"Pulp Board(s)" Topic

I have been wondering whether there would be any scope for an all encompassing Pulp board, with sub categories for 20s/30s pulp, WWII pulp (aka weird WWII), and more modern pulp. The latter I'm particularly interested in as I have just purchased a load of 1970s Geezer figures and none of the boards seem to fit with this genre of game (cops & robbers). It would perhaps also fit the new Kiss Kiss Bang Bang range from Artizan which is really 60s pulp (Bond, U.N.C.L.E etc.).

Any support for such an idea?

It would be nice to also include pulp sci-fi in there as well (Flash Gordon etc)

I'm all for it, although I think the deciding factor ought to be the number of posts that would fit into this category. If set up, it ought to be reasonably well trafficked. Also, the boundaries of what is and is not pulp has been hashed out here before, without much consensus. Maybe this will achieve some form of resolution on this thread or perhaps a poll or two.

Yup I forget about Sci-Fi pulp! Any others? What about some of the Victorian adventure games? Hunting dinosaurs in the Lost World, HG Wells Martians etc. Or is that more Sci-fi?

It would just be nice to have a board where the boundaries encompassed some of these oddities. The 1970s cops and robbers genre I am currently into just doesn't fit too well into the modern boards, which tends to be about more traditional wargaming (i.e. based on real conflicts).

Relevant to the discussion but not totally on topic as it isn't TMP is the Lead Adventures forum which pretty much does what you want and is a superb place to discuss Pulp and related areas… lead-adventure.de

That is a very good forum. It does beg the question why TMP seems to struggle with the concept of pulp? And why aren't the TMP boards similarly organised? Editor?

One person'a pulp is another person's history. Too many boards already.

It seems to me that some issues related to "what is Pulp" seems to get muddled.

Is it a period? I would argue that is only very loosely so, but I've seen many other posts that would pigeonhole it into the interwar period of the 20C.

Is it a style of play? This seems to wend its way through many posts and threads, judging something as Pulp by virtue of its emphasis on narrative, larger than life characters, and adventure. But this is certainly not limited to Pulp and would stretch the definition of the genre beyond recognition, including much of SF, fantasy, Old West, pirates, etc. Also, if Pulp is a period, then why couldn't you run Pulp era games with more realism? Would this then make then not Pulp (sort of KT's argument).

Is it tied to the definition of the literary genre (which pretty loose itself, viz. link and coverbrowser.com (take a look at the Pulp magazine covers to get a sense of the diversity))? It's a stretch to say that many Pulp stories lend themselves to good miniatures games, but certainly some do. But these are as diverse as SF, Old West, detective stories, superhero stories, wartime adventure stories, etc. We're back in the same muddle as the period and style definitions land us in.

I have no answer, but to address GEN Monty's question, 70's cop adventure is Pulp in my book. Two reasons: (1) the first pulp-style novella I ever read was in that setting (bought it at a newstand and it was pulp in style and in manufacture); and (2) I've been lusting after the Geezers Shut It miniatures and anything I plan to do with them would fit the style and literary definitions of Pulp, of not period.

I play a wide variety of Pulp games, but not all of them all of the time.
It seems such a waste to have to sift through everything to get at what you may be interested in.
Why is there just one Pulp board based on three or four major boards?
Pulp should have its own major board because I know lots of folk who play this type of game and many of them only play Pulp games.