they picked up and mistakes them for some of his worshippers perhaps) but the Nazis escape with the gold (or whatever). The point of a pulp game is to defeat the bad guys whilst doing cool stuff. But it's not guaranteed, that's why we play.
In D&D, the PCs do stupid things, they can die. In pulp, if the PCs do stupid things, they fail. Simples.

Right, but how the fuck do I codify THAT into the rules? It's a honest question, I'm drawing a blank. Without meta currency.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 10:24:58 AM
Also, you're quoting me from the future expressing doubt, to prove me from the past claimed something...

Do you even logic and linear time?

The fact that you proved your position was just what I'd inferred it to be, by proceeding to plainly state what you said you weren't saying, is not a point in your favour.

If it makes you feel any better, I'll concede that, perhaps, you find it extremely difficult to believe anyone can possibly have fun with plot immunity, but you might not feel it's categorically impossible (although I doubt you actually believe it's possible). :)

Once more Claim=/=Doubt.

To make it extra clear:

Atheist: Someone that doesn't believe in God. This is a position of belief.

Gnostic: Someone that claims to know God does (or doesn't) exist. This is an assertion of fact.

You don't even logic or English. Is me claiming this is true of you.

Do you even logic or English? Is me expressing doubt that you do.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Sable Wyvern on April 28, 2021, 10:25:20 AM
To add to what others have said, what's to stop PCs doing stupid things that should lead to their deaths? They FAIL. The scenario ends with the bad guys winning. Sure, the PCs survive (the volcano god recognises the amulet they picked up and mistakes them for some of his worshippers perhaps) but the Nazis escape with the gold (or whatever). The point of a pulp game is to defeat the bad guys whilst doing cool stuff. But it's not guaranteed, that's why we play.
In D&D, the PCs do stupid things, they can die. In pulp, if the PCs do stupid things, they fail. Simples.

Right, but how the fuck do I codify THAT into the rules? It's a honest question, I'm drawing a blank. Without meta currency.

This is constructive me, not pointless argument me talking now ...

This doesn't sound like something that rules should come anywhere near. It's about playstyle: GM advice, scenario design, session pacing, making sure everyone is on the same page etc ...

It's not something you codify into the rules. It's a playstyle/genre convention.

To put it another way, it's good when your rules support the intended playstyle. But not every element of the style needs to be directly supported by a rule. As long as key elements are supported and the right style is incentivised, for the rest it's simply enough that the rules don't don't get in the way or lead you in the wrong direction,
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 10:29:38 AM
To add to what others have said, what's to stop PCs doing stupid things that should lead to their deaths? They FAIL. The scenario ends with the bad guys winning. Sure, the PCs survive (the volcano god recognises the amulet they picked up and mistakes them for some of his worshippers perhaps) but the Nazis escape with the gold (or whatever). The point of a pulp game is to defeat the bad guys whilst doing cool stuff. But it's not guaranteed, that's why we play.
In D&D, the PCs do stupid things, they can die. In pulp, if the PCs do stupid things, they fail. Simples.

Right, but how the fuck do I codify THAT into the rules? It's a honest question, I'm drawing a blank. Without meta currency.

This is constructive me, not pointless argument me talking now ...

This doesn't sound like something that rules should come anywhere near. It's about playstyle: GM advice, scenario design, session pacing, making sure everyone is on the same page etc ...

It's not something you codify into the rules. It's a playstyle/genre convention.

Arguments are almost never not not pointless  ::)

So into the GM part of the book it goes, gotcha.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Sable Wyvern on April 28, 2021, 10:45:01 AM
Personally, if I was going to run a high adventure, high action game with highly competent characters taking on crazy risks, experiencing dramatic setbacks but likely to find some way to come out on top, I'd be inclined to use something based on Blades in the Dark It's perfect for it.

But if you're after something more traditional (and, based on your mention of hit points, I'm assuming you're working on something at least vaguely d20ish, my first instinct would be to include an "escape clause" rule.

At a certain point, if things are going badly, the PCs get a chance to withdraw/escape. If they choose to do so at that point, they may suffer injuries and setbacks, but they will survive to fight another day. On the other hand, if they're unwilling to accept defeat, shit just got real, and PC death is now on the table. No punches pulled, dice in the open, you could be dead at any moment.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 11:05:43 AM
Personally, if I was going to run a high adventure, high action game with highly competent characters taking on crazy risks, experiencing dramatic setbacks but likely to find some way to come out on top, I'd be inclined to use something based on Blades in the Dark It's perfect for it.

But if you're after something more traditional (and, based on your mention of hit points, I'm assuming you're working on something at least vaguely d20ish, my first instinct would be to include an "escape clause" rule.

At a certain point, if things are going badly, the PCs get a chance to withdraw/escape. If they choose to do so at that point, they may suffer injuries and setbacks, but they will survive to fight another day. On the other hand, if they're unwilling to accept defeat, shit just got real, and PC death is now on the table. No punches pulled, dice in the open, you could be dead at any moment.

Im not going for something "vaguely d20ish", I'm going for OSR (or as OSR as I can make it).

I'm happy to deviate enough to make death on X negative HP. I'm working on simmulating "luck" without meta currency (I fecking hate meta currency).

I'm not willing to take PC death off of the table. Because I don't want Toon.

You're not starting off as "highly competent characters", you MIGHT become THE Indiana Jones, Doc Savage, Tarzan, Sheena, etc. But you're not there yet.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 11:43:09 AM
But if you're after something more traditional (and, based on your mention of hit points, I'm assuming you're working on something at least vaguely d20ish, my first instinct would be to include an "escape clause" rule.

At a certain point, if things are going badly, the PCs get a chance to withdraw/escape. If they choose to do so at that point, they may suffer injuries and setbacks, but they will survive to fight another day. On the other hand, if they're unwilling to accept defeat, shit just got real, and PC death is now on the table. No punches pulled, dice in the open, you could be dead at any moment.

It sounds like the intent of this rule is that players learn to accept defeat and not put their lives on the line -- and *that* is totally opposed to pulp genres -- moreso than having some character deaths, in my opinion. In pulp, characters are *supposed* to run into deadly danger in order to save the day, never accepting defeat.

It's OK if there is some character death, I would think. It's true that in The Shadow, the Shadow himself won't die -- but just about everyone else could, and there's even some precedent that someone else could take up the mantle of The Shadow.

I think a mechanic that encourages playing it safe and accepting defeat is opposed to pulp ideas.

---

I've played a fair bit of Spirit of the Century as well as the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG -- both of which were quite pulp-ish and had mechanics to encourage risk-taking. BtVS has the mechanic of Drama Points, and one of the key functions was negating character death. There was a cheap option to have your character not die, but it still meant that you would be out of play for a while. Spirit of the Century didn't have a mechanic for death per se. If characters were taken out of a fight, it was GM option whether they were unconscious or dead.

Even though there was a mechanic to ensure no permanent death, I still didn't find that players would leap into volcanos or other dumb, out-of-genre actions. What they did do was act like pulp heroes -- not accepting defeat, risking their lives to save the day.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 11:52:05 AM
But if you're after something more traditional (and, based on your mention of hit points, I'm assuming you're working on something at least vaguely d20ish, my first instinct would be to include an "escape clause" rule.

At a certain point, if things are going badly, the PCs get a chance to withdraw/escape. If they choose to do so at that point, they may suffer injuries and setbacks, but they will survive to fight another day. On the other hand, if they're unwilling to accept defeat, shit just got real, and PC death is now on the table. No punches pulled, dice in the open, you could be dead at any moment.

It sounds like the intent of this rule is that players learn to accept defeat and not put their lives on the line -- and *that* is totally opposed to pulp genres -- moreso than having some character deaths, in my opinion. In pulp, characters are *supposed* to run into deadly danger in order to save the day, never accepting defeat.

It's OK if there is some character death, I would think. It's true that in The Shadow, the Shadow himself won't die -- but just about everyone else could, and there's even some precedent that someone else could take up the mantle of The Shadow.

I think a mechanic that encourages playing it safe and accepting defeat is opposed to pulp ideas.

---

I've played a fair bit of Spirit of the Century as well as the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG -- both of which were quite pulp-ish and had mechanics to encourage risk-taking. BtVS has the mechanic of Drama Points, and one of the key functions was negating character death. There was a cheap option to have your character not die, but it still meant that you would be out of play for a while. Spirit of the Century didn't have a mechanic for death per se. If characters were taken out of a fight, it was GM option whether they were unconscious or dead.

Even though there was a mechanic to ensure no permanent death, I still didn't find that players would leap into volcanos or other dumb, out-of-genre actions. What they did do was act like pulp heroes -- not accepting defeat, risking their lives to save the day.

What about if you're not playing The Shadow (or someone like him) but someone who MIGHT become someone like him?

You MIGHT become a legend, but you're not one just yet.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: RandyB on April 28, 2021, 11:54:55 AM

What about if you're not playing The Shadow (or someone like him) but someone who MIGHT become someone like him?

You MIGHT become a legend, but you're not one just yet.

Same as in swords and sorcery. You become a legend, or die trying.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 11:56:39 AM

What about if you're not playing The Shadow (or someone like him) but someone who MIGHT become someone like him?

You MIGHT become a legend, but you're not one just yet.

Same as in swords and sorcery. You become a legend, or die trying.

Funny you should mention S&W since I'm using the White Box chassis to build upon.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: RandyB on April 28, 2021, 12:11:15 PM

What about if you're not playing The Shadow (or someone like him) but someone who MIGHT become someone like him?

You MIGHT become a legend, but you're not one just yet.

Same as in swords and sorcery. You become a legend, or die trying.

Funny you should mention S&W since I'm using the White Box chassis to build upon.

Conan doesn't die. PCs aren't Conan, but they MIGHT become someone like him.

Same idea.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: This Guy on April 28, 2021, 12:16:00 PM
so if you're playing a game and not telling a story (as is the common thread among many of the peoples of the Swami's domain), can you even subvert a trope and if so to what end?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 28, 2021, 12:51:12 PM
Right, agreed, thing is, how do you codify this into rules?

Easiest method is probably Hero Points. I was running a lot of Mini Six (D6 System variant) in 2020 in the pulpy Primeval Thule setting. I gave out one HP per session plus occasional bonuses. HPs give +6 to any roll (attack, damage, etc), up to three per roll (+18). You can also spend one once per session to survive a killing blow, turning it into a KO. You can still die from repeated killing blows, continuous damage, etc, but it kept lethality down. We had one PC nearly die, and another did die after she chased a Night Thing* of Tizun Thane** into the forest alone, spent all her HPs trying to damage it, then had nothing left when it impaled her with its big pincer arm-claw thingies. But that was a pretty extreme case.

*unstoppable killing machine that exists only to kill - IMC they serve Nyarlathotep.
*https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/26/review-white-dwarf-18-the-halls-of-tizun-thane-bone-deep-ss/
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 28, 2021, 12:58:42 PM
Okay, what's the best match of rules to Pulp genre in your experience?

D6 System, notably WEG 1e D6 Star Wars. If I'm doing pulp I use Mini Six - https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/144558/Mini-Six-Bare-Bones-Edition

Savage Worlds seems like it ought to be good but I've only played 'War of the Dead', where we always ran away from the zombies - mostly in order to avoid the combat mechanics. The system seemed great for skills, but we never liked the combat. Zombies were too hard to kill; major NPCs (Jokers) were impossible to kill, and we didn't want to kill living mooks.

BRP/Call of Cthulu with the 'pulp options' like x2 hit points is passable. But I'd much rather use D6 System.

D&D's zero-to-hero model makes it a pretty poor base for pulp, and if I'm running/playing pulp games I'm probably wanting to get away from ablative hit points. For pulp I typically want an "every bullet might kill you - but probably won't" feel, for which a wound track system & exploding die (D6 Wild Die, SW Acing) likely works best.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:09:17 PM
Right, agreed, thing is, how do you codify this into rules?

Easiest method is probably Hero Points. I was running a lot of Mini Six (D6 System variant) in 2020 in the pulpy Primeval Thule setting. I gave out one HP per session plus occasional bonuses. HPs give +6 to any roll (attack, damage, etc), up to three per roll (+18). You can also spend one once per session to survive a killing blow, turning it into a KO. You can still die from repeated killing blows, continuous damage, etc, but it kept lethality down. We had one PC nearly die, and another did die after she chased a Night Thing* of Tizun Thane** into the forest alone, spent all her HPs trying to damage it, then had nothing left when it impaled her with its big pincer arm-claw thingies. But that was a pretty extreme case.

*unstoppable killing machine that exists only to kill - IMC they serve Nyarlathotep.
*https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/26/review-white-dwarf-18-the-halls-of-tizun-thane-bone-deep-ss/

Hero Points, Luck bennies, it's meta currency, I fecking hate meta currency.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:10:50 PM
Okay, what's the best match of rules to Pulp genre in your experience?

D6 System, notably WEG 1e D6 Star Wars. If I'm doing pulp I use Mini Six - https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/144558/Mini-Six-Bare-Bones-Edition

Savage Worlds seems like it ought to be good but I've only played 'War of the Dead', where we always ran away from the zombies - mostly in order to avoid the combat mechanics. The system seemed great for skills, but we never liked the combat. Zombies were too hard to kill; major NPCs (Jokers) were impossible to kill, and we didn't want to kill living mooks.

BRP/Call of Cthulu with the 'pulp options' like x2 hit points is passable. But I'd much rather use D6 System.

D&D's zero-to-hero model makes it a pretty poor base for pulp, and if I'm running/playing pulp games I'm probably wanting to get away from ablative hit points. For pulp I typically want an "every bullet might kill you - but probably won't" feel, for which a wound track system & exploding die (D6 Wild Die, SW Acing) likely works best.

Yeah, I'm not familiar enough with d6 to write a game with it.

Same thing with SW

I don't really like d100 systems and IIRC BRP is d100.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 01:11:11 PM
What about if you're not playing The Shadow (or someone like him) but someone who MIGHT become someone like him?

You MIGHT become a legend, but you're not one just yet.

Same as in swords and sorcery. You become a legend, or die trying.

Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you're looking for.

For example, I've been playing in a Call of Cthulhu campaign where we've had four PC deaths over the past year - but we still have two PCs who have survived from the beginning. One is an archeologist who has tended to hang back from danger, one is a deadly soldier who didn't take unnecessary risks and killed before being killed. I could see especially the soldier Pranit as a dark pulp hero (or perhaps anti-hero).

Still, to me, there's a huge difference in feel between horror games like this and my pulp games. In Call of Cthulhu, we risk our lives to get the mission done saving the world - but we spend a lot of time to ensure we aren't killed. We have often hired thugs to fight with us, laid in tactical ambush, or just retreat to heal up for a few weeks. Before any dangerous foray, we spend a while talking about our plans to maximize our survival. In pulp games, the PCs tend to rush into danger more quickly, rather than having extended planning time. Once on the spot, they'll use their best tactics to defeat the enemy, but there is definitely less planning and less running away. The PCs are still defeated sometimes, or at least outmaneuvered. But the action is much faster paced, and they go on to try again quickly.

I like both at different times.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 01:14:13 PM
Right, but how the fuck do I codify THAT into the rules? It's a honest question, I'm drawing a blank. Without meta currency.

Well, here's a thought: Every significant encounter, fight scene or action set piece (call these "Conflicts" for short) can be classified as Minor, Major, or a Showdown.

The hallmark of Minor Conflicts is that they're meant to move the plot along, not really be serious dangers; Major Conflicts pose serious threats; and Showdowns are climactic confrontations that will always be the end of the line for somebody -- nobody dies in a Minor Conflict, either PCs or NPCs can die in a Major Conflict, and somebody has to die in a Showdown. Correspondingly, the level of danger matches a level of increased awesomeness: in Major Conflicts players get extra action dice or the like, and in Showdowns they get many extra action dice, or maybe there are limits to the scope or quantity of feats/powers you can bust out in Minor conflicts (I assume you don't want to do too much pre-game bookkeeping).

Now here's the kicker: With the exception of the big fight at the end of the adventure, which is always a Showdown, the players involved in that Conflict get to choose the scope of any given Conflict. So they essentially pick their own ratio of risk to accomplishment and awesomeness. Make everything a Minor Conflict, you'll stay safe but you'll also be the least awesome of the group. (If the players can't agree within a minute, Conflicts default to Major.)  Make everything a Showdown, you will blaze bright but go out hard when you finally lose, because losing a Showdown ensures you're dead.

This still, of course, has the basic problem that a player dedicated to keeping his PC alive above all else is not going to make the choices most pulp heroes normally would, but no rule mechanic is going to fix that problem.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:24:53 PM
What about if you're not playing The Shadow (or someone like him) but someone who MIGHT become someone like him?

You MIGHT become a legend, but you're not one just yet.

Same as in swords and sorcery. You become a legend, or die trying.

Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you're looking for.

For example, I've been playing in a Call of Cthulhu campaign where we've had four PC deaths over the past year - but we still have two PCs who have survived from the beginning. One is an archeologist who has tended to hang back from danger, one is a deadly soldier who didn't take unnecessary risks and killed before being killed. I could see especially the soldier Pranit as a dark pulp hero (or perhaps anti-hero).

Still, to me, there's a huge difference in feel between horror games like this and my pulp games. In Call of Cthulhu, we risk our lives to get the mission done saving the world - but we spend a lot of time to ensure we aren't killed. We have often hired thugs to fight with us, laid in tactical ambush, or just retreat to heal up for a few weeks. Before any dangerous foray, we spend a while talking about our plans to maximize our survival. In pulp games, the PCs tend to rush into danger more quickly, rather than having extended planning time. Once on the spot, they'll use their best tactics to defeat the enemy, but there is definitely less planning and less running away. The PCs are still defeated sometimes, or at least outmaneuvered. But the action is much faster paced, and they go on to try again quickly.

I like both at different times.

So to you Pulp is being the legendary hero, not becoming the legendary hero. But even the legends weren't so at some point no?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 01:26:33 PM
Hero Points, Luck bennies, it's meta currency, I fecking hate meta currency.

Following up from this, another simpler way to implement the Minor/Major/Showdown ranking above, without hero points or action dice, might be:
- In Minor conflicts, you can't die, but your hit point total before hitting 0 and losing (in a non-lethal way) is treated as half normal, and you can't permanently beat major opponents this way either, only nameless mooks.
- In a Major conflict, hit point total is normal but death can be final.
- In a Showdown, hit point total is double normal but somebody has to die, either you or your opponent.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:28:53 PM
Right, but how the fuck do I codify THAT into the rules? It's a honest question, I'm drawing a blank. Without meta currency.

Well, here's a thought: Every significant encounter, fight scene or action set piece (call these "Conflicts" for short) can be classified as Minor, Major, or a Showdown.

The hallmark of Minor Conflicts is that they're meant to move the plot along, not really be serious dangers; Major Conflicts pose serious threats; and Showdowns are climactic confrontations that will always be the end of the line for somebody -- nobody dies in a Minor Conflict, either PCs or NPCs can die in a Major Conflict, and somebody has to die in a Showdown. Correspondingly, the level of danger matches a level of increased awesomeness: in Major Conflicts players get extra action dice or the like, and in Showdowns they get many extra action dice, or maybe there are limits to the scope or quantity of feats/powers you can bust out in Minor conflicts (I assume you don't want to do too much pre-game bookkeeping).

Now here's the kicker: With the exception of the big fight at the end of the adventure, which is always a Showdown, the players involved in that Conflict get to choose the scope of any given Conflict. So they essentially pick their own ratio of risk to accomplishment and awesomeness. Make everything a Minor Conflict, you'll stay safe but you'll also be the least awesome of the group. (If the players can't agree within a minute, Conflicts default to Major.)  Make everything a Showdown, you will blaze bright but go out hard when you finally lose, because losing a Showdown ensures you're dead.

This still, of course, has the basic problem that a player dedicated to keeping his PC alive above all else is not going to make the choices most pulp heroes normally would, but no rule mechanic is going to fix that problem.

Your execution is an ammount of plot armor I wouldn't enjoy playing in. Therefore I'm not making a game like that.

Punish the PC's for not being heroic, have a newspaper talking shit about them, take XP away from them (or rather grant it for BEING heroic), make the NPCs more likely to fight to the death because the PCs are sorta, kinda cowards.

Reward awesomeness.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:29:53 PM
Hero Points, Luck bennies, it's meta currency, I fecking hate meta currency.

Following up from this, another simpler way to implement the Minor/Major/Showdown ranking above, without hero points or action dice, might be:
- In Minor conflicts, you can't die, but your hit point total before hitting 0 and losing (in a non-lethal way) is treated as half normal, and you can't permanently beat major opponents this way either, only nameless mooks.
- In a Major conflict, hit point total is normal but death can be final.
- In a Showdown, hit point total is double normal but somebody has to die, either you or your opponent.

I'm not sure I follow, expand with an example?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: VisionStorm on April 28, 2021, 01:36:40 PM
Right, agreed, thing is, how do you codify this into rules?

Easiest method is probably Hero Points. I was running a lot of Mini Six (D6 System variant) in 2020 in the pulpy Primeval Thule setting. I gave out one HP per session plus occasional bonuses. HPs give +6 to any roll (attack, damage, etc), up to three per roll (+18). You can also spend one once per session to survive a killing blow, turning it into a KO. You can still die from repeated killing blows, continuous damage, etc, but it kept lethality down. We had one PC nearly die, and another did die after she chased a Night Thing* of Tizun Thane** into the forest alone, spent all her HPs trying to damage it, then had nothing left when it impaled her with its big pincer arm-claw thingies. But that was a pretty extreme case.

*unstoppable killing machine that exists only to kill - IMC they serve Nyarlathotep.
*https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/26/review-white-dwarf-18-the-halls-of-tizun-thane-bone-deep-ss/

Hero Points, Luck bennies, it's meta currency, I fecking hate meta currency.

Dude, there's a lot of stuff that can be done with meta currency. You're throwing away a lot of potential if you reject it out of hand. Even spell points (or magic points, power points, etc.) are technically a type of meta currency. In a game I'm currently working on everyone gets power points as a universal pool of points to use any type of power (whether based on magic, training or natural abilities). Since not everyone necessarily has powers in the game (though, most eventually should) I decided to also allow power points to be spent as "Effort" to boost rolls or damage, reduce damage taken, auto-stabilize when dying and stuff like that, to allow power points to be universally useful, even if you have no powers.

An "Effort" type mechanic is perfectly plausible IMO, cuz people don't always operate at 100% their potential in real life and things aren't always 100% random either. Sometimes you have to push your limits to get a job done to meet a deadline or get an extra rush of adrenaline when performing physical tasks. People totally can focus on stuff to get boost to their chance to do something.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 01:45:15 PM
I'm not sure I follow, expand with an example?

Well, basically, if a 36 HP PC winds up facing off against a bunch of thugs and doesn't like his odds, but can't run, he can call it a Minor Conflict; he's treated as having only 18 HPs to fight with, but if he hits 0 he's guaranteed to be only knocked out.  If he calls it a Showdown, he gets 72 HPs for that fight, but if he's defeated, he's dead.

I would probably add in a very simple pulpy rule that "hit points" in this game reflect purely fighting spirit and stamina rather than any actual damage, and that they refresh to full very quickly between fights, like health bars for video game characters. Actual, serious, lingering, plot-affecting injury would have to be addressed with a different gauge or rule set, like a long-term dice penalty. (Perhaps losing a Minor Conflict guarantees taking one of these, so playing it safe for too long is ultimately penalized with decreased in-game effectiveness.)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:58:34 PM
I'm not sure I follow, expand with an example?

Well, basically, if a 36 HP PC winds up facing off against a bunch of thugs and doesn't like his odds, but can't run, he can call it a Minor Conflict; he's treated as having only 18 HPs to fight with, but if he hits 0 he's guaranteed to be only knocked out.  If he calls it a Showdown, he gets 72 HPs for that fight, but if he's defeated, he's dead.

I would probably add in a very simple pulpy rule that "hit points" in this game reflect purely fighting spirit and stamina rather than any actual damage, and that they refresh to full very quickly between fights, like health bars for video game characters. Actual, serious, lingering, plot-affecting injury would have to be addressed with a different gauge or rule set, like a long-term dice penalty. (Perhaps losing a Minor Conflict guarantees taking one of these, so playing it safe for too long is ultimately penalized with decreased in-game effectiveness.)

That's not OSR tho
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 02:02:08 PM
Right, agreed, thing is, how do you codify this into rules?

Easiest method is probably Hero Points. I was running a lot of Mini Six (D6 System variant) in 2020 in the pulpy Primeval Thule setting. I gave out one HP per session plus occasional bonuses. HPs give +6 to any roll (attack, damage, etc), up to three per roll (+18). You can also spend one once per session to survive a killing blow, turning it into a KO. You can still die from repeated killing blows, continuous damage, etc, but it kept lethality down. We had one PC nearly die, and another did die after she chased a Night Thing* of Tizun Thane** into the forest alone, spent all her HPs trying to damage it, then had nothing left when it impaled her with its big pincer arm-claw thingies. But that was a pretty extreme case.

*unstoppable killing machine that exists only to kill - IMC they serve Nyarlathotep.
*https://princeofnothingblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/26/review-white-dwarf-18-the-halls-of-tizun-thane-bone-deep-ss/

Hero Points, Luck bennies, it's meta currency, I fecking hate meta currency.

Dude, there's a lot of stuff that can be done with meta currency. You're throwing away a lot of potential if you reject it out of hand. Even spell points (or magic points, power points, etc.) are technically a type of meta currency. In a game I'm currently working on everyone gets power points as a universal pool of points to use any type of power (whether based on magic, training or natural abilities). Since not everyone necessarily has powers in the game (though, most eventually should) I decided to also allow power points to be spent as "Effort" to boost rolls or damage, reduce damage taken, auto-stabilize when dying and stuff like that, to allow power points to be universally useful, even if you have no powers.

An "Effort" type mechanic is perfectly plausible IMO, cuz people don't always operate at 100% their potential in real life and things aren't always 100% random either. Sometimes you have to push your limits to get a job done to meet a deadline or get an extra rush of adrenaline when performing physical tasks. People totally can focus on stuff to get boost to their chance to do something.

And spell slots could be called metacurrency too. But you don't get to use them to escape certain death. And I prefer Spell points over vancian magic.

I think some of the feats I'm including (Yes I know those aren't OSR either might change the name to features  ;D ) could work as well as the metacurrency without being metacurrency and keeping the plot armor to an (to me) acceptable level.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 02:33:31 PM
That's not OSR tho

No, but I'm skeptical a pure-OSR system is going to achieve the goals it sounds like you're reaching for.

The basic problem, it seems to me, is that there is an essential self-contradiction in the target goals here:

1) You want to use a basic OSR system without metacurrency.
2) You want to run a Pulp style setting with PCs who act the way Pulp heroes would act.
3) However, PCs in an OSR system who act the way Pulp heroes act tend to die much more quickly than Pulp heroes normally do, especially at low levels, immediately leading to players adopting extremely non-Pulp strategies.
4) Therefore, the rules have to be adjusted in some way to make "Pulpish" actions the optimal approach to in-game success.
5) The immediate and most obvious effect of any such adjustment will be to give PCs an effective form of "plot armor".
6) But this inevitably reduces the sense of risk and tension felt by players because they know of this plot armor, even if the PCs "don't".

Basically, the bind you seem to be in is: High Action; Real Risk; Infrequent Hero Death -- pick two.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
That's not OSR tho

No, but I'm skeptical a pure-OSR system is going to achieve the goals it sounds like you're reaching for.

The basic problem, it seems to me, is that there is an essential self-contradiction in the target goals here:

1) You want to use a basic OSR system without metacurrency.
2) You want to run a Pulp style setting with PCs who act the way Pulp heroes would act.
3) However, PCs in an OSR system who act the way Pulp heroes act tend to die much more quickly than Pulp heroes normally do, especially at low levels, immediately leading to players adopting extremely non-Pulp strategies.
4) Therefore, the rules have to be adjusted in some way to make "Pulpish" actions the optimal approach to in-game success.
5) The immediate and most obvious effect of any such adjustment will be to give PCs an effective form of "plot armor".
6) But this inevitably reduces the sense of risk and tension felt by players because they know of this plot armor, even if the PCs "don't".

Basically, the bind you seem to be in is: High Action; Real Risk; Infrequent Hero Death -- pick two.

Who said I wanted infrecuent hero death? Who said level 1 characters are Heroes? They aren't, not yet, they might become heroes if they have what it takes to do so.

Which among other things involves INTELLIGENT risk taking, heroic actions and playing to your strenghts (I mean as a character).

As for deviating from a "pure" OSR system... Well yes, but to what extent? I want it still to be clearly recognizable as something close to it's roots.

I'm doing away with vancian magic, but that has been done since forever. I'm also making other changes, for instance you start with your full HD. 0 HP doesn't mean insta-death (still not sure how many negative HP will do you in tho).

I'm also including a few feats and skills, because I like those things up to an extent. (Class Features are nothing but Feats granted from the word go).

My aim is the PC will become like the Pulp legends well before retirement, IF the PC manages to get there. The fun will be in the road there not only in being there.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Omega on April 28, 2021, 02:54:36 PM
As many of you know I'm doing a Pulp RPG, well there are not many sites in the interwebs better than The Pulp Avengers https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm (https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm) And it is correct that the Pulp heroes didn't die, and many times neither did the villains. This is a neccessity when you're telling a story, or writting a serial or series of novels. It would be very awkward if The Shadow were to die.

This is a fallacy thats been parroted by the eletist idiots out there for a long time now. Just more recently with new snide buzzwords.

An RPG pulp hero is no different from a RPG fantasy adventurer. They go out and they live or they die doing what they do.

Novels and comics are different because, usually, you are following someone that lived. As opposed to following the story of someone that died.

Best example real world is say if you made a story about my dad who served in Nam and was at ground zero of day 1. He served 2 terms. Compare that to his buddy who made it one term then was killed by a kid with a grenade. Or my great uncle who served in WWII and all we got back was his stuff since there wasnt enough left of him to send back. Their story is unfortunately short.

Or think of it this way. The PCs are those second or third string characters that tend to guest star in comics. Or ones where some mishap killed the original and someone else takes up the mantle. THESE die A-LOT. Same for pulp heroes, just less common. Only one can really think of are Spy Smasher and the Copperhead from the serials.

Shades of Grey for the Cthulhu LIVE LARP has similar advice. Only more so as the masked avengers are up against things possibly way out of their league.

If a pulp PC falls then have someone else pick up the mask. A sidekick, close relative, friend, even a total stranger. And continue on.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: VisionStorm on April 28, 2021, 03:25:32 PM
0 HP doesn't mean insta-death (still not sure how many negative HP will do you in tho).

The way I'm handling this in my current game is negative HP = DC for periodic survival checks for comatose characters. Specific negative amount doesn't do you in, failing 3 survival checks does. A character succeeding in 3 survival checks in a row becomes stabilized and stops dying, but is still unconscious and must make hourly checks to regain consciousness.

(Class Features are nothing but Feats granted from the word go).

As it should be, IMO. All class abilities should just be Feats, and if you want a specific class or Kit to have them just give it to them.

My aim is the PC will become like the Pulp legends well before retirement, IF the PC manages to get there. The fun will be in the road there not only in being there.

As it should be in most cases for most genres in RGPs as well. Even superheroes should start weak in RPGs and work their way into Superman levels.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 03:31:24 PM
Who said I wanted infrequent hero death?

If you're trying to run a Pulp-style game, one of the defining characteristics of Pulp stories (as noted in the original post) is the rarity of permanent character death, despite being full of dangerously high-risk actions with crazily high frequency.  Your players are certainly going to want hero death to be as infrequent as possible, in any event, and if high awesomeness only comes with high risk and high stakes, the awesomeness is going to come less often than genre conventions presuppose.

Some tropes are more vital to the definition of their genre than others. Subvert those, you don't have that genre any more; at best you have something that looks like it. If you want to subvert the Pulp trope of infrequent hero death in the name of creating a sense of real risk for the players, you can, and I'm not saying that would make a bad game or a not-fun game. I'm just saying I don't think it will ultimately look or feel much like a classic Pulp serial in practice, because the incentives for the players aren't going to be the same as the incentives for a classic Pulp protagonist.  I honestly think most players interested in a Pulp game for the sake of the Pulpishness itself are far more interested in playing somebody already like The Shadow than in playing through the half-dozen tries needed for somebody to survive becoming The Shadow.

(I could always be wrong on that last thought. Anyone with experience to the contrary is welcome to chime in. But my own experience doesn't suggest it.)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 28, 2021, 03:56:22 PM
you cant do osr and pulp together.

they’re contradicting each other

its like saying “how do i make a story game without any story game things in it”
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 04:05:22 PM
Who said I wanted infrequent hero death?

If you're trying to run a Pulp-style game, one of the defining characteristics of Pulp stories (as noted in the original post) is the rarity of permanent character death, despite being full of dangerously high-risk actions with crazily high frequency.  Your players are certainly going to want hero death to be as infrequent as possible, in any event, and if high awesomeness only comes with high risk and high stakes, the awesomeness is going to come less often than genre conventions presuppose.

Some tropes are more vital to the definition of their genre than others. Subvert those, you don't have that genre any more; at best you have something that looks like it. If you want to subvert the Pulp trope of infrequent hero death in the name of creating a sense of real risk for the players, you can, and I'm not saying that would make a bad game or a not-fun game. I'm just saying I don't think it will ultimately look or feel much like a classic Pulp serial in practice, because the incentives for the players aren't going to be the same as the incentives for a classic Pulp protagonist.  I honestly think most players interested in a Pulp game for the sake of the Pulpishness itself are far more interested in playing somebody already like The Shadow than in playing through the half-dozen tries needed for somebody to survive becoming The Shadow.

(I could always be wrong on that last thought. Anyone with experience to the contrary is welcome to chime in. But my own experience doesn't suggest it.)

Once again, what are the goals? To write a Pulp work of fiction? Or to have your PC live in a world where the Pulp heroes could arise?

In an RPG there's not a given protagonist, or rather there can be lots of them, and when one dies another rises to the challenge and takes on the torch.

My goal is to make a game where the GM can build such a world and the players can live (thru their PCs) and interact with it.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 04:06:15 PM
you cant do osr and pulp together.

they’re contradicting each other

its like saying “how do i make a story game without any story game things in it”

Because you can't separate writing fiction from a game doesn't mean we all can't.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 28, 2021, 04:08:36 PM
You want it to be realistic and as threatening as OSR, but want people to play it like a heroic game. Why would they do that when it just gets them killed? You can’t do that. You need to change the rules to force the players to act the way they would in the stories but you reject those as artificial. So you’re never going to have an answer.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 04:08:50 PM
As many of you know I'm doing a Pulp RPG, well there are not many sites in the interwebs better than The Pulp Avengers https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm (https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm) And it is correct that the Pulp heroes didn't die, and many times neither did the villains. This is a neccessity when you're telling a story, or writting a serial or series of novels. It would be very awkward if The Shadow were to die.

This is a fallacy thats been parroted by the eletist idiots out there for a long time now. Just more recently with new snide buzzwords.

An RPG pulp hero is no different from a RPG fantasy adventurer. They go out and they live or they die doing what they do.

Novels and comics are different because, usually, you are following someone that lived. As opposed to following the story of someone that died.

Best example real world is say if you made a story about my dad who served in Nam and was at ground zero of day 1. He served 2 terms. Compare that to his buddy who made it one term then was killed by a kid with a grenade. Or my great uncle who served in WWII and all we got back was his stuff since there wasnt enough left of him to send back. Their story is unfortunately short.

Or think of it this way. The PCs are those second or third string characters that tend to guest star in comics. Or ones where some mishap killed the original and someone else takes up the mantle. THESE die A-LOT. Same for pulp heroes, just less common. Only one can really think of are Spy Smasher and the Copperhead from the serials.

Shades of Grey for the Cthulhu LIVE LARP has similar advice. Only more so as the masked avengers are up against things possibly way out of their league.

If a pulp PC falls then have someone else pick up the mask. A sidekick, close relative, friend, even a total stranger. And continue on.

You don't have to convince me, I'm in favor of allowing the PCs die. Maybe a little less easy than usual but a lot more than any Pulp protagonist.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 04:10:33 PM
You want it to be realistic and as threatening as OSR, but want people to play it like a heroic game. Why would they do that when it just gets them killed? You can’t do that. You need to change the rules to force the players to act the way they would in the stories but you reject those as artificial. So you’re never going to have an answer.

"REALISTIC"? Where?

"as threatening as OSR"? Where?

You either aren't reading what I write or have some sort of reading comprehension problem.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 04:14:25 PM
0 HP doesn't mean insta-death (still not sure how many negative HP will do you in tho).

The way I'm handling this in my current game is negative HP = DC for periodic survival checks for comatose characters. Specific negative amount doesn't do you in, failing 3 survival checks does. A character succeeding in 3 survival checks in a row becomes stabilized and stops dying, but is still unconscious and must make hourly checks to regain consciousness.

(Class Features are nothing but Feats granted from the word go).

As it should be, IMO. All class abilities should just be Feats, and if you want a specific class or Kit to have them just give it to them.

My aim is the PC will become like the Pulp legends well before retirement, IF the PC manages to get there. The fun will be in the road there not only in being there.

As it should be in most cases for most genres in RGPs as well. Even superheroes should start weak in RPGs and work their way into Superman levels.

That doesn't sound so bad, will need to try it out.

Thanks, was I not using White Box as the chasis I might go all hog and keep the "classes" at a minimum and give them Feats or Kits.

IKR? Why was Spider-Man always more popular than Superman? Relative weakness and "losing" from time to time.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 28, 2021, 04:30:21 PM
You want it to be realistic and as threatening as OSR, but want people to play it like a heroic game. Why would they do that when it just gets them killed? You can’t do that. You need to change the rules to force the players to act the way they would in the stories but you reject those as artificial. So you’re never going to have an answer.

"REALISTIC"? Where?

"as threatening as OSR"? Where?

You either aren't reading what I write or have some sort of reading comprehension problem.
OSR is an ambiguous term so using it confuses the issue, at least for me. You say OSR and I think Lamentations of the Flame Princess. The kind of game you crawl forward every five feet poking the ground with a ten foot pole, and the one time you slip up you get killed instantly. So someone playing that like an action hero is just going to die or be severely discouraged from behaving in a "genre proper" way.

Which is why making it so the rules are more pulpy is good. It's not "going easy on them," it's that playing it like a Vietnam war scenario isn't the point of the game. You could increase hit points, make it so getting "killed" just drops you unconscious and causes you to fail the mission, make it so they get more bonuses doing spectacular and risky things than playing it safe, etc.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Ratman_tf on April 28, 2021, 04:41:41 PM
You want it to be realistic and as threatening as OSR, but want people to play it like a heroic game. Why would they do that when it just gets them killed? You can’t do that. You need to change the rules to force the players to act the way they would in the stories but you reject those as artificial. So you’re never going to have an answer.

"REALISTIC"? Where?

"as threatening as OSR"? Where?

You either aren't reading what I write or have some sort of reading comprehension problem.
OSR is an ambiguous term so using it confuses the issue, at least for me. You say OSR and I think Lamentations of the Flame Princess. The kind of game you crawl forward every five feet poking the ground with a ten foot pole, and the one time you slip up you get killed instantly. So someone playing that like an action hero is just going to die or be severely discouraged from behaving in a "genre proper" way.

Thinking about it, I'm amused that "old school" D&D had art in the books of brave adventurers fighting monsters and getting treasure. Maybe a more accurate piece for the genre would have been a party of grubby adventurers herding a bunch of barnyard animals into the entrance of a tomb. :D
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 04:43:01 PM
You want it to be realistic and as threatening as OSR, but want people to play it like a heroic game. Why would they do that when it just gets them killed? You can’t do that. You need to change the rules to force the players to act the way they would in the stories but you reject those as artificial. So you’re never going to have an answer.

"REALISTIC"? Where?

"as threatening as OSR"? Where?

You either aren't reading what I write or have some sort of reading comprehension problem.
OSR is an ambiguous term so using it confuses the issue, at least for me. You say OSR and I think Lamentations of the Flame Princess. The kind of game you crawl forward every five feet poking the ground with a ten foot pole, and the one time you slip up you get killed instantly. So someone playing that like an action hero is just going to die or be severely discouraged from behaving in a "genre proper" way.

You might want to expand your knowledge of the OSR. It already encompasses from classic high fantasy to spandex superheroes, western, sci-fi, and even indiana jones.

Letality can be toned up or down, from DCC/LotFP to whatever level you feel comfortable with. But it needs to be a definite possibility, MY plan is to tone it down a little bit, to make it a little bit easier to survive beyond 1st level.

But you, as the GM can always tone it up or down. Say you want a straight Pulp protagonists game. What's stopping you from ruling that 4d6 drop lowest distribute as you like is the way to go? Or to straight up say no one can have anything less than 12 in any stat? make the math and make it point buy? Make it so the worst stat you have is say 14?

Once I'm done developing and it's up for sale whatever you do in your table is out of my hands no?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 04:45:16 PM
You want it to be realistic and as threatening as OSR, but want people to play it like a heroic game. Why would they do that when it just gets them killed? You can’t do that. You need to change the rules to force the players to act the way they would in the stories but you reject those as artificial. So you’re never going to have an answer.

"REALISTIC"? Where?

"as threatening as OSR"? Where?

You either aren't reading what I write or have some sort of reading comprehension problem.
OSR is an ambiguous term so using it confuses the issue, at least for me. You say OSR and I think Lamentations of the Flame Princess. The kind of game you crawl forward every five feet poking the ground with a ten foot pole, and the one time you slip up you get killed instantly. So someone playing that like an action hero is just going to die or be severely discouraged from behaving in a "genre proper" way.

Thinking about it, I'm amused that "old school" D&D had art in the books of brave adventurers fighting monsters and getting treasure. Maybe a more accurate piece for the genre would have been a party of grubby adventurers herding a bunch of barnyard animals into the entrance of a tomb. :D

and hoping those animals aren't turned into man eating monsters by whoever is inside it.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 28, 2021, 04:48:18 PM
There's OSR superhero games? This is the first I've heard and I follow a lot of OSR games... they're all Lamentations style that I've seen. I wouldn't call DCC OSR, so much as OSR adjacent. It's D&D 3.5 with OSR inspiration. What's the superhero OSR game?

Also, this raises a question: do you even -want- them to follow the genre conventions? I'm starting to think you want this to be more like an adventure the normal OSR group goes on rather than an entire genre shift. The location and dressings change but the rest is mostly the same.

If they treat it like a normal D&D game but just in pulp clothes would that bother you? (ie, treat it cautiously, don't behave gloriously, etc.)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 04:57:37 PM
There's OSR superhero games? This is the first I've heard and I follow a lot of OSR games... they're all Lamentations style that I've seen. I wouldn't call DCC OSR, so much as OSR adjacent. It's D&D 3.5 with OSR inspiration. What's the superhero OSR game?

Also, this raises a question: do you even -want- them to follow the genre conventions? I'm starting to think you want this to be more like an adventure the normal OSR group goes on rather than an entire genre shift. The location and dressings change but the rest is mostly the same.

If they treat it like a normal D&D game but just in pulp clothes would that bother you? (ie, treat it cautiously, don't behave gloriously, etc.)

It's called Guardians, author drops by here on ocasion.

I want the genre conventions up to a point, I don't plan on making it so the PCs start off as the main protagonist of a pulp, but they can get there.

If your cup of tea is the Main Protagonist you need to either houserule it or wait till my other game/supplement (haven't decided yet) about Pulp Vigilantes. There you start as a capable vigilante of one sort or the other.

But the classes are proving more difficult to land in a way I like, so it's on the backburner.

Your problem seems to be that you think PCs should start off as the Protagonists, while I think they should start off as second string characters and become the protagonists by doing awesome heroic shit.

Brave isn't someone who's fearless, but someone who does brave shit in the face of danger and despite his/her fear.

If you can't die, are you being heroic? If you can't choose evil are you being good?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Stephen Tannhauser on April 28, 2021, 04:58:46 PM
Once again, what are the goals? To write a Pulp work of fiction? Or to have your PC live in a world where the Pulp heroes could arise?

My goal is to make a game where the GM can build such a world and the players can live (thru their PCs) and interact with it.

Fair enough, and I appreciate the way you phrased the goal here, because I think it actually gives away the basic issue: What makes a "Pulp" setting?  Is it the trappings of dieselpunk or occult Nazis or zeppelins or jungle chases or exotic distant lands or mystic powers to see into the hearts of criminals?  Or is it the style of the stories told within it, whatever the trappings -- high action and adventure involving super-competent protagonists against even more astonishing opponents?  I've always operated much more on the latter definition than the former, which is probably why I missed your point before.

I understand the goal of separating setting from playstyle so that the players can have real risk back in the equation; normally I am all for the idea that for the challenge to feel real, the stakes have to feel real too. But as before, I think the inevitable result of this is that, in practice, it will cause the setting to lose much of the feeling for which (I assume) it was chosen in the first place, because the style of the in-game action won't be living up to it. If nothing else, it seems to me that players who behave like sensible PCs vs. villains who behave like Pulp villains would create a certain atmospheric dissonance in actual play.  (Though again, I could be wrong on that; counter-evidence is welcomed.)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 28, 2021, 05:02:39 PM
Yeah that's what I was getting at -- stylistically, a "pulp" game DOES have you as the heroes already, you're the badass who kicks ass and chews gum. It's not about scrounging your way up from some copper pieces to maybe become something.

You're Indiana Jones.

The rules can present challenge and failure, but with that style of game it's not really about "am I going to get killed" so much anymore.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 05:09:27 PM
Once again, what are the goals? To write a Pulp work of fiction? Or to have your PC live in a world where the Pulp heroes could arise?

My goal is to make a game where the GM can build such a world and the players can live (thru their PCs) and interact with it.

Fair enough, and I appreciate the way you phrased the goal here, because I think it actually gives away the basic issue: What makes a "Pulp" setting?  Is it the trappings of dieselpunk or occult Nazis or zeppelins or jungle chases or exotic distant lands or mystic powers to see into the hearts of criminals?  Or is it the style of the stories told within it, whatever the trappings -- high action and adventure involving super-competent protagonists against even more astonishing opponents?  I've always operated much more on the latter definition than the former, which is probably why I missed your point before.

I understand the goal of separating setting from playstyle so that the players can have real risk back in the equation; normally I am all for the idea that for the challenge to feel real, the stakes have to feel real too. But as before, I think the inevitable result of this is that, in practice, it will cause the setting to lose much of the feeling for which (I assume) it was chosen in the first place, because the style of the in-game action won't be living up to it. If nothing else, it seems to me that players who behave like sensible PCs vs. villains who behave like Pulp villains would create a certain atmospheric dissonance in actual play.  (Though again, I could be wrong on that; counter-evidence is welcomed.)

Oh, but I do agree that Pulp isn't a time period, it's a style of adventure fiction (not gonna include the sleaze pulps here thank you very much), you could totally write a Pulp set on present day or the future, and it has been done.

Something else the Pulps have is the black & white morality, no shades of gray, that I think is way more important than the time period or the gadgets.

But, again, you want to play as The Protagonist, being granted that status by feat of the rules or the GM. I think it can be fun to instead achieve that status by deeds.

Think of it like this: How many Vigilantes lived in the world of The Shadow before him? WE don't know, because they died before becoming The Protagonist. Were they less brave? Less worthy?

Or think of it like this: Not everybody can be Doc Savage, but anyone can try and become Doc Savage. So you start where Doc Savage is already a legend.

I start when he just met his buddies and fate sent them in their first adventure. Will they all survive? Will any of them become The Protagonist? Is this a team book?

Why is it that my starting point is less Pulp than yours? Everybody had to be a nobody before they became famous no?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 05:15:02 PM
Yeah that's what I was getting at -- stylistically, a "pulp" game DOES have you as the heroes already, you're the badass who kicks ass and chews gum. It's not about scrounging your way up from some copper pieces to maybe become something.

You're Indiana Jones.

The rules can present challenge and failure, but with that style of game it's not really about "am I going to get killed" so much anymore.

So because that's how it has been done it's how it should be done?

Who said anything about copper pieces? You, not me, there are other ways to handle the money thing and to handle the treasure thing too.

You seem to think that a game where you can be killed can't have other types of threats/incentives. You're wrong.

You know of Indiana Jones because he survived, do you think he always was as competent as when you first saw him?

Star Wars was Pulp, and yet, here you have a farmer that fails and becomes The Hero, and in the process a more competent character dies.

You want to play Heroes, I want to play the Year Zero and not skipp it.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Reckall on April 28, 2021, 05:20:30 PM
It always the best when such an interesting topic like Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted starts only to have the word "pulp" in 97.3% of the posts. Next time it will be Some Archetypes SHOULD be buried and it will have the word "Byzantium" in 98.1% of the posts.  ::)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 05:32:28 PM
Think of it like this: How many Vigilantes lived in the world of The Shadow before him? WE don't know, because they died before becoming The Protagonist. Were they less brave? Less worthy?

Or think of it like this: Not everybody can be Doc Savage, but anyone can try and become Doc Savage. So you start where Doc Savage is already a legend.

I start when he just met his buddies and fate sent them in their first adventure. Will they all survive? Will any of them become The Protagonist? Is this a team book?

Why is it that my starting point is less Pulp than yours? Everybody had to be a nobody before they became famous no?

Your starting point is no less valid a preference for gaming. Do whatever you like, by all means. However, it might be different than people's expectations for a pulp game. In the published works, Doc Savage was already legendary within the fiction as of the first published story - "The Man of Bronze" in 1933. That sort of beginning would be people's default expectations for pulp.

I think it is a change of genre to have adventures set in the same world, but at a different time or place than the standard for the genre. For example, I might have a game set in the Star Trek universe where the PCs aren't a Federation starship crew - but instead are enterprising criminals pulling heists on a single planet. Or I might have a game set in a world of high fantasy, but the PCs are pre-teen kids getting into trouble in their village. These are twists on the genre that might be great fun, but it's different than how the genre generally goes.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: This Guy on April 28, 2021, 05:36:03 PM
It always the best when such an interesting topic like Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted starts only to have the word "pulp" in 97.3% of the posts. Next time it will be Some Archetypes SHOULD be buried and it will have the word "Byzantium" in 98.1% of the posts.  ::)

it's good clickbait my man. does seem like this was more about workshoppin' pulp OSR rules though. guess he's shy about his needs.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 28, 2021, 05:39:21 PM
Yeah that's what I was getting at -- stylistically, a "pulp" game DOES have you as the heroes already, you're the badass who kicks ass and chews gum. It's not about scrounging your way up from some copper pieces to maybe become something.

You're Indiana Jones.

The rules can present challenge and failure, but with that style of game it's not really about "am I going to get killed" so much anymore.

So because that's how it has been done it's how it should be done?

Who said anything about copper pieces? You, not me, there are other ways to handle the money thing and to handle the treasure thing too.

You seem to think that a game where you can be killed can't have other types of threats/incentives. You're wrong.

You know of Indiana Jones because he survived, do you think he always was as competent as when you first saw him?

Star Wars was Pulp, and yet, here you have a farmer that fails and becomes The Hero, and in the process a more competent character dies.

You want to play Heroes, I want to play the Year Zero and not skipp it.
I think it's fine to start at "zero." But I don't know if I'd call that "pulp". Part of pulp is that the hero is already competent.

If he was just a normal dude then doing pulp-y things like jumping from one moving train to another in the middle of a fight would just be suicide. So you won't really be doing any pulp stuff.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 05:43:15 PM
Think of it like this: How many Vigilantes lived in the world of The Shadow before him? WE don't know, because they died before becoming The Protagonist. Were they less brave? Less worthy?

Or think of it like this: Not everybody can be Doc Savage, but anyone can try and become Doc Savage. So you start where Doc Savage is already a legend.

I start when he just met his buddies and fate sent them in their first adventure. Will they all survive? Will any of them become The Protagonist? Is this a team book?

Why is it that my starting point is less Pulp than yours? Everybody had to be a nobody before they became famous no?

Your starting point is no less valid a preference for gaming. Do whatever you like, by all means. However, it might be different than people's expectations for a pulp game. In the published works, Doc Savage was already legendary within the fiction as of the first published story - "The Man of Bronze" in 1933. That sort of beginning would be people's default expectations for pulp.

I think it is a change of genre to have adventures set in the same world, but at a different time or place than the standard for the genre. For example, I might have a game set in the Star Trek universe where the PCs aren't a Federation starship crew - but instead are enterprising criminals pulling heists on a single planet. Or I might have a game set in a world of high fantasy, but the PCs are pre-teen kids getting into trouble in their village. These are twists on the genre that might be great fun, but it's different than how the genre generally goes.

But once again, a game isn't a novel, movie, tv/radio show. It's a different beast.

I would say you're correct if the game was "Doc Savage and his crew", I would expect in such a game to play as one of those.

In a game called Conan I would expect someone to be Conan, in a game called Hyborian Adventures not really.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 05:45:51 PM
Yeah that's what I was getting at -- stylistically, a "pulp" game DOES have you as the heroes already, you're the badass who kicks ass and chews gum. It's not about scrounging your way up from some copper pieces to maybe become something.

You're Indiana Jones.

The rules can present challenge and failure, but with that style of game it's not really about "am I going to get killed" so much anymore.

So because that's how it has been done it's how it should be done?

Who said anything about copper pieces? You, not me, there are other ways to handle the money thing and to handle the treasure thing too.

You seem to think that a game where you can be killed can't have other types of threats/incentives. You're wrong.

You know of Indiana Jones because he survived, do you think he always was as competent as when you first saw him?

Star Wars was Pulp, and yet, here you have a farmer that fails and becomes The Hero, and in the process a more competent character dies.

You want to play Heroes, I want to play the Year Zero and not skipp it.
I think it's fine to start at "zero." But I don't know if I'd call that "pulp". Part of pulp is that the hero is already competent.

If he was just a normal dude then doing pulp-y things like jumping from one moving train to another in the middle of a fight would just be suicide. So you won't really be doing any pulp stuff.

So to you immortality (plot armor) is fundational to any Pulp game. I disagree, It's way more heroic, awesome and daring to jump between trains in the middle of a fight when you're not Doc Savage than when you are.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Chris24601 on April 28, 2021, 07:42:53 PM
So to you Pulp is being the legendary hero, not becoming the legendary hero. But even the legends weren't so at some point no?
Depends on how you define it.

Sure, technically there was a point in Batman’s fictional life when he wasn’t a legendary hero... but all those points are backstory because he’s already Batman on page 1 of issue 1 of Detective Comics.

The hallmark of the pulp hero is their heroics in the here and now... how they became a hero is backstory and, ideally can be summed up in no more than a couple of sentences.

Basically, if you’re intent on doing something using an OSR system (personally, I agree that the d6 system is the best option for what you’re doing) then the not a hero part is pre-level 1.

But another important part of the pulp genre, which is, again, why OSR is a bad fit, is that pulp heroes also don’t improve much. Oh, sure, they’ll pick up a new trick or stunt or skill here and there (which is unlikely to ever come up again), but they don’t get significantly better at their core competencies. Their growth, if done as a serial, tends to be making a new friend, picking up a love interest or being recognized for their actions during their adventure.

That’s why a skill-based with incremental improvement like you find in the d6 system or a point based system like HERO or Mutants & Masterminds (if you want to do something more d20-based and has its own SRD so you can just use their rules and focus on setting elements) is going to generally work better than a level-based system.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Chris24601 on April 28, 2021, 08:04:31 PM
As an addendum, the reason d6 works really well for pulp is that earned XP can be used to either improve your PC -or- in an emergency to add dice to a check. Thus, you get in over your head and you’ll have to burn XP to survive, so you’re rewarded for playing smart by keeping more XP.

If you wanted to slap that onto an OSR chassis I’d suggest this; Start the session with a maximum XP reward in mind, then dock each PC an amount of XP each time during the session each time luck has to step in and save them, then at the end of the session the PC keeps whatever is left.

This keeps meta-currency out of the gameplay side and essentially means you get more XP the less you have to rely on luck to survive. Instead of death, the cost of failure is less XP/slower advancement relative to your fellow players.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 08:22:32 PM
So to you Pulp is being the legendary hero, not becoming the legendary hero. But even the legends weren't so at some point no?
Depends on how you define it.

Sure, technically there was a point in Batman’s fictional life when he wasn’t a legendary hero... but all those points are backstory because he’s already Batman on page 1 of issue 1 of Detective Comics.

The hallmark of the pulp hero is their heroics in the here and now... how they became a hero is backstory and, ideally can be summed up in no more than a couple of sentences.

Basically, if you’re intent on doing something using an OSR system (personally, I agree that the d6 system is the best option for what you’re doing) then the not a hero part is pre-level 1.

But another important part of the pulp genre, which is, again, why OSR is a bad fit, is that pulp heroes also don’t improve much. Oh, sure, they’ll pick up a new trick or stunt or skill here and there (which is unlikely to ever come up again), but they don’t get significantly better at their core competencies. Their growth, if done as a serial, tends to be making a new friend, picking up a love interest or being recognized for their actions during their adventure.

That’s why a skill-based with incremental improvement like you find in the d6 system or a point based system like HERO or Mutants & Masterminds (if you want to do something more d20-based and has its own SRD so you can just use their rules and focus on setting elements) is going to generally work better than a level-based system.

The reason in a novel/comic/etc you usually (most of the time but not always) get the hero when it's a hero is because no one would care about Bruce Wayne if we didn't know who he is.

And yet we got the Year One arch at some point.

In the novels X... So? It's a game, you DON'T have to emulate the novels one to one. If I wanted to experience the Pulp novels I would go read them because nothing else is going to be 100%.

I want to experience living in a world where Pulp heroes could exist.

But Improvement! So? You think it can't be capped or slowed down?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Chris24601 on April 28, 2021, 09:41:03 PM
But Improvement! So? You think it can't be capped or slowed down?
First, why so snippy? You asked for advice and input, but then get aggressive at anyone who says anything that disagrees with your original premise.

Second, of course you can cap and slow things down. Where did I say you could not? I was offering general design advice to fit the genre because you’ve presented no specific mechanics to discuss one way or the other.

That said, you’ve said you intend to base your system off OSR rules, so some flavor of TSR D&D is the presumed starting point or its not “OSR-based.”

And the reason I find that a bad fit is that level-based advancement tends to drop a bunch of stuff all at once when you level vs. the granularity of improving one skill by one rank every session or so.

When you slow down level-based progression it means longer stretches where your character is static. In skill-based progression you can still have a feeling of progress be because going from rolling 5d6 to 5d6+1 for one skill (of dozens) is still an improvement, even if it’s tiny relative to the PC as a whole.

Similarly, if levels are capped, once you reach that cap you’re basically done in terms of improvement. With skills, once you cap your primary ones you can always move on towards picking up new skills and getting those to the cap.

Honestly, I think you’re doing yourself a bit of a disservice in terms of game design in not wanting to even look at systems outside of the OSR; particularly when there are already systems that model the genre you intend to write a game for. Seeing how other people have solved for a particular problem can better inform your decisions within your own system, particularly if you want to avoid repeating the mistakes made by previous attempts.

Limiting the scope of your options to the OSR is roughly akin to believing Palladium’s Robotech game is the pinnacle of mecha combat rpgs while never even looking at Mekton or Jovian Chronicles/Heavy Gear, Battletech/Mechwarrior or the rules for mecha in d20 Future (or even mechanics from the Mechwarrior Clix for that matter).

But if you’ve already made up your mind, why ask in the first place? Just get to writing and/or share with us your progress and/or concepts.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on April 28, 2021, 09:50:14 PM
I hear savage worlds is good for pulpy games. Its both level based and skill based.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 29, 2021, 02:28:40 AM
Troll Lord Games has an established pulp D&D/d20/OSR type game:
https://www.trolllord.com/tlgstore/#!/Amazing-Adventures/c/11639154

Searching DriveThru also turns up BX Gangbusters https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/292055/Gangbusters-B-X-version?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45582_0_300_0_0
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 02:43:23 PM
Troll Lord Games has an established pulp D&D/d20/OSR type game:
https://www.trolllord.com/tlgstore/#!/Amazing-Adventures/c/11639154

Searching DriveThru also turns up BX Gangbusters https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/292055/Gangbusters-B-X-version?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45582_0_300_0_0

Nice. Here's two reviews of Amazing Adventures. It seems that it has a meta-currency of "Fate Points". It also has armor class that comes from dressing stylishly rather than realistic armor - which is a different sort of meta-mechanic. On the other hand, it does have characters advance from level 1, arguing that they have to work their way up to being starting pulp heroes.

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15953.phtml

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15756.phtml

And here's a few reviews of Gangbusters B/X Version. It doesn't have Fate Points, but it has a similar rule about armor coming from stylish clothes.

https://rollingboxcars.com/2020/02/05/gangbusters-b-x-edition-basic-rule-book/

http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2019/11/review-bx-gangbusters.html

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14385.phtml
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 04:04:49 PM
Troll Lord Games has an established pulp D&D/d20/OSR type game:
https://www.trolllord.com/tlgstore/#!/Amazing-Adventures/c/11639154

Searching DriveThru also turns up BX Gangbusters https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/292055/Gangbusters-B-X-version?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45582_0_300_0_0

Nice. Here's two reviews of Amazing Adventures. It seems that it has a meta-currency of "Fate Points". It also has armor class that comes from dressing stylishly rather than realistic armor - which is a different sort of meta-mechanic. On the other hand, it does have characters advance from level 1, arguing that they have to work their way up to being starting pulp heroes.

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15953.phtml

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15756.phtml

And here's a few reviews of Gangbusters B/X Version. It doesn't have Fate Points, but it has a similar rule about armor coming from stylish clothes.

https://rollingboxcars.com/2020/02/05/gangbusters-b-x-edition-basic-rule-book/

http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2019/11/review-bx-gangbusters.html

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14385.phtml

Wow, looks like I'm not the only one that thinks the fun is in the journey.

Stylish clothes as armor... Not sure how I feel about that.

Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Eldritch Tales looks like a Pulp-ish Cthulhu investigation game, it also seems like it has a neat Feat mechanic:

https://ynasmidgard.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-eldritch-tales.html (https://ynasmidgard.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-eldritch-tales.html)

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250356/Eldritch-Tales-Lovecraftian-White-Box-RolePlaying?affiliate_id=64760 (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250356/Eldritch-Tales-Lovecraftian-White-Box-RolePlaying?affiliate_id=64760)
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 04:57:03 PM
Troll Lord Games has an established pulp D&D/d20/OSR type game:
https://www.trolllord.com/tlgstore/#!/Amazing-Adventures/c/11639154

Searching DriveThru also turns up BX Gangbusters https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/292055/Gangbusters-B-X-version?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45582_0_300_0_0

Nice. Here's two reviews of Amazing Adventures. It seems that it has a meta-currency of "Fate Points". It also has armor class that comes from dressing stylishly rather than realistic armor - which is a different sort of meta-mechanic. On the other hand, it does have characters advance from level 1, arguing that they have to work their way up to being starting pulp heroes.

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15953.phtml

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15756.phtml

And here's a few reviews of Gangbusters B/X Version. It doesn't have Fate Points, but it has a similar rule about armor coming from stylish clothes.

https://rollingboxcars.com/2020/02/05/gangbusters-b-x-edition-basic-rule-book/

http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2019/11/review-bx-gangbusters.html

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14385.phtml

Wow, looks like I'm not the only one that thinks the fun is in the journey.

Stylish clothes as armor... Not sure how I feel about that.

Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Eldritch Tales looks like a Pulp-ish Cthulhu investigation game, it also seems like it has a neat Feat mechanic:

https://ynasmidgard.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-eldritch-tales.html (https://ynasmidgard.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-eldritch-tales.html)

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250356/Eldritch-Tales-Lovecraftian-White-Box-RolePlaying?affiliate_id=64760 (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250356/Eldritch-Tales-Lovecraftian-White-Box-RolePlaying?affiliate_id=64760)

About the "necessary evil". For me, one of the keys of what makes a game feel "pulp" is less time in tactical planning, and more jumping straight into the action. And yeah, this is in part directly opposed to lethality. If players know their characters will die if they make a wrong move, they're going to tend more to carefully plan. Meta-currency is a means to that end -- but it's not the only one. I'm not much into OSR, but if I was creating a pulp game in general, I'd consider some things like:

(1) Getting taken down doesn't mean a character is immediately dying. The default of being out of a fight should be "knocked unconscious" rather than dead.

(2) Avoid items/spells/powers that require careful setup. This includes the obvious (spell slots that need to be planned in advance) and the indirect (tactical edge that requires very specific conditions). For example, if an exactly-placed single-shot fireball is devastating, but a poorly-placed one disastrous, that favors carefully planning positioning.

(3) Prefer items/spells/powers that reward spontaneity. Have more powers that allow easy retreat, or otherwise cover for mistakes.

(4) It might be better to have rest important only after the end of an adventure, instead of the having several rest-and-recover sessions during an adventure. Resting in a bolt-hole to heal/recover is often a practice in D&D, but it doesn't fit as well the pulp goal of pushing on and fast-paced action.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 05:08:30 PM
Troll Lord Games has an established pulp D&D/d20/OSR type game:
https://www.trolllord.com/tlgstore/#!/Amazing-Adventures/c/11639154

Searching DriveThru also turns up BX Gangbusters https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/292055/Gangbusters-B-X-version?src=hottest_filtered&filters=45582_0_300_0_0

Nice. Here's two reviews of Amazing Adventures. It seems that it has a meta-currency of "Fate Points". It also has armor class that comes from dressing stylishly rather than realistic armor - which is a different sort of meta-mechanic. On the other hand, it does have characters advance from level 1, arguing that they have to work their way up to being starting pulp heroes.

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15953.phtml

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15756.phtml

And here's a few reviews of Gangbusters B/X Version. It doesn't have Fate Points, but it has a similar rule about armor coming from stylish clothes.

https://rollingboxcars.com/2020/02/05/gangbusters-b-x-edition-basic-rule-book/

http://theotherside.timsbrannan.com/2019/11/review-bx-gangbusters.html

https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14385.phtml

Wow, looks like I'm not the only one that thinks the fun is in the journey.

Stylish clothes as armor... Not sure how I feel about that.

Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Eldritch Tales looks like a Pulp-ish Cthulhu investigation game, it also seems like it has a neat Feat mechanic:

https://ynasmidgard.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-eldritch-tales.html (https://ynasmidgard.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-eldritch-tales.html)

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250356/Eldritch-Tales-Lovecraftian-White-Box-RolePlaying?affiliate_id=64760 (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/250356/Eldritch-Tales-Lovecraftian-White-Box-RolePlaying?affiliate_id=64760)


About the "necessary evil". For me, one of the keys of what makes a game feel "pulp" is less time in tactical planning, and more jumping straight into the action. And yeah, this is in part directly opposed to lethality. If players know their characters will die if they make a wrong move, they're going to tend more to carefully plan. Meta-currency is a means to that end -- but it's not the only one. I'm not much into OSR, but if I was creating a pulp game in general, I'd consider some things like:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you haven't read my posts.

(1) Getting taken down doesn't mean a character is immediately dying. The default of being out of a fight should be "knocked unconscious" rather than dead.

Right, like I already said, the threat of death needs to be there IMHO but... I do agree that it needs to be less, and that the best way to this is to have 0HP not being dead but unconscious and some other mechanic for the character to die.

(2) Avoid items/spells/powers that require careful setup. This includes the obvious (spell slots that need to be planned in advance) and the indirect (tactical edge that requires very specific conditions). For example, if an exactly-placed single-shot fireball is devastating, but a poorly-placed one disastrous, that favors carefully planning positioning.

Like I already said I'm not using vancian magic, but spontaneous casting, the caster knows the spells he knows and can cast "at will", maybe power points or other mechanic, not sure which one yet.

(3) Prefer items/spells/powers that reward spontaneity. Have more powers that allow easy retreat, or otherwise cover for mistakes.

Well, lets just say that not all the usual spells from the OSR will be there, still working on which ones will.

(4) It might be better to have rest important only after the end of an adventure, instead of the having several rest-and-recover sessions during an adventure. Resting in a bolt-hole to heal/recover is often a practice in D&D, but it doesn't fit as well the pulp goal of pushing on and fast-paced action.

This is something I hadn't thought about, and it does make sense, will need to be play tested of course but it sounds good.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Manic Modron on April 29, 2021, 06:44:36 PM
In my book, pulp characters are going to be quite competent and unable to die through random chance or poor choices on the players part.  If they actually do something like jump in an active volcano I'm likely going to say something like "that is fatal, if you just don't want to play this one we can work something else out."

What I try to punch them in is the failures, not the mortalities.  Villains that get away, McGuffins that are lost, doomsday weapons already fired.

But that doesn't mean there isn't room for more physical dangers.  Being taken out if a fight could lead to injuries that will complicate things later, or simply not being able to reach the goal of the conflict.  What sounds like more fun when you reach zero hit points, rolling up a new character or getting captured and trying to undo the villains plans after an escape from your cells?

Either way, the villains agenda gets to advance while the players goals get frustrated, but starting a new character is sometimes more work than play.  Personally, I'd rather give the character in world problems than give the player a new character sheet.

However, that doesn't mean that death isn't off the table.  Pulp deaths just shouldn't be random or meaningless.  Environmental hazards and minions can critically inconvenience the heroes or make them fail at their goals, but probably not kill them.  What can kill them?  Direct actions of full villains or the heroic sacrifice of the characters.

Just going down to zero hit points means "you lose." You aren't going to die unless somebody important actually murders you or you choose to go out in a blaze of glory, Leaf on the Wind or Last Stand style.


In short (too late), while I agree that we aren't writing a pulp novel, if somebody pitched a pulp action game and we didn't start out as Conan/Indiana Jones/The Shadow/freaking Carmen San Diego or whoever on day one, I'd consider that a bait and switch.

I'm not signing on to pulp so I can schlub around at level one worrying if I'm going to get shanked by a street rat.  It is zero to hero in the space of character creation.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 07:53:18 PM
Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Random thought, but I wonder if Fate/Luck/etc. can be changed to a type of attribute or special stat (maybe called Determination or Daring) that needs to be rolled in order to get a "luck" related benefit. Maybe limit it to once per encounter (or until circumstances change) to avoid abuse, with cumulative penalties per time used per session. That way you can get something similar to a metacurrency without actually using a metacurrency.

Or is your deep-seated hatred of metacurrency rooted on something else?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 08:00:10 PM
Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Random thought, but I wonder if Fate/Luck/etc. can be changed to a type of attribute or special stat (maybe called Determination or Daring) that needs to be rolled in order to get a "luck" related benefit. Maybe limit it to once per encounter (or until circumstances change) to avoid abuse, with cumulative penalties per time used per session. That way you can get something similar to a metacurrency without actually using a metacurrency.

Or is your deep-seated hatred of metacurrency rooted on something else?

Been thinking just that, add a 7th attribute call it luck and it gives you some benefits.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 08:02:18 PM
In my book, pulp characters are going to be quite competent and unable to die through random chance or poor choices on the players part.  If they actually do something like jump in an active volcano I'm likely going to say something like "that is fatal, if you just don't want to play this one we can work something else out."

What I try to punch them in is the failures, not the mortalities.  Villains that get away, McGuffins that are lost, doomsday weapons already fired.

But that doesn't mean there isn't room for more physical dangers.  Being taken out if a fight could lead to injuries that will complicate things later, or simply not being able to reach the goal of the conflict.  What sounds like more fun when you reach zero hit points, rolling up a new character or getting captured and trying to undo the villains plans after an escape from your cells?

Either way, the villains agenda gets to advance while the players goals get frustrated, but starting a new character is sometimes more work than play.  Personally, I'd rather give the character in world problems than give the player a new character sheet.

However, that doesn't mean that death isn't off the table.  Pulp deaths just shouldn't be random or meaningless.  Environmental hazards and minions can critically inconvenience the heroes or make them fail at their goals, but probably not kill them.  What can kill them?  Direct actions of full villains or the heroic sacrifice of the characters.

Just going down to zero hit points means "you lose." You aren't going to die unless somebody important actually murders you or you choose to go out in a blaze of glory, Leaf on the Wind or Last Stand style.


In short (too late), while I agree that we aren't writing a pulp novel, if somebody pitched a pulp action game and we didn't start out as Conan/Indiana Jones/The Shadow/freaking Carmen San Diego or whoever on day one, I'd consider that a bait and switch.

I'm not signing on to pulp so I can schlub around at level one worrying if I'm going to get shanked by a street rat.  It is zero to hero in the space of character creation.

Poor choices on the players part should (IMHO) ALWAYS result in what they should result, even death, never mind the genre of the Game.

I understand you, I don't agree with you, but I understand you.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Manic Modron on April 29, 2021, 09:28:48 PM

Poor choices on the players part should (IMHO) ALWAYS result in what they should result, even death, never mind the genre of the Game.

I understand you, I don't agree with you, but I understand you.
[/quote]

Of course there is a gradient here.   The poor choices I'm talking about are more mistakes and errors and not self sabotaging nonsense behavior.

Players and GMs alike get tired and make mistakes, we aren't our characters, nobody is at the top of their game even on game nights, etc etc.

If they take an action that is directly  or clearly suicidal, that is different.  That stopped being a mistake and started being a very brief lifestyle choice.

Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: HappyDaze on April 29, 2021, 10:00:59 PM
If they take an action that is directly  or clearly suicidal, that is different.  That stopped being a mistake and started being a very brief lifestyle choice.
It's not always easy to know when an action is directly or clearly suicidal, especially in a pulp game. Star Wars is close enough to pulp that I'll use the example of using hyperspace inside an atmosphere. Clearly impossible/suicidal...until it suddenly wasn't anymore.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 10:06:20 PM


Poor choices on the players part should (IMHO) ALWAYS result in what they should result, even death, never mind the genre of the Game.

I understand you, I don't agree with you, but I understand you.

Of course there is a gradient here.   The poor choices I'm talking about are more mistakes and errors and not self sabotaging nonsense behavior.

Players and GMs alike get tired and make mistakes, we aren't our characters, nobody is at the top of their game even on game nights, etc etc.

If they take an action that is directly  or clearly suicidal, that is different.  That stopped being a mistake and started being a very brief lifestyle choice.

It's not always easy to know when an action is directly or clearly suicidal, especially in a pulp game. Star Wars is close enough to pulp that I'll use the example of using hyperspace inside an atmosphere. Clearly impossible/suicidal...until it suddenly wasn't anymore.

You're in the temple of whashisname, there's a giant face in the wall with it's mouth open (the GM already decided it's gonna chomp on whatver gets inside the mouth) and you stick your head in it.

Should the GM change on the fly the trap so you don't die?

Are we sure you're not a fan of critical role?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: This Guy on April 29, 2021, 10:08:32 PM
If they take an action that is directly  or clearly suicidal, that is different.  That stopped being a mistake and started being a very brief lifestyle choice.
It's not always easy to know when an action is directly or clearly suicidal, especially in a pulp game. Star Wars is close enough to pulp that I'll use the example of using hyperspace inside an atmosphere. Clearly impossible/suicidal...until it suddenly wasn't anymore.

You're in the temple of whashisname, there's a giant face in the wall with it's mouth open (the GM already decided it's gona chomp on whatver gets inside the mouth) and you stick your head in it.

Should the GM change on the fly the trap so you don't die?

Are we sure you're not a fan of critical role?

Are your players actually that retarded and if so why are you playing with them
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Manic Modron on April 29, 2021, 10:17:50 PM
Also true.  Overall less of a rule and more of a guideline with plenty of room needed for context.


Still, I'm not going to be a hard ass about it, especially if I'm supposed to be running a high heroics game like pulp action.

It might be a point of privilege that the last time I had a player willfully ignorant of consequences was in highschool when somebody jumped into a literal abyss and got pissy when I said "yeah, that was suicide. You aren't coming back from that."

I try to question people these days. 

However, it was only a month or two ago when as party found a saboteur, but it was so late at night nobody picked up on the heavy hints I was trying to drop that there might still be bombs.

Fortunately it was a one shot scenario with no further sessions planned, so I didn't feel TOO bad about detonating the building in their sleep.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 10:26:16 PM
Also true.  Overall less of a rule and more of a guideline with plenty of room needed for context.


Still, I'm not going to be a hard ass about it, especially if I'm supposed to be running a high heroics game like pulp action.

It might be a point of privilege that the last time I had a player willfully ignorant of consequences was in highschool when somebody jumped into a literal abyss and got pissy when I said "yeah, that was suicide. You aren't coming back from that."

I try to question people these days. 

However, it was only a month or two ago when as party found a saboteur, but it was so late at night nobody picked up on the heavy hints I was trying to drop that there might still be bombs.

Fortunately it was a one shot scenario with no further sessions planned, so I didn't feel TOO bad about detonating the building in their sleep.

LOL, been there done that. And not so long ago (and I bet I'm way older than you), all it took was taking one too many before the game session, forgot Stone Giants have magic immunity, pissed of some and got our followers killed.

Same campaign, we're facing a Wyvern and our heroic Bard jumps infront of me and gets stabed with it's tail, killed the thing and managed to save the bard thru quick thinking and the smart use of healing from the cleric and a potion of clear waters.

By pure luck (and the abismal rolls of our DM) not a single PC died then.

But, same campaign, we spot some green things sprouting from the ground, suspecting something I pocke it with my staff and it was a monster, killed our dwarven warrior.

Any of those should have been modified by the GM in a Pulp Game?

IMHO no, no pain no gain, no risk no sense of achievment.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 10:40:37 PM
Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Random thought, but I wonder if Fate/Luck/etc. can be changed to a type of attribute or special stat (maybe called Determination or Daring) that needs to be rolled in order to get a "luck" related benefit. Maybe limit it to once per encounter (or until circumstances change) to avoid abuse, with cumulative penalties per time used per session. That way you can get something similar to a metacurrency without actually using a metacurrency.

Or is your deep-seated hatred of metacurrency rooted on something else?

Lets see how you like this:

CharGen Feats, meaning they can only be taken AT chargen:

Pick two?

Lucky, You can re roll once per session but must keep the result of that roll.

Gifted: Raise ONE attribute by 2, no attribute can be higher than 18.

Looker: You're very atractive, get +1 in any rolls to influence, seduce, etc.

Though as Nails: Get +1 in any SW

Second Wind: When you're at 0 HP you're not unconscious, keep fighting until the end of the round.

Inspiration: Get +1 in rolls of deduction, invention, investigation...
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: HappyDaze on April 29, 2021, 10:54:04 PM


Poor choices on the players part should (IMHO) ALWAYS result in what they should result, even death, never mind the genre of the Game.

I understand you, I don't agree with you, but I understand you.

Of course there is a gradient here.   The poor choices I'm talking about are more mistakes and errors and not self sabotaging nonsense behavior.

Players and GMs alike get tired and make mistakes, we aren't our characters, nobody is at the top of their game even on game nights, etc etc.

If they take an action that is directly  or clearly suicidal, that is different.  That stopped being a mistake and started being a very brief lifestyle choice.

It's not always easy to know when an action is directly or clearly suicidal, especially in a pulp game. Star Wars is close enough to pulp that I'll use the example of using hyperspace inside an atmosphere. Clearly impossible/suicidal...until it suddenly wasn't anymore.

You're in the temple of whashisname, there's a giant face in the wall with it's mouth open (the GM already decided it's gonna chomp on whatver gets inside the mouth) and you stick your head in it.

Should the GM change on the fly the trap so you don't die?

Are we sure you're not a fan of critical role?
Get your head out of your ass. None of what you said has anything to do with the point I was making.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 29, 2021, 11:05:01 PM

You're in the temple of whashisname, there's a giant face in the wall with it's mouth open (the GM already decided it's gonna chomp on whatver gets inside the mouth) and you stick your head in it.

Should the GM change on the fly the trap so you don't die?

Are we sure you're not a fan of critical role?
If your players are just being suicidal that's a different problem.

A pulpy way to deal with a trap like this is to slow down the action, let the players SEE the trap springing, then give them a chance to react. "The mouth begins to close... what do you do?!" instead of "Oops, it closes and you're dead."
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 11:14:32 PM

You're in the temple of whashisname, there's a giant face in the wall with it's mouth open (the GM already decided it's gonna chomp on whatver gets inside the mouth) and you stick your head in it.

Should the GM change on the fly the trap so you don't die?

Are we sure you're not a fan of critical role?
If your players are just being suicidal that's a different problem.

A pulpy way to deal with a trap like this is to slow down the action, let the players SEE the trap springing, then give them a chance to react. "The mouth begins to close... what do you do?!" instead of "Oops, it closes and you're dead."

Yeah, I know you want the PCs to be immortal and unbeatable. I don't.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: mAcular Chaotic on April 30, 2021, 12:30:09 AM
All right. I see you're just here to argue. Good luck with your non-pulp pulp game.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 12:35:09 AM
All right. I see you're just here to argue. Good luck with your non-pulp pulp game.

Actually the thread was for sharing tropes others thought should be subverted, it was you who turned it into a discussion of my choices in my game.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Manic Modron on April 30, 2021, 01:16:22 AM
I'm starting to feel like I am arguing against survival threats in gaming, and I am absolutely not.  There is a lot of fun to be had sitting down and wondering if this is the game where I run out of luck and go tumbling into a pit of spikes. 

It is just that at a certain point (that will certainly vary according to taste) a trope can be subverted so hard that it changes the genre of the game/movie/book and that is a risky endeavor.   One might think that an espionage game where the supernatural is really real and the PCs get tumbled into an underworld of vampires and cultists instead of KGB agents and terrorist cells is a subversion, but players might backlash because they wanted no fucking magic in their technothriller intrigue. 

Similarly, if it is a Pulp game on the menu, nobody is going to have to roll to save vs disease, even if they are tromping through the jungle in khaki shorts and a button down short sleeved shirt. It just isn't done. 

Unless of course a player is having a "Why are you like this" moment and decides to go for a swim in a leech infested bog, but that is their fault for fucking with the premise and doing random bullshit in an establishing shot.  Setting up rules and expectations can easily be dismantled by hypothetical players that refuse to engage with the pitch and I think we've all had some of those. 



Personally, I think that some of the examples set by Geekybugle are Pulpy enough with hardly any GM interference, but instead of second guessing that history, let me give an example from a different game: the Arkham Horror card game.  It is pulpy as HELL in my eyes.  For all the tradition of Mythos investigators being killed or eaten or going mad before the adventure is over, these investigators can be pretty durable since the game is set up so that they don't often actually die or go completely bonkers.  Specifically, the only things that can usually do this out of hand are end game conflicts. 

However, that doesn't mean that shit can't go seriously, nail-bitingly wrong.  Failure to achieve certain goals in a scenario WILL come back and bite you in the ass later and some of those goals conflict with each other.  But the threat isn't really "are the investigators going to get gunned down by the mob when monsters crash the speak-easy," but "is the mob going to swear vengeance and come back to haunt the investigators later" and "is somebody going to be easier to take out later because they have a bullet in the shoulder now."  The players can expect the characters will survive being ripped into a dimensional vortex and hurtled beyond space and time for a while, but they aren't going to be happy about it or able to neglect the consequences of the experience.  No comic relief Loki "I've been falling for half an hour!" and then nothing wrong after the audience has a chuckle here.


I agree completely with the Nerd-Trumpeter.

No difficulty, no accomplishment.
No pain, no gain.
No risk, no reward.

But pain and risk have a lot of different flavors and you can put the hurt and fear and triumph and accomplishment into players without survival necessarily being a chip on the table.

Or in a different kind of game they can roll a one while walking down the wrong hallway and go tumbling into a pit of spikes.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 02:03:00 AM
The Nerd-Trumpeteer huh?  ;D

I thinkm we all agree more than disagree and maybe we're all talking past each other.

In a Novel/Movie/etc the protagonist can't and won't die because it's The Protagonist tm.

In an RPG IMHO a certain ammount of death risk must ALWAYS be on the table (not in every session/decision/etc), in a Pulp one this might be less than normal, or it can be handled by giving the PCs ways to cheat death (see my CharGen Feats up).

And the rest of the time the risk can be other things, this is something that is also done in Fantasy RPGs by some GMs, it's up for the GM to handle, not for the rules.

Because if it's by rule then we're playing Toon. And also because some GMs might want a hig lethality, who am I to try and predict what every table wants? So the game has the rules in a certain way as to make it easy for the GM to tune it up or down to his liking.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 30, 2021, 03:32:07 AM
My Primeval Thule 5e campaign went for a 'pulp' tone from level 1. All I did was give everyone their full CON score as bonus hp - so eg a CON 14 Barbarian would normally have 14 hp, in this they had 28. Didn't make them invincible. By contrast OD&D PCs with 1d6+1 hp & die at 0 are never going to fit pulp genre norms.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Eirikrautha on April 30, 2021, 07:04:44 AM
All right. I see you're just here to argue. Good luck with your non-pulp pulp game.

Actually the thread was for sharing tropes others thought should be subverted, it was you who turned it into a discussion of my choices in my game.

Well, it worked really well in the Star Wars movies, so I'm sure rejecting major pulp tropes will be exactly what your players want from their pulp game.  Perhaps you can bring in Rian Johnson as a consultant?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 30, 2021, 08:08:57 AM
Do you agree or disagree? Why? Do you have some other examples of Fiction Tropes that shouldn't make it ever to the rules/table?

I guess everyone disagrees with the proposal that Pulp genre PCs should ever die as frequently as first level characters in OD&D. Most of us are ok with *some* risk of PC death, though.

Trope subversion can work if done cleverly - Joss Whedon at his best is an exemplar of this, like the Buffy episode where the 'it takes an army to stop him' Judge BBEG gets obliterated by one shot from a LAW. That's exactly the stuff players love - Alexander discusses this a bit in his latest video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_e3KFMZb-0 - fudging to keep the BBEG alive may be in-genre but I'd say is a great example of a genre trope that should never hit the game table.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 30, 2021, 08:10:23 AM
Well, it worked really well in the Star Wars movies, so I'm sure rejecting major pulp tropes will be exactly what your players want from their pulp game.  Perhaps you can bring in Rian Johnson as a consultant?

Yes, trope subversion for the sake of it is a quick trip to Rian Johnson's Circle of the Damned. If in doubt, play it safe and stick to the tropes.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on April 30, 2021, 08:20:54 AM
The Pulp Avengers https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm (https://www.fantasylibrary.com/lounge/pulpavengers.htm) And it is correct that the Pulp heroes didn't die, and many times neither did the villains.

What it says there:

II REDUCED HERO DEATHS

Pulp heroes face incredible danger every day, but very rarely came to any serious harm during their death-defying adventures. Pushed out of flying aeroplanes, being trapped in flooded caverns, dodging a hail of gangster lead, pulp heroes survived it all, with only torn shirts, ripped stockings and mussed hair to hint at the dangers they had faced. In a fair fight, the good guys never lost, being beaten by the bad guys only through overwhelming odds, hypnotism, traps, and other cowardly and treacherous acts. A combination of clever tricks, fast thinking, audacious daring, sheer luck, and plot immunity from pulp authors reluctant to kill a favourite character saved countless heroes from seemingly sure death in the pulps.

It's harder for GMs to have their players' PCs continually stare death in the eye and still have these heroes regularly surviving deadly pulp RPG adventures, but it can be done. Introduce cinematic rules in your RPG system of preference, reducing most wounds to simple unconsciousness, and minor injuries to blackouts, dazing and temporary incapacitation. Instead of lethal injuries, arrange situations for the mortally wounded PC's body to disappear, and later reintroduce the character to the storyline with a some lesser but longer lasting injury and an explanation of some sort for their disappearance. Have your players let their PCs make copious use of the RPG rules on luck and luck talents, allow them to push their strength and will-power to beyond the brink, and let them use extra experience die rolls and "brownie points" to save their PCs from certain death. Note that this pulp adventure ingredient is one of reduced PC deaths, not outright immunity from death. If players have their PCs repeatedly perform reckless and thoughtless actions, let the dice fall as they may, and occasionally let such PCs die. On the other hand, never let a string of bad die rolls alone spell the demise of an otherwise well played pulp PC hero.

Other tricks to reduce the lethal effects of gun combat can be gadgets invented and used by the PC pulp heroes. Allow bulletproof armour for those heroes who frequently face lead-happy enemies. Allow PC gadgeteers to invent strange electrical devices that render gunpowder inert within its area of effect, or produce personal force-fields that will only allow slow-moving weapons such as swinging swords or hurled fists to penetrate. You can also have the pulp version of the magic healing that is common to fantasy games, weird science devices such as "Blood Pills", "Bone Glue" and "Flesh Wrap" that can be invented by gadgeteers to quickly patch up damaged or mangled PC heroes.

Emphasize to your players the pulp convention that both crooks and heroes will more often surrender in the face of overwhelming odds than fight on to the last anaemic drop of blood. To help promote this behaviour, do not punish PCs who honour this classic pulp tradition of surrendering to the enemy; instead, have them taken to the villain's secret HQ, and once there, give them a chance to escape and turn the tables on their former captors. Have your NPC villains make use of knockout gas, heavy saps, and narcotic bullets to bring down our heroes, and not the more ubiquitous and deadly lead variety. Let fisticuffs and brawling be the preferred means of combat by the agents of the villain and the heroes, by allowing handguns to be quickly knocked to the ground at the start of fighting when they are first pulled out by trigger-happy combatants. Providing situations where everyone knows that firing a gun is foolhardy, perhaps aboard a hydrogen-filled dirigible or inside a dynamite factory, is yet another trick to reduce the scale of lethality of your pulp RPG combats.


"Note that this pulp adventure ingredient is one of reduced PC deaths, not outright immunity from death" seems like good advice to me.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: VisionStorm on April 30, 2021, 08:44:37 AM
Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Random thought, but I wonder if Fate/Luck/etc. can be changed to a type of attribute or special stat (maybe called Determination or Daring) that needs to be rolled in order to get a "luck" related benefit. Maybe limit it to once per encounter (or until circumstances change) to avoid abuse, with cumulative penalties per time used per session. That way you can get something similar to a metacurrency without actually using a metacurrency.

Or is your deep-seated hatred of metacurrency rooted on something else?

Lets see how you like this:

CharGen Feats, meaning they can only be taken AT chargen:

Pick two?

Lucky, You can re roll once per session but must keep the result of that roll.

Gifted: Raise ONE attribute by 2, no attribute can be higher than 18.

Looker: You're very atractive, get +1 in any rolls to influence, seduce, etc.

Though as Nails: Get +1 in any SW

Second Wind: When you're at 0 HP you're not unconscious, keep fighting until the end of the round.

Inspiration: Get +1 in rolls of deduction, invention, investigation...

Those sound good in concept, but I wonder how good they are mechanically. Glancing over at the bonuses, knowing that everyone gets two picks, it seems to me that EVERYONE would pick the +2 to one attribute, then the next pick would be a toss up cuz their benefits all seem kinda low mechanically. Granted, this depends on how rolls actually work and what the standards are in the system, but a +1 bonus to a skill check in most d20 style games is almost negligible, specially when it applies only to a narrow range of skills. Meanwhile a +2 to one attribute gives you +1 to ALL skills based on it, at least assuming a +1 per 2 points above 10, as is the case in 3e+ d20 System mechanics. Not sure if you're going 0e bonus ranges (9-12 +0, 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3), but even then a +2 attribute bonus is preferable to anything else you posted here.

I'm also not sure if having a single re-roll in an entire session for Lucky is that much of a benefit. A slight increase might make it more attractive, maybe 1 +Cha modifier (though, no one will take it unless high Cha, then), or 3/session, 1/encounter max, perhaps even higher. Second Wind also seems kinda limited and situational, since you'd have to 1) lose initiative, and then 2) get attacked and reduced to 0 HP before your turn comes up for the benefit to even come into effect. Then you have exactly one action before you fall unconscious anyway.

I'm also not sure about the name, since Second Wind implies you get an extra burst of energy and in most games I've seen include something called "Second Wind" it usually works like HP or stamina recovery.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: spon on April 30, 2021, 08:50:40 AM
To add to what others have said, what's to stop PCs doing stupid things that should lead to their deaths? They FAIL. The scenario ends with the bad guys winning. Sure, the PCs survive (the volcano god recognises the amulet they picked up and mistakes them for some of his worshippers perhaps) but the Nazis escape with the gold (or whatever). The point of a pulp game is to defeat the bad guys whilst doing cool stuff. But it's not guaranteed, that's why we play.
In D&D, the PCs do stupid things, they can die. In pulp, if the PCs do stupid things, they fail. Simples.

Right, but how the fuck do I codify THAT into the rules? It's a honest question, I'm drawing a blank. Without meta currency.

As someone else said, it's more a GM-style thing. However, you could have some measure of how the PCs are seen in the campaign (fame? notoriety? Let's call it fame for now). It's not a currency they can expend, but their actions affect it and they get some bonus from it of it's high (of course we will put you for the night, saviour of the great city!).
If a PC does something important (foil a bad guy's plan, save a town, cure a plague), their fame goes up. If they are defeated by the bad guy or "die", their fame goes down.
A starting "hero" will have fame = 0 (or whatever you want if you want a more heroic feel).
If a hero dies while their fame is 0, they are permanently dead.
So starting "heroes" will die for good if they die but heroes with more fame can survive a drubbing or two.

When a PC with Fame > 0 "dies", they somehow escape and are merely injured - to recover some days/weeks later. Again, the bad guy's plan is advanced by however many weeks the PC is out of action. Once recovered, their "fame" score will fall.
 
In terms of explanations - bad guys never to a coup de grace, they leave the hero tied up and badly beaten, possibly with a note pinned to his chest saying something like "Next time, send a real hero". Thus you have an in-game reason for the PC's fame to fall.

I'm not sure if you'd want to do something like this as it may be too meta-currency-like for your tastes. But maybe something similar might work?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: VisionStorm on April 30, 2021, 08:52:15 AM
Do you agree or disagree? Why? Do you have some other examples of Fiction Tropes that shouldn't make it ever to the rules/table?

I guess everyone disagrees with the proposal that Pulp genre PCs should ever die as frequently as first level characters in OD&D. Most of us are ok with *some* risk of PC death, though.

Yeah, I didn't wanna get into that argument, but my take would be that PC death should be a thing, but OD&D level 1 death-rates are too high for the pulp genre, or even real life, to be honest, cuz it takes a lucky shot to the head or vital area* to do someone in with just one hit IRL. And even then there are cases of people surviving gun shots to the head IRL. Classic D&D level 1 hit points are ridiculously low.

*EDIT: which would be considered a critical hit using critical tables in old school games, not just a "you rolled max damage".
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Chris24601 on April 30, 2021, 09:27:31 AM
All right. I see you're just here to argue. Good luck with your non-pulp pulp game.

Actually the thread was for sharing tropes others thought should be subverted, it was you who turned it into a discussion of my choices in my game.
Oh, in that case... None of them. Subversion is the tool of saboteurs seeking to destroy.

Tropes become tropes for a reason. They speak to something deep in us. They resonate with a type of truth and that is why they are used again and again.

The Subversive seeks to tear them down... often because they don’t understand why the trope was built in the first place or because they hate something it represents. Often they’ll call it “realistic”, but usually it’s their own nihilism bleeding through.

They ultimately want a world where the idea that someone could be heroic for selfless reason, where people are basically good, where there is truth and beauty and love are real, where that triumphs in the end to die so they don’t have to feel like the miserable fucking failures they are for being the selfish sociopaths they are.

And subversion is the tool they use to tear down the civilization whose identity is built upon those tropes.

So, yeah, I’m pretty much done with subversion as a technique. Examine a trope for what it’s really about and then build on it? All day long. But in my experience, those who use subversion have little interest in rebuilding what they’ve destroyed.

We need superversion these days, not subversion.

So, the fundamental question in regards to pulp heroes and mortality is “why is it a trope in the first place?” Plenty of old stories/myths ended with dramatic failures and death of the protagonist (Arthur and Camelot and Hercules for just a couple examples), so what is it about the Indiana Jones, the Doc Savage, the Tarzan or the Shadow type who always survives despite often horrific turns of fortune that spoke to audiences enough to become a trope?

Answer that and you’ll also have a sense of how to model that element in your game, including where the line for death (vs. defeat) falls.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: jeff37923 on April 30, 2021, 10:47:09 AM
I've skimmed this thread, but I didn't think that one option was brought up. Injuring the player character.

If the player does something stupid with the PC, instead of the other options - just have the character receive a permanent debilitating injury. Make them blind in one eye or both, deafness, hand or fingers cut off, lung damage from breathing in toxic gas (thus reducing their constitution or endurance) can all have a more profound effect than just death or capture. Even if their character is not killed, but severely wounded (maybe in a coma) - the recovery time from those wounds may be extra long and cause their character to miss a few sessions.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: RandyB on April 30, 2021, 10:53:47 AM
Well, it worked really well in the Star Wars movies, so I'm sure rejecting major pulp tropes will be exactly what your players want from their pulp game.  Perhaps you can bring in Rian Johnson as a consultant?

Yes, trope subversion for the sake of it is a quick trip to Rian Johnson's Circle of the Damned. If in doubt, play it safe and stick to the tropes.

Tropes define the genre. Subverting tropes is subverting the genre. Be intentional about that choice. Your genre depends on it.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: This Guy on April 30, 2021, 11:38:14 AM
All right. I see you're just here to argue. Good luck with your non-pulp pulp game.

Actually the thread was for sharing tropes others thought should be subverted, it was you who turned it into a discussion of my choices in my game.
Oh, in that case... None of them. Subversion is the tool of saboteurs seeking to destroy.

Tropes become tropes for a reason. They speak to something deep in us. They resonate with a type of truth and that is why they are used again and again.

The Subversive seeks to tear them down... often because they don’t understand why the trope was built in the first place or because they hate something it represents. Often they’ll call it “realistic”, but usually it’s their own nihilism bleeding through.

They ultimately want a world where the idea that someone could be heroic for selfless reason, where people are basically good, where there is truth and beauty and love are real, where that triumphs in the end to die so they don’t have to feel like the miserable fucking failures they are for being the selfish sociopaths they are.

Yeah that's all real great but I also want stories that are also real about misery and people being selfish pieces of shit and crimes not getting punished, and fuck the rightscolds that want their stories to teach them Right Morals after they're out of elementary school.

Quote
So, the fundamental question in regards to pulp heroes and mortality is “why is it a trope in the first place?” Plenty of old stories/myths ended with dramatic failures and death of the protagonist (Arthur and Camelot and Hercules for just a couple examples), so what is it about the Indiana Jones, the Doc Savage, the Tarzan or the Shadow type who always survives despite often horrific turns of fortune that spoke to audiences enough to become a trope?

Answer that and you’ll also have a sense of how to model that element in your game, including where the line for death (vs. defeat) falls.

There wasnt a fucking publishing house churning out as much consumable material as possible to make sure people bought Arthurian romances and Greek myths bro. You wanna compare pre-modern and modern stories without considerin the material circumstances of modernity and entertainment markets

Anyway if you're gonna subvert some pulp tropes how about you subvert the ones nobody wants to admit to liking anymore like Yellow Peril or the blackface comic relief guys like Spirit's sidekick
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 11:50:00 AM
Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Random thought, but I wonder if Fate/Luck/etc. can be changed to a type of attribute or special stat (maybe called Determination or Daring) that needs to be rolled in order to get a "luck" related benefit. Maybe limit it to once per encounter (or until circumstances change) to avoid abuse, with cumulative penalties per time used per session. That way you can get something similar to a metacurrency without actually using a metacurrency.

Or is your deep-seated hatred of metacurrency rooted on something else?

Lets see how you like this:

CharGen Feats, meaning they can only be taken AT chargen:

Pick two?

Lucky, You can re roll once per session but must keep the result of that roll.

Gifted: Raise ONE attribute by 2, no attribute can be higher than 18.

Looker: You're very atractive, get +1 in any rolls to influence, seduce, etc.

Though as Nails: Get +1 in any SW

Second Wind: When you're at 0 HP you're not unconscious, keep fighting until the end of the round.

Inspiration: Get +1 in rolls of deduction, invention, investigation...

Those sound good in concept, but I wonder how good they are mechanically. Glancing over at the bonuses, knowing that everyone gets two picks, it seems to me that EVERYONE would pick the +2 to one attribute, then the next pick would be a toss up cuz their benefits all seem kinda low mechanically. Granted, this depends on how rolls actually work and what the standards are in the system, but a +1 bonus to a skill check in most d20 style games is almost negligible, specially when it applies only to a narrow range of skills. Meanwhile a +2 to one attribute gives you +1 to ALL skills based on it, at least assuming a +1 per 2 points above 10, as is the case in 3e+ d20 System mechanics. Not sure if you're going 0e bonus ranges (9-12 +0, 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3), but even then a +2 attribute bonus is preferable to anything else you posted here.

I'm also not sure if having a single re-roll in an entire session for Lucky is that much of a benefit. A slight increase might make it more attractive, maybe 1 +Cha modifier (though, no one will take it unless high Cha, then), or 3/session, 1/encounter max, perhaps even higher. Second Wind also seems kinda limited and situational, since you'd have to 1) lose initiative, and then 2) get attacked and reduced to 0 HP before your turn comes up for the benefit to even come into effect. Then you have exactly one action before you fall unconscious anyway.

I'm also not sure about the name, since Second Wind implies you get an extra burst of energy and in most games I've seen include something called "Second Wind" it usually works like HP or stamina recovery.

CharGen Feats
Pick two? At CharGen and only at Chargen. Unless specified otherwise feats can be taken only once.

1. Twist of Fate – 3 times a day you can add/subtract 1d4 from any roll, be it yours or your opponent.
2. Gifted – Raise ONE attribute by 2, no attribute can be higher than 18.
3. Looker – You're very attractive, get +2 in any rolls to influence, seduce, etc.
4. Though as Nails – Get +2 in any ST.
5. Second Wind – You are not unconscious until you reach -5 HP, keep fighting.
6. Inspiration – Get +2 in rolls of deduction, invention, investigation...
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 11:56:19 AM
To add to what others have said, what's to stop PCs doing stupid things that should lead to their deaths? They FAIL. The scenario ends with the bad guys winning. Sure, the PCs survive (the volcano god recognises the amulet they picked up and mistakes them for some of his worshippers perhaps) but the Nazis escape with the gold (or whatever). The point of a pulp game is to defeat the bad guys whilst doing cool stuff. But it's not guaranteed, that's why we play.
In D&D, the PCs do stupid things, they can die. In pulp, if the PCs do stupid things, they fail. Simples.

Right, but how the fuck do I codify THAT into the rules? It's a honest question, I'm drawing a blank. Without meta currency.

As someone else said, it's more a GM-style thing. However, you could have some measure of how the PCs are seen in the campaign (fame? notoriety? Let's call it fame for now). It's not a currency they can expend, but their actions affect it and they get some bonus from it of it's high (of course we will put you for the night, saviour of the great city!).
If a PC does something important (foil a bad guy's plan, save a town, cure a plague), their fame goes up. If they are defeated by the bad guy or "die", their fame goes down.
A starting "hero" will have fame = 0 (or whatever you want if you want a more heroic feel).
If a hero dies while their fame is 0, they are permanently dead.
So starting "heroes" will die for good if they die but heroes with more fame can survive a drubbing or two.

When a PC with Fame > 0 "dies", they somehow escape and are merely injured - to recover some days/weeks later. Again, the bad guy's plan is advanced by however many weeks the PC is out of action. Once recovered, their "fame" score will fall.
 
In terms of explanations - bad guys never to a coup de grace, they leave the hero tied up and badly beaten, possibly with a note pinned to his chest saying something like "Next time, send a real hero". Thus you have an in-game reason for the PC's fame to fall.

I'm not sure if you'd want to do something like this as it may be too meta-currency-like for your tastes. But maybe something similar might work?

I'm thinking of including a Honor mechanic, Fame/Reputation might work too. Still working on the mechanical impact it should have, since it needs to give some incentive to the PCs to go do Heroic things.

Things I have thought:
Every X points of IT the PC gets Y more XP
At X points the city Major does a parade in their honor
At X*x points a misterious Mecenas gives the PC Z funds to continue his exploits
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: VisionStorm on April 30, 2021, 01:11:33 PM
Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Random thought, but I wonder if Fate/Luck/etc. can be changed to a type of attribute or special stat (maybe called Determination or Daring) that needs to be rolled in order to get a "luck" related benefit. Maybe limit it to once per encounter (or until circumstances change) to avoid abuse, with cumulative penalties per time used per session. That way you can get something similar to a metacurrency without actually using a metacurrency.

Or is your deep-seated hatred of metacurrency rooted on something else?

Lets see how you like this:

CharGen Feats, meaning they can only be taken AT chargen:

Pick two?

Lucky, You can re roll once per session but must keep the result of that roll.

Gifted: Raise ONE attribute by 2, no attribute can be higher than 18.

Looker: You're very atractive, get +1 in any rolls to influence, seduce, etc.

Though as Nails: Get +1 in any SW

Second Wind: When you're at 0 HP you're not unconscious, keep fighting until the end of the round.

Inspiration: Get +1 in rolls of deduction, invention, investigation...

Those sound good in concept, but I wonder how good they are mechanically. Glancing over at the bonuses, knowing that everyone gets two picks, it seems to me that EVERYONE would pick the +2 to one attribute, then the next pick would be a toss up cuz their benefits all seem kinda low mechanically. Granted, this depends on how rolls actually work and what the standards are in the system, but a +1 bonus to a skill check in most d20 style games is almost negligible, specially when it applies only to a narrow range of skills. Meanwhile a +2 to one attribute gives you +1 to ALL skills based on it, at least assuming a +1 per 2 points above 10, as is the case in 3e+ d20 System mechanics. Not sure if you're going 0e bonus ranges (9-12 +0, 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3), but even then a +2 attribute bonus is preferable to anything else you posted here.

I'm also not sure if having a single re-roll in an entire session for Lucky is that much of a benefit. A slight increase might make it more attractive, maybe 1 +Cha modifier (though, no one will take it unless high Cha, then), or 3/session, 1/encounter max, perhaps even higher. Second Wind also seems kinda limited and situational, since you'd have to 1) lose initiative, and then 2) get attacked and reduced to 0 HP before your turn comes up for the benefit to even come into effect. Then you have exactly one action before you fall unconscious anyway.

I'm also not sure about the name, since Second Wind implies you get an extra burst of energy and in most games I've seen include something called "Second Wind" it usually works like HP or stamina recovery.

CharGen Feats
Pick two? At CharGen and only at Chargen. Unless specified otherwise feats can be taken only once.

1. Twist of Fate – 3 times a day you can add/subtract 1d4 from any roll, be it yours or your opponent.
2. Gifted – Raise ONE attribute by 2, no attribute can be higher than 18.
3. Looker – You're very attractive, get +2 in any rolls to influence, seduce, etc.
4. Though as Nails – Get +2 in any ST.
5. Second Wind – You are not unconscious until you reach -5 HP, keep fighting.
6. Inspiration – Get +2 in rolls of deduction, invention, investigation...

Yeah, those sound like more solid choices. Everyone will still probably pick Gifted (which is probably inevitable and perhaps expected), but the rest seem more meaningful at least.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 01:46:30 PM
Fate/Luck/etc points... I still fecking hate metacurrency. But given the genre it might be an unavoidable evil.

Random thought, but I wonder if Fate/Luck/etc. can be changed to a type of attribute or special stat (maybe called Determination or Daring) that needs to be rolled in order to get a "luck" related benefit. Maybe limit it to once per encounter (or until circumstances change) to avoid abuse, with cumulative penalties per time used per session. That way you can get something similar to a metacurrency without actually using a metacurrency.

Or is your deep-seated hatred of metacurrency rooted on something else?

Lets see how you like this:

CharGen Feats, meaning they can only be taken AT chargen:

Pick two?

Lucky, You can re roll once per session but must keep the result of that roll.

Gifted: Raise ONE attribute by 2, no attribute can be higher than 18.

Looker: You're very atractive, get +1 in any rolls to influence, seduce, etc.

Though as Nails: Get +1 in any SW

Second Wind: When you're at 0 HP you're not unconscious, keep fighting until the end of the round.

Inspiration: Get +1 in rolls of deduction, invention, investigation...

Those sound good in concept, but I wonder how good they are mechanically. Glancing over at the bonuses, knowing that everyone gets two picks, it seems to me that EVERYONE would pick the +2 to one attribute, then the next pick would be a toss up cuz their benefits all seem kinda low mechanically. Granted, this depends on how rolls actually work and what the standards are in the system, but a +1 bonus to a skill check in most d20 style games is almost negligible, specially when it applies only to a narrow range of skills. Meanwhile a +2 to one attribute gives you +1 to ALL skills based on it, at least assuming a +1 per 2 points above 10, as is the case in 3e+ d20 System mechanics. Not sure if you're going 0e bonus ranges (9-12 +0, 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, 18 +3), but even then a +2 attribute bonus is preferable to anything else you posted here.

I'm also not sure if having a single re-roll in an entire session for Lucky is that much of a benefit. A slight increase might make it more attractive, maybe 1 +Cha modifier (though, no one will take it unless high Cha, then), or 3/session, 1/encounter max, perhaps even higher. Second Wind also seems kinda limited and situational, since you'd have to 1) lose initiative, and then 2) get attacked and reduced to 0 HP before your turn comes up for the benefit to even come into effect. Then you have exactly one action before you fall unconscious anyway.

I'm also not sure about the name, since Second Wind implies you get an extra burst of energy and in most games I've seen include something called "Second Wind" it usually works like HP or stamina recovery.

CharGen Feats
Pick two? At CharGen and only at Chargen. Unless specified otherwise feats can be taken only once.

1. Twist of Fate – 3 times a day you can add/subtract 1d4 from any roll, be it yours or your opponent.
2. Gifted – Raise ONE attribute by 2, no attribute can be higher than 18.
3. Looker – You're very attractive, get +2 in any rolls to influence, seduce, etc.
4. Though as Nails – Get +2 in any ST.
5. Second Wind – You are not unconscious until you reach -5 HP, keep fighting.
6. Inspiration – Get +2 in rolls of deduction, invention, investigation...

Yeah, those sound like more solid choices. Everyone will still probably pick Gifted (which is probably inevitable and perhaps expected), but the rest seem more meaningful at least.

Well, it's a Pulp game, so I thought the GM should have the option to have the Players build a bigger than life PC.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: jhkim on April 30, 2021, 02:29:25 PM
Tropes become tropes for a reason. They speak to something deep in us. They resonate with a type of truth and that is why they are used again and again.

The Subversive seeks to tear them down... often because they don’t understand why the trope was built in the first place or because they hate something it represents. Often they’ll call it “realistic”, but usually it’s their own nihilism bleeding through.

They ultimately want a world where the idea that someone could be heroic for selfless reason, where people are basically good, where there is truth and beauty and love are real, where that triumphs in the end to die so they don’t have to feel like the miserable fucking failures they are for being the selfish sociopaths they are.

And subversion is the tool they use to tear down the civilization whose identity is built upon those tropes.

So is the thrust of this that if GeekyBugle doesn't stick to pulp genre tropes like the heroes not dying, then he's tearing down civilization? I think this is randomly inserting politics which doesn't make sense. There are many different genres and many different genre tropes - they don't all represent the core of civilization. A lot of tropes are radical or revolutionary - like, say, the film Avatar that is filled with tropes. Genres are always changing and tropes being subverted.

For example, H.P. Lovecraft subverted a lot of prior pulp horror tropes in his stories. He didn't have swooning maidens in nightgowns going into dark basements, or stalwart defenders keeping vampires at bay with crosses. His horror was scientific, anti-religion, and to a degree nihilist. Still, it was damn good writing.

When pulp was re-invented in the 1980s with Indiana Jones, it used some tropes but it also subverted a lot of tropes - like when Indy abruptly shoots the flashy swordsman, or in the ending when he surrenders and does nothing but close his eyes as the Nazis succeed in their plan (with unintended results). In many ways, The Mummy (1999) was more traditional pulp with its more brawny square-jawed hero - but it still subverted a lot.

Both of these set up their own new offshoots of the genre and had their own imitators. Trope-breaking can be done poorly, and/or it can be done for particular political reasons. But it doesn't have to be.

Point being -- I don't think there's anything wrong or political about having a pulp OSR game where PCs die more than in other pulp games. Regardless of whether it's to my or your personal tastes, it's just a game and changing this point isn't anti-civilization. Here, I think it's melding the gaming genre of traditional D&D with the pulp literary genre, and the result has differences from each.


So, the fundamental question in regards to pulp heroes and mortality is “why is it a trope in the first place?” Plenty of old stories/myths ended with dramatic failures and death of the protagonist (Arthur and Camelot and Hercules for just a couple examples), so what is it about the Indiana Jones, the Doc Savage, the Tarzan or the Shadow type who always survives despite often horrific turns of fortune that spoke to audiences enough to become a trope?

Answer that and you’ll also have a sense of how to model that element in your game, including where the line for death (vs. defeat) falls.

As modern entertainment, pulps had a serial model that aimed to sell as much as possible to a broad audience, that included both children and adults. The episodic nature meant that audience were expected to come in at any point and get a satisfying story - and also possibly read them out of order. It does create a curious sort of dramatic tension - because when the hero goes over a cliff in a burning car, everyone knows that he really isn't going to die, but it's still cheered as an exciting ride.

I think pulps were a more reassuring, everything-is-fine genre that appealed to people as escapist entertainment -- which is different than mythological or literary epics of earlier times.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on May 01, 2021, 04:56:17 AM
I definitely agree with John Kim that not all tropes are pro-Civilisation or Lawful, there are plenty of anti-Civilisation or Chaotic tropes, such as the Rousseau-derived Noble Savage of Dances With Wolves, Avatar, and a ton of other fiction - I think The Last Samurai falls in there too. I don't think Pulp PCs being im/mortal is either Lawful or Chaotic; but again I agree that functional immortality combined with notional 'death threats' feels more escapist.

I definitely think you can do Pulp and have protagonists who appear to die actually stay dead. Eg Captain America: The First Avenger had a very pulp tone. It would not have ceased to be Pulp-tone if Bucky & Steve stayed dead beyond the end of the film*. Conversely though, I think if it featured frequent random protagonist death throughout the film, the genre would have shifted more towards either War Story or towards Alan Moore style 'Subvert All the Tropes!'-ism, which at this point is a sub genre unto itself.

So, again: you don't need to remove all risk of PC death for it to feel Pulp. You don't want frequent random PC death, or it won't feel like Pulp.

*I think with meaningful perma-death would have still felt like Pulp, but with a more mythic/literary epic overtone.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 01, 2021, 09:07:08 AM
I definitely agree with John Kim that not all tropes are pro-Civilisation or Lawful, there are plenty of anti-Civilisation or Chaotic tropes, such as the Rousseau-derived Noble Savage of Dances With Wolves, Avatar, and a ton of other fiction - I think The Last Samurai falls in there too. I don't think Pulp PCs being im/mortal is either Lawful or Chaotic; but again I agree that functional immortality combined with notional 'death threats' feels more escapist.

I definitely think you can do Pulp and have protagonists who appear to die actually stay dead. Eg Captain America: The First Avenger had a very pulp tone. It would not have ceased to be Pulp-tone if Bucky & Steve stayed dead beyond the end of the film*. Conversely though, I think if it featured frequent random protagonist death throughout the film, the genre would have shifted more towards either War Story or towards Alan Moore style 'Subvert All the Tropes!'-ism, which at this point is a sub genre unto itself.

So, again: you don't need to remove all risk of PC death for it to feel Pulp. You don't want frequent random PC death, or it won't feel like Pulp.

*I think with meaningful perma-death would have still felt like Pulp, but with a more mythic/literary epic overtone.

You don't see Bucky die, you see him fall to his death, same with cap, you don't see him die, you see him fall to a frozing ocean. Fade to black change of scene.

That's easy to do in fiction, not so much in an RPG, because when the disintegrator ray, that we have seen disintegrate a tank Hits your PC...
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Chris24601 on May 01, 2021, 12:17:59 PM
I definitely agree with John Kim that not all tropes are pro-Civilisation or Lawful, there are plenty of anti-Civilisation or Chaotic tropes, such as the Rousseau-derived Noble Savage of Dances With Wolves, Avatar, and a ton of other fiction - I think The Last Samurai falls in there too. I don't think Pulp PCs being im/mortal is either Lawful or Chaotic; but again I agree that functional immortality combined with notional 'death threats' feels more escapist.
To be fair, not all civilizations are worth preserving. Rebels fighting an authoritarian regime is technically “anti-civilization” in the sense of pulling down the established order, but that order was corrupt and needs to fall for the good of the people it exploits for the gains of its leaders.

Basically, there’s a difference between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. Most of the subversion I see prevalent these days is more about establishing that the Good are actually evil and the Evil are actually good (ex. the Maleficent films, Superman expies who turn out to be jerks at best, more typically monsters, orcs are actually good and the humans are racists for attacking them, etc.).

And yes, if the point of the pulp hero’s “immortality” is that the pulp genre is fundamentally escapist, then it stands to reason that people interested in playing a game based on the genre are also looking for something escapist and your death mechanics should reflect that.

For example, one of the few really good mechanics that came out of Paradigm’s attempts at building their own system for Arcanis (which was intended to be a bit pulpy) was their Wounds and Stamina system which reinforced that. Stamina was basically your hit points, but all non-physical (bumps, bruises, minor cuts at most). At 0 stamina you’re knocked out. Wounds only occurred on critical hits,  or other specific instances (and only 1 from any occurrence, though PCs only ever had 2-4). At 0 wounds you will die without medical attention and without expert/magic care you will probably acquire a permanent disability even if you do survive.

This fits the general pulp convention that heroes are typically only knocked out/captured rather than killed unless special situations are in play, while still keeping the possibility of luck/the fates ending them due to actual wounds.

You don't see Bucky die, you see him fall to his death, same with cap, you don't see him die, you see him fall to a frozing ocean. Fade to black change of scene.

That's easy to do in fiction, not so much in an RPG, because when the disintegrator ray, that we have seen disintegrate a tank Hits your PC...
This is where non-physical hit points (Stamina in that Arcanis system, Edge in my own) help to model situations.

See, in a pulp scenario the distintegrator ray NEVER hits the hero (until it does... i.e. a lethal critical hit); instead they dive out of the path at the last second, but are knocked unconscious by debris from the ceiling collapsing when the distintegrator ray instead strikes a support column.

Pulp is a genre that benefits from a less detailed combat system; one area where the OSR model DOES fit the mold is it’s it’s one minute combat rounds where a single attack represents a number of attempts in the larger flow of battle (so in a pulpy gun battle the combatants aren’t taking a single shot per round, they’re probably emptying their entire magazine and reloading again during the round).

Couple that with non-physical hit points and it’s very easy to create a system with a pulpy feel where you don’t describe the overall action of the past minute until the entire round is over.

So, using the Stamina/Wounds of Arcanis as an example, if the distintegrator ray knocks the PC to zero stamina, but it wasn’t a critical hit then the GM describes the action in such a way that evading the death ray results in their being knocked unconscious by a secondary effect. If it was a critical then they were seriously wounded in evading the death ray. If the hit dropped their wounds to zero then they were actually struck and distintegrated to the horror of their companions.

There’s no metacurrency involved, players aren’t using Fate or Luck points to alter outcomes, just the lack of detail allows the GM more latitude in narrating the outcome of a combat round (though the declared actions are obviously the starting point).

Heck, it’s a level of detail less than I’d enjoy, but you could even go as abstract as the new V5 mechanics where each turn is an opposed check (with bonuses based on the circumstances... so having a death ray might give the villain a +5 to their check result) with the winner doing their margin of success in damage to the loser and the GM narrating how that happens based on each participant’s declared actions.

Similarly, treating “mooks” as a single entity in a more abstracted system makes sense (particularly with the “one attack equals emptying your magazine over the course of a minute” aspect).
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: GeekyBugle on May 01, 2021, 01:21:26 PM
I definitely agree with John Kim that not all tropes are pro-Civilisation or Lawful, there are plenty of anti-Civilisation or Chaotic tropes, such as the Rousseau-derived Noble Savage of Dances With Wolves, Avatar, and a ton of other fiction - I think The Last Samurai falls in there too. I don't think Pulp PCs being im/mortal is either Lawful or Chaotic; but again I agree that functional immortality combined with notional 'death threats' feels more escapist.
To be fair, not all civilizations are worth preserving. Rebels fighting an authoritarian regime is technically “anti-civilization” in the sense of pulling down the established order, but that order was corrupt and needs to fall for the good of the people it exploits for the gains of its leaders.

Basically, there’s a difference between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. Most of the subversion I see prevalent these days is more about establishing that the Good are actually evil and the Evil are actually good (ex. the Maleficent films, Superman expies who turn out to be jerks at best, more typically monsters, orcs are actually good and the humans are racists for attacking them, etc.).

And yes, if the point of the pulp hero’s “immortality” is that the pulp genre is fundamentally escapist, then it stands to reason that people interested in playing a game based on the genre are also looking for something escapist and your death mechanics should reflect that.

For example, one of the few really good mechanics that came out of Paradigm’s attempts at building their own system for Arcanis (which was intended to be a bit pulpy) was their Wounds and Stamina system which reinforced that. Stamina was basically your hit points, but all non-physical (bumps, bruises, minor cuts at most). At 0 stamina you’re knocked out. Wounds only occurred on critical hits,  or other specific instances (and only 1 from any occurrence, though PCs only ever had 2-4). At 0 wounds you will die without medical attention and without expert/magic care you will probably acquire a permanent disability even if you do survive.

This fits the general pulp convention that heroes are typically only knocked out/captured rather than killed unless special situations are in play, while still keeping the possibility of luck/the fates ending them due to actual wounds.

You don't see Bucky die, you see him fall to his death, same with cap, you don't see him die, you see him fall to a frozing ocean. Fade to black change of scene.

That's easy to do in fiction, not so much in an RPG, because when the disintegrator ray, that we have seen disintegrate a tank Hits your PC...
This is where non-physical hit points (Stamina in that Arcanis system, Edge in my own) help to model situations.

See, in a pulp scenario the distintegrator ray NEVER hits the hero (until it does... i.e. a lethal critical hit); instead they dive out of the path at the last second, but are knocked unconscious by debris from the ceiling collapsing when the distintegrator ray instead strikes a support column.

Pulp is a genre that benefits from a less detailed combat system; one area where the OSR model DOES fit the mold is it’s it’s one minute combat rounds where a single attack represents a number of attempts in the larger flow of battle (so in a pulpy gun battle the combatants aren’t taking a single shot per round, they’re probably emptying their entire magazine and reloading again during the round).

Couple that with non-physical hit points and it’s very easy to create a system with a pulpy feel where you don’t describe the overall action of the past minute until the entire round is over.

So, using the Stamina/Wounds of Arcanis as an example, if the distintegrator ray knocks the PC to zero stamina, but it wasn’t a critical hit then the GM describes the action in such a way that evading the death ray results in their being knocked unconscious by a secondary effect. If it was a critical then they were seriously wounded in evading the death ray. If the hit dropped their wounds to zero then they were actually struck and distintegrated to the horror of their companions.

There’s no metacurrency involved, players aren’t using Fate or Luck points to alter outcomes, just the lack of detail allows the GM more latitude in narrating the outcome of a combat round (though the declared actions are obviously the starting point).

Heck, it’s a level of detail less than I’d enjoy, but you could even go as abstract as the new V5 mechanics where each turn is an opposed check (with bonuses based on the circumstances... so having a death ray might give the villain a +5 to their check result) with the winner doing their margin of success in damage to the loser and the GM narrating how that happens based on each participant’s declared actions.

Similarly, treating “mooks” as a single entity in a more abstracted system makes sense (particularly with the “one attack equals emptying your magazine over the course of a minute” aspect).

So, from all that I can safely say you haven't read anything but the title/opening post and jumped to accusations of trying to destroy culture.

Nice, twice in a thread two different people making aspersions about me without reading jack shit. But then I'm the asshole no?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: VisionStorm on May 01, 2021, 01:44:20 PM
Nice, twice in a thread two different people making aspersions about me without reading jack shit. But then I'm the asshole no?

Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on May 01, 2021, 05:49:34 PM
To be fair, not all civilizations are worth preserving. Rebels fighting an authoritarian regime is technically “anti-civilization” in the sense of pulling down the established order, but that order was corrupt and needs to fall for the good of the people it exploits for the gains of its leaders.

Well a more common trope is the Star Wars one of the Lawful Rebels fighting to restore the old established Lawful order that has been destroyed by a Chaotic insurgency (eg the Sith).

Outside of 2000 AD stories written by actual Chaos Magician Pat Mills, I don't recall too many actually-Chaotic rebel protagonists trying to destroy a more Lawful established order. Even Moorcock's more Chaotic champions are normally fighting against even-worse-Chaos. I guess maybe some Tarantino stuff? Usually in the Noble Savage stuff like Avatar they're not trying to destroy Civilisation, just send it back where it came from.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on May 01, 2021, 05:52:02 PM
So, from all that I can safely say you haven't read anything but the title/opening post and jumped to accusations of trying to destroy culture.

Nice, twice in a thread two different people making aspersions about me without reading jack shit. But then I'm the asshole no?

He wasn't talking about you - talk about 'without reading jack shit'  :P
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Chris24601 on May 02, 2021, 08:40:13 AM
So, from all that I can safely say you haven't read anything but the title/opening post and jumped to accusations of trying to destroy culture.

Nice, twice in a thread two different people making aspersions about me without reading jack shit. But then I'm the asshole no?

He wasn't talking about you - talk about 'without reading jack shit'  :P
He also apparently doesn’t even remember my previous posts in this very thread where I discussed various elements of game design and what parts of OSR design I felt was a poor fit for the pulp germ and suggesting some other systems that do that genre well (and pointed out they had OGLs which would save design work). He attacked me then too for making presumptions about his design when I was just bringing up general design principles and he already said he was planning on using an OSR system as a base, which either means TSR-era D&D in that context or is just word salad meaning nothing.

My bit about being anti-trope subversion sprung from his clarification that this thread was about which tropes in general need to be subverted and my reply of “none of them” (which I stand by... if the primary focus of your project is subversion it’s going to be crap. Write a good story/make a good system and think about subversion if it’s really needed for a particular aspect of your plot/system to work, but subversion just for subversion’s sake doesn’t work out well).

So I’m going to take him at his word that he’s just an asshole who, given his comments elsewhere about not wanting to try and read up on any other systems and how they work in building his own system, isn’t even interested in the opinions he’s asked for unless they agree with his own conclusions.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Wrath of God on May 02, 2021, 02:05:46 PM
Quote
So, because that's how it is in the novels that is how it should be in the game?

Well... yes. If you want to play pulp you need to emulate pulp stories/film in game.
IMHO it cannot be done by realistic worldbuilding, as it goes against pulp genre.

So generally unlike in OSR when it's you against the world, here it's you within genre, and mechanics should support it.
And to support genres that are unrealistic even within own reality you need metagaming resources for pulpey stuff.

Otherwise it's not a pulp game anymore.

Quote
Are you trying to live in the game world or to write a Pulp?

If I'd be offered to play pulp game, I'd expect nor want neither.
"Writing" would mean excessive railroading. Living in game world - well different genre of fiction.
James Bond, Indiana Jones and other guys like that does not live in a WORLD. They live in a GENRE. You may pretend it's otherwise, but it goes only that far.

Quote
Why should they care about the characters if they can't die?

Because they are awesome. You do not play PULP to struggle desperatedly survival but to deliver one-liners while fightinh 7 feet tall Egyptian Cyborg Samurai on a top of atompunk zeppelin.

Quote
Who said I wanted infrecuent hero death? Who said level 1 characters are Heroes? They aren't, not yet, they might become heroes if they have what it takes to do so.

Which among other things involves INTELLIGENT risk taking, heroic actions and playing to your strenghts (I mean as a character).

As for deviating from a "pure" OSR system... Well yes, but to what extent? I want it still to be clearly recognizable as something close to it's roots.

Genre you're trying to emulate. Pulp stories are not Campbellian 0 to hero stories. If you want to emulate them in game somehow then yes it's antipulp to go this route.
They should be at least quite competent professionalist on way to become ultra-pros.

But then of course making OSR Pulp is like making Highly Simulationist Apocalpyse World. Press X to doubt.

Quote
So because that's how it has been done it's how it should be done?

There is no "should". There's merely general consensus and feel of what PULP is.
You can play OSR in PULP disguise. It can even be cool. But selling it as Pulp RPG will be a litlle bit misguiding towards potential fanbase.

Quote
Something else the Pulps have is the black & white morality, no shades of gray, that I think is way more important than the time period or the gadgets.

Does it? Dunno really. Of course like among many other genres there is lot of B&W pulp overall, but let's take Conan - he has different setting, but still is very much pulp hero.
I'd not call his setting to be really black & white. More black vs barbarian if anything.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Eirikrautha on May 02, 2021, 04:31:06 PM
Quote
So, because that's how it is in the novels that is how it should be in the game?

Well... yes. If you want to play pulp you need to emulate pulp stories/film in game.
IMHO it cannot be done by realistic worldbuilding, as it goes against pulp genre.

So generally unlike in OSR when it's you against the world, here it's you within genre, and mechanics should support it.
And to support genres that are unrealistic even within own reality you need metagaming resources for pulpey stuff.

Otherwise it's not a pulp game anymore.

Quote
Are you trying to live in the game world or to write a Pulp?

If I'd be offered to play pulp game, I'd expect nor want neither.
"Writing" would mean excessive railroading. Living in game world - well different genre of fiction.
James Bond, Indiana Jones and other guys like that does not live in a WORLD. They live in a GENRE. You may pretend it's otherwise, but it goes only that far.

Quote
Why should they care about the characters if they can't die?

Because they are awesome. You do not play PULP to struggle desperatedly survival but to deliver one-liners while fightinh 7 feet tall Egyptian Cyborg Samurai on a top of atompunk zeppelin.
This dude gets it!

"Subverting" tropes is simply low-effort nihilism.  Sure, there's space for a clever subversion of a trope, when a genre has become flat and stale.  But I don't see anyone asserting here that Pulp RPGs have been "done too much."  Normally, you should just read "subverting tropes" as "cnot creative enough to figure out how to make something new and clever in this space."  And 99% of the time you'll be spot-on...
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Wrath of God on May 02, 2021, 04:49:43 PM
Quote
"Subverting" tropes is simply low-effort nihilism.

It's not even subverting tropes really. I mean subverting pulp trope would be if blonde, doe-eyed daughter of professor kidnapped by terrorist turned out to really be terrorist mastermind pretending to be kidnapped to get her father secrets. Or making blonde, blue-eyed lady professor, and kidnap her elderly noble but dimwitted grandfather. And that's fine to degree.
Of course regular subversion for shock value is well metacurrency GM should spend in low doses otherwise it loses it's power.

But I feel here we talk not about subversion of tropes per se, but subversion of whole genre. Of general rules how pulp heroes works. It's not as much low-effort nihilism as trying to have cake (pulp system) and eat cake (keep close to OSR roots, and avoid metacurrencies, which in both cases seems like quite terrible recipe for Pulp Feel).

Now of course you can take trappings of Pulp era and run brutal deadly OSR with it. That's kinda fine - but it's not pulp game, merely OSR in pulp clothes.

Quote
Sure, there's space for a clever subversion of a trope, when a genre has become flat and stale.  But I don't see anyone asserting here that Pulp RPGs have been "done too much."  Normally, you should just read "subverting tropes" as "cnot creative enough to figure out how to make something new and clever in this space."  And 99% of the time you'll be spot-on...

Well I think Pulp RPG is relatively rare so far because well to emulate it you have to go against traditional RPG sensibilities.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: This Guy on May 02, 2021, 07:25:20 PM
"Subverting" tropes is simply low-effort nihilism.  Sure, there's space for a clever subversion of a trope, when a genre has become flat and stale.  But I don't see anyone asserting here that Pulp RPGs have been "done too much."  Normally, you should just read "subverting tropes" as "cnot creative enough to figure out how to make something new and clever in this space."  And 99% of the time you'll be spot-on...

Your favorite genre aint sacrosanct and new and clever in the adventure space mostly means writing something like somebody who has read something other than adventure tropes. God damn is that some weakass prose.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Shrieking Banshee on May 02, 2021, 10:11:54 PM
Subversion generally only has effectiveness in novelty or suprise. By itself it's neutral at best, and generally low effort and bad at worst.

'Wud if the demons were good and angels were bad' just generally means about the same impact, but more boring because instead of drawing upon so many years of stories for cool demons, you generally just rely on the novelty. And once repeated enough, it just becomes a whole bunch of blandness infatuated with its own fake novelty.
At worst subversion just smashes things that were functional to pieces. 'What if instead of a satisfying climax, 3 hours of dickering?'

Also Im not sure what about pulps has heroes be invicible. If anything they hold their heroes to a very vulnerable standard. The assumption is that a bullet is a serious threat to a hero so guile and stealth is assumed.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Wrath of God on May 03, 2021, 05:16:48 AM
Quote
Also Im not sure what about pulps has heroes be invicible. If anything they hold their heroes to a very vulnerable standard. The assumption is that a bullet is a serious threat to a hero so guile and stealth is assumed.

Well that's because pulp hero power is metagaming one, unlike simulationist invicibility of Superman ;)

Quote
Oh, in that case... None of them. Subversion is the tool of saboteurs seeking to destroy.

Tropes become tropes for a reason. They speak to something deep in us. They resonate with a type of truth and that is why they are used again and again.

The Subversive seeks to tear them down... often because they don’t understand why the trope was built in the first place or because they hate something it represents. Often they’ll call it “realistic”, but usually it’s their own nihilism bleeding through.

They ultimately want a world where the idea that someone could be heroic for selfless reason, where people are basically good, where there is truth and beauty and love are real, where that triumphs in the end to die so they don’t have to feel like the miserable fucking failures they are for being the selfish sociopaths they are.

And subversion is the tool they use to tear down the civilization whose identity is built upon those tropes.

So, yeah, I’m pretty much done with subversion as a technique. Examine a trope for what it’s really about and then build on it? All day long. But in my experience, those who use subversion have little interest in rebuilding what they’ve destroyed.

We need superversion these days, not subversion.

So, the fundamental question in regards to pulp heroes and mortality is “why is it a trope in the first place?” Plenty of old stories/myths ended with dramatic failures and death of the protagonist (Arthur and Camelot and Hercules for just a couple examples), so what is it about the Indiana Jones, the Doc Savage, the Tarzan or the Shadow type who always survives despite often horrific turns of fortune that spoke to audiences enough to become a trope?

Answer that and you’ll also have a sense of how to model that element in your game, including where the line for death (vs. defeat) falls.

With that I generally disagree. Trope subversion is well not the same as value subversion. They may go toe to toe, but really it's not that certain.
For instance it's trope subversion of adventuring novel that in "Lord of the Rings" Sauron is never seen in person. He never confronts our heroes in person, neither to fight, taunt or try to corrupt them.

And literally tropes do not have to be manifestation of platonic ideas. They can be sign of laziness of producers and writers copying works that sold good before. They may be sign of zeitgeist of the time period - not necessarily in good or realistic way - therefore noir of preWW2 period, or cookie-cutter works of post-WW2.
And classical works of literature, of myth and epos are often quite subversive from perspective of XX-century American filmmaking. For instance they are quite often somehow fatalistic be it in pagan or Christian way, rather than leading to merry happy end taken from Enlightened Prometheism or Nietzcheanism, or both maybe. Or maybe even more from simple capitalism - as modern mass media changed relations between story and people, and people prefer this, rather than tragic end of Sheakspear drama or Greek epos. And then as people like songs they've already heard - they also enjoy tropes they read in their youth - and it does not mean there is intrisic value to them to resonate with as you say. More often it's mere sentiment, recognising known beats, which for some reason is comforting for human beings. It may be good, or bad, and generally it will be simply lazy. And to that I find little virtue. I do not trust sentiments or goodness of human hearts, sorry.

And then let's remember like 88% of subverted tropes become tropes on their own I think. Femme fatale is subversion of damsel in distress. And bam, few decades later both are co-existing as equally tropey things.

(Of course trope that "people are basically good" needs to die screaming nonetheless.)

Quote
Plenty of old stories/myths ended with dramatic failures and death of the protagonist (Arthur and Camelot and Hercules for just a couple examples), so what is it about the Indiana Jones, the Doc Savage, the Tarzan or the Shadow type who always survives despite often horrific turns of fortune that spoke to audiences enough to become a trope?

First one were created by people of traditional mentality, while the others by Americans?
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: S'mon on May 03, 2021, 05:59:10 AM
'Wud if the demons were good and angels were bad' just generally means about the same impact, but more boring because instead of drawing upon so many years of stories for cool demons, you generally just rely on the novelty. And once repeated enough, it just becomes a whole bunch of blandness infatuated with its own fake novelty.

Reminds me of His Dark Materials.
Title: Re: Some Tropes SHOULD be subverted
Post by: Wrath of God on May 03, 2021, 06:31:51 AM
Quote
Yeah that's all real great but I also want stories that are also real about misery and people being selfish pieces of shit and crimes not getting punished, and fuck the rightscolds that want their stories to teach them Right Morals after they're out of elementary school.

This.

Quote
There wasnt a fucking publishing house churning out as much consumable material as possible to make sure people bought Arthurian romances and Greek myths bro. You wanna compare pre-modern and modern stories without considerin the material circumstances of modernity and entertainment markets

Double This.

Quote
Basically, there’s a difference between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil. Most of the subversion I see prevalent these days is more about establishing that the Good are actually evil and the Evil are actually good (ex. the Maleficent films, Superman expies who turn out to be jerks at best, more typically monsters, orcs are actually good and the humans are racists for attacking them, etc.).

Yeah but not exactly Chris.
Those stories generally do not reverse order of Good and Evil. They do not subverse this duality (sure there are some twists compared to traditional Good and Evil, especially I suppose all around VI commandment, but then I don't think pulp heroes were especially chaste either so this aspect was off the table of modern popculture for a long time).
What they change is - who really was on side of Good and who on side of Evil. And that's per se fine.
That's attacking mostly preconcieved stereotypes that pinpoints someone as Good or Evil based on superficial qualities.

Superman is sort of trope, but then you can take trappings of Superman and put bad guy inside. Or Good guy inside Joker trappings instead.
I mean even official comics were doing such shenanigans for a long long time.

I think it's overal healthy you do not assume orcs in any given story will be Tolkien's Dark Lord mooks. Judge characters for their morality, for their actions - not which tropes and trappings they look like. Duh.

(And of course I know and I agree than in modern hands it can quickly become parody of itself with reversed order estabilished and tropy-ed where all Superman like figures are always jerks which will be as much stereotypical, pointless and boring, and of course for 200 years people gonna claim it's still subversion yeah).