Monday, September 30, 2024

Boot Hill: Campaigns (Part II)

Boot Hill's section on campaigns continues with a brief aside about the maps included with the boxed set. Because I don't see anything especially worthy of comment in this section, I'm going to pass over it and move on to the much more relevant section devoted to "Campaign Time."

At the referee's discretion, campaign turns can be weekly or monthly or of any specified duration. Each turn, the players relate to the referee what their character's actions and undertakings will be, and the referee moderates the resultant occurrences. The gamemaster takes all actions into account, and relates the appropriate information on various happenings to the players as seen through the eyes of their characters.

When characters' actions are appropriate for moving the action to the tabletop, the time frame changes to the lower level, and the larger campaign's goings-on are suspended until the tabletop action is resolved. Once that is done, the rest of the whole moves on, with the results of the tabletop action reflected in the ongoing and ever-changing situation.

The mention of a "campaign turn" immediately caught my attention. From context, it would seem that the actions of such a turn are "high level" actions distinct from those capable of being adjudicated on the tabletop, like combat or movement. Unfortunately, there's no explicit discussion of the precise nature of these campaign actions, though one can somewhat intuit their nature from other discussions in this section. For example,

The roles and objectives assigned to the participants should be commensurate with the scope of the campaign. Thus, if the map covers a large area and the duration is expected to be several game years, players would represent major characters: large ranchers, outlaw leaders, sheriffs, Indian chiefs, cavalry commanders, and so on – each with many figures to operate or command. Objectives would likewise be broad. On the other hand, a campaign taking place in a small county with but a town or two would have participants cast in less grandiose roles and with smaller objectives – i.e., an outlaw's objectives might be to lead a gang of desperadoes into town, rob the bank, escape to a hideout, and lay low for a month before pulling another job.

Again, there are few specifics here and the specifics that are offered belong to the "small county" campaign and, even then, they strike me as the kind of thing that would be more likely to be played out on the tabletop than through a "campaign turn." 

The referee should keep copies of all starting statistics and changes made by all pertinent characters in the campaign, with special care taken for the player characters (who may also want to keep suitable records of their own). For example, the referee may inform each player at the start of the game as to his characters' cash on hand, equipment, animals, and possessions owned, hirelings/associates/friends, and so on. Thus, rancher Longhoop starts with $671 and a herd of 600 head of longhorns. During the course of the first couple of game months he hires three extra hands, makes a cattle drive which mysteriously picks up several hundred additional doggies along the way, and sells off the lot. At that point he could then have $9,004 and 325 head of cattle.

Orders for the actions of characters in each campaign turn can be given orally, but referees may wish to consider requiring written orders from each player to have a record of all desired undertakings.

I am absolutely awful when it comes to campaign record keeping. I frequently rely on my players to remind me of many details, which is why I think the idea of keeping written records of campaign actions is probably a good idea. I'm reminded once again of Diplomacy, whose play demands written orders from all the players each turn. Indeed, I continue to suspect that, for all the talk of the importance of Braunstein and its derivatives, Diplomacy may well be an equally important (and overlooked) component in understanding how early RPG campaigns were played. 

4 comments:

  1. Diplomacy's been around since 1954, and originally lived in the (now) much-neglected play-by-mail space of the gaming hobby, so yes, it definitely had a big influence on the wargamers who made up most of the original crop of players for TSR games. It was also the first game outside of chess that you really saw fanzines for, and help spur a huge boom in PBM games in general throughout the latter 70s and early 80s - after which the whole genre ran afoul of a the spread of home computing, a growing internet, and rising postal rates. Diplomacy is a de facto Braunstein game in its own right, albeit one with strict constraints on allowed activities and universally shared victory conditions - "Baby's First Braunstein" is a term I've seen used about it many times over the years.

    Given that I've played in exactly two in-person Braunstein games compared to well over a hundred games of Diplomacy over the years, I know which influenced me more. Even if I include the dabbling I did in PBM Braunsteins like Tribes of Crane, Starmaster, etc. the ratio is still at least 5:1 in favor of Diplomacy, and likely closer to 10:1. PBM was expensive at the ages I wa sat when it was still a big thing, and by the time I had the spare money for postage and turn fees most of the big games were dead and gone and there were better things to spend on anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The question that sprung to my mind as I read the post above was, "Did anyone who bought a gunfighting simulation game called 'Boot Hill' 40+ years ago relish the opportunity to play through Campaign Turns where they kept meticulous records of how many head of cattle their character owned at the end of each month of 1877?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possibly some would. A lot of westerns switched between campaign time and action time. I just watched Dodge City, and not only does it do that, but the “characters” are meticulous about their cattle! Arguably, Who Shot Liberty Valance did similar switching even ignoring the flashback nature of the movie. Modern movies tend to compress time, but older movies, and books in general, often run the viewer/reader through a bird’s-eye view of the actual time that preparation would have taken in real life.

      Delete
  3. What I find interesting is the suggestion that it is the DM, not the player, who should track things that the players acquire, but that the players can also if they want. I think in my experience it’s always been the job of the player to track items and information and stats and whatnot belonging to the player, if for no other reason than the DM already has a lot going on. I can’t count the number of players I’ve seen not remember they had something, and the DM reply “well write it down, I’m not going to keep remembering it for you”. But here, Gygax says that’s their job.

    ReplyDelete