"Gaming the Lone Ranger" Topic

Could make for some interesting skirmish scenarios.

True, but it always sucks when the Lone Ranger sends Tonto into town.

Would this be a solo game?

I once participate in a RPG that had a maverick bank manager as the main character.
He was called 'The Loan Arranger'. (….just leaving….)

Well, first I'd have to get into Wild West. But much as I admire the Lone Ranger, there's the John Carter problem: a supercompetent character you can't really let anything happen to is awkward in a wargame environment. But I pretty much include "either side might win" in my understanding of a good game.

Might work in an RPG with the Lone Ranger and Tonto as NPCs.

a supercompetent character you can't really let anything happen to is awkward in a wargame environment

Just redefine "death" to "forced to retreat"

So the Lone Ranger can lose a scenario, which means something in a campaign setting.

But I pretty much include "either side might win" in my understanding of a good game.

The supercompetent character is a common dramatic conceit. Mu current fave example is Abbey from NCIS – the lab tech who can competently use any piece of technology as an expert. The reason we have this conceit is that it is boring and not relevant to the story moving forward that her performance would be covered by a team of different people. We don't want to invest (learn about, track, spend time on idiosyncrasies) in a bunch of different characters, so writers give us one Uber character.

Same thing goes for dying – We don't want to be introduced to a slew of new people all the time. So they survive. This also leads to branding … "The Lone Ranger" is identifiable vice the list of twenty vigilantes who die every other month.

But, as pointed out above (and for JCM, Conan, Sackett, etc.) Having a character not die doesn't equal them winning every scenario. Many stories are built on "bad guys win; we have to set things right". Even more have the looming "one (two, three) that got away" story arch. And good stories have outcomes where a win is just the least heinous long-term consequences.

And winning doesn't have to be all or nothing. Did you catch the bank robbers? Did some of them get away? Did the mastermind? Did you recover all the money? Part of it? Did you discover the deputy was in on it, but you can't prove it (because you had to kill (or let the gang kill) the only witness)?

As long as there are consequences, and best continuing consequences game to game, either side can win. This is how the archetype ubercharacter maintains interest in their exploits and also becomes a viable side for a wargame. In this sense Batman is the Lone Ranger is the Scarlet Pimpernel.

etotheipi, good post!

Happy to game it if someone else provided rules/terrain/minis

I've run several Tarzan & John Carter skirmish games & I make it clear in my intro that the heroes can be rendered out of action or dead as provided by the rules. They have many advantages vs the rest of the characters, but they can be done in by adverse die rolls or by their players' foolhardy actions. This has happened once to each of them: Tarzan took an OOP result from avoidable rifle fire from several German Slavers; John Carter lost a Radium Pistol duel that he should have won when his player rolled as badly as possibly & the Zodangan Leader rolled "Good Enough" to kill him. I had Tarzan whisked away by his band of apes thus he wasn't killed. John Carter was stuck with the will of the "Dice Gods of Mars"!