The question of whether Boot Hill is actually a roleplaying game is an interesting one, especially since the introduction to the game addresses this:
Playing BOOT HILL is quite simple. Since it is a role-playing game, each player participating takes on the persona of an individual character and controls his actions. In some cases, henchmen or associates will also be under his direction. In any event, the player takes the role of his character for the time that that individual is involved in the game situation (death, for instance, or a long jail term could remove that character from the game). The player makes the same decisions his character would make in the conduct of affairs (either in the heat of a gunfight if such a game is being played out on the tabletop, or the day-to-day activities if it is a campaign situation), and the combined actions of the entire cast of players as a whole (plus actions by non-player characters_ make up an ever-changing game situation which is much like the unfolding story of a novel or movie script – except that no one knows exactly what might result or how the story might ultimately turn out!
While there's a lot to unpack in the quote above, I want to focus on only two portions of it. First, the introduction is quite clear that its author (Gary Gygax and/or Brian Blume) unambiguously sees Boot Hill as a roleplaying game and explains what he means by that. Second, and relatedly, the author seemingly makes a distinction between "tabletop" play and "campaign" play. The former he associates with gunfighting, while the latter he associates with "day-to-day activities," though he doesn't (yet) explain he means by that. I can't recall this distinction ever being made in any other RPG, so this caught my attention.
This unpredictability and open-ended nature is what makes any role-playing game enjoyable, and the often fast and furious action of BOOT HILL gives it an excitement all its own. Players should strive to take on the role of their game character and fully immerse themselves in the very enjoyable fantasy aspect of the game. If they do so, they will enjoy it even more ...
I very much agree with this, of course.
Pre-arranged scenarios can be used for individual games (two such scenarios, THE GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL and THE BATTLE OF COFFEYVILLE, are included as appendices in this booklet) – and these games can be historically-based or constructed in any way desired. Setting up a bank robbery scenario, for instance, would be easy – splitting up the players as outlaws, citizens, sheriff, deputy, bank personnel, etc., arranging the location of buildings involved (using the town map provided or one drawn especially for the scenario), and handling any pursuit cross-country by using a hex map (which could be the fictional area map within the game). The abilities and rating of individual players are determined by dice rolling in the manner described in a following section (see SETTING UP GAME CHARACTERS), and once this is done, the starting location of each character is noted, and play begins. It is suggested that the first few games played be unrelated games of this type which (while enjoyable) will basically serve as training sessions.
Here, the author makes it clearer what he might mean by "game," namely a "pre-arranged scenario" with a very specific purpose, like a bank robbery or other gunfight.
Once players are familiar with the game rules and mechanics, they will find that the most enjoyable games are those that are tied together as part of a larger campaign (see CAMPAIGNS). In such a situation, past events are reflected as closely as possible in successive games, and each player has a stake in the future as well as a place in the status quo. Since platers are in different positions with different objectives (as well as on both sides of the law), there will be enough conflict and contention to provide for plenty of interesting action (which will include the inevitable gunfights and shootouts which can be played as tabletop games). Some typical character roles (depending on the size of the campaign) would be: outlaws, lawmen (sheriff, deputy, Texas ranger, etc.), ranchers (cattlemen or sheep rancher), Indian chiefs, gamblers, bounty hunters, hired guns, drifters, and so on.
Here, "game" would seem to be a synonym for a "session" of play, in contrast with a "campaign," which is a series of successive games linked by past events. In any case, it's worth noting that a Boot Hill campaign as envisaged here involves, as I pointed out in my earlier post, player conflict, since the interests of the characters will not always align. Furthermore, this conflict is intended to be one of the drivers of "interesting action" within the campaign, leading to, among other things, "inevitable gunfights and shootouts" – in short, a wargame-y "player versus player" frame.
My friends and I never played Boot Hill for very long and thus never had the chance to use it for a campaign. What we did do was run one-off scenarios in which players took on different roles that were often at odds with one another – outlaws versus lawmen, etc. – and played out their battles with the map and counters the boxed set included. We had fun with this, but we treated it not much differently than we did other tabletop battle games rather than as an adjunct to something more, as the introduction suggests.
We'll wrap up our look at the introduction in my next post, but there's still a lot more to examine about Boot Hill beyond that, as subsequent posts will show.
Lancer has some of that distinction between two types of play.
ReplyDeleteHave you looked at Avalon Hill’s gunslinger from the same time period? A very technical gunfight simulator. But had some RPG elements and personas.
ReplyDeleteGunslinger is an excellent game and an interesting parallel…I loved it and considered incorporating aspects of it into Boot Hill back in the 80s. Just being a teen, that didnt go anywhere, but i like to think it would have been similar to modern RPGs that use ‘minigames’ with different rules, like Aces & Eights.
DeleteGunslinger was, I think, one of the earlier Avalon Hill games to use card mechanics for resolving actions in combat. There were a small cadre of AH games in that era that experimented with non-traditional wargame mechanics to simulate different aspects of conflict, such as Storm over Arnhem, Fury in the West, Struggle of Nations, and Gunslinger. Not sure the grognards enjoyed the innovations, and I cant judge how they all worked out, but I found them fascinating.
Anyone interested in Gunslinger—check out The General magazine from Sept-Oct 1982, which features a slew of insights into the development, innovations, a PbP, etc.
"Not sure the grognards enjoyed the innovations, and I cant judge how they all worked out, but I found them fascinating."
DeleteI was still very young, but I distinctly recall a lot of disdain from the grogs of the day toward Avalon Hill on the basis that they were somehow unrealistic and poorly researched, usually in comparison to SPI, which was their big competitor at the time. Some of that was undoubtedly just fanboy-ism for individual publishers, the wargamers equivalent to D&D edition wars. There were practically armed camps of AH, SPI, Yaquinto and GDW players in my area back in the day, all hating on each other's favored games and all looking down on fantasy, scifi and roleplaying as non-games since they weren't properly historical.
Really kind of sad for a bunch of people who were mostly in their 30s and older, although I didn't register on it at the time.
The #brosr on twitter and youtube has spent the last 2 years working through the implications of these lines, and other similar from the early days.
ReplyDeleteFor a moment, I read that as Bro-SR, and almost retched…then recovered my wits enough to realize it was good old British-OSR, which is a great page. Thank you 😊
DeleteNo, I think heyjames4 is talking about the "Bro-SR" on twitter, represented by Jeffro Jackson, Jon Mollison, et al.
DeleteReally?? Thats a thing? Oh dear. Ok then…i feel so old. Skibideath.
DeleteIt’s a bit of a tongue in cheek name
DeleteFrom what I've read, the "campaign play" sounds a lot like Wesley's Braunstein games, and Blackmoor. Definitely not what D&D became!
ReplyDeleteI think campaign play was not really described, for Boot Hill, as the Western genre was part of the cultural milieu for them. I cannot think of anything more mid 20th century American than that genre, and like overgrown boys, Boot Hill was their way of playing in a core setting to them.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reason it didn't do so well was the cultural currents shifted away from the genre.
How to run a campaign does end up being more described in the book, but it definitely explicitly says to go read a book or watch a movie for setting information.
Delete