I Love BRP

[Mankcam]

Most Lovecraftian tales would probably be considered to be Weird Horror Fiction, which is a sub-genre of 'Pulp'  Especially since many of Lovecraft's stories were originally published in dimestore publications which are now considered to be The Pulps.

The Pulp Cthulhu book is more aimed at emulating another aspect of Pulp, that of Adventure, (the modern day equivalent would be 'Action'). Indiana Jones has a very different flavour to stories like The Dunwich Horror, so its not redundant.

Detective Noir or Crime Fiction can also be considered another sub-genre of Pulp (which the modern equivalent would be Forensic Investigation).

I guess the term 'Pulp' is a very broad umbrella term. I have seen endless discussions regarding what constitutes as 'Pulp', and there is rarely a consensus.

Perhaps a more apt title to the new book would have been 'Pulp Cthulhu Adventures', so to be clear that the focus is on Pulp Adventure as opposed  to CoC's default of Weird Horror.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Mankcam

[Simlasa]

16 hours ago, Aycorn said:

 A trip through the library 20th century history section, a couple Robert Mitchum movies on the DVD player, and a couple Raymond Chandler or Ross MacDonald books and you've got the facts and the feel.

Most folks know, but don't care, that 'pulp' is primarily a medium, not a genre... the name coming from the material the stories were printed on... so it's like saying 'TV' or 'Radio' or 'movies' when those things cover a wide range of genres and topics and styles. When 'gamers' say 'pulp' I take them as meaning some sort of men's adventure tale, with wild action and usually set in the first half of the 20th century.

Similarly, 'noir' is as much a visual style as anything (decent overview here) so I'm not sure how well that's gonna carry over to a table-top game. When gamers say 'noir' I take them as meaning something closer to 'hard-boiled detective' (Raymond Chandler,  Dashiell Hammett, and Mickey Spillane), especially since noir often had a bleak view of the world and the protagonists are often criminals who end up dead or imprisoned.

For literary noir, James M. Cain and Cornell Woolrich are good... and for modern noir, Elmore Leonard.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Simlasa

[soltakss]

22 minutes ago, Simlasa said:

Most folks know, but don't care, that 'pulp' is primarily a medium, not a genre... the name coming from the material the stories were printed on... so it's like saying 'TV' or 'Radio' or 'movies' when those things cover a wide range of genres and topics and styles. When 'gamers' say 'pulp' I take them as meaning some sort of men's adventure tale, with wild action and usually set in the first half of the 20th century.

I was under the impression that these were considered throwaway, rubbish, books, cheaply printed and not to be taken seriously. Many of the novels were boys-own adventure novels, which fits what we call Pulp today. 

[g33k]

42 minutes ago, Simlasa said:

Most folks know, but don't care, that 'pulp' is primarily a medium, not a genre... the name coming from the material the stories were printed on...

 

19 minutes ago, soltakss said:

I was under the impression that these were considered throwaway, rubbish, books, cheaply printed and not to be taken seriously. 

Exactly,  "Pulp" in the sense of a "genre of fiction" (and there *IS* such a sense) is defined as the kind of action-heavy, often melodramatic and/or sensationalistic stories that were printed onto "pulp" grade paper.  I haven't looked deeply into it, but I suspect the "penny dreadful" is the exact same genre, done up in Victorian times...

1 hour ago, Simlasa said:

Similarly, 'noir' is as much a visual style as anything (decent overview here) so I'm not sure how well that's gonna carry over to a table-top game. When gamers say 'noir' I take them as meaning something closer to 'hard-boiled detective' (Raymond Chandler,  Dashiell Hammett, and Mickey Spillane), especially since noir often had a bleak view of the world and the protagonists are often criminals who end up dead or imprisoned.

Well, those authors wrote novels that were later adapted to movies; noir doesn't need a camera.

I would argue that "Noir" in much more than visual; it includes a certain sense of pathos, and usually a sense of moral ambiguity and/or complexity.  There is a tragic (or at least personally disastrous) outcome looming, and is is almost inevitable: even if they "win" the conflict (stop the Bad Guy), the victory will likely be pyrrhic and cost them what they want most (beating the Nazis but losing the girl...) .   These elements can play well at the RPG table...

 

[Simlasa]

46 minutes ago, g33k said:

I would argue that "Noir" in much more than visual; it includes a certain sense of pathos, and usually a sense of moral ambiguity and/or complexity.

I said it was 'as much a visual style as anything', meaning I think the visuals are a large part of recognizing a movie as 'noir'... some of the classic noir films lack most of the elements EXCEPT for the visuals... but I certainly agree about the other qualities you mention, the moral ambiguity and tragedy. It's why I think something like The Maltese Falcon is more 'hard boiled' than 'noir'... because it's not particularly bleak or tragic... it's more of an adventure where good guys and villains are fairly well delineated, and good triumphs over evil. It would be much easier to base an RPG campaign on that than something like Double Indemnity, where two of the primary characters are cold-blooded murderers, or Asphalt Jungle where nearly all the characters are criminals.
Though, now that I think of it, the traditional D&D 'murderhobo' campaign is fairly 'noir', or at least it would seem so to an outside viewer.. even if the PCs consider themselves 'heroes'.

As for 'pulp'... yes, they were cheap and impermanent... but covered a wide range of genres (and not all of them were aimed at men). I'd say the common denominator is that they were generally written as cheap, throwaway entertainment. Not literature seeking after lofty themes or lasting edification. Similar to what we have on TV and in mainstream 'Hollywood' movies nowadays. Some of the better content rises to the top, but most of it is just mean to put butts in the seats and keep them there through the commercials.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Simlasa

[pansophy]

Ok, I want to chime in here. I was gone for a while, playing Monte Cook's Cypher System. I also tried out the Entropic Gaming System. The most fun during the last two years I actually had with XPG (Airship Daedalus).

I must admit, all the above systems are good. They all do something very good, other things not so. But whatever I was playing, I always thought: it was so easy using BRP for this or that. And it was purely that I was pissed about what Chaosium did to the Big Golden Book, when I turned to these other systems. It was their decision to do what they had to do. But putting all that aside: I am still thinking the BRP rule system is awesome. Nothing can really beat it, in terms of my playing style - except maybe Alephtar's Revolution D100. 

And that is the system I am using since it came out. It can be narrative, it can be crunchy - just as you need it in your story (or depending on your players style). I still love the BRP, but I found a successor. I am still able to use all my BRP settings and books, but I am supporting a company now that was putting out a lot of good setting books for the BRP system in the past.

I never was a fan of Glorantha. And I am not a fan of RuneQuest either. I do not like Fantasy RPG's at all.  So I am glad I found a company which is releasing good non-fantasy setting books for a good system. For a system I feel comfortable with.

Anyway, this is not a rant about what Chaosium did or did not or does or what Alephtar is doing better. I just wanted to share my opinion about the BRP game family in general and how you will always come back to one of its incarnations, once you are infected with the BRP virus. It might take you some years to realise how fluent BRP games play (not read), and how players do not need to be bound by detailed rules to play a character, who feels real and alive. At the table most players forget about these detailed rules anyway, once an action scene comes up.

Also, I want to say the BRP rule system(s) won't be anything without the community - and without this forum. Thanks for the volunteers who keep it up and running and thanks to the community which is an excellent example how a game system some people do not even know it is still around, can survive dire times.

I'm back on board.

Edited June 4, 2017 by pansophy

[Trifletraxor]

10 hours ago, pansophy said:

Ok, I want to chime in here. I was gone for a while, playing Monte Cook's Cypher System. I also tried out the Entropic Gaming System. The most fur during the last two years I actually had with XPG (Airship Daedalus).

...

I'm back on board.

Welcome back pansophy!

I've mined Monte Cook's books before for scenarios/campaigns and recently had another look at drivethrurpg. Did you come across any good scenarios/campaigns for the Cypher System that could be converted?

[Mankcam]

I'm in the same boat in the fact that I often throw my toes into the waters of other systems, only to return to BRP at the end of the day. I'm happy to play almost any RPG, but BRP tends to tick most of my boxes when I want to GM.

I love Glorantha however, so the upcoming edition of RQG will be a big winner for me. Unfortunately the setting just doesn't feel right to me with HeroQuest Glorantha. I kinda like my fantasy and sci-fi settings to be a bit more nuts 'n' bolts than what HQ provides; so I prefer to run these settings with a version of BRP, including Glorantha.

In regards to HQ, as a set of narrative rules, HQ totally blows me away for a joint storytelling experience; for me it's perfect for Pulp Action, Crime Fiction, Murder Mystery, Super Heroes, etc, I really want to see another print copy edition that focuses more of these settings, with the same quality production as the HQG book.

If I don't want to hand-wave a setting, but rather 'construct' a setting, then the BRP BGB is still my treasured 'go-to' book sitting on the shelf.

However I have Revolution D100 laying here on my coffee table, and I am very impressed with what I am reading so far. In fact the more I explore RD100 the more I can see that it could be a viable replacement for the BGB. In many ways it feels like a more modern take on the BGB, I really want to see RD100 prosper.

I kinda know what I like now, and I can pretty much say that I'm well settled either running a version of BRP or HQ.

BRP is the perfect traditional RPG for me, whereas HQ is the best narrative game I have seen - most 'narrative systems' merely are rules-lite systems that pose as narrative games; whereas HQ really emulates the storytelling process in a way that surpasses many others.

Many other games have pretty art and such, but as systems go they often just don't float the boat for me, although some other games are great to mine for ideas. Even some rule sets come close (ie: Taslislanta is not bad set of rules and setting, I am backing the reboot; Monte Cook's world settings are great, etc).

Some really good settings are so immersed with the game mechanics that often it's easier to play them RAW if you don't want too many challenges (White Wolf World of Darkness springs to mind), so I don't convert everything to BRP or HQ.

However I have found that the majority of settings I can either construct with BRP, or hand-wave with HQ. Both keep me coming back here, its hard to go elsewhere; most other systems just don't do things as good where it counts at the gaming table 

Plus its a great little online community

Yep, welcome back Pansophy!  

Edited June 4, 2017 by Mankcam

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Mankcam said:

I'm in the same boat in the fact that I often throw my toes into the waters of other systems, only to return to BRP at the end of the day. I'm happy to play almost any RPG, but BRP tends to tick most of my boxes when I want to GM.

I love Glorantha however, so the upcoming edition of RQG will be a big winner for me.

BRP (specifically the RQ2 iteration) really ticks most of my crunchy/simulationist boxes as both player and GM.  Mythras seems to go a bit too complex (for my preferences), though I admit I haven't given it the dozens of sessions I'd need to, to be 100% certain (but I can't get my group to buy-in, so I can't be sure).  I have a couple of tweaks/HRs that I like, but fewer for RQ2 than any other BRP-version I've tried.

And I love Glorantha.  Generally, I prefer real-world based game-worlds, because having those real-world touchstones everywhere just gives a tremendous depth to the perceived setting.  The Gloranthaphile may understand who the "Paps Khan" is, with the multiple implications that has in and out of the Paps -- and what the Paps are, and Prax, and etc etc etc; newbies notsomuch!  But everyone has SOME sense of who/what "the Pope" is, or "King John of England" or "the Shogun" etc etc etc...  Again and again (and including the majority of the players in my own group) I keep hearing that Glorantha is dauntingly huge-and-complex, and feels nearly "impenetrable" as a setting.  And I have some sympathy for that:  I personally HATE stumbling over some key setting-detail where my CHARACTER would have known they were doing something bone-headed or weird but I (the player) thought I was doing something clever, or sensible, or at least ordinary; or being mystified about "what to do now" when anyone born to the world (or a 'phile of it) would have found it obvious; and those cognitive stumbling-blocks happen  all. the. time.  in rich deep settings (such as Glorantha), just because they ARE so rich and deep but AREN'T the Real World where the players all have experience.  But I do:  I love Glorantha.  And I've got buy in to play at least SOME RuneQuest, to give it a solid try!  So it's the KS'ed RQ:Classic doing a "Date Palm Oasis" version of "Apple Lane," then Borderlands, and by then I think we'll have the RQG ruleset available and we'll move to those...

I've got to say, though, that Ars Magica's Verb/Noun latinate magic system is just matchless; and Mythic Europe has those real-world touchstones I find so rich and valuable!

If I had to pick just one (ArM or RQ) ...  really, I couldn't !  

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by g33k

[rsanford]

Glad to have you back Pansophy. I still use that Magic World character generator you wrote frequently!

[Mankcam]

.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Mankcam

[Mankcam]

3 hours ago, g33k said:

BRP (specifically the RQ2 iteration) really ticks most of my crunchy/simulationist boxes as both player and GM.  Mythras seems to go a bit too complex (for my preferences), though I admit I haven't given it the dozens of sessions I'd need to, to be 100% certain (but I can't get my group to buy-in, so I can't be sure).  I have a couple of tweaks/HRs that I like, but fewer for RQ2 than any other BRP-version I've tried. And I love Glorantha,...etc

I really dig BRP, my longest running RPGs have been two sprawling house-ruled BRP campaigns:

1. 'Pulp Adventures' - previously used CoC, BGB, + imported rules from White Wolf's 'Adventure!' rpg. However it now uses CoC 7E + Pulp Cthulhu book and I'm pretty happy with the recent conversion, it plays really well!

2. 'Gloranthan Epics' -  a sprawling series of adventures which has evolved over many years since initially using RQ2 back in the early 1980s - my final rule set used the BGB as a foundation, with a liberal mix of RQ2, RQ3, RQ6/Mythras, and HQG. The flavour for my Gloranthan Epics campaigns have been very RQ2 in atmosphere, which now segways nicely towards the current interpretations of Glorantha; so I'm pretty happy. The upcoming RQ looks like its going for the same atmosphere I like, and depending on how it plays, RQG may well replace my own Glorantha house rules.

Good days ahead!

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by Mankcam

[rsanford]

1 hour ago, Mankcam said:

However I have Revolution D100 laying here on my coffee table, and I am very impressed with what I am reading so far. In fact the more I explore RD100 the more I can see that it could be a viable replacement for the BGB. In many ways it feels like a more modern take on the BGB, I really want to see RD100 prosper.

I have come to a similar conclusion. While my group has now widely adopted the Magic World rules for all the various genres we play (Except Super Heros) we frequently steal rules and ideas from Revolution D100 and soon we will start running pure RD100 games.

Edited June 4, 2017 by rsanford
typo

[rsanford]

22 minutes ago, g33k said:

I've got to say, though, that Ars Magica's Verb/Noun latinate magic system is just matchless; and Mythic Europe has those real-world touchstones I find so rich and valuable!

If I had to pick just one (ArM or RQ) ...  really, I couldn't !  

 

G33, you might consider looking at the rules "The Second Way" found on this site in the files section. It provides a noun verb based magic system for BRP games and I see no reason why it would not work for RuneQuest. I have been told The Second Way feels like Ars Magika though I can't confirm that (I have never played Ars Magika). You can get a link to it below in my signature.

[pansophy]

10 minutes ago, rsanford said:

Glad to have you back Pansophy. I still use that Magic World character generator you wrote frequently!

Haha, yes, I remember coding the PDF export part of the tool while sitting at Marcoola Beach here in Australia. Was it two years ago? I cannot remember. You know, IF Chaosium ever puts out a generic 'BRP Essentials' version of their rules, or if they simply release the BGB into an OGL licence version, I will revisit the tool and put in all the necessary changes.

The way I see it for RD100 it is not worth creating a tool, as character creation is dead simple.  Every DataBase tool (Filemaker, DataPower, etc.) or even Excel can do it.

[pansophy]

6 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

Did you come across any good scenarios/campaigns for the Cypher System that could be converted?

There are a few good ideas. One fan made expansion is dealing with Time Travel. It is a more realistic approach to it and offers some good explanation. It is named: 'Sea of Time'.

'The Strange' is a bit far fetched, but on the other hand it gives a good idea how to create one character and push him through different settings. Personally, I would do it much simpler, my take on that idea was called 'Portal', a home made setting.

The new 'Perdition' sounds interesting, if you want to play and deal with Dinosaurs. Could be great fun.

But I suggest to look at an XPG setting called 'Airship Daedalus'. It is well made and combines Cuthulhu, Mysteries, Myths, the Occult and Sci-Fi in a very nice way. While the system itself is rules light and well rounded, I would prefer playing it with the BRP rules. Conversion is very simple. Ah, they put out a 1930ies Space-Pulp Expansion for it. It is worth a look, too, if you like Mars, Venus and Nibiru in a Barsoom way style.

 

[soltakss]

Revolution D100 is a fine system. Advantages and Traits work really well, for example.

I take what I like from various systems and use them in my RuneQuest rules. If I started a new campaign, I would definitely use Traits and Advantages from RD100, alongside hero Points, runes and various other rules from other systems. 

That's the best thing about D100 systems - You can mix and match rules and they normally work without a problem.

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by soltakss