What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

[BlackSword]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

Poltergeist: The Legacy

Beat me to it. This was one of the series I was thinking of.

 

I tend to think of Modern Paranormal as slightly off our own world. I could walk out of my job, take a wrong turn down an alley get attacked by a vampire and (hopfully) have some agency swoop in and save me. Suddently I have left 'the real world' and entered 'the paranormal world' but the transition was so minor I didn't even notice it. The agency may be FBI X-Files Dana and Scully reviewing an odd case, a super-secret military team trained to fight the paranormal/supernatural, Buffy and her Scooby Gang, or an occult group who stays hidden from the rest of the world ala Nightwatch.

 

I think in general its a broad category so the GM would have to set the ground rules.

[Southern Cross]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

In my opinion what makes the difference between "Modern Paranormal" and "superhero Fiction" is this:paranormals existence is kept a secret,but everybody knows superheroes exist.

[Curufea]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

I dunno - Wildcards is an example that crosses that definition.

[Southern Cross]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

So do the works of Laurell K.Hamilton. A better tack would be "Are there any characters with Powers,costumes & codenames fighting each other?"

If not,but characters with Powers exist in the modern era,we are in the Modern Paranormal genre.

[John Desmarais]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

Call of Cthulhu isn't modern paranormal. For a start, it's last century (the 20th)- unless you are playing Cthulhu Now! or Delta Green. Secondly, I'd regard it as supernatural, not paranormal. Paranormal to me implies modification to humans or normality. Supernatural implies a more fantastical exageration of that.

 

Paranormal would be psychics.

Supernatural would be superheroes or ghosts.

 

Modern - it'd have to be set within the last 30 years.

 

Awfully narrow view of paranormal.

par·a·nor·mal (pr-n�rml)

adj. Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation

[Curufea]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

Strangely enough, language meaning changes with usage from it's original meaning.

 

Common usage of paranormal is "mildly weird" and supernatural as "very weird".

Try things other than dictionaries.

[BlackSword]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

Then how would you define a "Modern Preternatural" game?

 

Its really splitting hairs to distinguish supernatural and paranormal as separate genres.

[Curufea]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

True.

They're just labels in a language. Labelling things always generalises and ambiguates things.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

Okay, I have a question then if Laura K. Hamilton counts as Modern Paranormal. Does this mean that mean that Modern Paranormal games require your characters to dress like sluts and spend 30 minutes each game session describing in detail what they are wearing?

[Curufea]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

No, you can have non-superheroes.

[shem_whistler]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

When I read the thread title I immediately thought of the UK TV series Ultraviolet.

[Curufea]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

Great series. Too short though

[zornwil]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

Maybe this? http://www.realschluss.org/disavowed/setting/index.html - campaign description

writeups (yes, just the one) - http://www.realschluss.org/disavowed/issues/index.html (I know the writeup isn't great writing, technically speaking. I just try to get the story down quickly, at this point the notes all I typed as we played taken and written up into a readable format.)

[shem_whistler]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

Great series. Too short though

 

I hear rumours every now and again of a new series, but it seems unlikely now. I loved the fact that in all six episodes they didn't use the word vampire once.

[Curufea]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

I hear rumours every now and again of a new series' date=' but it seems unlikely now. I loved the fact that in all six episodes they didn't use the word vampire once. [/quote']

 

It had a complete story arc for the main character. And explored the most common vampire questions. Many UK series only have 6-12 eps.

 

There's always rumours about sequels - they tend not to happen though (take the Red Dwarf movie, for example)

[Robyn]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

I dunno - Wildcards is an example that crosses that definition.

 

Another example of how - no matter how expansive a definition - life will produce more people who expand it still further.

 

Part of the "language meaning changes with usage" you mentioned, I think.

[ThothAmon]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

There's always rumours about sequels - they tend not to happen though (take the Red Dwarf movie' date=' for example)[/quote']

 

And may the Lord be praised for that one!

 

Re the excellent 'Ultraviolet' it was limited in scope for the same reason that there was no second series of 'Firefly' i.e. it was not picked up and given further funding. I believe that witer Joe Aherne was not encouraged by the producer/channel response to the use of controversial themes e.g. paedophilia, implied racism/terrorism, Catholicism, medical experimentation and other such juicy material. The scope of the series was to be a grim, realistic depiction of a human vs vampire war where the judgements of good and evil were not always clear - not ideal fodder for an ongoing TV series

 

The US version of 'Ultraviolet' was limited to a pilot episode which was allegedly so awful that it couldn't be broadcast.

 

I'm fairly certain that US remakes of 'Red Dwarf' and 'Ultraviolet' would share the same problems as other remakes - loss of integrity and uniqueness due to translation for the "predigested" market that seems to dominate US scheduling. Having said that, there are occasional good things that come out of the USA that give me hope e.g. 'Battlestar Galactica' has been a pleasant surprise.

 

Ultimately I'm a big fan of the cultural differences that come through in our media / entertainment rather than the trend towards homogeneous media. As the cheese-eating surrender monkeys say, "Vive le difference!"

 

BTW the definition of the topic should probably include 'Lost', Delta Green, Conspiracy X, Kult, 'Supernatural' and similar. Laurel K Hamilton material is merely porn for sad Goths; Nancy Collins' work is far preferrable.

[Curufea]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

In general any US version of a British show should NEVER (and let me repeat that NEVER) be made.

[Teflon Billy]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

In general any US version of a British show should NEVER (and let me repeat that NEVER) be made.

I disagree, because while the original premise may be quite successful, it might not be something that can be as successful as it could be over here without being reshaped to fit our cultural norms.

 

All in the Family would never have been made following your line of thinking.

 

TB

[Curufea]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

I've never heard of it.

 

But then - possibly I've only ever heard about the bad translations.

[Black Rose]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

I remember that, around ten or so years ago, there was a second-hand book store with copies of the first four (or maybe five) Anita Blake books. These copies had been nearly read to death, and would only be "sold" to long-time customers who would be sure to return them. The ideas that the bookseller told me from the book (legalized vampires, lycanthropy victims as a socially persecuted group, the Church of Eternal Life, etc.) were very fascinating, and it really saddened me that the series went downhill like it has. Although, technically, it hasn't gone downhill so much as changed core audiences, but since I was part of the old core, I feel somewhat betrayed.

 

To answer the OP's question: like some of the other posters, I consider "paranormal" to include psychic phenomena and spirit activity, but not actual "monsters" and such. I'd actually hold up Ghostbusters as a good example, with X-Files being another. Ghostbusters, despite being a comedy, is exactly the sort of comedy I really love - the events were completely "straight", it was the comments and actions of the main protagonists that made the movie funny. There was nothing actually funny about a materialized Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Vulgo Zindrohad, The Traveller - it was, in fact, the first major step by Gozer in his attempt to conquer our world. Only through the potentially-fatal heroism of the Ghostbusters was he defeated. If you listen to the description Egon gives about what they are going to do, you can tell there is every likelihood they are going to die in a truly horrific manner.

 

Sorry about that, I just like reasonably serious stories where the characters can be snarky.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: What do you consider “Modern Paranormal”?

 

I'd actually hold up Ghostbusters as a good example, with X-Files being another. Ghostbusters, despite being a comedy, is exactly the sort of comedy I really love - the events were completely "straight", it was the comments and actions of the main protagonists that made the movie funny. There was nothing actually funny about a materialized Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Vulgo Zindrohad, The Traveller - it was, in fact, the first major step by Gozer in his attempt to conquer our world. Only through the potentially-fatal heroism of the Ghostbusters was he defeated. If you listen to the description Egon gives about what they are going to do, you can tell there is every likelihood they are going to die in a truly horrific manner.

 

Sorry about that, I just like reasonably serious stories where the characters can be snarky.

 

I like Ghostbusters too, for much the same reason as you. That's also why I like Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein; when you take away the comedy elements (which is based all in Bud and Lou's reactions to the plot), you still have a horror story.