Boot Hill devotes several pages in the middle of its 32-page rulebook to campaigns.
The full flavor and scope of BOOT HILL comes out in campaign play, with numerous players vying, through the use of their game characters, for a wide assortment of goals and objectives. The interplay of personalities (on both sides of the law) can be fascinating and fun, and a well-run campaign with a competent gamemaster and a good assortment of players will be a satisfying endeavor for all. Campaigns should be tailored to suit the preferences of the players, but some general guidelines are here. All campaigns require an impartial referee.
None of this is new. The game's introduction already covered a lot of the same ground. Nevertheless, I personally find it gratifying to see yet another suggestion that roleplaying reaches its zenith in campaign play – and by "campaign play," the author means an open-ended and player-directed series of sessions with a shared continuity, overseen by "an impartial referee." There's no mention here of "story" or "plot," just "players vying ... for a wide assortment of goals and objectives."
The person taking the role of gamemaster is a pivotal figure, for it is her or she that will shoulder the principal responsibility for all aspects of play. The referee should thus be a person who has a good working knowledge of the rules.
This is just common sense.
A referee should be impartial, and should moderate the action without interfering in the course if might take. The referee will be in charge of processing and revealing all information as the campaign goes on, and this "limited intelligence" aspect will greatly add interest, since not every character will be aware of all that is happening.
This conception of the referee is clearly derived from miniatures wargaming, which only makes sense, as the entire hobby of roleplaying arose out of it. More interesting to me is the statement that the referee's primary job is not to direct the action of the campaign – that's the purview of the players – but to "moderate the action without interfering in the course it might take." That's very different than the way a referee, game master, or Dungeon Master is generally conceived of nowadays (and, if I'm honest, most of the time that I've been playing RPGs).
The gamemaster provides background for the players, and the scope of the campaign will be determined by the referee's judgment. The referee's decisions will be important in many instances, and the players must accept the judgments accordingly.
The referee, then, establishes the status quo ante for the campaign, including its locale, major NPCs, conflicts, etc. Much of the rest is left to the players.
Two campaign scenarios are included in this booklet – one which is quasi-historical, and another which is completely fictional. These can provide the beginnings of a campaign in themselves, or an independent campaign can be started "from scratch," if desired. In any event, players can make up their own roles in such settings by rolling the dice to determine their character's abilities and then choosing a personal role or occupation. The objectives of each character can then be outlined by the referee, and these are the goals each will seek as the campaign goes on.
The two campaign scenarios referenced above both take place in the fictional Promise City at different periods in history (1876 and 1890). The earlier of the two scenarios is "quasi-historical" in that it involves a gambling competition that attracts famous historical gamblers to the town, like Johnny Ringo and Bat Masterson. Otherwise, however, it's entirely fictional in nature, as is the later 1890 scenario. Notably, this paragraph seems to suggest that it's the referee rather than the players, who decides the objectives of each character. I suppose this might only apply in circumstances where the referee is working from a pre-generated scenario, such as those in the Boot Hill rules, but it's a bit unclear. Ultimately, though, what's most important is that campaign play proceeds according to the principle that characters have "goals" that they will seek and the bulk of the campaign's action derives from their attempting to do so.
I am trying to adapt my thinking as a GM into this "referee" mindset. I want to try running where I impose my vision on the events as little as possible, deferring to the players' choices. I had my creative time when I designed the setting, and I get more chances when I create NPCs, dungeons, and monsters. Let the players make the story.
ReplyDeleteI love this section of the BH rule book; it is in some respects a more concise and definitive statement of the ethos of the first wave of table top roleplaying than you'll find practically anywhere else (setting aside that awkwardly inconsistent sentence in the section on canned scenarios). Between this GM advice and the surprisingly spare mechanical rules, I'd say BH might be the most accessible way for the uninitiated to learn by experience how you set up and play a 'Braunstein' feeling roleplaying campaign (though, in a narrower sense, BH doesn't explicitly contain the classic Braunstein elements of secret negotiations or victory conditions).
ReplyDelete^^agrees with anonymous.^^
ReplyDeleteIt's worth noting that a series of Old West Braunstein games (in the town of Brownstone) were run in the early 1970s.
I'm reading it as players have the option in any of the three situations to create a character and choose a role; it's good mix between pregen and not-pregen; make your character and pick their place in the world, and then the Referee gives you a goal that is likely to bring you into conflict with the other players' characters.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's lower prep for the Referee if they lay out the map, and then maybe a player joins as a Rancher, and the Referee works with them to place it on the map somewhere.
DeleteOriginal Promise City came with its own pre-gen gang of villains, the Douglas Brothers (IIRC). There was "Eagle-Eye," "Pig-Eye" and a couple more. There was also a marshal, "Shotgun" George Chambers, and a sheriff. I saw them like building blocks for my campaign. Basically you could plop it in the middle of a large map, and fill out the rest as you saw fit.
ReplyDeleteFor me personally, Boot Hill was notable as one of the very few RPGs I ever owned that specifically referenced a historical background and characters and, separately and distinctly, a fictional background and characters. Additionally, from the dates of the scenario settings referenced in James' original post above, it refreshes my memory that TSR seemed to really liked that post-Civil War era as the default setting.
ReplyDeleteWhen I bought this game originally as a junior high kid, I didn't know enough about the history (or the fiction, or the 'old' TV shows or the films) to appreciate much of any difference.
Maybe it's because I'm Californian and for several years lived in the San Francisco Bay area, but personally I can see a lot of great story potential in the Gold Rush era (and people being 'Shangai'd' onto boats bound for China in the San Francisco Bay) in a era that started 25 years earlier and overlapped the Civil War, as well as the period of the Gold Rush in the Black Hills of the Dakota Territory, an area sacred to the Sioux, which I believe was roughly 1875.
To me the "campaign play" mode described here sounds exactly like what I understood a "sandbox campaign" to be. Anyone else? Is this the earliest commercial attestation of the idea?
ReplyDelete(FTR, I haven't spent much time online following RPG theory and renaissance communities so appreciate that even if I get the 'denotation' right I'm surely missing the 'connotations' of the term.)
The biggest difference is the campaign here is expecting that the good guys and the bad guys are all played by players, so all the conflict is coming from the outlaws/lawmen/etc having conflicting goals
Delete@gern the difference is that in a Braunstein/Boot Hill as written campaign the GM sets objectives for each of the characters.
DeleteIn a sandbox RP campaign, the players typically set their own objectives (guided by GM rumours and hints about whers things are, as well as possible in game rewards: the Council of Twelve will pay a thousand in gold for a complete map of the uncharted territory).
I guess I'm not getting the 'GM sets objectives' element from these excerpts as clearly as you are, Sir Harrok -- and I always thought PCs in conflict/competition over goals was part of what made a 'sandbox campaign' TBH!
DeleteIt's the sentence that reads--
ReplyDeleteThe objectives of each character can then be *outlined by the referee*, and these are the goals each will seek as the campaign goes on.
OK, I see what you're saying there, Sir Harrok. It's interesting to finally learn the nuances of terminology I've been floating amongst for decades ;)
ReplyDelete