Which would you rather run: desert or tundra adventures?

Sommerjon · May 19, 2015, 03:09:37 AM

Played and run enough games in desert environments, that it has become a bit stale.

I've turned my attention to Tundra.

Shipyard Locked · May 19, 2015, 06:25:34 AM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;832252Wait, this was a trick question wasn't it?

Hehe

Well to be fair, there's also the cliches associated with the terrain and which you prefer to use.

Caribou or camels?

Mummies or yetis?

Vikings or Bedouins?

Quicksand or avalanches?

Cacti or pines?

And so on.

JoeNuttall · May 19, 2015, 09:10:45 AM

Hot, sandy deserts are good for mysterious ruins rising out of the sands - but they are generally featureless so lack something for me for a long campaign.

Tundra on the other hand is all mountains and ravines and gorges and fjords, I can think of lots of campaign ideas that would fit well there.

Bilharzia · May 19, 2015, 11:33:10 AM

Quote from: JoeNuttall;832289Hot, sandy deserts are good for mysterious ruins rising out of the sands - but they are generally featureless so lack something for me for a long campaign.

Tundra on the other hand is all mountains and ravines and gorges and fjords, I can think of lots of campaign ideas that would fit well there.

Desert isn't all dunes though
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=interestingness-desc&advanced=1&text=desert%20landscape%20features

Christopher Brady · May 19, 2015, 04:11:43 PM

Quote from: JoeNuttall;832289Tundra on the other hand is all mountains and ravines and gorges and fjords, I can think of lots of campaign ideas that would fit well there.

No, actually. That's not actual tundra. Tundra is another word for dessert. It tends to be flat, dry and have scrub level plant and life.

Opaopajr · May 19, 2015, 06:45:43 PM

Magic the Gathering has dual lands for this purpose. Stack a bunch together, shuffle them, and draw one. And be sure they're sleeved because they are each worth $50+.

I vote for Underground Sea. Because the Mountains of Madness needs penguins. And that card is worth over $250 from the Revised MtG set.

Shipyard Locked · May 19, 2015, 07:32:21 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr;832355And be sure they're sleeved because they are each worth $50+.

Yeah, learned to do that the hard way...

Also, as a kid I wrote my initials on the back of my cards to distinguish them from my brothers' collections. I didn't know any better at the time.

JoeNuttall · May 20, 2015, 03:42:01 AM

Quote from: Bilharzia;832308Desert isn't all dunes though
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=interestingness-desc&advanced=1&text=desert%20landscape%20features

I love some of those "desert features" - one of them is Blea Tarn in the English Lake District!

I like the sandstone outcrops, and the idea of a Death Valley.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;832336No, actually. That's not actual tundra. Tundra is another word for dessert. It tends to be flat, dry and have scrub level plant and life.

Well, that is a sort of Tundra. Looks Here's another couple:

(By Fjord I meant just Scandinavian inlet as per the original meaning of the word, not the high sided Fjord.)

Your picture actually reminds me of the top of the Cairngorm Plateau in Scotland.

QuoteThe Cairngorms provide a unique alpine semi-tundra moorland habitat, home to many rare plants, birds and animals.

Christopher Brady · May 20, 2015, 04:12:40 AM

Quote from: JoeNuttall;832430I love some of those "desert features" - one of them is Blea Tarn in the English Lake District!

I like the sandstone outcrops, and the idea of a Death Valley.

Well, that is a sort of Tundra. Looks Here's another couple:

(By Fjord I meant just Scandinavian inlet as per the original meaning of the word, not the high sided Fjord.)

Your picture actually reminds me of the top of the Cairngorm Plateau in Scotland.

The site claims it's upper Canada's tundra. I don't know, but what I do know is that two pictures you showed, are the same thing, relatively flat, low brush, and barren. The 'Fjord' as you call it, is not actually part of it. At least no more than a desert shore touching a inlet sea or ocean.

See the main reason I cannot answer the OP's question is that whether or not they intended it to be, it really is a trick question. The only real difference between a tundra and desert is whether or not you want cold temperatures only at night, or all day and night?

Opaopajr · May 20, 2015, 04:24:41 AM

Well alpine tundra is a thing, but isn't the first thing people think of. Otherwise you could run a tundra game in the high altitude deserts of the Himalayas and Andes, adjacent to verdant jungles by a steep ridge. I am thinking this is more of the traditional flat, treeless biome of the near polar regions. Unless it wants to be subsumed into the greater definition of desert...

Both sorta should be an obvious trope, but the confusions of guessing what one's thinking might lead to further pedantry. Yay!

JoeNuttall · May 20, 2015, 04:52:28 AM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;832435The site claims it's upper Canada's tundra. I don't know, but what I do know is that two pictures you showed, are the same thing, relatively flat, low brush, and barren. The 'Fjord' as you call it, is not actually part of it. At least no more than a desert shore touching a inlet sea or ocean.

See the main reason I cannot answer the OP's question is that whether or not they intended it to be, it really is a trick question. The only real difference between a tundra and desert is whether or not you want cold temperatures only at night, or all day and night?

Isn't Tundra:=tree growth hindered by low temperatures, Desert:=little precipitation?

I don't see any definitions of Tundra meaning it's relatively flat - there's Arctic Tundra, Antarctic Tundra and Alpine Tundra, the last of which is mountains.

Shipyard Locked · May 20, 2015, 05:29:48 AM

Quote from: Christopher Brady;832435See the main reason I cannot answer the OP's question is that whether or not they intended it to be, it really is a trick question. The only real difference between a tundra and desert is whether or not you want cold temperatures only at night, or all day and night?

But I've also added that the intent of the question includes the cultural cliches and flora/fauna associated with the terrain type. Which would you rather use?

Christopher Brady · May 20, 2015, 05:57:02 AM

Quote from: JoeNuttall;832441Isn't Tundra:=tree growth hindered by low temperatures, Desert:=little precipitation?

In Canada, Tundra up here also don't have much precipitation. See snow tends to fall between 0-10C (32 to 14F) anything colder, and it doesn't actually form. And most Tundra environments up here tend to be between -10 to -20C (14 to -4F.)

Quote from: JoeNuttall;832441I don't see any definitions of Tundra meaning it's relatively flat - there's Arctic Tundra, Antarctic Tundra and Alpine Tundra, the last of which is mountains.

Sorry, by flat, I meant very little tall plant growth, like trees. Scrub brush and grass is common enough. After all, deserts aren't exactly 'flat' either, with dunes sometimes reaching tens of feet or more. But they tend to have very little vegetation beyond the hardy stuff.

RPGPundit · May 25, 2015, 01:50:56 AM

I generally go for desert over tundra, but curiously in my DCC campaign we played a lengthy amount of time in both environments.

soltakss · May 29, 2015, 04:47:45 PM

For historical games, desert tends to be better, just because of the cultures and mixes that existed. I like Silk Road cultures, which hit a number of deserts.

Tundra settings tend to be more primitive in nature, with shamans, spirits and wild beasts.

A Mythic Russia game could easily have both, with adventurers going from the northern tundra to the southern deserts fairly easily.