Eberron...pulp fantasy?

[rounser]

D&D has always been influenced by the pulps! I really didn't understand what all the hoopdy was about.

It's understandable - I think I'd hate standard D&D cliches after looking through 1000 bad setting proposals or countless slush pile Dungeon and Dragon articles too, so contemporary pulp and noir would seem just the antidote. Perhaps they should have had a few games of Adventure! to regain perspective, instead of attempting to hybridise D&D into contemporary pulp. There was some article in Dungeon about TSR's cabinet of old pulp periodicals, and I got the impression that it was seen around the WOTC offices as being more "legitimate" thematically than D&D (also understandable, if D&D were your job). The recent batch of adventure films obviously contributed to that idea of it being the way to go, because they cite them.

D&D does pulp very well already, as you point out - fantasy pulp, Conan and Grey Mouser stylee, and doesn't have to extend itself at all to do pirates, mad "scientists" (replace with tinkers or wizards), serial killers or explorers...and it's already very strong doing cross-genre, except when compromises are made to make it more modern technology-like, which Eberron has done. At that stage, I think you're best changing game, because D&D isn't really what you want to be playing.

In other words, supposing that they were trying for horror rather than pulp, I think that Eberron is a bit too Masque of the Red Death, and not enough Ravenloft....or it's too Ravenloft, and needs to be more Masque of the Red Death in order to come across as legitimate. In any case, there's something about the tone and balance which is wrong for me, probably not helped by the kitchen sinking. FR kitchen sinks too, but in a "real world culture analogue" way, so it's themes remain strong and intact. Conversely, if Eberron had been able to specialise and basically become something like Arcanum, then I'd be all for it.

Add to that that pulp is more of a play style than a setting, just as the real world can support pulp just as well as horror. If they really wanted to turn D&D in that direction, it would probably have been better to do a Pirates of the Carribbean-style or Indiana Jones-style adventure path...now that would have been cool...

 

[Byrons_Ghost]

I think it all comes down to this:

With the popularity of Raiders of the Lost Ark (and their spin-offs) in the eighties, there was a demands for RPGs to do something similar, since RPGs pretty much follow pop cultural trends. So you had games coming out like Indiana Jones, Justice Inc, Cliffhangers, and the like. These games focused on a specific aspect of pulp fiction- mostly globe-trotting adventures with a mix of super-science and the supernatural (in varying degrees). These games got the pulp designation, because that was the closest they had to a category, and now we're stuck with it, in the RPG business at least. So, when pulp is used by Eberron to refer to these sorts of things, what's why the term is being used more specifically than it probably ought to.

It's true that, in general, pulp simply refers to any cheaply produced magazine made between the wars (and not always fiction, either). Within genres, such as fantasy or sci-fi, pulp tends to refer to those types of stories that were published during the pulp period, such as by Clark Ashton Smith or Edgar Rice Burroughs. Outside of those genres (probably as far as the "maintream literatti" are concerned), pulp fiction is generally considered to be hardboiled detective fiction. For instance, I have a few "Pulp fiction" collections, and they're all of the hardboiled variety. Whereas collections of pulp fantasy or sci-fi are generally labelled by the fantasy/sci-fi category, making the pulp variant a subcategory.

My guess for this generalization is that hardboiled was created, and a unique product of, the pulp era, whereas sci-fi and fantasy already existed in varying forms. True, the pulps brought new elements to the genres, but history doesn't seem to remember those so much. Given that literary trends of the day tended toward modernism and realism, it's also natural that those pulps which gained the attention of the literati would get stuck with the generic term.

As has been mentioned, there's no single element of Eberron that's new- dark urban fantasy, eldritch machines, airships, and exotic explorations have all be done before. The mixing and focus, however, the presentation, I think is new. Saying otherwise would be like saying that Charles Mingus didn't do anything new because he was simply mixing Ellington and Stravinsky. The mix was new, and uniquely his own, and that's what made him stand out from all the other Ellington imitators.

 

[Spatula]

blah blah blah, I only like my fantasy within certain strict guidelines, therefore eberron is inferior and not true d&d, blah blah. The same old arguments get trotted out vs every setting that's not the same tired pastiche. As a fan of a bunch of the secondary settings published during the 2E days, I've heard it all before, and it never changes. The only thing that continues to surprise me is the effort people will expend badmouthing something that they have no interest in playing.

 

[Hemlock Stones]

Pulp And Its Varied Identities

GREAT CAESAR'S GHOST!

I am stunned and rather pleasured by the debate this posting has caused! First, I would like to use a term that has been overlooked in this discussion. Formula. Lester Dent ages ago created a simple yet powerful literary formula for creating stories that escalated in conflict with a main character(s) and the antagonist. Varied elements, complications, to the resolution of the story were introduced with each one being more difficult than the previous. Often the intention was for the villain(s) to use a unique means to kill, take over the world, etc. This is where the weird science aspects of pulp comes into play.

Previous posters mentioned one of the notorious elements of pulp was its over-the-top use of action. If you want ridiculous over-the-top action, thats Mission Impossible, from the movies, not pulp.

The best example of pulp cinema without question is Raiders of the Lost Ark. Everything taking place follows the Lester Dent formula. What's more, it works, it's entertaining and excellent cinema.

I think that the whole approach for Eberron is nice. Its different from your classical fantasy game. I still don't see a direct heritage to the pulps. The Lester Dent formula can be applied to any genre, science fiction, sci-fi, horror, role playing games and even fantasy.

Wizards of the Coast has been a disappointment with things like d20 Past. It should have been so much more. I hate to think that the cost of adding another 50-80 pages of content made the project too expensive. That's where the beauty of the Lester Dent formula is. Simple, straight-to-the-point action.

One of the most elegant variations on pulp is the serial drama. Instead of immediate resolution, the whole cliff hanger ploy leaves you wanting more. Perfect structure for a role playing game.

Lastly, I saw noir mentioned several times in different posts. Noir is a unique cinematic element popularized by creative filmmakers on limited budgets. Everything was structured to be visually emotional and powerful yet deep and forboding. Some of the best cinema in the genre of noir follow the Lester Dent formula.

Alan