A storehouse of thoughts on RPG's and other non-sense.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Two of the same?
On theRPGsite lately. Their has been a lot of talk about pulp gaming. On poster (Zolan (Something)?) posted a large post. (Yeah, I know thats sounds stupid. But I dont know a better way to put it.) It was very interesting. It seemed very knowledgeable as well. It, as well as several others have caused me to rethink. Or just think differently about the subject. Most pulp games out there as well as movies and comics. Are pulpy. But are what I would consider neo-pulp, or retro pulp. Reserving the word pulp, for the original. It just seems like the right thing to do. Maybe I'm over thinking things. But I think there should be a descriptor acknowledging the difference between the two. Now dont get me wrong. Modern day stuff like Indiana Jones, or the Red Phantom (a character created by adude named Gabriel. He talks about the character and his ideas for the character, stories, and etc. Here on his blog. Which astute readers will see has been of my links list for a while.) But I think the word pulp should be saved for use on the rel stuff. Much like Maltese Falcon is considered Noir. While Mulholland Falls, would be considered Neo-Noir. So what do you think? Am I over thinking it? Does there need to be a distinction between to two?
I am thought to be exiled gentry, a vagabond, a scandalous rogue, a troubadour, armchair tactician, amateur grifter, self taught mechanic, would be author, adventurer, rogue scholar, traveler of strange lands, and an all round near do well.