Why the focus on *geography* in RPGing?

[pemerton]

Why the focus on geography?

Setting maps (e.g. regional, city, world, etc.) are important. They let you know where you are, where various features and landmarks are, and - most importantly - how these things spatially relate to each other.

<snip>

Time is important, and the equation [geography + means of transport + external environmental factors] tells you how much in-setting time it takes to get from point A to point B.

<snip>

Geography is also sometimes vitally important in the day-to-day adventuring lives of the PC, in that a PC's exact location on the map can be the difference between life and death when the fireball goes off or the cave-in trap gets triggered.

I have never been particularly keen on concentrating on time and space in my RPG play.

So time and space as a focus of play is one answer?

What does that focus bring to RPGing?

 

[Bedrockgames]

The second reason is it can help ground your play. For this, I am going to make an analogy on the fly (h/t @Cadence ) to the Game of Thrones series. While I am not as ... severe ... on the last season as many people are, I think that one of the major issues as the series got into the latter parts is that it lost a sense of place. Even for casual viewers, the earlier seasons felt real, and felt like they existed in a real place with a place of scale. Traveling took time. Places were far apart.

This is a good point and it also points to the significance of genre style of campaign. Game of Thrones as a series, established a very grounded sense of place and once you had that, any deviation from it felt off (and as a viewer I certainly noticed issues with it large scale and small in the later season: one area this was a major problem, and it isn't quite mapping but a similar space, was the inconsistency with the Dothraki numbers in one of the battles towards the end. It just looked looked like their numbers were expanding and contracting based on the need to generate suspense and action for the viewer but with no regard for having anything consistent). it was really jarring when people travelled over great distances in what seemed like a shorter time for plot convenience (or at least the sense of scale was lost because of editing things down). In a more loose genre, I might not care was much. But in a genre and in a series where it felt as grounded as a historical novel, I expected a lot of consistency (something like Indiana Jones I am not less attentive to those details, though importantly Indiana Jones still uses maps).

 

[Bedrockgames]

So time and space as a focus of play is one answer?

What does that focus bring to RPGing?

But like others have said, it doesn't need to be about this being the focus. It is more like time and space, geography, this is one aspect of play that can present consistency issues. Mapping to avoid that, doesn't make it central (though I think with fantasy games maps are often very important because they help convey quick information about the setting that could take pages to explain in a rulebook). But mapping to avoid consistency problems, just means it is one of many areas you are tracking. I track my NPCs, I track power relations and events, I also keep maps. And it doesn't have to mean you are digging down into the minutiae. It could still be very background, not come up that much, but be something that you have because when it comes up you want a consistent answer.

Could you have a game focused on geography? Yes, and people do. But I think that is not the answer to why geography is important in RPGs (those campaigns will have different answers to that question than campaigns focused more on linear adventures or monster of the week)

 

[pemerton]

I have been running some folks through a Traveller game and going mostly theater of the mind.

I've run a fair bit of Classic Traveller in the last few years.

In 20+ sessions I can think of six maps that were used:

* When the PCs assaulted a military installation I drew a map (building it out of the roll for encounter distance); on a second occasion, when some PCs were prisoners in an installation, I sketched a map (maybe using the same technique? I can't remember now);

* We've had two ship plans: the St Christopher (from an old White Dwarf) and the Annic Nova (from Double Adventure 1);

* The alien installation in the module Shadows;

* A gradually-expanding star map.​

I think there have been two space combats where distance between vessels had to be tracked (as per the Book 2 rules). I can't recall ever having to actually use the rules for range bands for interpersonal combat, other than determining starting distances that one time.

The PCs have done various things on various worlds and in various settlements, but no maps of those have been needed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also just to add to my last point, I think the reason it feels like the focus is because it is often a crucial starting point. Everything in a setting exists in a place. Having a map of that place, helps you organize your thoughts on everything else. Even if I were running a campaign that was entirely about groups of NPCs (let's say gangs in a city and organized crime). I wouldn't have to, but I often would start with a map so I understand the physical geography these characters are operating in, I understand their areas of influence, and where they come into conflict, where natural alliances form. The game itself might never use that map (especially if we all know the city well). Think the sopranos. If you had a Sopranos supplement, I bet there would be a map showing the areas controlled by different families, where Bada Bing! is located, where Tony Soprano lives, because those could be relevant when players want to stage a hit or get back to an important spot after a botched robbery. But it wouldn't need to be central to the campaign (the campaign itself might be more about the drama between the characters)

 

[the Jester]

So from the point of view of RPGing, what does a concern with geography - maps, precise locations - bring to the table?

A more fleshed out, real-feeling world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've run a fair bit of Classic Traveller in the last few years.

In 20+ sessions I can think of six maps that were used:

* When the PCs assaulted a military installation I drew a map (building it out of the roll for encounter distance); on a second occasion, when some PCs were prisoners in an installation, I sketched a map (maybe using the same technique? I can't remember now);​

​

* We've had two ship plans: the St Christopher (from an old White Dwarf) and the Annic Nova (from Double Adventure 1);​

​

* The alien installation in the module Shadows;​

​

* A gradually-expanding star map.​

I think there have been two space combats where distance between vessels had to be tracked (as per the Book 2 rules). I can't recall ever having to actually use the rules for range bands for interpersonal combat, other than determining starting distances that one time.

The PCs have done various things on various worlds and in various settlements, but no maps of those have been needed.

I would draw a big distinction between tactical maps for combat and maps for setting purposes. I use a lot of setting maps. I don't use miniatures at all. Can't stand grid combat and like that to all be theater of the mind (as a GM I try to provide a consistent area for tactical considerations so I note things down so the tree is always where the tree is if a player wants to take cover, but otherwise much more hand wavy with the tactical landscape: much rather focus on cinematic action there).

I also think the scale of a space campaign would make for a much different approach to mapping (I don't run space campaigns in part because I can't really imagine handling a setting of that scale, even though I prefer science fiction to fantasy)

 

[payn]

I've run a fair bit of Classic Traveller in the last few years.

In 20+ sessions I can think of six maps that were used:

* When the PCs assaulted a military installation I drew a map (building it out of the roll for encounter distance); on a second occasion, when some PCs were prisoners in an installation, I sketched a map (maybe using the same technique? I can't remember now);​

​

* We've had two ship plans: the St Christopher (from an old White Dwarf) and the Annic Nova (from Double Adventure 1);​

​

* The alien installation in the module Shadows;​

​

* A gradually-expanding star map.​

I think there have been two space combats where distance between vessels had to be tracked (as per the Book 2 rules). I can't recall ever having to actually use the rules for range bands for interpersonal combat, other than determining starting distances that one time.

The PCs have done various things on various worlds and in various settlements, but no maps of those have been needed.

Not even the Traveller map? Mine has been pretty similar, but old habits die hard for D&D players.

 

[Cadence]

I've run a fair bit of Classic Traveller in the last few years.

In 20+ sessions I can think of six maps that were used:

* When the PCs assaulted a military installation I drew a map (building it out of the roll for encounter distance); on a second occasion, when some PCs were prisoners in an installation, I sketched a map (maybe using the same technique? I can't remember now);​

​

* We've had two ship plans: the St Christopher (from an old White Dwarf) and the Annic Nova (from Double Adventure 1);​

​

* The alien installation in the module Shadows;​

​

* A gradually-expanding star map.​

Why did you have/make/use any of those maps? Why do you update the star map?

 

[Voadam]

In this thread - Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory - @niklinna has helped me to understand what is meant by a "linear adventure".

My tentative conclusion is that "linear adventure" has two uses:

* To describe geography (maybe with an additional premise in the neighbourhood, along the lines of where a PC is determines what scene the GM frames);

* To describe interdependencies between scenes, such that one has to finish a certain way (or within certain parameters) for the next to be framed.

This thread is prompted by the first of those dot points.

I know the historical answer to the question: D&D has its origins as a game of exploring dungeons and exploring wildernesses.

But why has this endured? Why is there such a concern over where things happen and who gets to decide where things happen? Is it because of the additional premise I flagged - that where a PC is determines what scene the GM frames? Or for some other reason?

I have only heard of "linear adventure" used as describing being restricted to going A to B and never as geography is an important part of framing.

Geography being important is normally on the other end opposite linear adventuring, sandboxing. If the geography is just there players can go different ways and develop different adventures based on the differences of what is there. They can go into the mountains where the giants live or investigate the ancient dungeon in the swamp and get different adventures. In a linear adventure it is A then B then C happens.

In a dungeon a linear adventure would basically be a series of rooms one after the next. A megadungeon allows movement and different routes enabling different encounters based on those choices.

I see geographic maps in RPGs as being used for context and framing. These two countries are adjacent and have peaceful trading connections or a history of hostile conflicts. Maps can show you that you are leaving the safety of cities and entering the frontier or wilderness. They can frame a consistent basis for how long to get to the city or a basis for how long a journey will take by different routes and means (highways versus sailing versus wilderness trekking). They can be a basis for using different encounter tables. If there is a famous oracle at a defined place on the map (fantasy Delphi) the difficulty of getting to them can be judged as its own factor.

Fantasy RPGs can be done without a significant map, things can be left vague in many aspects and work well, focusing on different aspects.