OSR Potions identification in B/X. How do you handle it?

[conankeep]

See the other thread by Snarf.

Wow!
So that poster provided very loose arguments, switched to a condescending tone when learning English is not my first language, proceeded to straight up insult me while still ignoring all my questions and arguments (could it be because the poster doesn't have a sound counterargument?), all while I can see for a fact he was still reading the thread by his reactions to posts...
... then he proceeded with a thinly veiled attack at me ("imagine you are having troubles...") in another thread where I'm not present and can't address his attacks!

PS
I glossed over the post. That poster was one of the first to insist that context surrounding "can only" matters... and then proceeds to try to prove his point by reading the same "can only" in other parts of the rules in entirely different context. All I can say is LOL.

 

[cbwjm]

First of all thank you for acknowledging the text indeed could be read in an ambiguous way. It seems that some posters are allergic to accepting that maybe their interpretation is not the final and only correct reading of a rule

Reading the RC text I fully agree that it implies a guaranteed identification of a potion by sipping on it, just as the case with AD&D provided as an example earlier. Nevertheless that is a different edition of the game written by other authors. So while I can see why it could be used to interpret the B/X rule, I don't agree it's a definitive argument for only such interpretation being viable.

I wouldn't be too quick to discount later editions since they can clarify the original intent of the rules and they likely had access to notes from the original BX game that we don't.

However, I guess what matters is what are you intending to do, juat label the potions or leave it up to the players to find and test the potions?

 

[conankeep]

First of all thank you for being civil and presenting actual arguments. This seems to be a rare quality in this thread so far.
Secondly, but maybe even more importantly, please understand my position in this.
I'm not arguing my reading is the one and only true and correct reading of the rule.
It is true that as often is in cases of ambiguous wordings it didn't cross my mind that this rule can be interpreted in other ways, but this thread made it clear that other opinions exist. I respect that.
However in the process some posters started outright saying that my interpretation of the rule is the result of my supposed poor understanding of English or lack of intellectual capacity to interpret rules in a correct manner, not the ambiguity of the wording.
This is what I strongly disagree with.

BFRPG does not directly reproduce the rules of B/X, nor was it intended to.

I fully (although somewhat implicitly) acknowledge that in my post. That's is not my point. The point is that since I could reach Chris Goonerman directly, I did explicitly asked if his wording in BFRPG is the result of his interpretation of the B/X rule, which he confirmed. So I presented it as direct evidence that I in fact was not the only one to interpret the B/X potion identification rules the way I did.

Your Quora questions were missing necessary context, as is made pretty obvious by multiple of the responses there assuming that the spell Identify is available

I understand this is coming from a disposition that from a gamedesign perspective there should be a sure way of identification (not that 1e version of that spell is actually any helpful in that regard =) but 1e is 1e)? Well B/X actually has such an option, high level MU services. Also please note, that in terms of arguing that the rules are ambiguous, having confirmation that the wording of the rules is ambiguous is actually enough (which was demonstrated by question 1 in my survey)

The only ways given in B/X for a test to fail are in the event of cursed armor

Yes, in this case B/X clearly and explicitly states that it is possible an identifying test may not actually produce a correct identification. Please note that nowhere in the text it is stated that this is the only possibility for a test to fail. I think it's pretty obvious this case had to be stated explicitly because it is not intuitive. On the other hand, wouldn't you agree, it could be very possible that Moldvay/Cook didn't feel common sense cases (which I consider an antidote test while not poisoned to be) required to state it explicitly.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

See post # 3.

See also this thread.

 

[conankeep]

What if the test turns you into a dragon? Or forces the DM to restart his campaign from the beginning? Or to give you $50?

For the first case it's clearly a turn into a dragon potion. Not that such potion is described, but it seems like a reasonable potion to include in a game would it make sense. I don't think I need to discuss the other two artificial cases, not really relevant to actual games.

My initial question was about dealing with Expert-listed potions that I would argue is just common sense that they should not reveal their effect if certain conditions aren't meat (no undead near to try to control them for potion of control undead, not being under effects of poison for potion of cure poison etc.).

Again, you're omitting essential context. Both the heading of the rule and the fact that, aside from the two methods given in the section, there are no other methods in B/X for identifying a magic item

I understand your argument is that the heading being "Identifying magic items" is evidence that the listed ways of identifying are always sufficient for doing what the heading is about? I just can't agree that's like that at all. Obviously the actual wording of the rules is what holds priority here.

As for your gamedesign considerations, I'm thinking of addressing your arguments later, unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to present everything I would like to at the moment. I'll make sure to tag you so I can hear your opinion on what I have to say.

 

[conankeep]

I wouldn't be too quick to discount later editions since they can clarify the original intent of the rules and they likely had access to notes from the original BX game that we don't.

Well.. yeah, I agree, it's a possibility, especially if it's written by the same team, which however isn't the case with B/X and BECMI.
But there are also other important considerations when looking at other editions. As was mentioned 1e not only states the identification test to guarantee a result, but also includes an identification spell (a questionable tool in 1e specifically, but that's not the point).
1e predates Moldvay's Basic. Nevertheless Moldvay chose to not use an explicit wording a la 1e in his text, and not to include an identification spell. There is some ambigouty to his possible motives, after all, Basic wasn't meant to be "AD&D light", but it could potentially be related to what was his idea of the identification tests as a process, I will also tag you once I have the time to make a post about gamedesign implications of either wordings.

 

[conankeep]

The sentence is: "A potion may be sipped to discover its type and then used later."

Thank you for your detailed arguments, I don't have the time to read them in their entirety at this moment but I will make sure to do so when I can.

However, I have to note the disagreement is about the wording on page B47 under the Identifying Magic Items subsection, not the B48 ones. There is somewhat of a consensus in this thread that the line you are referring to is indicating a permission to sip a potion for testing purposes and save it for later use to receive the full effect.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yes, in this case B/X clearly and explicitly states that it is possible an identifying test may not actually produce a correct identification. Please note that nowhere in the text it is stated that this is the only possibility for a test to fail. I think it's pretty obvious this case had to be stated explicitly because it is not intuitive. On the other hand, wouldn't you agree, it could be very possible that Moldvay/Cook didn't feel common sense cases (which I consider an antidote test while not poisoned to be) required to state it explicitly.

Nowhere in the text does it state that the test CAN fail, except in the specific cases of the cursed items I enumerated.

You are still importing the idea of the test failing in other instances from outside the text. No procedure for the test to fail is given. No rule. No guideline. No percentage odds. No x in 6 chance. If you choose to rule that the test can fail in other instances, you are required to invent those procedures and chances.

While I get that your prior assumptions/understanding of the word "test" include the concept that a test can fail, in this case the text gives no indication that this test can fail (apart from the specified cursed items), and the lack of any rule or explanation of a chance of failure is indicative. Without creating a process and chance for failure from whole cloth, you cannot play B/X with the possibility of failure.

 

[Cadence]

That's a perfectly reasonable way to conceptualize potions in your game, but as you've quoted, it's directly at odds with how TSR D&D describes potions. Not just the passage from B/X, but, how the 1E DMG describes them:

page 125:
"Potions are typically found in ceramic, crystal, glass, or metal flasks in enough quantity to provide one person with one complete dose so as to be able to achieve the effects which are given hereafter for each type of potion. Potion containers can be other than as described at your option. As a general rule they should bear no identifying marks, so that the players must sample from each container in order to determine the nature of the liquid. However, even a small taste should suffice to identify a potion in some way- even if just a slight urge. As Dungeon Master you should adda few different sorts of potions, both helpful and harmful, of such nature as to cause difficulties in identification. In addition, the same type of potion, when derived from different sources, might smell, taste, and look differently."

page 119:

"While it is possible to prepare a matrix which lists each potion type and cross references each to show a certain result when one is intermingled with the other, such a graph has two drawbacks. First, it does not allow for differences in formulae from alchemist and/or magic-user. Second, it will require continual addition as new potion types are added to the campaign."

Emphasis mine.

Gary and Tom were both clear that potions vary, and you can't rely on just recognizing it by appearance or smell without sampling it and taking the risk that it's poison.

While we're at it, here's the 2E DMG, p 141:

"Identifying Potions

As a general rule, potion containers should bear no identifying marks, so player characters must sample from each container to determine the nature of the liquid inside. However, even a small taste should suffice to identify a potion in some way. Introduce different sorts of potions, both helpful and harmful, to cause difficulties in identification. In addition, the same type of potion, when created in different labs, might smell, taste, and look differently."

This has me wondering what the world structure of 1e was like* to make people not label things. Is/was there a type of demon attracted by labels? A type of pixie that loved drinking but was afraid to drink anything they didn't know what it was? A prohibition law that only allowed enforcement against labeled things? An expensive labelers guild licensing fee? ...

* I mean, I know it is supposed to be deadly and frustrating a lot. But I mean the in world explanation for why this particular part is frustrating.

 

[Mannahnin]

This has me wondering what the world structure of 1e was like to make people not label things. Is/was there a type of demon attracted by labels? A type of pixie that loved drinking but was afraid to drink anything they didn't know what it was? A prohibition law that only allowed enforcement against labeled things? An expensive labelers guild licensing fee?...

In all seriousness, and in context with the rest of the 1970s-1980s D&D rules I've read, I think it's probably a combination of things, including:

A) The game idea that getting treasures should include some inherent risk. "No risk, no reward", "No guts, no glory".
B ) The implied setting idea that treasures are commonly being found lost in ancient places, and that any such labels might have long since decayed/rotted away. A lot of inks fade over time, especially older ones made from less lasting materials. (I think this also offers the cool possibility of having faded but JUST legible labels or etched markings in some ancient language - perhaps decipherable with a Read Languages spell!)
C ) The implied setting idea that magic-users are secretive and jealous and protective of their magic. A D&D magic-user in a Gygaxian game might deliberately keep their potions unmarked because THEY know what they all look and smell like, or they might mark them with a secret code known only to themselves and possibly their apprentices.