So, let's suppose we have an RPG that uses an old-school approach to RPG design; in particular, it is necessary to take the time to earn experlence and level up. (We're assuming an XP based system here, but this topic could be generalized to other systems where you get stronger (either directly or indirectly) by fighting enemies).) This means that, if you go exploring right away, you will run into enemies that will murder you, or you might not have the resources (MP for example) to survive long outdoor journeys.

Anyway, suppose at the start there is a town, of course. Near the town, there is a dungeon, one that you can easily reach with a new character. Which would be the better course of action:
1. Spend time killing enemies outside of town in order to get strong enough to explore the dungeon, or
2. Go straight into the dungeon and level up there.

So, between those two options, which would be the more sensible course of action?

Edit: Let's assume that the town solely serves as a place to rest and get supplies, and not as a location where action takes place. Furthermore, let's assume that fighting is the only way to get experience or otherwise grow stronger, at least at this point in the game.

Neither, because both are dangerous. First 2-3 levels should be spent in the town with easy quests, so you can learn the gameplay.

It would depend on the game and how fun it happens to be spending time killing easier enemies. In a game like Diablo II, killing is fun from the very beginning. In a game like Baldur's Gate, battles at the lowest level can be quite boring as you can spent a while without hitting the enemy once and then be killed yourself in just one hit.

On a game like D2 I could wait and gain some experience outside the dungeon, while on a game like BG2 I would rather go exploring and maybe gain experience doing quests that don't involve fighting too much.

It really depends. A lot of modern RPGs have level scaling, like Bethesda's games, so in those I just start in a random direction and see what happens. If I come across a dungeon I'll either go in or save it for later depending on my mood. Dungeon diving and open world exploration are different things, so you can be in or out of the mood for either.

In a game without level scaling (or less of it) like Piranha Bytes' games, or a more open old school game like Fallout or Arcanum, I usually stick to towns at first. Do some local quests, stuff that maybe focuses on talking or sneaking, to build my character up and get used to the game. Then after a while of that I will venture more and more out from the town and do harder combat quests, including dungeos.

A lot of old school games... or modern ones meant to feel old school... are surprisingly linear. There's not much choice to be made in something like Pillars of Eternity, where there's a clear level path and you basically choose which area of the zone to go first, but it's all mostly the same.

Depends on the threat assessment whether the monsters roaming outside or the dungeon is more dangerous. Usually it would be the dungeon, so leveling up a bit outside first might make more sense.
The dungeon might have traps, multiple levels etc. after all, so backtracking to town for supplies or healing might become difficult or impossible after some point.

A number of Rouge-likes would be similar, in which case i still say fight in the hardest area that isn't a grind and you won't lose in, grow experience and get experience.

In a number of RPG's you also have a progression to harder and harder areas, and any items you might want to buy to help you, you'll find along the way anyways, so if you can wait a little you can do better on money if you don't buy and then sell the same item reducing it's value 25%-50%.

Would most well-designed games even have that sort of choice?

Especially for the start of the game, where that entire area would likely be laid out to get the player familiar with the game systems, I'd assume that you'd naturally have encounters/quests and gain XP through the town, the area around it, and then the dungeon all to the point where you could tackle those areas.

In my mind, in this day and age, if a player started a new game, is getting into it, sets out of the town for the first time for on their journey for a real adventure, comes across a dungeon entrance and thinks "Oh, I better roam around a bit outside to get random encounters so I can gain XP so I can tackle this dungeon!", something weird has happened.


EDIT: Just reread and saw you specifically mention "Old-school RPG design", but I think my first paragraph still applies.

If we are talking about jrpg like old final fantasy (1-2-3) or diablo-like arpg usually the dungeon is the right path (because usually the outside town is just filler, the story goes on by dungeons).
If we are talking about rpg like baldur's gate usually the right answer is the town. You can get lot's of exp without fight and learn the game (usually a true rpg is much more than fighting).
For arpg like the witcher usually the outside the town is better to start, in dungeons is more difficult to rest your weak Geralt.

Obviously, the most sensible course of action is to find the most effective (in terms exp over time) spot and kill monsters there. Considering how all your assumptions (exp only for kills, no activity except of fighting) narrow the possible course of action this question looks totally pointless.

I see to ways forward:
* Tackle easy enemies and build up you strengths.
* Tackle the stronger enemies and get frustrated with various restart/reload until success.

Assuming a finite number of monsters (i.e. XP), there is no benefit in tackling the dungeon first.
Unless the quests are exclusive: is the only case tackle the most dangerous is more rewarding.

Have fun.

You could test it with Divine Divinity. There's a big and rather tough dungeon right in the starting town and the town is surrounded by Orcs, which aren't any easier as far as I know. There isn't much experience to be gained in the town itself, if I'm not completely mistaken. But I went down into the dungeon first on my only attempt at DD so far, so I don't really know if it's viable to go outside first.

Edit: To put it more generally: If there are areas which are hard with good experience to be gained and not too much reloading, then I'd say sure, go for it. What the threshold is, is of course subjective. Personally I'm not a big fan of trial-and-error.

Just had to think of Sacred where it's quite easy to outlevel some areas and not gain experience anymore, but I didn't run into much trouble when going into areas where the enemies had a much higher level than me (on the lowest difficulty).

1 but I always try 2 first.
Why?
Why,not.

The early Final Fantasy games aren't good examples. Well, FF1 might be, but definitely not FF2 or FF3.

Here's how those games play out in this respect:

FF1: The dungeon (which is short and mostly a boss fight) is not visible as soon as you leave the town; you have to walk a bit to get there. In this game, it is a good idea to reach level 2 on the overworld; doing so will nearly double your max HP. Reach level 2, rest at the inn (which is also how you save your game), *then* go to the dungeon and you shouldn't have much trouble with the boss here. (This is how I expect such games to be balanced, but then again, Ultima 1 exists.)

FF2: It is a very long time before you get to a dungeon (unless you count the occupied town of Fynn, but that doesn't feel like a dungeon and has the same enemies you're fighting on the overworld), so you are essentially forced to fight on the overworld and (unless you run from everything or get horrible stat growth luck) grow stronger that way before you even reach the first dungeon. Wtih that said, there is a nasty trap in the early game; if you go a little too far west at the start, you'll encounter enemies that your novice party has no realistic chance of defeating.

FF3: This game throws you into a dungeon right away; the choice has been made for you. Furthermore, once you do eventually reach civilization, the first town doesn't have much to offer (only buyable spell is the cure poison one), and in the second town, everyone is a ghost (and shopping there is not possible at this point). Also, this game has significantly less of a focus on fighting enemies to level up than its predecessors.

(For the curious, FF4 starts you with town access (but not much to do there), FF5 starts you right near a dungeon (no town), and FF6 starts you in a dungeon right away; in those games, it's a bit before you actually need to think about buying equipment. FF7 also starts you in a dungeon.)

What the game designers want you to do is often the best course.

Excluding games where everything is level scaled, areas that they don't want you to explore yet will be gated by impossibly hard monsters or locked doors.

If there are two regions that are good for starting characters, I don't think it makes a difference.

As it is, I doubt there is a universal best course. There is probably a counterexample game for any proposed argument. What if one game has a better loot table in the other region?

On a less related note, this is at least the third topic in past few weeks on the topic of best RPG mechanics. Is someone designing a new RPG based on crowdsourced GOG preferences?

If so, people will be very happy if a canine called Beam meets an unfortunate demise.