"How did the "Pulp Gaming" board get its name?" Topic

Bill says that he doesn't recall how or why this board was created and why it's called the "pulp gaming" board? He told me that it was probably at the suggestion of a member or via a poll. So, does anybody remember the circumstances that led to the creation of this board?

Probably from all of the old books/comics that were about crime, adventuring, etc…

"Pulp" comes originally from the low grade/inexpensive paper made using wood pulp originally used in various magazines that were published pre-WW II (and continued into the 50s as well) that carried adventure/science fiction/crime/mystery/hooror stories. Based on that, stories like those originally published on "pulp" paper became generically classified as pulp fiction.

Not sure what the specifics were of the origin of the Pulp board on TMP but that is where "pulp" originally comes from.

Chris

There was a bit of a fad for pulp era games – games set in the kinds of worlds described in the golden age of pulp magazines back in the 1930s-40s. It started to take over where the more gentlemanly stories of detection and science fiction one associates with The Strand magazine and its ilk leave off towards the end of the Victorian period and that languorous Edwardian era.

The 1st message on the Pulps Board is dated January 30th 2005.

Page 63 of Polls shows the polls running around that time and a couple of months before. No Pulp poll appears.

This would suggest that it came as a result of a member's suggestion.

Now there's a whodunit in the spirit of the Pulps.

I know how "pulp" got it's name. I want to know how the "pulp gaming" *group* got it's name. Who suggested "pulp gaming" as a name, and why was "pulp" specifically named, as opposed to adventure gaming or "whatever you want to" gaming? Is anybody still round when the group was started?

Only the Shadow knows…..

Apparently not.

Wasn't Bob Murch's Pulp Figures founded in 2002? I'm pretty sure 'Pulp' was also used as a term on the RPG scene back in the 1980s with games like Daredevils etc.

I thought you knew…

No one had a better idea.
And they still don't.

It gives people with far too much time on their hands something to argue about. Isn't that what TMP is all about?

>>Only the Shadow knows…..<<

>>Apparently not. grin<<

LOL!!

At the time, we were already referring to games of the '30s-40's adventure serials type as "pulp." So it's perfectly natural that the term became the title for the board and the genre. Pretty much everybody with an interest in it knows what it means. I seem to recall a request for such a board, but don't recall who made it. In any case, it seemed like a good idea at the time, and I think remains so.

>>This would suggest that it came as a result of a member's suggestion.

Now there's a whodunit in the spirit of the Pulps.<<

Hmmmm…verrry interesting. Whomever it was had a definite reason for using the term "pulp", and Bill agreed with him. Curiouser and curiouser.

>>Pretty much everybody with an interest in it knows what it means<<

Don't bet the ranch on that. There are some that would disagree.

I don't get it. What's the mystery? Pulp (in the "core" sense of interwar pulp fiction) was really trending around 2005. Pulp Figures was still quite new, other companies like Artizan were expanding into the genre, and rulesets like .45 Adventure were making a debut. Judging by your profile you were around at the time (no more than a few months after the board was created, anyway), so I'm sure you recall what a big trend it was.

It was the most natural thing in the world for someone to request a Pulp board right then, and for no one to have stopped to consider that maybe it should be called something like the Adventure board instead.

TMP isn't a terribly logical place, especially in regard to the proliferation and naming of boards. It's been much shaped by trends and collective whims. Border Reivers were trending for a while. It's only by happy circumstance that we don't have a Border Reivers board today (there could easily have been one, IMO)

Raymond Chandler always said that when he didn't know what came next, he's have two guys with guns come busting through the door. I assume that happened at Bill's house.

I remember when Border Reivers were a trend. It did seem to come out of nowhere, flickered brightly, then dimmed.

Although I presume there was a reason for it falling out of favour, in regards to the then new ownership of a certain mini company.

It was a dark and stormy night. The kind of knight when a chill down your spine causes you to break out in a sweat. A shadow crossed the door of the Armintrout Editorial Agency.

It paused, then stuttered. The knob rattled tentatively, then the door creaked open.

Wild Bill never even looked up as a pair of silky gams preceded a wispy and nervous brunette into the outer office. "Mr. Arm and Trout?" a tired yet honeyed voice inquired.

"Armintrout," the man behind the desk barked. Looking up from his keyboard he added, "But you can call me Billy."

"Well," she sighed. She sighed like the late autumn wind futilely encouraging leaves just too damp to rustle. "Well … Billy … I understand you can provide a help for errant wargamers who are a bit down on their luck to … share … their ideas?"

Armintrout rose like a black shadow punching out of an even blacker sky. He dominated the room and offered, "I have been known to provide certain services. Services for a price. What's on your mind, doll?"

Feeling like she was tendering around Androcles' paw, the girl replied, "There is a group of 'gamers. Good men and women. Upstanding types. Who need a home for their niche of the hobby." She toyed her mousy hair, half hiding, half flirting, "Just a way to get the word out. You know. Fair time."

If he'd heard it once, he'd heard it a thousand times. Upstanding. Eager. For the Greater Good. "Of course they are," Wild Bill grumbled, "and just what do these upstanding wargamers call this niche?"

"Pulp."

It's a game where the rules were written by some mook getting paid a penny a word.

Border Reivers?
I must have missed that fad.

um, can't you just follow the board back to its original posts and get a sense from there? otherwise, what does it matter? this all a bit of a pike's peak for me.

TMP link

Ed

Thanks for the link and WOW!…people were arguing about what the page was supposed to represent *RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING*!! LOL!!

Ah, Pulp. Hard boiled exterior, hewn by rough talk, burned by experience, dented, hurled, shell-cracked, and wary on the outside. On the inside, soft, and pulpy either from fuzzy warmth of a good deed done unnoticed, or from stepping your foot into a pool of coagulated corpuscles or day old puke.

>>The Pulp Gaming Board was named after Pulp Gaming.<<

I don't that you see the humor in this. Since it's *inception* nobody agreed as to what this board should represent. It was created out of nothing to represent nothing in particular. No wonder there's so much discussion about the purpose of the group. It has no *specific* purpose at all, and it never has.

I think I know who suggested this group. It was Samuel Beckett! That rascal. :-)

This Board is at least 10 years old. Go to the archives and search "oldest".

Spring is in the air!
I heard the boidies tweeting outside!
The snow is melting!
And people are having their annual pointless discussion about naming and classifying!!!!!

January 29 2005, Plynkes started arguing the definition on the second post of the thread announcing the creation of the Pulp Board.

Vintage TMP.

>>And people are having their annual pointless discussion about naming and classifying!!!!!<<

>>January 29 2005, Plynkes started arguing the definition on the second post of the thread announcing the creation of the Pulp Board.<<

I would have thought that this would make you happy as hell.
This board represents nothing in particular. No specific reason for it's existence. No definition. No classification. Just…nothing.

What makes you think I am not happy ?

If you ate all that interested you can always look up a poll completed in that time frame. I rather suspect that you will find the same same old arguments in the pre poll and poll discussion. That amused me.
If anything it will show the futility of trying to change people's minds on the internet. If something as silly and unimportant as the name of the Pulp board makes people dog in their heels…..

>>And people are having their annual pointless discussion about naming and classifying!!!!!<<

(shrug) Sounds like a complaint to me.

o>>If something as silly and unimportant as the name of the Pulp board makes people dog in their heels…..<<

Actually, what I was hoping to do was to find out if there were any parameters for what this group represents, but apparently there are no parameters whatsoever. None. Zip. Zero. So this group is no different than the "general" group. No difference at all. In fact, it's redundant.

There's a Pulp board over on LAF that appears to jog along quite happily with lots of posts from people who are content and comfortable with what it represents. There's also a set of rules called Pulp Alley. Pop over there, immerse yourself in the board for a while to see what it's all about then come back here and inject your new-found knowledge into the TMP Pulp board so that it becomes the relevant, meaningful tool you appear to want it to.

Doug
somewhat mystified by this post but anxious to help

Doug

What is LAF?

>>Actually it is quite a bit different. Sorry you can't see it, but apparently those who post there know what constitutes "pulp."<<

There is no such thing as "pulp", unless you're talking about the inside of an orange. There are many *opinions* about what it is, but nothing specific or concrete. The opinions vary widely, and since the term "pulp" without a qualifier like "pulp fiction", "pulp magazine" or "pulp era" is ambiguous at best. Just look at the thread asking "what pulp gaming means to you" to see just how ambiguous it is. So you needn't be sorry that I can't see it, because it's everything and nothing. *That* I can see quite clearly.

>>If we can't make fun of this nonsense, then it is a pretty sad day.<<

I agree with you 100%. :-)

>>There may not be a time frame, but there is a style or feel to the type of game<<

What many in this group want to discuss is adventure skirmish gaming with no parameters. To assign adventure skirmish gaming a name like "pulp gaming" is to suggest that it's a *certain* type of gaming. The reluctance to define pulp gaming is the result of the reluctance to specify *anything* about the alleged genre, not just the time period, except that there is an adventure and that there will be a skirmish. If there is no specification, and no definition, there is no reason to call it "pulp". And since it has no definition it's anything…and nothing.

BTW, why do you think the word "pulp" is used in "pulp gaming" if it has nothing to do with a time period?

Link specifically to the LAF Pulp board.
link

"Enjoy", I believe one should say at this point.

Doug

"pulp" -

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

>>Because "pulp" stories did not belong to a defined time period. Does that mean that the pulps are not pulp? That's essentially what you are contending.<<

I have never heard the term "pulp stories". Pulp magazine collectors and fans of stories originally published in pulp magazines use the term "pulps", and fiction from "the pulps". Both with an "S". This is not a question of semantics, but of definition. What is a "pulp story". Is it a story originally published in a pulp magazine? Is it a story that was produced in one of the many genres of fiction during the pulp era? Or is it a story that reads or is viewed by you, or anyone else, as a piece of fiction that has a particular quality that you, or anyone else, call "pulp"? Or is it all of the above? Since the term "pulp" remains undefined here, you can't say, specifically, *what* it is. You're right *and* wrong when you say that "pulp" stories did not belong to a defined time period". Because your definition of "pulp stories" is only your opinion, and your interpretation might not be the same as someone else's. Do you follow what I'm saying here? You can't use the term "pulp" as part of a definition if the term "pulp" is itself undefined. So "pulp gaming" remains undefined. In any case, if everyone that posts in the "pulp gaming" group wants the term to be undefined, it's not up to me to say different, and I can't argue the point because I can't refer to a definition that would prove me right or wrong. So "pulp gaming" is what it is. Everything and nothing.

The rest of your comments are interesting, but I can't reply to them without a specific definition of "pulp" and "pulp gaming" to say that I agree or disagree.

It's important to note though, that the fact that the terms "pulp" and "pulp gaming" remain undefined isn't something that I lay awake at night worrying about. I really don't care one way or the other. Just about all discussion about the definition of "pulp gaming" was the result of my coining the term "pulp era" and posting my interpretation of what that means. Some, I think, were fine with it, and used the term, others balked at having any parameters or definition at all. But really, *this* thread is not an argument for or against a definition. I'm not in charge of anyone's fun. Call it whatever you like. It's a free country. But I say that it's spinach, and I say the hell with it.

I find the same sort of issue in the steampunk community, though things there are probably more complex, given debates over what constitutes true steampunk music, garb, literature, etc. More time is spent debating "what is steampunk" than discussing anything else.

Now, should there be a steampunk board? Or is Victorian Science Fiction enough?
Please, I'm just kidding!

Oh good grief.

"I don't know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Brother Ignatius, but I think maybe it's time to remove the mushroom soup from the menu!"

As for who knows what it stands for, apparently all the people who discuss various games and figures on the board seem to have a pretty good idea.

And yes, you are arguing semantics. I have no clue why. Seems a pointless exercise to me.

Oh, and to etothepi. That response wins the thread.

>>As for who knows what it stands for, apparently all the people who discuss various games and figures on the board seem to have a pretty good idea.<<

Really? After reading the responses to "what does pulp gaming mean to you", the opinions seem to me to vary widely. You may think that they all agree with *you*, but that isn't true. In any case, I thought that it was a closed case since nobody ever defined "pulp" or "pulp gaming". So it's anything, and nothing in particular.

The Shadow:
".In any case, I thought that it was a closed case since nobody ever defined 'pulp' or 'pulp gaming'. So it's anything, and nothing in particular."

This is not how language works. People's ability to establish meaning and to understand words isn't that simple. There is no significant semantic ambiguity going on with how the word "pulp" is being used in this thread or other related threads. Parzival has already concisely given adequate evidence to support that point, at least as far as the issue relates to the discussion about pulp gaming on these message boards. To make the claim otherwise really flies in the face of linguistic research.

The real issue that is being repeatedly brought up is a debate for the need for a prescriptive definition for "pulp" vs. a descriptive definition for "pulp." Prescriptive definitions tend to limit discussions and ignore connotations, whereas descriptive definitions tend to acknowledge that language is organic and changes over time, and accounts for how people actually use language within and across contexts.

Prescriptive definitions tend to be part of movements to limit discussions or expression, despite claims to the contrary. You can see that distinction between most of the "what is pulp" discussions on the board now vs. those recently cited from 2005, which were more friendly and open and less contentious. The 2005 discussions are about sharing and opening up conversations, the current discussions are about how to limit (or hopefully not limit) what is said and where it is said.

Sincerely,
Aaron Malchow

We're not planning to have another vote to change another board's name are we?
I miss the name 'Needs More Boobies' enough as it is.

ug – now there's at least 3 threads on this topic. can we make a 'gripe about board names' board?