GUNFIGHTING, PART TWO

This post continues my analysis of skirmish wargaming and the creation of Dungeons & Dragons. The first part can be read here.

A NEW FRONTIER

That these games were a significant departure from traditional wargames was clearly appreciated at the time. Featherstone repeatedly commended their innovation¹, notably remarking that they had “implications and possibilities far beyond what at first seems possible”.² Blake queried whether they should even be considered wargames.³

Peterson has raised the question as to whether the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules should, in fact, be considered the first role-playing game.⁴ In light of the contention around definition of such games, it is easy to understand why he chose not to answer this question. However, in my opinion it is sufficiently important that an attempt deserves to be made.

To lessen the challenges of categorisation, I have chosen not to measure these skirmish games against an arbitrary definition of role-playing games. I have instead compared their chief characteristics with those of other important games with role-playing elements: Dave Wesely’s four Braunstein games, the first of which took place around the same time as the earliest Bristol gunfight games, in approximately 1968-1969; Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor games, which appear to have begun around 1971; and the original D&D rules, published in 1974. If any of these games possesses the same characteristics as a later game, then the later game cannot claim primacy, regardless of which combination of these characteristics is considered definitional. Where there are differences in characteristics, the analysis provides a framework for establishing and evaluating definitions of role-playing by assessing which differences are significant.

This approach, of course, tacitly embeds some definitional assumptions about what characteristics should be considered. However, I believe my selection is sufficiently broad as to capture those most would consider applicable.⁵

The first matter to assess is the relationship between the game’s players and imaginary personae. It is clear that Blake, Colwill and Curtis closely identified with the characters they played. Their alter egos “Botch” Blake, “Kid” Colwill and “Long-Haired” Curtis bore their names. They had a detailed backstory, in which they had met in “a shell hole in the American Civil War, with “Long Hair” and “Botch” as Rebs and “Kid” as a Berdan Sharpshooter, but so covered in mud and dirt they didn’t know”. The players took on “the attitudes of the characters, playing to the spirit of the game and the time”⁶ and behaved “in character rather than simply acting in their own best interests”⁷. Games even included elements of live-action role-playing. Players spoke in character during play, and in breaks acted out events in an imaginary local saloon.⁸ A level of fictional immersion existed that was extraordinary for the time, and is remarkable even in the context of role-playing today. It was not surpassed by Braunstein, Blackmoor or the original D&D game.⁹

There was also a distinctive element of character continuity in Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ skirmishes. Characters persisted from episode to episode, and their wounds, weapons and wealth were carried over. Yet, although there were three tiers of character experience in the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules (novice, average and veteran),¹⁰ there was no formal system for moving between them. Instead, abilities were sometimes increased and decreased on an informal basis, dependent on characters’ prior performance.

Dave Wesely’s Braunstein games were one-off affairs and lacked this element.¹¹ Blackmoor and D&D, however, not only embraced character continuity but coupled it with formal experience systems.¹²

Although character continuity and advancement were important parts of early role-playing games’ attraction,¹³ it is difficult to make the case that such characteristics are essential. Insistence on continuity in a definition of role-playing games leads to several unintuitive conclusions. It precludes one-off games. It entails that the first game of a campaign is either defined differently from the remaining games or is redefined afterwards when subsequent sessions take place. It also creates a quagmire of debate about what constitutes continuous and one-off play.

Equally a requirement for experiential mechanisms of progression seems excessively prescriptive. It ignores significant historic controversy around the role of such systems,¹⁴ and excludes several games commonly considered to be role-playing games, such as Metamorphosis Alpha (1976) and Traveller (1977).

Another area of consideration is the number of players and characters, which might be thought to affect the manner of play and closeness of character identification. Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ own games normally involved two or three players operating on the same side, controlling up to twenty-five characters in total.¹⁵ On occasions, there might be as many as seventy characters in a side,¹⁶ but that was confined to Zulu armies in colonial games. In gunfight games there were usually fewer than ten. Donald Featherstone reported playing two characters in a game he attended.¹⁷ The picture that emerges of a typical scenario is one where two or three players cooperated on the same side, each controlling a small number of characters, most commonly two to four, but sometimes as many as seven or eight.

Not all of Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ games took this form. A contemporary battle report described a scenario in which three players each controlled a different side, involving a total of twenty-two characters. The report notes that this arrangement was “a little unusual”, though it was not unique.¹⁸

At conventions games were different. They involved more players, with the number varying according to the circumstances of the event. Groups of players were also divided into different sides. A game involving twelve players on two sides was described as having “hilarious, yet effective and realistic, results”.¹⁹ A game of ten players at the Severn Valley Meet may also have followed this format.²⁰ In addition conventions hosted distinctive “fastest-gun” battles, in which each player controlled a single character and fought against the others in “last-man-standing” gunfights.

Dave Wesely’s Braunstein games appear to have observed a limit of one character per player with some consistency. There was, though, significant variation in the number of players. The first Braunstein was intended to have eight or nine players, but actually involved twenty-two. The second had only four.²¹

Blackmoor apparently involved four to six players and a total of twelve to fifteen characters and henchpeople.²² This roughly equates to two to four characters and followers per player. Opponents could be more numerous. The version of Blackmoor published in First Fantasy Campaign featured up to sixty creatures in a single room.²³

The original Dungeons & Dragons game recommended between four and fifty players, and around twenty per referee. Each player was expected to control an individual character and henchpeople. In Gygax’s Greyhawk campaign player characters had retinues of between one and four hirelings in addition to captured monsters. Rules were even provided for parties numbering over a hundred or a thousand.²⁴

Thus all these games could involve large numbers of players, and, with the exceptions of the “fastest-gun” games and Braunstein, players each directed multiple imaginary individuals. Numbers varied significantly within each game, but appear to have been broadly similar across the other types of gunfight game, Blackmoor and original D&D.

The level of control exerted by players over these personalities did, though, exhibit some divergence. The Western Gunfight Wargame Rules did not observe a clear distinction between player characters and non-player henchpeople. In Blackmoor the division was “blurred”, and player characters and henchpeople were often interchangeable.²⁵ The original D&D rules did contrast these two types, imposing morale checks to ensure followers’ compliance with instructions in hazardous situations.²⁶

Yet these differences were modest. We might presume that when Steve Curtis controlled the imaginary “Long-Haired” Steve Curtis and his Hole-in-the-Fence gang,²⁷ his relationship to them was not substantially different from that to a player character and henchpeople, as there is clear identification with a lead individual. Morale was also considered in these skirmish games, with formal rules in Colonial Skirmish Wargames and informal role-playing in gunfight games.²⁸

The number of sides into which players were organised also differed across these games. In most of their Pima County games, Blake, Colwill and Curtis played on the same side. This created a cooperative mode of play, in which no one player was motivated to gain an advantage relative to the others. In other gunfight games, such as Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ three-sided battles²⁹ and convention games, players were organised into multiple sides with competing objectives.

Wesely’s Braunstein games also adopted a competitive approach with multiple sides. Although there might be informal alliances, players were not bound to them and vied among themselves for individual victory.³⁰ Blackmoor for the most part involved players cooperating on a single side, though there were apparently some cases of competitive games.³¹ The original D&D rules seem to have envisaged a wholly cooperative mode of play among a united group of players.³²

The cooperative model of Blackmoor and D&D was therefore anticipated by the BWS skirmish games. If it is considered a definitional requirement of role-playing games, it was satisfied by Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ games.

A closely related matter is the objective of play. In Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ own games the aim was not victory: “who wins really doesn’t come into it”.³³ The purpose was storytelling. Games were recounted with vocabulary such as “tale”, “story”, “saga” and “narrative”.³⁴ Descriptions of the environment went far beyond the requirements of a tactical game, such as this of Mexican plaza:

In the middle is a large cannon, left as a memorial to a past revolution; down the street outside the General Store, a dog sniffs around a wooden Indian; whilst inside the Livery Stable a donkey munches hay beside a pile of saddles… You feel the laziness of the peons lounging in the shade of the Hotel, you almost hear the tinkling piano in the Cantina and the squeal of laughter from the girls there.³⁵

Wesely’s Braunstein games to an extent combined the objectives of victory and storytelling. All four Braunstein games identified winners, on the basis of on a scoring system in the first three and the referee’s discretion in the fourth. Yet it is also evident that the players most appreciated the narrative aspects, and in the fourth game it was Dave Arneson’s role-playing that led to him being declared the victor.³⁶ Both Blackmoor and D&D moved away from victory conditions altogether into storytelling.³⁷

These games can therefore be divided into two groups. The BWS’ convention games and Braunstein incorporated victory as an objective. Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ own skirmish games, Blackmoor and D&D all embraced a narrative purpose, instead.

All these games embraced a remarkable freedom of agency. The BWS skirmish rules only imposed two constraints on action: that it be “physically possible” and “logical”.³⁸ Wesely made it explicit that in his Braunstein games anything could be attempted,³⁹ and this principle was carried over to Blackmoor and D&D.⁴⁰ In practice all four games involved non-military action to some extent, such as bank heists and jail breaks in the Bristol gunfights.⁴¹

The role of miniatures is a notable area of dissimilarity among these games. All forms of the BWS’ skirmishes used physical components to represent characters. Braunstein, Blackmoor and original D&D, on the other hand, involved theatre-of-the-mind play. This was clearly a radical difference. Nonetheless, it is also evident that Blackmoor and D&D did not rely exclusively on this method. Arneson and Gygax used miniatures in their games,⁴² and the original D&D rules discuss the optional use of figures or counters.⁴³

The presence of theatre-of-the-mind play cannot, therefore, be considered definitional to a role-playing game, without excluding at least some of Blackmoor and D&D’s play. Moreover, there is in my opinion nothing to prevent the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules being used without models. Once again, it is difficult to discern a material difference between these games that could be considered definitional of role-playing games.

The most striking differences among these games concern the role of the referee or gamesmaster. In Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ own games one of the participants took the role of “director”. The director was responsible for creating a detailed scenario and backstory for the game.⁴⁴ However, the director’s role ended when the skirmish began. During the game, the players were responsible for controlling the opposition in addition to their own forces.⁴⁵ All other matters of adjudication were left to random determination, as the players “let the dice tell the story”.

The arrangement was different in convention games. These involved an umpire during play.⁴⁶ Yet the umpire’s role was that of a neutral arbiter. He did not direct forces or events.

In Wesely’s Braunstein games the referee was required to set up the scenario and act as a neutral umpire during the game itself.⁴⁷

None of these situations corresponds to that in Blackmoor or the original D&D game. Both of these required the referee to set up the scenario and to remain involved during the game. However, the role of the referee in play went beyond adjudicating rules. The referee also had knowledge unavailable to the players and could control non-player characters and events.⁴⁸

This is clearly an important point of divergence. The role of the referee is one of the most distinctive features of Braunstein, Blackmoor and D&D. However, it is worth while to note that the term role-playing game has been applied to some tabletop games that do not involve a gamesmaster, such as Fiasco (2009).

Summary characteristics of Western Gunfight Wargame Rules, Braunstein, Blackmoor and D&D

This analysis shows that the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules replicated the essential characteristics of later games, but for three exceptions. Two of those, the absence of a formal experience system and reliance on miniatures, I have argued cannot be definitional to role-playing games. Only the role of the gamesmaster definitionally separates the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules from D&D.

There remains the question of whether the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules should be considered the first role-playing game. To answer that, it is necessary finally to turn to the controversial matter of the definition of role-playing games.

A minimal definition of a role-playing game might require the satisfaction of only the two criteria explicit in the term: close character immersion and a rule structure. The former differentiates role-playing games from other tabletop games, such as one-to-one wargames, and the latter from simple games of pretence, such as the Brontës’ Gondal games. All the games under discussion here satisfy this definition. On such a basis either Blake, Colwill and Curtis’ gunfights or Wesely’s Braunstein games were the first role-playing games; the chronology is insufficiently clear to separate them. The Western Gunfight Wargame Rules can, however, claim to be the first commercially published role-playing game, according to this definition.

A maximal definition of a role-playing game might add two other characteristics: a cooperative, storytelling mode of play and a gamesmaster who is an ongoing participant in events.  In combination these characteristics would imply that Blackmoor was the first role-playing game, and D&D the first to be published commercially.

Between these extremes lie two other definitions. Braunstein was the first game to involve a gamesmaster without cooperative play, and the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules the first to introduce cooperative play without a gamesmaster.

All four games can, therefore, lay claim to be either the first role-playing game or first commercially-published role-playing game, dependent on which of these definitions is chosen. Efforts to categorise some as role-playing games and others as not are dependent on controversial or even arbitrary terminological assumptions. It is certainly the case that later usage took D&D as the model of a role-playing game, and so the temptation exists to label it as the first role-playing game. However, such an approach is circular. D&D becomes the first role-playing game, because it is the first D&D game. Moreover, it is difficult in my opinion to argue that the characteristics that differentiate D&D from the other games in this analysis are more significant than those that separate the other games from games outside this discussion. The gap between D&D and the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules could reasonably be considered to be less than that between the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules and traditional wargames. All four games analysed here exhibit many of the same characteristics and are closely related. The point is illustrated by the subsequent experiments of Richard Halliwell and Rick Priestley, who in the mid-1970s played skirmish wargames involving a gamesmaster. Halliwell and Priestley simultaneously regarded their games as a form of skirmish wargaming and indistinguishable from D&D.⁴⁹

Perhaps the most fruitful approach is to consider these games as different types of role-playing game. The Western Gunfight Wargame Rules would thus be the first published role-playing game without a gamesmaster, and D&D the first to require one. Though cumbersome, such a classification might best reflect reality.

Were the Western Gunfight Wargame Rules the first role-playing game? Maybe.

Part three of this series examines the possible influence of skirmish wargames on D&D.

FOOTNOTES

1 Donald Featherstone, ‘Looking Around’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 88 (July 1969), p23; idem, ‘Book Reviews’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 99 (June 1970), pp21 & 15.

2 Donald Featherstone, ‘Western Gunfight Wargame Rules’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 116 (November 1971), p6.

3 Mike Blake, ‘The Skirmish Line: “Yes, but is it Really Wargaming?”’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 137 (August 1973), p14.

4 Jon Peterson, ‘Western Gunfight (1970): the First RPG?’, Playing at the World (14 February 2021) [http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/02/western-gunfight-1970-first-rpg.html].

5 Cf Jon Peterson, Playing at the World (2012), pp xiii-xiv. Although they are not presented as definitional of role-playing games, I have taken the characteristics Peterson lists into consideration in this analysis, with the exception of his modes of play, which I consider to be subsumed by discussion of freedom of agency.

6 Mike Blake and Steve Curtis, ‘Incident at Peseto Grande’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 130 (January 1973), p3.

7 Mike Blake, ‘The Skirmish Line’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 135 (June 1973), p3.

8 Mike Blake, Ian Colwill, ‘Personalities on Parade’, a draft of an unpublished interview with Donald Featherstone at Southern Militaire 1977, in a letter from Donald Featherstone to Mike Blake, dated 21 June 1977.

9 Dave Wesely, interview on Thoughts from the Closet podcast, episode 60 (29 August 2010) [https://web.archive.org/web/20131220174736/http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show060.mp3]; idem, interview at BrigadeCon 2016 on Earl Grey TV YouTube channel (29 October 2016) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1SZJjZ-U9I]; idem, interview on Grogtalk podcast, episode 44 (28 December 2019) [https://www.grogcon.com/podcast/episode-44-interview-with-david-wesely-live-from-blackmoor-studios]; Jon Peterson, Playing at the World (2012), pp61-61 and 68-69.

10 Mike Blake, Ian Colwill and Steve Curtis, Western Gunfight Wargame Rules, second edition (1971), p2.

11 Dave Wesely, interview on Grogtalk podcast, episode 44 (28 December 2019) [https://www.grogcon.com/podcast/episode-44-interview-with-david-wesely-live-from-blackmoor-studios].

12 Greg Svenson, interview on Sham’s Grog & Blog (30 May 2009) [https://shamsgrog.blogspot.com/2009/05/q-with-greg-svenson.html]; Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 1, pp16&18.

13 Jon Peterson, The Elusive Shift (2020), pp94-95.

14 Jon Peterson, The Elusive Shift (2020), pp96-108.

15 Ian Colwill, ‘Individual Wargaming’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 133 (April 1973), p7.

16 Ibid.

17 Donald Featherstone, ‘Editorial’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 134 (May 1973), p1.

18 Mike Blake and Steve Curtis, ‘Incident at Peseto Grande’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 130 (January 1973), p3; Mike Blake, ‘Mexican Rurales, 1890-1913’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 134 (May 1973), p3; idem, ‘The Skirmish Line’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 135 (June 1973), pp2-3.

19 Ian Colwill, ‘Individual Wargaming’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 133 (April 1973), p7.

20 Steve Curtis, ‘Viva Manolito!’, Bristol Wargames Society Journal 8, quoted in Jon Peterson, ‘Western Gunfight (1970): the First RPG?’, Playing at the World (14 February 2021) [http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/02/western-gunfight-1970-first-rpg.html].

21 Dave Wesely, interview on Thoughts from the Closet podcast, episode 60 (29 August 2010) [https://web.archive.org/web/20131220174736/http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show060.mp3]; idem, interview at BrigadeCon 2016 on Earl Grey TV YouTube channel (29 October 2016) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1SZJjZ-U9I]; idem, interview on Grogtalk podcast, episode 44 (28 December 2019) [https://www.grogcon.com/podcast/episode-44-interview-with-david-wesely-live-from-blackmoor-studios].

22 Mike Mornard, comments on OD&D Discussion (16 December 2013, 12 April 2014, 26 August 2017) [https://odd74.proboards.com/thread/9527/klytus-bored].

23 Dave Arneson, First Fantasy Campaign (1977), p30.

24 Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 1, pp5 and 12 and volume 3, p16; Arneson v Gygax (1979) D Minn Civ No 4-79-109, Defendant’s Exhibit 13, p11 [https://catalog.archives.gov/id/200185170].

25 Mike Mornard, comment on OD&D Discussion (12 April 2014) [https://odd74.proboards.com/thread/9527/klytus-bored].

26 Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 1, p13.

27 Mike Blake and Steve Curtis, ‘Incident at Peseto Grande’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 130 (January 1973), p3.

28 Ian Colwill, ‘Individual Wargaming’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 133 (April 1973), p8.

29 Mike Blake and Steve Curtis, ‘Incident at Peseto Grande’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 130 (January 1973), p3; Mike Blake, ‘Mexican Rurales, 1890-1913’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 134 (May 1973), p3; idem, ‘The Skirmish Line’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 135 (June 1973), pp2-3.

30 Dave Wesely, interview on Grogtalk podcast, episode 44 (28 December 2019) [https://www.grogcon.com/podcast/episode-44-interview-with-david-wesely-live-from-blackmoor-studios].

31 Greg Svenson, interview on Sham’s Grog & Blog (30 May 2009) [https://shamsgrog.blogspot.com/2009/05/q-with-greg-svenson.html].

32 Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 3, pp12-14.

33 Steve Curtis, ‘Readers’ Forum’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 137 (August 1973), p21.

34 Steve Curtis, ‘Smile When You Say That’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 141 (December 1973), p3.

35 Mike Blake, ‘Incident at Peseto Grande’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 130 (January 1973), p3.

36 Dave Wesely, interview on Theory from the Closet podcast, episode 60 (29 August 2010) [https://web.archive.org/web/20131220174736/http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show060.mp3]; idem, interview on Grogtalk podcast, episode 44 (28 December 2019) [https://www.grogcon.com/podcast/episode-44-interview-with-david-wesely-live-from-blackmoor-studios].

37 Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 1, pp3-4.

38 Mike Blake, Ian Colwill, Steve Curtis and Ted Herbert, Colonial Skirmish Wargames (1972), p1.

39 Dave Wesely, interview on Grogtalk podcast, episode 44 (28 December 2019) [https://www.grogcon.com/podcast/episode-44-interview-with-david-wesely-live-from-blackmoor-studios].

40 Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 1, pp3-4.

41 Steve Curtis, ‘Viva Manolito!’, Bristol Wargames Society Journal 8, quoted in Jon Peterson, ‘Western Gunfight (1970): the First RPG?’, Playing at the World (14 February 2021) [http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/02/western-gunfight-1970-first-rpg.html]; Mike Blake, ‘The Skirmish Line’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 135 (June 1973), pp2-3; Dave Wesely, interview on Theory from the Closet podcast, episode 60 (29 August 2010) [https://web.archive.org/web/20131220174736/http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show060.mp3]; Chris Graves and Griffith Morgan (dirs), Secrets of Blackmoor: The True History of Dungeons & Dragons (2019); Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 3, pp6 & 12-14.

42 Dave Arneson, interview on Gamespy (19 August 2004) [http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540395p2.html]; Tim Kask, comment on Dragonsfoot (22 August 2009) [https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=774183&sid=08fa31d65eab7df2c0d4ed767692bea6#p774183]; Mike Mornard, comment on OD&D Discussion (16 December 2013) [https://odd74.proboards.com/thread/9527/klytus-bored].

43 Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 1, p5.

44 Mike Blake, ‘The Skirmish Line’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 135 (June 1973), pp2-3.

45 Steve Curtis, ‘Readers’ Forum’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 137 (August 1973), p20.

46 Ian Colwill, ‘Individual Wargaming’, Wargamer’s Newsletter 133 (April 1973), p9; Steve Curtis, ‘Viva Manolito!’, Bristol Wargames Society Journal 8, quoted in Jon Peterson, ‘Western Gunfight (1970): the First RPG?’, Playing at the World (14 February 2021) [http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/02/western-gunfight-1970-first-rpg.html].

47 Dave Wesely, interview on Theory from the Closet podcast, episode 60 (29 August 2010) [https://web.archive.org/web/20131220174736/http://www.theoryfromthecloset.com/shows/tftc_show060.mp3]; idem, interview on Grogtalk podcast, episode 44 (28 December 2019) [https://www.grogcon.com/podcast/episode-44-interview-with-david-wesely-live-from-blackmoor-studios].

48 Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, Dungeons & Dragons (1974), volume 3, pp4-5 and pp13-14.

49 Rick Priestley, interview in Battlegames 21 (January/February 2010); idem, interview on Grognardia (16 October 2020) [http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2020/10/interview-rick-priestley-part-i.html].

Title image from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (1966). Internal art generated by Bing Image Designer. Used without permission. No challenge intended to the rights holders.