Pulp Fiction

This like a somehow even more useless proposition than "let's make a game about 'anime'".

>>51124912
It's been done already, it's called Dungeons & Dragons

>>51126611
Dungeons & Dragons barely does its own particular thing, much less anything from The Shadow to Buck Rogers.

First of, that's a dumb an vague question.
But Spirit of the Century (which is based on F.A.T.E) does a pretty good job of making the actual game feel like pulp. Like a character creation where you describe the pulp novels your character has starred in previously (including crossovers with other players' characters, which makes it one of the few systems I know that has a mechanic to prevent the You All Meet At The Inn thing), and rules that encourage risks, mind games and such.

>>51126650
See, those are good examples for what I was looking for. Mechanics aimed at emulating the feeling of pulp media, rather than any particular genre.

>>51126701
I've yet to actually play Spirit of the Century though, for two reasons: it's really hard to pitch a pulp game to most people, even after you've explained that no, it's not a game based on the movie Pulp Fiction.
And like F.A.T.E in general, it demands a certain type of players who are ready to be active and directly shape the story and setting in a way that most players (that I know, anyway) can't really wrap their heads around. So it's supposedly great if you luck out and manage to get that exact right kind of group, but doesn't really seem to work otherwise.

>>51126827
Fate is all sorts of problematic.

File: WillEisner_p0272-1024x631.jpg (361KB, 1024x631px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1024x631px

Bump for interest, I love pulp.

Granted, I prefer the noirish, urban, early superhero style than the the Conan or Buck Rogers type.

>>51128202
OPs concept should theoretically be able to handle both kinds.

My own two cents: if you want it to be truly genre neutral, it's gonna have to be heavily narrativistic. Like, "makes Fate look like GURPS" narrativistic.

>>51129771
I don't know about that: the current 'narrativistic' systems don't seem to convey that necessary level of danger, threat, mystery. Pulp heroes are plucky and two-fisted little guys facing a big bad of some kind. Giving the players power over the narrative seems to take away from that. Seems to me that would cause players to lose interest pretty quick.
Not that players shouldn't have agency - the gm must encourage them and their wacky pulpy ideas - but they should always have that feeling of struggling against something bigger than them.

>>51131713
I see pulp as completely opposite. Pulp is the granddad of superhero genre. While it might be a small human against huge foe, that's just illusion, as the small human can ultimately easily defeat the big monster.

>>51124912
GURPS.

>>51124912
well, you'd obviously study FATE/Spirit Of The Century and tailor it to your specific needs

>>51126611
>D&D
>genre simulation
yeah, in 1974 it could be considered such. but not in the 21st century.

>>51131713
>>51131941
aren't you saying the same thing?

>>51132070
Nah. Anon here >>51131713 said that narrativistic systems are not good for pulp, as they give too much power for players and player characters and that's not pulpy.
I here >>51131941 said that powerful characters are fitting for pulp and thus narrativistic systems fit the genre well.

>>51132110
Yeah, that prolly sums it.
Seems to me you can't have pulp if there's no struggle, no daring, no crazy odds against, no threat of fail. Sure, in the end, all turns out well for our pulp heroes (or does it? Lovecraft is pulp...) - but there must be trials and tribulations. And those t & t's, it seems to me, should be felt by the players too.

>>51132682
Problem is that if you want game with illusion of struggle and heavy risks, but where characters always ultimately succeed with flying colors, you get a game that's just GM's themepark for the players.

If players play characters with competence, allow them to know it. The act having characters react to seemingly impassable obstacles in realistic manner is then just a question of good roleplaying. Just because players know they will probably win, doesn't mean that the characters know it.

>>51132823
>Just because players know they will probably win, doesn't mean that the characters know it
Yeah, but that takes the emotion out of the players. They're just going thru the motions, then. OP wants the pulp feel.
Players get bored without surprises; they get bored when they are not at risk. Now, nowhere did I state that they should always succeed extravagantly. No no. There should be failures. Failures are what make successes so sweet.