Delving a little into philosophy, a materialist RPG would be one where “being determines thought”. Put simply, the emphasis is on the game world shaping the characters, rather than the characters shaping the game world. I previously discussed how ItO fits with this principle. But elements of this are also widely seen in the OSR approach to gaming.
Rules and Procedures
A common feature of OSR games is an interest in the physicality of the game world. Mapping a dungeon’s dimensions can help you find secret doors. Overlook grooves in the dungeon floor at your peril. But concern with the physical environment itself is not why I associate the OSR with materialism. It is more when such factors place limitations on player agency.
Encumbrance rules, which have pride of place in many OSR games, are a classic example of this. Old School Essentials offers a handy illustration drawn from early D&D, where a character's movement is reduced the more items they carry. The concern of these rules is with a physical quality of equipment, its weight. But their significance, in terms of gameplay, is in limiting a character’s ability to affect the world. You cannot be equipped to face every obstacle in a dungeon, maybe you get a crowbar or a 10 ft pole – not both.
Consider an extreme counter example, the classic shoot’em up DOOM. Here the hero skips around unimpeded, plucking chainsaws and rocket launchers from their arsenal. Being kitted beyond the max allows a single person to slay hordes of demons and ultimately shut the gates of hell - i.e. to vastly affect the game world.
Even very rules light OSR games can be layered with procedures, producing an equivalent effect to encumbrance. Rolling to check for wandering monsters at regular intervals introduces a time constraint to dungeon exploration. Players can’t infinitely dally, poking around a room without facing consequences. Again, this is a constraint on player freedom, making dungeons crawling feel less like pottering around your basement.
Yes, too much player agency can be a bad thing. I like the world to push back. OSR gamers seem to like this too.
A common feature of OSR games is an interest in the physicality of the game world. Mapping a dungeon’s dimensions can help you find secret doors. Overlook grooves in the dungeon floor at your peril. But concern with the physical environment itself is not why I associate the OSR with materialism. It is more when such factors place limitations on player agency.
Encumbrance rules, which have pride of place in many OSR games, are a classic example of this. Old School Essentials offers a handy illustration drawn from early D&D, where a character's movement is reduced the more items they carry. The concern of these rules is with a physical quality of equipment, its weight. But their significance, in terms of gameplay, is in limiting a character’s ability to affect the world. You cannot be equipped to face every obstacle in a dungeon, maybe you get a crowbar or a 10 ft pole – not both.
Consider an extreme counter example, the classic shoot’em up DOOM. Here the hero skips around unimpeded, plucking chainsaws and rocket launchers from their arsenal. Being kitted beyond the max allows a single person to slay hordes of demons and ultimately shut the gates of hell - i.e. to vastly affect the game world.
Even very rules light OSR games can be layered with procedures, producing an equivalent effect to encumbrance. Rolling to check for wandering monsters at regular intervals introduces a time constraint to dungeon exploration. Players can’t infinitely dally, poking around a room without facing consequences. Again, this is a constraint on player freedom, making dungeons crawling feel less like pottering around your basement.
Yes, too much player agency can be a bad thing. I like the world to push back. OSR gamers seem to like this too.
Materialist Campaigns
Beyond rules and procedures, it is the overall approach to running campaigns that contributes to a game being materialist. Games with a story arc, culminating in the defeat of a regional power, are really the opposite of what I am talking about. By design here, the actions of characters will vastly affect the game world. It is a case instead of “thought determining being”.
In many OSR games, the maximum ambition of characters is some carousing between adventures. The most this might do to shape the game world is break a few bar tables. A major drive in OSR gaming is exploration. The game world is a brute fact, existing uncaringly over the next ridge. It is not shaped around the characters, to ensure every threat is defeatable or to push dramatic buttons in their backstory.
This tendency is clearly reflected in published OSR campaign settings. The Dark of Hot Springs Island springs to mind, but there are many examples. The emphasis is on sandbox play, where emergent stories are a product of the game world. Sometimes what lies round the bend is determined by the coldness of a dice roll, indifferent to the character’s glorious destiny. Players learn to respect the game world, as they learn even fledgling characters can stumble into an angry dragon.
Is the OSR Materialist?
One of my personal goals is to run an entirely materialist RPG campaign. I’ve no reason to think anyone else in the OSR shares this goal. But there does seem to be a tendency amongst OSR gamers towards this style of play.
Deciding to make a materialist RPG is only the start. Tabletop RPGs lack “processing power” to map more than a few aspects of a game world. This forces them to be efficient in deciding which material conditions to replicate. I am interested to learn from how various OSR games have met this challenge.
What seems fair to say is that OSR games tend to prioritise the game world over the characters. Most often, this takes a preventative form, in restricting the influence of the characters on the game world. The random element in populating the game world also acts as an inbuilt defence, against the dungeon master constructing a story to suit the characters. Some games like ItO go beyond this, in more literally determining the characters through objects in the game world.
Another thing to consider is the influence of early D&D rules on the OSR, which have left a pretty complex legacy. There have always been aspects of D&D which pull away from materialism, towards what I would instead term as idealist poetics. How these tendencies ballooned within contemporary 5e D&D will be the topic of my next post.
Beyond rules and procedures, it is the overall approach to running campaigns that contributes to a game being materialist. Games with a story arc, culminating in the defeat of a regional power, are really the opposite of what I am talking about. By design here, the actions of characters will vastly affect the game world. It is a case instead of “thought determining being”.
In many OSR games, the maximum ambition of characters is some carousing between adventures. The most this might do to shape the game world is break a few bar tables. A major drive in OSR gaming is exploration. The game world is a brute fact, existing uncaringly over the next ridge. It is not shaped around the characters, to ensure every threat is defeatable or to push dramatic buttons in their backstory.
This tendency is clearly reflected in published OSR campaign settings. The Dark of Hot Springs Island springs to mind, but there are many examples. The emphasis is on sandbox play, where emergent stories are a product of the game world. Sometimes what lies round the bend is determined by the coldness of a dice roll, indifferent to the character’s glorious destiny. Players learn to respect the game world, as they learn even fledgling characters can stumble into an angry dragon.
Is the OSR Materialist?
One of my personal goals is to run an entirely materialist RPG campaign. I’ve no reason to think anyone else in the OSR shares this goal. But there does seem to be a tendency amongst OSR gamers towards this style of play.
Deciding to make a materialist RPG is only the start. Tabletop RPGs lack “processing power” to map more than a few aspects of a game world. This forces them to be efficient in deciding which material conditions to replicate. I am interested to learn from how various OSR games have met this challenge.
What seems fair to say is that OSR games tend to prioritise the game world over the characters. Most often, this takes a preventative form, in restricting the influence of the characters on the game world. The random element in populating the game world also acts as an inbuilt defence, against the dungeon master constructing a story to suit the characters. Some games like ItO go beyond this, in more literally determining the characters through objects in the game world.
Another thing to consider is the influence of early D&D rules on the OSR, which have left a pretty complex legacy. There have always been aspects of D&D which pull away from materialism, towards what I would instead term as idealist poetics. How these tendencies ballooned within contemporary 5e D&D will be the topic of my next post.
Could go even further: no ability scores, just equipment. Pure physicality in material terms alone.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting idea. With the three Into the Odd has, Willpower could go pretty easily in the new edition. And Strength and Dex could maybe be determined by how much you carry
DeleteInteresting thoughts. I have a similar concept I call "Milieu Centricity" https://grumpywizard.home.blog/2022/05/28/an-example-of-milieu-centricity/
ReplyDeleteYes, the endurance of the milieu seems to prioritise the objectivity of the game world, in a similar sense to what I am talking about here.
Delete