Desert or tundra - which environment would you rather run several adventures in and why?
It depends on the game and setting, really. With supernatural or fantastical elements, either one takes on a whole new context. They both offer survival scenarios that could be interesting, and both traditionally have unique folklore elements attached to them.
If I was going to pick one relevant to my interests (say one I'm going to use for my game), probably desert, because we have those relatively close by in Arizona and such. They offer interesting survival challenges. They're a little more relatable to the people I know because of our location, but for others, tundra may fill that role instead.
I would like to run something like Ylaruam, or Al-Qadim. I think it would be exotic and different. But alas I dont think it would interest any of my players. Tundra I could totally get behind. A mish mash of Norse, Laplander, and Rus flavor all mixed together would be awesome.
Why choose?
To me it's usually less about wilderness terrain and more about human cultures.
Both environments have given rise to fascinating human populations. Vikings or Arabs? Inuit or Bedouins? Both. All. And let's throw in some Romans too while we're at it. :D
I have run both. My Norse myth / Rifts / Mechanoids RPG takes place in a sector of space filled with icy planets. It's Space Vikings vs. Death Robots!
Of course, desert RPGing like Dark Sun and Al-Qadim is great fun.
Quote from: The Butcher;832103Why choose?
Because it can be interesting and revealing when a hypothetical choice is forced.
Tundra. 'Cause I always seem to find a way to freeze characters somewhere in a campaign.:-)
I'm writing and illustrating a PA Ice Age thing for B/X right now, but I am going to do a desert thing next. So... Both?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;832095Desert or tundra - which environment would you rather run several adventures in and why?
If you don't have to worry about the gravity, atmosphere, local magnetic field, or radiation then the environment just isn't hostile enough.
Desert. I'm a sucker for Bedouins and the French Foreign Legion.
Tundra... because I live in a desert so tundra is the exotic 'other'.
I'm probably more comfortable with Tundra - I have limited real-life experience with deserts, just a road trip to New Mexico, whereas I feel I know cold weather well - I have plenty of experience with cold moorland, though not permafrost tundra.
I don't think I'm very good at making deserts seem real/interesting.
Generally my favourite terrains are seacoasts, hills and forests. Normally I run northern-European fantasy (Forgotten Realms Loudwater, Mystara Karameikos) but I'm enjoying my Wilderlands game set in a kind of Arcadian Greece with a subtropical climate.
Quote from: Gaea Games;832096If I was going to pick one relevant to my interests (say one I'm going to use for my game), probably desert, because we have those relatively close by in Arizona and such. They offer interesting survival challenges. They're a little more relatable to the people I know because of our location, but for others, tundra may fill that role instead.
Same choice, opposite reason. I grew up with snow as far as the eye can see for months at a time, 40-below weather, etc. It's annoying and presents challenges if you can't just step inside to warm up, but it's also familiar enough to be boring.
Tundra. I'm a New Englander: I understand cold. I can bring verisimilitude to a tundra adventure that I couldn't to a desert one.
I don't get why this is a choice. They're both the same, both are barren lands, where life has a hard time getting a grip on. They're both desserts, just at opposite temperature extremes.
Wait, this was a trick question wasn't it?
Tundra, just because huddling in a tent to escape the cold north wind has the most appeal for me. That's why I just used a carrot to lead my players to a northern valley at the beginning of winter in our last session.
Desert is close behind though.
Played and run enough games in desert environments, that it has become a bit stale.
I've turned my attention to Tundra.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;832252Wait, this was a trick question wasn't it?
Hehe :D
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.
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.
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
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.
(http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/04/96204-004-D210696E.jpg)
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.
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. :o
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:
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/001/cache/high-sierra-tundra_190_600x450.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Greenland_scoresby-sydkapp2_hg.jpg/1024px-Greenland_scoresby-sydkapp2_hg.jpg)
(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.
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:
(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/001/cache/high-sierra-tundra_190_600x450.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Greenland_scoresby-sydkapp2_hg.jpg/1024px-Greenland_scoresby-sydkapp2_hg.jpg)
(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?
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!
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.
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?
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.
I generally go for desert over tundra, but curiously in my DCC campaign we played a lengthy amount of time in both environments.
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.