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

[Snarf Zagyg]

See post # 3.

See also this thread.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The bolded hasn't been something anyone has argued. Folks have been arguing what RAW says, not that the DM can't create an item that can't be identified that way or change the rule entirely.

Absent a change by the DM to the rule, magical effect, or circumstances, identification was automatic.

 

[Maxperson]

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

No, you really don't. Because you as a DM can rely on common sense and produce a ruling on the spot.

Er, this IS inventing a rule. Both "relying on common sense" and "producing a ruling" indicate that either 1) there is no rule regarding the issue, which isn't the case with magic item identification, or that you are changing a rule that exists, which is the case as we have a rule on magic item identification.

What you just argued essentially acknowledges that the rule allows for automatic identification, but since you don't like it and/or think it doesn't make sense, you are changing it with a ruling.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Yep. Without a roll and simply by putting on the boots.

 

[conankeep]

it would be that you are insistent that-

1. Native language speakers do not understand their own language, even when they provide detailed grammatical breakdowns for you.
2. People who actually played B/X in the 1980s do not know what the rules are, even when they are the people who provided you the rule.
3. People who have demonstrated expertise in the rulesets of TSR-era D&D do not know what they are talking about.

1. No, that's not what I'm insistent on
2. No, that's not what I'm insistent on
3. No, that's not what I'm insistent on
Attributing something a person never said to attack it instead of what the person was actually arguing for is a common logical fallacy called a strawman fallacy.

I take it however you imply that these 3 categories are infallible in rules interpretation. That's obviously not true and is a common logical fallacy.

 

[Vrindlevine]

If the retainer survives and gets back to town, you can bet word will spread pretty fast about your mistreatment of said retainer...who by that point will have likely quit being your retainer anyway.

Yes, if they survive.

And if the retainer doesn't make it back to town, others might think "Hmmmm, the last guy this person hired never came back -am I really sure I wanna take that job?"

Lots of people take jobs where the previous staff have been mistreated, its a tough world out there. Maybe in your settings its fairly light-hearted and jobs are available for these people regardless of the risk. I will also say in the past I have paid out "severance" to the families of especially loyal retainers who did not survive their forays with us (that is also in the contract).

Also again, my previously mentioned party that used captured bandits as retainers. No legitimate retainer will care about the word of a bandit and not handing potentially rare artifacts or potions to a bandit who is currently working off their debt to society (wouldn't use quite that term in setting but you get the idea) is perfectly reasonable, though it may get some time off their sentence.

Contract or not, how you treat your retainers will almost always have downstream effects on your later ability to hire or keep retainers.

True enough. This reminds me of a time we played as an extremely fanatical party of Heironeous worshipers, all of our retainers were essentially religious zealots that would do anything we asked (within reason, i.e. no worshipping Hextor). They knew their greatest reward was waiting for them beyond the veil.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

See post # 3.

See also this thread.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

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)

Unless you place every magic item directly adjacent to where the party could test it, requiring players to be THIS SPECIFIC in their testing pretty much ensures they will not be able to identify most magic items.

The rules interpretation is irrelevant - this would be absolutely miserable to experience in actual play.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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

Thank you for your efforts. However, I meant looking for an example in the text. You brought forward this piece of text, so this one isn't something someone else did to you. Can you explain why you brought it forward? It doesn't support either position because it is a scenario where both positions agree on how the exchange would go down.

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.

And your responses support this. You responded to the statement "the word 'testing' already implies a possibility of failure, wouldn't you agree?" with an explanation of how a test might not have failure as an outcome. In no way does that resemble trying to prove that something always holds true.

You are correct- this is, in fact, truly remarkable. I am ... in awe.

That said, I will try my very best to be straightforward and keep in mind that you are likely not understanding some subtleties in the responses- sarcasm, irony, understatement, and so on. But to recap my view of the situation, it would be that you are insistent that-

1. Native language speakers do not understand their own language, even when they provide detailed grammatical breakdowns for you.
2. People who actually played B/X in the 1980s do not know what the rules are, even when they are the people who provided you the rule.
3. People who have demonstrated expertise in the rulesets of TSR-era D&D do not know what they are talking about.

I will be 100% honest with you- at this point, I can't tell if this is a piece of performance art on your part or not. Because if it is ... bravo! You got me. If not ... well ... I'm not even mad. I'm impressed.

I think I started the using of 'performance art' to maybe-politely describe trolling when everyone darn well knows that's what they are doing, so I probably have some culpability here. This was not kind. The person you are disagreeing with, if nothing else, has been earnest and straightforward, with a cogent (if, I believe, incorrect) argument. They clearly believe their position, and by all accounts have been trying to argue it rationally. They've been on the receiving end of a dogpile (never an enviable position) I think in part caused by going up against you, the resident forum golden child (back from a year of prodigality), and have been mostly polite about it. Amongst the vast quantities of trolling, ragebaiting, and people who will shoehorn their pet causes and tired vitriol into whatever discussion they happen to find themselves in, I'm not at all clear why this specific discussion is the one you have decided is the act of performance art.

Unless you place every magic item directly adjacent to where the party could test it, requiring players to be THIS SPECIFIC in their testing pretty much ensures they will not be able to identify most magic items.

The rules interpretation is irrelevant - this would be absolutely miserable to experience in actual play.

To be fair, that doesn't exactly rule it out as either accidental or intentional RAW for TSR era A/D&D.

 

[conankeep]

Unless you place every magic item directly adjacent to where the party could test it, requiring players to be THIS SPECIFIC in their testing pretty much ensures they will not be able to identify most magic items.

The rules interpretation is irrelevant - this would be absolutely miserable to experience in actual play.

I respect your opinion, but somewhat disagree, if there are no adequate testing conditions for a specific magic item nowhere near to be found, then said magic item is not helpful to the party in this environment and can be safely stored for later use (and for identification by an NPC MU).

An example is a water breathing potion in a dungeon with no water. It's not an item that can be immediately useful to the players, so it's irrelevant the party can't identify it at this moment.