I think you are 100% correct about the fact that patron-style play that mixes gameplay at the table with online and PbP would enable the sort of "niches" that exist in Boot Hill and Gangbuster to have some playability. I used a similar technique in running Mekton, where each player had a mech pilot as well as an "HQ" character that was involved in mission planning, tech/repair, intel, etc. and it worked well. (It wasn't true patron-style play because they were still all "on the same team".) But that sort of gameplay is not common, and most RPGs don't provide any rules whatsoever for it. My game ACKS virtually stands alone in having robust backend/downtime rules.
Outside of such elevated styles of play, in "ordinary" tabletop games, the sort of niches you describe -- drover, rancher, cook, trapper, mayor -- seem to be rarely played and often the player(s) who do play them seem to end up unhappy. Most people seem to want to play, e.g., gunslingers, mobsters, and so on.
For instance, in Cyberpunk, there were a number of roles -- Solo, Media, Corporate, Fixer, Nomad, Netrunner -- similar to what you are describing with Westerns and Gangbusters. Yet despite the breadth of options, most players want to play bad-ass mercenaries and street samurais (Solos in game parlance) most of the time. Within the Cyberpunk community this was widely known as how the game was played in practice, most published adventures revolved around special operations missions, and most supplements that got released were primarily of use to cybered-up killers -- e.g. "Maximum Metal" "Blackhand's Firearms" "Chrome Berets" and so on.
There's probably a separate essay that I need to be write that explains why "high action" tends to be the default activity at every TTRPG table. You've already alluded to it, in that outside of "high action" people rarely sit at the same table at the same time doing similar stuff, and in traditional gameplay, having 6-8 players all doing different stuff in different locations tends to be slow, unwieldy, and unfavored. (Never Split the Party etc.)
Indeed. Cyberpunk games would be so much better with Patrons running reach megacorp. Or, similarly, 2nd ed Darksun with Patrons running the dragons controlling each city state.
The other issue is that RPGs did come from miniatures wargaming and thus set piece battles or encounters remain a focus. You see this even in genres where set pieces aren't a major thing. Cyberpunk being in the middleground somewhere. In running cyberpunk games I've struggled to convince players of the inadviadable nature of bring rocket launchers or assault rifles everywhere. Generally the genre is more subtle and law enforcment still a thing. Players rebel against law but, a fight every time they enter a nightclub is a bit much. Generally, it's unfamiliarity with the genre. But everyone wants to be free too. Though 1:1 time in my experience does help mitigate this. Between sesssions they can gumshoing and then during sessions let loose a bit.
Well, F/X systems aren't just for niche protection, in fact they're pretty much the reason people play TTRPG's: they like Fantasy & Sci-Fi of whatever variety, and like playing the game in their own worlds with those elements. They read those kinds of stories and want to play in those kinds of worlds.
So F/X are critical to their enjoyment of their games, because they don't want "realistic" Westerns, they want Weird Westerns, and so forth. You take that away and most—not all, but most—peoples' interest will crash.
Well, I respectfully disagree. I think there are plenty of gamers who enjoy reading and watching genres other than fantasy and sci-fi and who would play RPGs in those genres if the games were good. It's just that most of the games don't meet their needs. Conversely, fantasy and sci-fi games without niche protection tend never to be as popular as those that offer it. Pendragon is a great example -- everyone is an Arthurian knight -- and most people are turned off by that.
Similar thing with Westerns. No. Not everybody should be a gunslinger. You need a gunslinger, a trapper, a miner, a rancher, the town mayor, the sheriff, etc. Each with their thing to manage. But, what they rarely do is all sit at the same table. But if looked at closely there are still plenty of niches in westerns. Take a cattle drive. There's the boss man, drovers, cook, scouts, guards, etc. All of which are necessary to successfully complete a cattle drive. Similar thing with a mining camp. It's not all high action but everyone has a part to play, just not every skirmish. But, yes, Westerns are trickier to pull off straight than Gangbusters.
I get your point. Though I quibble about Gangbusters. Gangbusters has great niche protection. Every class has totally different skills and gains XP through different actions. But everyone played it wrong. The game itself is mostly a tactical combat skirmish game. This part literally has no GM. The rules then goe on to say if you want to do role playing you can add a GM. But, it lacked good advice on how to GM it. So, the typical thing to do was everyone played cops, or FBI, or Gangsters. Because people thought there should be parties like D&D. The fiction it emulates is all loner protagonists. No parties, lots of conflicting goals, different agendas. How to do that? Well, I've been thinking about it. Back in the day you'd have to have done a multiple blind approach. Or, perhaps, play by mail. But today, with 1:1 time, and direct messaging the multiple blind is much easier to pull off. GM can throw some hooks in to get it going but I expect soon few hooks would be needed. The criminals v. Police, detectives, reporters would generate their own hooks. The difference between PCs and patrons is even murkier here for the criminals at least. Other patrons could be the Mayor, the Major Crime Boss, Union Heads, Newspaper Editor, etc.
Brian, thanks so much for dropping by to comment!
I think you are 100% correct about the fact that patron-style play that mixes gameplay at the table with online and PbP would enable the sort of "niches" that exist in Boot Hill and Gangbuster to have some playability. I used a similar technique in running Mekton, where each player had a mech pilot as well as an "HQ" character that was involved in mission planning, tech/repair, intel, etc. and it worked well. (It wasn't true patron-style play because they were still all "on the same team".) But that sort of gameplay is not common, and most RPGs don't provide any rules whatsoever for it. My game ACKS virtually stands alone in having robust backend/downtime rules.
Outside of such elevated styles of play, in "ordinary" tabletop games, the sort of niches you describe -- drover, rancher, cook, trapper, mayor -- seem to be rarely played and often the player(s) who do play them seem to end up unhappy. Most people seem to want to play, e.g., gunslingers, mobsters, and so on.
For instance, in Cyberpunk, there were a number of roles -- Solo, Media, Corporate, Fixer, Nomad, Netrunner -- similar to what you are describing with Westerns and Gangbusters. Yet despite the breadth of options, most players want to play bad-ass mercenaries and street samurais (Solos in game parlance) most of the time. Within the Cyberpunk community this was widely known as how the game was played in practice, most published adventures revolved around special operations missions, and most supplements that got released were primarily of use to cybered-up killers -- e.g. "Maximum Metal" "Blackhand's Firearms" "Chrome Berets" and so on.
There's probably a separate essay that I need to be write that explains why "high action" tends to be the default activity at every TTRPG table. You've already alluded to it, in that outside of "high action" people rarely sit at the same table at the same time doing similar stuff, and in traditional gameplay, having 6-8 players all doing different stuff in different locations tends to be slow, unwieldy, and unfavored. (Never Split the Party etc.)
Indeed. Cyberpunk games would be so much better with Patrons running reach megacorp. Or, similarly, 2nd ed Darksun with Patrons running the dragons controlling each city state.
The other issue is that RPGs did come from miniatures wargaming and thus set piece battles or encounters remain a focus. You see this even in genres where set pieces aren't a major thing. Cyberpunk being in the middleground somewhere. In running cyberpunk games I've struggled to convince players of the inadviadable nature of bring rocket launchers or assault rifles everywhere. Generally the genre is more subtle and law enforcment still a thing. Players rebel against law but, a fight every time they enter a nightclub is a bit much. Generally, it's unfamiliarity with the genre. But everyone wants to be free too. Though 1:1 time in my experience does help mitigate this. Between sesssions they can gumshoing and then during sessions let loose a bit.
Well, F/X systems aren't just for niche protection, in fact they're pretty much the reason people play TTRPG's: they like Fantasy & Sci-Fi of whatever variety, and like playing the game in their own worlds with those elements. They read those kinds of stories and want to play in those kinds of worlds.
So F/X are critical to their enjoyment of their games, because they don't want "realistic" Westerns, they want Weird Westerns, and so forth. You take that away and most—not all, but most—peoples' interest will crash.
Well, I respectfully disagree. I think there are plenty of gamers who enjoy reading and watching genres other than fantasy and sci-fi and who would play RPGs in those genres if the games were good. It's just that most of the games don't meet their needs. Conversely, fantasy and sci-fi games without niche protection tend never to be as popular as those that offer it. Pendragon is a great example -- everyone is an Arthurian knight -- and most people are turned off by that.
Similar thing with Westerns. No. Not everybody should be a gunslinger. You need a gunslinger, a trapper, a miner, a rancher, the town mayor, the sheriff, etc. Each with their thing to manage. But, what they rarely do is all sit at the same table. But if looked at closely there are still plenty of niches in westerns. Take a cattle drive. There's the boss man, drovers, cook, scouts, guards, etc. All of which are necessary to successfully complete a cattle drive. Similar thing with a mining camp. It's not all high action but everyone has a part to play, just not every skirmish. But, yes, Westerns are trickier to pull off straight than Gangbusters.
I get your point. Though I quibble about Gangbusters. Gangbusters has great niche protection. Every class has totally different skills and gains XP through different actions. But everyone played it wrong. The game itself is mostly a tactical combat skirmish game. This part literally has no GM. The rules then goe on to say if you want to do role playing you can add a GM. But, it lacked good advice on how to GM it. So, the typical thing to do was everyone played cops, or FBI, or Gangsters. Because people thought there should be parties like D&D. The fiction it emulates is all loner protagonists. No parties, lots of conflicting goals, different agendas. How to do that? Well, I've been thinking about it. Back in the day you'd have to have done a multiple blind approach. Or, perhaps, play by mail. But today, with 1:1 time, and direct messaging the multiple blind is much easier to pull off. GM can throw some hooks in to get it going but I expect soon few hooks would be needed. The criminals v. Police, detectives, reporters would generate their own hooks. The difference between PCs and patrons is even murkier here for the criminals at least. Other patrons could be the Mayor, the Major Crime Boss, Union Heads, Newspaper Editor, etc.