Monday, September 9, 2024

Boot Hill Introduction (Part I)

One of the (many) fascinating things about Boot Hill is that its presentation is quite different from TSR's other RPGs of similar vintage, like Dungeons & Dragons or Gamma World. Consider what the introduction to the 1979 second edition has to say on the matter:

BOOT HILL is designed to function as a game in two ways – as a set of rules for man-to-man gunfighting action, and as an outline guide for setting up quasi-historical or fictional role-playing campaigns for an ongoing series of events. Although in the first context alone BOOT HILL will provide many hours of exciting action, it is in the latter way that the game fully reveals all its enjoyable possibilities – as player characters pursue their individual goals and interact with each other in a continuing game situation. With a good mix of interesting players and a competent gamemaster/referee there will certainly be no lack of action – as sheep ranchers and cattlemen pursue outlaws and rustlers, unscrupulous businessmen expand their holdings, hostile Indians threaten and much more.

This is an important paragraph. The most immediate statement of note here is that Boot Hill is intended to be used in two ways, first as a traditional RPG focused on a small group of characters and second as a vehicle for campaign play in which characters and groups of characters contend with one another. Equally notable, in my opinion, is the statement that Boot Hill "fully reveals" itself through campaign play, which is a statement I fully endorse

The introduction continues:

Players will find that, once learned, the mechanics of play for BOOT HILL will be easily handled. This means that tabletop games can be played with a minimum of trouble and preparation, either with a referee or without.

Pay close attention to that last prepositional clause: either with a referee or without. If one is only familiar with the way RPGs are typically played today, that's got to be something of a shock.

The larger campaign games will require a gamemaster. This individual is not a player himself, but rather functions as a moderator of all the game activity – from devising the details of the setting and campaign situation and the player characters' part within it, to moderating and overseeing all game action (not only that which is to occur on the tabletop, but also the considerable pursuits and intrigues which go on "behind the scenes"). No more than an average knowledge of the "Old West" is needed, since the game is designed to be flexible and can be set up as desired with the information and suggestions given in this booklet. If the game is set up and conducted in a way which will be challenging and enjoyable to the players (as well as interesting to the referee), then it will be a success.

Reading this, I find myself reminded of Diplomacy, a game that was very popular with many early roleplayers, including Gary Gygax. An aspect of what makes Diplomacy unique is that there is a "roleplaying" element to it, in that each player acts as a diplomat for a European nation in the early 20th century and engages in public and secret negotiations with the other player diplomats with the goal of advancing his nation's interests and the expense of the others. Diplomacy is, to use contemporary parlance, a PVP game in which a player can only succeed at the expense of others. 

I won't go so far as to claim that Diplomacy is the hidden key to understanding how many campaigns were played in the early days of the hobby, but I nevertheless do believe that it's an oft-forgotten part of the context out of which roleplaying games evolved. As near as I can tell, early campaigns were freewheeling, chaotic affairs in which players often pitted themselves against one another and campaign events were just as likely to be the results of this player-versus-player struggle as referee-created situations. The early history of Gygax's Greyhawk campaign is instructive here, in which Rob Kuntz's fighter, Robilar, frequently acted in his own self-interest and against those of other player characters in the campaign. 

This seems to be the kind of play that the introduction to Boot Hill is advocating and that the game was designed to facilitate. In my next post, I'll take a closer look at a later section of the introduction, which provides additional detail about how campaign play of this sort was envisaged.

12 comments:

  1. Fascinating research. This means the RPG rubric that we take for granted today - a cooperative group working together to overcome some challenge - may have been only a portion of what the "creators" envisaged. The ties to Diplomacy certainly argue for more player versus player intrigue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. random aside, I need to find a copy of this game. I bought one at a swap meet, and sadly, or not sadly, no game, just all the modules. someday...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do get a copy of this great game. Back in the early 80s, my friends and I took breaks from D&D by playing Boot Hill, among others. We loved the gun fight mechanics. Part of the appeal was the lingo. It was more than just math. For example, at certain degree of accuracy you were a "dead eye" rather than just "+30% to hit."

      Delete
    2. There was an echo of D&D "level titles" in the attribure descriptions, IIRC. Something James might consider doing a post on, even.

      Delete
  3. I don't interpret that first paragraph the same way as you do. It really seems to be contrasting a tactical gun-fighting game (kind of like something from Games Workshop) vs. the typical campaign-style RPG -- that is, "man-to-man gunfighting action" doesn't refer to a regular RPG style, but something like shoot-out scenarios played as one-offs. I would imagine that conception is also why the referee is optional; you don't typically have a referee for warhammer-type skirmishes, either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For what it's worth, referees are common even in non-competitive wargames, and the first couple of editions of the two Warhammers assumed the involvement of a GM.

      Delete
    2. A more apt comparison would be Avalon Hill's 1982 board game Gunslinger. Boot Hill was an inferior simulator, but Gunslinger suffered from the common AH problem of overwritten and convoluted rules for what should have been a simple skirmish game.

      https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1044/gunslinger

      FWIW, Fantasy Games Unlimited released the Wild West RPG in 1981. I've never seen it in person, although a later edition is still on sale as a pdf. The reviews online make me perfectly happy to have gone without the experience of actually playing, and it certainly sounds almost as combat-focused mechanically as Boot Hill was. Your horses have their own character generation process and earn experience to buy skills, which is at least novel. Shades of Briscoe County Junior.

      Delete
  4. Sounds great. I've been interested in Boot Hill since I learned of it but I wondered whether it was a minis game only?

    I could see where the GM sets up a campaign with three or four players where two or three were the rival ranchers fighting over water and grazing rights and the fourth was the law. Each faction having a stable of characters.

    I've always wanted to play diplomacy. My friend's big brother was a good 14/15 years older than him and he played a lot of it. My own ideal game would be Diplomacy but with Vancian wizards in the style of Rhialto the Marvellous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jacob72 IMO the best way to play Diplomacy was, back in the day, by mail. Now it's PBeM.

    There are ample games running online to try; you don't need to track down another 6 FTF players.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In my enthusiasm for this topic, I have purchased the 2nd ed of Boot Hill to follow along. It was one of the few TSR games I didnt own myself—my best friend did. Exciting times!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gunfight skirmish wargames were fought in a variety of formats from the late 1960s, and may well have been part of the inspiration for Blackmoor and, by extension, D&D. See the following posts, especially the third:

    https://awesomeliesblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/04/gunfighting-part-one/

    https://awesomeliesblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/11/gunfighting-part-two/

    https://awesomeliesblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/18/gunfighting-part-three/

    ReplyDelete