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

[conankeep]

Ok. So it's been over a week now and there are 18 pages + a separate thread trying to convince me with fierce vigor and aggression that it is absolutely impossible to interpret the original B/X magic item identification as a trial and error process, and instead it is absolutely clear that any test (putting on a ring, sipping a potion) will provide a guaranteed identification and the DM simply declares the nature of the item regardless of the magical effect or circumstance.

you identify a potion by taking a sip. Once you take a sip, you know what type of potion you have

I think we need to wrap it up, this is obviously going nowhere.

But first of all, I want to thank each and every one of posters who participated in a good faith discussion, was respectful, tried providing arguments and substantiate their opinions, addressed my questions and counterarguments instead of ignoring them, or dismissing them without substantiating the dismissal.
In the end it doesn't matter who was right or who was wrong. What really matters is that we participate in a rational discussion with respect others deserve.

So [almost] getting to the point now. In my final attempt at self-reality-check I've made a Reddit post asking the r/OSR community how they feel about the B/X rules. The thread with just overwhelming majority explicitly agreeing for the trial-and-error interpretation (as of now, i.e. 20260917-12 PM GMT) speaks for itself. Combined with survey results previously reported by me in this thread ( see the post about wording and the post about retroclones, and an explicit confirmation from one of the creators), it is obvious that apart from this forum all over the internet people mostly agree with me B/X identification rules imply a trial and error process and don't guarantee successful identification. This doesn't confirm Moldvay's intent, of course, but it does tell me I'm not insane =)

And then it hit me. Moldvay in his eternal wisdom actually left plenty of examples of play to help interpret the rules. Could there be an example of how identification attempt looks? YES! there is one!

Page B59. (*edit: inserting a fixed version to include the entire relevant dialog between Morgan and the DM, instead of a faulty hastily cropped version)

A clear and explicitly stated attempt to test for a specific property. With DM stating the appropriate effects using common sense.

@Lanefan I think you will be satisfied your approach is actually the by-the-book B/X one.

As for others, at this point of a whole week of what feels like a series of unsubstantiated claims, appeal to logical fallacies, lack of respect and good faith arguing, and just outright deliberate gaslighting of a non-native speaker, I don't have anything to say. I'll let your discussion style do the talking.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

See post # 3.

See also this thread.

 

[Mannahnin]

View attachment 448163
Two ways of identifying items are given in the rules. No other ways. If you want to house rule your game and make testing out the item NOT give a result, you have to INVENT A RULE. You have to write that procedure. Decide what those odds are. But the text gives you no instructions to do so. Instead every place in the rules* it tells us WHAT the tester finds out, not whether they find out anything.

Not really, just as I don't have to invent rules for jumping in B/X, because I can pass a ruling based on common sense. If someone who isn't under an effect of poison drinks a potion of cure poison, there is no measurable effect. That's it.

Yes, really. Otherwise how to you assess the chance of learning what the potion does? The applicability of "common sense" to how easy or difficult fictional magical objects are to identify is inherently dubious.

You have to invent the rule you're using. Of course, this shouldn't be a big shock, given that you have to import a potion of Neutralize Poison from outside of B/X to use one in the first place.

The rules give a procedure to identify items. They detail no chance of failure, except in the cases of the three specified cursed items. Merely in themselves, these three items suffice to justify any chance of failure you find implicit in the word "try", but again, we're talking about trying out an object. You can't fail at trying a bite of my sandwich. You bite it, you now know what it tastes like. Morgan tries walking in the boots, everyone immediately can tell that she's moving very quietly and thus that they are indeed Elven Boots.

The difference between jumping and item identification in B/X is that the latter actually has a specified procedure, which you're choosing to change. The former has no specified procedure, and that requires invention and a DM judgement call.

Now, I looked at that and I thought it was weird, because I know Moldvay is very good at explaining things. How could he possibly have an example of a player trying to identify a magic item and not have a response from the DM? Well... because the very next response in the text was omitted . Here is the next line that you will find if you look at Moldvay-

DM: "You think the jewel case is worth 100 gp and each bracelet is worth about 600 gp. Morgan seems to be moving very quietly."

So what happened? We have an application of the rule. Let's go through it. The player tested the item in the manner appropriate (e.g., wearing the boots). The result of the test was that the player identified the item (they are elven boots). Q.E.D.

There was no chance of failure. No DM created secret rolls. No debates about the definition of "can only." Just ... how people played in the 1980s.

Yup.

Edit: Well, I might go a little further. I do think that some folks back in the 80s played magic item testing as sometimes being ambiguous and not guaranteed to make the item clear, especially when they were playing AD&D or being influenced by the text of AD&D, which has more verbiage and rules allowing for that possibility. As we can clearly see from the results of Conankeep's surveys, where he keeps getting a ton of people importing interpretations from other editions which have such language and/or additional ways to identify items, including the Identify spell. As we all know, folks played a whole lotta different ways back in the 80s, just as they do now.

 

[conankeep]

because the very next response in the text was omitted

Thank you for pointing it out, a honest mistake of a hasty crop. I'll be sure to include a fixed version in my post and even add some captions. After all it exactly demonstrates my interpretation of the rules XD

Let's go through it. The player tested the item in the manner appropriate (e.g., wearing the boots). The result of the test was that the player identified the item (they are elven boots).

Remarkable!
That's literally not what is in the text XD
What actually happened is the DM described an effect appropriate to the situation. Exactly my point.
Q.E.D.

 

[Mannahnin]

What actually happened is the DM described an effect appropriate to the situation. Exactly my point.

Described the effect confirming the player's explicit supposition that they might be elven boots.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I'm confused what either 'side' of the argument thinks the textual exchange shows. Both sides would predict the same outcome in this scenario (the one confirmed in the example). Shouldn't we be looking for a scenario where one position would predict one outcome and the other side would predict a different one (the proverbial item of undead detection when none are present, etc.)?

 

[conankeep]

I feel like I owe you this one last effort at mutual understanding.

You have to invent the rule you're using

No, you really don't. Because you as a DM can rely on common sense and produce a ruling on the spot.
Sipping a potion of waterbreath and trying to breath under water? You feel as breathing fresh air.
Sipping a potion of waterbreath while ashore? You feel nothing special.
I take it you aren't going to argue making common sense rulings on the spot is what B/X explicitly expects from a DM. See page B60 "It's not in the rules!" section.

mport a potion of Neutralize Poison from outside of B/X

You are correct, the OP was me contemplating prepping an AD&D module to run in one of B/X retroclones. My point still stands regarding every other magic item (including some potions) with no apparent effect outside of certain specific conditions. * Edit: also note that B/X explicitly sates a magic potion can not be identified by taste or smell, because even potions with same effect will taste and smell differently (page B48).

You can't fail at trying a bite of my sandwich. You bite it, you now know what it tastes like.

Yes, but you absolutely can fail in identifying some of the ingredients or if those irritants will cause an allergic reaction in some other person. Because such an effect doesn't postulate when the conditions are not right (you took a bite instead of the person with the allergy)

Morgan tries walking in the boots, everyone immediately can tell that she's moving very quietly and thus that they are indeed Elven Boots.

That is metaknowledge and that literally was not provided by the DM in the example play. DM only voiced the magical effect apparent in those conditions (the player was even specifying they are paying attention if the boots are quieter).

 

[Maxperson]

Sometimes...

I mean, yeah. If you're sipping water and it's not a potion, it won't reveal a potion.

 

[conankeep]

Shouldn't we be looking for a scenario where one position would predict one outcome and the other side would predict a different one (the proverbial item of undead detection when none are present, etc.)?

Good point. Can't say this wasn't tried by me, but I'll try again.
My interpretation.

Player A finds a potion.
Player A: I take a sip, do I feel anything special?
DM (seeing this is a potion of control undead and there are no undead arround): No, you don't feel anything special. Failed testing attempt
Player B: Do we notice anything different in their apperieance?
DM (ruling out potion of control undead doesn't chage apperience): No, they look the same. Failed testing attempt
Player A: What if I look into the murderhole in the floor overlooking the sewer with the skeleton, I then try to focus on the skeleton.
DM: You feel like the skeleton is following in the path you control! (Successfull testing attempt)

 

[Voadam]

Do you realize you are trying to prove that something always holds true by providing examples how it is sometimes true? That's a common logical fallacy.

I can not tell what you think I am trying to prove always holds true here. I was disagreeing with your specific assertion that testing always implies a possible chance of failure.

My initial post argument for the topic of the thread in general was that the more natural reading of the B48 text for me is that sipping IDs potions in B/X, not that I was laying out a logical proof.

"A potion may be sipped to discover its type and then used later."

I read that as sip it and discover its type, not as sip it and you might be able to discover its type.

I even offered a suggested method for what a neutralize poison would feel like going from your view of the Basic potions being obvious effects that you feel and that is how you ID them from a sip, treat it the same as a healing potion when you are not down any hp, i.e. "you briefly feel it is flushing away toxins in your system."

On the contrary it is a valid proof that something doesn't always hold true if such an example of it not holding true is provided.

Which quite obviously are easy to provide.
For example, the notorious startup Theranos promised blood tests which would test for over a 100 parameters. However their tests mostly failed to produce accurate results due to inadequate conditions of their tests.

And I would not expect Moldvay to write that the Theranos test may be used to identify those 100 medical conditions the way he said "a potion may be sipped to discover its type."