Boot Hill (role-playing Game) - System

System

Boot Hill used game mechanics that were advanced for the time. While most games still used traditional six-sided die, Boot Hill was one of the first games to use two ten-sided dice as percentile dice for character abilities and skill resolution. However, several factors limited its appeal.

Although the western was a popular American motif, it did not have the same mass appeal as a D&D's Tolkienesque fantasy setting.

Boot Hill focused on gunfighting rather than role-playing. The first edition and second editions were specifically marketed as a miniatures combat game, but even in the third edition, most of the rules concerned combat resolution, with relatively few social interaction rules or information about settings.

In addition, combat could be short and deadly, with death often coming from the first gunshot. This lethality did not change over time, since unlike D&D, Boot Hill characters did not advance in levels and therefore developed no better defenses or any true advantage over non-player characters; they remained just as likely to die in their hundredth combat as they had been in their first. As a result, most characters had a very short life span; this meant that players usually never got a chance to identify with their player character over the long term as they could with a player character in D&D.

Unlike D&D, there were no non-human monsters, only human opponents. In addition, there were no alignment rules, making the difference between the "good guys" and "bad guys" a matter of moral interpretation or choice.

For these reasons, although Boot Hill was published in three editions, none captured the public imagination, and it remained a very small and limited member of TSR's stable of games.

Read more about this topic:  Boot Hill (role-playing Game)

Famous quotes containing the word system:

    I am fearful that the paper system ... will ruin the state. Its demoralizing effects are already seen and spoken of everywhere ... I therefore protest against receiving any of that trash.
    Andrew Jackson (1767–1845)

    In a universe that is all gradations of matter, from gross to fine to finer, so that we end up with everything we are composed of in a lattice, a grid, a mesh, a mist, where particles or movements so small we cannot observe them are held in a strict and accurate web, that is nevertheless nonexistent to the eyes we use for ordinary living—in this system of fine and finer, where then is the substance of a thought?
    Doris Lessing (b. 1919)

    The dominant metaphor of conceptual relativism, that of differing points of view, seems to betray an underlying paradox. Different points of view make sense, but only if there is a common co-ordinate system on which to plot them; yet the existence of a common system belies the claim of dramatic incomparability.
    Donald Davidson (b. 1917)