Thoughts on a Boot Hill clone

[Finarvyn]

Occasionally I tinker with the idea of trying to put together some sort of a Boot Hill clone rules set. I'm a little torn, however, on which version is "best":

My natural inclination is toward 1E since it's the original, but it plays somewhat like a miniatures rules set (which it is) and lacks much of the detail of a more extensive RPG.

2E maintains most of the 1E flavor and terminology, but is probably better organized.

However, 3E brings about many RPG elements like skills and has a focus more on role playing than the gunfight.

I could try to blend the versions, but then it isn't "really Boot Hill" anymore but something totally new and different. And there are other things like the AD&D conversion in the DMG that could be examined as part of the source material as well. This just adds one more grey area to the puzzle.

The main editions aren't really that similar, having different stats and using different dice combinations, and having a different philosophy of how much detail should be included in the campaign.

Anyone play more than one edition?

What are your likes and/or dislikes of each?

[bigjackbrass]

Perhaps you just need to ask yourself in which direction you want your version to lean. If you want a miniatures encounter game then go with first; an RPG should be more like third.

Since the differences are fairly pronounced I don't know that a "best" version is possible (blending the editions together will more likely produce a disappointing "middle way") so you would be better served by deciding what you want to play with your game. Or of course you could make two versions!

[Finarvyn]

Well, since I've never really played much 3E Boot Hill, my inclination would lean toward 1E. It's a lot simpler and gunfight-filled.

[Thangobrind]

Has this gotten off the ground? Either way, I'm interested.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2008 6:36:41 GMT -6 Thangobrind said:

Has this gotten off the ground? Either way, I'm interested.

Now that I have 1st and 2nd editions for inspiration, I've begun work on one. If it is worthy of note I will probably release it to the community at large.

[thorswulf]

I would base it off of 2nd edition as far as the cleaned up rules go. I would also add some of the other stuff from dragon, like the cavalry rules, and any new weapons. As far as the skills and career stuff from 3rd edition, dump it. It never seemed like Boot Hill to me. I think a simpler approach like a % roll for background profession(s) would be better. As far as actual "cowboy" skills like roping and riding go, make them optional statistics that get a benifit if a profession like cowboy, or ranch hand is rolled. I own many of the new game systems for western games, but to be honest none of them work as smoothly as Boot Hill, except maybe for Desperado. One new thing I would add is price list of weapons and equipment that is a bit more complete.

I confess, I'm a gun nut. Westerns are all about the guns as far as I'm concerned. The makes and models matter to me. Granted most Single Action Revolvers are the same in caliber, and general size, but it just sounds cooler to call It a Colt Single Action Army or a Smith and Wesson Schofield revolver. And make sure you have rules for a LeMat revolver! O.k., rant over, feeling better now. Seriously though, The Knuckleduster Compendium of Firearms, and The Cow Town Creator should be listed in the reference section. Forrest Harris wrote two of the best western general knowledge books I have ever read.

[makofan]

2e all the way (I dislike 3e for some reason, which is why Fin now has my copy). 1e is okay but FDR5 left me cold ...

[Finarvyn]

Yeah, having read 3E I would be more inclined to base the game off of 1E or 2E instead.

At one point I had tried to re-do the percentile dice into d20's (becasue I've never been a fan of percentile dice) but I keep running into a few snags. Most of the game is based on 5% jumps but sometimes not, so I tried making most things +1 or -1 but then wound up putting in some +1/2 or -1/2 modifiers and couldn't decide if it was an improvement or not.

Anyway, I've tinkered with some of this stuff but haven't put enough together yet to really share. :-(

[rick krebs]

I am a fan of percentage dice and of BB's 1st edition Boot Hill (those were the days there was only 1 edition). We also used a hit locator for additional fun. Might I suggest checking out Gangbusters as a basis for your combat system. I always felt percentage dice rolls gave the referee additional options for adjudicating any situation (we humans and androids, perhaps, seem to like the odds of doing things-sort of metric gaming). I am also partial to using 10 sideds instead of 20 sideds for percentage rolls, but that's just me

[Deleted]

I just find it funny that some RPGs use a percentile dice system but all of the numbers are divisible by 5. (Boot Hill was mostly like this, and I think Top Secret as well. Not sure about Gangbusters.)

[glgnfz]

Gentlemen, I have started working on a Lab Lord-Add-On mixing it with some Boot Hill (1E). It's supposed to be a small booklet (16 to 20 pages) including an introductory adventure ans some information a mini-setting.

We develop the game in German language - after successful playtests there's going to be an English version, you can follow the development here: s176520660.online.de/bhp/forum/index.php?board=17.0

[thorswulf]

Seems to me that the main problem with making a western game is the framework one has to use. Classes really don't reflect the way people in the west picked up, learned and used skills. Anybody can pick up a pistol and shoot it at a tin can 30 feet away. Try it mounted on a horse that might be used to some gunfire, but probably isn't! Or try shooting somebody 30 feet away who s shooting back.... Know how to use a sluice box for prospecting? How about speeking any Lakota? Or how do you build a sod house, or brand a cow? People learned these things like we do, with practice. So maybe a skill system is in order. I certainly prefer simple ones, either based on percentages like Chaosium's basic system. I like Doc's rules adaptation. particularly the exploding damage dice. I said I like guns, so I think I'd tweak the rules to use polyhedral dice for different damages. I might adjust ranges and bonuses/penalties for short and long ranges. Cover and movement are a must. just some ideas.

[Finarvyn]

Yeah. A class system probably won't work well, but a simple skill system would.

Perhaps a skill tree, where certain skills would be prerequisite for advanced skills. For example, "ride horse" might be basic while "trick riding" more advanced. Or "shoot gun" might be basic where "called shot" might be advanced.

Anyone try this?

[thegreyelf]

May 26, 2009 0:01:31 GMT -6 thorswulf said:

Seems to me that the main problem with making a western game is the framework one has to use. Classes really don't reflect the way people in the west picked up, learned and used skills. Anybody can pick up a pistol and shoot it at a tin can 30 feet away. Try it mounted on a horse that might be used to some gunfire, but probably isn't! Or try shooting somebody 30 feet away who s shooting back.... Know how to use a sluice box for prospecting? How about speeking any Lakota? Or how do you build a sod house, or brand a cow? People learned these things like we do, with practice. So maybe a skill system is in order. I certainly prefer simple ones, either based on percentages like Chaosium's basic system. I like Doc's rules adaptation. particularly the exploding damage dice. I said I like guns, so I think I'd tweak the rules to use polyhedral dice for different damages. I might adjust ranges and bonuses/penalties for short and long ranges. Cover and movement are a must. just some ideas.

A pistol shot at 10 yards is not NEARLY as easy as you might think--especially with 1860's-80's technology. Even with today's tech, 30 yards is a far shot for a handgun...handguns are designed to be very close range weapons.

But the rest of your point is very well seen. Fin has a good start on a skill set, but I have to say, it always confuses me when people say Boot Hill suffers for only being about combat. The original D&D rules focused mainly on combat as well, but most of us view them as the best set of rules for D&D ever, specifically due to their lack of focus on adjudicating role playing and character situations.

[Finarvyn]

I think that the difference is that OD&D allowed for some choice in skills as part of the class system. Magic users do different things from fighters or thieves or rangers or whatever. If you have a party of adventurers, each can be a different something.

In Boot Hill everyone is a gunman. (Gunperson?) Anyway, there aren't really any classes so the characters tend to be more generic. Of course, different stats means that there is some variety in characters if a player wants to focus on that aspect of the game.

We played Boot Hill for years without ever even considering creating a skill system and never felt like anything was missing from the rules. I was just suggesting that a simple set of skills might differenciate the safe cracker from the gambler from the gunman. SOme players might find it more fun to have a list rather than just "wing it" along the way.

[danbuter]

I like the sounds of this. A very simple skill system would be cool. Maybe just have a few skills listed, but then when needed, make a Stat check with a +1 or +2 to the roll if you have the necessary skill?