Proposal: spellbooks remain identified

[tasonir]

Proposal: After identifying a non-artifact spellbook, future copies of that spellbook should be identified automatically.

I think I submitted this idea before, but it didn't gain much traction. So I'm going to invoke the fallacy of argument from authority to prove my case instead.

-Spellbooks always being unidentified. Why is it that, once I've identified a book of power, all future books of power are still unidentified? Why are spellbooks the only items to behave like this? Does this actually add anything to the gameplay? Right now it's kind of silly that you have to read each and every spellbook you find, even though they may be duplicates (all this changes is that you waste a turn reading it). All books of power have the same set of spells, so once you identify one, you should identify all of them.

Silly, folks. SILLY. evilmike said it, not me, go fix it.

Second post from here. Posted in January 2011.

[khalil]

I'm with you on this one. I never understood what was up with that.

[Psieye]

I believe it was the whole "suspense of whether the loot is good or not", as a relevant spellbook is as significant as finding a good randart on a melee guy. Having said that, "you need to pick it up and stare at it to identify it" was noted as being silly so there was a proposal somewhere for "ID books by walking over them".

[siggboy]

The suspense argument is bollocks (I'm not saying that you're making it, mind you). The books are just like scrolls and potions: there's exactly one "plain hardcover book" in the game, and it's always the same book. Books should therefore IDed just like scrolls and potions (i.e. have an icon when IDed, and be excluded from auto-pickup automatically).

Not that it bothers me much how it is right now, as it doesn't really matter for actual play.

[dpeg]

psieye correctly summarised it.

siggyboy: Thanks for making the decisions for us!

[jejorda2]

How do you know there is exactly one plain hardcover book in the game? I'm pretty sure I've seen two "leather books" in the same square that ended up being two different spellbooks.

Theme-wise, before printing presses and mass production, each hand made book could easily have a different binding. Or every book bound by a particular scribe might look the same until he ran out of one material and started using another. I don't know that it is important to keep this distinction, but it isn't unthinkable that seeing a second copy of a book you've seen before wouldn't immediately let you identify it.

I wouldn't be strongly against taking multiple turns to identify spellbooks, since it takes time to flip through the pages and take note of what spells are present. I don't know how long books existed before someone thought of the table of contents or the index. There wouldn't be much point to it, since memorization already takes time.

[mumra]

I'm not totally convinced by the arguments - I mean apparently every ring of foo in the game looks identical and you're able to recognise them from the other side of the room. The same arguments could be applied to any item category and I'm not sure why books are special in this regard. Are unidentified randbooks not enough of a loot incentive to be able to at least identify Minor Magic on sight when you already have 3 copies stashed? For loot vaults e.g. Crypt we could guarantee at least one randbook so there is always an incentive to check the loot ...

[XuaXua]

I'm not totally convinced by the arguments - I mean apparently every ring of foo in the game looks identical and you're able to recognize them from the other side of the room.

This.

[moocowmoocow]

I agree that it's unnecessary for books to be singled out this way. It's a small issue, but it adds a bit more tedium and inventory management for no apparent good reason.

[TwilightPhoenix]

Let's think of this in reverse. Assume that Spellbooks identify and stay identified like all other items do and then read the following proposal.


"Hello, I have a proposal I'd like to make. I know all items that have multiple copies, such as rings and scrolls, are currently recognized from across the room when you've identified them. However, for books, I'd like to remove this function and require the player have to pick up and read the book in order to identify it, even if its a copy of a book they've seen once, twice, or a dozen times before. Mind, this is only for books. Potions, scrolls, rings, and so forth would all remain the same. I feel this would greatly enhance gameplay because then you'd never know what kind of book you're going to find until you actually pick it up."


Would that be a good proposal you'd want to add to the game or something you'd rather shoot down in a heartbeat?

[dpeg]

I'm not totally convinced by the arguments - I mean apparently every ring of foo in the game looks identical and you're able to recognise them from the other side of the room. The same arguments could be applied to any item category and I'm not sure why books are special in this regard. Are unidentified randbooks not enough of a loot incentive to be able to at least identify Minor Magic on sight when you already have 3 copies stashed? For loot vaults e.g. Crypt we could guarantee at least one randbook so there is always an incentive to check the loot ...

I believe that the underlying reason is this: Let us consider when an item you see from afar may make you go there and have a look at it. Currently, with books, this is always the case. Now, with rings this can be the case throughout all game -- if that ring is a randart. Therefore, jewellery loot can always be "hidden" and therefore "attractive". Books achieve that by not identifying further copies.

It is true that there are random books but that's a recentish addition. A different approach to the point raised by the OP would be to make many (or even almost all) books randomly generated books. Then you would have to pick up for identification and the point would be moot, although I am not sure it'd be better for the gameplay.

Put another way: Crawl has a large number of spells and throughout a game, certain spells might be attractive; this makes books potential good loot for (any spellcasting) character. They share this property with randart jewellery.

[I agree that the interface would be improved by identifying books when stepping over them.]

[nicolae]

It is true that there are random books but that's a recentish addition. A different approach to the point raised by the OP would be to make many (or even almost all) books randomly generated books. Then you would have to pick up for identification and the point would be moot, although I am not sure it'd be better for the gameplay.

Why wouldn't it be better for gameplay?

[XuaXua]

Part of the problem here is the two or three books (Annihilations and Necronomicon?) that are completely unidentifiable unless you have the appropriate skill level. This sort of justification is not used elsewhere on lesser books, which makes this inconsistent. That's really the onyl gameplay involved here; that and "do I use flying/apportation to snag that unidentified book over there or go after that ring which I might already have; oh wait, it's see invisible and I have that ring? Totally means I need to go after the book because it's the only thing I'm not certain of.