|
|
Post by castiglione on Mar 26, 2010 19:53:53 GMT -6
This idea just came to me but I doubt it's original.
One old-school D & D adventure which almost everyone has experienced is Keep on the Borderlands. In many ways, it is very old-school. It's open-ended. There's a system of caverns there. The caverns are populated by a monster that the PC's would have a very difficult time defeating in a straight-up fight. There's also two groups of monsters that are at each other's throats. In a way, the job of the PC's is to explore that dungeon, figure out how the various elements in it are related to each other and provide some stimuli here and there and basically start moving the chess pieces around to get what they want (gold) with the minimal risk to body and soul. What does this remind me of? A Fistful of Dollars!
I was thinking that a Wild West adventure could be put together the same way. Instead of a map of a dungeon, one could have a map of the relationships between all the NPC's. The job of the PC's would be to figure out the relationships and then to start pushing and prodding to get what they want. What they want can be defined by the players in cooperation with the referee.
The sort of adventure I'm thinking of is something like A Fistful of Dollars, where Clint Eastwood's character comes into town, figures out the relationships between the two groups of hooligans and then starts pushing the chess pieces around. Things go well for a while and Clint's character really isn't in any danger...until things go pear-shaped and then conflicts come out into the open and guns are drawn.
So, instead of a map of caverns, have a map of relationships. Each NPC is a "room". Passages (relationships) link him to other NPC's. Each "room" (character) has things like fears (what he will do everything to avoid), desires (what he will do everything to get), duties (what he feels he must do). These are like alignments and basically regulate his behavior and give the referee (and the players) a guideline as to what to expect from these people. For example, the town marshall might feel his duty is to bring outlaws to justice, his fear might be a nagging feeling he may be in over his head and he's really a coward beneath his badge and his desire might be the local school marm. PC's come into town and start exploring these relationships and then go about moving the chess pieces.
Or, the PC's might already be in town as established citizens but then suddenly, a group of outsiders come into the town and these outsiders serve as a catalyst which reveals relationships which were unknown before now. The local respected businessman might be revealed to have been ridden with the gang that just rode into town. His duty is to protect his family. His fear is that his wife will find out what kind of a man he was until he left the gang. His desire may be to be elected mayor. Or whatever.
What the PC's want to be THEIR goals can be agreed upon between them and the referee. So they may start off "exploring" these "rooms" and then once they figure out how the whole thing works, they can try to exploit it to accomplish whatever goals they've set for themselves.
Of course, violence may break out at any moment. If the PC's find out the truth about the local businessman's past, who knows what he'll do. Or if they get a glimpse into the town marshall's soul and see he really is the coward he fears he is, how will he react?
|
|
|
|
Post by castiglione on Mar 26, 2010 20:19:57 GMT -6
And as a substitute for "wandering monsters"; either have random events or random plot twists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 29, 2010 19:05:26 GMT -6
I have to confess that my brain took a tangent early in the original post, so I'll mention what I was thinking first and then actually reply to your post second.  1. What occured to me is that many of the classic D&D modules could be redone to capture the feel of Boot Hill. Switch most of the critters into Injuns and make the dungeon into an abandoned Silver Mine and you've got yourself Boot Hill. 2. As to your post, I like the relationship concept. Most of my Boot Hill adventures tend to be simple "ride into town, try to rob the bank, die in a massive shootout" kinds of affairs, and something like your proposal might really breathe life into a repetitive campaign. Nice idea! |
|
|
|
Post by castiglione on Mar 29, 2010 22:08:42 GMT -6
Thanks!
I actually got the original inspiration because I had read that many Boot Hill sessions just boiled down to ride into town and shoot it up. It occurred to me that Dungeons & Dragons had a fairly simple "fall-back" position for the DM; basically, there's a dungeon over there, people say there's treasure there and that basically takes care of itself.
In Boot Hill, I suspect many people just got the game and wondered what to do with it besides stage massive gun battles. But when you look at most Westerns, they're basically driven by characters and their motivations and relationships.
Mapping out the relationships like rooms in a dungeon to be explored and then exploited came to me later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 1, 2010 18:34:30 GMT -6
Castiglione, you just wrote the first draft of a genuiune Story Game!  It's pretty brilliant, and I think I'd use it almost vebatim if I ever run my aspirational 1st ed Boot Hill campaign. And, if you're not familiar with it, check out Vincent Baker's ecellent game Dogs in the Vineyard---sounds to me like you'd dig it... |
|
|
|
Post by castiglione on Apr 7, 2010 8:36:25 GMT -6
Castiglione, you just wrote the first draft of a genuiune Story Game! It's pretty brilliant, and I think I'd use it almost vebatim if I ever run my aspirational 1st ed Boot Hill campaign. And, if you're not familiar with it, check out Vincent Baker's ecellent game Dogs in the Vineyard---sounds to me like you'd dig it... Hi, Kesher. I looked up some reviews of Dogs in the Vineyard. VERY interesting and different. The setting appears to make the issue of making adventures that go beyond "shoot up the town" fairly easy since it gives the characters an "out-of-the-box" purpose in life. I think that was one of the problems with Boot Hill. It was so free form that players who were plunked into it were left somewhat gobsmacked as to what to do besides shoot things. I thought the same thing about my little "manifesto" having potential as a story-telling game. Now, it's only a matter of figuring out how to make the darn thing work. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Apr 7, 2010 8:58:25 GMT -6
Yeah, Dogs not only gives characters a reason to do what they do, but the basic elements of every new town force the characters to act by putting mechanical pressure on their own elements (somewhat analogous to your Duty and Fear idea.) And I agree---all we ever did with BH was shoot each other. I mean, we had a lot of fun doing it, but there wasn't really any guidance for going beyond that... |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 7, 2010 9:45:54 GMT -6
Of course, 1E Boot Hill didn't really have any character depth. There were attributes, sure, but mostly ones for combat. And no skills. Essentially, you had to fill in the gaps for characters, much like OD&D. Otherwise, it was a miniatures rules set and by extension a combat game.
|
|
|
|
Post by castiglione on Apr 8, 2010 7:33:33 GMT -6
Of course, 1E Boot Hill didn't really have any character depth. There were attributes, sure, but mostly ones for combat. And no skills. Essentially, you had to fill in the gaps for characters, much like OD&D. Otherwise, it was a miniatures rules set and by extension a combat game. Yes, Boot Hill was pretty minimalist. I only have the 2E rules but I think the only discussion of non-combat things one could do boiled down to the possible goals of PC's (one suggestion was to have everyone's goal to somehow get $10K) and gambling (including how to cheat at gambling). That's not much to go on. I recently acquired Avalon Hill's Gunslinger and thought it had an interesting role-playing system incorporated in it which basically served to "funnel" the actions of PC's depending on their motivations; players basically choose three "motivations" for their characters from a list of six and can change one once a year. These are: Settle Down, Money, Comfort, Respect, Fear, Outlaw. These basically dictate how a PC scores points and in many respects is a sort of "alignment" system as they indicate what makes the PC "tick". Something like an alignment system or maybe just a random profession table (like the one that was published in Dragon) could've gone a long way to getting Boot Hill out of the "shoot up the town" paradigm. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 8, 2010 19:00:27 GMT -6
I recently acquired Avalon Hill's Gunslinger and thought it had an interesting role-playing system incorporated in it which basically served to "funnel" the actions of PC's depending on their motivations; players basically choose three "motivations" for their characters from a list of six and can change one once a year. These are: Settle Down, Money, Comfort, Respect, Fear, Outlaw. These basically dictate how a PC scores points and in many respects is a sort of "alignment" system as they indicate what makes the PC "tick". Something like an alignment system or maybe just a random profession table (like the one that was published in Dragon) could've gone a long way to getting Boot Hill out of the "shoot up the town" paradigm. Interesting. I bought a copy of Gunslinger years ago but never really played it. I bought it for the cool maps! |
|
|
|
Post by castiglione on Apr 9, 2010 8:35:09 GMT -6
Interesting. I bought a copy of Gunslinger years ago but never really played it. I bought it for the cool maps! I had actually purchased Gunslinger because I had read that it was an interesting man-to-man combat system set in the Wild West. I was surprised to find that it had the kernel of a RPG in it. However, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising considering how some other RPG's started off: Melee led to TFT and En Garde's dueling system eventually resulted in the character play portion of the game which sort of became the tail that wagged the dog. |
|
|
|
Post by revgunn on Oct 13, 2011 0:36:09 GMT -6
I've been using a similar approach with Boot Hill 3rd edition. Its turned in to one of the most interesting games I've ever run.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Oct 13, 2011 17:22:05 GMT -6
I play and own lots of Western skirmish wargames. My advice is don't get too many plotlines, or you'll go nuts. Also have a few "NPCs" who have their own agenda, and no ties to the story line. Gunslingers, drunks, travelling preachers, and the like make for good npc types. I'd decide on where you want your setting to be first: There ain't gonna be too many Vaqueros near the Canadian border.... Or Mounties near Mexico!
|
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Oct 13, 2011 17:25:25 GMT -6
Oh hey, I forgot to mention something. Check out state archives for photos of towns, and maps or plat maps of towns. Sometimes this stuff is all electronic and available for download! I live in Olympia, Washington and our state history archives are full of cool stuff like this! I've dreamed of building a section of downtown Oly circa 1885/1890 complete with the notorious "Oxford Saloon"!
|
|
|
|
Post by revgunn on Oct 19, 2011 19:46:04 GMT -6
Thanks for the advice... I've been using this site here a lot. www.legendsofamerica.com/A lot of cool background there. Then, for some maps, I found this site. www.birdseyeviews.org/index.php Its only Texas, but its really cool. Too many plots... heh. Yeah. Well, I've already past the point of driving myself crazy. I'm used to it. The players love it though, so... I keep it up. What I have going is several main NPCs, with attached factions and plots. Then, I have at least one side plot per PC. Then, I have random people, with their own agendas, that just wander through. I try to give everything the same level of detail so they never know what is "plot significant" or not. So far, we've only had a couple of gun battles, and they seem to take on more... Dramatic weight like that? |
|
|
|
Post by willmark on Jul 6, 2012 5:16:41 GMT -6
This idea has a lot of merit. The problem is that most people are in the dungeon setting mindset of "open door kill monster..." For games of another genre you have to detox from that mindset. The classic westerns are character interaction driven, not open sandbox play per say. People say Deadlands is a hit for the fact that it added monsters and magic. Well no, its not a western. its D&D with western trappings.
In order for a western adventure or module to succeed you'll need a script and allow for deviation ('natch") but needs to be a more focused on characters rather then a "dungeon". That's where I think some folks recoil like vampires with garlic, the fact that a western module needs to be more structured then free form.
|
|
|
|
Post by revgunn on Sept 4, 2012 16:00:22 GMT -6
I went through a period of gaming back in the '90s where I had a series of really awful GM's. We were dragged through plots by our noses. At one point, I wondered why he and/or she didn't just tell us what our character's actions were.
As a result, when I see the word "scripted" or whatever... I might tend to over react.
I vowed that I would never subject players to those railroad games, at any time.
My GM style has become:
Here are a bunch of NPC's, with as much personality as I can give them. They are doing stuff. Should the players get involved in that stuff, helping or opposing, that's the game. What the players do or get involved in becomes the plot.
I do not poke or prod or anything like that. They take whatever path they want.
I do have NPC's retaliate if attacked, and as intelligently or as ruthlessly as those characters are. The dice fall where they may, and I've overwhelmed the Players a few times. They ran away. Smart. No "game balance" or "threat level" or... "for characters level 4-6" here. You go mess with the big boys, you could get killed.
This topic is the only way I would run a Western, and most likely the only way I would run another genre as well. It just works for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2012 16:11:08 GMT -6
The neat thing about BH is that everyone is basically the same level, and the referee can use some really well-established clichés to let the players know they're dealing with a killer.
"The tall man in black doesn't react when you walk into the bar, but you get the feeling he notices you all the same. With an economy of motion, the stranger picks up his drink and takes a slow sip. His gun belt looks well-worn, the six-shooters worn from much use ..."
|
|
|
|
Post by willmark on Sept 4, 2012 16:15:40 GMT -6
I went through a period of gaming back in the '90s where I had a series of really awful GM's. We were dragged through plots by our noses. At one point, I wondered why he and/or she didn't just tell us what our character's actions were. As a result, when I see the word "scripted" or whatever... I might tend to over react. I vowed that I would never subject players to those railroad games, at any time. My GM style has become: Here are a bunch of NPC's, with as much personality as I can give them. They are doing stuff. Should the players get involved in that stuff, helping or opposing, that's the game. What the players do or get involved in becomes the plot. I do not poke or prod or anything like that. They take whatever path they want. I do have NPC's retaliate if attacked, and as intelligently or as ruthlessly as those characters are. The dice fall where they may, and I've overwhelmed the Players a few times. They ran away. Smart. No "game balance" or "threat level" or... "for characters level 4-6" here. You go mess with the big boys, you could get killed. This topic is the only way I would run a Western, and most likely the only way I would run another genre as well. It just works for me. Yeah I kinda figured some DM scared your psyche.  |
|
