While we’re on the subject of maps (maybe this should be a new thread), what are the criteria of a good map? What are the criteria of a bad map? Where do you say “No, it’s not good enough. You can’t roll.” ?
If they mapped everything in the dungeon except for the pit trap do you let them make the map with Cartography or do they “stumble upon” the trap when going back through (and have to test), even if they have their map?
So using a map effectively teleports you?
With regard to the original point, if the PCs search a wall for a secret door that isn’t there, then that’s a “good idea”, and they’ll successfully find a lack of secret doors.
Regarding a “good map”, I’m not quite sure what you mean. If they never encountered a pit trap, then it won’t be on their map, which means they won’t go that way if using a successful map. If the pit trap is in a specific area that they visited, like in some room, then they’ll avoid the pit using the map here as well, unless they intentionally stop in that room again.
That’s my understanding.
Basically. “Time” passes, for whatever that means in a system where time is abstracted, but narratively you essentially teleport.
Also, a good map is a map that lists locations and describes them briefly. A bad map is no map.
I mean if they encounter a pit trap (say in a earlier session, but it completely slipped the mapper’s mind to add it to the description of that particular room) and then try to make a map in a later session.
I think the idea is that a brief description is sufficient. The actual mapping isn’t supposed to be done by the players, it happens with the roll, as long as they roll is successful and they seem to have the gist of it, they can navigate without rehashing old obstacles.
If the cartographer roll is failed, the GM can add a location-based twist (like falling into an undiscovered trap). Otherwise, they would just bypass the area entirely.
Aiight. Just didn’t know how specific their descriptions needed to be.
Summarizing what I’m gathering:
MAP: teleport to mapped areas, no test.
NO MAP: navigate descriptively, in the traditional, analog way.
LOST: in a big place and can’t figure out where you are? Make Dungeoneering test to get back to somewhere familiar.
Legit?
The map is like Henry Jones’ notes in Last Crusade. It tells you what the dangers are, how to overcome them safely, what to look for etc. The map from the Hobbit is another example. “This is how you get in through the back door.” It’s not just about which direction to go to get from room to room so much as detailed instructions you use to minimize the risks of traversing a dangerous location. “What was in this room? Before we go in, we should check our map…”
Re: making a test to figure out where you are, I’d say no. Just describe the sitch, and have the players react. If THEY figure out where they are, then great. Hopefully though, you’ve put them someplace they haven’t been yet, and get them all kerfluffled.
Sounds about right to me.
I might still use Pathfinder if they’re lost, depending on where they are and how they go about finding their way back… but I’d have to take a look at the factors and what feels appropriate for the situation to make that decision.
Definitely not Dungeoneering. That’s for climbing, squeezing through crevices, cave diving, etc. I personally wouldn’t allow a Pathfinder test either. You wander until you can get to some place you have mapped.
Great. That makes me happy. Thanks, Thor.
Why not just take the time to map it?
Response in other thread 
(for anyone who’s interested in this)
Anyone find a good middle solution to this issue?
Option 1: Roll search for every room and hallway - this would seem to require someone having the instinct for this and gives them a lot more rolls than most other players.
Option 2: Don’t roll if nothing there - Now the instinct would do less for you, and a party without the instinct can search every room without taking up turns. And secret doors will be noted in the event of failure and returned to after leveling (or first chance to retry).
No middle solution needed. Option 2 is almost right.
Keep in mind this is a narrative game first, the rules only exist to adjudicate conflict and risk. You don’t get to find the secret door unless you describe your character doing something that would allow you to find the secret door. “I look for secret doors” does not count, that isn’t an actual action. On the other hand if you describe feeling along a wall you may get a scout test (if it is relevant), but you have no idea whether that scout test was for a secret door, a trap, hidden treasure, or the goblins that are just around the corner. At least you don’t know until you roll the test, and you can’t back out once the test is called for so it’s too late to say “Okay, there’s something there, we’ll come back to it later.” Nope, you’re committed, and if you fail you are either getting a condition and succeeding anyway or there’s some twist that stops you before you actually know the nature of what’s actually there. Is there something there? Maybe, or maybe the scout test was just for the goblins that ambushed you while you were wasting time feeling around every crack in the wall.
eta: Thinking about it though, you do raise an interesting point in that if the characters defeat the goblins and then search the wall again in the same way, they would get another test, and that coincidence would be telling. On the other hand if a failure ever makes the presence of something obvious, the GM can just use Condition and resolve the event favorably. You find the secret door but all this searching has tested your patience and you are angry.
Well put!
Knowing something’s there isn’t a problem, though. It still uses up another turn, and still risks failure and consequences if you fail the roll again. If you’ve got a well-crafted instinct, good for you, but it still risks consequences on a failure (and you probably can’t get any help). And as you explained, it could just be a trap.
Good point. It’s just a little odd because if you know something is there then you got what you wanted (thought not completely), but I don’t think that’s game breaking.