Dungeon-Urban-Wilderness as GDS

[takasi]

As D&D is being redesigned, I've given more thought about RPG design in general.

Simulationism = Wilderness Adventure. DMs have to come up with a lot of objective setting details here on the fly, as players have a much larger area they can freely explore. Terrain and groups. Parties can come and go as they please, exploring the land in whichever direction they see fit.

Dramatism = Urban Adventure. Cities have a lot of NPCs, and it's difficult to organically generate a lot of NPC backgrounds and plots without some theme or drama to pull that together. The soil is fertile for political intrigue and plot twists.

Gamism = Dungeon Adventure. Designed to keep a certain segment of the population out, as long as they're not better than the guy who's running things in the dungeon. Kick in the door and loot, check each room carefully and have your wits about you if you want to survive. Perfect for a tournament at a convention or a one shot to see who can survive the Temple of Pain. Compared to the other two environments, there are fewer decisions for players here beyond tactical maneuvers.

Now I'm not saying that you can't naturally simulate a dungeon or roleplay in the forest or have a crawl in the streets. I just think each of these atmospheres favor one style of gaming over another. It's a simplified way of looking at things, I know, but I thought it was interesting.

In the playtests so far, which types of games are being described?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Beautiful. You're spot on with the dungeon supporting gamism.

 

[Cadfan]

Part of the reason that simulationism works pretty well in a wilderness environment is that it offers the illusion of a great deal of options, while actually not having very much in it. And most of what's in it is understandable to a normal person. The low number of easily comprehensible options makes life easier on the DM who tries for realism in his game world.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Takasi - That is an interesting point of view, and not one I've come across before. It's certainly true, in my experience, that games in those locations tend, at least a little, and sometimes a lot, towards those styles.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Favors?

Maybe.

I guess I don't put enough stock in the GNS model to really see how this lines up in any sense other than a pretty superficial one, though?

 

[takasi]

Part of the reason that simulationism works pretty well in a wilderness environment is that it offers the illusion of a great deal of options, while actually not having very much in it. And most of what's in it is understandable to a normal person. The low number of easily comprehensible options makes life easier on the DM who tries for realism in his game world.

One of the players in my group dislikes Eberron and he leans very heavily towards simulationism. Along with concepts like 'moving at the speed of plot' and noir's dependence on overwhelming cities, he also didn't like the emphasis of an Indiana Jones style red line of quick travel. (You can still do a lot of Wilderness adventures in Eberron, but it's not emphasized.) Removing the journey removes a sense of freeform exploration from players and reduces a DM's world simulating needs. Another player in our group has argued that regardless of setting at higher levels the 'Journey' phase becomes easier for players and harder for DMs to simulate (PCs can see more and travel faster, requiring more details to be generated); this often leads to planar exploration in our group.

Some people have pointed out that the three work together. I'm running Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale (Paizo GameMastery product) in one group right now. There is just a tiny little fort in the middle of the wilderness, but one player (who loves intrigue and roleplaying) wants to spend a lot of time there. He is a following of Abadar, the gold fisted god of merchants, and roleplays with incoming travelers. I have to come up with backstories and plots for him to work with, and we've had a few 'Urban Adventures' there already (including the cliched 'Mystery of the Missing Merchant Goods'). If it were up to this player the group could easily spend every session hanging out in this fort.

The Vale itself is filled with a lot of terrain, and setting up the locations of monsters and their lairs involves a look at how the world works. As players travel through the Vale, we use a hex map and encounter tables. The random encounters aren't 'pointless'; they add a sense of realism and verisimilitude to the journey. And in some cases they may lead to various lairs throughout the land. I have one player who always likes playing a ranger; he encourages the party to go out and explore.

Finally you have the lairs themselves. Most of them are simple, but there are a couple of old ruins and dungeons that are designed to be a 'good crawl'. I have another player who frequently plays some type of multi-classed, heavily optimized rogue. He loves beating traps and dealing a lot of skirmish/sneak attack/sudden strike/magical damage. (He also likes playing a wizard and having the right spell at the right time.) As soon as the party finds a good crawl his eyes light up and he takes charge of the group.

If I had a group of people who were primarily like the Abadar Cleric, I would probably be better off running a game in a really big city. If I had a party of players like the Ranger I would probably want to get a sourcebook for a new campaign setting with a bunch of new towns, monsters, maps and items to run and explore. And finally, for a group like the Wizard/Rogue I could run something like Undermountain or Castle Whiterock, or even just a few tournament style games and have a blast.

I know some players hate simulating wilderness journeys because it can interrupt the 'pacing of the plot', and I know some DMs who avoid big cities and stories because it can reduce the amount of combat they want to referee. I'm hoping the designers take all of these playstyles into consideration when developing 4th edition, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they present their adventures.

 

[kennew142]

I'd never thought of it in the terms stated by the OP, but there is definitely something to it. I always strive for some balance between urban, wilderness and Dungeon adventures in any campaign I run. I had noticed that each had its own flavor and associated tropes and styles.

Given the OP, there may be a reason that I run so many urban style campaigns. If I had to define myself in terms of game theory, I would probably say that I'm 50% narrativist/dramatist, 25% each simulationist and gamist.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Yeah, that definitely fits with my DM-style, I like my dramatic plotlines, thick with intrigue and betrayal and just a smidgen of moral-complexity. Those games are mainly based in cities.

When I want to go beyond "random battlemat" combat I tend to lean towards dungeons as well, and when out adventuring I am more picky when it comes to food, shelter and encounter-rolls.

Lol, the OP has my entire-DM style spot on

 

[Generico]

I kind of always thought the ideas the OP stated were obvious. I guess maybe they're not.

What it really boils down to is pacing. You have pockets of civilization, which lend themselves to a slower paced, right brain dominant, RP-centric experience, mostly as a result of roleplaying being much easier with humans and elves than with zombies and owlbears. Then you have "danger zones" - dungeons and wilderness - which lend themselves to a left brain dominant, faster paced, combat-centric experience, because talking to zombies and owlbears is hard.

Dungeons are typically used as high intensity, exciting areas. They provide a believable explanation for a controlled space with a very low time between encounters. However, you can't stay in that high intensity state the whole way through a long play session. This is where pockets of civilization come in.

Pockets of civilization - cities, encampments, etc - provide a slower paced area, where combat is believably less frequent. They provide believable gathering areas for NPCs that are capable of complex social interaction with the PCs, and with each other. They also act as a resting place, where the players can take a break from the math and other mechanical tasks of combat. Conveniently enough, the RP opportunities provided by less intense areas of civilization provide an easy jumping off point from which the PCs can return to the dungeon areas.

"Wilderness" is really just another type of dungeon. Where it differentiates from the more controlled enclosed dungeon is in its reduced predictability. A wilderness area is basically a dungeon where all the rooms are hidden. An encounter could occur anywhere, as though the PCs had stumbled into a dungeon room without realizing it.

These areas play the way they do because they lend themselves to a certain pacing. The see-saw act of RP to combat to RP is what keeps the game session interesting without mentally fatiguing your players. If you spend too much time in near continuous combat scenarios, people get worn out on the mechanical thought processes required for combat. If you spend too much time in continuous complex social interaction, people get worn out on that too. Jumping back and forth between left brain dominant activities, such as mechanical combat, and right brain dominant activities, such as social interaction, is essential for keeping the player interested without wearing him out at the same time. This balancing act can make or break a game.

 

[sinecure]

One of the players in my group dislikes Eberron and he leans very heavily towards simulationism. Along with concepts like 'moving at the speed of plot' and noir's dependence on overwhelming cities, he also didn't like the emphasis of an Indiana Jones style red line of quick travel. (You can still do a lot of Wilderness adventures in Eberron, but it's not emphasized.) Removing the journey removes a sense of freeform exploration from players and reduces a DM's world simulating needs. Another player in our group has argued that regardless of setting at higher levels the 'Journey' phase becomes easier for players and harder for DMs to simulate (PCs can see more and travel faster, requiring more details to be generated); this often leads to planar exploration in our group.

Some people have pointed out that the three work together. I'm running Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale (Paizo GameMastery product) in one group right now. There is just a tiny little fort in the middle of the wilderness, but one player (who loves intrigue and roleplaying) wants to spend a lot of time there. He is a following of Abadar, the gold fisted god of merchants, and roleplays with incoming travelers. I have to come up with backstories and plots for him to work with, and we've had a few 'Urban Adventures' there already (including the cliched 'Mystery of the Missing Merchant Goods'). If it were up to this player the group could easily spend every session hanging out in this fort.

The Vale itself is filled with a lot of terrain, and setting up the locations of monsters and their lairs involves a look at how the world works. As players travel through the Vale, we use a hex map and encounter tables. The random encounters aren't 'pointless'; they add a sense of realism and verisimilitude to the journey. And in some cases they may lead to various lairs throughout the land. I have one player who always likes playing a ranger; he encourages the party to go out and explore.

Finally you have the lairs themselves. Most of them are simple, but there are a couple of old ruins and dungeons that are designed to be a 'good crawl'. I have another player who frequently plays some type of multi-classed, heavily optimized rogue. He loves beating traps and dealing a lot of skirmish/sneak attack/sudden strike/magical damage. (He also likes playing a wizard and having the right spell at the right time.) As soon as the party finds a good crawl his eyes light up and he takes charge of the group.

If I had a group of people who were primarily like the Abadar Cleric, I would probably be better off running a game in a really big city. If I had a party of players like the Ranger I would probably want to get a sourcebook for a new campaign setting with a bunch of new towns, monsters, maps and items to run and explore. And finally, for a group like the Wizard/Rogue I could run something like Undermountain or Castle Whiterock, or even just a few tournament style games and have a blast.

I know some players hate simulating wilderness journeys because it can interrupt the 'pacing of the plot', and I know some DMs who avoid big cities and stories because it can reduce the amount of combat they want to referee. I'm hoping the designers take all of these playstyles into consideration when developing 4th edition, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they present their adventures.

That's awesome. So do you just include everything and let the players chose? I know I've never really seen these groups of all one kind of roleplayer, but I haven't played in tons of groups either. Your post makes sense to me because as the Dm I have to cater to all kinds of players.