Ghost rules discussion

[Galaer]

I'm not supreme ghost player, but optional objectives feels a bit like extra loot and extra secrets. It's optional stuff. For supreme ghost run you are allowed to skip certain loot and secrets if they break a supreme. So it feels kinda weird that optional objectives don't work the same way. Maybe it should be added to perfect thief and perfect supreme requirements instead.

[klatremus]

Question: I encountered another scenario that brings the "property damage" rule into question. In The Turning of the Leaves you have several padlocks that can be cut open with bolt cutters. Although you can instead pick most of them open with lockpicks, you don't get the lockpicks until you enter the thieves' hideout, and the entry gate to their hideout has a padlock on it, so you have to use the cutters there (I think). Isn't cutting the padlock a clear case of property damage? The reason I'm asking is you are not applying damage using a weapon or applying force (well you are, technically), you are simply "using" an inventory item as an alternate way to open a lock. Thoughts?

[marbleman]

I think using quest items should be excused from this rule, similar to how driking the potion in Broken Triad doesn't render the run a chemical success.

[Grandmauden]

I haven't played Broken Triad in a while, but wasn't there an objective related to that potion/ritual that allowed it to be excused?

Personally, I would consider cutting the padlock to be property damage, even if the bolt cutters are "used" like a key. The padlock ends up broken and no longer usable, which would definitely count as leaving evidence of your presence.

Speaking of property damage in this mission, what about when you have to cut through the brush to reach the river? Is it a bust like breaking the icicles in Trail of Blood, or is it excused like breaking a cobweb to get loot in What Lies Below?

[klatremus]

I can't say I remember the incident in Broken Triad you referred to. I quickly looked at my reports for both missions, but couldn't find what you are talking about. Please elaborate if you remember it.

I agree I think the padlock breaking is a bust. To me, "using" an item vs dealing damage with weapon or force really is irrelevant. All it does is adding another layer to the rule that never was meant to be there. My two most important factors are 1) property: does the item/structure belong to somebody, and if destroyed will therefore be noticed. Such items are brick walls, glass, crates, wires, locks, etc. 2) Is there visible or audible damage that anything has been destroyed. In the padlock not only is the locking mechanism audibly destroyed (the lock opens), but it's also visibly broken and clearly unusable. I agree, a bust.

The brush wall by the river in Turning of the Leaves is to me not someone's property. It's just an overgrown part of the forest. It is identical to the cobweb in What Lies Below (yes the cobweb I guess belongs to the spider, but come on). I'm actually inclined to say the icicles in Trial of Blood is the same case, though there you could argue it is a creation of the pagans in order to block progress. But I wouldn't have big complaints if somebody claimed that a ghost success there. I'd like your opinion on the icicles, Grandmauden.

[Grandmauden]

In Broken Triad, near the end of the Arkford mission, I recall preparing some sort of potion, going to the White Cathedral, and then drinking said potion to exorcise the demon possessing Garrett.

Regarding the icicles: the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards your interpretation of smashing the icicles as not falling under "property damage." Remember that the Pagan courier was able to get past the icicles without damaging them, and when I loaded up the mission just now to look at the icicles, it seems plausible that there's just enough room for the Pagan to squeeze past them (the only reason Garrett can't do the same is because of hitboxes). Also, remember that in one of the apebeasts' conversations, they boast about not having anyone guard the winter area because they're certain no outsiders could get that far. Why bother blocking the path with icicles, then? No, I think it's safe to say that the icicles are simply a natural occurrence and not a deliberately placed roadblock.

[Galaer]

About Turning of the Leaves: For me using bolt cutters on padlocks isn't damage property. We don't know how Garrett use them. Instead of cutting lock, Garrett could put ends of bolt cutter inside shackle to raise it. This means no damage to mechanism of a lock. As for visible damage where do you see it? Padlock look exactly the same like before, it just fell on ground, but it can be usable.

But there is vine blocking path to forest at the very beginning, which should be cut with a sword. And vines don't grow normally that way. There is no vines like that blocking path in the rest of the forest. These vines must be work of a human.So that's evidently damage property.

About icicles: it's possible that they were made by wounded Pagan or by someone who wanted to protect him. Maybe Victoria did it. We know from cinematic that she was there.

[marbleman]

Haha, and I thought that cutting down the vines was clearly property damage -- I mean, you're destroying an obstacle that was deliberately placed there by the mission author.

I'm starting to agree more and more with Galaer that this rule should be informed by gameplay mechanics rather than real-world logic.

[klatremus]

@Galaer: I find it quite hilarious that you don't think using bolt cutters to open a lock is property damage, but cutting through some foliage is. How else can you use a bolt cutter than actually cutting through the metal? Even if you raise the shackle like you said you still break the locking mechanism. The visible damage is indeed the lock falling to the ground, it indicates that the lock has been broken because its no longer on the chest.

How come vines can't grow that way naturally? And you say there are no vines blocking you elsewhere, how does that matter? So if there was a second vine wall somewhere else, then it suddenly would not be property damage? Why must they be a work of a human? I did not get any indication of that playing the mission. You are in a dense forest after all.

@marbleman: But the rule doesn't say obstacle damage, it says property damage. So do you think those vines are considered 'property'? Whether it was placed there by the author makes to me no difference. I mean everything in the mission is made by the author...

I'm not saying gameplay mechanics are not good to use, but they shouldn't overrule the main ghost rules. They might help explain them, but the wording in the original rule should supersede anything else. And why shouldn't real world logic come into play? I'd say all the rules are based on how a master thief (a ghost) would live his life in the real world. That's why the rules establish principles like no damage, not getting spotted, not destroying someone's property, because that's how a master thief in the real world would think. I actually think relying on logical real world solutions often makes more sense than sticking to gameplay mechanics. However, the most important thing is following the rules, the way they are worded and the way they were meant.

[marbleman]

My reasoning is that using mechanics would lead to a lot less confusion and not require discussing every single case. In my mind, and in terms of the Dark Engine, the vine wall behaves exactly the same as a banner, hence my immediate assumption that it's property damage. I'm not against using real world logic per se, but given how it stirred discussion earlier about how it's "illogical" to be able to use quicksaves (or going into water because it would realisticly leave a trail of water behind you once you're out ), sticking to concrete game mechanics seems better as it's, again, easier to understand. Alternatively, we could once and for all draw a clear line between the logical and the absurd so that if these kinds of ideas arise, there is a definitive answer.

I re-read the rule again, and I see it only mentions man-made objects. So, following the rule's original wording, any kind of boulders, vines, icicles, etc. are excused and can be damaged or destroyed. Okay, I can get behind that. As long as the rules are clear, meaning that we won't be discussing every set of icicles and whether they were specifically made or conjured by someone, I'm totally fine with them. And with that in mind, I'm ready to change my stance on the padlocks and consider cutting them property damage.

[klatremus]

Thank you for looking the rule over. I think lately we have deviated a bit from the original wording and instead started implementing subjective opinions, gameplay mechanics, logical/illogical scenarios, real world comparisons, when the rule set actually gives us enough examples to go on. Theres even a 'ghost rules interpretation' section in the official rules between the ghost and supreme rules. That should give us a good idea of what the mode's authors were imagining when coming up with the rules. I think its more important to understand the spirit of the rules rather than discuss every single scenario at length. Ive contacted Peter Smith about this issue also, mostly because i want to hear his idea of the property damage rule.

[Galaer]

@klatremus: I actually saw life hacks how people are raising shackle with bolt cutters and it was later used normally. So it's possible. But if you want another way how about that? What if these bolt cutters are enchanted with magic to open every padlock. Unrealistic in our world, but Garrett's world has magic. There are glyphs that opens passages. Why not magic that opens every padlock by just touching it? Then there is no damage property.

As for vines: there is no vines that can block Garrett's path other than this one. Normally Garrett would easily go through this vines in the same way how he goes through curtains in this mission. But he must cut them with sword. And remember he was captured by thieves, they know Garrett has no weapon. That's why they quickly crafted this artificial obstacle. It's indicated by thieves patrolling only starting area, while they could split and one could patrol starting area and other area behind vines. But they know where Garrett is and blocked rest of the forest with these vines. That's why Garrett can't go through it by walking or even just frobbing it, so he will move vines to the side.

On more thing about icicles: Grandmauden noticed that Pagan in his condition couldn't squeeze through icicles and if he tried he would left blood on it. Therefore it's impossible that icicles were there when he was running into Victoria's Lair. So icicles must have been created after he entered lair. Icicles need many hours to grow, but Garrett was right behind Pagan. That's why icicles can't be created naturally, magic was used to create them.

Property damage rule already explain this very well - "no things burnt or destroyed". In other words not just human obstacles, but also natural obstacles can't be destroyed with your weapons or by throwing explosives. Unless it's excused by objective. I don't see what's a problem for you to understand this, klatremus. But maybe you are misleaded by word "property". Maybe it should be changed to 'obstacle", "physical" or maybe "weapon" damage. And remember original ghost rules have been made for original Thief 1 and Thief 2. Nobody was thinking that FM creators will decide to use natural obstacles instead of human made obstacles in their missions. You can laugh at me, but when ghosting I always feel bad when I need to destroy boulder or cobweb or other natural obstacle. I always report that as a bust too, it just doesn't feel good. It kinda feels like killing undead. He's also dead and can't be nudged just like any obstacle, but I use weapon to make him stop existing. That's a bust and for me it feels the same with every obstacle. Using weapons is just a fail.

I think that's what old ghosters meant by this rule - they wanted to prevent people from destroying any obstacle by using weapons and throwable objects. Because using these methods feels cheap.

[Starker]

Icicles need many hours to grow

In the Maw? In a place called Winter that's strange enough it has its own climate? How do you know? There could be magic bolt cutters that open locks by touch, but not a place where icicles grow fast?

[Galaer]

In the Maw? In a place called Winter that's strange enough it has its own climate? How do you know? There could be magic bolt cutters that open locks by touch, but not a place where icicles grow fast?

If icicles could grow that fast on their own, then Pagan couldn't go through it, isn't it? That's why I believe someone placed these icicles artificially. You can't just say that place itself chose when these icicles will grow fast and when they will not, right? Probably Pagan made his report to Victoria about Mechanists invasion before dying, so she (Victoria) sealed entrance to her lair.

[Starker]

Sealed the entrance with easily breakable icicles? As for the Maw, they might as well materialise out of thin air for all we know. Who knows with pagan places where creatures like Victoria reside. Remember how strange Constantine's mansion got?

[Galaer]

Sealed the entrance with easily breakable icicles? As for the Maw, they might as well materialise out of thin air for all we know. Who knows with pagan places where creatures like Victoria reside. Remember how strange Constantine's mansion got?

Icicles are better than nothing and have in mind that Mechanists are more noisy than your typical thief. They would wake up treebeasts and you know how dangerous they are. As for Maw, this one you need to explain for me. I played Thief 1 and 2 quite a lot and I never noticed icicles materializing out of thin air in front of my eyes. The only thing that breaks law of physics is water on ceiling. This only means that it's possible to make icicles flying above ground, I guess. No idea what would be the point of doing that, but that's the only strange environment I see in Constantine's Mansion. The rest like spiral passage, space room can only have specific wallpaper, furniture can be stick to walls and ceiling by nails. That's all.

[Starker]

I'm just wondering that if you think that there could very easily be a magic lock opening tool that's for some reason shaped like ordinary bolt cutters, why couldn't there be strange things going on in the Maw? Why are you so sure physics work there like they do in our world?

[Galaer]

@Starker: But you are wrong, I just wanted to show to other people that property damage can be interpreted in many different way. Sorry, if you thought I'm attacking your opinion. You may be correct, but I also can be correct, because our opinions are just based on our imaginations how Garrett's world function and our interpretations of the story. And that's the problem.

@klatremus: If you look at the rules you will notice one thing - they are defined by game mechanics, not by real world rules. Only reasoning why rule has been made can be explained by real world (example: shopping rule in supreme ghost rules), but rules are explained only through mechanics. But if you would start to explain through real life, then you need to explain why shopping before mission is forbidden for supreme, but shopping during mission isn't. It's the same shop, but rule mention no between mission shopping (that's a mechanic). And what about not scoring ghost busts by getting spotted by neutral AI? The rules of failing ghost run are defined by alerts (game mechanic), so AI that not alert isn't any bust. But if you would use real life logic, it would be hard ghost bust, because you would evidently being seen.

That's just few examples why real life shouldn't verify if ghost run has been completed. Right now you need to use your imagination to explain if certain obstacle is a property of someone or isn't or was, but isn't anymore. All this can be explained to favor of player or not. It's just based on player's personality. We need to avoid this kind of situation at all cost. It's not just confusing for current group of ghosters. What if someone new will decide to join in making ghost reports? He will be the same confused like us.

We need to define this rule and just like other rules, do it through game mechanics. My proposition is to ban using weapons and throwable objects that leads to damage of any kind of environment.

[marbleman]

@klatremus: Would you say that a guard altering his patrol as a result of the player's actions is a bust if it's a scripted event? Say I unlock the door, and the guard stops patrolling near it and stations himself inside the doorway. He doesn't give any alerts or enter first- or second-alert state, but it's still a change in behavior even if it's scripted. I'm really torn on this one.

[Grandmauden]

I'll wait until we hear back from Peter Smith about the property damage rule before I decide either way, but I do want to correct one thing:

Grandmauden noticed that Pagan in his condition couldn't squeeze through icicles and if he tried he would left blood on it. Therefore it's impossible that icicles were there when he was running into Viktoria's Lair. So icicles must have been created after he entered lair.

That's not quite what I said.

Remember that the Pagan courier was able to get past the icicles without damaging them, and when I loaded up the mission just now to look at the icicles, it seems plausible that there's just enough room for the Pagan to squeeze past them (the only reason Garrett can't do the same is because of hitboxes).

The icicles' object models don't completely block the passage, so I concluded that it's entirely within reason for the Pagan to be able to maneuver around the already-existing icicles (Maybe Garrett could've, too, if he were a goth wannabe who liked to crawl into narrow spaces and shove boards out of his way ). True, there's no blood on or around the icicles, but the same is true for most of the Pagan's route throughout the mission.

Also, remember that Garrett finds the courier's body alone and still holding Mosley's letter, and only in the following cutscene do Viktoria and the others show up. This, to me, strongly implies that the courier bled out before he got the chance to warn anyone, so I find it hard to believe that the icicles were magically grown after his arrival to protect the area.

[smithpd]

Hi, Peter Smith here.

I am glad to see that ghosting is alive and well and that so many players are still interested in discussing the rules.

Klatremus asked me to give my opinion on a couple of ghost rule interpretations, as I am one of the creators of the original ghost rules, coming on the heels of Clayman and Sneak, who were the very first. I wrote the final draft of the rules, with concurrence from several others including Clayman and Sneak. I can tell you what was on my mind when we wrote the rules and give you my opinion on open questions.

The main issue here seems to be property damage. The original rules is:
"No property damage is allowed. No banners cut, no doors bashed in, no things burnt or destroyed, and no broken glass."
In addition, there is this interpretation, also part of the rules:
" 'No property damage' means no visible damage. Visible damage is when the object is destroyed or appears to be in a different condition than before. For example, if you drop a crate, it makes a noise indicative of damage. This is allowed until the crate actually breaks. The bashing of a door causes visible damage only when the door opens (the lock is broken). Items that disappear from inventory or when used do not count as destroyed."

The property damage rules was intended to prevent players from gaining assess to a route or to loot by making doors and other objects open artificially. In most cases this was because keys existed or the banner could be opened by other means. Also, the central concept of ghosting is contained in the first paragraph:
"you are not seen or heard and you do no damage. The only evidence of your presence should be the items you have stolen."

My opinion is that cutting a bolt or lock is obvious property damage because the bolt is visibly damaged, even if the bolt cutters are provided in game for that purpose. This interpretation forces the player to seek another way, which is sometimes possible with ingenuity. If another way cannot be found, then I think it is a ghost bust. There is no shame in that, but you should report it if you are writing notes of the mission, as Klatremus does.

I found the following post by Galaer a bit amusing: "For me using bolt cutters on padlocks isn't damage property. We don't know how Garrett use them. Instead of cutting lock, Garrett could put ends of bolt cutter inside shackle to raise it. This means no damage to mechanism of a lock." Although I admire the creative thinking, I think that this is tortured thinking. To what end? Again, there is no shame in calling it a bust. The lock was visibly broken no matter the procedure.

We got into a lot of similar discussions originally, especially regarding the damage to a lock when bashing doors. How do you know that the lock was broken? Well, you don't. You only know that a locked door was forced open without a key. That is contrary to the concept of sneaking without leaving evidence. In that regard, the original rules did not require closing doors, re-locking them, etc., to avoid any possible trace. That is the subject of a separate set of Supreme Ghost rules. Supreme came later. It is separate to allow for more relaxing play, standardized in the normal ghost mode. If, however, an opened door caused an alert, that would be a bust in normal ghosting.

Icicles are a relatively new wrinkle. In the early days, I cannot recall ever having to break an icicle to make progress, so the subject never came up. Now, on thinking about it for a few minutes, my personal opinion is that that icicles are not really property, per se, so breaking them should be allowed. The same reasoning applies to outdoor bushes. Originally, the property in question was always indoors, where property normally lies, and consisted of man-made objects. Is nature property? I don't think so. I agree with Klatremus that property is man-made, but the distinction is arbitrary.

Another question that arose was, "Did the author put the bush or icicle in place to block passage?" To me, it doesn't matter. If the author wanted a permanent barricade, they should not have made it a breakable object. I can accept other opinions as well. I am open to interpretations backed by a consensus of current players.

As for scripts, I have long regretted making an exception for scripts, as in the case of the archer melee in Life of the Party. The problem is that there is often no sure way to tell whether the problem is caused by a script or the player. The archer melee is obvious -- you cross a line, but others may not be so obvious. I note the following sentence in the script section of the rules: "Since such consensus may be difficult to obtain, it is preferable to treat such events as busts." Still, my regret about this exception does not extend to changing the rules, which have been in place for a long time. I think that one should not make changes that invalidate previous efforts.

I agree with Klatremus that the original wording should govern in most cases. Based on extensive arguments in the past, I think that elaborate reasoning to justify what could be called a ghost bust is unnecessary.

Carry on with the play and discussions. I enjoyed reading this.

[Galaer]

What about glass (I'm talking about something that looks like it was cleanly cut by something sharp) or wooden planks that after frobbing vanish? I doubt Garrett could remove them with just bare hands without using any tools. There is visible change, because obstacle isn't blocking our way, but parts of it aren't visible, this glass or planks just evaporate in Garrett's hands. What about this kind of situations when damage property happened, but you can't explain how it happened?

Or what about using tool like crowbar to remove wooden planks, but these planks don't get destroyed, because you see them lying on floor. Is it still property damage or is it not?

And of course what about destroying made by human obstacles in places that has long time forgotten by human being? If area is occupied by monsters through ages, can you call that old wooden planks are still somebodies property?

Edit: One more question: Regarding my Off to Milhorn Manor question - I asked if frobbing boulders to make them vanish is allowed. He said that for ghost it's allowed, but for supreme isn't. If you say that destroying rocks isn't damage property, then shouldn't it be allowed for supreme? Or maybe it should be used as a last resort only?
What's yours opinion about that?

[marbleman]

I think you've partially answered your question yourself. If you can remove something without any tools, it's not property damage. In other words, if it doesn't take a crowbar or a sledgehammer to remove an obstacle, its structural integrity is already compromised. Going back to the wall in The Sound of a Burrick, I don't think it's property damage because it's extremely easy to push it out. It's even referred to as a "weakened wall" in the briefing. We are not damaging it any more than it already is. Makes sense? Using a crowbar, in line with the recent discussions, would be property damage, and please let's not discuss situations in which a crowbar doesn't apply damage. I belive consistency in rule interpretation is more important than these what-if scenarios.

As for beasts, I believe they can own property, but we have to agree on who exactly can own it. Klatremus has ruled that cobwebs aren't property, which makes a degree of sense. So how about this: any beast that can speak the language, like the apemen, can own property (and by that I mean something they've made, not icicles that grow in their habitat). Less advanced beasts and undeads cannot.

[marbleman]

Edit: One more question: Regarding my Off to Milhorn Manor question - I asked if frobbing boulders to make them vanish is allowed. He said that for ghost it's allowed, but for supreme isn't. If you say that destroying rocks isn't damage property, then shouldn't it be allowed for supreme? Or maybe it should be used as a last resort only?
What's yours opinion about that?

I believe I said that, but because I didn't double check the rules at the time, I should take this back. Vanishing the boulders by frobbing should be allowed for Supreme. It's not damage, and there is no way to return them to their original location, so you're excused.

[Galaer]

I think you've partially answered your question yourself. If you can remove something without any tools, it's not property damage. In other words, if it doesn't take a crowbar or a sledgehammer to remove an obstacle, its structural integrity is already compromised. Going back to the wall in The Sound of a Burrick, I don't think it's property damage because it's extremely easy to push it out. It's even referred to as a "weakened wall" in the briefing. We are not damaging it any more than it already is. Makes sense? Using a crowbar, in line with the recent discussions, would be property damage, and please let's not discuss situations in which a crowbar doesn't apply damage. I belive consistency in rule interpretation is more important than these.

As for beasts, I believe they can own property, but we have to agree on who exactly can own it. Klatremus has ruled that cobwebs aren't property, which makes a degree of sense. So how about this: any beast that can speak the language, like the apemen can own property (and by that I mean something they've made, not icicles that grow in their habitat). Less advanced beasts and undeads cannot.

Actually after reading smithpd explanation I would actually sadly called wall removal in Sound of a Burrick a damage property. As for using crowbar to remove planks instead of destroying them, so that it would be visible that no damage has been made to wooden planks, nails or door itself. Of courser if I would use crowbar directly on locked door, then I would agree that this is damage property. That's why I want clarification about that. In one of FMs I used crowbar to move rock, rock itself didn't vanish or get destroyed, it just moved. In other words it's possible to remove some obstacles without destroying them. So what breaks damage property rule: is it visible damage (or sometimes just heard) or is it removal of the obstacle (no matter the way)?