"Absurdist Old West Scenarios." Topic

To each their own, of course.

But…

So many so called Old West games have a variety of factions in some sort of wild free for all but this almost never happened (and mind you, I'm very fond of The Hallelujah Trail movie!) in reality, if ever.

To be more realistic, it really should be just two factions, one against the other. Now, this doesn't mean there can't be multiple players per side – just they should all be on the same side or the sole other side.

Thus, why so few more realistic scenarios and so many absurd scenarios – fun though they may be?

Constructive thoughts?

I perceive the Old West as one of the richest of all periods to have a wide variety of 'realistic' scenarios and just wonder why it so frequently boils into the absurd.

In a conversation about this I was told that the most realistic "gunfight" in the Old West would be for someone to be shot in the back by someone with a rifle from long range….

JohnG

I get where you're going with this.

I think in reality, most would side with one big faction or another, but then, once the opposition is eliminated, then things might splinter, with those remaining on the winning side vying for supremacy and money.

They might even partner with any surviving, vanquished foes, to take out their former "allies".

It is a case of rules giving the players what they want, rather than what is historical. Players of these games probably (?) just want to have fun shooting and dodging ,rather than considering any historical aspect. This is true of many new 28mm skirmish games. Such as a platoon with armour and air support. if it gets players playing, then all good. They will probably(?) do some historical stuff too. The skirmish might just be a "stand down" from their regular games. Giving players what they want is seen as a good money earner by 28mm skirmish writers.

My son and I had a game the other day when we had fifteen or so Indian youngbloods attacking a frontier house and supply wagon. Let's just say that it was not a good day for Ben Wainwright and his boys. We were using TRWNN.

Unfortunately I think even stuff like this seems plausible to most youngsters today … masked Korean "Ninjas" vs masked ex-Confederate soldiers in an Old West town:

link

link

Dan

Partly, it reflects (and exaggerates) the fact that you don't have two opposing armies with a command structure.

Joe the bartender may be willing to join the other townsfolk in running the Clantons out of town, but what he really wants is to make sure they don't smash up the new shipment of booze he just got in. He is much less worried about the dry goods store across the way, wouldn't put himself in harms way to keep them out of there, maybe even wouldn't even bother shooting at them, since it would draw fire.

Grelber

You mean to tell me T-Rex's and aliens weren't a common occurrence in the old west? Bullpucky, I don't believe it!

Why does it matter as long as the people playing the game have fun? Most (or all) of the Old West games we play are just reflections of all the movies we have all seen as we grew up, and I'd wager it's the same for most other groups.

I think it boils down to the sort of game one wants. There's nothing wrong with a well-researched reenactment of a historical battle, gunfight, etc. (in fact it can be splendid!), but there's nothing wrong with simply fiddling around with toy soldiers either. It comes down to taste, I suppose. I will say, of the games I've seen, the ones with a degree of absurdity, or better, lightness of touch, seem to be much more fun for those playing them: there tends to be more laughter, breaking into song, wearing of silly hats and lusty cheers, and to my mind this is a good thing. Of the latter style of game, probably the best example would be those run by Howard Whitehouse. Some people hate his stuff. It all comes down to taste.

The Old West might be a little like a few other "periods" like Pirates or Pulp – it just seems to invite a good deal of tinkering with the facts, and history is generally thrown to the winds. That and most historical gunfights would be no fun at all to game.

People want the Hollywood wild west not reality, but that goes for most wargaming periods as well. Playing as the Magnificent Seven is much more fun than a shoot the sheep farmer while he's taking a dump game.

Foxweasel,

You nailed it!

Dan

Well put, Foxweasel!

Alright then, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Hateful 8. Must be more.

To add to foxweasels list: My name is nobody.

My name is Trinity?

For each of Foxweasel's 'exceptions' I don't think it would take long to compile 50 'rules' of one force on one force movies – westerns being a mainstay of cinema going back one hundred fifteen (almost) years and more (one of the first real movies – silent, of course – was a western, The Great Train Robbery of 1903). But the first exception in this thread was mine in the OP, The Hallelujah Trail so I don't object to such games if well constructed.

And comedy? Heck, yeah, an essential element of all the best miniatures games.

But! Last man standing from ten different 'posses'? Yeah, get to move figures, yeah get to 'shoot', yeah maybe 'kill' or 'get killed'. But any narrative worthiness? Nah.

As to why it matters – well, for some it doesn't. Others pointed out different expectations. For me, it does matter and I suppose there are others. It's rather like a bowl of ice cream – just fine as a special treat but a steady diet has a lot of hazards like obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. And, no, of course that isn't the hazard with absurd western scenarios. But a steady diet of them doesn't seem very satisfying. Whereas an exploration of what really was or what might have been – spiced a bit to add in some drama – might just be a more enduring treat enjoyed over a longer time span.

Or, and this is probably my direction, a game with a variety of players with a variety of objectives. One group has a bank to rob, another a train, another a stage coach, one group of rustlers after some cattle and another after some horses. And the local folk and the local constabularies of varied stripes might have some objections – and some weaponry. One group of Apaches attacking a mine and another attacking a stage station. Some Indians hunting buffalo. Two rival cattle bosses having a range war while one of their brethren mix it up with the sheepherders. And the cavalry has to protect the payroll coach but also the wagon train at hazard of some hostile plains tribe (elastic geography!). And the temperance marchers will be riling up the drinking district and the soiled doves just might go on strike when some cowboy or another breaks too many hearts. Yeah, all sorts of actions going on but none need, necessarily, get in the way of the other.

Now most folk ain't going to go as crazy as me and collect so many figures as I've done, but you can always pick two or three from the above list to give a few different factions an opportunity to mix it up in the Old West. And no more than a mild dose of absurdity needed – if any at all.

It's Mollywood! (That'd be Miniatures Hollywood, to you Pilgrim. And slowly move your hand away from that iron unless you want it shot off of your arm. And don't forget our appointment at low noon out in front of Mr. O.R. Else's stable and corral. I'd prefer you look pretty and fresh and whole for Mr. Diggs when he places you out front of his parlor – but you will have a hole or three here and there.) (and take that, you squinty eyed jack of Mexico – or whatever your misplaced moniker may be)

And the last shot from me to echo through this part of this here chamber, The Great Train Robbery was based on real history, dramatized of course.

You are way over thinking this. The reality would not make for much of a game.

Yep…reality in the Old West would mean a handful of gunshots, someone's britches filled with mud, one person dead (shot in the back), and a school marm shot in the leg 50 yards away.

I compiled a list of Old West rules for wargaming on another site (taking submissions by people) and I think out of maybe 12 sets of rules, 11 were deemed "Hollywood" by the players or the creators.

I've played plenty of three-way games and they're a riot. The historical accuracy, or realism is a distant consideration to rolling dice, shouting Old West curses at each other and having fun.

So, Old Guy and TurnStyle, if all you want from an "Old West" game is a quick gun fight, then you may be right, I may be 'over thinking' it.

Or, perhaps, bringing more "creative juice" to the concept, maybe the two of you are under thinking it. Martin Goddard with his "Hey, You In The Jail" is one of a few sets of rules out there that go beyond the quick gun fight – or the factions all fighting for supremacy – my absurdium hypothesis.

And that's okay if that's all you want, the quick gun fight – but, if it is, I say "why bother"? (Heck, it's just as okay to travel the factions absurdity if that's your cup of tizwin.) But the quick gun fight is too much work and too much money to create an old west setting for a gunfight that lasts a few seconds. Just paint up two figures and roll your dice roll and be done. Um. A bit boring – to me.

Maybe why Hollywood isn't, generally, the best point of inspiration for my variety of Old West games. And, again, to get the best game, more often than not real history will need some spicing up. That's part of the fun.

However, if you see the opportunities for the period through my lens, then you see so much more. Instead of just the shoot up at the bank robbery, you have the approach, the maneuvering, the chances for discovery, the response that takes time to put together (if discovered), the get away (if given the chance), rounding up the posse, and the pursuit. A good western game can be so much more than just a quick gun fight. For me, it is a creative endeavor in tactical action – just not all of it is 'shooting'.

Doesn't mean I might not indulge in a gunfight with my collection of figures, terrain, structures, and other paraphernalia. Does mean that I'll be engaged in the period and running a whole lot more scenarios than most folks.

More fun? For me, sure. For you, you pays your moneys and you takes your chances.

"(and take that, you squinty eyed jack of Mexico – or whatever your misplaced moniker may be)"

Heyyyy, meestair, I don' theen you should make fun of Senor Juan Mejicano Estrabismo. Ee ees not liking theese kinds of jokings. I theen….

It seems to me that you need to publish a truly uncompromising, historical Old West rule set that in game-play places as much emphasis on the non-combat elements you describe in the fifth paragraph of your 6.42pm post as it does the traditional shooty stuff, EMW – or at least an article describing how to adapt an existing set to this end. I'd certainly give it a try.

I will second that people want cinema and not reality. Most people who like to play old west games could not tell you what the actual history of it was leading up.

I will counter, however, the multiple factions critique the OP gives. There are many incident's in the Old West where multiple factions were involved in a protracted conflict. If you look at just individual gunfights, yes, it comes down to 2, and sometimes 1 faction (in-fighting). However, there was always interplay between ranchers and rustlers, taxmen, sheriff, marshal, outlaws, gamblers, and so forth.

An Old West set of rules should have a campaign system that follows the factions, gives reasons for conflict, and has a framework for honor, reputation, and law.

Another thing to point out is that a lot of gunfights in the Old West were basically ambush/murder. I wrote an article for Forging a Nation ezine that covered the pair of shootouts involved in the Hide Park Massacre, and they play out quickly, and not in a particularily fair way. Basically the first was between two deputy marshals who on election day stopped in at the bar, got drunk, and decided to have a friendly discussion about politics of which they were on the opposite side. Now, this is a polite discussion like one might see on Facebook (ahem…), and some dark words were exchanged, whereupon one was sucker punched into the street and shot to pieces before he could get up. The other skipped town. When it was declared that he had a legal right to shoot the first one (Old West law is pretty messed up), he came back to town. The victim's buddies then pulled off an ambush at the local casino. The story has a surprise ending. Help out the eZine by buying Issue 3. I don't make any money off of it, but I do want that fine magazine to take off.