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

[conankeep]

I wonder how many people still have the players go through all this testing and back and forth to determine what an item is?

I find that for myself, I can just say you find a Potion of Invisibility and Boots of Elvenkind and assume that the PCs go through some actions to determine what they are. This could even be over a short rest but I tend to just reward and move on.

I tend to suspect most threads like this fall into the same as why I no longer use a 10ft pole, or worry what darkvision really is, or need a standard open door sequence or open a chest.

This is an important observation. How much of the old-school procedures are simply a routine bump and tedium, and how much are actually bring value to the game? But honestly I think it is too large of a topic and deserves its own thread, I'm not really ready to address it in this thread.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Yes, your understanding of my interpretation is correct as far as I understand. While I agree there is no functional difference with elven boots specifically and many other items, disagreements arise when some potion with no clearly apparent effect. Specifically some potions, like a potion of control undead from my previous example.

Okay, that is the type of scenario I wanted instead of the one provided (and why I questioned why the one provided was then provided).

 

[conankeep]

And maybe I was reading too quickly and missed something, but I totally didn't know (until the post you made saying so) that you weren't a native speaker. Your use of English in your posts seems fine to me.

Thank you. Right from the start I didn't make a secret out of being a non-native speaker back when I expected a discussion in good faith. Naturally I fully acknowledge being a non-native speaker might affect my interpretation of rules. I couldn't have guessed it would be used to harass me.

I see the user in question has already altered all posts in this thread. It seems my latest reports of their thinly veiled insults might go unnoticed because of that, not sure if he is going to get even a formal warning.

I realized I shouldn't hope for an apology, but seeing this user alter his post is at least some acknowledgement of shame. I'll take that as the next best thing.

 

[Mannahnin]

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

I do appreciate the civility! I'm sorry that you've felt bullied. That was never my intent. I'm sure it was not your intent to troll or to engage in bad faith either.

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.

...that's literally the exact same thing. This feels like trolling. Although I'm certain that you're sincere.

Producing a ruling is inventing a rule. They are the same thing, unless you want to split hairs, perhaps, by saying that you don't feel bound to be consistent and rule the same way in the future? But that just seems universally worse for ongoing play; to rule it one way but for the players not to be able to rely on that ruling going forward.

B60 "That's not in the rules" clearly applies to jumping and swimming. It seems dubious to apply it to identification of magic items, which explicitly IS covered in the rules.

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).

Yes, we once more run into the issue of your confusion being rooted in missing or just ignoring the context. At least that's how it seems to me. It may just be that we think in some fundamentally different ways.

Context: This is an example of play showing apparently experienced players. Morgan searches the "pile of rags" asking specifically if there's anything like a cloak or boots. The DM confirms there are boots. There is literally only one kind of magic boots in 1981 Basic. Morgan declares she's trying out the unknown boots to see if she moves silently and thus check if they are indeed Boots of Elvenkind. The DM tells the players what the item is by giving a diagetic description directly confirming that the item is exactly what Morgan was hoping.

 

[Mannahnin]

This is an important observation. How much of the old-school procedures are simply a routine bump and tedium, and how much are actually bring value to the game? But honestly I think it is too large of a topic and deserves its own thread, I'm not really ready to address it in this thread.

For my part, I think the rules of B/X are indeed a deliberate simplification and streamlining of the vaguer and more difficult rules in AD&D 1E.

If we compare the texts of one to the other, and bear in mind the context that B/X was published a mere two years after the AD&D DMG, it's hard to think that any other explanation is plausible.

 

[Lanefan]

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

The rules quote outright says it's more than just putting on the boots - it's putting on the boots and then doing some checks to see if they're quieter. Lo and behold, they were: they player's guess* was right.

Had that failed the next check might have been to see if the wearer leaves tracks in soft earth, or if the boots lift you off the ground, or if they let you run faster than normal, or ...

* - for all we know the character might have had prior experience with elven boots and thus had an idea what to look for.

 

[Lanefan]

My only question after all this sipping (this thread makes me thirsty).

If a sip is sufficient, which the rules imply, then would it be OK to just tell the players what the potion does when they find it? If we assume they sip everything, and there's no risk involved it sort of becomes standard procedure right?

There is a risk involved. If the "potion" is poison and you take a sip, that's bad news.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Mod Note:
So, a question for you to answer to yourself....

"If this thread is so bad, why do I keep engaging with it?"

Not that some others have comported themselves all that well - you started with what was, technically, a valid bit of logic. That it says, "you can only determine what it does by testing" does NOT actually say that testing is 100% effective.

And that has blown up into this 22 page monstrosity, with at least one person taking it to a level of mockery that is just shy of them getting into trouble.

Eventually, someone has to realize that this is overblown due to people being stubborn and not allowing others the last word. So, I'll take the last word.

Thread closed.