Mindflayer mindwipe and abuse

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.

Fortunately, this has had no impact on my past two ascensions, as
copious use of identify discovered the scroll of amnesia
and mindflayers were countered with "E", wands of magic missile,
polearms, and scrolls of genocide.

However, I cannot always count on being so blessed. So how is this
solved ingame?

My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
detection to "gold", without success.

Perhaps I should keep an individual named specimen of each scroll
safely tucked away in a box, and if I get mindwiped go up and use the
contents of the box to refresh my memory?

Or is there a more elegant way to do this?

BTW, I'm doing this because I want my ascensions to be unquestionable
-- I'd hate to put an * next to the YAAP notation. But I've never
really understood why this is an abuse. We keep copious notes of
what's on each level and what the inventory of our stashes are, don't
we? Why do we keep those notes but destroy the object identification
ones? If a PC is relying totally on his memory, he should lose that
information as well. If he's keeping that information recorded (in a
notebook, say), why should he record the one and not the other?

Isn't it reasonable that a wizard with 18 intel who has devoted his
life to study, or an archeologist who has survived Ph.D level
coursework, would not rely solely on his memory during the most
important quest of his life? Wouldn't some method of notetaking to
track inventory management and object identification be an elementary
precaution even schoolkids will think of, much less the super-genius
types that are the nethack spellcasting classes?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
> in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.

I've rad that in the past and I mentioned it a couple
of months ago. The resulting discussion was quite
interesting.

> So how is this solved ingame?
>
> My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
> things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
> detection to "gold", without success.

I have never had any trouble doing a #name/y on any
non-artifact weapon, but then again I've never tried to
overlap it's object type either. I've named rocks
254378 in that game turn (a trick to keep them from
stacking when doing a polypile - if I get even one
jet stone from a hundred rocks it's profit of some sort),
but I've never named a rock "rock".

> Perhaps I should keep an individual named specimen of each scroll
> safely tucked away in a box, and if I get mindwiped go up and use the
> contents of the box to refresh my memory?
> Or is there a more elegant way to do this?

That's the deal, but a name like "+ vellum = cone of cold"
is considered an abuse by many.

> But I've never
> really understood why this is an abuse.

Note the feeling is not unanimous.

> We keep copious notes of
> what's on each level and what the inventory of our stashes are, don't
> we?

No. I don't and plenty of others don't. That's
not to say I keep no notes at all. I don't bother
to record interesting levels like some do as I only
keep a couple of stashes so I can remember those in
my head. I do record my current luck, whether I am
safe to pray, what my current goal luck is because
I can't remember those across saves when I don't play
every day.

> Isn't it reasonable that a wizard with 18 intel who has devoted his
> life to study, or an archeologist who has survived Ph.D level
> coursework, would not rely solely on his memory during the most
> important quest of his life? Wouldn't some method of notetaking to
> track inventory management and object identification be an elementary
> precaution even schoolkids will think of, much less the super-genius
> types that are the nethack spellcasting classes?

This is one side of the argument. I wonder how far it
should be taken. I'd rather ID amnesia and genocide
the two types of mind flayer than need to keep a stack
of runestones with notes cribbed onto them about what
type of object is what "[ snow = fumble" or
"? README = enchant armor".

Exactly what is and what isn't an abuse is a matter of
taste.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
> > things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
> > detection to "gold", without success.
>
> If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
> the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.

Possible name/call aka #name-y/#name-n confusion?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

I was trying to do a #name-n.

Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

-- not that Exploratory mode is cheating, it's just that it doesn't
seem right to post YAAP when it was near impossible to die, even after
having been murdered by soldier ants 30 times

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"That's the deal, but a name like "+ vellum = cone of cold"
is considered an abuse by many. "

Oh come now. What am I supposed to name it? "A vellum spellbook called
rhymes with old"? "A vellum spellbook called freezer?"

The entire point of putting aside a museum stash is to ensure I can
identify objects if I forget what they are. In which case, it makes
sense to give the objects clear, unmistakable, unambiguous names that
even a Valkyrie with 4 int (which is what I am now playing) couldn't
screw up.

I understand doing it in game. But why should my character deliberately
make it harder on him/herself? He/she already eschews robbing shops,
murdering peacefuls, foocubi dancing, and pudding farming. I'd say
he/she's already got enough of a row to hoe without adding deliberately
cryptic names to something that should be straightforward.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was trying to do a #name-n.
>
> Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
> other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
> the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

IMO,
Personally, I don't see using notes after a mindflayer attack to be
cheating at all.

I don't take notes, but I have a pretty good memory and usually
remember what the most important scrolls and wands are. I don't see a
good reason that taking notes is any different from just
remembering--both are out-of-game knowledge. And there's no reason
that a character couldn't #name/#call things in game to remind himself;
indeed if you know mindflayers exist then writing down maps,
identifying attributes of useful items, etc is just good sense.

The only thing out-of-game notes really buy you over #naming things,
engraving messages, etc is a better interface to text editing. Not
anything worth getting worked up about.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:

Calling and naming are very different things and get
very different reactions. Sure enough you have the
confusion I asked about.

> I was trying to do a #name-n.

Which does not accomplish what you want since it too
is wiped my mind flayer attacks. The word usually
used for this is "call". Calling is in the game as
a tentative form of identification and it is widely
used. Calling is a standard action in many games by
many people. Calling puts your names in the discovery
list that is subject to mind flayer wipe.

> Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
> other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
> the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

If you do it with calling, no one will care in the
least. It's poor strategy to decline doing it.
But you did mention keeping outside notes of your
discoveries, that's not the same thing.

The objection is to putting your entire catalog of
discoveries in hoard using #name-y. The word usually
used for this is "name". (Call verus name come from
the message involved and from how to name Sting).

With call, you can only give one handle per type of
object so every time you call an object the old
meaning gets replaced. A blue gem may go through
handles like "blue soft", "blue soft common" and
"blue worthless" before being identified and the
call becomes worthless. A wand may go through
handles like "etch noth obvious" then "zap noth
obvious" before being identified and the call
becomes worthless.

Naming is a very different story. Pick up one
rock. Name it "+ vellum = identify". Drop it in
your hoard. Pick up one rock. Name it the next
entry in your discovery list. Lather rinse repeat
until you have gone through your entire discovery
list. Meet an MMF, get memory wiped. Return to
hoard, relearn it all. Many call that cheating.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Nan Wang wrote:
> I think unless it's done in an out of the game way (notepad, eg), then
> it's not cheating.

But the only real difference between naming a pile of rocks and using a
text editor is a somewhat nicer interface (assuming you carry the
rocks, or name something you carry).

And if you're a character in a world where mindflayers live, you'd
certainly want to write this stuff down (by naming rocks or whatever)
for this very reason.

It's not cheating or abusive, it's just smart play.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
> things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
> detection to "gold", without success.

If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.

> Perhaps I should keep an individual named specimen of each scroll
> safely tucked away in a box, and if I get mindwiped go up and use the
> contents of the box to refresh my memory?
>
> Or is there a more elegant way to do this?

Janis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
>>>things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
>>>detection to "gold", without success.
>>
>>If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
>>the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.
>
> Possible name/call aka #name-y/#name-n confusion?

At the OP's or on my side? At least your question confused me _now_! ;-)

From the OP's problem with a "scroll of gold detection" and a mind flayer
I guess he wanted to 'call' it (i.e. name a non-individual object).

Janis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

I was hanging out with the cool kids in rec.games.roguelike.nethack when
pendell@hotmail.com got out a spraycan and scrawled the following:
[ ways to circumvent effects of amnesia ]
>
> BTW, I'm doing this because I want my ascensions to be unquestionable
> -- I'd hate to put an * next to the YAAP notation. But I've never
> really understood why this is an abuse. We keep copious notes of
> what's on each level and what the inventory of our stashes are, don't
> we? Why do we keep those notes but destroy the object identification
> ones? If a PC is relying totally on his memory, he should lose that
> information as well. If he's keeping that information recorded (in a
> notebook, say), why should he record the one and not the other?

Forgetting things due to a flaying is the thing I worry about most in
the late game - much more so than the worries about brainlessness (I've
never found a (M)MF before a unihorn, except when a poly trap was
nearby) - because in my nice, ordered gameplay style I want to identify
everything. And in , with its !oAmnesia (normally thrown at you by
other monsters), or the Hell Patch feat. Cthluhlu, the problem's even
worse...

However, I consider any kind of note-taking to be an abuse - if the game
says you've forgotten something, then you've forgotten it. The one time
that I did cut-and-paste the contents of my discoveries list to another
window before going up to the mind flayer, I felt like I'd cheated. The
two exceptions that I allow myself are:

The pass-tune. While I'm working it out, I write down the combinations
I've tried on a corner of an old envelope, and I usually still have the
envelope lying around until I've ascended or had YASD. However, AFAIK,
you can't forget this due to any kind of amnesia, so it's not any kind
of gain.

Things that stick in my OOC memory - normally the armour and
accessories that I'm wearing, or any other interesting combinations
(like that time that =oSD and =oFA were sapphire and steel).

--
Glyn Kennington - remove caps from email address to reply

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
> It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
> in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.

I think unless it's done in an out of the game way (notepad, eg), then
it's not cheating.

Otherwise, (C)alling a nymph "bitch who stole my cloak" would be cheating
as well. Or #name my lizard corpse "VS 48 SE 62,18".

But, since #name,n does not invalidate illiteracy, your character is somehow
memorizing everything in his head, so it's a gray area.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
> I was trying to do a #name-n.

Ok, so it is possible to name it as I suggested upthread.

> Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
> other details, do I have the right to post YAAP?

Yes. (Even any less strict term than "the _right_ to post".)

> Or is it cheating,

Not a bit. IMO.

> the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

Explore mode is not to compare with savescum; the latter makes
it possible to create an ascension record■. Though few people
here are interested in reports of both of these, I am sure.

Janis

■ BTW, it's easier to edit the record file without playing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 pendell@hotmail.com wrote:

> "That's the deal, but a name like "+ vellum = cone of cold"
> is considered an abuse by many. "
>
> Oh come now. What am I supposed to name it? "A vellum spellbook called
> rhymes with old"? "A vellum spellbook called freezer?"
>
> The entire point of putting aside a museum stash is to ensure I can
> identify objects if I forget what they are. In which case, it makes
> sense to give the objects clear, unmistakable, unambiguous names that
> even a Valkyrie with 4 int (which is what I am now playing) couldn't
> screw up.
>
> I understand doing it in game. But why should my character deliberately
> make it harder on him/herself? He/she already eschews robbing shops,
> murdering peacefuls, foocubi dancing, and pudding farming. I'd say
> he/she's already got enough of a row to hoe without adding deliberately
> cryptic names to something that should be straightforward.

Is #naming a mental proceddure or a written one ? When you #name a stone
"red - glass" after throwing it at unicorn, you probably don't write
anything on the stone itself but take mental notes that stones looking
like this or that are nothing valuable. Even when you price-id "READ ME"
as being identify, you don't write on the scroll (it might alter its
magic) but mainly take mental notes.

Remember you don't even have paper (well, you might have if we suppose
that blank scrolls/spellbooks are already magical) and neither markers (or
you could write Elbereth with it rather than scratching your fingers evey
other move).

And if it's mental notes, then they're subject to be forgotten by mental
attacks... Of course, amnesia could also remove some of the #naming done
previouly to handle this in-game.

[And amnesia should also randomize inventory letters, I once got mind
flayed in Gehennom and only realize in front of the planes that I had
forgotten which of my four rings where what (SD, FA, levitation and
conflict) althought I had used them and swapped them during the whole run
just because I knew by heart the inventory letter associated with each]

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Adresse mail plus valide à partir de septembre 2005.
Utiliser l'adresse de redirection permanente :
Jean-Yves.Moyen `at` ens-lyon.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jean-Yves.Moyen@ens-lyon.org wrote:
>
> [And amnesia should also randomize inventory letters, I once got mind
> flayed in Gehennom and only realize in front of the planes that I had
> forgotten which of my four rings where what (SD, FA, levitation and
> conflict)

Even if you forget the types of the rings, the last two are easily and
very quickly re-identifyable.

> althought I had used them and swapped them during the whole run
> just because I knew by heart the inventory letter associated with each]

Janis

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

> Jean-Yves.Moyen@ens-lyon.org wrote:
> >
> > [And amnesia should also randomize inventory letters, I once got mind
> > flayed in Gehennom and only realize in front of the planes that I had
> > forgotten which of my four rings where what (SD, FA, levitation and
> > conflict)
>
> Even if you forget the types of the rings, the last two are easily and
> very quickly re-identifyable.

Agree. But that is just to explain a bit the problem.

I know one of these wands is cancellation and the other teleportation.
Which one do I zap on me to save my ass ? (question becomes more obvious
if wands have inventory letters 'C' and 'T'...)

Of course, to prevent the "abuse" of remembering that wands of uranium are
cancellation [obviously radioactivity is not nice with magic], you could
even randomise appearance of forgotten items, but that would have much
more consequence with nothing to do with amnesia.

OTOH, that would also makes amnesia much more interesting... "Hit me again
mind flayer, I want those fruit juice to become smoky !"

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

Adresse mail plus valide à partir de septembre 2005.
Utiliser l'adresse de redirection permanente :
Jean-Yves.Moyen `at` ens-lyon.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Doug Freyburger wrote:

> > I was trying to do a #name-n.
>
> Which does not accomplish what you want since it too
> is wiped my mind flayer attacks. The word usually
> used for this is "call". Calling is in the game as
> a tentative form of identification and it is widely
> used. Calling is a standard action in many games by
> many people. Calling puts your names in the discovery
> list that is subject to mind flayer wipe.

> The objection is to putting your entire catalog of
> discoveries in hoard using #name-y. The word usually
> used for this is "name". (Call verus name come from
> the message involved and from how to name Sting).

Which, by the way, I find a bit strange since when you 'C'all your pet you
don't give name to every single gray dragon in the dungeon...

--
Hypocoristiquement,
Jym.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

My opinion is that giving names to all your rocks seems like a
memorisation strategy best suited for autists

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 9/14/05 1:15 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
>>things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
>>detection to "gold", without success.
>
>
> If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
> the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.
>
True, but not helpful in this instance. "Called" item types will also be
wiped by a mind flayer attack. Only individually #named items will remain.

--
Kevin Wayne

"Stark raving sane."
--Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

On 9/14/05 9:10 AM, pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
> It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
> in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.
>
> Fortunately, this has had no impact on my past two ascensions, as
> copious use of identify discovered the scroll of amnesia
> and mindflayers were countered with "E", wands of magic missile,
> polearms, and scrolls of genocide.
>
> However, I cannot always count on being so blessed. So how is this
> solved ingame?
>
> My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
> things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
> detection to "gold", without success.

When it asks whether you want to #name the item individually, you have
to answer "yes." #Naming general classes of items will also be wiped by
a mind flayer attack.
>
> Perhaps I should keep an individual named specimen of each scroll
> safely tucked away in a box, and if I get mindwiped go up and use the
> contents of the box to refresh my memory?
>
> Or is there a more elegant way to do this?

Save several blessed scrolls of ID in that same box, or a blessed
spellbook of identify. Just go back and re-id your stuff. Not a big deal.
>
> BTW, I'm doing this because I want my ascensions to be unquestionable
> -- I'd hate to put an * next to the YAAP notation. But I've never
> really understood why this is an abuse.

It's considered by some an abuse because it gets around an obvious
intentional effect of mind flayer attack by out-of-game means.

> We keep copious notes of what's on each level and what the inventory
> of our stashes are, don't we? Why do we keep those notes but destroy
> the object identification ones?

Not all of us keep such copious notes. But even if you recall the level
of, say, the Sokoban entrance, if that level is wiped from your memory,
you'll still have to re-explore it or magic map it.

> If a PC is relying totally on his memory, he should lose that
> information as well.

The player isn't likely to recall the physical description of most
identified items, since they are no longer shown to the player once the
item is ID'd. Hence the recurring discussion involving notes.

> If he's keeping that information recorded (in a
> notebook, say), why should he record the one and not the other?
>
> Isn't it reasonable that a wizard with 18 intel who has devoted his
> life to study, or an archeologist who has survived Ph.D level
> coursework, would not rely solely on his memory during the most
> important quest of his life? Wouldn't some method of notetaking to
> track inventory management and object identification be an elementary
> precaution even schoolkids will think of, much less the super-genius
> types that are the nethack spellcasting classes?

Do you write notes for yourself like, "The blue stick in my pocket is a
pen. I use it by pushing the button on the end, and then rubbing the
other pointy end against sheets of white stuff called paper"? Of course,
you may not be expecting mind flayer attacks in real life, but amnesia
does rarely occur.

My point is that some things you simply expect to remember. Barring mind
flayer attack, you will unfailingly recall every item you've identified,
the layout of every level you've visited, and even such items as the
passtune. The only reason for keeping the type of notes you're
suggesting is specifically to get around the effects of mind flayer attack.

I think it's unnecessary, as well. You probably won't have to deal with
mind flayers before the Castle. By that point, you should have
identified the identify scroll. You can stash a few blessed ID scrolls
or a blessed spellbook of identify somewhere where you can be sure of
finding it again, and then reread and ID all your stuff again.

Which leads to the question, what about not exactly remembering, but
*inferring* what former objects were? (I.e., you go back to your
"special stash" and see a thin spellbook and 5 scrolls labeled VELOX
NEB. If you don't "know" what they are, how plausible is it that you
would immediately read them?) IMO, such inferrences that can be made by
reason are perfectly okay. "This curved wand suddenly looks unfamiliar,
but the only one I had outside my bag was a wand of death, so I'll #name
it 'death.' I don't recognize the scrolls in this chest, but it was
identify scrolls that I put in here, so I guess I'll read one."

--
Kevin Wayne

"I am waiting for Vizzini. I will no be moved."
--Inigo Montoya

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Jean-Yves.Moyen@ens-lyon.org wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> > > I was trying to do a #name-n.
>
> > Which does not accomplish what you want since it too
> > is wiped my mind flayer attacks. The word usually
> > used for this is "call". Calling is in the game as
> > a tentative form of identification and it is widely
> > used. Calling is a standard action in many games by
> > many people. Calling puts your names in the discovery
> > list that is subject to mind flayer wipe.
>
> > The objection is to putting your entire catalog of
> > discoveries in hoard using #name-y. The word usually
> > used for this is "name". (Call verus name come from
> > the message involved and from how to name Sting).
>
> Which, by the way, I find a bit strange since when you 'C'all your pet you
> don't give name to every single gray dragon in the dungeon...

I agree that it is strange with naming pets. Consider
how items are displayed:

a - an uncursed gem called soft black
b - an uncursed worthless piece of yellow glass named + vellum = FoD

The word comes from how it is displayed and naming pets
seems to be older than that functionality.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting <pendell@hotmail.com>:
>It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
>in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.
>My first thought is copious use of the #name feature --

I really don't see any difference between that and just keeping notes.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, September.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting <pendell@hotmail.com>:
>Lemme cut to the core of this: If I keep copious notes on this and
>other details, do I have the right to post YAAP? Or is it cheating,
>the way scumsaving or (say) Exploratory mode is ?

I certainly don't think it's cheating at all. Mindflayer memory loss is a
bit of a misfeature for just this reason. There are unavoidable
consequences such as inability to write scrolls thereafter.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, September.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Quoting Nan Wang <nwang@panix.com>:
>pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>>It has come to my attention that keeping detailed identification notes
>>in case of mindflayer mindwipe is considered abusive.
>I think unless it's done in an out of the game way (notepad, eg), then
>it's not cheating.

What possible difference does using a more convenient interface to have
the exact same effect make?
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Oneiros, September.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Kevin Wayne wrote:
> On 9/14/05 1:15 PM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> pendell@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> My first thought is copious use of the #name feature -- but what about
>>> things that can't be named? I've tried renaming a scroll of gold
>>> detection to "gold", without success.
>>
>> If you name an already identified item you won't see the 'called' name in
>> the inventory listing, but you will see it in the '\' discoveries list.
>>
> True, but not helpful in this instance. "Called" item types will also be
> wiped by a mind flayer attack. Only individually #named items will remain.

Yes, that's right. I was just referring to the "can't be named" to clarify
that.

Janis