Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7333808" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think this is a case of the rules of classic D&D getting in the way of playing classic D&D. The ranger's 'never get lost' ability was described in a very early article in SR back in 1975 IIRC, definitely in the days of OD&D. In the context of exploratory hexcrawl play governed by the AH: Survival game this was a reasonable ability. It negated the regular 'getting lost' checks which were a significant random hazard of this procedure, and only within a single type of terrain. Gygax imported this class almost verbatim into 1e, but at the same time dropped the use of Survival as a mechanic (and references to any other external rules, like Chainmail). There was a process for getting lost also in 1e, so IN THEORY nothing changed. In reality most groups, by the 1e era (say DMG release, so 1979) had started to leave behind the procedural exploration puzzle Gygaxian player skill game paradigm behind. In view of the reality of a lot of play at that time, semi-directed plots with a mixture of GM fiat/fudging, fixed maps/encounters, and some of the original random hazard generation, you are correct. When the story revolves around 'the GM wants to get you lost in the Woods' then the ranger with Woods as a favored terrain is pretty much the sound of the choo choo running out of tracks...Now, in a game like what I run, said absolute ability would be OK. It would let the player advance the fiction in the direction he's interested in by not getting lost. Truthfully in my own personal game design how it would work is he'd have a class boon, orienteer, and that would let him expend his inspiration point to declare that he is definitely not getting lost right now. He could also simply roll and hope not to get lost, but then he's not really declaring anything, the player is saying in that case "lost, not lost, all good with me, I'll take it how it comes" which is fine. Orienteering can also be used to, say, sub in a Nature check instead of an Endurance check "hey, I use my orienteering to find a way around the nasty cliff so we don't have to climb it".If in his background the ranger has "Home turf is the Forest of Grinn" then I'd let him leverage that and say "I guide the party unfailingly to a cave entrance at the bottom of the cliff which I know from experience leads up into the caverns we want to explore higher on the mountain." Now he's authoring fiction and relating the new narrative directly to character resources, this is why he built this character the way he did, he wants to be able to do this. Since the GM and players are 'Playing to see what happens' any argument that a 'challenge has been bypassed' is moot, it just isn't part of the agenda. If the players WANT a mechanically and tactically challenging encounter, then that is bound to be provided, assuming I as the DM am doing my job.</blockquote>

Verification